(June 13, 2012 at 5:49 pm)whateverist Wrote: 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.
Can someone become an expert simply by having what you call "working knowledge"? An expert in the field must not only know how the language usually works, he should also know a myriad of other ways it could work and what would not work. It would be impossible for someone to know it intuitively simply by exposure, because no person can be exposed to the entire body of language in his lifetime.
(June 13, 2012 at 5:49 pm)whateverist Wrote: 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?
Who's to say that their kids were taught? As you have been arguing, at that level, whatever language was picked was a result of experience. In all probability, communication was not very effective then and it started getting effective once they started establishing rules regarding it.
