Re: veridicality in grammar

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

> 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!

I would have agreed with you a month ago, but then I started thinking
about it some more and got this:

It is natural to communicate with another human. Right? It is not really
natural to talk to sylicon. Right? Now, we made up Esperanto, we
engineered Lojban... What do you think, that English was brought to
us? Or that we are born to it? Species knowledge? Nope. It was INVENTED
at one stage of our intellectual evolution. We made lojban because it
was needed. We had reasons. So did cavemen. The only difference was
that we did it FASTER. The difference between lojban and C++ is that

1) humans cannot communicate in C++, but can in lojban and English;
2) C++ is intended for one-way communication only;
3) computers can't change language; humans can.

That means: natlangs evolve, artificial langs are UPGRADED.
And if you think you can say that loglan/lojban is also upgraded and
does not evolve, think again about what the members of this list are doing.
lojbab, Cowan, xorxes, pc, And, djer and others constantly propose new ways
of looking at things. Look at all the debates over what does *exactly*
this or that word mean. But you can't have a new way of looking at

main(){for(int j=1;j<10000;j*=3)printf("%d",j);}

There's only one thing it can mean. And no amount of interaction in the
language will change the fact.

Oops... on rereading I realised I may have sounded a bit harsh... It
was *not* intended. Got carried away. :)

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