So, I was talking to griffen.

[conuly]

He's apparently started to internalize ASL, which is just *so cool*, and I said it must be his "natural language". I just invented that to mean that this was easier for him to think in than many other languages, but it started me thinking - is it normal to have an internal cue towards a certain type of language structure - even when it's not your own?

Ages back, I started (but never finished, or even did very much with) a conlang that formed verbs from everything. Even though this never went anywhere, and I was done with it within a few days, since then I think things in terms of "bed-going" or "door-closing". It's just easier to say "I door-closed" than "I closed the door". Clearly, this isn't normal English structure. I'm a monolingual speaker (more's the pity...). So why do I find it easier to use this foreign construction? I shouldn't, should I? But I definitely do.

Comments

[conuly]

That's incorrect, Griffen.

First of all, there's no such thing as a "simple" language - except, perhaps, pidgins.

Secondly, if you would care to examine pidgins, you'll see that English clearly isn't one. A pidgin is the first language of nobody, and has no grammar. English is obviously many people's first language, and has a quite complex grammar, if I do say so myself.

Some people do argue that English is a creole, which is possible, but there is no way to argue that English is a pidgin.

*shrug*

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I'll let you argue it with my Anthropology teacher, then.

Re: *shrug*

[conuly]

I wouldn't waste my time. Give him a good intro-to-linguistics book and tell him to look up "pidgin" "creole" and the first chapter, which should involve common myths, like the idea of a simple or complex language.

Re: *shrug*

[conuly]

Or her.

(I'm in a bad mood from lack of food. Sorry)