Car Harleigh,
   Quanto a linguas artificial (includente Interlingua)
e al necessitate de parlatores native pro constatar
correctessa, io crede que tu erra.  Il non necessita
parlatores native, e parlatores native non difinarea
correctessa in tal linguas.  (e.g. mi filio parla
Esperanto nativemente.)

> An utterance like "this books" or "these book" would
> be ungrammatical because no native speaker would say
> them.

Io non comprende.  Ante poc tempore, io te diceva:

     "On pote anque demandar - qui ha le derecto
     de dictar le formas "correcte" de anglese?
     Harleigh? Stan? Tomaso? etc.."

E tu respondeva:

     "Si, exactemente. Io nunquam ha mantenite
     que mi version del anglese es le sol version
     correcte del lingua."

Io concludeva que tu pensa, que il non ha criterios
pro correctessa in anglese.

A proposito, io non accepta, que "grammatical" (in le
senso le qual tu usa) signifa "correcte".

> Constructed languages don't have a body of native
> speakers who can be used as informants to determine
> grammaticality and ungrammaticality. Thus what is
> grammatical in them is largely the opinion of the
> individual people using these languages.

On defina nihil lingua secundo le balbutiamento e
murmuration de personas qui lo parla mal.

> There is no rational reason, for example, why
> "eventualmente" cannot be used in the same sense
> as the English "eventually." Condemning it as
> ungrammatical is an arbitrary matter of individual
> opinion.

Non ungrammatical sed confundive.
Io jam ha te monstrata un exemplo de tu textos le
qual ha un signification contrari come lo que tu
voleva dicer.  ("efectos eventual" o similar.)

> It is because of these considerations (and the fact
> that their planners don't really understand the
> complexities of living languages) that all planned
> languages with a fairly large number of adherents have
> interminable arguments about grammatical and
> ungrammatical constructions. (One famous case out of
> Esperanto is the supposed ungrammaticality of using
> infinitive constructions after "sin.")

Interminable?  (BTW, I assume you mean "sen" and not "sin"
because infinitives after "sin" have always been acceptable.
"Sin trompi", for example, is perfectly good Esperanto).

De PMEG (mi traduction)

 "Sen + I-verbo es tradicionalmente reguardate como
  un error (vide Lingvajn Respondojn p. 74). Sed
  sen + I-verbo es un maniero de expression totalmente
  logical e multo opportun.  Tal uso jam deveneva
  commun, e ergo a pena pote causar problemas de
  comprehension."

Il ha discussiones interminable super le grammatica
de Esperanto (e.g 1961), sed illes non include "sen"
plus infinitivo.


A revider,
Tomaso