Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliveb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!pesnta!hplabs!oliveb!long
From: long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Language
Message-ID: <428@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 20:46:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.428
Posted: Thu Jun  6 20:46:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 06:37:36 EDT
References: <1168@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern)
Organization: the Sprawl
Lines: 21
Summary: 

| > An inference to be made from this, given the observed trend towards
| > simplification in civilized languages, and the high degree of
| > complexity of the languages of primitive cultures, is that the
| > languages of the latter cultures are more closely related to their
| > original languages than are the civilized ones.  This is entirely
| > consistent with the hypothesis of an origin of language that was
| > complex and completely functional from the start.  It is also
| > inconsistent with a developmental theory of language origin positing
| > increasing complexity arising from non-linguistic sources.

    Complexity is not a sign of being completely functional from the start.
Imagine someone thinking "Gee, wouldn't it be nifty if we had a dative case?
.... Eureka!  All we need to do is to have vowel shifts of such-and-such, then
add special endings (depending on the gender of the word), and we've got it!."
If there are several such decisions made as a language develops, one has a very
complex, kludged up language.  Computer languages are like this; the early ones
had "kitchen-sink" tendencies, but more recent ones are simpler.

						Dave Long
-- 
{hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long