On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:22:14 -0500, Logical Language Group
<lojbab@...> wrote:
>So to return to a definition of language.
>1. A language is a means of communication.
>2. To exclude computer languages, we have to restrict this to =
communications
>primarily between biological entities (if not actually restricting to =
humans).
>It is clear that computer languages have little in common with human =
languages.
Then it should be possible to distinguish computer languages from human
languages by purely formal definitions.
>3. In order to have commmunication BETWEEN, there must be at least two =
people
>who use the language - a speaker and a listener. Linguists tend to go =
much
>further, and say that this communication must be bidirectional, must be
>fluent, must be passed on across generations. Linguists exclude not =
merely
>artlangs from the concept of "language", but pidgins and creoles that =
may
>be spoken by large populations. I may disagree with that definition, =
but
>I had better understand it when trying to communicate with linguists.
Which linguists don't classify pidgins and creoles as languages? By that
definition, not only pidgins and creoles, but extinct languages like
Ancient Egyptian would be excluded from the category of languages. I'm
sorry, but I can't take this definition of language seriously, and I'm
surprised that linguists do.
>Given this definition, it seems clear that most conlangs are not =
languages
>and are not intended to be languages, in that their inventors never =
seriously
>expect them to be used by two or more people in communication, much less
>learned by a community.
But I don't accept this definition of a language, and I suspect that most
of us here don't.
>The success of MY effort depends on gaining the respect of linguists. =
That
>success is threatened by other people who contact linguists and talk =
about
>their short term creations as "languages".
So complain to THOSE people, not to US.