Print

Print


--- On Fri, 11/20/09, <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Gary Shannon wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >> "d'Armond Speers spoke only Klingon to his son for
> the first three years of
> >> his child's life, the Minnesota
> > 
> > Given that his son did not acquire spoken Klingon,
> and, in fact,
> > rejected it, seems to imply that something about
> Klingon is so
> > unnatural that it does not mesh with the language
> circuitry in the
> > human brain. To me that means that Klingon is not just
> a non-human
> > language, it is an inhuman language, i.e., so
> fundamentally "wrong"
> > that it could never, under any circumstances, become
> anyone's L1.
> 
> I wouldn't say that.  I would guess the real reason
> was that his mother and everyone else around spoke English,
> so he favored it over Klingon.

Agree on both counts (K. is/certainly could be a possible human language, probably no stranger than some Caucasian or Native American langs.:-))  ) And small children tend to bond more closely with the mother. Now if it had been his mother speaking Klingon....But more than one person is a requirement, I think...

Also agree with Mark's and Adam's comments.
>