Re: unnatural languages
- From: phoglund@xxxxxx
- Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:34:37 -0800
Michael Kuettner wrote:
<phoglund@xxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1172697867.513614.197250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You seem to have a communication problem :
Joachim Pense wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:52:45 -0500 schrieb Nathan Sanders:
No, the difference is in the structure of the language. Pidgins lack
certain features that creoles have.
How do we know that, if we don't know what features must be present in
a natural language?
We know what some of them are. Try Greenberg or Comrie any other
suitable text that deals with "linguistic universals".
If a language comes up that doesn't have the "universal" features,
then it is not the naturalness of the language but the universality of
the feature that is challenged.
Yes. And if we concoct a language that does not conform to universals
and have children acquire it as their first language, then either the
children creolize it into something that does conform, or the
universals were not universal.
Nope. My point is, that if linguistic universals as a concept have any
sense whatsoever, they are biologically hardwired. So, a language that
is used for human communication in the way that languages usually are
used for human communication cannot, by definition, violate any
sensibly-defined linguistic universals.
I am inclined not to take all this crap about linguistic universals
too seriously: in my opinion no person in his or her right mind should
touch Greenberg.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: unnatural languages
- Prev by Date: Re: unnatural languages
- Next by Date: Re: Ventris' grid
- Previous by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Next by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|