From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:10:35 GMT

[for brevities sake I am answering all 3 of Antti's posts in one post]

In article <1992Sep2.154944.9333@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 	OK. I will give you some. Finnish is a primitive and complicated 
> 	language, English is modern and developed. 

  You feel English is a simple language?  Maybe in it's more common written
usage (especially as an international language) but I assure you that simplicity
is the very nemisis of coloquial English.  There are so many irregular verbs,
nouns, and adjectives it is pointless to even attempt classifying them.  (how
about goose -> geese, so moose -> meese right?  Or Focus -> Foci, Alumnus ->
Alumni, Syllabus -> Syllabi, Campus -> Campi right? Hint, one of these words is
wrong, and one is spelled wrong.)

  Verbally english is even worse: Incomplete sentences are almost a rule.  For
instance, if I just type like I'm talking the words would come out alot
different then when typed in as they're supposed to be written.

  What English lacks in the complexity you refer to it more than makes up for in
complexities elsewhere.  It is not an easy language to learn as a second one: my
roommate has been studying since grade school (about 18 years) and still
couldn't write a letter that would fool a native speaker into thinking he was
American.

  Also, if you really believe Finnish hasn't changed in the last 1000 years you
should really bone up on your historical readings.

>	Hmm, I'm an experienced user of many languages, both simple and 
>	complex. I have found the structure of English language bit stiff
>	and not flexible whereas I can use my imagination more when I use 
>	Finnish, which is a primitive language.

  English is very flexible if you know the rules behind it.  I can verbify
nouns, make ajectively words, and with pronuciation the movable emphsis leads to
incredible ease at poetry.

> One good example you can see
>	in my signature: It's very easy to invent palindromes in Finnish, 
>	when the structure is not very strict.

  It's easy to write limericks in English.  There are some good palindroms in
English, but there are plenty of great Limericks.  Also this seems to say the
exact opposite: there are less rules in Finnish, in which case Finnish is
simpler, not more complex.

[example which proves nothing because English adopts lots of foreign words and
phrases all the time deleted]

>	I think that a simple language can't be expressive.

  English is an extrodinarily expressive language if one can speak it well.

> And if this is the 
>	criteria, languages have changed into worse. It was said in my Finnish 
>	lessons that you can't translate "epajarjestelmallistyttamattomyydes-  
>	saankopahan" to English. That about expressivity. 

  Can you translate "sharp as a bowling ball" into Finnish while maintaining the
propper expressiveness?  Does that prove Finnish isn't as expressive as
English?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins