Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rEaEH-00007QC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 12:01 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4447; Sat, 03 Dec 94 04:05:13 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4443; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 04:05:12 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6915; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 03:01:53 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 22:36:38 MET Reply-To: Goran Topic Sender: Lojban list From: Goran Topic Subject: Re: veridicality in grammar X-To: Lojban Listserv To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1852 Lines: 38 > "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