Esperanto is not a a natural language.  It's a constructed one.  A
"planlingvo". "Natural" in this case means "evolved naturally", which
E-o clearly did not.

Most languages, natural or constructed, are not "national", and
calling them such is just spreading IAL-promotional propaganda.


On 8/6/09, Thomas Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> It seems that I've touched a nerve here and evoked
> a response which is out of proportion with my
> ability or inclination to respond.  For that I
> appologise.  I also appolgise to the OP for hijacking
> the "spoken only" thread, which is a potentially
> interesting subject which received a lot less attention
> that it might have merited.
>
> I will attempt to keep my reply here as brief as
> possible.  In summary, the value of standard
> terminology was never in question.
>
> Paul Hartzer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I'd define "standard of discourse" as the
>> established guidelines for communication
>> in a particular setting.
>
> That certainly seems like a reasonable definition
> and I can accept that this is what he meant.  I
> will point out that the most common use of this
> term seems to put the whole thing on a scale from
> "high" to "low", so to avoid possible misunderstandings,
> I'd suggest a different term for this meaning - such
> as "standard terminology" or "norms of communication."
>
>> >I would be very interested for any example (from
>> >anybody) which could illustrate the danger of
>> >thinking in terms of letters which would not
>> >apply equally well to a conlang represented by
>> >phonemic symbols.  I am open to the possibility
>> >that such an example exists, but I am not able
>> >to think of one.
>>
>> Indeed, I recently illustrated the problem of
>> thinking of phonemes as sounds.
>
> <snip example>
>
> I think you've pointed out something to watch for,
> but I don't see that writing /t/ or [t] instead of
> <t> will guard against it.  If I say that my language
> "has the phoneme /T/" (instead of saying "it has the
> diagraph "th"), I don't see that this in and of itself
> means that I won't fall into the same traps of
> pronouncing it differently in different contexts.
>
> And in another note:
>> By the way, I noticed you using the phrase "national
>> language." If you were meaning that as a lengthening
>> of "natlang," that goes against my understanding that
>> "natlang" is short of "natural language."
>
> No, it's a translation of the Esperanto "nacia lingvo"
> which stands in contrast to "internacia lingvo."
> Sometimes, the term "ethnic language" seems a more
> appropriate substitute. FWIW, I tend to avoid a lot
> of the conlanger's contractions where appropriate, but
> this is not one of those cases. I find the term "natural
> language" misleading when it is meant to exclude
> languages, like Esperanto, which are processed naturally
> and are subject to natural forces.
>
> To my mind "natural language" stands in contrast to
> "computer language" and other forms of pseudo-linguistic
> symbolic representation, such as The Elephant's Memory.
>
> It's funny,  I don't remember where I would have used
> the term here though.
>
> Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> [...] knowing linguistic terminology isn't necessary,
>> but knowing something about linguistics, even if one
>> has picked it all up by osmosis in the course of studying
>> various specific languages and hasn't ever studied
>> linguistics per se, is more or less necessary for
>> creating a "good" or "interesting" language,
>
> So my question becomes -- is there a difference between
> knowing something about LINGUISTICS and knowing something
> about LANGUAGE?
>
>
>> The AUXLANG list uses less conlanging-specific terminology
>> has CONLANG, but it has its own specialized terminology
>> for types of auxlangs, e.g. "Euroclone" and "worldlang",
>
> I know I said I'd be brief, -- but I have to interject.  I
> spent many a year on Auxlang.  I think I got a lot out of it,
> but there came a point where I felt I'd learned everything I
> could and I was just wasting time there.  Around the same time
> I looked into the purpose for which the Auxlang list was
> created, and a careful reading of the list materials suggested
> that Auxlang was created for the sole purpose of getting the
> Auxlangers to leave the conlang list in peace.
>
> Amike salutas,
> Thomas/Tomaso ALEXANDER.
> www.NightinGael.Net
> ---Anything below this line is not from Thomas ---
>
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>