rec.autos.simulators

        Paul

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Nortel, London Road, Harlow, Essex. CM17 9NA

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

*Your* points are well-taken, especially the one that global market
trade has been dominated since the Industrial Revolution by
English-speaking countries, but I believe you have cause and effect
reversed -- or, more accurately, that cause is sometimes effect, and
effect sometimes cause. I still believe and maintain that the
present-day dominace of English could not have come about were it not
for the English language's remarkable breadth, depth, and flexibility.
In the extremely unlikely alternate history that native Filipinos, for
example, had been the architects of the Industrial Revolution, it is
difficult to believe that Tagalog would have become the *** global
language, simply because of that language's limited expressive power. My
point being that we're not just talking about language as a random
incidental in the power of nations. I believe very strongly that in the
information age -- of which the Industrial Revolution and the machine
age are simply subsets, for neither could have occurred without the
massive transference worldwide of unprecedentedly huge amounts of
information -- the power of a language to communicate precisely, widely,
variously, and subtly is perhaps the greatest power of all. Without the
widespread dissemination of the ideas of Locke, Calvin, Watt, Ruskin,
Pitt, and hundreds of other philosophers, theologians, inventors,
scientists, and engineers, both mechanical and social, the Industrial
Revolution and subsequent machine age could never have grown as widely
and rapidly as it did. That it *did* so, and that it did so primarily
and most famously in English-speaking nations, is, to me, a powerful
argument for the power of English. Others may disagree. Goody for them!

And just to be a further ***pain, here are some incorrect usages in
your own post:

"okay, here it 'tis" -- "'tis" is the obsolete contraction for "it is"
(these days rendered as "it's"); your phrase would thus read "okay, here
it it is". The correct use of the obsolete would be "Okay, here 'tis)

"dimunition" is spelled "diminution", as its root is "diminutive"

"fulmigating" is not a word; the term you were groping for is quite
likely "fulminating" -- from its root "fulminate" -- explosive,
thundering, as in "fulminate of mercury"

"assimulative" is "assimilative" -- root "assimilate"

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I think that the "dilemma" you posit --
which seems more designed to showcase your own brand of erudition than
to advance or explain any serious argument -- is a bit of a sidetrip.
First, in no way, shape, or form will I allow myself to be categorized
by such a nonsensical term as "cultural conservative." The purpose of
naming -- or stereotyping -- is to exert a (usually entirely false)
measure of control and encapsulation over the "named." Such comfortable
compartmentalization as "cultural conservative" has no more validity in
this particular debate than Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of
negativism" did in his. And you know how HE ended up. Such terms are the
modern mumbo jumbo or faerie dust that people throw in others eyes, most
often to obscure the fundamental weakness of their positions. I'm sure
you wouldn't knowingly stoop to that level.

More importantly, while you've presented a persuasive "dilemma of
poles," I don't see its direct bearing upon the subject at hand, except
that the domination of global information by English and
English-speakers will continue to be -- as it has been for 300 years --
THE most powerful agent for cultural fragmentation, and the consequent
"one world" community that isolationists have been frightening their
children with since before the Monroe Doctrine.

Your point being? I argue just the opposite: that the English language's
facility for assimilating migrant words is one of its greatest strengths.

Obviously I disagree. I don't think it's a reduction of any sort, given
that communication and cognition are the greatest of mankind's powers.
Without those greatest of gifts, we'd still be living in the trees and
picking nits off each other....hmmmmm.... wait a minute....THAT's
exactly what we're doing here!

Empiricism rulez, dewd....

Have you ever read "Shardik" or "Maia"? Some of the most beautiful
English prose ever crafted.

<snip>

Shardik some of the most beautiful prose ever created? Now there's a
minority point of view, I must say. The vast majority of people I know
read Watership Down, thought it was wonderful, then moved on to Shardik
and The Plague Dogs, which they thought were "OK I suppose", and hated
pretty much everything else.

--
David.
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really."
(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

English becoming a 'universal language' is purely an accident of fate
that has a lot more to do with geography, *** and economics than
it has to do with any kind of inherant superiority it has as a medium
for communication.

You suggest that the huge vocabulary proves this superiority. But
surely scientists, diplomats internet users and stewardesses would be
better served by a language that was elegant and powerful enough not
to need a huge vocabulary.  The elephantine vocabulary of English is
proof of its weakness.  It is an ancient language with for too many
complicated useless leftovers from the past.

ENGLISH IS THE  MICROSOFT WINDOWS OF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES!

My biggest problem with your ideas is that you seem to be inferring
that we might be somehow better off with a single language, that we
should pick one language (you think English) and just forget the
others.  

You don't seem to understand that the way we learn to talk and the the
way our 1st language is structured goes a long way towards developing
the way we think!  Everytime a language dies - and it happens
regularly - it is a great loss to us all.

Maybe if you would try to learn a new language you might find out new
things about yourself - new ways of thinking, new creative approaches
to problems, even if its just new ways to chat up women...

heaven forbid - you might become a better person...

But then again how could you possibly improve yourself when you're
perfect already.

col

--

Colin Harris
ColinHarris in N3/NL
Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league
http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm
ICQ 25485061

--

Colin Harris
ColinHarris in N3/NL
Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league
http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm
ICQ 25485061

Sorry again,

DK

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

My wife won't let me.

We're ALL perfect already -- we just don't realize it.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

    Barton> Industrial Revolution by English-speaking countries, but I
    Barton> believe you have cause and effect reversed -- or, more
    Barton> accurately, that cause is sometimes effect, and effect
    Barton> sometimes cause. I still believe and maintain that the
    Barton> present-day dominace of English could not have come about
    Barton> were it not for the English language's remarkable breadth,
    Barton> depth, and flexibility.  In the extremely unlikely

I still think you are making a false assumption here. English is not
more flexible, does not have more depth than other languages. You just
don't know about the depth/flexibility in other languages.

    Barton> alternate history that native Filipinos, for example, had
    Barton> been the architects of the Industrial Revolution, it is
    Barton> difficult to believe that Tagalog would have become the
    Barton> *** global language, simply because of that
    Barton> language's limited expressive power. My point being that

Please give some examples of that language limited expressive powers.

Like English had words for e.g. television before it was
invented. Oops, a constructed word from latin origins.
Point being, any language gets new words for new concepts.

    Barton> we're not just talking about language as a random
    Barton> incidental in the power of nations. I believe very
    Barton> strongly that in the information age -- of which the
    Barton> Industrial Revolution and the machine age are simply
    Barton> subsets, for neither could have occurred without the
    Barton> massive transference worldwide of unprecedentedly huge
    Barton> amounts of information -- the power of a language to
    Barton> communicate precisely, widely, variously, and subtly is
    Barton> perhaps the greatest power of all. Without the widespread
    Barton> dissemination of the ideas of Locke, Calvin, Watt, Ruskin,
    Barton> Pitt, and hundreds of other philosophers, theologians,
    Barton> inventors, scientists, and engineers, both mechanical and
    Barton> social, the Industrial Revolution and subsequent machine

Economic need and enough economic riches to make people like
philosophers "possible". A society needs more than an "expressive
langauge" like English to make something like an Industrial Revolution
possible. By the way, what about the Chinese and Indians who had
blooming societies thousands of years ago? They managed quite well
without English. What about the mathematics and chemistry knowledge of
the Arabs? Greek and Roman philosophers? The people named above all
built on knowledge from other cultures in other languages.

But I get the impression your definition of cultured and advanced is
"the english speaking" world, and the rest is per definition not.

    Barton> Your point being? I argue just the opposite: that the
    Barton> English language's facility for assimilating migrant words
    Barton> is one of its greatest strengths.

But English was so powerful, and other languages weren't. Now you are
saying English is powerful because it takes the words it needs from
other languages.

    >> PS Richard Adams ?!?!?!?
    Barton> Have you ever read "Shardik" or "Maia"? Some of the most
    Barton> beautiful English prose ever crafted.

Try reading some literature. Read some history books.

-peter