Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!mcnc!ecsvax!skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
From: skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Newsgroups: comp.society.women
Subject: Logic and Language
Message-ID: <5688@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 88 18:00:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.5688
Sender: skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Lines: 23
Approved: skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Moderator -- Trish Roberts)
Comments-to: comp-women-request@cs.purdue.edu
Submissions-to: comp-women@cs.purdue.edu

Some languages are more logical than others.

Some languages are more restrictive than others.

In the West, since the Englightenment, we have _tended_ to praise
perspicuity in language.  That is, we have generally said that some-
thing which is well-written has a clear connection between one idea
and one word.  This attitude toward good writing (exemplified by
John Locke, Adam Smith, and many handbooks on good writing) assumes
that the world has categories which can be easily separated.

[On a side note, I have often wondered if the French feminists feel
particularly alienated from language because France still has that
institution which says what is and is not appropriate French.  It
is much more in the enlightenment than we are.  With the possible
exception of the symbolists, the history of French attitudes toward
language doesn't really have a strong romantic movement.]

In other words, language is not inherently logical, but the
Western attitude toward language has been that it would be nice if
it were.

-Trish