200
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 348:
Line 348: + +
Talk:World History Lecture Nine (view source)
Revision as of 22:21, April 8, 2009
, 22:21, April 8, 2009→A Musicologist Jumps in
:::::::::::: The language developed by this people may fit their needs better than the English language. And in the English of 1000 you'll find words for things which are lost today, as we don't need them any longer. Just having a greater vocabulary doesn't make a language superior, I'd say, it could be just a sign of decadence. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:09, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::: The language developed by this people may fit their needs better than the English language. And in the English of 1000 you'll find words for things which are lost today, as we don't need them any longer. Just having a greater vocabulary doesn't make a language superior, I'd say, it could be just a sign of decadence. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:09, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
(edit conflict) I agree with Clement - you aren't making an overall judgment. It's based on criteria - albeit broad ones. Your criteria for a Good Language is for richness of vocabulary and history, with connections to literature, and which continues to grow and adapt with the times. For someone living in the year 1000, the English language of 2009 would be filled with useless words (for concepts yet to be discovered or invented) and severely lacking in vocabulary for describing their world. Similarly, of course, for someone living in 2009, Old English would be less capable of describing our world. But these judgments are based on criteria; they aren't absolute. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:21, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
=== Top 20 Composers ===
=== Top 20 Composers ===