my Methos muse wanted to reply...
> probably arguing that anything non-human *can't* be language. But even
> within the realm of humanity there are real and possible examples that
> defy your models. Try exploring Silbo, a language that is entirely
> whistled.
yeah...and what about that all-gargle language? whoops, I wiped that out a
few millenia ago. sorry.
> You won't find those phones on the IPA. Ever paused to think
> about what human language might be like in 10 billion years?
plenty of times. here's the answer:
*//-=9790jkn [[==-]]-=-=;
and that's just the [polite addressing to you from singular self me].
> that if one of Chomsky's finite state machines started
> generating "grammatically correct" sentences today that humans then
> would't recognize them as such. The very fact that one can create a
> language means that one can create a language outside one of your beloved
> models.
unless one creates within the model.
just because one has all-terrain vehicles does not make road maps useless.
> not be placed under arrest and the planets will even remain in the
> heavens.
no they won't; I'll have them for lunch.
> The whole universe does not have to be variations of noun-and-verb-based
> SVO "grammatical"sentences.
prove it.
> specifically framed in your pet models. And remember, there are such
> things as *NEW* models and ideas.
yes? and how do you explain new models? (without, that is, using words and
grammatical order from the previous models?).
> Stop asking for their permission to construct and describe language unless
> you really want it. Remember, anyone who uses language *IS* an expert in
> language.
nhoooshoyu sdthowey hwoth khwoet k?
> language without the old-man-stink of the popular models.
hey! as a 5,000-year-old man, I resent that remark.
sincerely,
Methos.
> Sorry about any aftermath.
>
> T. Pehrson
>