Circe wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
Their language is no more primitive than yours, of course.

I didn't live a thousand years ago.

Language a thousand years ago was no more primitive than it is
today. (Latin was big some 2000 years ago, of course).

And, purely as a data point, it is a well-known linguistic fact that
languages progress from complex to simple. Thus, the more primitive a
language, the more complex it is.

This comports well with intuition. One wouldn't expect early attempts at
languages to be as efficient as later ones. Much like systems of numbers I
imagine. I sure am glad that I didn't have to use Roman numerals in my math
classes.

Slainte,
Fletch