Re: The Language Code, take 2 (or 3)

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

Reply