Re: unnatural languages

António Marques:

Jens S. Larsen wrote:

So you think meeting people at conventions is linguistic immersion?
Why not?
There you go, replying apples to oranges, and when asked how are apples
oranges, answering 'why not'. The burden to prove apples are oranges is
on *you*.
Apples and oranges are both fruit. The burden to prove that the
difference matters is upon you.

Sorry, no one asked for 'fruit'. We're talking oranges. Come back when
you've got oranges to trade.

What's the difference between meeting people at conventions and
meeting them elsewhere?

Well, at the bottom line we're probably discussing whether language
diversity is a natural phenomenon or an artefact.

Are we? 'We' who?

You and me. If I misunderstand what you're talking about, maybe it's
because I speak INE, whereas you speak SNE.



I should have mentioned most 'conlangs' come with a small corpus.
Doesn't make much of a difference, anyway.

The difference is whether somebody want to contribute to the corpus.


There has always been Zamenhof's style to try and live up to.

But hasn't Eo grown (literally) as need arose?

Sure. The "Plena Ilustrita Vortaro" also counts Kazimierz Bein, Antoni
Grabowski, Kálmán Kalocsay and the translation of the Bible as
normative classics.


There are grammatical elements of Esperanto that can be used
specifically to form idioms. "Sur la ŝipo", for instance, means "on
the ship", whereas "surŝipe" renders "on board".

Those look quite regular and transparent, though. How are they 'idioms'?

They aren't. They reduce the need for idioms, without eliminating them
completely.

The
issue being discussed is whether or not any human language has an
immense amount of particular syntactical and morphological constructs
the nature of which can't be precisely or at all determined by their
parts. Some of those contructs are mor regular than others, some are
more frequent than others, some are well understood and some are more
fuzzy. Your only comments on this so far have been first to deny it,

I never denied it. I said it was in the foreground, whereas you
insisted on the background.

and then to say they're adequately covered by dictionaries.

Dictionaries never cover a language adequately for all intents and
purposes.


I repeat, can you state what the matter being discussed is?
What is language, and is Esperanto one. IIRC.

You don't rc. From what I've said so far, you may have gotten that 1) I
don't presume to define what is language, and 2) Esperanto or any
'conlang' as spoken in natural circumstances are necessarily languages,
whereas the descriptions of Esperanto or any 'conlang' by their creators
are not languages.

How are you going to explain what that means without a definition of
"natural circumstances"?


And so you think you have full competence in Eo? Who has?
Define "full competence". It means something completely different in
SNC, SNE etc.
And there you go again. Answer the question, don't hide behind such
meagre stuff.
Well, if "full competence" means there is nothing more to learn, then
indeed it's a destiny worse than death itself. I wouldn't wish that
for my worst enemy.

But then of course it doesn't mean that (nor do I have to define what it
means).

Well, if I can define myself what full competence means, I can claim
to have full competence in Ubykh and Warramunga.


Are easy things by definition distasteful?

And now you adduce the 'easy' thing?

No, morphological regularity per se does not make a language ugly,
though it may make it uninteresting. Here the grestest offense is Eo's
way of forming feminines.

What do you think of the way of forming feminines in Warramunga?

But where things seriously break is when you
pick roots with no consideration given to phonological balance.

Why not? That's common in natural language.

Other
languages adapt the roots as needed to conform to their own historical
and synchronic structure. This process is necessarily so multivariate to
be considered ad-hoc.

How is that to be understood? Do you deny the existence of sound laws?

A 'language' with a similar problem is taxonomic
latin, where the carefully defined rules for root adoption seldom result
in anything reasonable. And then so much of the roots you choose are
monosyllables, but your morphology doesn't allow them - and you get
things like 'ag^o'.

You can shorten that to aĝ', if need be (as to fit metre in poetry),
but I don't see what's so wrong about it in the first place. There are
no nouns or verbs in Greenlandic with only a short vowel, for
instance. ("Aak" means "blood"; "ak" is an interjection meaning "there
you are").

And then the orthography.

That's not language, but description of language. Slap yourself on the
fingers with a ruler.

Most of the above are defects of implementation.

What other kind of defects are there?


I always wondered why Esperanto is such a formidable succes among
conlangs, at the same time being such a failure as a universal means
of communication. I never succeeded in holding back my curiosity.

Maybe the reason is that the success of a language is directly related
to the success of its culture and its social value. Latin thrived among
scholars when it was considered the apt language for science and
philosophy and effectively offered access to most of what was done in
both fields. German enjoyed a similar success in the 19th century. So
did french for a while. Today english will get you any amount of science
and pop culture. Whereas Eo puts you in contact with a community
interested in all those ideals of the Eo community. That community,
taken worldwide, is large in absolute numbers, but small relatively
speaking.



--
am

laurus : rhodophyta : brethoneg : smalltalk : stargate

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What language to manipulate text files
    ... Get apples from apples shop ... Get oranges from oranges shop ... Just pick a language that is close to something you know. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: unnatural languages
    ... There you go, replying apples to oranges, and when asked how are apples ... No, I'm talking about the difference between a language and its description, which is necessarily never complete. ... pick roots with no consideration given to phonological balance. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: C# Enums - Feature or deficiency
    ... the language *defines* an ordinal set. ... Mathematically it's meaningless. ... static int apples = 0; ... static int oranges = 1; ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: unnatural languages
    ... The burden to prove apples are oranges is ... could hardly shift over to a different language unconsciously; ... Esperanto can too -- and if NZ English is doomed to become a language ... Whereas any 'conlang' in existence is either: ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Strategic Functional Migration and Multiple Inheritance
    ... an EVIL FACADE to force us to live without MULTIPLE INHERITANCE. ... and 'senior' level programmers in the non-C++ programming communities. ... We wanted to post this question in several language communities prior ... I wanted to query the C# community (the 'target' ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)