Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
I enjoyed reading Benji Wald's comments on this topic, although I have to admit I had to skim through parts because it was a little on the long side. What I want to say is probably very obvious to all and yet I haven't actually heard anyone say it here so I'll say it anyway. It seems to me that equality among languages does not mean exisiting equality but rather potential equality. Any language is automatically as good as it needs to be for whatever environment it is used in. And any language or language variant could be adapted (I believe) for any situation. However, as a general rule, non-standard varieties of language are generally not, in their present state, as good as standard varieties for discussing philosophy, logic, science, engineering, etc. That does not mean that they could not serve just as well or even better than standard varieties, it simply means that they have not (yet) been applied to those topics and, therefore, are not fine-tuned to deal with the vocabulary needed. This situation where a standard variety is pitted against non-standards is directly analogous to another situation where a language spoken in one area of the world, say Tahitian in the South Pacific, might be difficult to use in a different geographic region, say Lappland, where all kinds of words for 'snow' and 'reindeer' and whatnot would have to be invented or codeswitched into the language. I have experienced this situation myself very often between German and English or between Arabic and English. Certain expressions native to one language simply don't express what you wish to say in another so you code-switch. If your speech partner doesn't know the other language, you make the attempt to stretch the functionality of the language s/he does understand in order to say as precisely as you can what it is you want to say. David HarrisMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue