On 2013-01-16 at 22:57:06 +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Even a language with two words wouldn't be countable. Only a language with > one word would be. to be countable you only need a way to list every possible sentence in order; with two words (A and B) it's quite easy, just start with one word sentences 1: A, 2: B followed by two words sentences, in alphabetical order 3: AA, 4: AB, 5: BA, 6: BB three words 7: AAA, 8: AAB, 9: ABA, ... etc., and then remove anything which is not allowed by your syntax. As somebody else mentioned, you can get language where the number of sentences is non-countable if you have sentences that are actually infinitely long (and not just arbitrarly long, but finite); another way would probably be to allow for a non-countable number of words, which would require them to be actually infinitely long. Since humans tend to have a finite lifespan, and words need a finite time to be pronounced, nobody can actually use an infinite sentence, so (at least on earth, today) it is impossible to have a noncountable natlang (and that would exclude also a noncountable naturalistic conlang, IMHO). It is easy to immagine a conculture where a priestly class spends their time constructing infinite sentences in a relay (possibly while tending to the village's eternal fire?), but then I wouldn't be so sure that these sentences are part of a *language*, since the communication part would be quite limited. -- Elena ``of Valhalla''