Instead of constructing artificial languages to serve as international lingua franca, such as Esperanto, why don't like-minded linguists undertake to streamline English into something more intuitive and expressive? I mean, if it's true that we now understand the evolution of languages, shouldn't we in principle be able to design superior language patterns by scientific artifice, much in the way that biotech firms engineer more useful organisms for a specific purpose (i.e. crop yield, herbicide resistance, &c.)? Could not some language engineered in this manner attempt to surpass the limits of conventional semantics and semiotics as anticipated and evinced by thinkers like Wittgenstein?
>>503366
Does white privilege mean "having the ability to think"?
>>503366
I don't think English needs to be simplified. It's well on its way to become lingua franca.
No, everyone should learn German. Fickt euch!
>>503654
No, that's male privilege.
>>503654
sh don't lure the negroes or the /pol/ tards
>>503659
Hm. Are there any theories in Linguistics that posit the structural superiority of some languages with regard to expression of a certain kind, such as philosophical expression? I remember once hearing speculation that monosyllabic assignment of cardinal numerals, in some languages, facilitates mathematical acquisition and expediency.
>>503654
You might argue that it's white privilege for whites to have an average IQ a standard of deviation above the average IQ of blacks, and blacks should thus be assisted by the government.
>>503366
How can you both streamline and increase expressiveness? The two would appear to be at cross purposes.
>>503366
It's already happening naturally in Asia. Eventually we'll all end up speaking some variant of Chinglish.
Also nice b8 pic, I'm sure it won't derail the thread.
The dude is a comedian FYI
we just haf too rite lyk this bekaus then peeple kan spell fonetikally.
>>503366
>why don't like-minded linguists undertake to streamline English into something more intuitive and expressive?
English is already one of the most expressive languages in the world.
For example, there are an endless number of ways to write
>"Samuel played with the red ball."
because English is.....full of.....(Synonyms: filled, littered, abundant, flush, prolific, profuse, bountiful, copious, plenteous, teeming, abounding, overflowing, rolling in, crawling with, brimming, abounding, generous, exuberant, chock-full, jammed, mobbed [I think you get my point]).........synonyms, adjectives, adverbs, nouns, and other obscure literary terms, that almost any English sentence can be rewritten and substituted and the same message will still get across, and with a different meaning
>>503366
>why don't like-minded linguists undertake to streamline English into something more intuitive and expressive?
>like-minded linguists
The field is extremely combative right now. Linguistics would be going through a renaissance (and fucking should be) if the field wasn't so toxic. A paradigm shift is coming, and my money is that it will be towards the hard sciences.
Source: linguistics grad student.
>>505000
Trips of Truth.
Are you saying I should study linguistics?
>>503654
Yes, as whites have higher IQ than blacks.
>>503683
Lol
OP, this is what happens when your image is more inflammatory than your post is interesting. I wish you better luck next time.
I want to comment on the brief mention of Esperanto. I see Esperanto as a remarkable success story, by far the most successful auxiliary language. It has survived wars and revolutions and economic crises and continues to attract people to learn and speak it. Over 200,000 people have signed up to the Duolingo Esperanto course in the last six months. Esperanto works. I’ve used it in about seventeen countries over recent years. I recommend it to anyone, as a way of making friendly local contacts in other countries. Esperanto is well-established as a good introduction to learning other languages. It deserves more support from linguists and others.
>>506399
Fuck off, shill.
>>503366
>Could not some language engineered in this manner attempt to surpass the limits of conventional semantics and semiotics as anticipated and evinced by thinkers like Wittgenstein?
Derrida spoke about its deconstruction. A great idea for a thread I might add.
I believe the major evolution of language will not happen in the spoken linguistic, but in the programming languages.
Nobody has ever thought of that OP. What a novel idea. We shall initiate it immediately.
>expressive
Please explain how to meaningfully quantify the "expressiveness" of a natural language.
>intuitive
Native English speakers have no problem learning it. This is true of Xhosa and Chukchi and Ingush and Catalan. In what way is it possible to say English is "less intuitive" than these or any other languages? Be specific. Which morphosyntactic features are intuitive and which unintuitive? What makes them different? An example: is ergative-absolutive alignment more or less intuitive than nominative-accusative, and why?
>superior language patterns
What is a "language pattern", and how can a superior one be distinguished from an inferior one?
>Could not some language engineered in this manner attempt to surpass the limits of conventional semantics and semiotics as anticipated and evinced by thinkers like Wittgenstein?
Hoooo-leeeee shit. You are so far up your own ass there is no hope for yanking you out.
