|
Grex > Language > #5: Do all languages have a common "mother language"? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 72 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 50 of 72:
| 
Apr 5 16:52 UTC 1994 |
Thanks!
|
davel
|
|
response 51 of 72:
|
Apr 5 22:00 UTC 1994 |
Ok, so what does "Corazon" mean?
|
anne
|
|
response 52 of 72:
|
Apr 5 23:19 UTC 1994 |
heart, so basically other is now The hands and the Heart of the Devil.
|
other
|
|
response 53 of 72:
|
Apr 6 04:20 UTC 1994 |
Especially when I'm idle... (=
/
..
|
anne
|
|
response 54 of 72:
|
Apr 6 04:22 UTC 1994 |
oh really. . .
|
danr
|
|
response 55 of 72:
|
Apr 6 23:59 UTC 1994 |
Cuidado, ninos!
|
anne
|
|
response 56 of 72:
|
Apr 7 16:18 UTC 1994 |
por que? (I wish I could get this to do upside down question marks)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 57 of 72:
|
Apr 7 17:04 UTC 1994 |
Stand on your head?
|
kami
|
|
response 58 of 72:
|
Apr 7 20:41 UTC 1994 |
re:#56- in order to avoid being embarasado- or embarrassed.
|
davel
|
|
response 59 of 72:
|
Apr 7 22:44 UTC 1994 |
Isn't there a Spanish item somewhere here?
8-{)>
|
anne
|
|
response 60 of 72:
|
Apr 11 01:17 UTC 1994 |
I'm sure there is, does that statement have point?
re # 58, what is there to be embarrassed about? <anne looks innocent>
|
kami
|
|
response 61 of 72:
|
Apr 12 17:50 UTC 1994 |
I rather hope not, deary.
|
ydg
|
|
response 62 of 72:
|
Oct 31 04:21 UTC 1994 |
Ahem! Getting back to the topic (which I thought was the origen of language)
It seems to me that trying to fit language in with evolution is like
trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Language cannot exist w/out
symbolic cognative skills. Symbolic cognative skills need something like
language in which to be expressed. They must be simultaneous developments.
The human brain is extremely complex and very specialised, especially the
linguistic areas. The vocal tract is another very specialised organ with
no other use. Evolution is a popular theory because it does away with
annoying concepts like "God", however it doesn't stand very well and its
supporters have to try hard to make things fit. It's time for someone
to cry "The emperor has no clothes!".
ty made a very good point back there somewhere.
"No matter how eloqeuntly a dog can bark, he cannot tell you that his
parents were poor but honest" - Bertrand Russell
-Yuri ;-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 63 of 72:
|
Oct 31 08:10 UTC 1994 |
The vocal tract is an organ now? Hmmm.
The only aspect of the vocal tract specifically designed for language
is the angle of the larynx, which increases the likelihood of choking
in exchange for the ability to form crucial sound wave patterns.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 72:
|
Oct 31 15:34 UTC 1994 |
That's funny: to my knowledge and experience, the evolution theory
fits very well to all correct observations. There are gaps in our
information, but no contradictions whatever.
|
brighn
|
|
response 65 of 72:
|
Oct 31 21:14 UTC 1994 |
"very well" is a judgment call, of course, but at any rate the theory of
evolution does not rule out or require the existence of a divine force or
forces, and does describe the corpus of data it attempts to explain tolerably
well (better than any of the other suggestions, IMHO).
|
other
|
|
response 66 of 72:
|
Nov 2 17:49 UTC 1994 |
It sounds as though the silly argument is being made that evolution happened
in response to the need to make certain sounds certain ways when much more
likely the physical evolution of the larynx was a genetic accident which then
allowed the development of certain variant sound structures. Language would
have been logically such a later development than the physical evolution
necessary for it that language and its use could not have had a survival
oriented influence on the evolution of the larynx. The ability to make
distinctly differing sounds and to associate them with differing situations
however might very well have had a survival influence on evolution, and at
the same time, it forms the most elementary basis for the development of
language.
|
brighn
|
|
response 67 of 72:
|
Nov 2 21:07 UTC 1994 |
I concur and reverse my statement, Other. Having been raised in an over-
simplified Dawinist perspective, I forgot that changes occur accidentally
(or *can* occur that way). But the human larynx does increase the likelihood
that we will choke on our food, so is evolutionarily speaking a step
backwards.
So, the larynx now discounted, I know of no structure at all within the human
physiological structure which developed solely for language. There are areas
within the brain that have strong influences on language (e.g., Broca's area,
Wernicke's area), but because these are neurological clusters which are located
by mapping injuries to language problems, it is difficult (if not impossible)
to determine if these areas exist within other (nonhuman) brains, with similar
cognitive function.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 72:
|
Nov 3 06:53 UTC 1994 |
There are language-related areas in the brains of all animals, from
crickets to humans. Language is a stimulus-response involving sound. I
would therefore suggest that the language area was there in all the forms
from which humans evolved, but by mutation and selection, developed far
beyond what had existed before, and must have enhanced social interactions
and strategies, even before what we would call a formal language arose.
|
brighn
|
|
response 69 of 72:
|
Nov 4 05:01 UTC 1994 |
Not exclusively sound. There is a visual (usually kinesthetic) element
as well, and this can be rather important (as people who have difficulty
talking on the phone are well aware of).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 70 of 72:
|
Nov 4 05:55 UTC 1994 |
Good point. All communication involves "language".
|
cwb
|
|
response 71 of 72:
|
Aug 3 18:51 UTC 2000 |
What use would one find in analyzing the development of language in
children to model the development of language as a whole? Some concepts
are of interest: the process of language development and of neurological
especially brain development happen in parallel. Why then would this
not happen in the evolutionary progression?
|
kami
|
|
response 72 of 72:
|
Aug 4 01:36 UTC 2000 |
I suppose there's probably a theory that kids might go through an "evolution"
in their development of language that is similar to the process which we
experienced as a species-- sort of like they do in the womb; evolve from
tadpole to fish to bird (?<g>) to monkey to human. Dunno.
|