>>78Not all languages have morpheme.
AAAARGGGHHH!!!
Some languages, like the ones I mentioned, were only used in the written form, like math.
[b][i]AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!![/i][/b]
Why did >>41,43,51,64 bring spoken languages into the subject
You mean
>>48,51,64? Because
>>41 and
>>43 weren't me.
>>41 is right, though. The word "language" is overloaded to mean many different things, and you've been confused by the name into thinking they are all the same thing. For comparison, a "log" is not necessarily made of wood. There's pretty much no way you could ever use a log of pine in an application which calls for a log of an IRC channel. Likewise, it would never make sense for a human to try to speak in C++ (which is not a human language) or for a programming language to have all the same grammar and vocabulary as English.
A constructed regular language (the kind acceptable as input to a finite state automaton) is not impressive, because it is trivial to implement. A constructed human language
is impressive, because it's expressive enough to hold a conversation in. You can communicate information using math, but you could not hold a conversation in math.