Re: [9fans] Simplified Chinese plan 9

[Eris Discordia <eris.discordia@gmail.com>]

> i believe this distinction between "natural" and "artificial"
> languages is, uh, arbitrary.

Well, I don't think this is true. The distinction is strong enough for
everyone to be able to immediately tell apart a language from a
non-language. Actually, I think the term "artificial language" is kind of a
courtesy. Natural language, to which the term "language" is most properly
applied, is way different in how much more redundant, imprecise, and
semantically potent it is.

Still, final judgment, or any judgment, in this matter is really linguists'
to make so I guess I should better suspend my own while listening to them
:-D

> these are largely unpronouncable.  and i've only heard a few ever
> pronunced at all.  (rofl comes to mind, though that term predates my
> knowledge of text messaging).

They fall into the category of stenography. Circumstances, e.g.
technological burden or limitations, inspire the trend of their creation.
"Coolness" factor creates new ones and sustains some. After many years of
IM (or SMS) they continue to be ad hoc and bound to subcultures--have you
yet seen 'inb4' or 'caek' used? I have--which is why I think their features
can't be used to draw inferences about language (they may be studied for
other purposes, of course). They aren't subject to the same dynamism,
particularly same constraints, the core of language is. Precisely because
they aren't used in actual conversation or any type of text that is worth,
to the writer, more than a throw-away note.

> natural languages never have sharp boundaries and are pretty dynamic.
> when did "byte" become a word? when did "gift" become a verb?  look how
> fast text-ese has evolved.

Sharp boundaries with what? That's some question ;-) Natural languages are
immediately discernible from most communication protocols used by non-human
entities. Byte has a long and confused story that doesn't quite make it
clear what it [byte] was initially meant to mean. Merriam-Webster dates
'gift' as a transitive verb to ca. 1550 CE.

There's a discussion of evolution of languages that involves a language
going from pidgin to creole to full-blown. Maybe "text-ese" is some sort of
pidgin, or more leniently creole, that draws on the "speakers'" native
language but the point here is that it will never evolve into a full-blown
language. All of its "speakers" are speakers of much stronger native
languages. Most of them share proper English as a language of global
communication. "Text-ese" and its (often self-professed) importance seem
like a fad to me. Do you think it will survive fast and reliable
speech-to-text and/or brain-to-computer interfaces, i.e. a time when the
technical burden of typing is removed without one having to expose one's
voice to the insecure Internet and complete strangers (as in voice chat)? I
know English will (because people think in it) but I seriously doubt
"text-ese," essentially required by technological limitations and peer
pressure among teens, will. Teen and other subculture languages, of course,
will continue to exist. Ain't it "magical and rad?"



--On Friday, September 11, 2009 21:46 -0400 erik quanstrom
<quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:

>> > i'm not a linguist, but the linguists i know subscribe to the
>> > viewpoint that the written and spoken language are separate.
>> > and evolve separately.  i would derive from this that writability
>> > is independent of pronouncability.
>>
>> If a sequence of symbols corresponds to something from a natural
>> language  then it must be pronounceable since it must have been uttered
>> at some time.  The same rule may not apply to "extensions" to natural
>> language (acronyms,  stenography) or artificial languages (mathematics,
>> computer programs).
>
> i believe this distinction between "natural" and "artificial"
> languages is, uh, arbitrary.  think of the symbols that people
> im each other with.  these are largely unpronouncable.  and
> i've only heard a few ever pronunced at all.  (rofl comes to mind,
> though that term predates my knowledge of text messaging).
>
> i also am not sure that there is such a thing as an extension to
> a language.  natural languages never have sharp boundaries
> and are pretty dynamic.  when did "byte" become a word?
> when did "gift" become a verb?  look how fast text-ese has
> evolved.
>
> my concept of a language looks more like a standard deviation
> than a box.
>
> - erik
>