> > i'm not a linguist, but the linguists i know subscribe to the > > viewpoint that the written and spoken language are separate. > > and evolve separately. i would derive from this that writability > > is independent of pronouncability. > > If a sequence of symbols corresponds to something from a natural language > then it must be pronounceable since it must have been uttered at some time. > The same rule may not apply to "extensions" to natural language (acronyms, > stenography) or artificial languages (mathematics, computer programs).
i believe this distinction between "natural" and "artificial" languages is, uh, arbitrary. think of the symbols that people im each other with. these are largely unpronouncable. and i've only heard a few ever pronunced at all. (rofl comes to mind, though that term predates my knowledge of text messaging). i also am not sure that there is such a thing as an extension to a language. natural languages never have sharp boundaries and are pretty dynamic. when did "byte" become a word? when did "gift" become a verb? look how fast text-ese has evolved. my concept of a language looks more like a standard deviation than a box. - erik
