Esperanto as natural language [was RE: Learning simplified versions]

On May 29, 2013, at 1:59 AM, Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at Update.UU.SE> wrote: Not to wander too far off topic (but I can't help myself, given the topic and being a linguist by profession). That trailer is completely in character -- Everett seems always to aim to reveal the sensational evidence that will destroy the underpinnings of scientific linguistic research. He's kind of an attention seeker. The basic gist of the story is that a remote group that he did fieldwork with (and which nearly nobody else has) has a language that doesn't conform to the apparent constraints that all other languages seem to conform to, hypothesized to be that way due to the structure of the human brain. But one Underdog with The Truth dares to contradict The Man who Controls the Field, the Old Ways crumble and a New Era of Enlightenment begins (in which the properties of language are taken to follow not from being human but from the structure of the culture). It's transparently ridiculous, really, even if there are truly interesting and new things to learn from the language of the Pirah?. If you're interested in looking at one of the more coherent early discussions of ways in which Everett's story doesn't really hold together, this article is one to skim over (it's probably hopelessly technical for those outside the field, but it's still possible to get the idea -- essentially that the things Everett says are unusual about Pirah? are either misunderstood/mischaracterized, and/or show up in various ways in other languages too, and under different cultural conditions, so can't really just be a consequence of the special Pirah? culture): http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000411 I'll refrain from getting into a big discussion here. Just the note and the link. -Paul