(June 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm)genkaus Wrote:(June 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm)whateverist Wrote: I'm not sure if you're missing my point or avoiding it. My claim is that people can be expert speakers of their native language without having formally learned the parts of speech and the rules for their use. Your retort seems to be "how can they be experts if they never had any formal training." (What am I missing?)
You are missing the fact that being an expert would require specific and explicit knowledge of parts of speech and rules of the use, so that any mistake may be pointed out immediately. And how do you think they'd acquire that knowledge without learning it?
Maybe I see the hitch. Of course they have the knowledge. What I'm denying is that they would have to consciously hold that knowledge in a systematic, generalized form. From wikipedia I find: "Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason." So yes they have the working knowledge but not the formal knowledge. In other words, they can use the knowledge but they need not be able to list what it is they know. It is kind of like finding your way some where by car. Some people can get where they are going by "following their nose" but they could never draw you a map or tell you the names of half the streets.
As for whether there was any right or wrong usage before someone worked out the logic and structure inherent in the language already in use .. I don't think it takes much speculation to realize that of course users of the language had that before it was codified. How else did they teach their kids? I really don't think my position is controversial. I didn't study anthropology or linguistics in college but from general reading I have little doubt research is on my side. Do I need to look for it or did this attempt to clarify do the trick?
