Is their a more patrician writing system?
>>7703749
Yeah, the use of correct grammar.
Yes
26 standard roman characters = billions of possible combinations; a huge number of actual words
n stupid heiroglyph things = n possible words at most
>>7703782
n hieroglyphs
+ x phonetic and semi-phonetic characters with multiple arrangements on the whole letter
that glyph above has three parts which make up the entire word, the only character which is itself an entire word is the hand with a pen on the top, the leftmost and bottom most parts are syllables
>>7703749
Image is for ants?
>>7703802
Fair enough, but Roman characters still constitute at least 3 million words across English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedish, Norwegian, Finish, Latin, and so on. It also can be used to romanize basically any other language of any writing system, including but not limited to Greek, Cyrillic, Japanese and your Nahuatl or whatever it is you're on about.it's also still fucking spoken. it wasn't wiped out by a superior society (who spoke a superior language based on a superior writing system). revival by uncivilized rural peasants and liberal arts doctorates in mexico city doesn't count
>>7703831i know ;_; i just like how much artistic liberty and flexibility to script has, it can lead to some incredible writing that goes beyond what it just says
>>7703831
>superior language based on a superior writing system
a.) no language is superior to any other, that's teenager bullshit
b.) languages are not based on writing systems, languages use writing systems
>>7705668
>>7705668
your penmanship sucks dick
>>7705210
It isn't really clear if languages are superior to each other. All we can really say is that it's hard to determine criteria for which language would be better because they're so complex and because they have complexity in different areas.
There's no reason to assume that languages are all equal.
if mayan civilization had been allowed to mature they would have made the most badass cartoons
>>7705706
>>7705719
agreed, their books are cool af
Homer Simpson kissing a monkey = "ball player"
>>7703782
What's the source?
German has a huge number of words without english equivalent, the same for Japanese. I thought the number of words exclusive of the english language was rather small. And the total number of words small because of the multiple uses of the same words in several contexts.
>>7705759
It seems worth noting that 'words without an english equivalent' is not entirely the same as 'words inexpressible in English'.
That said, I could see how someone might say the untranslatable portions make up the soul of the word.
>>7705729
truley we live in an enlightened time
>>7705779
I think it's more like the wealth of associations the word produces could be translatable, but since they're so ambiguous and entangled it's practically impossible.
>>7705712
you don't know anything about languages so fucking stop it. maybe read a book on linguistics or two, then we can talk.
>>7707973
What this anon means to say is that modern linguistics studies have proven that "no language appears to be more complex than another for the developing brain."
Of course, if you deconstruct languages down to the base case, with example A having one rule to pluralize nouns, and example B having multiple rules, example B is evidently more complex. So languages can clearly differ in complexity. It's only that modern linguistics is incapable of determining said levels, and so you might as well act like all languages are equal.
One last thing:
>he wants international linguists to agree upon a definition of "complex"
