[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=408;start=0#3428 date=1060569757]<br />We can say things in English we can't easily say in Latin, so English is limited?
<br /><br />Could you explain how you reach this conclusion? Surely the limitation (if there is one) would be on Latin's side. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />If you think about it - and here we're getting more into "Academy" subject matter.... every language has limitations in some way or another. Word order is everything in English, which results in some limitations. (Ambiguous statements, if one isn't really careful about how one orders one's words, for instance.) Words have extremely flexible meanings in English, too, to the point that colloquial meanings take over original meanings in a very few years, and then you have to find another word for the original..... English has no simple future tense - you have to work something out with other verbs to make one. My guess is that the original English speakers just weren't much interested in the future, so didn't see a need for one.<br /><br />Latin's limited, too, in different ways. The rigid grammar can in some ways be as much of a difficulty as the word order, and some of the inflection rules make for monsterous mouthfuls of words to get one's teeth around. <br /><br />I've always wondered if you can't tell a whole lot about the basic culture/beliefs/environment of the originators of a language by the grammar and words they use - some languages have multiple words for a concept that only rates one in other languages. (I'm thinking particularly of "snow" at the moment.... I am given to understand that at least one Inuit dialect has over 30 words for "snow", whereas English only has one, and adds adjectives to get more descriptive.)<br /><br />Kilmeny