From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Dec 2 17:57:33 1994 Message-Id: <199412022257.AA22457@nfs2.digex.net> Date: Fri Dec 2 17:57:33 1994 From: Goran Topic Subject: Re: veridicality in grammar Status: RO > "Natural language" is a useless term, I think, because it would seem to > exclude Esperanto, and include Norwegian, even though the former has almost > nothing in it that isn't borrowed from a European language, and the latter > has been deliberately engineered to bring together some disparate dialects > into "Nynorsk". According to one of my professors (a linguist, teaching computer sciences and informatics), the distinction between natural and artificial languages is as follows: A natural language is an independent system in self-organisation(*) with human entities. Q: Does it include Esperanto, then? Explicit A: YES, if humans use it for communication with other humans, which they do. An artificial language is designed for communication with a human-engineered apparatus(*), and is not independent, but manufactured with the apparatus (because there is no influence on the language by use, like with nat.langs.) Natural languages divide further into spontaneous and non-spontaneous ones. I guess you can tell which is which: English and Croatian are considered to be among former, while Lojban and Esperanto are in latter ones. (*) Sorry, but I do not know correct English terms for these concepts. I hope you understood me. Definitions for the terms I used (possibly incorrectly), and attempts to give lojbanic terms, which (I think) more concisely show what I'm trying to say: Self-organisation: two machines influencing and coordinating each other. {nu simganzu} Machine: dynamic system. (e.g. human, language...) {ci'erpoi} Apparatus: physical implementation of a machine (e.g. a specific human organism, a computer...) {minji} co'o mi'e. goran. -- Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi