Print

Print


James Chandler wrote:
>
> Mark Line skripted:
>
> > Your conclusion was invalid,
> > as Don and I both pointed out. The remedy is not to "modify" the
> > conclusion, but to fail to draw it. Any "modified" version of your
> > conclusion would be identical to my original statement, and hence no
> > "conclusion" at all.
>
> I don't think so.
> Again it is a question of degree.  Presumably you do not object to
> artificial elements in E such as those given by Don Harlow.
 
I don't object to any artificial elements just because they're
artificial.  I would object to artificial elements in an IAL if their
existence in the language contradicted something that is known about the
way human language works.
 
 
> But I presume you do object to artificiality or plannedness on the
> scale found in a language like Ido.
 
Why do you presume that?
 
 
> So all I have to do is to isolate (or I might choose to estimate) the
> level of artificiality you are not prepared to accept, and adjust my
> conclusion accordingly.
 
There is no "level". It is not a question of "degree". The criterion is
whether or not the element is plausible, given what we know about the
way human language works. If I don't think it's plausible, I'll object
to it in an IAL -- and that's not a quantitative criterion. That's what
I've said everytime, and Don has reiterated as well that my criterion is
qualitative.
 
 
-- Mark
 
(Mark P. Line  --  Bellevue, Washington  --  <[log in to unmask]>)