A language can be more or less logical than another

Definitions: The definition of a language as a formal language ought to be preferred because it is the most inclusive. As Con agreed, this debate concerns possible languages, not just actual languages. Any formal language could be a natural language, and every natural language is a formal language, so the distinction that Con is trying to drive is meaningless. There is no reason why a language like Java couldn't be the natural language of intelligent computers, for instance. Con does not seem to understand the point of formal languages: they are most certainly not just studied to help us understand real languages. Formal language theory came out of computer sciences and concerns that types of languages that certain devices, including human brains, are capable of processing. It carries deep implications for mathematics, physics, and philosophy as well as linguistics. The languages that we humans speak are by no means some privileged class. In fact, our languages tend to overwhelmingly be the more logical ones because evolution naturally favored the ability to understand those languages. In much the same way, we walk because it is a more logical way of getting around than rolling. Affirmative Arguments: A1: Some languages are inherently unusable Con says that languages are a means of communication. That's true, but it doesn't mean that they all work. Consider this analogy: a vehicle is defined by definition as a device for getting around. A broken down car is not useful for getting around. Therefore, it is not a vehicle. This is not sound reasoning because it fails to distinguish between what the broken down car was intended to do and what it does. A vehicle that doesn't work is still a vehicle. Likewise, a languages that doesn't work can still be a language. Con tries to say that we are debating about whether or not the information conveyed by a language can be more logical than the information conveyed by another. We most certainly are not; we are debating about the logicality of the language itself. However, I do argue that one possible problem with a language is that the content it expresses is less than useful. A2: Some languages lack certain semantic content. Con just asserts that lacking the ability to express certain concepts does not make a language less logical and then gives a few examples of different ways that languages express things. He's not given us any reason to think that missing certain ideas doesn't make a language less logical. If a language does not include the means to discuss certain important ideas, then it has a serious defect. It is true that languages change to accommodate for changes, but Con cannot invoke this possibility. Otherwise no language could be less logical than any other, because it could just “change over time” into the other. For example, if French is more logical than English, English can just “evolve” into French. We must take languages as fixed and count changes as different languages. Otherwise Latin and Spanish might as well be the same language. We lose track of what it means for languages to be distinct. Remember that according to my more rigorous definition, a language is a set of strings (sentences). The strings that are included are fixed. Once new strings are added to enable us to talk about something new, we have a new set and thus a new language. This is a bigger issue than just the lack of reference to computers in ancient Greek. A language could consist of just the sentence “the cat is on the mat.” Needless to say, this language is useful only in a very limited context. It still meets all the requirements for a language. A3: Some languages are more or less ambiguous. Ambiguities result when there are multiple derivations for a string, as I wrote in the previous round. This can happen never, as in the language of first order logic, sometimes, as in English, or potentially always. The less often a language creates ambiguities, the more logical it is because it will create less confusion, especially for people who are less familiar with it. The fact that there are semantical differences isn't a solution, it's the problem! The exact same sentence means two or more different things, creating opportunities for confusion. In his response, Con concedes the debate: “This ambiguity is not illogical, because it does not imply that all of these derivations are semantically equivalent (which would, in fact, be illogical)...” All the derivations could be semantically equivalent in some language. Con concedes that such a language would be illogical. There is no requirement for a language that says there must be semantically distinct strings, or that strings with the same derivation must be semantically different. Many languages do not even have semantics at all. A4: Nonsense languages are possible. English can be used to make both logically valid and logically invalid arguments. Some languages only allow one or the other. For instance, the language of the logically true proposition of first order logic contains only logically valid arguments. The language of all strings on the same alphabet that are not members of this language contains only logically invalid arguments. It would be helpful if we could only make arguments that were logically valid according to the grammatical rules of our language, and it would be extremely unhelpful if we could never make logically valid arguments. Languages whose grammars favor the construction of logically valid arguments are obviously more logical than languages whose grammars do not. Con seems to be defining logic as coherency. An statement can be perfectly understandable and still illogical. It's not enough that a language can express some cogent (if incorrect) ideas. I should add for Con's benefit that “the sky is blue because the sky is blue” is a logically valid argument. Counterarguments: CA1: Con's arguments don't prove his thesis. I reiterate my point that all Con has said so far is that you can say the same thing slightly differently in a couple languages. That has no bearing on the topic at hand. A language that required a five hour ritual for an affirmative really would be unreasonable because people are constrained by time and care about getting information more quickly. That ought to be obvious. More is required that just eventually getting the right idea. Conclusion: Con seems to be operating under a definition of logicality that does not cohere with the one he agreed to. More is required for a language to be logical or reasonable than for it to eventually express the right concept (and even that is not given). Con is trying to manipulate definitions to make the resolution a tautology. The resolution is very obviously true. Of course a language can be more logical than another. Why are we using the languages that we are when there are an infinite number of possible ways we could try to communicate? Certain ways of communicating just plan work better than others. It's more logical to use them.