Re: [9fans] Simplified Chinese plan 9

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> > 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