Re: veridicality in grammar

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

> "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