salivanto wrote:

>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.
>
>
>
In quasi omne linguas, artificial e etnic il existe interminabile
discussiones de varie cosas grammatic. Certe de illos ha occurrite
durante seculos. Svedese e anglese pro exemplo condivide le discussion
de expressiones como "Ille es plus grande que me", lo que on
non-obstante dice, e in anglese e in svedese!

Personalmente ego lo trova plenmente natural que on discute cosas
grammatic in un lingua que non es le lingua native del parlatores. Olim
ego legeva que isto es un facto observate in personas qui communica in
un lingua que non es lor proprie, durante que native parlatores dedica
minus de tempore al tal discussiones.

Kjell R