In a message dated 2003:12:22 02:31:25 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

>WOW! An interesting read [].
 >But that raises a question.
> Could a language be designed in such a way as to
>defeat Grimm's law.  In other words, is there some
>design which, due to its inherent simplicity or
>efficienty, would be more resistent to change than a
>I.e., does change occur just for the sake of change,
>or is there some notion of "striving" toward a "more
>perfected" form?  And if so, could a more perfected
>form be designed which would thus resist change?

    The only certainity is uncertainity and change.

     Language[s] change[s]: vowels shift, phonologies crash-&-burn, grammars
leak, morpho-syntactics implode, lexico-semantics mutate, lexicons explode,
orthographies reform, typographies blip-&-beep, slang flashes, stylistics
warp... linguistic (R)evolutions mark each-&-every quantum leap...

--- *DiDJiBuNgA!!* ---

Hanuman "Stitch" Zhang, ManglaLanger (mangle + manga + lang)

"Some Languages Are Crushed to Powder but Rise Again as New Ones" -
title of a chapter on pidgins and creoles, John McWhorter,
_The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language_

= ˇgw3rraa leg0set kaakaa!
    ˇriis3rvaa, saalvaa, riikuu, sk0paa-g0mii aen riizijkl0! =
[Fight Linguistic Waste!
    Save, Salvage, Recover, Scavenge and Recycle!]