Re: unnatural languages

On 16 Mar 2007 17:05:42 -0400, Herman Rubin
<hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:etf0r6$qna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:

In article <193i53vnqh03r.146uwtdhhe82m$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Brian M. Scott <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 15 Mar 2007 21:33:49 -0400, Herman Rubin
<hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:etcs5t$2obm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:

In article <1wr2bpne898k7$.k41ekmatri5l$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Brian M. Scott <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 15 Mar 2007 15:28:05 -0400, Herman Rubin
<hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:etc6o5$392g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:

In article <1173929324.317738.63840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

Every human being (barring severe brain damage) speaks
their native language(s) "reasonably grammatical"ly.

Not in my experience.

Your statement is obviously false as Peter is using the
expression, and by now you should certainly be aware of
this. What you mean, I expect, is that you encounter many
people who don't speak according to rules of formal standard
English; if that *is* what you mean, say so! Then you'll
have to explain why you think this matters, but at least
you'll be talking about something instead of playing stupid
word games.

They cannot understand a precise statement, using instead
their "fuzzy" grammar, in which clear meanings do not exist.

Nonsense. This problem has nothing to do with grammar.

It does. They do not appreciate structure in anything, [...]

That is an separate issue.

One is unlikely to get the technical vocabulary in the
normal course of learning a language. For example, in
a paper on efficient methods for multiple precision
arithmetic, I got hung up on "Einheit". I could reject
many uses of "oneness"; I did not know that it was used
in German works on rings for "unit", which has nothing
to do with "one", despite the English word being based
on the Latin for "one".

In fact it *does* have something to do with 'one', though
the connection is somewhat attenuated. And this has nothing
to do with whether technical language is a language in the
usual sense of the word. (It isn't.)

Technical language is a partial language which can be
used to supplement an otherwise inadequate one.

On the contrary, it's little if anything more than an
addition to the lexicon.

It is somewhat more than that; it can have its own grammar.

No.

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE QUIZ...
    ... > No, Alex, don't bother searching the archives for Franz's answer. ... Yes, Peter T. Daniels, I did answer that question, in the thread ... is the basic task of language. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
    ... Peter T. Daniels wrote: ... >> Language is the means of getting help and understanding ... And already we have lost someone: Peter T. ... architecture, for example, got nothing to do with cell ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
    ... > having to do with language. ... I take it Peter T. Daniels, gruff and grumpy king of sci.lang, ... between Christmas and New Year. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
    ... An art in which I am well versed, ... >> having to do with language. ... > I take it Peter T. Daniels, gruff and grumpy king of sci.lang, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
    ... An art in which I am well versed, ... >> having to do with language. ... > I take it Peter T. Daniels, gruff and grumpy king of sci.lang, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading