There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: A. da Mek
1.2. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Tony Harris
1.3. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: George Corley
1.4. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: neo gu
1.5. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow
1.6. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: George Corley
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "A. da Mek" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:01 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.
And it can be full duplex, both sides communicating at the same time.
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Tony Harris" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:17 pm ((PDT))
On 07/10/2013 04:00 PM, A. da Mek 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.
>
> And it can be full duplex, both sides communicating at the same time.
I give anyone a lot of credit if they have the attention and mental
processing power to simultaneously actually process (not just vaguely
pick up) incoming language communications *and* originate reasonable
outgoing language communication (not "just" interpret the incoming into
a different language). I'm sure some can do so, but I don't know that
my brain is up to that.
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:22 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Tony Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 04:00 PM, A. da Mek 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.
>>>
>>
>> And it can be full duplex, both sides communicating at the same time.
>>
> I give anyone a lot of credit if they have the attention and mental
> processing power to simultaneously actually process (not just vaguely pick
> up) incoming language communications *and* originate reasonable outgoing
> language communication (not "just" interpret the incoming into a different
> language). I'm sure some can do so, but I don't know that my brain is up
> to that.
>
I know that I have difficulty processing two linguistic sources at once,
even in different modalities (I have tried reading and listening to
podcasts simultaneously -- I invariably tune one or the other out).
Language processing is quite heavy, we just can't process it in parallel
easily.
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:45 pm ((PDT))
Communication between cockroaches seems to be limited mainly to things like
"That's _my_ crumb!" and "That's my _leg_!" But for all I know, they could be
using antenna semaphore to discuss philosophy.
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Amanda Babcock Furrow" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:49 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:24:34AM -0500, George Corley wrote:
> I am highly, highly skeptical of this. I'd have to see the methodology --
I'm amazed that no one has pointed out yet that you *can* see the
methodology. There's a brief video by the researcher at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0 . The journalist didn't
cherry-pick anything - if anything, the researcher is trying to
publicize the most dramatic findings, but the methodology as described
is quite sound! Unless he's just plain lying (unlikely), this is
really something.
Do check it out.
tylakèhlpë'fö,
Amanda
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:10 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Amanda Babcock Furrow
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:24:34AM -0500, George Corley wrote:
> > I am highly, highly skeptical of this. I'd have to see the methodology --
>
> I'm amazed that no one has pointed out yet that you *can* see the
> methodology. There's a brief video by the researcher at
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0 . The journalist didn't
> cherry-pick anything - if anything, the researcher is trying to
> publicize the most dramatic findings, but the methodology as described
> is quite sound! Unless he's just plain lying (unlikely), this is
> really something.
>
> Do check it out.
>
I still don't think I would call it a language. The alarm calls seem a lot
like bee dances in a sense -- they convey a lot of information relevant to
a very specific context. If they can actually describe novel shapes as the
video suggests, that _is_ quite interesting -- it could indicate a possible
intermediate step in the evolution of language.
As far as the other things he describes when talking about further avenues
for research -- my hypothesis for chattering would be that it's being used
to locate individuals within the colony. They might check whether the calls
there are unique to the individual producing or receiving the call.
But I really don't think the current data is enough to suggest calling it a
language.
Messages in this topic (38)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> 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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
