<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> You're not talking about language in general; you're talking about a certain

sty le of language: literary language. You're also making value judgements about the value of different kinds of literature, which is then used to judge the value o f the languages they were written in. <br /> <br /> From a linguistic aspect all languages are equal, in ways that the untutored lit erate couldn't even begin to suspect, because the literate, in addition to havin g cultivated a certain style of language, has in most cases also deeply imbibed the prejudices of the literate class.<br /> <strong><br /></strong> <strong>When linguists claim that all languages are equal, they are not claiming anything startling. It is similar to the claim that all people have serviceable bodies -- with a head, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, arms, hands, trunk, legs, feet, etc. So are all languages, each with its own syntax, semantics, phonology, etc. </strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong> If you were focused on that sort of thing, you might claim that a peasant girl w as inferior to a girl of good family because her upbringing, clothing, deportmen t, behaviour, thinking, wealth, etc. are all inferior to that of a woman from a wealthy, cultured background. If you were choosing a bride, that might be a very important value judgement. But to the physician treating a patient for breast c ancer (for instance), the two bodies have equal validity. However the woman of h igh status might like to deny it, when it comes to possession of a physical body she and the peasant woman are equals. Of course, the physician might vary his t reatment depending on whether he expected to get paid or not, but that is not a property of the bodies of the two women.<br /> <br /> <em>If you prized skill or ability, you might regard a master gymnast or athlete , or a dextrous worker as superior to someone without those abilities. This is a gain a value judgement. I am sure there are times when two value judgements conf lict with each other -- a poor Ethiopian peasant might be nothing socially, but turn out to be a great Olympic athlete.</em><br /> <br /> The problem with your pronouncements on language is that you are making precisel y this kind of value judgement. Since you have such high regard for high literar y languages, you treat anything else as below your contempt. You are entitled to your opinion, but you should beware of the tendency to regard the lowly peasant as intrinsically and inherently inferior to the person of good background, i.e. , a kind of nobility of the blood. If the body and intellect are both there, the re is nothing inherent in a peasant that could prevent him or his descendants fr om rising to that social and cultural status that you so admire.<br /> <br /> Since your pronouncements are shaped by your own peculiar value judgements, they say nothing about the linguistic validity of different languages. It is entirel y possible, for instance, that ancient Greek lost some important phonological or semantic distinctions found in proto-Indo-European (I leave it to those versed in historical linguistics to say whether this is true or not), but this is a lin guistic aspect of language that is totally irrelevant to your arguments because you're not actually looking at language per se. And if the linguistic aspects of language are irrelevant to you, then it's hard to understand what basis you mig ht have for claiming that one language is 'superior' to another.<br /> <br /> Your adoration of the Western canon is also your own opinion. There are other tr aditions than the Western one, which some people hold in high regard. History ha s shown that plenty of literary traditions find themselves dipping into the pool of illiterate, peasant, or lower-class culture from time to time. If these lowclass cultures were so lacking in value as you seem to be saying, I can't imagin e why they would even bother.<br /> Posted by: Bathrobe at May 14, 2011 02:23 AM

</div>