From: John Croft
Message: 3558
Date: 2000-09-04
> >It was a surprise to learn that a primitive people, living amongice, >cold
> >and darkness in one of Earth's harshest climates, did not have >a(Sanskrit in
> >"primitive" language. Before I found it, I believed that complex,
> > >form-rich grammars only belonged to ancient civilisations
> > >India etc.).Glen replied
> The perceived complexity of a language has nothing to do with theculture
> who uses it. There is no language more "complex" than the other.Check out
> the Ket of Siberia and their polysynthetic language. Also check outAbkhaz
> of the NorthWest Caucasian group (ie: i-u-z-d-aa-s@-r-ga-n "I madethem
> bring it here for you" is a beautiful example of the crazy mixed-upway in
> which verbs can be conjugated.). Burushaski is another exotic andtotally
> unprimitive language in Kashmir and Jammu state (north of India) -they use
> 4 genders and conjugate a verb according to the subject, object andthe
> experiencer of the action, mixing both the ergative and accusativecase
> together into a confusing melange of insanity that would make anyplurals to
> "civilised" person's head explode. It also has very irregular
> nouns that need to be specially memorized in order to fully causemigraine
> soreness. Cantonese uses some six or more tones to distinguishmonosyllabic
> words apart, particularly high-falling/high-level, low-falling,low-rising,
> high-rising, mid-level and low-level. Etc, etc, etc...I know that in the case of Australian Aboriginal languages also there