4 ms·

How did he not answer the question? You asked why you should keep an open mind when encountering and talking about a strange language. He pointed out that it's

by kick 7y ago

How did he not answer the question? You asked why you should keep an open mind when encountering and talking about a strange language. He pointed out that it's necessary for a good discussion on it. He's not wrong. You've dismissed every point he made while not knowing a single thing about the topic at hand. That's not grounds for a proper discussion.

wpietri 7y ago
That is not what I asked. What I'm responding to in the thread is a question of pragmatism. In particular, I'm taking issue with the notion that one can only approach this "forgetting what you already know from other languages". That's very much distinct from the notion of an open mind. And it's especially distinct when we're talking about tools that must fit into a professional context that involves decades of history, millions of people, and a complicated set of economic factors. For example, Imagine that you were working in a machine shop and I came to you excited about a new screw-head. If you dismissed it out of hand, I might ask you to keep an open mind while I explained why I thought it was better. But if my explanation ignored that the Phillips head was the dominant choice, with billions of drivers and hundreds of billions or perhaps trillions of screws in existence, that would be another thing entirely. The same logic applies to conlangs like Esperanto and Klingon. Is it possible it would be better if we switched the whole world to Klingon? Sure. Might I learn interesting concepts if I studied Klingon? It's possible. Should Klingon be considered for a moment as an important thing for most people to learn? No, not at all. It's utterly impractical. So yes, keeping an open mind is valuable. But that's not something I've ever heard seriously disputed, so editing me down to saying that is constructing a straw man. Which also isn't grounds for a proper discussion.
threatofrain 7y ago
I read the sum of wpietri's question as saying "so sell K then". As a reader I then looked on to what might be a better selling of K than all the comments I've read so far. Instead I found silly prose examination.

by kick 7y ago

wpietri 7y ago

That is not what I asked. What I'm responding to in the thread is a question of pragmatism. In particular, I'm taking issue with the notion that one can only approach this "forgetting what you already know from other languages". That's very much distinct from the notion of an open mind. And it's especially distinct when we're talking about tools that must fit into a professional context that involves decades of history, millions of people, and a complicated set of economic factors. For example, Imagine that you were working in a machine shop and I came to you excited about a new screw-head. If you dismissed it out of hand, I might ask you to keep an open mind while I explained why I thought it was better. But if my explanation ignored that the Phillips head was the dominant choice, with billions of drivers and hundreds of billions or perhaps trillions of screws in existence, that would be another thing entirely. The same logic applies to conlangs like Esperanto and Klingon. Is it possible it would be better if we switched the whole world to Klingon? Sure. Might I learn interesting concepts if I studied Klingon? It's possible. Should Klingon be considered for a moment as an important thing for most people to learn? No, not at all. It's utterly impractical. So yes, keeping an open mind is valuable. But that's not something I've ever heard seriously disputed, so editing me down to saying that is constructing a straw man. Which also isn't grounds for a proper discussion.

threatofrain 7y ago

I read the sum of wpietri's question as saying "so sell K then". As a reader I then looked on to what might be a better selling of K than all the comments I've read so far. Instead I found silly prose examination.