Re: Academic/scientific journals in Esperanto?

From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair (jwlawler_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/17/05 

Date: 17 Mar 2005 01:53:43 -0800

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > but possibly of a new Manx language rather than the old
one. I expect
> > > > > > that the same applies to Hebrew, there are surely native
speakers of
> > > > > > Hebrew alive today but is it the same language as the old
Hebrew?
> > > > >
> > > > > Define "same" ...
> > > >
> > > > A good question. I don't know if there is a standard answer.
> > > >
> > > > Most languages evolve over time and hence in a sense a language
today
> > >
> > > not "most"
> >
> > I put "most" in case someone came back with an obscure language
that
> > (they claimed) remained constant over time. I did not want to get
into
> > any irrelevant disputes about that subject. I would regard "Most X
are
> > Y" to be true even if in fact "All X are Y".
>
> That is uncooperative, in terms of Grice's Conversational Postulates.
> When you say "most" but mean 'all', the reader has to try to figure
out
> what loophole you're leaving yourself.

I would agree that using "most" when I knew that "all" was true would
be uncooperative. But I would claim that using "most" when "all" was
true is a lesser crime than using "all" when "most" was true. For
example in my more familiar domain of maths, no one would object to a
claim of "There exists an integer x such that P(x)" when the reality
was "For all integers x, P(x)". P(x) is some proposition involving x.

I was using "most" because I did not have good evidence to hand that
"all" was true. Do you? Are you sure that there is no language that
has remained constant over a long period?

> > > > may be significantly different from the language of the same
name from
> > > > a century before even if there were a substantial numbers of
native
> > > > speakers for the entire period.
> > >
> > > over one century, not "significantly" different. How much trouble
do you
> > > have understanding your grandparents?
> >
> > So make it a few centuries or a millennium. Can you understand
Beowulf
>
> Only very rarely would people five generations apart find themselves
> conversing -- I recently gave the example of the Queen Mum and Harry
or
> Wills's kids, which due to her extreme longevity would represent a
> considerable extreme -- so whatever "pressure" against language
change
> there may be wouldn't have to keep stages mutually intelligible for
more
> than a century and a half or so.

If you read on, you will see that I am discussing a thought experiment.
 I accept that it is not possible to bring together speakers born
hundreds of years apart.

> > (without lots of study)? Anyway, significantly different does not
> > necessarily mean incomprehensible. Can you not distinguish the
speech
> > of your grandparents and your children? Significant change is just
the
> > first step towards incomprehensibility.
>
> Define "significant" ... this is fun ...

No it is not, it is tedious. I believe that you are wilfully failing
to understand. Do you own an English dictionary? Try looking under S.
 But if you really wanted a test, would you accept a bet that I could
not reliably distinguish the speech of two English people born more
than 70 years apart?

> > > > For languages and dialects, the usual test is mutual
comprehensibility
> > > > but I am aware that it can be difficult to apply. Even when it
is
> > > > possible to apply it, it may give answers quite different from
the
> > > > traditional ones.
> > > >
> > > > So, we could try a mutual comprehensibility test for points in
the
> > > > history of a single language. Of course, there would be the
additional
> > > > problem of finding the historical speakers. But with this
test, would
> > > > you expect a resurrected speaker of ancient Hebrew to
understand a
> > > > modern speaker? Ditto Manx?
> > >
> > > No, and why not? respectively (given that Manx lasted into the
20th
> > > century).
> >
> > For Manx, it would depend on how good the reconstruction was. I
don't
> > know, it was a genuine question. Just because Manx survived into
the
> > 20th century, it does not mean that we necessarily have good
records
> > and did a good job of reconstructing it. Do we have voice
recordings?
>
> I would assume the BBC has a huge library -- wasn't the Last Speaker
> quite a celebrity?

I don't know that is why I am asking. My questions are usually genuine
rather than rhetorical. I claim no knowledge of Manx.

> > > > As for dialects, we would often get answers different from
traditional
> > > > usage. Old English would be a different language to modern
English and
> > > > not just a different stage in one language.
> > > >
> > > > But what I had in mind was a vaguer notion. Is there a smooth
> > > > continuous evolution of the language as may have happened if it
did not
> > > > experience death and rebirth? Or is there a very large
discontinuity?
> > >
> > > The latter.
> >
> > As I would have expected.
> >
> > > > Suppose a linguist unfamiliar with the language was presented
with lots
> > > > of material in date sequence but with the large gap masked.
Would he
> > > > be able to deduce that something unusual had happened to the
language
> > > > or would it appear as plausible gradual evolution.
> > >
> > > ??
> >
> > There is a question mark missing from the end of that but otherwise
I
> > think that it is a clear question. It is a suggested thought
> > experiment to determine if ancient and modern Hebrew can be
considering
> > a single language. Take many samples of ancient and modern Hebrew,
> > sort them chronologically but disguise the large gap when the
language
> > was dead. Give these samples to a linguist unfamiliar with Hebrew
(*)
> > and ask for comments. Would he come back and say that something
very
> > strange happened to the language between samples 1000 and 1001? Or
> > would he say, it seems to be a typical example of language
evolution?
> > If the latter, we could reasonably say that ancient and modern
Hebrew
> > are different periods in the evolution of one language. If the
former,
> > it may be better to regard them as different, though related,
languages.
>
> It looks like you're not familiar with the history of Hebrew. It has
> never been a dead language, has never gone out of use; it was the
second
> language of every literate Jew and used for international
communication
> among Jews on every imaginable topic for at least 1500 years when it
was
> no one's first language.

No, I am not very familiar with the history of Hebrew. As I said
above, my questions are usually genuine questions. But, do you claim a
language is alive if it has no native speakers? Do you believe that
Latin is a living language because it has remained in use by the
Catholic church? As far as I am aware, Latin is normally described as
dead. Was Hebrew less dead? Why?

> But already Mishnaic Hebrew (found in the Mishna and in Ecclesiastes,
> the last book of the Hebrew Bible to be written) is quite different
from
> Classical Hebrew; the inherited tense system was no longer used, and
the
> tenses are in a more Aramaic mode (and Aramaic itself exhibits
influence
> from Iranian and Greek).
>
> Ben Yehuda's revival of Hebrew in Palestine was done by non-native
> speakers of Hebrew not speaking their native language around their
> children. They used Hebrew vocabulary and morphology, but
(philologists
> in those days paid little attention to syntax) not syntax, including
the
> uses of the aspects; so Modern Hebrew has basically SAE grammar
> ("Standard Average European," Whorf's term).
>
> > (*) The probable non-existence of such a linguist is why this is
merely
> > a thought experiment rather than a potential real experiment.
> >
> > > > Do you know Crystal's book: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
English
> > > > Language? In what sense is he using "language" in the title?
Is he
> > > > claiming that Old, Middle and Modern English are one language?
Is he
> > > > claiming that all the many dialects are one? Or is he just
claiming
> > > > that they have a common origin and there are continuous links
between
> > > > them?
> > >
> > > Define "a language."
> >
> > Well I was trying to off load that question onto Crystal. Do you
know
> > that book? What do you think he means by "The English Language"?
>
> I never managed to read much of that book, since it's all about
English
> (but a useful reference work). But surely he tells you near the front
> what he means? You'd do better to try his brand-new History of
English
> (I don't know the title).

I has mislaid my copy of that book so I cannot easily check. But
judging by the contents, his notion of language is similar to my broad
one below. I also know that Crystal is well regarded by professional
linguists (e.g. my doppelganger) so I am not embarrassed to use a term
in a similar way to him.

> And his *Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language* is far more rewarding.

I found both books, and many of his others, very rewarding reading.

> > The following is merely my amateur guess.
> >
> > I do not suppose any perfect, objectively testable definition is
> > possible. Also, the definition probably has to depend on the
context.
> > Here is a narrow and broad definition.
> >
> > Narrow: Take one speaker of the language in question. Anyone that
he
> > can communicate with is a speaker of the same language. They must
be
> > able to discuss a wide range of subjects but a few
miscommunications
> > and some accustomisation are acceptable. I know that this is not
> > perfect. Firstly, the answer may depend on your selection of test
> > speaker. Secondly, my use of "few" and "some" are too vague.
> >
> > Broad: All the descendants of some single language (narrow sense),
> > ideally with demonstrable continuous links, even if not all members
are
> > mutually comprehensible. I imagine Crystal's use in that book
title
> > was something like that.
>
> Bzzzt. It's not a question linguists deal with. The difference
between
> "language" and "dialect" is purely political.

Are you sure? So what was Crystal doing in that book? Is the mutual
comprehensibility test a political one?

> > Can some expert pop in and help us here?
>
> No.

Have you asked all of them?

> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

You are very demanding about definitions. I am actually used to that
since my main domain is mathematics. But I cannot see how the
precision of maths can be achieved in this domain. As far as I can
see, you must accept a lower standard or do nothing. As a result,
theorems of the certainty of maths will not be possible. Can you point
to any definition in linguistics that satisfies you? How about
phoneme? I have not seen a definition that would be acceptable in
maths. Nonetheless, it is a useful concept. 

--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....
    ... I also repeated the evidence I can find says they were put there for unknown reasons at three distinct times between the early 1st c. BC and late 1st AD. ... As the nature of these documents vary widely and are mostly in Aramaic I also pointed out the need for any identification of a document to describe the language in which it is written. ... I did further note the so-called hebrew alphabet is in fact the Aramaic alphabet so an amateur conclusion from an image is not the same as being in "hebrew." ... immediate neighbors in the Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BCE), namely, ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....
    ... you're the one who deals only with physical evidence. ... 458 Manchester from the 2nd century BCE is the oldest ... hebrew alphabet is in fact the Aramaic alphabet so an amateur conclusion from ... Hebrew was ever a spoken language. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....
    ... English version Matthew is no longer spelled as in the Hebrew ... names for people who do not speak the language such at the Greeks. ... gods he judges. ... figuring out whether a simple plural or a pluralis maiestatis (the ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
    ... > are constantly broken by speakers. ... > always true to language itself. ... observation and analysis by linguists in the tradition of Boas, Kroeber, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
    ... > are constantly broken by speakers. ... > always true to language itself. ... observation and analysis by linguists in the tradition of Boas, Kroeber, ...
    (sci.lang)