I wouldn't say that language classes are about standardizing everyone, or at least not in the "thought control" sense.

I think it's a good idea to teach a national form of the language. I think that local dialects should be supported and respected, but in a country with a lot of dialects that may not even be mutually intelligible, a standard national language can be a way of ensuring that all Austrians (French, Germans, whatever) can communicate with one another.

In the US, it's different. We don't have dialects that diverge as widely as the European ones. But people will judge you based on the way you speak, and if you speak in a way that is deemed ungrammatical (even if it's perfectly grammatical in your dialect), you will find it very difficult to get people to take you seriously, even if you're smart, and you'll find it hard to get a good job. Language classes, in my opinion, help even the playing field, so that if you're not getting the "standard" grammar at home, you learn it at school.

erinja:I wouldn't say that language classes are about standardizing everyone, or at least not in the "thought control" sense.

Well no that's certainly not what I meant (in that megalomaniac rule-style context). But it is the case, when using plain English to describe it. The reason we teach major dialects or national languages is so that we make sure everyone is on the same page, that our communication system is standardised, so things can work efficiently.

So actually it more or less is a very minor form of subconscious thought control form a Sapir-Whorf perspective. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Without it we'd just be speaking our own exclusive gibberish and argots with those we care about enough to communicate, so in the end we will always need a standardised communication system that we can all communicate in if we hope to actually establish interpersonal relationships .

Thus why lernu! exists - that way, people can learn Esperanto according to what the greater community deems acceptable, and to enforce a sense of standardisation so we don't get idos cropping up every 5 seconds. If you and other spertuloj here hadn't corrected me way-back-when, I might be speaking utter nonsense in EO.

"Mi havas laj iloj ke ni devas per krejas novaĵo! "

(mi havas la ilojn kiujn ni bezonas por krei novaĵon - well, at least this is grammatical nonsense!)

You was quite right Erinja, everybody should speak proper, like what I do now. This universal grammar don't cut no mustard with me.

Like, what them linguists thinking of anyhows. My brain ain't gonna perform no miracle without me being learned good.

(apologies to our foreign readers)

sudanglo:
Why do we teach English in school to native speakers if the native speaker has some miraculous inbuilt ability to determine what is 'well-formed'.

As others have pointed out, there's more than one "English", so we teach a dialect that is "approved" for most uses. Dialects, like accents, also serve as labels or origin, class, status, etc.

Your use of quotation marks around "well-formed" suggests that you don't understand the concept. Oddly, although you scorn people who talk about Esperanto without understanding it very well, you have no such inhibitions when it comes to linguistics.

In a formal system, such as mathematical notation, we have the notion of a "well-formed formula" (wff), which is completely determined by syntax, not meaning. Thus, "2 + 3 = 7" is a wff, even though it's false upon the standard interpretation of the symbols. On the other hand, "= 3 2 7 +" isn't a wff. How do we know this? It turns out there are recursive rules that allow the generation of complex formulas from simpler ones. An example of such a rule is: If A and B are wffs, then A + B is a wff. These rules can be applied repeatedly to generate more and more complex wffs. The complete set of such recursive rules allows all and only wffs of the system to be generated.

The point about generative grammar is that a parallel thing is supposed to be possible for languages. That is, given certain simple well-formed sentences, the rest of the well-formed sentences can be generated by repeated applications of the rules. The sentences so formed need not be meaningful.

This idea of generative grammar is very different from the traditional sort of grammar. It was an important theoretical discovery about languages, showing strong parallels between them and formal systems such as mathematical notation. A lot of work has been done to elaborate the generative grammars of actual languages. As I pointed out pages back, however, to my knowledge no generative grammar has been completed for any natural language, and there remain many disputed points about the best way to construct a GG.

Personally, as a non-linguist, I'd leave this question to one side. As far as I'm concerned, a language is any system of communication that has semantics, syntax, and can be used to execute the full range of speech acts. I regard it as an open question whether having a syntax entails having a GG. It's a question worth answering, but I don't think Esperanto's status as a language hangs in the balance. Esperanto clearly has a semantics, a syntax (of some sort), and works for the full range of speech acts.

If I am sniffy about the termed 'well-formed' Todd, it is because I think it is fuzzy, or if interpreted in a narrow sense carries with the implication that languages are formal systems like, perhaps, are mathematics and logic.

I'd also happily put quotation marks around the term discovery when a generative grammar is described as a 'discovery'.

For me this term carries the implication of some real world existence.

A system for describing patterns in a language doesn't seem to me to be a discovery.

Of course, if it turns out that it reflects what happens in the brain, then that's another matter.

sudanglo:Ed, on the narrow point of the limitation of prepositions used in front of an infinitive, I wonder whether there might not be a reason for this bound up with the meaning of the prepositions that are used in this way.

Or the principle might be that where you can't make a distinctions between preposition prep + verb root + o, and prep + verb root + i, then the substantive form is preferred.

In short, the tradition may not be arbitrary.

Mi ne povas vivi sen amo and mi ne povas vivi sen ami clearly have different meanings.

But consider: Mi ne povis iri pro malhavo de mono and Mi ne povis iri pro malhavi monon*

Apart from the second sentence inducing a feeling of nausea, I don't see what distinction is made, even if the second sentence were OK and intelligible.

Traditionally, of course, sen + inf was banned by Z in Lingvaj Respondoj, but pretty soon "competent Esperanto speakers" put paid to that idea.

I find myself agreeing with your asterisk on Mi ne povis iri pro malhavi monon, but would not feel so inclined to put it on Li povos rondiri la mondon pro ade ricevi monon de siaj gepatroj.

Do you agree? There are other ways of saying this, but either they don't mean exactly the same (Ade ricevonte monon de siaj gepatroj, li povos rondiri la mondon), or are clumsier (Li povos rondiri la mondon pro ada ricevado de mono de siaj gepatroj). If so, is this the native-speaker-like intuition that the Chomskyans so crave, and find in bizarre anomalies in English like the pair: He threw it out / *He threw out it ?

Or do I just need to do what I am told in officially approved books more, instead of getting my intuitions from other competent Esperanto speakers?

I certainly would like to see per + inf recognised as acceptable. I use it and hear it all the time.

sudanglo:If I am sniffy about the termed 'well-formed' Todd, it is because I think it is fuzzy, or if interpreted in a narrow sense carries with the implication that languages are formal systems like, perhaps, are mathematics and logic.

Well, that's one of the questions that needs an answer.

I'd also happily put quotation marks around the term discovery when a generative grammar is described as a 'discovery'.

For me this term carries the implication of some real world existence.

A system for describing patterns in a language doesn't seem to me to be a discovery.

Language is as much a "real world" phenomenon as sunspots. Scientists study "patterns" everywhere. That patterns in language are somehow less real, or less discovered, makes no sense at all.

Of course, if it turns out that it reflects what happens in the brain, then that's another matter.

Yes, it's another matter, neither more nor less "real" or "discovered" than the details of grammar.

sudanglo:A system for describing patterns in a language doesn't seem to me to be a discovery.

Quite right, Sudanglo! How many ways are there of organising a serial stream of information, given that human short-term memory is as small as it is? How else would we do it?

Ed, I am not at all sure why 'pro malhavi' puts me in a tizzy. I speculate that there might be logical reasons, but I don't know for certain why.

Actually, for me Per + infinitve is a step too far. I'd much prefer to say 'Mi organizis miajn libroj per grupigo laŭ autoro', than 'per grupigi laŭ aŭtoro'.

Ed, you say you have ecountered Per + infinitive frequently, but is just among English speakers trying to render 'By X-ing' in Esperanto? I can't recall seeing it outside beginners contributions in forums, and certainly not in any recent books I have read.

Are there instances at Tekstaro?

Tom, are you there? You are good at forming Tekstaro queries. Could you do a search?

As regards your sentence about a round the world trip, I might have said 'Li povis rondiri la mondo per/pro/dank'al regulaj monkontribuoj fare de la gepatroj'.

sudanglo:I am not at all sure why 'pro malhavi' puts me in a tizzy. I speculate that there might be logical reasons, but I don't know for certain why.

According to PMEG: Anstataŭ pro + I-verbo oni uzas participon kun E-finaĵo, aŭ ĉar + plenan subfrazon, aŭ tial ke + plenan subfrazon, aŭ pro tio ke + plenan subfrazon..

I translate: "Instead of pro with an infinitive, we use a participial adverb, ĉar with a complete clause, or pro tio ke with a complete clause".

The box following this in PMEG has relevant examples:
Li ne povis skribi ne havante inkon. Li ne povis skribi, ĉar li ne havis inkon. Li ne povis skribi tial, ke li ne havis inkon. Li ne povis skribi pro tio, ke li ne havis inkon. (= *Li ne povis skribi pro ne havi inkon.*)