On 2002-10-15 08:27, Chuck_Clark wrote:
Thanks, Walden. This was getting far more serious than I had intended. I always did tend toward overly complicated jests.
…and I thank you too, Walden; I always did tend toward gullibility…
On 2002-10-15 11:53, Chuck_Clark wrote:
In large part, you’re right. But the food IS worse - for those who have ANY, of course.
I’m with you on that one. Sad.
Its seems to me that language is alot like a car.A VW can get you from here to there just as well as a cadillac…Of course I am just an uneducated Kansan butting into something she barely understands…Where’s my whistle???
On 2002-10-15 10:58, Michael Sullivan wrote:
Again I’m not espousing this onesided view but I don’t think it can be laughed off either.
Oh yeah?!? Watch me: 
-Drew
On 2002-10-15 16:11, C4 wrote:
Its seems to me that language is alot like a car.A VW can get you from here to there just as well as a cadillac…Of course I am just an uneducated Kansan butting into something she barely understands…Where’s my whistle???
Not according to some theories (eg, Sapir-Worf).
Some people think that a culture has a more difficult time having or expressing thoughts on a subject if their language doesn’t have a term for it. There are some words/phrases that just don’t have direct translation. For instance, some languages don’t have a word that represents the color Blue, and others don’t have a word that represents a concept of Time. Whereas some have litteraly hundreds of words for what we just call ‘snow’.
I read an article recently that interviewed some bi-lingual students and asked them to compare English with Mandarin Chineese. They said that English was far more apt for expressing logical thoughts, but Mandarin was much better for expressing poetic pictures.
I guess it’s more like comparing a Cadillac with a 4x4 Truck. One’s better for highway rides, the other better for off-road.
Oh, and my red-neck upbringing tells me that the Cadillac is better for rusting in the front yard on cinder-blocks.
-Drew