On Tuesday 15 September 2009 18:22:30 Christopher Culver wrote: > Hendrik van Rooyen <hend...@microcorp.co.za> writes: > > 2) Is about as useful as stating that any Turing complete language and > > processor pair is capable of solving any computable problem, given enough > > time. So why are we not all programming in brainfuck? > > Except the amount of circumlocution one language might happen to use > over another is quite limited.
This is just an opinion, and it depends on the definition of "limited". I have an example: Translate into English (from Afrikaans): "Die kat hardloop onder die tafel deur." Literally, word for word, the sense of the words are: "The cat runs under the table through." The Afrikaans conveys the meaning precisely and succinctly. I do not know of a simple way to convey the same meaning in English, to describe the action that takes place when a cat starts running well before one side of a table, dashes under it, and keeps running until it emerges at the opposite side, still running, and keeps running some more, in one smooth continuous burst of speed. When you say "The cat runs under the table" the English kind of implies that it goes there and tarries. Afrikaans would be "Die kat hardloop onder die tafel in". ( "in" = "in"). "Die kat hardloop onder die tafel uit." ( "uit" = "out" ).- Implies that the cat starts its run from under the table and leaves the shelter. The bare: "Die kat hardloop onder die tafel." implies a crazy cat that stays under the table while continuously running. None of these concepts can, as far as I know, be succinctly stated in English, because "English does not work like that" - there is no room in the syntax for the addition of a spacial qualifier word that modifies the meaning of the sentence. (not talking about words here that modify the verb - like fast or slow - that is a different dimension) So if you think the circumlocution is "quite limited", then your definition of "limited" is somehow different to mine. :-) 8<------------ archeology ----------------- > > When a language lacks a word for a concept like "window", then (I > > believe :-) ), it kind of puts a crimp in the style of thinking that a > > person will do, growing up with only that language. > > "Window" goes back to an Anglo-Saxon compound "windeye". Even if a > word does not already exist in a given language for whatever novel > item, the language is capable of creating from its own resources. I think what normally happens is that a foreign word is assimilated into the language, at the time the concept is encountered by the culture, as a result of contact with an outside influence - That, as far as I know, (from hearsay) is what happened in the case of "window" and the N'guni languages. It also happened in Afrikaans at the time of the invention of television. - from its "own resources" (a bunch of God fearing, hypocritical, rabid English haters) came the official word "beeldradio" - "image radio" (having successfully assimilated "radio" shortly before.) You hardly ever hear the erstwhile official word now. It has been almost totally displaced by "televisie". No prizes for guessing where that came from. My opinion is that it is very difficult to avoid this borrowing when suddenly faced with a new thing. A language can only use its own resources to slowly evolve at its own pace. But then - I am probably wrong because I am not a linguist. - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
