Newsgroups: uk.politics,alt.politics.ec,sci.lang,talk.politics.european-union
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uop!csus.edu!netcom.com!donh
From: donh@netcom.com (Don HARLOW)
Subject: Re: Single European Language
Message-ID: <donhDA67GH.7zv@netcom.com>
Organization: Esperanto League for North America, Inc.
References: <690061730wnr@afin.demon.co.uk> <3riv4a$a86@mercury.cair.du.edu> <donhDA5AHw.19C@netcom.com> <smryanDA5KoM.nA@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:07:29 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: uk.politics,alt.politics.ec,sci.lang,talk.politics.european-union
Lines: 43
Sender: donh@netcom12.netcom.com

smryan@netcom.com (@#$%!?!) skribis en lastatempa afisxo <smryanDA5KoM.nA@netcom.com>:
>: complex; from my own subjective point of view, of course, Danish, Latin, 
>: French and German are quite limited in their capabilities. Esperanto, 
>: however, is by far the least complicated, by any measure.
>
>It is assumed that all languages have equal complexity and are equally
>expressive. I heard a claim, but I don't remember the reference, that
>creoles in fact start much simpler than other languages, with a very
>regular and simple morphology and syntax without sacraficing expressiveness.
>However in few generations irregularities creep in and the creole becomes
>as messy as any other language.
>
>That is one of many reasons I don't believe Esperanto will remain simple.
>The only way to avoid that is for some there to be some Language Institute
>which can effectively police usage.
>
The difference between standard creoles and Esperanto is that there is no 
prescribed norm in your standard creole. Esperanto does have a prescribed 
norm.

Of course, in some parts of the world (e.g. among English-speakers) 
prescriptivism in any shape or form, with respect to language, is 
considered undesirable. This comes, I presume, from the experience of 
others with self-elected prescriptivist bodies (I shall not mention the 
Academie Francaise) which attempt to control and limit linguistic 
evolution. Esperanto's prescriptivism is the result of what is generally 
called a "social contract" and mainly restricts itself to establishing 
a norm for the syntactic and morphological core of the language, with 
relatively little effect on the lexicon -- a constant skeleton, so to 
speak, on which the flesh of the language can hang itself through use. 
Given this situation, it is very, very unlikely that, short of some 
major discontinuity, the language will go the way you expect.

>Nor is it necessary to be simple. The real world is messy and the human
>brain can tolerate a certain amount of mess. 

Certainly it can. But is "can" the same as "should"? Or "has to"?

-- 
Don HARLOW			donh@netcom.com
Esperanto League for N.A.       elna@netcom.com (800) 828-5944
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/el/elna/elna.html         Esperanto
http://www.webcom.com/~donh
