Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
> larrytMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecogs.susx.ac.uk (Larry Trask) said: > it is going too far to conclude that therefore > individual languages do not exist at all. > > Compare baseball. Before the 1850s, there was no set of agreed > rules for playing baseball. Instead, each town played the game with > somewhat different rules from every other town, and games between > towns required a certain amount of negotiation before they could be > played. Only in the 1850s did a widely agreed set of rules emerge. > > The view above would therefore have us believe that, before the > 1850s, at least, no such game as baseball existed, but only people > performing baseball and people creating abstract notions of > baseball. Is this plausible? This seems to relate to what "David Powers <David.Powers
flinders.edu.au> said in his posting -- that many people were (wrongly) equating THE LANGUAGE with the formalised, written, codified, ISO standard with its army and navy. The codified rules of baseball (I'll take your word for it) came into being in the 1850s but people were doing baseball before that (and presumably to this day play baseball according to ad hoc and personal rules -- *idioludes*). There might even be a point where baseball and rounders coalesce. If there is a new 2052 rule book will baseball have ceased to 'exist'. Are baseball, rounders and cricket one game? three? How many *dialudes* do they have? So is Larry Trask agreeing with me (& David Powers) or disagreeing? Anthea Anthea Fraser GUPTA : http://www.leeds.ac.uk/english/$staff/afg School of English University of Leeds LEEDS LS2 9JT UK