During a discussion in sci.lang, a
couple of people said that the real
place where the discussion belonges
belonged was soc.culture.esperanto.
I have now done some looking at a
few threads in soc.culture.esperanto
and I note something that seems to be
relevant. In several cases, even when
the thread was begun by someone writ-
ing in English, responses to him were
in Esperanto. Therefore it seems to
be assumed that readers of SCE are
fluent enough in Esp’o to read it
on the fly. I am certainly not — I
do not even like Esperanto, so I am
not going to learn the language well
enough to develop that kind of fluen-
cy. I could probably figure out an
Esperanto article, by constant refer-
ence to a dictionary, but with more
difficulty than I could an article
in German or French.
When the subject matter was ALs in
general, nobody doubted that sci.lang
and not SCE was appropriate, and the
only point at dispute was where posts
discussing the pros and cons of Esp’o
among artificial languages in general
belong.
I cannot see them going in SCE be-
cause that puts those of us whose
fluency in Esp’o is not great at a
disadvantage. Besides, the actual
point was that, as far as I am con-
cerned, Esp’o is not THE world lang-
uage, as some Esp’ists would have it,
but only one among many — conceding
that it may be in 1991 the biggest in
number of speakers, but it may not be
any more likely to be the winner than
Volapuek was, even though, before the
1887 invention of Esp’o, it had that
"largest" title.
Bruce R. Gilson
ez-as…@cup.portal.com
or
9…@mneuxg.uucp
Replies in English, please. Replies
in Esperanto will be ignored. Replies
in Interlingua, Ido, Intal, Occiden-
tal, or other ALs I know or can fig-
ure out will be read eventually, but
not immediately.
30
Nov
Which newsgroup to post in?
buy metal first aid kit now .
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)
24 Responses to “Which newsgroup to post in?”
Place your comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In article <39…@cup.portal.com>, EZ-as…@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert
Gilson) writes:
> When the subject matter was ALs in
> general, nobody doubted that sci.lang
> and not SCE was appropriate, and the
> only point at dispute was where posts
> discussing the pros and cons of Esp’o
> among artificial languages in general
> belong.
> Bruce R. Gilson
> ez-as…@cup.portal.com
I believe a number of people in this group would agree that there is
nothing particularly scientific about ALs, and so it is really doubtful that
discussions of them do belong here. If we want the `sci’ vs. `alt’ or `soc’
distinction to remain meaningful, we should find an alternative forum for
these threads. Arguing over the use of `kill’ commands just confuses the
issue.
— David Pautler
When to start up a new newsgroup is a perennially controverted question
on Usenet. Sometimes it has more to do with personalities and power
than anything else. In this case, we have a fairly diverse group of
people who are interested in artificial languages, and a much larger
group who aren’t even faintly interested. That’s my guess concerning
sci.lang. A significant number of the AL discussions are not about —
and certainly not in — Esperanto. On the face of it, this suggests
that it might be appropriate to start sci.lang.artificial. I realize
that the "sci" prefix is sometimes an article of symbolic capital in
itself, but I don’t see any reason to quarrel over it in this case.
Is it time to poll for a new group?
–
Todd Moody * tmo…@sjuphil.sju.edu
"In what furnace was thy brain?" – William Blake
In article <39…@cup.portal.com> EZ-as…@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert Gilson) writes:
>During a discussion in sci.lang, a
>couple of people said that the real
>place where the discussion belonges
>belonged was soc.culture.esperanto.
Right. I think, we can discuss Esperanto here in any language,
including Esperanto. Using Esperanto in sci.lang could be unreasonable,
but excluding Esperanto topics from there seems unfair.
>In several cases, even when
>the thread was begun by someone writ-
>ing in English, responses to him were
>in Esperanto.
Why not?
After all, this is the way we make Esperanto alive here. (You can
always ask for translation.) And didn’t you think of someone, who (like myself)
may read English well, but may be more comfortable in replying in Esperanto?
>I do not even like Esperanto, so I am
>not going to learn the language well
>enough to develop that kind of fluen-
>cy.
Why?
>Esp’o is not THE world lang-
>uage
Wrong.
(How do YOU define what a world language is?)
–
Leszek Kordylewski, University of Chicago
K…@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
In article <1…@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> paut…@ils.nwu.edu writes:
>…there is
>nothing particularly scientific about ALs…
What a shame! I have always believed that science could deal with any problem.
Why ALs are no good? Are we back in the dark ages…?
Les Kordylewski, Ph.D.
K…@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
–
Leszek Kordylewski, University of Chicago
K…@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
In sci.lang EZ-as…@cup.portal.com
writes
[about posting in Esp-o in s.c.e]
>I cannot see them going in SCE be-
>cause that puts those of us whose
>fluency in Esp’o is not great at a
>disadvantage.
Of course, if we post in English,
that puts 35% of the readers at a
disadvantage because English is
not their first language. Whatever
language is used, someone will be
at a disadvantage. Now, if only
there was some kind of world
language, which everyone spoke…
(Hope the column width is OK…)
-Duncan
–
Duncan Thomson, hopeful romantic, idealist… cnb…@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Signal Processing Division, Dept of Electric and Electronic Engineering,
University of Strathclyde, 204 George Street, Glasgow G1 1XW, UK. *OR*
85 Durward Avenue, Glasgow G41 3UG, UK. Lernu Esperanton!
In article <1991Mar11.183116.15…@midway.uchicago.edu>,
k…@quads.uchicago.edu (leszek kordylewski) writes:
> In article <1…@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> paut…@ils.nwu.edu writes:
> >…there is
> >nothing particularly scientific about ALs…
> What a shame! I have always believed that science could deal with any
problem.
> Why ALs are no good? Are we back in the dark ages…?
> Les Kordylewski, Ph.D.
> K…@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
I did not say that ALs have no good use. I said there’s nothing
particularly interesting about them (from a scientific viewpoint – this is
a `sci’ group) *because* they’re artificial. Some interesting sociological
behaviors may appear if these languages come into widespread use, perhaps
even some interesting linguistic phenomena if enough spontaneous innovation
occurs (although AL enthusiasts seem to want to prevent this). But there
certainly doesn’t appear to be anything interesting about them now, because
AL enthusiasts in this group prefer to argue over which of several (truly
arbitrary) conventions are "better".
I am willing to admit I am wrong about all this if some of you AL
enthusiasts can give the rest of us some good reasons why ALs *are*
scientifically interesting.
— David Pautler
[I dropped soc.culture.esperanto from the Newsgroups: line, this is
a sci.lang issue]
paut…@ils.nwu.edu (david pautler) writes:
> I did not say that ALs have no good use. I said there’s nothing
>particularly interesting about them (from a scientific viewpoint – this is
>a `sci’ group) *because* they’re artificial.
I take it you don’t believe in "computer science" either, because computers
are artificial.
I don’t see why the mere fact that something is the product of human
inventiveness makes it unsuitable for scientific study.
Major
+————————————————–+————————+
| Domain: ma…@pta.oz.au | Phone: + 61 9 474-2600 |
| UUCP: {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!pta.oz.au!major | Fax: + 61 9 474-1221 |
| Mail: Box T1680 GPO, Perth WA 6001, Australia | |
+————————————————–+————————+
The meek shall inherit the earth: the rest of us will escape to the stars!
"De gustibus non est disputandum" – When someone admits he doesn’t like
Esperanto, it is certainly a hopeless task to convince him about any values
of the subject. The more hopeless it may be to explain to such a person that
it is well worth a scientific approach. Likes and dislikes should not be the
issue here. Let’s try to be objective.
Esperanto is the only artificial language which survived more than 100 years
and is doing well. It remains alive thanks to its numerous users spread
in the world. This is true, no matter if you know of it or not, no matter if
you like it or not. No matter if some believe, that there are other artificial
languages that could compete with Esperanto. Esperanto is the one and only.
Life has proven it, not arbitrary arguments.
Based on my long standing acquaintance with it and on my practical,
world-wide use of Esperanto, I consider it a UNIQUE PHENOMENON, which
deserves much more attention of the professionals than it really received
in the past.
Why does it really remain alive? Why didn’t it die? Why there are more and
more people who are fond of it and who find it useful for them? There must
be something in it, that the other international-language-projects didn’t
have. These are some samples of the problems that science hasn’t yet given
us the answers to. Not enough?
Here are some more: Why in certain countries, like Bulgaria or China, the
frequency of esperantists is greater than in the other countries, like USA
or India? Why Esperanto finds more adepts in California than in the Midwest?
Perhaps we could learn something about California, that we don’t know yet,
if we studied this question. What is the impact of Esperanto knowledge on
one’s foreign language learning ability? Perhaps we could find the clue to
the "foreign language block" of the Americans? Is the Esperanto used by a
Chinese different from that used by a Pole? Will it tell us something about
the Chinese, or the Poles, that we don’t know yet? Does Shakespeare sound
better in English or in Esperanto? The list of questions to study could be
long…
I think, Esperanto-problems should be investigated more extensively. I share
this view with some others who have already applied the scientific method to
study Esperanto topics. See, e.g.,:
Klaus Schubert (Ed.), Interlinguistics, Aspects of the science of planned
languages, Trends in Linguistics, studies and monographs, #42, Mouton
de Gruyter, Berlin, N.Y., 1989
Ulrich Lins, Die Gef"arlische Sprache, Bleicher Verlag, 1988
S.N. Kuznietsov, Teoreticheskoe osnovy interlingvistiki, Izdatelstvo
Universiteta Druzhby Narodov, Mockba, 1987
Humphrey Tonkin, Esperanto and international language problems: a research
bibliography (4th ed.), 45 p., Washington, 1977
Ivo Lapenna, Esperanto en perspektivo, UEA, London Rotterdam, 1974
Mario Pei, One language for the world, Devin Adair, New York, 1958
One can’t easily deny that a trans-national, multi-generation population of
Esperanto users provide us with a complex of original cultural, linguistic,
literary, sociological and psychological issues, well worth studying. On the
other hand, despite it’s fascinating features, Esperanto is (almost) totally
neglected by linguists, sociolinguists, psycholinguists, and all other
specialists who could be potentially interested in investigating the problems
related to Esperanto.
It is regrettable, that Esperanto hasn’t had good sponsors yet, to better
promote it among influential, recognized specialists. It remains, as a
marginal problem, almost exclusively in the hands of amateurs (who, however,
are aware of what kind of treasure it represents).
Meanwhile, the experts do not pay much attention to it, being to busy with
other topics that involve them more. In Esperanto they don’t find "anything
particularly scientific", nor they like it. This is so because their
knowledge of the subject is simply inadequate and they are prejudiced. This
is the reason why Esperanto is not widely studied yet.
Not that, which is interesting, is interesting, but that, which is called
interesting. Not that, which is important, is important, but that, which is
called important. And it is extremely crucial WHO calls it interesting and
important.
When an American singer Bob Vinton began to sing in Polish, one suddenly
realized that in the USA there was a significant Polish minority, which,
at the best, was merely the subject of the "Polish jokes" before. If Madonna
had only had a hit in Esperanto, the world could have noticed it.
To be discovered, Esperanto still awaits its Copernicuses, Darwins
or Einsteins…
–
Leszek Kordylewski, University of Chicago
K…@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
In article <1991Mar13.224529.20…@midway.uchicago.edu> k…@quads.uchicago.edu (leszek kordylewski) writes:
>"De gustibus non est disputandum" (the rest deleted)
I apologise for not including the lines of the previous articles by Bruce
Robert Gil and David Pautler, to which I refer in my article above.
I erased them by mistake when posting the article. Sorry for the error.
(Just to remind you: Bruce confessed he didn’t like Esperanto and David
asked for good reasons to investigate ALs, since, according to him, what
is artificial cannot be interesting scientifically).
My point is that the artificial Esperanto provides lots of topics to study,
even if some dislike it.
—
Leszek Kordylewski, University of Chicago
K…@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <5…@pta.oz.au>, ma…@pta.oz.au (Major) writes:
> [I dropped soc.culture.esperanto from the Newsgroups: line, this is
> a sci.lang issue]
> paut…@ils.nwu.edu (david pautler) writes:
> > I did not say that ALs have no good use. I said there’s nothing
> >particularly interesting about them (from a scientific viewpoint – this is
> >a `sci’ group) *because* they’re artificial.
> I take it you don’t believe in "computer science" either, because computers
> are artificial.
> I don’t see why the mere fact that something is the product of human
> inventiveness makes it unsuitable for scientific study.
> Major
Sigh. I knew this would happen.
Could we agree that intricate systems that do not owe their complexity
to human design (like the domains of mathematics, biology, linguistics, etc.)
have a certain kind of interestingness easily distinguished from the kind of
interestingness we find in systems that are designed? It seems to me that
the latter kind has more to do with engineering. I did write in the earlier
posting that there might be something interesting about ALs to sociologists,
but I do not believe there is anything about them that would be interesting
to linguists, and *that* is the particular scientific viewpoint I meant –
the linguistic viewpoint.
I asked for some reasons why ALs should be interesting in that sense in
an attempt to provoke some reasoned discussion. My beliefs about whether or
not computer science is a science (based entirely on the fact that "science"
appears in the name) are irrelevant, since naming a church "Christian Science"
doesn’t necessarily make it scientific (no offense to believers intended).
Philosophical discussions of what constitutes a science are not what I’m
after. I *would* like to see endless AL squabbles moved elsewhere, however,
simply because they aren’t appropriate here.
— David Pautler
In article <1991Mar13.224529.20…@midway.uchicago.edu>,
k…@quads.uchicago.edu (leszek kordylewski) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "De gustibus non est disputandum" – When someone admits he doesn’t like
> Esperanto, it is certainly a hopeless task to convince him about any values
> of the subject. The more hopeless it may be to explain to such a person that
> it is well worth a scientific approach. Likes and dislikes should not be the
> issue here. Let’s try to be objective.
> Esperanto is the one and only. Life has proven it, not arbitrary arguments.
> Why does it really remain alive? Why didn’t it die? Why there are more and
> more people who are fond of it and who find it useful for them? There must
> be something in it, that the other international-language-projects didn’t
> have. These are some samples of the problems that science hasn’t yet given
> us the answers to. Not enough?
> Perhaps we could find the clue to
> the "foreign language block" of the Americans? Is the Esperanto used by a
> Chinese different from that used by a Pole? Will it tell us something about
> the Chinese, or the Poles, that we don’t know yet? Does Shakespeare sound
> better in English or in Esperanto? The list of questions to study could be
> long…
> One can’t easily deny that a trans-national, multi-generation population of
> Esperanto users provide us with a complex of original cultural, linguistic,
> literary, sociological and psychological issues, well worth studying. On the
> other hand, despite it’s fascinating features, Esperanto is (almost) totally
> neglected by linguists, sociolinguists, psycholinguists, and all other
> specialists who could be potentially interested in investigating the
problems
> related to Esperanto.
> Leszek Kordylewski, University of Chicago
I have responded to personal attacks like this with all the reserve and
politeness I could muster up until now, but I just can’t sit here and eat this
garbage anymore. Postulating a "foreign language block" for Americans is
irresponsible and small-minded. Wondering if the works of literary greats
would be improved by translation reveals that you don’t understand what
literature is. And saying that linguists have avoided ALs for some
ideological reason, and that they aren’t aware of what you believe ALs have
to offer them, does them a disservice.
I asked for some scientific reasons why ALs should be interesting.
You give a list of some references, but use up bandwidth to make irrelevant
claims about how successful Esperanto has been. So what. Tell me what the
references say. The durability and extent of various ALs is not the topic.
Whatever my feelings about ALs had been originally, they certainly have not
been bolstered by the willingness of Espists and AL enthusiasts in general
to purposely misconstrue what I am trying to communicate to them.
Now, can we return to a semblance of net etiquette?
— David Pautler
In article <1991Mar13.224529.20…@midway.uchicago.edu>,
k…@quads.uchicago.edu (leszek kordylewski) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "De gustibus non est disputandum" – When someone admits he doesn’t like
> Esperanto, it is certainly a hopeless task to convince him about any
values
> of the subject. The more hopeless it may be to explain to such a person
that
> it is well worth a scientific approach. Likes and dislikes should not be
the
> issue here. Let’s try to be objective.
> Esperanto is the only artificial language which survived more than 100
years
> and is doing well. It remains alive thanks to its numerous users spread
> in the world. This is true, no matter if you know of it or not, no
matter if
> you like it or not. No matter if some believe, that there are other
artificial
> languages that could compete with Esperanto. Esperanto is the one and
only.
> Life has proven it, not arbitrary arguments.
> Based on my long standing acquaintance with it and on my practical,
> world-wide use of Esperanto, I consider it a UNIQUE PHENOMENON, which
> deserves much more attention of the professionals than it really
received
> in the past.
> Why does it really remain alive? Why didn’t it die? Why there are more
and
> more people who are fond of it and who find it useful for them? There
must
> be something in it, that the other international-language-projects
didn’t
> have…. [blah blah blah]
This hardly sounds like an argument for why artificial languages are
scientific. Instead this rings of religious fervor. In fact let’s see
what this sounds like with a few modifications. The modifications will be
noted by brackets.
"De gustibus non est disputandum" – When someone admits he doesn’t like
[THE BIBLE], it is certainly a hopeless task to convince him about any
values of the subject. The more hopeless it may be to explain to such a person
that it is well worth a scientific approach. Likes and dislikes should not be
the issue here. Let’s try to be objective.
[THE BIBLE] is [ONE OF] the only [SACRED TEXTS] which survived more than
[1000] years and is doing well. It remains alive thanks to its numerous users spread in the world. This is true, no matter if you know of it or not, no matter if you like it or not. No matter if some believe, that there are other
[SACRED TEXTS] that could compete with [THE BIBLE]. [THE BIBLE] is the one
and only. Life has proven it, not arbitrary arguments.
Based on my long standing acquaintance with it and on my practical,
world-wide use of [THE BIBLE], I consider it a UNIQUE PHENOMENON, which
deserves much more attention of the professionals than it really received
in the past.
Why does it really remain alive? Why didn’t it die? Why there are more
and more people who are fond of it and who find it useful for them? There
must be something in it, that the other [SACRED TEXTS]-projects didn’t
have…"
Andrew Fano
Look. I think people are getting a bit carried away here. Even with my
own prejudices in favor of Esperanto, I can’t agree with Leszek Kordylewski
that E-o is "the one and only." E-o is an interesting experiment which,
while not wildly successful, is far more successful than any other of its
kind (my favorite euphemism is that it is "the international language which
is currently failing the least.") Because of that, I think it is worthy of
discussion. It might be nice if more people accepted it, but I know
there’s no way that I could really convince most non-Esperantists, so I
don’t go proselytizing.
But to important matters. If you say that AL’s have no culture or society
attached (please, no flames. If you disagree, then consider I’m playing
devil’s advocate), are they therefore out of place in sci.lang? Certainly
not! I’m not sure of the exact charter of this group, but it’s probably
safe to say that we here are concerned with discussing linguistics as a
scientific discipline. Now, that doesn’t mean we must speak in broad terms
about all languages or about linguistics only in general, but rather it
means that any discussion of language–even an artificial language–is
valid fodder for sci.lang. Because no culture developed a language, is it
therefore inherently less interesting or less linguistic? If sci.lang
depends solely on cultural aspects, maybe it should be soc.lang or
something. No, I think that discussions of AL’s certainly belong here.
Whether they belong on soc.culture.esperanto (when not dealing with
esperanto) is another question. I suspect that most s.c.e readers would
like them to be there, so I guess that’s okay.
People have been talking about a sci.lang.artificial for these discussions.
Whether or not that group is worth having, doesn’t that fact that it would
be a split-off from here imply that before such a split-off, sci.lang had
to include AL discussions? Where else would they go?
Anyway, there’s my cent and a half.
~mark
o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o N2KOT
Mark E. Shoulson: shoul…@husc9.harvard.edu
k…@quads.uchicago.edu (leszek kordylewski) wrote:
> Esperanto is the only artificial language which survived more than 100
> years and is doing well.
I find it incredible that NONE of the artificial language buffs here have
even *once* acknowledged the existence of Sign (the two major forms of
which I know about are the French/American one and British Sign Language).
These must have a longer history, more users, far more actual use, and
incomparably more practical usefulness than any of the Esperanto/Loglan/
Interlingua/Lincos bunch.
There’s an article in New Scientist a couple of months ago that gives a few
pointers to linguistic research on this; also, there’s a new book by Oliver
Sacks which gives (in his usual rather overwrought style) some interesting
ideas about the psycholinguistics of Sign use.
(Surely Sanskrit, Ottoman, Swahili and Pidgin all lasted more than 100
years, and the latter two are still doing OK? They’re just as artificial
as the ones named above).
–
— Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: j…@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: j…@glasgow.uucp
I would be happy to second Todd
Moody’s proposal of a separate
sci.lang.artificial group
(provided that Portal carries it so
I don’t lose access!)
Bruce R. Gilson
ez-as…@cup.portal.com
or
9…@mneuxg.uucp
Leszek Kordylewski asks "why" i will
not learn Esperanto well enough to
read a discussion in Esperanto with
great fluency.
My answer: The effort is better spent
learning other things that are more
useful. I can reach more people in
German or even Hebrew than I could in
Esperanto, and since I am advocating
the use of other languages than Esp’o
if I succeed in convincing enough
people I will have even less use for
Esperanto!
Bruce R. Gilson
ez-as…@cup.portal.com
or
9…@mneuxg.uucp
Leszek Kordylewski says that Esperant
is the only AL that is still alive at
100 years of age. That is so, possib-
ly, simply because its rivals are not
yet 100 years old! Actually I under-
stand that (as of a few years ago)
there were yet some Volapuekists
around, so even that is not correct.
I have no trouble with the idea of
people studying Esperanto as a social
phenomenon — and I would like to add
the further question: Why do some
people insist that Esperanto, and
ONLY Esperanto, will serve as an in-
terlanguage, while others (including
myself) hold that there is still time
to improve or even replace it. Is
there a difference between these two
types of people?
Bruce R. Gilson
9…@mneuxg.uucp
or
ez-as…@cup.portal.com
To David Pautler:
I think that studying artificial
languages as languages does have some
scientific purposes.
First of all, linguists such as
Greenberg have claimed there were a
number of linguistic universals. So
one question is, can a language that
violates some of these universals
attract speakers?
Another point is a study of ease of
learning — the irregularities of
NLs cause difficulties in learning.
Can a totally regular language be
learned faster to a given level of
fluency?
Artificial languages constitute more
controlled experiments than studies
of the ease of learning, say, German
vs. French ever could — German noun
morphology is more complex than
French, but French verb morphology
is more so than German. It is in
areas like these (and others that
could be brought up) that linguistic
science can look at ALs.
Bruce R. Gilson
9…@mneuxg.uucp
or
ez-as…@cup.portal.com
(Due to posting problems, is this article posted separately
to soc.culture.esperanto instead of cross-posted.)
Also sprach T. Moody (tmo…@sjuphil.UUCP):
>On the face of it, this suggests
>that it might be appropriate to start sci.lang.artificial. I realize
>that the "sci" prefix is sometimes an article of symbolic capital in
>itself, but I don’t see any reason to quarrel over it in this case.
>Is it time to poll for a new group?
Yes, I think so. Being familiar with the routines for group
creation, I could post a request for discussion to
news.announce.newgroups immediately to get the ball rolling,
call for votes some weeks later, and in 6-8 weeks from now
sci.lang.artificial could be up and running.
However, I sincerely hope that someone else can take this
job, preferably someone who is interested in artificial
language. I only want s.l.artificial to be created to get
the stuff out of sci.lang because it doesn’t interest me at
all.
Of course it could be disputed whether AL is a sciencific
topic, but any other name would probably prompt further AL
postings in sci.lang from people who think it is scientific.
If anyone is willing to take the votes for a s.l.artificial,
but is unfamilliar with the procedures, feel free to contact
me.
—
Erland Sommarskog – ENEA Data, Stockholm – som…@enea.se
In article <40…@cup.portal.com>, EZ-as…@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert Gilson)
says:
>I think that studying artificial
>languages as languages does have some
>scientific purposes.
>First of all, linguists such as
>Greenberg have claimed there were a
>number of linguistic universals. So
>one question is, can a language that
>violates some of these universals
>attract speakers?
You assume without argument that ALs violate linguistic universals.
However, unless that issue is established first, any discussion of
the second question
(i.e. whether such languages can attract speakers) is uninteresting from
a theoretical point of view. From a practical point of view, not much
discussion seems in order, as the question is straightforwardly answered
in the affirmative, i.e. there *are* speakers of ALs.
Anyway, the discussions on Als in sci.lang do not
seem to me to be informed by a great concern for the theoretical point
you raise.
>Another point is a study of ease of
>learning — the irregularities of
>NLs cause difficulties in learning.
>Can a totally regular language be
>learned faster to a given level of
>fluency?
Again, discussion in sci.lang is notoriously not about this kind
of topic (putting aside the huge amounts of largely irrelevant
"anecdotal evidence", of which I don’t need another sample in
reply, thank you).
–Guido
In article <2…@enea.se> som…@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Also sprach T. Moody (tmo…@sjuphil.UUCP):
>>On the face of it, this suggests
>>that it might be appropriate to start sci.lang.artificial. I realize
>>that the "sci" prefix is sometimes an article of symbolic capital in
>>itself, but I don’t see any reason to quarrel over it in this case.
>>Is it time to poll for a new group?
[ ...stuff deleted... about how Erland "could post a[n RFD] to
[ "news.announce.newgroups" but how he
[ "sincerely hope[s] that someone else can take this job…"
>I only want s.l.artificial to be created to get
>the stuff out of sci.lang because it doesn’t interest me at
>all.
I can sympathize with you, but just because the traffic on E-o, Ido, et
al. doesn’t interest you as the casual reader doesn’t suggest that other
casual readers are rebuffed by it. As a lay linguist, I find even the
AL material fascinating. To condemn it from the discussion would be
tantamount to forbidding any discussion on specific languages or
language groups. Most of us lay readers are not up to snuff when it
comes to discussing thoroughly theoretical constructions, like SOV
question inversions or what have you. I would find the loss of ALs to
sci.lang.artificial, itself, an artificial distinction that could only
limit the utility of the group.
paut…@ils.nwu.edu (david pautler) writes:
> I did not say that ALs have no good use. I said there’s nothing
>particularly interesting about them (from a scientific viewpoint – this is
>a `sci’ group) *because* they’re artificial.
I’ll keep this very short. I don’t believe you can really
"understand" something if you remain as an observor. You have to get
in and try to do it yourself.
In this specific case, I think you can learn more by attempting to
construct a workable (pseudo-) natural language than you can by just
armchair philosophizing about existing languages.
Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
In article <16…@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> d…@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes:
I’ll keep this very short. I don’t believe you can really
"understand" something if you remain as an observor. You have to get
in and try to do it yourself.
In this specific case, I think you can learn more by attempting to
construct a workable (pseudo-) natural language than you can by just
armchair philosophizing about existing languages.
Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
I take “armchair philosophizing” to mean scientific analysis of
natural language. If so, you’re simply wrong.
If 20th century science has taught anything, it is the complexity and
the subtlity of the position of the “observer”. This is especially
true of natural language; every human learns it, but that knowledge is
completely outside the conscious control of people. No artificial
language has taken syntactic theory into account; their designers only
used their conscious knowledge of language. Therefore, their designers
either did not specify what their language’s properties were, or they
used a combination of several languages — with doubtful possibilities
for the acquisition of that mixture.
For instance, what tells a learner of Esperanto about the language’s
anaphora binding, or proper government, or X’ properties, _et cetera_?
Presumably, nothing does, and the learner must import those features
from their native language to the artificial one. This is the origin
of the comments about the speakers of artificial languages speaking a
`pidgin’, and I agree with that analysis.
Anyone can design an ‘workable’ artificial language; I am sure many
readers of sci.lang did just that as teenagers. However, few of them,
using as they do the model of textbooks, consider the features of
interest to linguists; also they need not pass the one crucial test of
a natural language — that it be acquired by a child as a first
language. The structure of natural languages is not accidental, and
that structure must be narrowly constrained in ways we are only
beginning to characterize so that the acquisition and use of natural
language is possible at all.
It is possible that artificial languages cound be used for linguistic
investigation, but it is impossible to use them as “substitute
simplified syntaxes” until a complete knowledge of syntax can be
applied to the construction of artificial languages — which has not
happened yet, and will not happen for a long time.
However, I will not deny that artificial languages may contain
material of interest to science, especially sociology. If the
descriptions on sci.lang of the Esperanto-Ido controversy are
accurate, to abnormal psychology are well
John O’Neil
Organlegger
"From head to toe, you know where to go."
Spleens a specialty.
In article <1991Mar14.151632.27…@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> j…@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
<k…@quads.uchicago.edu (leszek kordylewski) wrote:
<< Esperanto is the only artificial language which survived more than 100
<< years and is doing well.
<
<I find it incredible that NONE of the artificial language buffs here have
<even *once* acknowledged the existence of Sign (the two major forms of
<which I know about are the French/American one and British Sign Language).
<These must have a longer history, more users, far more actual use, and
<incomparably more practical usefulness than any of the Esperanto/Loglan/
<Interlingua/Lincos bunch.
Yes, they do. ASL is the fourth most widely "spoken" language in the US.
But I don’t see what makes it "artificial".
–Scott
–
Scott Horne …!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
ho…@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ
Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.