Le Baron wrote:Cainntear wrote:I might be wrong, but we can't prove or disprove that.
The debate over the fundamental nature of language has not been resolved. Are things as they are just by chance, or are there some underlying principles that naturally-occurring languages are built on top of?
If all that is so, why did you have a fear of pollution of unknown rules?
I'm particularly concerned about the rules of Germanic and Romance languages. I've pretty much specialised in the Romance languages, and there are things that I find increasingly predictable with each language. Esperanto goes off in a totally different direction, deriving and inflecting Latin-derived roots in ways that don't sit inside the patterns of variation across Europe's languages -- even at a superficial level, there's reason to be concerned that Esperanto pollutes the system.
Esperanto has features that are demonstrably different from natural languages -- I already pointed to the antonyms thing, and the single vowel for all pronouns (which reduces redundancy and makes pronouns harder to process at speed).
Given all that, and the lack of any compelling reason to learn a conlang, I just think on balance of probabilities, it's not worth it.
And similarly, the addition of conlangs to a machine learning system doesn't offer a lot of benefits, so you'd be gambling the chance of slightly better results against the possibility of significantly worse ones. Hardly seems worthwhile.