Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

A Bit of a Flame (commented on by Methos)

From:Rodlox <rodlox@...>
Date:Monday, November 15, 2004, 17:52
 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 >