From owner-conlang@diku.dk Tue Jan 16 19:48:37 1996 Received: from odin.diku.dk (root@odin.diku.dk [130.225.96.221]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id TAA03793 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 19:48:34 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by odin.diku.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13596 for conlang-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:50:39 +0100 Received: from mlfire.ml.com (mlfire.ml.com [192.246.100.1]) by odin.diku.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA13584 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:50:32 +0100 Received: from commpost.ml.com ([146.125.4.24]) by mlfire.ml.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA19196 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 17:51:56 -0500 Received: from beastie.lonnds.ml.com ([192.9.201.69]) by commpost.ml.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA18788 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 17:51:48 -0500 Received: from gstldnsrv2.lonnds.ml.com by beastie.lonnds.ml.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17482; Tue, 16 Jan 96 22:50:28 GMT Received: from gstldn16.merrill by gstldnsrv2.lonnds.ml.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA27161; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:50:25 GMT Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:50:25 GMT From: pardoej@lonnds.ml.com (Julian Pardoe LADS LDN X1428) Message-Id: <9601162250.AA27161@gstldnsrv2.lonnds.ml.com> To: conlang@diku.dk Subject: Re: CONLANG: Esperanto / Why? Sender: owner-conlang@diku.dk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pardoej@lonnds.ml.com (Julian Pardoe LADS LDN X1428) Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1949 > Quoth Mr. Grimley-Evans: > > >> Nonsense. No change was possible after the Fundamento was adopted in 1905, > >> except if it was so peripheral that it could not be considered a change. > >> Esperanto died in 1905, as far as being a real language. > > >Presumably that last word should read "conlang" rather than > >"language". Linguists generally agree that Esperanto became more of a > >"real" language with the growth of a community using Esperanto, > >particularly after the death of Zamenhof. > > No, I meant "language." Most linguists would sat that no language is real > if its grammar is not determined by its speakers, but rather by a nearly > 90-year-old document that must be obeyed. I'm sorry but this is getting tedious. If you think that Esperanto "as she is spoke" is determined by "a 90-year-old document" (or even the Akademio) rather than by its speakers you don't know much. Try going to an IJK or an IS. But, of course Esperanto isn't a living "language" ... so it's non-existent speakers can't have any control over it can they! And as for what most linguists would say, where does that leave Sanskrit? Sanskrit went through its golden age at a time when it was no longer anyone's mother tongue. Like Latin in the Middle Ages it was a language learned by an educated minority. It's "rules" were codified in grammars, of which the most famous is Panini's. Sounds like classical Sanskrit wasn't a real language -- rather a shame for all those composing literary and religious works in it, I'd say. ...and a shame for all those who developed modern linguistics on the basis of their studies of Sanskrit. Whoops! Shock horror tradegy! Linguists discover that the basis of their studies isn't real and vanish in a puff of smoke. -- julian (I've lost my patience with Phil Hunt; who's next?) Pardoe -- (Too many ciders and a row with my boyfriend! That's the explanation.)