merits of Lisp vs Python

[Steven D'Aprano]

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? 

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

And if I write "i helped my uncle jack off a horse" with no punctuation or
capitalisation, you can tell which of the two meanings I mean?

Although it isn't strictly syntax or grammar, you also understand
precisely what I mean when I say "the gostak distims the doshes" --
because, as you say, English has no restrictions.

And if I write "You are an idiot", you'll understand that in *my* version
of English "You" means watermelon, "are" means to grow, "an" means best,
and "idiot" means in the summertime, and naturally you won't be offended.

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.

That doesn't mean that there are concepts which one can't express in legal
English (although there may be). But we can communicate in English because
when I write "Fred hit Barney with a stick" we both agree that it was Fred
who did the hitting, not Barney or the stick, and Barney was the victim.
If English had no grammatical restrictions, we couldn't agree who hit whom
with what.



-- 
Steven.