wren ng thornton <w...@freegeek.org> wrote: > All natural languages are Thinking-complete. > No, they aren't. Falsifying the Saphir-Worph thesis, I quite often find myself incapable of expressing a certain thought, or if I succeed, come up with two or more versions in multiple different languages that mean slightly different things, and, in retrospect, all don't fit the thought.
On another scale, it's just a waste of time: Why should I spend minutes figuring out how to spell out "Even though X -> Y and X -> nonsense, (Z -> Y) -> nonsense does not necessarily hold" when I already figured that one out. All thoughts are fundamentally ineffable: Therefore, all languages are thinking-incomplete. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
