Is Python the Esperanto of programming languages?

[Carl Banks]

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Carl Banks wrote:
> 
>> "The man go" is NOT ambiguous because the ending on the verb is
>> superfluous (when the number of the subject is known, as it is here).
>> No native English speaker will interpret "the man go" as possibly
>> meaning "the men go."
> 
> But, as I said, how about interpreting it as "The man went" or "The man
> will go"?  It may not be ambiguous in number, but it's ambiguous in
> tense.

"I go" is ambiguous in tense the same way.


>> Even your list of other possibilities for the meaning of "the man go"
>> didn't include "the men go."  You only listed different tenses.  That
>> you would even doubt the tense is, I say, an intellectual reaction to
>> the sentence sounding bad.
> 
> What difference does it make precisely what reason the sentence is
> ambiguous?  If it's ambiguous because it uses grammar improperly,
> resulting in someone who understands the grammar to become confused,
> how's that any less ambiguous?

Because "I go" is just as ambiguous as "He go."  The lack of an -s on
the verb doesn't make it any more or less likely that the speaker used
the wrong tense.  A person who "he go" meaning "he went" will also say
"I go" meaning "I went."  For that matter, for a speaker who learns
number before tense, "he goes" could mean "he went."

You see, the lack of an -s itself doesn't make tense ambiguous.  All
it does is indicate that the speaker has a poor grasp of English, and
*that* is what makes the tense ambiguous.

If a native English speaker says "he go," the tense wouldn't be
ambiguous; it would mean "he goes," and nothing else.


I say all of this to support my point that the -s ending is
superfluous, which means it is not redundant when used correctly.


-- 
CARL BANKS