Mesaĝoj: 216
Lingvo: English
Altebrilas (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-24 22:11:53
... (Chomsky)That was the illusion that Esperanto is a language, and it isn’t. Yeah, Esperanto has a couple of hints that people who know language can use based on their own linguistic knowledge to make a language out of it, but nobody can tell you what the rules of Esperanto are. If they could tell you that, they could tell you what the rules of Spanish are...I didn't understand his argument. Assuming that esperanto comes from spanish and thay you have to give the rules of a language to have the right to call it such, I would come to the conclusion that spanish is not a language either.
I do not perfectly understand english, but I would like a translation of that text in esperanto.
trojo (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-24 22:29:18
Altebrilas:Assuming that esperanto comes from spanish and thay you have to give the rules of a language to have the right to call it such, I would come to the conclusion that spanish is not a language either. I do not perfectly understand english, but I would like a translation of that text in esperanto.You are reading it correctly. The implication of Chomsky's argument is that Spanish is not a language either-- after all it is "parasitic" on Latin-- although he doesn't come out and say that. But of course all languages are ultimately parasitic.
You can't have a language unless you know the rules of universal grammar, that's what he says, and since no one knows the rules of universal grammar, including Chomsky himself, that means there are no languages at all. I guess we should stop making unintelligible gibberish sounds with our mouths pretending it is language until we have figured out all the universal rules of grammar.
henma (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-25 04:02:08
trojo:The implication of Chomsky's argument is that Spanish is not a language either-- after all it is "parasitic" on Latin-- although he doesn't come out and say that. But of course all languages are ultimately parasitic.Didn't like too much the fact that now I can speak only parasitic languages... I'll have to find a real language and learn it now
By the way, Spanish would be more like Esperanto in its "paraziteco"... It would be a parasite of many languages: Latin, Ancient Greek, Arabic, even some words derived from English, French, etc...
(Really, which language is not "parasitic" or a true language by that principle? Should we go back to Indoeuropean?)
Amike,
Daniel.
razlem (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-25 05:07:09
Maybe what Chomsky meant was that Spanish grew with a negligible amount of conscious influence over a long period of time, whereas Esperanto was consciously planned relatively quickly, unknowingly modeling itself on natural linguistic discrepancies. It would be a 'parasite' because it is an alien object (constructed language, as opposed to natural) feeding off of (using the linguistic forms of) a host (natural languages). From what was given here, it seems like he didn't think Esperanto was international enough, effectively calling it a simplified Spanish.
A parasite would be an inaccurate analogy though, as the natural languages aren't really losing anything from the bond, so to speak. But what Chomsky is referring to are the most fundamental concepts of language- his own theories.
Let it be noted that upon my internet research I have concluded that Chomsky is a native English speaker and can not speak another language fluently.
A parasite would be an inaccurate analogy though, as the natural languages aren't really losing anything from the bond, so to speak. But what Chomsky is referring to are the most fundamental concepts of language- his own theories.
Let it be noted that upon my internet research I have concluded that Chomsky is a native English speaker and can not speak another language fluently.
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-25 09:07:36
trojo:You can't have a language unless you know the rules of universal grammar, that's what he says..Reading this made me think: strange how so many people manage to make babies without studying anatomy and physiology. Perhaps they have an inherent capacity to make them? And could it be that we have an inbuilt capacity to make languages (Genesis 2:19-20)? This would make sense of Zamenhof's own statement that his creation came 'alive' at a certain point, in that he felt that it began to flow naturally. This happened a few years before the appearance of the Unua Libro.
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-25 09:25:58
Your mention of babies Miland also made me think that Chomsky overlooked something - that if you don't teach a baby language, or refuse to communicate with it in a language, it won't learn it, and that languages are actually a learnt behaviour.
I strongly feel that there might be a "universal" language hidden in our brains, but its grammar, and the sounds, to human ears, would sound nothing like "human language" but the cries of animals.
This is where things get complicated, since Chomsky I believe reckons that languages are *human only* (thus why a certain chimp in history was called Chimpsky to spite him, not sure if it worked). But to believe that languages were as complicated as they are now is not what I'd expect of a man of his stature, and in fact I think not too long back ago in prehistory, that human language was really non-existent. Humans simply didn't have enough to communicate, or more importantly had no need to communicate it.
He's right though, Esperanto is parasitic, as are all human creations - inspired from what was originally there before them. This doesn't dequalify it as a language though. To call Esperanto merely a creation based on language and not one itself is like calling all language a bunch of bricks that fell over in strong winds and created a piece of art, which as someone said is probably what Chomsky's trying to say. But the idea of "language" is a word used to describe said accidental pieces of art, so it makes no sense to say "no, this word that means accidental speaking thingamabob doesn't actually mean it because I'm changing the meaning".
The above I believe is why most modern sciences get along with each other so badly at times - they each use preexisting words with their own meanings, and give them new ones simply because they think they can, and then call people "uneducated" if they don't know these arbitrarily assigned meanings.
*rant over*
I strongly feel that there might be a "universal" language hidden in our brains, but its grammar, and the sounds, to human ears, would sound nothing like "human language" but the cries of animals.
This is where things get complicated, since Chomsky I believe reckons that languages are *human only* (thus why a certain chimp in history was called Chimpsky to spite him, not sure if it worked). But to believe that languages were as complicated as they are now is not what I'd expect of a man of his stature, and in fact I think not too long back ago in prehistory, that human language was really non-existent. Humans simply didn't have enough to communicate, or more importantly had no need to communicate it.
He's right though, Esperanto is parasitic, as are all human creations - inspired from what was originally there before them. This doesn't dequalify it as a language though. To call Esperanto merely a creation based on language and not one itself is like calling all language a bunch of bricks that fell over in strong winds and created a piece of art, which as someone said is probably what Chomsky's trying to say. But the idea of "language" is a word used to describe said accidental pieces of art, so it makes no sense to say "no, this word that means accidental speaking thingamabob doesn't actually mean it because I'm changing the meaning".
The above I believe is why most modern sciences get along with each other so badly at times - they each use preexisting words with their own meanings, and give them new ones simply because they think they can, and then call people "uneducated" if they don't know these arbitrarily assigned meanings.
*rant over*
Altebrilas (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-25 09:34:37
I think that Chomsky is intellectually honest. Maybe he is misinformed about esperanto (specially if he thinks that esperanto is a kind of simplified spanish).
The fact is if you look closely at Fundamento, the rules do not define the grammar in Chomsky sense, but only make decisions when there was no implicit consensus between european languages on which esperanto is based (french, german, russian, english, polish), all of them influenced by latin grammarians, because latin was the international language of european intellectuals.
Most of esperanto grammar is then implicit, but this is no problem for european speakers. Maybe esperanto can be viewed "parasitic" in that sense, i.e. it borrows grammar rules from other languages (and it is then difficult to tell for each rule if it is actually adopted by the community or if it is only an awkward trial of a beginner, taking model of his native tongue).
In all cases, it would be interresting to have a debate between Chomsky and esperantists with linguistic knowledge.
The fact is if you look closely at Fundamento, the rules do not define the grammar in Chomsky sense, but only make decisions when there was no implicit consensus between european languages on which esperanto is based (french, german, russian, english, polish), all of them influenced by latin grammarians, because latin was the international language of european intellectuals.
Most of esperanto grammar is then implicit, but this is no problem for european speakers. Maybe esperanto can be viewed "parasitic" in that sense, i.e. it borrows grammar rules from other languages (and it is then difficult to tell for each rule if it is actually adopted by the community or if it is only an awkward trial of a beginner, taking model of his native tongue).
In all cases, it would be interresting to have a debate between Chomsky and esperantists with linguistic knowledge.
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-25 09:35:13
Miland:I do not think, as I have no way of verifying at the time of thinking this up how exactly I am thinking be it in a physical brain or a cloud of cosmic stardust, ergo I am not.trojo:You can't have a language unless you know the rules of universal grammar, that's what he says..Reading this made me think: strange how so many people manage to make babies without studying anatomy and physiology. Perhaps they have an inherent capacity to make them?
Also on the matter, we're all illegitimate children, since people generally don't understand why they get married otherwise they probably wouldn't
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-25 09:46:56
If you are a linguist and have a pet theory about the nature of human language, and the existence of Esperanto as a spoken language (and one capable of being learnt by children) seems to contradict your theory of language, then one of the ways you can handle this is to dismiss Esperanto as not a real language.
A more scientific account of human language will have to accommodate the phenomenon of Esperanto.
Anyway, I thought that the established view now was that the search for Linguistic Universals has proved fruitless, yielding no more than trivial results.
If human language is a cultural phenomenon rather than a biological adaption, this is what you would expect.
Personally, it has never bothered me that Esperanto is derivative from the main European languages, whilst at the same time having quirky features of its own.
The only thing that matters is whether Esperanto has done a good job of eliminating the clutter and historical baggage that the natural languages drag around with them, without throwing the baby out with the bath water - so to speak.
By the way, did you know that that idiomatic expression in English has been in the language since long ago when it was customary for a family to use the same bath water with the father first and the baby last, only finally emptying the bath when baby has had his turn.
Natural languages are full of such obscure expressions. The expression 'the upper crust' to refer to upper echelons in society is hundreds of years old coming from a time when the lower part of a loaf was inevitably burnt and there was a hierarchy of dibs on the various parts of the loaf.
No doubt, there was a time when it made sense for every object to have a sex, For modern languages with their enormous vocabularies the retention of this feature is just an impedance to language acquistion.
A more scientific account of human language will have to accommodate the phenomenon of Esperanto.
Anyway, I thought that the established view now was that the search for Linguistic Universals has proved fruitless, yielding no more than trivial results.
If human language is a cultural phenomenon rather than a biological adaption, this is what you would expect.
Personally, it has never bothered me that Esperanto is derivative from the main European languages, whilst at the same time having quirky features of its own.
The only thing that matters is whether Esperanto has done a good job of eliminating the clutter and historical baggage that the natural languages drag around with them, without throwing the baby out with the bath water - so to speak.
By the way, did you know that that idiomatic expression in English has been in the language since long ago when it was customary for a family to use the same bath water with the father first and the baby last, only finally emptying the bath when baby has had his turn.
Natural languages are full of such obscure expressions. The expression 'the upper crust' to refer to upper echelons in society is hundreds of years old coming from a time when the lower part of a loaf was inevitably burnt and there was a hierarchy of dibs on the various parts of the loaf.
No doubt, there was a time when it made sense for every object to have a sex, For modern languages with their enormous vocabularies the retention of this feature is just an impedance to language acquistion.
Donniedillon (Montri la profilon) 2011-majo-25 10:27:41
ceigered:... if you don't teach a baby language, or refuse to communicate with it in a language, it won't learn it, and that languages are actually a learnt behaviour.Folks have been playing with that theory for long time and it appears to be bunk.
I strongly feel that there might be a "universal" language hidden in our brains, but its grammar, and the sounds, to human ears, would sound nothing like "human language" but the cries of animals.
Link