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 m0rEaEi-00007pC; 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 5610; Sat, 03 Dec 94 23:03:04 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5605; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 23:03:02 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4550; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 21:59:42 +0100 Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 13:57:13 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: veridicality in grammar To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1186 Lines: 21 se cusku le ctuca be la goran ku fa di'e: >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. He appears to be dividing things into the same categories I am but using different terms. I particularly like the term "spontaneous" to distinguish French from Esperanto. I'm still uncomfortable with "natural", though, because lojban doesn't have anything more to do with Nature than C++ does! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~