There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Conlangs in music
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. OT hominids (was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Hominins (Was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: OT hominids (was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: OT hominids (was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: OT hominids
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. OT: Happy New Year 2006!
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: The German Element in Brazil
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: OT: Happy New Year 2006!
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: OT: Happy New Year 2006!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14. Happy New Year
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Happy New Year
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Happy New Year
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
17. Re: Happy New Year
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. A book report...
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: A book report...
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: A book report...
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: OT: Happy New Year 2006!
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: A book report...
From: Aaron Morse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: A book report...
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. What is language? (was: OT hominids)
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: What is language? (was: OT hominids)
From: Cian Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:56:37 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
--- Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I would, however, question whether there was ever
> a time when _hominids_
> > did not have language.
>
> Unfortunately, the term "hominid" does not have a
> single, agreed-on definition.
My only argument is this: (And it does not depend on
the definition of "hominid" or any other term);
1. There was a time in the distant past when no living
creature had sophisticated language.
2. At the present time at least one living creature,
man, has sophisticated language.
3. That did not happen overnight, but came about as
the result of a period of increasing sophistication in
the manner and content of communication. Therefore, it
follows, seemingly incontrovertably, that there was,
during that period of emergence, a time when
communication was still at a primative level. To
argue that no such period of primative communication
existed seems to me to be arguing that language popped
into existance overnight by some miraculous event.
That does not seem like a very sensible thesis.
There doesn't seem to be a third alternative here.
Either language popped into existence instantly or it
developed gradually. And even if "gradually" means
over a period of two and a half weeks, that still
means that on Wednesday of the first week language was
at a very primative stage analgous to (but not
necessarily identical with) "me see tiger." To say
that such a stage never existed is to say that
language popped into existance instantaneously. There
is no third alternative. That's all I'm trying to
point out.
If someone can point out a third alternative to
gradual vs instantaneous then I will gladly admit that
I am wrong about this.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:33:16 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Conlangs in music
There are 3 tracks in Loxian ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loxian ),
1 in Japanese, and the usual Irish/English ones. On her last album,
some of it was in Latin.
On 12/30/05, John Schlembach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A friend of mine mentioned that Enya sings in a conlang on her new album.
>
> I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. Remind me to check out the songs
> you mentioned.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:35:40 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT hominids (was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>>I would, however, question whether there was ever a time when _hominids_
>>did not have language.
>
>
> Unfortunately, the term "hominid" does not have a single, agreed-on
> definition.
Oh! :=(
Too influenced by Latin 'homo' (gen. hominis) [common gender] = man (as
opposed to beast or deity), i.e. human being.
[snip]
>
> It seems to me very unlikely that early hominins - with non-sunken larynxes,
> chimp-sized brains, and probably without the elaborate neural apparatus to
> control breathing of modern humans - could have had language.
Agreed.
> (In fact, said neural apparatus does not seem to've been in place until very
> late - even H. erectus lacks the expanded spinal cord canal to accomodate the
> extra nerves.)
>
> Since the discussion has mostly concerned Neanderthals, I however suspect you
> have some even more restricted meaning in mind.
Yes, I did.
=================================
caeruleancentaur wrote:
[snip]
> Search Wikipedia for "hominin." There's a chart illustrating
> (possible) descent lines. Interestingly, both humans and chimpanzees
> are hominins!
And Hominidae includes a whole lot more than just humans & chimps!
Yep - I certainly didn't mean all members Hominidae family. I guess I
meant all members of the genus Homo. As for language, I suppose it
depends on what is meant by language ;-)
I understand that (some) social insects have sophisticated communication
systems. Would these be called language, or does language have to be
primarily vocal?
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:06:58 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hominins (Was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
Quoting caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --- In [email protected], Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Unfortunately, the term "hominid" does not have a single, agreed-on
> >definition.
>
> Yes, unfortunate.
>
> Search Wikipedia for "hominin." There's a chart illustrating
> (possible) descent lines. Interestingly, both humans and chimpanzees
> are hominins!
Oh my. There's no end to the variant definitions, is there?
In my experience, however, the particular definition Wikipedia gives is never
used in palaeanthropology.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:18:18 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Quoting Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --- Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I would, however, question whether there was ever
> > a time when _hominids_
> > > did not have language.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the term "hominid" does not have a
> > single, agreed-on definition.
>
> My only argument is this: (And it does not depend on
> the definition of "hominid" or any other term);
>
> 1. There was a time in the distant past when no living
> creature had sophisticated language.
>
> 2. At the present time at least one living creature,
> man, has sophisticated language.
>
> 3. That did not happen overnight, but came about as
> the result of a period of increasing sophistication in
> the manner and content of communication. Therefore, it
> follows, seemingly incontrovertably, that there was,
> during that period of emergence, a time when
> communication was still at a primative level.
I was in no way addressing this argument, only pointing out the lack of
precision in Ray's statement, but for the record I quite agree. Humans seem to
be neurologically hardwired to acquire and use language - that sort of complex
adaptions simply do not arise overnight.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:21:41 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT hominids (was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I understand that (some) social insects have sophisticated communication
> systems. Would these be called language, or does language have to be
> primarily vocal?
AFAIU, the communication of insect likes bees is structurally very different
from human language, so I'd be disinclined to call them language quite apart
from the difference between vocal and gestural communication.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:49:17 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT hominids (was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:21:41 -0500, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I understand that (some) social insects have sophisticated communication
>> systems. Would these be called language, or does language have to be
>> primarily vocal?
>
> AFAIU, the communication of insect likes bees is structurally very
> different
> from human language, so I'd be disinclined to call them language quite
> apart
> from the difference between vocal and gestural communication.
The last time I read anything about bee communication, bee "dances"
provided nothing more than bearing and range information to nectar
sources, in a stereotypical, formulaic way. That's IMO even less like
language than birdsong -- at least some birdsong is capable of expressing
more than one notion.
Ants, on the oher hand, seem to communicate via something at least
potentially approaching the complexity of real language; a combination of
sign language, touch language and chemical language. As far as I know,
though, it's even less well understood than bee dances or birdsong.
I'd really like to get up to speed with the latest research on dolphin
language. It seems they're capable of describing things using sonar
"pictures", and that they have matrilinear personal names, as well as
obviously having enough of a language facility to understand combinations
of sign and vocal language from humans.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:59:03 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Andreas Johansson wrote:
[snip]
>
> I was in no way addressing this argument, only pointing out the lack of
> precision in Ray's statement,
....which I have acknowledged.
> but for the record I quite agree. Humans seem to
> be neurologically hardwired to acquire and use language - that sort of complex
> adaptions simply do not arise overnight.
But as far as I can see *no one* has actually disagreed with that.
Indeed, in at least two of my previous emails I stated quite explicilty
that I considered the development of language to be an _evolutionary_
process. I just do not understand why there is constant reference to
language arising overnight.
All I took issue with was the comic book stereotype of hunter-gatherer
saying "me see tiger". I really do not understand why questioning a
comic book stereotype is taken to mean that I hold the barmy notion that
language developed overnight - especially as I explicitly said at least
twice I considered the process to be evolutionary!!!!
The reason I suggested this part of the thread might be closed is that I
do not like being misrepresented.
This is positively _my_ very last word on this unfortunate subject - I
do not wish to go into 2006 with this aspect of the thread.
Good-bye 2005!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:59:43 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT hominids
R A Brown wrote:
> I understand that (some) social insects have sophisticated communication
> systems. Would these be called language, or does language have to be
> primarily vocal?
Language doesn't have to be primarily vocal, but exactly what
"sophisticated" means in a linguistic context would fill volumes.
Unfortunately, I'm no expert on the subject, nor has it even
been an area of study.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:18:48 -0500
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: Happy New Year 2006!
A happy new year 2006 to all of you!
Ein frohes neues Jahr 2006 euch allen!
Un joli nouvel ans 2006 à vous tous!
Pericyanlei 11B2 ehiro emino vayam-ican!
Carsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:27:05 -0500
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The German Element in Brazil
The examples they give in that book that is linked in the blog article are
pretty much comprehensible, except for all those Portugese loan words of
course, of which they use a lot.
Happy New Year,
Carsten
... for whom it's already 01:26 AM on 01/01/2006 -- Tristan would say 'only
now' ;-)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 01:47:08 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Happy New Year 2006!
Carsten Becker skrev:
> A happy new year 2006 to all of you!
>
> Ein frohes neues Jahr 2006 euch allen!
> Un joli nouvel ans 2006 à vous tous!
>
> Pericyanlei 11B2 ehiro emino vayam-ican!
>
> Carsten
>
>
Hwalt wdh tons!
Det samma till dig!
(No, it is not a literal translation!)
<http://wiki.frath.net/Maerik>
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:57:35 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Happy New Year 2006!
Quelle bas de nombres utilisez-vous en Ayeri (Je suis trop paresseux
de le calculer)?
What number base does Ayeri use (I'm too lazy to calculate it)?
Kio numera baso usas Ayeri? (just a guess)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 03:35:01 +0000
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Happy New Year
I apologize if this sounds too culture-centric, but -
Happy New Year!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:53:21 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Happy New Year
On 12/31/05, Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I apologize if this sounds too culture-centric, but -
>
> Happy New Year!
>
I think you need not fear accusations of ethnocentrism on that account. The
Gregorian calendar is used, at least for civil purposes, virtually
everywhere in the world these days, and the sentiment itself is certainly
unobjectionable. :)
Happy New Year yourself!
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:40:35 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Happy New Year
For anyone whose New Year doesn't fall today, Happy New Year whenever
it happens.
On 12/31/05, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/31/05, Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I apologize if this sounds too culture-centric, but -
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
>
> I think you need not fear accusations of ethnocentrism on that account. The
> Gregorian calendar is used, at least for civil purposes, virtually
> everywhere in the world these days, and the sentiment itself is certainly
> unobjectionable. :)
>
> Happy New Year yourself!
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 01:11:33 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Happy New Year
Pehan velu re minda, uçoñi yuno ketera!!
Happy new year to all Terrans
Shenji rona Kavatu
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 02:35:57 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A book report...
I forgot to brag about my Christmas haul. There was not much that was
relevant to the group, but possibly of interest might be this gift from my
parents: a 1958 first edition of _The Decipherment Of Linear B_ by John
Chadwick. It's a slimish paperback, the size of any normal paperback
novel, more or less, with some light creasing on the spine, a library code
or some other catalog code on a small sticker on the spine (the code is
"489", does that mean anything to anyone?), and some quite light wear on
the top of the front cover. Inside, the pages are tanned, but not
horrifically so, considering it's a nearly 50 year old book. It smells
wonderful -- that really good "old book" smell that draws you into the
book and makes you feel immersed in the words. The words themselves are
engaging and lively, and read easily as well as any detective novel (to
which this is close kin, in a way). Original sale price: 95c. Worth now? I
dunno, but to me it has instantly become a treasure. I plan to read it
carefully but enthusiastically, from cover to cover.
Were there any other linguistics books among our collective Holiday loot?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 02:32:19 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A book report...
Paul Bennett wrote:
> a 1958 first edition of _The Decipherment Of Linear B_ by
> John Chadwick. It's a slimish paperback, the size of any normal
> paperback novel, more or less, with some light creasing on the spine, a
> library code or some other catalog code on a small sticker on the spine
> (the code is "489", does that mean anything to anyone?)
489 is the Dewey Decimal Code for "Other Hellenic languages"
And since this _is_ conlang, here's the entire 400's (Language):
400 Language
401 Philosophy & theory
402 Miscellany
403 Dictionaries & encyclopedias
404 Special topics
405 Serial publications
406 Organizations & management
407 Education, research, related topics
408 With respect to kinds of persons
409 Geographical & persons treatment
410 Linguistics
411 Writing systems
412 Etymology
413 Dictionaries
414 Phonology
415 Structural systems (Grammar)
416 Not assigned or no longer used
417 Dialectology & historical linguistics
418 Standard usage Applied linguistics
419 Verbal language not spoken or written
420 English & Old English
421 English writing system & phonology
422 English etymology
423 English dictionaries
424 Not assigned or no longer used
425 English grammar
426 Not assigned or no longer used
427 English language variations
428 Standard English usage
429 Old English (Anglo-Saxon)
430 Germanic languages German
431 German writing system & phonology
432 German etymology
433 German dictionaries
434 Not assigned or no longer used
435 German grammar
436 Not assigned or no longer used
437 German language variations
438 Standard German usage
439 Other Germanic languages
440 Romance languages French
441 French writing system & phonology
442 French etymology
443 French dictionaries
444 Not assigned or no longer used
445 French grammar
446 Not assigned or no longer used
447 French language variations
448 Standard French usage
449 Provencal & Catalan
450 Italian, Romanian, Rhaeto-Romantic
451 Italian writing system & phonology
452 Italian etymology
453 Italian dictionaries
454 Not assigned or no longer used
455 Italian grammar
456 Not assigned or no longer used
457 Italian language variations
458 Standard Italian usage
459 Romanian & Rhaeto-Romanic
460 Spanish & Portugese languages
461 Spanish writing system & phonology
462 Spanish etymology
463 Spanish dictionaries
464 Not assigned or no longer used
465 Spanish grammar
466 Not assigned or no longer used
467 Spanish language variations
468 Standard Spanish usage
469 Portugese
470 Italic Latin
471 Classical Latin writing & phonology
472 Classical Latin etymology & phonology
473 Classical Latin dictionaries
474 Not assigned or no longer used
475 Classical Latin grammar
476 Not assigned or no longer used
477 Old, Postclassical, Vulgar Latin
478 Classical Latin usage
479 Other Italic languages
480 Hellenic languages Classical Greek
481 Classical Greek writing & phonology
482 Classical Greek etymology
483 Classical Greek dictionaries
484 Not assigned or no longer used
485 Classical Greek grammar
486 Not assigned or no longer used
487 Preclassical & postclassical Greek
488 Classical Greek usage
489 Other Hellenic languages
490 Other languages
491 East Indo-European & Celtic languages
492 Afro-Asiatic languages Semitic
493 Non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic languages
494 Ural-Altaic, Paleosiberian, Dravidian
495 Languages of East & Southeast Asia
496 African languages
497 North American native languages
498 South American native languages
499 Miscellaneous languages
(Easy to tell the system was developed in the early 1800's by a
pan-European isn't it?)
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 03:00:30 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A book report...
Jefferson Wilson wrote:
> And since this _is_ conlang, here's the entire 400's (Language):
And since I'm actually more of Library of Congress person, here's
the Library of Congress codes:
CLASS P - LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
P Philology. Linguistics
PA Greek language and literature. Latin language and literature
PB Modern languages. Celtic languages
PC Romanic languages
PD Germanic languages. Scandinavian languages
PE English language
PF West Germanic languages
PG Slavic languages. Baltic languages. Albanian language
PH Uralic languages. Basque language
PJ Oriental languages and literatures
PK Indo-Iranian languages and literatures
PL Languages and literatures of Eastern Asia, Africa, Oceania
PM Hyperborean, Indian, and artificial languages
PN Literature (General)
PQ French literature - Italian literature - Spanish
literature - Portuguese literature
PR English literature
PS American literature
PT German literature - Dutch literature - Flemish literature
since 1830 -Afrikaans literature - Scandinavian literature - Old
Norse literature: Old Icelandic and Old Norwegian - Modern
Icelandic literature - Faroese literature - Danish literature -
Norwegian literature - Swedish literature
PZ Fiction and juvenile belles lettres
And, since it's of special interest to this list:
PM8001-8995 Artificial languages--Universal languages
PM8201-8298 Esperanto
PM8999 Picture languages
PM9001-9021 Secret languages
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:51:08 +0100
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Happy New Year 2006!
Le Dim, 01 Jan 2006, 01:57 CET, Veritosproject a écrit:
> Quelle bas de nombres utilisez-vous en Ayeri (Je suis trop
> paresseux de le calculer)?
> What number base does Ayeri use (I'm too lazy to calculate
> it)?
> Kio numera baso usas Ayeri? (just a guess)
Quelle langue est le dernier?
Eh bien, j'utilise 12 comme base*. Ainsi, on a
1 x 12^3 = 1728
1 x 12^2 = 144
11 x 12^1 = 132
2 x 12^0 = 2
------------------
= 2006
Comme cela, la phrase en Ayeri veut dire
Pericyan-lei 11B2 e-hiro e-mino va -yam-ican!
Ans -P 2006 P-nouvel P-heureux 2pl-BEN-tous
"Heureux nouvel ans 2006 (soi) à vous tous!"
Le mieux,
Carsten
*) Pour le Daléiain, j'ai utilisé 8 comme base, et le mieux
que je peut dire en Daléiain est "Na gadan 3726 kalisa im
lára era ad!" (avec _gadan_, "ans", nouvellement inventé.)
--
"Miranayam cepauarà naranoaris."
(Calvin nay Hobbes)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 05:43:11 -0800
From: Aaron Morse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A book report...
I didn't receive any linguistics books directly, but I was given a gift
certificate with which I shall likely be purchasing "Describing Morphosyntax"
and probably a Gaelic book.
Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I forgot to brag about my Christmas
haul. There was not much that was
relevant to the group, but possibly of interest might be this gift from my
parents: a 1958 first edition of _The Decipherment Of Linear B_ by John
Chadwick. It's a slimish paperback, the size of any normal paperback
novel, more or less, with some light creasing on the spine, a library code
or some other catalog code on a small sticker on the spine (the code is
"489", does that mean anything to anyone?), and some quite light wear on
the top of the front cover. Inside, the pages are tanned, but not
horrifically so, considering it's a nearly 50 year old book. It smells
wonderful -- that really good "old book" smell that draws you into the
book and makes you feel immersed in the words. The words themselves are
engaging and lively, and read easily as well as any detective novel (to
which this is close kin, in a way). Original sale price: 95c. Worth now? I
dunno, but to me it has instantly become a treasure. I plan to read it
carefully but enthusiastically, from cover to cover.
Were there any other linguistics books among our collective Holiday loot?
Paul
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 09:31:03 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A book report...
On 1/1/06, Aaron Morse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't receive any linguistics books directly, but I was given a gift
> certificate with which I shall likely be purchasing "Describing
> Morphosyntax" and probably a Gaelic book.
>
> Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---SNIP---
> Were there any other linguistics books among our collective Holiday loot?
>
> Paul
>
"Languages of Asia and the Pacific: A Travellers' Phrasebook", by
Charles Hamblin, 1984. My wife found a copy via the Amazon used book
service. Hardbound and in very good shape. Not particularly
prestigious, but very handy.
---larry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:40:30 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What is language? (was: OT hominids)
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:21:41 -0500, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> I understand that (some) social insects have sophisticated communication
>>> systems. Would these be called language, or does language have to be
>>> primarily vocal?
>>
>>
>> AFAIU, the communication of insect likes bees is structurally very
>> different
>> from human language, so I'd be disinclined to call them language
>> quite apart
>> from the difference between vocal and gestural communication.
>
>
> The last time I read anything about bee communication, bee "dances"
> provided nothing more than bearing and range information to nectar
> sources, in a stereotypical, formulaic way.
Yes - tho I guess a formal grammar could be derived to describe this and
thus it would qualify as a 'formal language', i.e. a language generated
by a formal grammar.
> That's IMO even less like
> language than birdsong -- at least some birdsong is capable of
> expressing more than one notion.
I agree it is even less like natural language* than birdsong. The bee
dance, as I understand it, is 'pre-programmed' instinctual behavior; but
while birds may have a 'hard-wired song faculty', the actual song is not
innate but, like human language, has to be learnt anew by each
fledgling. I am told that over the generations changes do take place and
that different dialects of the same original song do arise.
*natural language = "Any language which is, or once was, the mother
tongue of a group of human beings" [Trask]
> Ants, on the oher hand, seem to communicate via something at least
> potentially approaching the complexity of real language; a combination
> of sign language, touch language and chemical language.
Yep - that is the sort of thing I had in mind. I seem to recall that
someone on this list outlined ideas for a 'pheromone language' for
intelligent alien insects.
> As far as I
> know, though, it's even less well understood than bee dances or birdsong.
Yes, that's what I understand also. It will be interesting to see if
further discoveries are made.
> I'd really like to get up to speed with the latest research on dolphin
> language. It seems they're capable of describing things using sonar
> "pictures", and that they have matrilinear personal names, as well as
> obviously having enough of a language facility to understand
> combinations of sign and vocal language from humans.
Extremely interesting. My contention is that communication has always
gone on among sentient beings. At the low level, such communications are
simple and instinctual. But the evidence of birds and especially of
dolphins and other cetaceans suggest to me that the human facility for
language is the result, as I have written before, of billions upon
billions of years of evolution & development.
I am noticing that my grandson of six-months is making all sorts of
interesting articulate sounds: he has at least a low vowel & a high back
vowel, and all sorts of consonants including quite an impression range
of click consonants. It is strange to think that in another six months
or so, he will have lost the latter, as they do not form part of English
phonology. Most of this behavior seems to be 'testing out' his vocal
tract and producing these sounds for the sheer delight of producing sound.
I am sure that as soon proto-humans acquired a vocal tract (which I do
*NOT* believe happen to certain individual overnight!), they were making
all sorts of sounds; I just cannot believe that they would have been
content with just grunts.
=========================================
Jefferson Wilson wrote:
> R A Brown wrote:
>
>> I understand that (some) social insects have sophisticated
>> communication systems. Would these be called language, or does
>> language have to be primarily vocal?
>
>
> Language doesn't have to be primarily vocal,
I agree - American Sign Language, British Sign Language, Paget-Gorman
Sign System and other such systems make this quite clear.
If we ever do make contact with intelligent beings elsewhere in the
universe, I suspect we may well discover some very interesting non-vocal
languages.
>but exactly what
> "sophisticated" means in a linguistic context would fill volumes.
Indeed.
> Unfortunately, I'm no expert on the subject,
Nor am I - but 'tis interesting.
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 09:27:03 -0600
From: Cian Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is language? (was: OT hominids)
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 08:40, R A Brown wrote:
> I am sure that as soon proto-humans acquired a vocal tract (which I do
> *NOT* believe happen to certain individual overnight!), they were making
> all sorts of sounds; I just cannot believe that they would have been
> content with just grunts.
I suppose someone out there has already noted that the full capability
for the full set of human phonemes didn't have to arise all at once.
Once one has human-like lips (and enough control over them) one can make
labial consonants. The same holds for the mobile tongue and dental
consonants, etc. Maybe velars or other more-difficult (?) sounds came
last? In any case, once it's possible to make any kind of CV/etc.
syllables even of the simplest sort and even with a very limited
inventory of phonemes, human speech becomes possible. This strikes me
as being perhaps more like Hawaiian than like the comic-book
stereotypes.
Regards,
Cian Ross
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
