Re: unnatural languages

António Marques:

Jens S. Larsen wrote:


Ever heard of linguistic immersion?
Only in the context of English-speaking Canadian children learning
French. But I suppose the many international Esperanto conventions can
be described as something similar -- and why not include the local
conventions, there are foreigners all over the place anyway.

So you think meeting people at conventions is linguistic immersion?

Why not?

If there's a model you want to imitate, you can be
conscious about it all the way to identical pronunciation. Of course,
any language changes over time, both towards convergence and
divergence, even when hardly any of its speakers are aware of it, but
it seems to be a much slower development. For instance you could
hardly shift over to a different language unconsciously; but there's
no specific difference between that and maintaining your language
under the same name, but in another form.

Now and again, you completely disregard quantitative differences between
things, and seem to think that just because something *can* happen in a
given way, it's reasonable to say it happens that way.

As long as we are discussing the matter in the abstract, quantitative
differences have no bearing.

If as you repeatedly claim, differences between languages are of no
bearing, what are you even doing in this discussion, which is about the
way a 'conlang' differs from a natural language? You're trying to say it
doesn't differ by changing the object of contention. That's what's
boring about this.
Differences between languages can be important, just as the weight of
one's body. Still it's normal to say that the obese and the anorectic
(foreground) are of the same kind: homo sapiens (background). Why
should language be different from this?

Why do you choose to ignore the whole argument, which is precisely about
*differences*?

Because the differences in question have no quality, only quantity, as
you readily admit. Conlangs and natlangs are made of the same stuff.
So, if idiolects of a natlang like English can remain mutually
comprehensible in England and New Zealand, then idiolects of Esperanto
can too -- and if NZ English is doomed to become a language entirely
different from British English, then so is Esperanto.


Where are the idioms (say) of Eo described?
Where you'd expect something like that to be described: in
dictionaries.

And who put them there?

I'm one. I'm working on a new Danish-Esperanto dictionary at the
moment, together with half a dozen other people here in Copenhagen.
The last Danish-Esperanto dictionary is from 1949, so a new one is
sorely needed. We base our work on a database derived from Eckhard
Bick's Esperanto-Danish dictionary from 1997.

How comprehensive are the dictionaries?

The one we're coming up with won't be as big as Erich Dieter Krause's
new German-Esperanto; he has more than 160 000 words and phrases on
1679 pages (see <http://www.tinyurl.dk/969>). It is claimed to be the
most comprehensive Esperanto dictionary up till now; until this year,
the biggest ones were from Chinese and Japanese. The first edition of
the major monolingual dictionary "Plena Ilustrita Vortaro" from 1970
(I'm sitting here with a reprint from 1977 and a supplement from 1987)
is around 1300 pages; the second, enhanced edition came out a few
years ago.

How are new idioms formed?

By the same mysterious and unfathomable process applied by languages
as Danish, English or Portuguese. Let's just say that someone gets a
brilliant idea and then is imitated.


The problem actually isn't epistemological limitations, but the lack
of epistemological constraints. Astronomy has constraints: those who
claim that the earth is flat are not respecting them, for instance.
But for some obscure reason, such scientific constraints are typically
not held in high esteem in the community of linguists. Social/
individual, natural/artificial, for communication/for expression -- in
each of these claims about the essence of human language, there is one
that is as true as the round earth, and another as false as the flat
earth. We cannot just sit on our butts waiting for the data to dictate
us the answer, for conscious about it or not, we interpret data in the
light of a theory.

Now that you've been presented with the eight possible basic theories
of language (we can call them SNC, SNE, SAC, SAE, INC, INE, IAC, and
IAE for short), which one would you choose as a starting point for
linguistic research?

And now that you've embarked on an issue that has no relationship at all
to what I was arguing, why should I follow you?

I'm trying to determine what theory you want to discuss the matter in:
SNC, SNE, SAC etc. I insist on INE, and if you prefer another one of
the eight, we should be discussing the relative merits of those
theories in stead of conlangs versus natlangs. If we don't agree what
language is in the first place, there's not much sense in trying to
make a judgement on specific languages.


I didn't have to invite anyone to my home to learn Esperanto either.
13 years old I borrowed a textbook in the library, and half a year
later I popped up in a meeting in the local club in Århus, where a
Scot talked about Ireland. I understood enough of his speech to ask
why the cars drive on the left side in Ireland - that's the first
thing I said in Esperanto to somebody else.

And so you think you have full competence in Eo? Who has?

Define "full competence". It means something completely different in
SNC, SNE etc.

Mind you, I can get along communicating with english-speaking people quite well.
That doesn't mean any 10 year old english speaker can't immediately spot
me as a foreigner, and I'm not talking about pronunciation.

I've been taken as a native English speaker by a 10 year old from
England. Once I thought I had spotted a Bornholmer, but it turned up
she was a Dutch speaker of Danish. Foreignness is never a question of
language alone.


Of course, such an experience should be enough to make me think that
Esperanto is such a wonderful thing that it's only the dark forces of
violence, hatred and ignorance in this world that holds it back. I
soon learned, though, that it doesn't come quite that easily for
everyone - but also that it's more of a difference between individuals
than between nations.

OK, this paragraph clearly betrays you.

What do you think it betrays?


In the case of an international language there actually is a
criterion: the isolated group loses out.
What if you have no dominant group?
Then there is only one group.
Oh, so if you have w, x, y and z groups of Eo speaking people who have a
hell of a time understanding each other because the only thing their
languages have in common is the Fundamento, and group w is dominant, x,
y and z will converge. If none of the four is dominant, they are only
one group. Makes perfect sense.
Yes, but only if most of human language is in-born.

That which is inborn is common to all languages, so it has no place in a
discussion about differences between individual languages.

Correct.



All right then: The Russians were not on their way to have a different
language, they were on their way to concentration camps. Esperanto
stayed the same in Russia, the development took place in the rest of
the world.

And what development was that? Surely it didn't impact that part of
language which is inborn.

A number of technical terms, especially. Mostly international ones,
such as "rezoluta".

Jens S. Larsen

.

Loading