Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Tom Wier wrote:
>
> vardi wrote:
>
> > I think part of the problem may be semantic-emotive, relating to the
> > word "superior." I think most of us are very nervous about applying that
> > to humans, or to human attributes or activities.  To me, even saying
> > "he's a superior tennis player" sounds kind of icky.
>
> Okay, I think the problem is that some people attribute to theword "superior" ideas of
> innateness, while others don't.  Nik and I
> fall in the latter group, while you fall in the former, and there's nothing
> wrong with that, except that I think the concept (IMO) of discussing the
> innate qualities of things is a very sketchy issue and doesn't really help.
> Too often, nothing can be said about what's innate in a thing. It's much
> easier, and more useful, in the shortrun at least, to talk about the relative
> values of things (unless of course, you can't find any criteria to objectively
> identify them, as we have already discussed :) ).
>
I'm not sure if innateness is the bottom line. If I try to examine where
my position comes from, I think I see two foci / areas of concern.

1.      The first is racism.

        As has already been noted by Ray, myself and others, it can be quite a
small step from saying that a language is superior to another to saying
that the speakers of the superior language are therefore superior. Here
in Israel, many Jews know no Arabic, and are convinced that Arabic is a
simple/primitive/inferior language.  Some make this claim in an openly
racist manner, others in a patronising or "Orientalist" tone, and others
are convinced that they are merely stating an objective truth (the most
dangerous approach of all, IMHO). I am NOT, NOT, NOT suggesting that the
"pro-superior" Conlangers take any of these positions, but sometimes
parts of the arguments do sound a bit similar and that, I think, is why
this debate is bound to take place in fairly loud tones.

        A little needs to be added here about the argument that "we're not
saying superior, we're saying superior for a particular
society/technology".  Firstly, I've erased the early messages on this
subject. My *impression* is that this point was not made clear to start
with, but was raised as part of the response to the criticism. If I'm
wrong, I apologize profuself. If I'm right, the feeling of unease
prevails.  Secondly, I'm sorry, and really I don't want to offend
anyone, but it's impossible for me not to think of Apartheid South
Africa, where such a similar argument was used to justify separation,
and effectively - gross discrimination. Apartheid ideology claimed to
have great respect for the Bantu cultures, and argued that precisely by
fostering separate development, each "race" or "tribe" or whatever would
make appropriate progress to its own needs. Since the technological
society that began in the West is so dominant now, and is aspired to
even in most areas where it has been less fully realized, to say that
something is inferior just within that society is really not that far
from saying that it is inferior, period.

2.      The second is commercialism.

        To me (and this whole post is an attempt to convey my subjective,
emotive position; I make no claim to scientific objectivism and am
nervous of those who do) this whole business of categorizing an entire
entity, placing itself against another one and ranking their relative
worth/use/goodness is one of the root ills of commercialized or
capitalist society. When we buy a product we have to make some kind of
comparison, and so we choose one over another for any of a wide range of
reasons (price, appearance, brand name, size, etc. etc.) Yet as has been
seen again and again during this thread, we don't seem to be able to
find a single example where we all agree that brand X really is better
than brand Y.  It's striking that each time a "pro-superior" Conglanger
raises an example (horses are "better" than donkeys, etc.), others note
that this is not always or inevitably (or innately) so.

        We have been told for years now that economic truths are universal;
only the conditions vary. The IMF imposes this philosophy (religion?)
through its financial power, forces countries to bring themselves to the
brink of ruin on the altar of its beliefs (Indonesia, Russia...) and
then steps in to tell people how to clear up the mess. There is a whole
structure of absolute, objective, "ranking" chains that a few people are
using to shackle many more people - - - and just by coincidence, and
perhaps it really is by coincidence - look whose languages are being
branded superior and whose inferior. Once again, the point isn't that
anyone here necessarily buys into this whole system - the point is that
it sounds reminiscent of it.


        In Judaism there is a concept of "gader laTorah" - a fence around the
Torah. That means that you don't do act X, not because it itself is
forbidden, but because it may well lead to act Y, which is forbidden.
(E.g. you don't pick up a pen on the Sabbath, because that might well
lead you to write, which is prohibited). Similarly, I think I shy away
from arguments, approaches or philosophies which may not be harmful in
themselves, but which seem to have the potential to lead on to things
that I do see as harmful.  Scientific objectivism (when it comes to the
cultural/social field as opposed to scientific research as such) seems
to me to be an example of this.


        OK, I've tried to explain as clearly as I can where I'm coming from.  I
agree with those who have begun to suggest that we may be nearing the
end of any useful discussion on this issue, so unless I have to clarify
or explain anything here, this will be my last post on this debate.

        Conlanglikeg koluiereiin
        ("in Conlangish friendship")


        Shaul Vardi