Re: [OT, Only Semi-Serious,
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Monday, May 13, 2002, 6:21|
Raymond Brown wrote:
>At 6:41 pm +0000 12/5/02, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> >Raymond Brown wrote:
> >>Other? In over 50 years of looking, I've yet to discover an auxlang
> >>is ambiguity-free, homonym-free and completely regular.
> >Well, I'm no IAL typologist, but I'm inclined to believe that an
> >ambiguity-free, homonym-free and completely regular language is possible
> >(altho' probably practically impossible to construct).
>You appear to contradict yourself. If such a language is practically
>impossible to construct, how can such a language be possible? I'm puzzled.
There's a difference between strictly impossible and practically impossible.
Something may be so hard to achieve that the chance of anybody succeeding
wihtin the life-time of the universe is neglible, without it being actually
> >If I've understood
> >Javier c'rrectly, Futurese aims at eliminating ambiguity, homonymy and
>Laudable aims, and I have no quarrel with someone aiming at such goals.
>What I would consider hubris, however, would be a claim by someone that
>s/he was certainly going to achieve all three.
I agree completely.
> >But this is rather beside the point; if the level of irregularity etc
> >to rise from zero or from just above zero isn't a big difference.
>I'm not sure what you're saying here. Auxlangs I've come across seem to
>have degrees of irregularity comparable to that found in natlang pidgins &
My point was that an auxlang that really becomes accepted and used as in
everyday situations will presumeably accrete irregularities until it reaches
some kind of equilibrium where it's losing irregularities (thru analogy etc)
at roughly the same rate it acquires them. Obviously emperical data is in
short supply ...
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.