Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.postmodern,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!agate!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!usenet
From: dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson)
Subject: Re: Language difficulty/variation
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ara-mac-219.itc.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <Dv84x2.GwB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.1@ara-mac-219.itc.virginia.edu
Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[9087]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <4t4ra0$c61@news.ox.ac.uk> 
 <Dv6EM0.4Ez@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  <4tdkj5$clf@csu-b.csuohio.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 22:53:26 GMT
Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name.
Lines: 100
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:192778 sci.lang:58465

In article <4tdkj5$clf@csu-b.csuohio.edu>
b.scott@bscott.async.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) writes:

> In article <Dv6EM0.4Ez@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 
> dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) says:
> 
> >In article <4tb2t4$1k9@csu-b.csuohio.edu>
> >b.scott@bscott.async.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) writes:
> 
> >> For the sake of argument assume that the number of phonemes required 
> >> to convey a given concept is inversely proportional to the size of the 
> >> phoneme inventory of the language in question.  Then if Language A has 
> >> a phoneme inventory twice as large as that of Language B, any concept 
> >> will require for expression in Language B twice as long a string of 
> >> phonemes as would be required to express it in Language A.  
> 
> >Nonsense.
> 
> Are you referring to the assumption, or to the conclusion drawn from it?  
> The conclusion is an immediate and straightforward consequence of the 
> assumption, and the assumption itself is an oversimplification and 
> slight exaggeration of a proposition to which you had given at least 
> provisional assent, though you deleted that part of the previous post.  
> Let me remind you:


No.  No.  No.  Just math.  Not all proportions are 1 to 1.  




> 
> I had said:
> 
>         Why?  The number of phonemes required to convey a given meaning is 
>         likely to depend inversely and quite strongly on the number of 
>         phonemes in the inventory.  The only moderating counter-influence 
>         that comes to mind is the possibility that languages with large 
>         phoneme inventories require more redundancy; I have no idea whether 
>         there is any research on this.
> 
> And you had responded:
> 
>         That all sounds right.  What's the problem?
> 
> I answered your question with the paragraph quoted at the top of this note.
> 
> >This is 
> >> a considerable difference in 'oral length', but it's an artificial 
> 
> >Now what does THAT mean?
> 
> I'm tempted to suggest that you derive the meaning from the context; 
> it's pretty easy to do.  Hint: the numerical example for which you 
> expressed such ... enthusiasm ... should prove helpful.  (If not, 
> perhaps we can arrange to trade definitions, yours of 'greatly' for 
> mine of 'artificial'.)


I see the context.  I wouldn't object if you gave the concept you have
in mind some other name (Like Bertha or Ernaldo).  I'm wondering about
the disparaging connotation of the name you've chosen, and the word
"but."


> 
> >> consequence of the available phoneme inventory; the actual 
> 
> >define please.
> 
> >>complexities 
> 
> >define please.
> 
> Be my guest: you apparently think that languages differ significantly 
> in complexity, so you must have some underlying concept of linguistic 
> complexity.  Mine can be broadly inferred from my general agreement 
> with Mssrs. Juola and Silberstein.


Let me be clear: I don't think a damn thing one way or the other.



> 
> >> are the same.  Similarly, with our ten digits we can express any integer 
> >> from 0 through 999 using a string of at most three symbols; in binary, 
> >> with only two symbols available, strings of as many as ten symbols 
> >> are necessary to express the same range of integers.
> 
> >um, yeah. that's pretty interesting.
> 
> Educational, too.
> 
> Brian M. Scott


David

"Heideggerian hope comes into question." J.D.
