Are we human or are we stupid: Irregular Natural Language
In this post we can measure the stupidity of our beloved specie in terms of ability to define a language.
Last night while I was researching on Natural Language numbers I found a trend in humans language definitions.
In numbers humans in general accepted the decimal representation.
We have ten units. No problem with this.
We have different magnitudes and here starts the stupidity show.
In English we have ten irregular tens (i.e., all of them have a different irregular name): ten, twenty, …, ninety.
However, we can see how while the amount increase the regularity appears (four-ty, five-ty,…, nine-ty). Ironic?
In first then the thing is even more stupid (irregularity in ten-unit combination) (eleven, twelve…). However, since the second ten all numbers are formed in the same way (twenty-one, twenty-two…).
Finally, humans see the light when working with greater magnitudes (thousand, million) and introduced a perfect regularity.
Regularity is power, is simplification is saving brain space to more important things, is the ability to better learn rules.
Humans know that and introduce regularity when irregularity is unhandable (in this case, larger numbers).
However, humans do not correct their error in lower amounts and keep teaching and learning irregular things. Why? Laziness?
Some of you could think that irregularity introduces optimization in words length:
elevent < ten one (in other languages is more noticeable)
However, is not that optimum and we always could reduce the name lengths of tens and magnitudes. So that, what is the problem to keep using irregular things?
I concluded that is that we like tradition, diversity, we are lazy, we feel scared when changing important and basic things like language, and we do not feel a strong need to be better than we are: “If something works or fits the need, do not change it”.
That’s the reason why some tries to make a better language failed. I do not like Esperanto because I thing it is not enough good to be an artificial language. Nevertheless, I think we could make a new language all together to have a pure and perfect (for us) neutral language. Nowadays this language is English because of the most powerful and rich countries use it :( typical human reasons to do things (obtain power, use power and obey and accept rules from power, oh, and the bad thing be corrupt to maintain power whenever it is possible).
Well, the problem I described for numbers is always present in verbs. The most used verbs are always irregular (be, do, have, …) while the less used ones are normally regular. Why? I thing you got the message as humans got it and made regular things finally.
These conclusions are extensible to other languages like Spanish, Catalan, French, Italian and similar languages.
The moral I got from this is that REGULARIZATION and STANDARDIZATION are good :)
There are many examples: TCP/IP, HTML, Architecture of buildings, number symbols, mathematics, physics… However natural language and linguists keep defending historical and primitive irregular rules.
So I wouldn’t call language richness and diversity to irregularity. I would call it language backwardness.
I would like to have my primitive, irregular and familiar language and then learn and use in important situations a true language, as regular as possible, and known by all humans.
PD: Do not forget that REGULAR means EASIER to learn
Defending natural language has to be irregular because it is natural and humans socially define it is accepting we are unable to do better, that is to say, we are that intelligent.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
