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