Re: unnatural languages
- From: hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin)
- Date: 12 Mar 2007 11:44:11 -0400
In article <1173564124.762662.263780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jens S. Larsen <jens_s_larsen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Herman Rubin:
I can see no reason why one needs to know a "natural language"
to learn a more structured one. Nor can I see a reason why
one needs to learn a natural language first.
Strictly speaking, a natural language is not "learnt". Our capability
to interpret utterances as meaningful strings of words is in-born in
humans. This capability is called (natural) language.
The capability can be called natural language ability.
This says nothing about the characteristics of the
language learned this way. This language could have
evolved in the manner of the "natural" languages, or
it could be one constructed according to systematic
rules, designed to make learning easier once the
original barrier is passed.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Jens S. Larsen
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: unnatural languages
- References:
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Jens S. Larsen
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Jens S. Larsen
- Re: unnatural languages
- Prev by Date: Re: Esperanto and Interlingua
- Next by Date: Re: Esperanto and Interlingua
- Previous by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Next by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|