You must resent every single natural human language then, since all of them show the exact same kinds of irregularities, for the most part.
And, if we all did decide to use Esperanto because it’s regular (and therefore artificial), irregularities would inevitably be introduced within a single generation, because the nature of human language is to change, and that change will always result in irregularity.
No, I have it the right way around. Artificial languages can be irregular, so your order doesn’t follow.
No regular language can be natural, though, so if you come across a regular language, you can always correctly conclude that it’s artificial through modus tollens:
“If a language is natural, then it is not regular. This language is regular, therefore it is not natural.”
You must resent every single natural human language then, since all of them show the exact same kinds of irregularities, for the most part.
And, if we all did decide to use Esperanto because it’s regular (and therefore artificial), irregularities would inevitably be introduced within a single generation, because the nature of human language is to change, and that change will always result in irregularity.
You know what, YEAH, I DO
FUCK language, when’s true 1-to-1 perfect transmission of information and meaning coming out? Get on it, linguists/wizards!
Go speak Lojban with people numbering “beyond what can be counted on the fingers of one hand”.
It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.
Minor nitpick, you have causality inverted. Esperanto is artificial and therefore regular.
No, I have it the right way around. Artificial languages can be irregular, so your order doesn’t follow.
No regular language can be natural, though, so if you come across a regular language, you can always correctly conclude that it’s artificial through modus tollens:
“If a language is natural, then it is not regular. This language is regular, therefore it is not natural.”