Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply
Line 27: Line 27:  
:: 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).
 
:: 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)
 
:: 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)
 +
 +
::: Denise, discussion is not productive if you insist that all languages are equal.  That point of view is a dead end and makes further inquiry pointless.
 +
 +
::: Big vocabularies are advantageous.  Words that express powerful, important concepts (as in [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]]) are advantageous.  I realize that doesn't fit the politically correct dogma that all languages are somehow equivalent, but we're going to teach the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,256

edits

Navigation menu