Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Sounding natural (Re: Languages in the EC)
Message-ID: <D4FCEr.BMK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <3hb233$ajk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <D3sEpB.3zF@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3i4ooo$d1@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 23:11:13 GMT
Lines: 54

In article <3i4ooo$d1@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> etg10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Edmund Grimley-Evans) writes:
>> I assume that a natural language sounds natural when spoken
>> as its native speakers normally speak it.  I don't know how to apply
   ** *** ****** ******** ******** ***** **
>> that measure to a language which has no community of native speakers.
>
>You always have the problem of identifying the competent speakers.

See above.

>It might be easy in the case of a monolingual island, but if you have
>a complicated multilingual society with different language varities
>based on social class, etc, plus various dialect continua and a
>complicated pattern of recent immigration then it is not trivial to
>identify the language let alone its competent speakers.

Do you mean that you can't distinguish a foreigner from a native speaker
of a social or regional variety of English different from yours?  No one
claimed that there was only one way for a language to sound natural.

>I think you're just being silly and obstructive in pretending that
>you know how to do this for Latin, Hebrew and Yiddish, say,

Weren't we talking of Basque just now?  Yes, I would know how to do it
for Latin if Latin hadn't been dead for a long while.  Since it has, I
contend that no one will ever speak natural-sounding Latin:  we simply
don't know what it sounded like.

>but don't know how to do it for Esperanto.

By `I don't know how to' I meant `one can't', in case that wasn't clear.

We've all heard of the existence of native speakers of Esperanto.
Can those people recognise one another by their Esperanto speech?

>A sure sign of your attitude is your use of the expression "natural
>language" which is a bit stupid in this context.

That's right.  The context makes all the difference.  I'm well aware
that in some contexts it is stupid to ignore the claim that Esperanto
is a natural language, just as in some other contexts it is stupid to
ignore the claim that the Elvish languages are natural (and the ones
of the primary world are descended partly from them and partly from
Dwarvish and Orkish).

However, when posting on sci.lang, I'm able to lay aside the claims
to which I, as a Tolkiendil, subscribe in some other contexts.
It is lamentable that some Esperantists seem unable to do the same.

-- 
`I'm sendin a flood tae pit an end tae it aw.  But dinny worry yersel, Noah.'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk)    (J Stuart, _Auld Testament Tales_)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
