11.399, Disc: Species Extinction vs Language Extinction

[The LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-11-399. Fri Feb 25 2000. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 11.399, Disc: Species Extinction vs Language Extinction

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
                    Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Scott Fults <scott at linguistlist.org>
		    Jody Huellmantel <jody at linguistlist.org>
		    Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Lydia Grebenyova <lydia at linguistlist.org>
		    Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
		    James Yuells <james at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Sudheendra Adiga <sudhi at linguistlist.org>
                      Qian Liao <qian at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:20:29 GMT
From:  "A.F. GUPTA" <engafg at ARTS-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK>
Subject:  Re: 11.386, Disc: Species Extinction vs Language Extinction

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:20:29 GMT
From:  "A.F. GUPTA" <engafg at ARTS-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK>
Subject:  Re: 11.386, Disc: Species Extinction vs Language Extinction

>  larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk (Larry Trask) said:
>  it is going too far to conclude that therefore
> individual languages do not exist at all.
>
> Compare baseball.  Before the 1850s, there was no set of agreed
> rules for playing baseball.  Instead, each town played the game with
> somewhat different rules from every other town, and games between
> towns required a certain amount of negotiation before they could be
> played.  Only in the 1850s did a widely agreed set of rules emerge.
>
> The view above would therefore have us believe that, before the
> 1850s, at least, no such game as baseball existed, but only people
> performing baseball and people creating abstract notions of
> baseball.  Is this plausible?

This seems to relate to what "David
Powers <David.Powers at flinders.edu.au> said in his posting -- that
many people were (wrongly) equating THE LANGUAGE with the formalised,
written, codified, ISO standard with its army and navy.  The codified
rules of baseball (I'll take your word for it)  came into being in
the 1850s but people were doing baseball before that (and presumably
to this day play baseball according to ad hoc and personal rules --
*idioludes*).  There might even be a point where baseball and
rounders coalesce.  If there is a new 2052 rule book will baseball
have ceased to 'exist'.  Are baseball, rounders and cricket one game?
three? How many *dialudes* do they have? So is Larry Trask agreeing
with me (& David Powers) or disagreeing?

Anthea



Anthea Fraser GUPTA : http://www.leeds.ac.uk/english/$staff/afg
School of English
University of Leeds
LEEDS LS2 9JT
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-11-399