merits of Lisp vs Python

[Kirk Sluder]

In article 
<pan.2006.12.10.05.37.22.914254 at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au>,
 Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:03:25 +0000, Kirk Sluder wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <pan.2006.12.10.02.57.36.86286 at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au>,
> >  Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> >> So it is good that English restricts the expressiveness and power of the
> >> syntax and grammar. While we're talking English, we can both understand
> >> each other, and in fact people who redefine words and ignore the common
> >> meaning of them are often covering weaknesses in their arguments.
> > 
> > Ohh, can the guy who does discourse analysis for a (meager) living 
> > respond to this?
> > 
> > To start with, English does not restrict the expressiveness and 
> > power of the syntax and grammar.
> 
> Really? There are no restrictions whatsoever in English syntax and
> grammar? None at all? 

Of course I didn't say that: What I said was, "To start with, 
English does not restrict the expressiveness and 
power of the syntax and grammar. People who use the English language 
in specific communities and in specific forms of discourse do. The 
key to how this happens occurs on another layer of how language 
works which is almost always left out of internet discussions of 
language: pragmatics."

As an example of the context-specific nature of pragmatics at work, 
if I was your reviewer or editor, I'd reject this manuscript. As a 
participant on usenet, I'll just point out that you selectively 
quoted the antithesis, and deleted my thesis to argue a straw-man.

Of course there are restrictions, *enforced by users of language in 
specific communities.*  But the English language is quite malleable, 
and includes not only the discourse we are currently engaged in, but 
the clipped jargon of internet chat and amateur radio, the 
chronically passive discourse of academia, the passionate chants of 
protesters, and a wide variety of poetic expression.

This is where wannabe critics of "English grammar" fail to 
understand the language they claim to defend, much to the amusement 
of those of us who actually do study language as it is, rather than 
the mythical eternal logos we want it to be.

Languages are (with some trivial exceptions) human creations. The 
laws, rules and restrictions of languages are dynamic and dependent 
on community, mode, medium and context. Of course, wannabe 
grammarians frequently rise up at this point and say that if such is 
the case, then there is nothing to prevent <language of choice> from 
devolving into a babble of incomprehensible dialects. To which the 
easy response is that the benefits of conformity to linguistic 
communities almost always outweigh the costs of nonconformist 
expression.

And if you want to bring this back around to computer languages, the 
benefits of conformity to said linguistic communities tends to 
outweigh the costs of doing your own thing. (Unless you can make a 
convincing argument that "doing your own thing" is superior.)

> So, when I say "sits cat rat" it is not only legal English, but you can
> tell which animal is sitting on which?

What is "legal" in English depends on the communities in which you 
are currently participating. Likely there is some community in which 
such clipped discourse is understood and therefore legal. If you are 
talking to me, I'd express my lack of comprehension by saying 
"Pardon?" and ask you to rephrase.

> But I'm belaboring the point. Of course English has restrictions in
> grammar and syntax -- otherwise one could write something in Latin or
> Thai or Mongolian and call it English. There are RULES of grammar and
> syntax in English, which means that there are possible expressions which
> break those rules -- hence there are expressions which one can't write in
> legal English.

When you make an "illegal" statement in English, exactly who or what 
corrects you?

Is it Zeus, the divine Logos, the flying spaghetti monster, some 
platonic ideal?

As you can probably tell, this kind of silliness is a bit of a sore 
spot for me. So please by all means, do some basic reading of 
linguistics before you continue to engage in such silliness. Or at 
least learn to properly quote an argument.