Conlang: Re: The Language Code, take 2 (or 3) (BP Jonsson, Jun 13 '03, 20:34)

>On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 10:46 AM, BP Jonsson wrote: > >>At 09:10 13.6.2003 -0600, Dirk Elzinga wrote: >> >>>My question is whether there is an attested language which lies more >>>or >>>less in the middle; that is, a language which is "halfway" between >>>planning and natural growth. >>> >>>Esperanto -- Interlingua ------------- ? ---------------- B.I. -- >>>Chemehuevi >>> >>>I'm asserting that such a language does not exist; all languages will >>>cluster at one end or the other. That being the case, the continuum >>>really isn't one, and the dichotomy between constructed and >>>natural/ethnic is a real one. >>> >>>Any takers? >> >>I have no problem with "natural" in the sense "natural growth". >>My problem is with "natural" meaning "complying with natural >>language universals". I contend that a constructed language may be >>natural in this sense. While it is true that a language which is >>"non-natural"[1] in the sense of "violating natural language >>universals" will probably be a conlang, I think the term >>"natural" = "not constructed" is unfelicitous. > >But I'm not using 'natural' to mean "complying with natural language >universals" (note the self-reference). The question I thought you were >asking was something like, "Is it sensible to distinguish languages >like Esperanto from languages like Bahasa Indonesia since they both >involved explicit planning (construction)?" To that question I answer >"yes; it is a sensible division, and Esperanto is not a natural >language while Bahasa Indonesia is." > >Christophe's suggestion that the term "naturalistic" more readily >captures what you have in mind seems reasonable to me, and many of us >have described our languages using that term. So I think you're >proposing another category -- the naturalness of a language based on >what is known of linguistic universals. In that sense, Esperanto is a >naturalistic language, while C++ is not. But they are both constructed. > >>I would simply >>prefer "non-constructed", or in a code +|- constructed. > >Now this seems to go back to the question that I thought you were >asking in the first place; that is, is it sensible to divide languages >categorically between constructed and natural. Suggesting an attribute >of c(onstructed) with values of +|- would say to me that you don't >think this is a sensible distinction, while I contend that it is. > >Dirk >-- >Dirk Elzinga >Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu > >"I believe that phonology is superior to music. It is more variable and >its pecuniary possibilities are far greater." - Erik Satie > >

From:	BP Jonsson <bpj@...>
Date:	Friday, June 13, 2003, 20:34