User Comments - daniel70
Posted on: Hamsters, Snakes, and OwlsOctober 05, 2012, 02:43 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you.
There is an article on natural language on wikipedia (which I have not read): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language
Posted on: Hamsters, Snakes, and OwlsOctober 05, 2012, 12:49 AM
You know Rich, it seems to me that in almost every respect you agree with Tal, which is that you find the rat/mouse distinction useful, and that the same distinction does not appear as important in Chinese. This may be offered as AN example of where Chinese MAY be less precise than English if that was under discussion. You also appear to disagree with Mr Trendy in so far as you find the distinction useful and would probably be unwilling to reject the natural language mouse/rat distinction merely because it does not map neatly onto the biological classification scheme.
Regarding precision and this particular example, it may be that the need to add contextual information is central to the definition of the relative precision of a language. The only comment that I will make on the precision of any language is that to say that a language is relatively less precise is not to imply that it is necessarily inferior.
Posted on: Hamsters, Snakes, and OwlsOctober 03, 2012, 03:36 PM
Hey Tal, I noticed that while defending your claim that "rat"/"mouse" was a useful distinction, a claim you attempted to support with an external reference, you choose bluster over supplying evidence and also did not actually read the evidence that you choose not to provide, and contradicted the evidence that you did provide by making assertions that are consistent with the contents of the external evidence that you did not provide and did not read. You also managed to find a link in the middle of the article that you cited by didn't read. You are awesome!!!!