Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxt!marcus From: marcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: natural language deficiencies? Message-ID: <208@pyuxt.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Oct-84 22:27:29 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxt.208 Posted: Tue Oct 30 22:27:29 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 31-Oct-84 01:42:01 EST References: <215@turing.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 13 For goodness sake! A language is only deficient if it is impossible to express something in it. (It may be cumbersome, however.) By that standard, English is clearly not deficient. The fact that reflexive forms are circumlocutory has little bearing - frequently they are un- necessary complications: the idea can be conveyed adequately without using them (not so French, for example.) Furthermore, if a language lacks certain qualities, attributes or words, new usages and words are borrowed from other languages, or existing words bastardized. I think the whole argument is somewhat sterile since languages in common usage are continually developing and changing in response to the real needs of its speakers (whatever the Academie Francais may prefer to think.) marcus hand (pyuxt!marcus)