From: Andrew Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 27 2001 - 07:21:34 MST
I don't think that there is a problem with *being able* to get this
information across, its just that, since it isn't part of the grammatical
structure many people neglect it in their communications. For instance,
most people would say that "Jessica is going out with Billy" without any
sort of specification. If the language forced people to tell how sure they
were of something, and if that telling could be done in one syllable
instead of five, I think that there would be a definite decrease in the
amount of BS around.
At 08:02 AM 11/27/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>In my opinion we already have all necessary features in today's
>English and all other languages. We can already say "I am sure that
>MIT is in Cambridge", "chocolate tastes better than vanilla to me",
>"There are rumors that Jessica is going out with Billy". Same in all
>languages and dialects I know. Current languages had to "evolve" all
>constructs that can help dealing with everyday's life. I cannot think
>of a shade of meaning that cannot be expressed by suitable words. Of
>course future posthuman societies will probably have other concerns
>for which they will need new language, engineered or evolved from
>current languages (more likely in my opinion).
>
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:28:45 -0500, you wrote:
>
> > Have there been any discussions about new
> >languages for use by posthumans who aren't advanced enough to just drop
> >audio communication? ... So I could say that "MIT nu is in Cambridge"
> >for something that appears certain, or "chocolate mo is better than
> >vanilla" for something that is really subjective, or "Jessica nal is going
> >out with Billy" for something that my best friend's cousin's former
> >roommate heard in a bar. ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:14 MST