How logical should language be?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Improvements? What defines improvement here to you?



Oh you found one did you? So when the British do it, it is foolish, but when the US people do it, it is an improvement.



So every time you look in the mirror I guess that word must spring to mind.



Are you really that stupid that you missed the point - that it is a liquid - not a gas...fool.

Well fool that you are, if you had taken the trouble to look up the etymology of the word gasoline from your Oxford Dictionary, you would have discovered that it derives from the name of one your countryman, Cassell, not from
the word gas. I can't put up the article here as it's copyrighted so you'll have to look it up yourself, Mr. Ignorant.

PhilX

That's highly debateable (and sounds far-fetched). Is a three-syllable word too much to handle? Why isn't it 'casselline'? Is this more evidence (as if any more is needed) of American idiocy?

No it's evidence of your idiocy and laziness since you don't want to look it up. Your stubbornness against Americans is betraying you again as you're just tossing out your prejudice and bigotry against Americans without
making a real contribution towards this thread. The proper response is to show how logical the English/British and American languages are supposed to be, but so far not a shred of evidence from you and Brian.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Besides a couple of clowns with no sincere desire to get into the logic of language, there has been no response on the topic title.

It may be an impossible task. I've heard some say the best language comes from the best writers. Then another major factor would the input from various groups of people with their own way of expressing themselves.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Improvements? What defines improvement here to you?



Oh you found one did you? So when the British do it, it is foolish, but when the US people do it, it is an improvement.



So every time you look in the mirror I guess that word must spring to mind.



Are you really that stupid that you missed the point - that it is a liquid - not a gas...fool.

Well fool that you are, if you had taken the trouble to look up the etymology of the word gasoline from your Oxford Dictionary, you would have discovered that it derives from the name of one your countryman, Cassell, not from
the word gas. I can't put up the article here as it's copyrighted so you'll have to look it up yourself, Mr. Ignorant.

PhilX

Oxford sold its soul decades ago to pander to yanks and yank money.

Another false assertion from the bigoted one.

PhilX

[henry quirk]

"How logical should language be?"

Not very.

When I think 'logical' what comes to mind is 'rigidity' which is fine in writin' a line of code but not so much when it comes to describing how the air smells after a cleansing rain.

What language needs is 'reasonableness' and 'commonality' mated with 'adaptablity' and (the possibility of) 'innovation'.

Language (in use, in formation) is like workin' with clay with your bare hands, shirt sleeves rolled up past the elbow: it's plastic and messy, but fine things, unexpected fine things, can come from it.

[Philosophy Explorer]

"How logical should language be?"

Not very.

When I think 'logical' what comes to mind is 'rigidity' which is fine in writin' a line of code but not so much when it comes to describing how the air smells after a cleansing rain.

What language needs is 'reasonableness' and 'commonality' mated with 'adaptablity' and (the possibility of) 'innovation'.

Language (in use, in formation) is like workin' with clay with your bare hands, shirt sleeves rolled up past the elbow: it's plastic and messy, but fine things, unexpected fine things, can come from it.

I tend to agree. As far as logic goes it would seem to be based on grammar so the next question is how logical is grammar or how how logical does it need to be?

PhilX

[henry quirk]

"how logical does (grammar) need to be?"

I guess as much as it needs to be.

I like the second paragraph from...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

Speakers of a language have a set of internalized rules[1] for using that language and these rules constitute that language's grammar. The vast majority of the information in the grammar is — at least in the case of one's native language—acquired not by conscious study or instruction, but by observing other speakers. Much of this work is done during early childhood; learning a language later in life usually involves a greater degree of explicit instruction.[2] Thus, grammar is the cognitive information underlying language use.

This ties neatly into 'reasonableness' and 'commonality' mated with 'adaptablity' and (the possibility of) 'innovation'.

Mebbe, instead of being logical, grammar (and the language it undergirds) has to 'make sense' or be 'sensible'.

That is: 'reasonableness' and 'commonality' mated with 'adaptablity' and (the possibility of) 'innovation' all fall under the umbrella of 'sensibleness', which is functional, practical, is pattern-prone (but, at its best, not pattern-imprisoned).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Poor grammar and incorrect punctuation can cost a lot of money, and even lives. Lawyers understand this.
They aren't random rules, thought up by someone just to be annoying. They have evolved with the language, essentially being 'discovered' through need as the complexity of language increased. Of course you don't have to have perfect spelling and grammar all the time, but being able to write or speak coherently and being able to make a point intelligibly is a fundamental part of being decently educated. Saying something like 'functionable' when there is a perfectly good actual word (functional), or 'expressionable' when you should be saying 'expressive', or 'pronounciation' etc. etc. just makes someone look like a moron. If you don't mind coming across as a bloody illiterate trailer-dweller who is unemployable then by all means...
Of course, I might as well be writing in Chinese on here. I don't think there is an object strong, fast, sharp and lethal enough to penetrate the outer layer of Nationalism, ignorance, pig-headedness, poor education, brain-washing and general stupidity that surrounds PE's inner grey matter.

[Philosophy Explorer]

One of the clowns is now mixing trying to address the topic while still displaying prejudice and bigotry (but in reality she's most prejudiced against herself when one thinks about it) as she's uttering falsehoods again. Too bad she's so prejudiced against the US.

PhilX

[henry quirk]

Veg,

Yeah, language/grammar gets codified, but the foundation of language/grammar is still largely a matter of (as I say) 'reasonableness', not 'rules'.

#

Phil,

Why you wanna feed trolls?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Veg,

Yeah, language/grammar gets codified, but the foundation of language/grammar is still largely a matter of (as I say) 'reasonableness', not 'rules'.

#

Phil,

Why you wanna feed trolls?

Not really. Trolls can easily avoid my threads or, even better, not troll. So the question is what do the trolls gain from getting fed? I'm helping the readers identify those who are trolls as a public service.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How the fuck is that 'trolling'? Read the thread title.
As I said, 'Chinese'..... Why is it always the Americans on here who don't understand even the most logical and easily-understood points? Are they really as stupid as they seem, or is it something to do with culture and being brought up to believe that their country is beyond reproach in everything?

[Philosophy Explorer]

How the fuck is that 'trolling'? Read the thread title.
As I said, 'Chinese'..... Why is it always the Americans on here who don't understand even the most logical and easily-understood points? Are they really as stupid as they seem, or is it something to do with culture and being brought up to believe that their country is beyond reproach in everything?

Oh Henry, I think you got her guilty conscience going. You can answer her question.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

In my opinion, I think language should be as logical to permit people to communicate with one another. That should be the ultimate goal.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Veg,

Yeah, language/grammar gets codified, but the foundation of language/grammar is still largely a matter of (as I say) 'reasonableness', not 'rules'.

#

Phil,

Why you wanna feed trolls?

Not really. Trolls can easily avoid my threads or, even better, not troll. So the question is what do the trolls gain from getting fed? I'm helping the readers identify those who are trolls as a public service.

PhilX

I do avoid them for the most part (and so does everyone else), unless it's about something that interests me and that I can contribute constructively to. The trouble is that 90+ percent of your threads are on topics that you know absolutely nothing about, then you get nasty when you are shown up as the complete ignoramus that you are.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

In my opinion, I think language should be as logical to permit people to communicate with one another. That should be the ultimate goal.

PhilX

Thank you for your clever example that you were kind enough to post in support of me.