I can agree with much of what Tom Wier says, if the terms
are so defined. But not with his general conclusions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <artabanos@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Conlanging and Natlangs
> AcadonBot wrote:
> >Yet IMO conlanging is going on at all times in the world>of natural
language. People coin new slang terms
> constantly,>and new inventions like "radar" and "modems" produce new>words
than may become quite common. All this may
> not>be serious stuff. Some is clearly for fun -- take "Jabberwocky">-- not
without its influence on the English
> language.>>Natural languages are "under construction"
constantly.>Moreover, the leading "natlangs" are all to some
> extent the>result of conscious efforts to define norms and establish>a
common vocabulary.
>
> There are a couple confusions here:
>
> (1) "Languages", as such, do not exist. When we say we are speaking
> English, what we are really saying is that the kinds of speech we are
using
> are similar enough to allow mutual intelligibility. In fact, we all speak
> slightly differently, with our own forms of language that themselves are
> different from one point in time to another.
You have redefined away the word "language." We could similarly
redefine away the "weather," species of animals, categories of things,
etc. "Books" as such do not exist.... etc.
> (2) "Construction" as applied to natural language is purely a metaphorical
> manner of speaking. The notion of "construction" implies conscious
> effort by people.
You are redefining "construction."
> The problem is that most of language is entirely
> unconscious.
Debatable. Also, I fear, reasoning along these lines
tend toward treating language as something mystic.
> No one can honestly claim that phonological sound
> changes are planned or premeditated, as if by government diktat,
> or that the complicated processes associated with, say,
grammaticalization,
> come about because people want them to.
Some English speakers use the [x] for "loch." Many do
not. Some have no [Z], yet grammarians and schools
sometimes do insert sounds into systems.
> The people experiencing them
> are not even aware that a change is taking place, much less are able to
> explain why they are happening. The fact is, extremely complicated
> systems like language can arise out of elements which in and of themselves
> or taking all separately do not have its properties.
But if human consciousness is natural, why can't it be
one of the "elements" involved.
> This is known as "emergent
> properties", and is one of the central tenets of modern biology. The
result of
> this is to say there is no inherent need to call "creation" what is in
fact merely
> spontaneous organization.
Language is NOT 100% spontaneous though.
> This is not, as you claimed some think, because
> languages "just grow", nor is there any qualified linguist I know of who
would
> say that. There are principles that underly that growth, based on the
> way in which humans communicate on the microlinguistic level, but, and
> this is the critical point, the patterns that the growth takes on at the
macro-
> linguistic level is entirely beyond the power of individuals to shape in
and of
> themselves.
Did Shakespere have no effect on spoken English?
Pushkin none on Russian? Dante none on Italian.
Were not there individuals involved in the shaping
of "baihua" into Standard Chinese?
> >An Emperor of Korea invented Hangul;
>
> You are speaking of writing systems, not abstract language systems.
Writing
> systems are, at best, metalinguistic phenomena, not linguistic ones.
I spoke of both spoken and written forms.
> >Hebrew came back from the dead -- reorganized by
> >planners.
> [...]
> > Kemel Ataturk
> >reorganized Turkish, replacing much grammar and
> >vocabulary and putting it all into a new alphabet.
> Again, there is this confusion about the meaning of "construction".
Nobody
> planned modern Hebrew, in the sense that what you hear today in the
streets
> of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv was consciously set down in law for all. Israel
may
> have an official academy, but that does not mean everyone or anyone
actually
> speaks "Hebrew", for the reason stated above: that it does not exist.
This I don't follow.
> The rules
> that official academies and longstanding cultural traditions standardized
as the
> "languages" we are taught in school are not used by anyone, even their
creators,
> since there are so many more things about speaking a human "language" than
> could ever be written down.
I agree in general. Not ALL the "rules" are ALWAYS used, but
this does not mean that there may well be an effect.
> This is, as Kurt Gödel showed, because for any
> formal system there must be an infinite number of axioms to describe all
the
> relationships within that system. He was talking about mathematics, but
the same
> rule applies to human languages.
>
> As for Kemal Atatürk, what he did could not be termed "constructed"
either,
> despite the fact that some of his plans did actually come into use. This
is because
> he influenced their conscious use of speech, but he did not have control
over
> any part of the language which is used unconsciously, which is most of it.
He led the government that ran the schools, etc. This is not
to say his ideas were all accepted, but those he favored were
pushed -- and had effect. On the spoken language.
> (The change of the writing system, as I've noted, was not a linguistic
change.)
I'm speaking of vocabulary and usage in general, spoken being
primary.
> >To imply that languages "just grow" is IMO very
> >nearsighted. Even the major "school grammars"
> >show the impact of the conscious efforts of
> >individuals on the direction of language.
>
> (See above)
>
> >Natural languages and subsidiary language forms are,
> >in fact, often the result of conscious efforts to fill a need.
> >And fun can be a need as well.
>
> But, as I've tried to show, this is precisely what they are *not*.
No "conscious effort to fill a need" in language?
Can't buy that.
> "Construction"
> implies conscious ability to shape the entire language in the way in which
we
> conlangers try to shape our languages.
No, it does not (in my opinion). It is often directed at one
very limited aspect. You are redefining "Construction" to
make it so sweeping as to be impossible.
> But, obviously, we cannot shape the
> entirety of the language,
No, not per se. There I tend to agree.
> and so to that extent, there is nothing "constructed"
> about human languages.
This does not follow, by my logic -- or IMO by the
normal use of the word "Construction."
> ======================================
> Tom Wier