Print

Print


On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:39:49 -0800, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>--- 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...

Fifthed (or however manied): you can't conclude anything about Klingon at
all from this, I'd say, holes or no holes.  (Holes you could innovate to
fill, even if it meant producing some unholy Klingon-English hybrid; mixed
languages happen all the time.)

Mark Rosenfelder has a good treatment of the matter.  See especially the
Garo story and the surrounding:
  http://zompist.com/whylang.html

Alex