Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim  Casiopea: As I said it is just a predicition but maybe I am wrong. |
Yes, but predictions gotta come from somewhere. What's the connection?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim [The] English lexicon increased drammatically. Maybe we need a new grammar which is easier to learn and undersdtand but still be efficient. I think the KISS principle can be applied to the grammar of the future. |
OK, and I agree that the more efficient a system the better off it is, but couldn't an ever increasing lexicon be efficient also? Rules are alogrithmic, words are factored in. It's like a slot machine--in a base sort of way--the kind you play in Las Vegas. Three slots, various fruit. Add more fruit, the slots don't change, but your chances of winning aren't as great. In terms of language, an increase in vocabulary means a greater chance at exacting one's intended meaning. That's a plus.
So, how is it that the lexicon and the grammar go in different directions, when one is constant, the other variant, and both subject to the efficiency principle (i.e., the less efficient a system; e.g., the lexicon, the more likely change within that particular system will occur, not within a completely different system; e.g., the syntax, unless the two are inherently connected;e.g.,
who v.
whom)?
In short, words come and go, and syntax really has nothing to do with their appearance or disappearance. The rules are constant, the lexicon variable. That's what I know, but I would like to know more about what you know or see. Which is why I was wondering what brought you to your conclusion that the lexicon and the grammar are in opposition. You must have at least some evidence. Ideas just don't fall out of trees.
