Is Python the Esperanto of programming languages?

[Carl Banks]

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Carl Banks wrote:
> 
>> When I say redundant, it means there are two things saying the same
>> thing.  When I say superfluous, I mean there is one thing saying
>> something and one thing saying nothing.
> 
> And when there's only one thing that doesn't convey any information (an
> unconjugated verb, like "the man go to the store"), or two things that
> say opposite things ("this things")?  Those are neither redundant nor
> superfluous by your definition, they are ambiguous.


"This things" is ambiguous because, had it been stated correctly, it
would have been redundant.

"The man go" is NOT ambiguous because the ending on the verb is
superfluous (when the number of the subject is known, as it is here).
No native English speaker will interpret "the man go" as possibly
meaning "the men go."  The number was stated in the subject; and when
the subject and the verb indicate conflicting numbers, the subject
wins.  The number is determined by the subject alone; there is no
doubt what the number is; therefore, the ending on the verb, in that
situation, has no meaning.  It is a superfluous ending.  Therefore,
there is no ambiguity.

Even your list of other possibilities for the meaning of "the man go"
didn't include "the men go."  You only listed different tenses.  That
you would even doubt the tense is, I say, an intellectual reaction to
the sentence sounding bad.  In fact, you might have the same doubts
about tense even if the sentence wasn't incorrect (as when, say, a
native Chinese speaker without a great grasp of English says "I go").


-- 
CARL BANKS