Sanskrit, the secret of India's outsourcing success. 19

Or any other language? What makes you think that? On the other hand I think that the agglutinative SOV languages (Turkish, Japanese, Hungarian, etc.) are the most logical languages. There are many points to make one (let alone me) think so. Here are some (not all) of them that comes to my mind at a first thought.

* SOV languages works like reverse Polish. Here is a quote from a thread in sci.lang: If you want to *speak* a computer-like, unambiguous language, I'd suggest Postscript (or Forth) to LISP. It uses reverse Polish notation, and doesn't need the tons of parentheses. And since it is reverse Polish, the word order is verb-last, which should be very familiar to Japanese, and also speakers of Dutch and German. (I've heard that Forth has some success among Japanese programmers, because they find the word order and syntactic structure "natural".)

** Turkish (I am not sure but possibly Japanese and Hungarian as well) is known to be very consistent the modifier always comes before the modified which you can never break in any way. On the other hand take the following examples: good enough (modifier after modified) sufficently good (modifier before modified) the running man (modifier before modified) the man running in the park (modifier after modified) etc. Even weirder languages allow both, even in one sentence, simultaneously. Comme la belle langue bizarre fran¨aise!

*** An agglutinative language is a form of synthetic language where each affix typically represents one unit of meaning (such as "diminutive", "past tense", "plural", etc.), and bound morphemes are expressed by affixes (and not by internal changes of the root of the word, or changes in stress or tone). Besides, and most importantly, in an agglutinative language affixes do not become fused with others, and do not change form conditioned by others.

Synthetic languages which are not agglutinative are called fusional languages; they sometimes combine affixes by "squeezing" them together, often changing them drastically in the process, and joining several meanings in one affix (for example, a single short verbal suffix means "past tense, perfect aspect, first person singular"). A good illustration of fusionality in language is the Latin word amo, "I love". The ending "-o" denotes indicative mood, active voice, first person, singular, present tense. Changing any of these features requires replacement of the suffix "-o" with something else.

This third one can be considered as an explaination (or cause) of the fact that agglutinative SOV languages appear to be very regular. For example Japanese has only three irregular verbs, Turkish only one.

**** So on...