Block, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
201
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + +
Talk:World History Lecture Seven (view source)
Revision as of 14:16, March 9, 2009
, 14:16, March 9, 2009→Old English
: Denise, in response to your comment and in explanation of alteration of some of your edits, we don't subscribe to the fallacious view that all languages are equal. See [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]] for how English lacked terms for concepts and then developed them anew. Old English lacked those and many other terms, and had a vocabulary that was only a tiny fraction of the vocabulary of English today. That makes it primitive, despite how much liberals may pretend that is politically incorrect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: Denise, in response to your comment and in explanation of alteration of some of your edits, we don't subscribe to the fallacious view that all languages are equal. See [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]] for how English lacked terms for concepts and then developed them anew. Old English lacked those and many other terms, and had a vocabulary that was only a tiny fraction of the vocabulary of English today. That makes it primitive, despite how much liberals may pretend that is politically incorrect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Don't worry, I was only asking what your definition was as a matter of interest, I wasn't pushing any fallcious views :). I just think that you might usefully rewrite the sentence to uncouple the first half (that we can't understand it today) from the second half (it is primitive).
:: To check - are you saying that bigger lexicons (more lexemes?) are a sufficient or merely a necessary property of a language to make it less primitive than another language? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)