From cbmvax!uunet!PRC.Unisys.COM!dave Wed Aug 7 14:29:11 1991 Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!PRC.Unisys.COM!dave Message-Id: <9108071608.AA02868@gem.PRC.Unisys.COM> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 12:07:49 EDT To: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!lojbab Cc: conlang@buphy.bu.edu, lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com In-Reply-To: Bob LeChevalier's message of Wed, 7 Aug 91 03:54 EDT Subject: Re: Conlangs: Languages or "Art" Status: RO >What is a "real" language, and why is it impossible to invent one? Why >is a language without a community to develop it not a language? "When I use a word," said Humpty Dumpty, "It means exactly what I intend it to mean--nothing more, nothing less. It's merely a question of who is to be master, that's all." (Paraphrased from memory) Since Lojbab is devoting a significant fraction of his life to developing a new language, it is certainly worth considerable thought as to how the new language fits into the scheme of things. However, I am much less convinced that it is worth agonizing over whether the English word "language" has the right coverage to include Lojban. > Linguists do not accept as a 'language' worth study anything that does > not have a speech community, and are generally interested in the features > common to the community, as opposed to individual idiosyncrasies. Well, now, that just shows which tiny portion of the world linguists are interested in, doesn't it? IMHO this narrow-mindedness unnecessarily limits the extent to which linguists are likely to advance our knowledge of language. In Piet Hein's words: Our choicest plans have fallen through, Our airest castles tumbled over, Because of lines we neatly drew, And later neatly stumbled over. > A conlang invented by a single person inherently must be arbitrary in > assigning meanings. Whereas the correspondence of words to meanings in a natural language is not arbitrary? Aw, c'mon...acceptance and usage by a large number of people may render the correspondence of words to meanings more "comfortable," but it does not make it any less arbitrary. > To which we add one definition of "code": > > A system of symbols used in information processing in which letter, figures, > etc. are arbitrarily given certain meanings. > > Comparing this definition with 2. (and by implication 3.), an invented or > arbitrary system of communication is a code, rather than a language. The > distinction of 2. is that meaning is attributed, not assigned. Insofar as I understand your distinction between "language" and "code" (and I admit I don't understand it very well), Fortran, BASIC, Pascal, Lisp, and the like are computer codes, not computer languages? We should speak of "the code of mathematics"? Esperanto is a code, not a language? Sorry--you can make this distinction in the Lojban vocabulary, if you like, but (aside from a few linguists) that is not the way the words are used in English. Later you say > The most form of this position requires that a language have speaker and > listener 'thinking in the language', rather than translating everything > to English, in order for it to cease being a code. This is rather more in line with the way the terms are used in English, and moreover it has the advantage of making a clearer distinction between the two. It is, however, orthogonal to your other claim that a thing can only be called a language if it is in use by a large community. > This emphasis is our only real hope of making a conlang into a real > language inside of a generation. I hope you have specific, quantifiable goals as well as muzzy ones. Sorry if this response is a little on the testy side. I find it very irritating when people attach undue significance to arguments over the precise meaning of imprecise words, instead of concerning themselves with the real issues. Unfortunately, the only cure I know of for this particular debility is a dose of General Semantics, which Lojbab rejects. Lojbab (and others): if the basis for your rejection is an encounter with Korzybski's "code," I can hardly blame you--but please consider the "language" that others have made of it. Original sources are not always the best. One of my favorite books about General Semantics is "People in Quandries" by Wendell Johnson, though this has probably been out of print for decades, and you'd be fortunate indeed to find a copy; I don't know what might be currently available. [BTW, I do not in any sense consider myself an evangelist for General Semantics. Note that I haven't even read a book on the subject in years. However, if the tool works, use it. I don't go to the extreme of insisting that General Semantics be incorporated into Lojban, but I do feel that the language developers should be a little more cognizant of it.] > But it is rarely grammatical either because he takes 'poetic license' > or else just doesn't know the grammar for the construct he wishes to > use. At least he's made some attempt. It does not seem to me to be in the best interests of Lojban to dump on people who make mistakes, even if you feel they are being willfully stupid. I wish Lojban the best--really--so please consider that remarks like this, regardless of how justified they may be, do not entice people into giving the language a try. -- Really much more supportive than I sometimes sound, David Matuszek As another aside, I assume "conlang" is a portmanteau for "constructed language"?