[Haskell-cafe] Re: [OT] Japanese (was: Re: about Haskell code written to be "too smart")

[Achim Schneider]

wren ng thornton <wren at freegeek.org> wrote:

> All natural languages are Thinking-complete.
>
No, they aren't. Falsifying the Saphir-Worph thesis, I quite often find
myself incapable of expressing a certain thought, or if I succeed,
come up with two or more versions in multiple different languages that
mean slightly different things, and, in retrospect, all don't fit the
thought. 

On another scale, it's just a waste of time: Why should I spend minutes
figuring out how to spell out "Even though X -> Y and X -> nonsense, 
(Z -> Y) -> nonsense does not necessarily hold" when I already figured
that one out.

All thoughts are fundamentally ineffable: Therefore, all languages are
thinking-incomplete.

-- 
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.