Skepdick wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:26 pm
Sanskrit is basically a formalised (axiomatised?) natural language by virtue of Sanskrit speakers voluntarily adhering to Pāṇini's grammar rules as best as possible. Or would that make Sanskrit a naturalised axiomatic language?
I read the Wikipedia article on Sanskrit and I did not discern any connection to formal axiomatic systems. I confess to not understanding the intent of your remark. It may well be true (I have no way of knowing) that Sanskrit operates according to specific rules that can be called axiomatic. If so, I'm wrong in saying that we can't axiomatize natural language.
In fact I may be entirely wrong in my own premise. ZFC is a rigid formal mathematical system, yet within that structure, amazing feats of creative thinking can take place. Perhaps it depends on what level the formal system is. What I mean is, if the axioms declare a specific meaning for each word, or lists all the allowable words, that's too rigid for a language to grow. In natural language, the meaning of words changes all the time, and new words get added to the language.
On the other hand Chomsky talks about the deep structures common to all natural languages.
So perhaps I was being too literal or simplistic when I say you can't axiomatize natural language. If the axiomatic structure allows for creativity and change, then a language can be axiomatized while still allowing for creativity.