Message-Id: <199412020613.AA03137@nfs2.digex.net> From: Chris Bogart Date: Fri Dec 2 01:13:41 1994 Subject: Re: veridicality in grammar Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 2 01:13:41 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu >Perhaps I should put this a different way: if Lojban speakers turn out >to be *unable* to categorize sumti_tails with {lo} and {le} with as >little effort as I am categorizing the utterances of these paragraphs >for time and number, then the Lojban project will have failed to >develop a language (although it won't have failed as an experiment). More accurately, the project will have failed to develop a language easily-speakable by humans. Lojban *is* a language, as is C++, French, and the set {"a", "b", "aa", "bb", "aaa", "bbb", "aaaa", "bbbb", ...} I see the need for a different term. Some Esperantists like to argue that theirs is a "human language", but I don't think that's a useful distinction, since even C++ is designed to be written and read by humans, as well as read by computers. Some weird language that took conscious effort to use would be very human, because what other animal or machine is capable of such conscious effort? "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". We need a term that includes any language, whether evolved or planned, that obeys whatever constraints are wired into the part of the human brain that is best at learning langauge. If it turns out to be impossible to learn to categorize lo vs. le as effortlessly as one makes such distinctions in English, I don't think that means the system should be discarded and chalked up as merely insight into what can't be done. If it's a useful distinction, it may be something some people want to continue with, even if it always takes conscious effort. Just because evolved languages require no effort doesn't mean that languages which do require effort aren't useful! Again, consider C++. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~