LOL LINGUISTINCS

[robbyfogarty]

HEY YALL LINGUISTICS WHAT'S UP WITH THAT

EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE

[Vuvuzela]

Linguistics is the study of language. How exactly a linguist studies language depends on their branch of linguistics.
Neurolinguists, for instance, try to figure out what goes on in our brains when we speak, or learn languages.
Theoretical linguists focus mostly on trying to figure out what things all languages have in common. This field is the one in which you're most likely to see linguists end up fist fighting mid-debate over whether there's such a thing as Universal Grammar, which basically means that the structure of every possible human language is built into your brain at birth. Be forewarned, if you go into this field, you might find Noam Chomsky and Daniel Everett fighting to the death over whether Pirahã has recursion. Hasn't happened yet, but you never know.
Historical linguistics is about how one language came from another. Keywords here are "comparative method" which is basically how linguists figure out what languages are related to other languages. This is also the second most belligerent field of linguistics, with proponents of the idea of Proto-World (the idea that all languages come from one language a long long time ago, closely related to Universal Grammar) arguing against everyone else. There are also people who say that they've reconstructed Proto-World, but they're crazy.
There are a bunch more fields of linguistics, but that's all I'm going to go into. Hope that that piqued your interest in the subject.

[Wattmann]

OTOH I can safely say that a Proto-World existed, since language around the world is generally the same, and we can learn other language families' languages, meaning that all languages have a common evolutional origin,coming from one proto-communication method
That doesn't mean we can reconstruct it, heck no. Language drift's probably so great tha the five-six possible remaining cognates would be rendered horribly untransparent, both phonologically and semantically

About the only things we can reconstruct for the proto language can optimally be that it had verbs, subjects, objects, recursion, consonants and vowels, possibly nasals, likely an approximant or two.

I can't say about more.

[Vuvuzela]

OTOH I can safely say that a Proto-World existed, since language around the world is generally the same, and we can learn other language families' languages, meaning that all languages have a common evolutional origin,coming from one proto-communication method

But would this proto-communication method count as a language? After all, apes have a communication method, as do bees, as do deaf children who never learned a sign language, but we don't call the pitchy sounds apes make, the dancing of bees, or home signs "languages".
I guess defining what criteria must be met for a communication method to be considered a "language" would be helpful, since I hope you'll agree with me that, if there was a Proto-World, it arose gradually, rather than one generation, having grunts that signify "danger" and the next, conjugating reflexive verbs.
Now, if we define language as, basically, a communication method in which morphemes are arranged to convey information, as opposed to every individual morpheme conveying a single idea, then we can go from there. If you have a better definition, by all means, provide it.
So, if we are provided with such a definition, how could we achieve this in any other way than with nouns, verbs, modifiers, etc.? It seems likely to me that if there were aliens, and they had language, they would have nouns, verbs, modifiers, etc. because it's simply the most efficient way to have a language, and having a language has a tremendous benefit over not having one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm convinced that there wasn't a Proto-World. I'm just not convinced there was.

That doesn't mean we can reconstruct it, heck no. Language drift's probably so great tha the five-six possible remaining cognates would be rendered horribly untransparent, both phonologically and semantically

I agree entirely.

About the only things we can reconstruct for the proto language can optimally be that it had verbs, subjects, objects

Or patients and agents. But that's just me being nitpicky.

recursion

We're probably going to disagree on this, but according to linguist Daniel Everett,Pirahã doesn't have recursion, so it's not common to all human languages. That in and of itself opens a new can of worms.

consonants and vowels, possibly nasals, likely an approximant or two.

Also likely, clicks. The Khoisan people are believed to have branched of from non-Khoisan people fairly early on in human evolutionary history, and their language has clicks. Given this, and the fact that no language has been shown to acquire clicks through sound change, I consider it likely that Proto-World, if it existed, had clicks. But that may be just me jumping to conclusions.
Happy Linguisting
~Wolfgang

[Wattmann]

recursion

We're probably going to disagree on this, but according to linguist Daniel Everett,Pirahã doesn't have recursion, so it's not common to all human languages. That in and of itself opens a new can of worms.

We are going to disagree on that one
Pirahã (of which I own a grammar, mind you) is the only language known to lack overt/explicit recursion, but only has covert/implicit recursion.
Example: * "The man named Jesus walked the water" "The man is named Jesus. The man walked the water"
The first sentence works in English, but not in Pirahã, while the other two work in both languages, and that construction is what Pirahã (AFAIK) uses instead of overt recursion and phrasing.
And, since Pirahã is the only language to lack recursion, it certainly has to be a deviation, as it is likely to lose one recursive language than gain six thousand X)

I guess defining what criteria must be met for a communication method to be considered a "language" would be helpful, since I hope you'll agree with me that, if there was a Proto-World, it arose gradually, rather than one generation, having grunts that signify "danger" and the next, conjugating reflexive verbs.
Now, if we define language as, basically, a communication method in which morphemes are arranged to convey information, as opposed to every individual morpheme conveying a single idea, then we can go from there. If you have a better definition, by all means, provide it.
So, if we are provided with such a definition, how could we achieve this in any other way than with nouns, verbs, modifiers, etc.? It seems likely to me that if there were aliens, and they had language, they would have nouns, verbs, modifiers, etc. because it's simply the most efficient way to have a language, and having a language has a tremendous benefit over not having one.

It certainly arose gradually, probably from grunts, screams, laughs.
That definiton of language of yours (communication method in which morphemes are arranged to convey information, as opposed to every individual morpheme conveying a single idea) is pretty much how I understand language (Tsez case affixes work like that, and so do Chinese and (AFAI'm aware) Vietnamese have a similar thing going on).

So, if we are provided with such a definition, how could we achieve this in any other way than with nouns, verbs, modifiers, etc.? It seems likely to me that if there were aliens, and they had language, they would have nouns, verbs, modifiers, etc. because it's simply the most efficient way to have a language, and having a language has a tremendous benefit over not having one.

I'm not quite certain about nouns, since there are plenty of North American languages, mostly of the Pacific Northwest Sprachbund, that lack nouns, ranging from situational (Wakashan) nounlessness to commonplace (Salish) nounlessness.

About the only things we can reconstruct for the proto language can optimally be that it had verbs, subjects, objects

Or patients and agents. But that's just me being nitpicky.

I agree
We can't even get the MSA, but I guess it is nominative-accusative, since there is more nominativity than ergativity everywhere around.

Also likely, clicks. The Khoisan people are believed to have branched of from non-Khoisan people fairly early on in human evolutionary history, and their language has clicks. Given this, and the fact that no language has been shown to acquire clicks through sound change, I consider it likely that Proto-World, if it existed, had clicks. But that may be just me jumping to conclusions.

Ah, clicks. I'm divided on them, since they're apparently in the earliest split of languages, and that they could easily be lost to glottalised consonants (it's been happening in Sotho, I believe, and in certain Bantu languages with lateral clicks (can't really say which, was a long time ago), where they're turning into lateral affricate ejectives), but what worries me is that we don't know how the clicks arise. If they indeed are primodial, then why do certain languages have 110 (ǃXóõ) !? No other language has even a close amount of normal consonants!

Also, we cannot say what's efficient and what isn't, if we don't know about other options - you cannot say that violet trumps scarlet if you're colourblind

[Astraios]

Pirahã (of which I own a grammar, mind you) is the only language known to lack overt/explicit recursion, but only has covert/implicit recursion.
Example: * "The man named Jesus walked the water" "The man is named Jesus. The man walked the water"
The first sentence works in English, but not in Pirahã, while the other two work in both languages, and that construction is what Pirahã (AFAIK) uses instead of overt recursion and phrasing.

Why does he write it as two separate sentences and repeat the noun? Why not do something like Lakota "[A man is named Jesus] that one walked on the water"?

[Miekko]

The idea that it was nom-acc presupposes that it had subjects, which is not guaranteed.

[Vuvuzela]

We are going to disagree on that one
Pirahã (of which I own a grammar, mind you) is the only language known to lack overt/explicit recursion, but only has covert/implicit recursion.
Example: * "The man named Jesus walked the water" "The man is named Jesus. The man walked the water"
The first sentence works in English, but not in Pirahã, while the other two work in both languages, and that construction is what Pirahã (AFAIK) uses instead of overt recursion and phrasing.
And, since Pirahã is the only language to lack recursion, it certainly has to be a deviation, as it is likely to lose one recursive language than gain six thousand X)

Ahhh. I thought you meant recursion in the grammatical sense of the word. I agree that Pirahã is probably not a leftover from a time when there wasn't grammatical recursion (if it were, how would it have ended up in South America?) I just brought it up to point out that overt recursion was not a necessary feature of human language. It's interesting to point out, though, that the reason Everett cites for Pirahã not developing recursion has something to do with their culture. Without such cultural barriers, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that multiple covertly recursive languages could develop overt recursion because it was less clunky and more efficient. And thus, there could have been a Proto-World language that lacked overt recursion.

It certainly arose gradually, probably from grunts, screams, laughs.

Certainly.

That definiton of language of yours (communication method in which morphemes are arranged to convey information, as opposed to every individual morpheme conveying a single idea) is pretty much how I understand language (Tsez case affixes work like that, and so do Chinese and (AFAI'm aware) Vietnamese have a similar thing going on).

Well, aren't we being a Mr. Agreeable McAgreaablepants.

I'm not quite certain about nouns, since there are plenty of North American languages, mostly of the Pacific Northwest Sprachbund, that lack nouns, ranging from situational (Wakashan) nounlessness to commonplace (Salish) nounlessness.

Salish is definitely interesting. I would, however, postulate that Salish words do serve the functions of nouns and verbs, or more generally, subjects and predicates, despite the fact that there is no lexical distinction. And yes, I am petty enough to make such a nitpick just because you called me on my comments about recursion. I'm petty. Deal with it

I agree
We can't even get the MSA, but I guess it is nominative-accusative, since there is more nominativity than ergativity everywhere around.

Overwhelmingly in pidgins, too, which means it's comes naturally to people. Still, it could have been active-stative for all we know.

Also likely, clicks. The Khoisan people are believed to have branched of from non-Khoisan people fairly early on in human evolutionary history, and their language has clicks. Given this, and the fact that no language has been shown to acquire clicks through sound change, I consider it likely that Proto-World, if it existed, had clicks. But that may be just me jumping to conclusions.

Ah, clicks. I'm divided on them, since they're apparently in the earliest split of languages, and that they could easily be lost to glottalised consonants (it's been happening in Sotho, I believe, and in certain Bantu languages with lateral clicks (can't really say which, was a long time ago), where they're turning into lateral affricate ejectives), but what worries me is that we don't know how the clicks arise. If they indeed are primodial, then why do certain languages have 110 (ǃXóõ) !? No other language has even a close amount of normal consonants![/quote]
Well, all clicks fall into five categories (bilabial, dental, alveolar, palatal, and lateral). Why ǃXóõ has that many variations is an elusive and interesting question, but I don't think it's beyond sound change to bring about variety within those categories. I just can't bring myself to believe that somehow sound change could give a language clicks. On the other hand, if I were making up a name for a thing in some primordial almost-language, I'd take advantage of all of the sounds my mouth could make.

Also, we cannot say what's efficient and what isn't, if we don't know about other options - you cannot say that violet trumps scarlet if you're colourblind

Hey! Are you dissin' my favorite shade of Ultraviolet?

[Wattmann]

Salish is definitely interesting. I would, however, postulate that Salish words do serve the functions of nouns and verbs, or more generally, subjects and predicates, despite the fact that there is no lexical distinction. And yes, I am petty enough to make such a nitpick just because you called me on my comments about recursion. I'm petty. Deal with it

Certainly, they have subjects and predicates and objects, but not as many nouns that are lexically distinct from verbs (Example: Bella Coola /sxs/ "seal fat" (?), which is pretty basic for them)

Overwhelmingly in pidgins, too, which means it's comes naturally to people. Still, it could have been active-stative for all we know.

Proto-PIE was almost certainly active-stative (see : watch / listen : hear / speak : say (?) / aqua : water), but AFAIR Proto-PU was indeed more nominative than Proto-PIE (assuming that they aren't related - which I doubt, seeing the lexical correspondences in pronouns and some basic lexemes)

You're a worthy adversary in intellectual battles

[finlay]

oh, zbb, never change <3

[Vuvuzela]

Certainly, they have subjects and predicates and objects, but not as many nouns that are lexically distinct from verbs (Example: Bella Coola /sxs/ "seal fat" (?), which is pretty basic for them)

And, being an Amerindian language, it would have to have come from other Amerindian languages. Which would themselves have the good sense to lexically differentiate it's verbs. So, somewhere along the line, the Salish almost completely forget the difference between a noun and a verb, except for a few vestigial features. And they say "txtese" is ruining language!

Proto-PIE was almost certainly active-stative (see : watch / listen : hear / speak : say (?) / aqua : water), but AFAIR Proto-PU was indeed more nominative than Proto-PIE (assuming that they aren't related - which I doubt, seeing the lexical correspondences in pronouns and some basic lexemes)

Going all Nostraticist on us, now are we? As some guy named Charles allegedly said "I speak Italian to women, French to men, Spanish to God, and Proto-PIE to my ATM machine while I enter my PIN number and suffer from RAS Syndrome."

You're a worthy adversary in intellectual battles

Why thank you . As are you. So to recap, we now know:

• We're both worthy opponents
• ZBB will never change
• You suffer from RAS Syndrome (happens to everyone)
And we now do not know:

• If Proto-World had clicks
• If Proto-World was Nominative-Accusitive
• If Proto-World had lexical class
• If Proto-World had friggin' recursion
• If Proto-World even counted as a language

Like in all good debates in linguistics, we now know less than when we started.
At this point, I think our discussion about morpho-syntactic alignment and lexemes has scared off the guy who started this thread. So we've atleast accomplished that.

[zompist]

Pretty much every positive statement you two have made about Proto-World, I disagree with...

Got to go move, but to start see my essay on zompist.com. Also the chapter in the LCK sequel.

(Just as one provocative point... there are suggestions that the first languages were sign languages. Signs are easier to learn for babies than words, and don't require a modified vocal tract.)

[clawgrip]

This is supported by the fact that the natural communication method of the great apes is sign language.

[zompist]

Don't know if you're joking, but in fact apes do use signs. (Their own, that is, not those taught by humans.)

[Vuvuzela]

Which essay, this one? I've read it. It's interesting.
Sign language is also interesting.Love me some sign linguistics. But if we started by signing, why switch to entirely linear, spoken language?

[Astraios]

Quite probably because you can then still talk while holding things and while not looking at each other. It's way more effective to yell "Leopard!" than to make the sign for leopard. And also, we haven't switched entirely to spoken language at all.

[zompist]

Since I have a few more minutes....

OTOH I can safely say that a Proto-World existed, since language around the world is generally the same, and we can learn other language families' languages, meaning that all languages have a common evolutional origin,coming from one proto-communication method

First, no one's ever explained what a different language organ (or different "proto-communication method") would look like, so we certainly don't know that a language based on one would be unlearnable by modern humans.

Second, even if there were two language organs, or two communication systems, there's nothing to say they couldn't merge. (To be a bit jocular, maybe one contributed nouns and one contributed verbs. Only people and languages that could handle both survived.)

it had verbs,

Almost certainly not. Verbs are the most complicated part of language. Plus, most animal signals 'talk' about a threat, a resource, or an emotional state.

subjects, objects, recursion,

Very likely not. You don't need syntax for communication. The utterances collected by people trying to teach apes ASL are often just repetitive babbling, quite free of syntax.

We're so familiar with language that really imagining more primitive forms is difficult. (Even "me Tarzan you Jane" is a poor imagining: both proper names and pronouns are tricky concepts, and the simple syntax is itself an achievement.)

[Vuvuzela]

Quite probably because you can then still talk while holding things and while not looking at each other. It's way more effective to yell "Leopard!" than to make the sign for leopard.

Unless the sign for leopard was to not get eaten by the leopard. Then it would be really efficient.

And also, we haven't switched entirely to spoken language at all.

Unless you are referring to living sign languages, which are usually spoken only by the deaf and those who wish to talk to deaf people, we pretty much have. Gestures are still important, but they convey information in a very jumbled, ungrammatical kind of way.

[Astraios]

Unless the sign for leopard was to not get eaten by the leopard. Then it would be really efficient.

You forget context. Somebody shouting "Leopard!" already means "Don't get eaten by the leopard!", as well as "There's a leopard, grab the baby and run and hide!", as well as "Everybody stop butchering this antelope, grab a weapon and defend the kill against the leopard!", as well as "Don't climb a tree, because leopards are great climbers!" ... There's a reason most animals have vocal warnings for predators, and why e.g. monkeys have different sounds for different predators.

Unless you are referring to living sign languages, which are usually spoken only by the deaf and those who wish to talk to deaf people, we pretty much have. Gestures are still important, but they convey information in a very jumbled, ungrammatical kind of way.

If you're lost in the African wilderness with someone, and you see a leopard and shout "Leopard!", and also point in the leopard's direction, your gesture is not jumbled or confused in the slightest; it's a pretty clear and explicit way to say "There is a leopard in the tall grass to the south of the waterhole but to the north of those acacia trees!"

[----]

Unless you are referring to living sign languages, which are usually spoken only by the deaf and those who wish to talk to deaf people, we pretty much have. Gestures are still important, but they convey information in a very jumbled, ungrammatical kind of way.

Last Summer I caught a fish that was *this* big!

[Torco]

HEY YALL LINGUISTICS WHAT'S UP WITH THAT

EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE

Go get a degree in linguistics like any other decent person.

[Miiil]

Is anyone else mildly disappointed that he hasn't posted again. The way he typed was... Amusing.

[Viktor77]

Only the ZBB can turn a trolling spam post into a serious discussion about linguistics.

[Torco]

Only the ZBB can turn a trolling spam post into a serious discussion about linguistics.

I wonder if that'd be the case with anthropology ?

[Yng]

Given that it transforms most serious discussions into trolling spam posts, I think this is quite a nice change.