>>13125640To elaborate, English, like all languages, is not a bad language because there are no "bad" languages. All languages are strange, quirky, and rely heavily on loan words, compound words, and neologisms to work.
How do we define better?
Is it by its number of synonyms? If so there are better languages than English.
Is it by the number of abstract concepts? If so, how do we define abstract concepts? English probably isn't as good as Greek in any case, as it plunders Greek and Latin for words all the time.
Is it by complexity? If so, English is an isolating language that lost most of its complexity and now relies on strict word order and grammar to convey meaning. Pretty simple, at the end of the day.
Is it efficiency in communicating concepts? If so, fusional and polysynthetic languages can communicate sentences worth of information in a single word, so English is not better then.
So it seems like there is no metric by which to judge one language as "better" than another unless you strictly define "better" as aspects of your preferred language. That's circular reasoning.
