In a message dated 1/28/01 9:00:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,

and_yo@... writes:



<< >_Sei jou iz nonzense what_.

  >

  >Is the obove English? No. I'm sure you will agree.



  Well, if I heard someone actually say that I'd consider it to be hideously

  bad English, but that's still English.

  >

  >Each language has a "morpho-syntax" => Rules. If you don't follow them

  >you're

  >not using the language properly, that's all.



  Terminology again, I'm afraid. If X uses an language incorrectly, I'd say X

  is still using it. But it all depends on our evidently definitions of the

  concept "to use a language".



  Also, how much does one have to be able to say in a language in order to

  "speak" it? I can form a few simple sentences in Latin, does that mean I can

  speak Latin? I'd normally say no, but that too rests on a subjective

  definition. I can form alot of pretty complex sentences in German, and I'd

  say I'm able to speak German, but I there's alot of things I could say in

  English or Swedish but not in German. >>





I think that one needs to elaborate upon the phrase "speaking a language" --

simply because there's a part of man always wanting to exaggerate his skills

or prove his points with hyperbolic statements.



(the example below is completely hypothetical)



For example, I could say "I can speak Latin", then (being a singer) recite to

you the Mass Text or the Beatus Vir from memory to prove my point. But, can I

think in latin? Can I comprehend it? Can I disect or analyze it gramatically?

I might not even be able to fit which word goes with which. I couldn't hold a

coherent conversation with the pope, and I couldn't appreciate Horace. I

really wouldn't be able to speak and compose in latin.



I have had to say many times such things as  "I can speak language X to only

a conversational level" or "I can understand language Y to a good extent

written or spoken slowly, but I could not speak it or know it's laws and

grammar." To form such a sentance replacing language X or Y with Quenya, we

would have to assume that Quenya was a fully-understood language, once spoken

and intact -- only none of us could actually be fluent.



It sounds odd, but consider. Any thoughts?



Nicholas D. Kontovas

>_Sei jou iz nonzense what_.

>

>Is the obove English? No. I'm sure you will agree.



Well, if I heard someone actually say that I'd consider it to be hideously

bad English, but that's still English.

>

>Each language has a "morpho-syntax" => Rules. If you don't follow them

>you're

>not using the language properly, that's all.



Terminology again, I'm afraid. If X uses an language incorrectly, I'd say X

is still using it. But it all depends on our evidently definitions of the

concept "to use a language".



Also, how much does one have to be able to say in a language in order to

"speak" it? I can form a few simple sentences in Latin, does that mean I can

speak Latin? I'd normally say no, but that too rests on a subjective

definition. I can form alot of pretty complex sentences in German, and I'd

say I'm able to speak German, but I there's alot of things I could say in

English or Swedish but not in German.



                                                           Andreas

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

>And you "speak" Quenya whith whom may I ask? :-)



Good question. With myself? :) Actually, Quenya is used to represent the elven

laguage in Live Action Roleplaying or Interactive Theatre. I´m sure you´ve heard

about it.



>_Sei jou iz nonzense what_.



>Is the obove English? No. I'm sure you will >agree.



I agree. That is not English. But "I´m were verry hapy day after thiss day." is

English. Bad english but English. We do know enough Quenya to speak better than

your example, don´t we?



>Each language has a "morpho-syntax" => Rules. >If you don't follow them you're

>not using the language properly, that's all.

>Before "speaking" a Language you have to >_learn_ it. And learning means to

>_study_ it. This is what were're trying to do >here.



I know. That´s the reason I joined the list a couple of months aga. To learn.



>You want to have one's cake and it eat too? >Be able to "speak" Quenya without

>having to spend time study it... That want >do. You'll have to put some "sweat"

>in it. Just as you do in High-School, do you?



Of course you have to study to learn the language. I only say that we "can"

study it enough to be able to speak it.



>Namárie



See. If you say the word above out loud, you´re speaking Quenya! It does not

have to be more complicated than that.



>EJK



Namárie (I can write in Quenya too. :))

//David Grimfors





_________________________________________s_p_r_a_y_

Här börjar Internet!

Skaffa gratis e-mail och gratis Internet pĺ http://www.spray.se

David Grimfors a écrit:

>

> We may not be able to speak entirely correct Quenya, but that do not prevent

us from using it as a language.

> We may use the wrong grammar in some cases.

> We may not now the right word.

> And we may use the wrong word order.

>

> But even if we do, we are still speaking Quenya. Bad Quenya, but nonetheless

Quenya.

> Atleast in my opinion.



And you "speak" Quenya whith whom may I ask? :-)



_Sei jou iz nonzense what_.



Is the obove English? No. I'm sure you will agree.



Each language has a "morpho-syntax" => Rules. If you don't follow them you're

not using the language properly, that's all.

Before "speaking" a Language you have to _learn_ it. And learning means to

_study_ it. This is what were're trying to do here.



You want to have one's cake and it eat too? Be able to "speak" Quenya without

having to spend time study it... That want do. You'll have to put some "sweat"

in it. Just as you do in High-School, do you?



Namárie



EJK