There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Cat Language
From: Tony Harris
1b. Re: Cat Language
From: R A Brown
1c. Re: Cat Language
From: Padraic Brown
2.1. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
2.2. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: George Corley
2.3. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Vojtěch Merunka
2.4. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Tony Harris
2.5. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: George Corley
2.6. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Tony Harris
2.7. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Matthew George
2.8. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Adam Walker
2.9. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Roger Mills
2.10. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: George Corley
2.11. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Alex Fink
3.1. Re: Cat Language (was: Prairie Dog Language - and Other Interesting
From: A. da Mek
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Cat Language
Posted by: "Tony Harris" t...@alurhsa.org
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:30 am ((PDT))
Hmm. Meant this to go to the list, not just to Padraic. Sorry about that!
On 07/10/2013 11:30 AM, Tony Harris wrote:
>
> On 07/10/2013 10:16 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> Well, clearly, there must be some use for some sort of imperative
>> structure when communicating inter pares; but, really, how often do
>> you actually commánd your wife to do this or that? One can presume
>> that the Chief Ratter will naturally order his subordinates to hunt
>> down this tribe of rats or parley with that one, but as among any
>> society where grace and good manners command the premium, one simply
>> does not order one's equals about! Nay! It is with the subordinate
>> classes in society --- dogs, rats, birds, humans and other assorted
>> chattels --- that the Cat most naturally and assuredly inflicts with
>> the imperative.
>
> I'm not actually sure cats *have* a "Chief Ratter", or any sort of
> chief. More like a bunch of cats living together establish a guarded,
> limited truce with one another, out of which some may establish
> friendships, while others will simply tolerate each others'
> existence. There is a certain amount of deference shown to those who
> manage to achieve a higher level of respect, but that doesn't seem to
> come with much more than being grudgingly willing to not take the best
> spot on the couch for fear of ticking off the more respected (and
> usually more belligerent) other.
>
> Now, using imperatives with humans, dogs, and other domestic livestock
> on one's ranch, I agree that is much more likely.
>
>>> FWIW those interested might read:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication
>>>
>>> I'm wishing I hadn't mentioned this less than
>>> half-remembered talk on the radio from the 1950s. Obviously
>>> conlangers find cats more interesting than prairie dogs.
>> Not more interesting, really. All animal communication is of
>> interest for a conlanger. But in all honesty, most of us have or
>> have had a cat or dog in our company. Not many can claim to
>> have a village of prairie dogs in their living rooms!
> Or for those of us not living in the American plains, even having any
> prairie dogs within several hundred miles at least!
>
> On the other hand, I am a serious cat lover, so I plead guilty to
> finding it more interesting to discuss interfeline communication and
> feline interspecies communication.
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Cat Language
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:32 am ((PDT))
On 10/07/2013 15:16, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> From: R A Brown
[snip]
>> I assumed those long years ago that it was being
>> claimed that the imperative mood was for communicating
>> with other cats. IIRC the speaker was claiming cats
>> had language of sorts for inter-feline communication.
>
> Well, clearly, there must be some use for some sort of
> imperative structure when communicating inter pares; but,
> really, how often do you actually comm�nd your wife to do
> this or that?
One can imagine that a mother cat might use imperatives
towards skittish kittens.
[snip]
>
>> FWIW those interested might read:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication
>>
>> I'm wishing I hadn't mentioned this less than
>> half-remembered talk on the radio from the 1950s.
>> Obviously conlangers find cats more interesting than
>> prairie dogs.
Yet I assume many conlangers have heard birdsong in their
gardens, and possibly crickets/ cicadas or similar insects
(depending where they live) chirping. These seem to me
possibilities for conlangs, possibly in an alien world.
> Not more interesting, really. All animal communication is
> of interest for a conlanger.
I hope so.
But all the talk has been about _Felis catus_ and/or
_Canis lupus familiaris_ communicating with humans on a
fairly basic level - mainly to get food.
[snip]
>> We don't of course have these little critters this side
>> of the Pond, but they do look a lot cuter than the cats
>> that visit my garden ;)
>
> Just as well. They'd dig up your garden in no time at
> all!
At least the darn critters wouldn't sneak into the house
when no one is looking and find somewhere to sleep -
or would they? (Not familiar with the habits of the various
species of Cynomys).
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language � began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Cat Language
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:35 am ((PDT))
> From: R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
>
> On 10/07/2013 15:16, Padraic Brown wrote:
>>> From: R A Brown
> [snip]
>>> I assumed those long years ago that it was being
>>> claimed that the imperative mood was for communicating
>>> with other cats. IIRC the speaker was claiming cats
>>> had language of sorts for inter-feline communication.
>>
>> Well, clearly, there must be some use for some sort of
>> imperative structure when communicating inter pares; but,
>> really, how often do you actually commánd your wife to do
>> this or that?
>
> One can imagine that a mother cat might use imperatives
> towards skittish kittens.
Indeed! Hence "some use...". Just as you undoubtedly ordered
your children to do something (and indeed as I was ordered by
my parents!) My point was simply that, militibus exceptis, most
of us don't come in much contact with people ordering us around.
Our working lives and community lives are filled with "softened"
exhortations and the like: "would you mind helping me with..."
"could I ask you to..." and "I wonder if you might be able to...".
>>> FWIW those interested might read:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication
>>>
>>> I'm wishing I hadn't mentioned this less than
>>> half-remembered talk on the radio from the 1950s.
>>> Obviously conlangers find cats more interesting than
>>> prairie dogs.
>
> Yet I assume many conlangers have heard birdsong in their
> gardens, and possibly crickets/ cicadas or similar insects
> (depending where they live) chirping. These seem to me
> possibilities for conlangs, possibly in an alien world.
Yep. I think I have talked somewhat recently of both werepig
language (Guuggrug) and a language that uses only goat-friendly
phonology (Gotlandish). The animal world can indeed provide
plenty of inspiration for the conlanger!
>> Not more interesting, really. All animal communication is
>> of interest for a conlanger.
>
> I hope so.
>
> But all the talk has been about _Felis catus_ and/or
> _Canis lupus familiaris_ communicating with humans on a
> fairly basic level - mainly to get food.
Yep. Vagaries of the forum, I suppose. But with all due respect,
the first two replies to the OP I read were two very well respected
conlangers poo-pooing the whole Prairie Dog Language idea
entirely! ;)))))) I might have hoped that a conlanger would have
replied something more along the lines of "While I find the idea of
actual *language* among prairie dogs to be suspicious, I find the
idea a compelling one, especially given their social structure, and
to that end, here's what I've come up with......" Alas, we didn't get
that kind of response.
>>> We don't of course have these little critters this side
>>> of the Pond, but they do look a lot cuter than the cats
>>> that visit my garden ;)
>>
>> Just as well. They'd dig up your garden in no time at
>> all!
>
> At least the darn critters wouldn't sneak into the house
> when no one is looking and find somewhere to sleep -
> or would they? (Not familiar with the habits of the various
> species of Cynomys).
I don't think so, it seems. From what I've read, they tend to be pretty
territorial
and unlikely to get in the house. Though, people do keep the things
as pets (and, as with any other wild animal kept as pets, people do
release them back into the wilds of their neighborhoods if they become
unruly).
Padraic
> Ray
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Paul Schleitwiler, FCM" pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:06 am ((PDT))
Interesting how this shifted from how animals may communicate with each
other to how humans communicate with pets.
And anthropomorphizing the pets.
The truly unique trait of humans is that they think humans are unique.
However, several studies have shown that animals can understand human
words and simple sentences. If they are capable of that, then they have the
capacity for their own languages. Have no idea what an animal grammarian
looks like though.
And doubt one would act or think like a human one.
God bless you always, all ways,
Paul
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
tsela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 July 2013 20:58, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, we discovered this mutual Buddy-ownedness previously.
>
>
> So we did indeed! Sorry, these last weeks my memory's been a real... eh,
> what do you call it? Full of holes... not cheese... You can put things in
> it, foodstuff to separate from other stuff... Ah yes, a sieve!
>
>
> > And yes, my
> > Dalmatian uses his cuteness to excuse whatever badness he may have
> > committed. Him will dishappy when him figureoutes dat I has tolded him's
> > seekwets. And no. I do *not* act goofy with/about my dog. Ever.
> >
> >
> Of course not! I don't either. Just like I never fall for my dog's "I don't
> have any idea what you're talking about"-look of innocence :P. He is also
> very clear at communicating when he takes over my place on the sofa: "what
> do you mean you were sitting here just a moment ago? I've been lying on
> this very spot all day! What do you mean you heard me climb just as you
> went to the kitchen? That's crazy talk!". It's impressive how much he can
> communicate with two wide eyes, a smile, and free-range ears :P.
>
>
> > Adam who is just an old hum(b)ans, but he is a adaquate servants for a
> > doggy who is 12
> >
> >
> Buddy's going on 12 as well. But I like to think of myself more as his pal
> than his servant though :P.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:14 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <
pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting how this shifted from how animals may communicate with each
> other to how humans communicate with pets.
> And anthropomorphizing the pets.
>
> The truly unique trait of humans is that they think humans are unique.
>
> However, several studies have shown that animals can understand human
> words and simple sentences. If they are capable of that, then they have the
> capacity for their own languages. Have no idea what an animal grammarian
> looks like though.
> And doubt one would act or think like a human one.
>
As far as I have understood, no non-human animal has exhibited real human
language. Some animals can associate words or signs with the real world,
which is important and is a component of language, but none have really
become competent at constructing novel sentences. Also, in most of these
studies, animals learned a few hundred words or signs, whereas humans
typically learn thousands of words throughout their lifetimes. Language is
not just one binary switch -- human language has many distinguishing
properties, and many of them simply have not been observed in animals.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Vojtěch Merunka" vmeru...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:36 am ((PDT))
what about sign language skills of apes?
do not mix the physical disposition for human voice language and intellectual
disposition to use communication tools.
Odesláno z iPadu
10. 7. 2013 v 19:14, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <
> pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting how this shifted from how animals may communicate with each
>> other to how humans communicate with pets.
>> And anthropomorphizing the pets.
>>
>> The truly unique trait of humans is that they think humans are unique.
>>
>> However, several studies have shown that animals can understand human
>> words and simple sentences. If they are capable of that, then they have the
>> capacity for their own languages. Have no idea what an animal grammarian
>> looks like though.
>> And doubt one would act or think like a human one.
>
> As far as I have understood, no non-human animal has exhibited real human
> language. Some animals can associate words or signs with the real world,
> which is important and is a component of language, but none have really
> become competent at constructing novel sentences. Also, in most of these
> studies, animals learned a few hundred words or signs, whereas humans
> typically learn thousands of words throughout their lifetimes. Language is
> not just one binary switch -- human language has many distinguishing
> properties, and many of them simply have not been observed in animals.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Tony Harris" t...@alurhsa.org
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:53 am ((PDT))
I do find interspecies communication quite interesting, and as I said,
being a serious cat lover (as in a "serious [cat lover]" not a "[serious
cat] lover" although I'm sure serious cats are as lovable as any other
cat...) I find feline interspecies communication particular interesting.
I generally find that my cat operates at probably about the level of a
human 2 or 3 year old when it comes to communication with me. She is
certainly able to make her desires known, although it does occasionally
take her a good deal more effort than I think she believes it should.
And we have had a number of occasions where we will say some reasonably
full sentence to her in answer to something and have her do what seems
like it can only be a response to the words themselves (or at least some
individual word in the whole communication stream), so I do suspect she
has picked up enough about how humans interact with each other and with
her to get the messages that are important (in her view, at least).
To be honest, achieving even that level of interaction with another
species whose thought patterns are definitely not human ones is pretty
cool. Do cats have a language? Would we actually be able to tell,
programmed as we are to human communication patterns and methods? What
they're even communicating as ideas could be rather different, although
you would think that "universals" such as objects we can both
see/hear/smell/touch/taste would stick out as shared concepts at least
to some level.
It's a question I imagine others have also approached in terms of how we
would ever manage to communicate with an entirely alien species. Cats
are, after all, terran mammals and thus not all *that* far from homo
sapiens in overall makeup, brain layout and function, etc. Now imagine,
as I'm sure many of you have, a species of highly evolved mollusk, and
think entirely outside of the human box about how they might
communicate, and what their thought patterns might be like.
On 07/10/2013 01:06 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM wrote:
> Interesting how this shifted from how animals may communicate with each
> other to how humans communicate with pets.
> And anthropomorphizing the pets.
>
> The truly unique trait of humans is that they think humans are unique.
>
> However, several studies have shown that animals can understand human
> words and simple sentences. If they are capable of that, then they have the
> capacity for their own languages. Have no idea what an animal grammarian
> looks like though.
> And doubt one would act or think like a human one.
> God bless you always, all ways,
> Paul
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> tsela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8 July 2013 20:58, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, we discovered this mutual Buddy-ownedness previously.
>>
>> So we did indeed! Sorry, these last weeks my memory's been a real... eh,
>> what do you call it? Full of holes... not cheese... You can put things in
>> it, foodstuff to separate from other stuff... Ah yes, a sieve!
>>
>>
>>> And yes, my
>>> Dalmatian uses his cuteness to excuse whatever badness he may have
>>> committed. Him will dishappy when him figureoutes dat I has tolded him's
>>> seekwets. And no. I do *not* act goofy with/about my dog. Ever.
>>>
>>>
>> Of course not! I don't either. Just like I never fall for my dog's "I don't
>> have any idea what you're talking about"-look of innocence :P. He is also
>> very clear at communicating when he takes over my place on the sofa: "what
>> do you mean you were sitting here just a moment ago? I've been lying on
>> this very spot all day! What do you mean you heard me climb just as you
>> went to the kitchen? That's crazy talk!". It's impressive how much he can
>> communicate with two wide eyes, a smile, and free-range ears :P.
>>
>>
>>> Adam who is just an old hum(b)ans, but he is a adaquate servants for a
>>> doggy who is 12
>>>
>>>
>> Buddy's going on 12 as well. But I like to think of myself more as his pal
>> than his servant though :P.
>> --
>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>>
>> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:01 am ((PDT))
Did you miss the part where I continually mentioned "words or signs" --
perhaps that might have been a clue that I was also referring to ape
studies involving ASL. I would never, EVER, construe signed languages to be
inferior to spoken languages in any way -- that would be scientifically
baseless as well as extremely offensive to the Deaf community. My
understanding is that those chimpanzees and gorillas that were taught ASL
never really learned it to a level beyond what's normal for a human toddler.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Vojtěch Merunka <vmeru...@gmail.com>wrote:
> what about sign language skills of apes?
> do not mix the physical disposition for human voice language and
> intellectual disposition to use communication tools.
>
>
>
> Odesláno z iPadu
>
> 10. 7. 2013 v 19:14, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <
> > pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting how this shifted from how animals may communicate with each
> >> other to how humans communicate with pets.
> >> And anthropomorphizing the pets.
> >>
> >> The truly unique trait of humans is that they think humans are unique.
> >>
> >> However, several studies have shown that animals can understand human
> >> words and simple sentences. If they are capable of that, then they have
> the
> >> capacity for their own languages. Have no idea what an animal grammarian
> >> looks like though.
> >> And doubt one would act or think like a human one.
> >
> > As far as I have understood, no non-human animal has exhibited real human
> > language. Some animals can associate words or signs with the real world,
> > which is important and is a component of language, but none have really
> > become competent at constructing novel sentences. Also, in most of these
> > studies, animals learned a few hundred words or signs, whereas humans
> > typically learn thousands of words throughout their lifetimes. Language
> is
> > not just one binary switch -- human language has many distinguishing
> > properties, and many of them simply have not been observed in animals.
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Tony Harris" t...@alurhsa.org
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:32 am ((PDT))
What I have heard at some point in some college course was that there is
a specific part of the human brain that adds the ability to use language
(as we define language, regardless of whether it is spoken, signed, or
whatever). That part of the brain grows and begins to develop this
ability somewhere around 2 years of age in humans, and in fact they have
found that if a human child is not introduced to language by the time
they hit puberty, it's too late and that part of the brain will never
develop to normal capacity, and the human will never quite manage to
fully use any language. This was one of the discoveries they made based
on some of the "wild" children over the course of time, especially one
young girl whose abusive parents kept her prisoner and incommunicado
from birth until she was rescued at about age 13.
As this part of the brain is not developed in apes (and cats), that
would explain why they make it to that 2-3 year old stage in their
communication (at least their communication with us) but not beyond that.
On 07/10/2013 02:00 PM, George Corley wrote:
> Did you miss the part where I continually mentioned "words or signs" --
> perhaps that might have been a clue that I was also referring to ape
> studies involving ASL. I would never, EVER, construe signed languages to be
> inferior to spoken languages in any way -- that would be scientifically
> baseless as well as extremely offensive to the Deaf community. My
> understanding is that those chimpanzees and gorillas that were taught ASL
> never really learned it to a level beyond what's normal for a human toddler.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Vojtěch Merunka <vmeru...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> what about sign language skills of apes?
>> do not mix the physical disposition for human voice language and
>> intellectual disposition to use communication tools.
>>
>>
>>
>> Odesláno z iPadu
>>
>> 10. 7. 2013 v 19:14, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <
>>> pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting how this shifted from how animals may communicate with each
>>>> other to how humans communicate with pets.
>>>> And anthropomorphizing the pets.
>>>>
>>>> The truly unique trait of humans is that they think humans are unique.
>>>>
>>>> However, several studies have shown that animals can understand human
>>>> words and simple sentences. If they are capable of that, then they have
>> the
>>>> capacity for their own languages. Have no idea what an animal grammarian
>>>> looks like though.
>>>> And doubt one would act or think like a human one.
>>> As far as I have understood, no non-human animal has exhibited real human
>>> language. Some animals can associate words or signs with the real world,
>>> which is important and is a component of language, but none have really
>>> become competent at constructing novel sentences. Also, in most of these
>>> studies, animals learned a few hundred words or signs, whereas humans
>>> typically learn thousands of words throughout their lifetimes. Language
>> is
>>> not just one binary switch -- human language has many distinguishing
>>> properties, and many of them simply have not been observed in animals.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.7. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Matthew George" matt....@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:16 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would never, EVER, construe signed languages to be inferior to spoken
> languages in any way -- that would be scientifically baseless as well as
> extremely offensive to the Deaf community.
Aren't you taking that just a little bit too far, George? There is one
obvious way in which auditory language is superior to visual: you don't
need to be looking at someone to receive communication from them. The
implications for emergencies are obvious.
Linguistically, signed languages may be just as complex, expressive, and
useful as spoken ones. But there are other contexts besides the purely
linguistic.
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.8. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:25 pm ((PDT))
And there are other contexts in which signed languages are clearly
superior -- communication at distance in a noisy environment, silent
communication at a distance, communicating while chewing. They are
different mediums each with its own inherent advantages and
disadvantages. But as LANGUAGES as symbol systems with grammars used
to communicate thoughts neither is "better" than the other.
Adam
On 7/10/13, Matthew George <matt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would never, EVER, construe signed languages to be inferior to spoken
>> languages in any way -- that would be scientifically baseless as well as
>> extremely offensive to the Deaf community.
>
>
> Aren't you taking that just a little bit too far, George? There is one
> obvious way in which auditory language is superior to visual: you don't
> need to be looking at someone to receive communication from them. The
> implications for emergencies are obvious.
>
> Linguistically, signed languages may be just as complex, expressive, and
> useful as spoken ones. But there are other contexts besides the purely
> linguistic.
>
> Matt G.
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.9. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:42 pm ((PDT))
From: "Paul Schleitwiler, FCM" <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com>
However, several studies have shown that animals can understand human
words and simple sentences. If they are capable of that, then they have the
capacity for their own languages. Have no idea what an animal grammarian
looks like though.
============================================
That is certainly true. I've had multiple cats over the years. My first two--
mother and son-- lived with me during grad school days, when I was learning
Indonesian, and they knew at least 3 words of that language:
makan 'eat', susu 'milk', and luar 'out(side)'. They would even run to the door
if I said "Mau keluar?" (want to go out?) with rising question intonation.
My present two (unrelated), I sometimes think, don't have the sense they were
born with. Informally I call then Dodo and Bozo. They do understand, and
usually respond to "din-din" but that's about it. Well, also "Down!" in a very
loud voice, when they're get up on the kitchen counter....
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.10. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:43 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Matthew George <matt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would never, EVER, construe signed languages to be inferior to spoken
> > languages in any way -- that would be scientifically baseless as well as
> > extremely offensive to the Deaf community.
>
>
> Aren't you taking that just a little bit too far, George? There is one
> obvious way in which auditory language is superior to visual: you don't
> need to be looking at someone to receive communication from them. The
> implications for emergencies are obvious.
>
Yes, there are practical advantages. Understand that that comment was given
in response to someone who was accusing me of devaluing signed languages. I
may have been a bit emotional in rejecting that claim, and the important
thing to get across was that I was aware of the ape studies using sign
language and my assessment of them has nothing whatsoever to do with the
fact that they were being taught a signed language rather than a spoken
one. In fact, in those experiments, the advantage was with signing, since
the vocal systems of chimpanzees and gorillas are not capable of clearly
articulating human spoken language, but their hands do reasonably well at
imitating human sign languages.
> Linguistically, signed languages may be just as complex, expressive, and
> useful as spoken ones. But there are other contexts besides the purely
> linguistic.
>
I was speaking linguistically.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And there are other contexts in which signed languages are clearly
> superior -- communication at distance in a noisy environment, silent
> communication at a distance, communicating while chewing. They are
> different mediums each with its own inherent advantages and
> disadvantages. But as LANGUAGES as symbol systems with grammars used
> to communicate thoughts neither is "better" than the other.
My thoughts exactly.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.11. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:52 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:14:26 -0500, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <
>pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting how this shifted from how animals may communicate with each
>> other to how humans communicate with pets.
>> And anthropomorphizing the pets.
>>
>> The truly unique trait of humans is that they think humans are unique.
>>
>> However, several studies have shown that animals can understand human
>> words and simple sentences. If they are capable of that, then they have the
>> capacity for their own languages. Have no idea what an animal grammarian
>> looks like though.
>> And doubt one would act or think like a human one.
>
>As far as I have understood, no non-human animal has exhibited real human
>language. Some animals can associate words or signs with the real world,
>which is important and is a component of language, but none have really
>become competent at constructing novel sentences. Also, in most of these
>studies, animals learned a few hundred words or signs, whereas humans
>typically learn thousands of words throughout their lifetimes. Language is
>not just one binary switch -- human language has many distinguishing
>properties, and many of them simply have not been observed in animals.
I'd go further and urge caution in even imputing consciousness to any
particular animal species, much less the sort that one imagines be needed to
support a (human-linguistics-calibre) language. In fact this is another point
on which, a priori, we should expect near-continuous variation, "many
distinguishing properties" as opposed to "one binary switch". Dennett, while
wrestling with similar questions
<http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/dennett_anim_csness.html>, adduces some
provoking facts:
| Whales are not the only animals whose eyes have visual fields with little
| or no overlap; rabbits are another. In rabbits there is no interocular
| transfer of learning! That is, if you train a rabbit that a particular
| shape is a source of danger by demonstrations carefully restricted to its
| left eye, the rabbit will exhibit no "knowledge" about that shape, no
| fear or flight behavior, when the menacing shape is presented to its
| right eye. When we ask what it is like to be that rabbit, it appears that
| at the very least we must put a subscript, dexter or sinister, on our
| question in order to make it well-formed.
|
| Now let's leap the huge chasm that separates our cousins, the whale and
| the rabbit, from a much more distant relative, the snake. In an elegant
| paper, "Cued and detached representations in animal cognition," Peter
| Gardenfors (unpublished) points out "why a snake can't think of a mouse."
|
| "It seems that a snake does not have a central representation of a mouse
| but relies solely on transduced information. The snake exploits three
| different sensory systems in relation to prey, like a mouse. To strike
| the mouse, the snake uses its visual system (or thermal sensors). When
| struck, the mouse normally does not die immediately, but runs away for
| some distance. To locate the mouse, once the prey has been struck, the
| snake uses its sense of smell. The search behavior is exclusively wired
| to this modality. Even if the mouse happens to die right in front of the
| eyes of the snake, it will still follow the smell trace of the mouse in
| order to find it. This unimodality is particularly evident in snakes like
| boas and pythons, where the prey often is held fast in the coils of the
| snake's body, when it e.g. hangs from a branch. Despite the fact that the
| snake must have ample proprioceptory information about the location of
| the prey it holds, it searches stochastically for it, all around, only
| with the help of the olfactory sense organs." (Sjolander, 1993, p. 3).
|
| Finally, after the mouse has been located, the snake must find its head
| in order to swallow it. This could obviously be done with the aid of
| smell or sight, but in snakes this process uses only tactile information.
| Thus the snake uses three separate modalities to catch and eat a mouse.
Hard for me to imagine rabbits tàlking (rather than just innately signalling)
about things they're seeing, or snakes about their prey, in that light.
Hm, conspecies idea: what about a species which has more than one independent
*consciousness* that don't interface with each other, the same way the critters
above have multiple sensory modalities that don't interface with each other?
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:32:27 +0100, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
>On 10/07/2013 15:16, Padraic Brown wrote:
>>> From: R A Brown
>>> I'm wishing I hadn't mentioned this less than
>>> half-remembered talk on the radio from the 1950s.
>>> Obviously conlangers find cats more interesting than
>>> prairie dogs.
>>
>> Not more interesting, really. All animal communication is
>> of interest for a conlanger.
>
>I hope so.
>
>But all the talk has been about _Felis catus_ and/or
>_Canis lupus familiaris_ communicating with humans on a
>fairly basic level - mainly to get food.
Well, at least none of us are secret robots.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3007
Alex
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Cat Language (was: Prairie Dog Language - and Other Interesting
Posted by: "A. da Mek" a.da_m...@ufoni.cz
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:52 pm ((PDT))
> Not many can claim to
have a village of prairie dogs in their living rooms!
Some years ago, there was a fashion among snobs to have a prairie dog. (Some
of them even did not know that a prairie dog is not a dog.) When they found
out that a mature prairie dog is not so pleasant roommate as they thought,
they wanted to offer them to the zoo, but the zoo was refusing them, because
a prairie dog raised by humans doesnot know how live in a comunity of its
biologogical relatives.
(BTW, this reminds me a variation of a fairy tale, which ends: "... and the
Snow White sold the dwarfs to the zoo. The dwarfs liked it there, until they
found that they were bought as a food for hippos.")
Messages in this topic (32)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
