Thread 24641796

What's better? Analytic languages or synthetic languages? And why does it seem like all old languages are synthetic?

English is the only language that matters and everything else is a curiosity.

>>24641796 (OP)
>And why does it seem like all old languages are synthetic?
Old Indo-european languages, and even that is not entirely true. Ancient Chinese was more analytic than today.
>What's better?
Mostly analytical languages are slightly more efficient at pushing information through (provided you don't go isolating) but even that is so blurred in covariant factors I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it.

>>24642116
>Mostly analytical languages are slightly more efficient at pushing information through
back it up
>(provided you don't go isolating)
elaborate, and back it up
>but even that is so blurred in covariant factors I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it.
elaborate

>>24642124
or rather elaborate and back up all your points

>>24641796 (OP)
I speak a highly agglutinative language natively, and what it really excels at is poetry (due to having hundreds of ways of declining every word), even if it lacks the incredible breadth of jargon and latin vocabulary that English has. I don't think the information density is as important a factor as the lack of specialised terminology, which English always has by default; you end up mixing it in there, anyway.

>>24642131
In other words you aren't presenting arguments but simply propositions, which is of no value. Do you even know the difference between a proposition and an argument?

>>24642129
lucky