Print

Print


--- Antony Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> >> as conIALs than Esperanto
> >
> >I don't regard pidgins to be conIALs in the same
> manner as Esperanto
> >or whatever, so I consider the point rather
> irrelevant.
> 
> If one takes the phrase "constructed international 
> auxiliary languages" literally the pidgins were just
> 
> that. 

Here we seem to be running into a problem of human
expression. In a sense, the division between
"constructed language" and "natural language" is, let
us say, "artificial". Though I have to hesitate to
even use that word! Constructed means "man-made". So
*almost* by definition (since conceivably, there could
be a god-given language), all languages are man-made,
thus constructed. It becomes very artificial at some
point to distinguish between a natural language and a
constructed one, though we all seem to recognize them
to some extent. 

I think that pidgins are natural in the sense that
English or Hindi are natural. They are natural in the
sense that they were not designed for some specific
purpose. They emerged from a chaotic process of human
interaction, or something like that. I think that if
we call pidgins constructed, then all languages become
constructed and the word "constructed" becomes
meaningless. I think we have to use the term
"constructed" in the sense of "intelligent design",
i.e., that somebody or some group deliberately
designed the language. 

Jens Wilkinson
Neo Patwa language: http://patwa.pbwiki.com


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping