Re: unnatural languages

On Feb 28, 12:47 pm, phogl...@xxxxxx wrote:
On 28 helmi, 18:48, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 28, 10:01 am, phogl...@xxxxxx wrote:

On 28 helmi, 15:04, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 28, 4:29 am, phogl...@xxxxxx wrote:

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:54 am, phogl...@xxxxxx wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:04 am, phogl...@xxxxxx wrote:

How many people do you need for a community?

Two?

So, an Esperanto-speaking household (parents and children does
constitute a community?

Does such a thing exist?

Yes. How else could there be people who perceive themselves as native
speakers?

Self-deception is a very, very easy thing.

Esperantists marrying each other and bringing their children up in
Esperanto are not a new phenomenon. Surely the children of such
marriages will end up speaking Esperanto (or, to accommodate you, some
Esperanto-related creoloid variety) as their native language?

Not if their playmates and classmates don't.

How many times do we have to tell you that it is not the parents, but
the peer group that determines a child's language?

So, you are moving goalposts again.

Don't lie. I have never said anything different.

First, you suggested two people
were enough for a community.

Two people certainly isn't enough for an infant to acquire a language!

Go learn some psycholinguistics.

Now you are speaking about the peer group
and classmates, and suddenly the household is not enough for you.

There's no "suddenly" about it.

And, while we are at it: in Belfast, there is an Irish-speaking
neighborhood ("Shaw's Road Gaeltacht") which was deliberately
developed as a close-knit community, and where there are three
generations of Irish speakers by now. Is Irish a natural and real
language there, or is it not?-

I wouldn't know.

Nice that you admit it.

What relationship does that dialect have with the
main dialects that are hundreds of generations old?

They try to keep in touch with the genuine dialects of Donegal. You
are supposed to spend your summer holidays over there. The dialect of
Ranafast is the most holy one, because it is the native dialect of the
revered writers Seosamh Mac Grianna and Séamus Ó Grianna.-

So you admit that it's an ideology thing rather than a practical-daily-
use thing.

I told you that they consciously created a close-knit community, where
they could live in Irish and have all their social contacts in Irish.
Then I told you that they make a conscious effort to keep in touch
with Donegal dialects.

I have know idea what "try to keep in touch" or "make a conscious
effort to keep in touch" means.

Yet you are yourself making use of terms like "native language" or
"real language" which are essentially big, menacing words without
agreed definition.

Idiot. No one doesn't know what "native language" means. A native
language is one that is acquired by an infant without any conscious
"learning" or "teaching."

So, if parents speak Esperanto to their children, the children will
acquire Esperanto as their native language. Agreed.

No, the child might create an Esperanto creole from the imprfect
(i.e., pidgin) input from the abusive parents.

Hoepfully it is not forbidden from playing with children who will
introduce it to a real language.

And in English, if not in Finnish, "real" is the opposite of
"artificial."

Well, in my personal English idiolect, "real" is the opposite of
"ideal", "imaginary", or "unreal"; and "natural" is the opposite of
"artificial".

Then you would do better to conform your personal English idiolect to
the general norm.

But let me specify: people take holidays in the
Gaeltacht, they send their children to Gaeltacht summer schools and so
on.

A week or three does not constitute immersion.

How come this assertion does not surprise me?

Because it's a self-evident truth.

Which part here suggests that it is not about
practical daily use? Are ideological commitment and practical daily
use mutually exclusive?-

Usually.

Well, I have bad news for you. The practical daily use of a minority
language in an environment where a majority language is perceived as
norm is frequently looked upon as an ideologically motivated act, by
the speakers of both languages. If you speak Irish openly in Ireland,
there are people who will construe it as a nationalistic
demonstration, even if you were a native speaker with Gaeltacht
credentials.-

Bull***. In case you'd forgotten, Ireland has been a "nation" --a
Free State from 1916 -- for nearly a century. There is no
"nationalisticism" in Ireland.

Well, as I stated, I have been involved with the Irish language for a
mere fourteen years, sociolinguistic aspects and language attitudes
included. And as I stated, my humble knowledge is certainly no match
to the divine gnosis you acquired during your one-week stay in
Ireland.

I actually knew that Ireland was a nation _before_ I went there.

Why don't you tell us about Swedish in Finland?

Because I reckon you are, in your infinite wisdom, better equipped to
tell us about it - if I uttered anything, you would be calling me
idiot and my statements bull***.-

Prejudiced, anyway.

I suppose now you'll retort that some of your best friends are Sweded?

.