[Xmca-l] Re: no primitive language?
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Sun Dec 28 17:50:54 PST 2014
OK, so we are in agreement that there is no ancient culture that did not
have some kind of metaphysics.
The thing about having a metaphysics is that people leave material
traces of their metaphysical beliefs, and as I understand it (I am open
to correction here too), the traces of burial rituals, cave paintings,
decorative objects d'art, and so on, go back before homo sapiens
sapiens. Or is it not that far? Is it possible to tell from fossil
evidence at what point hominids had sufficient development around the
larynx and so on to make complex speech? I am sure there are lots of
people on this list who know about this sort of stuff. On the basis of
religious artefacts and hominid fossils, what do we know about which
came first and do both go back before homo sapiens sapiens. Because we
don't know what spoken languages were like in those days; we only have
fossils and solid artefacts.
I know I am being lazy here. I could be using Google. But it is the
holiday season and I am sure no-one minds.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
Andy Blunden wrote:
> Thank you all for your authoritative responses to my question.
> I have a follow up.
> Do we know if there any ancient culture which does not have some kind
> metaphysics, religion - polytheistic or monotheistic or practical, or
> other like system of making sense of the universe?
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> mike cole wrote:
>> Perhaps of interest with respect to Piraha?
>> mike
>>
>> ------------------------
>> http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter2-7.php
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Martin:
>>>
>>> I think you do know more about this than I do, but none of us knows
>>> enough.
>>> The whole problem with the Piraha debate is that the data is just not
>>> accessible to us, because there are so few people who understand
>>> Piraha and
>>> who understand some other language, and there are--as far as I can
>>> figure
>>> out--no people who both understand Piraha and some other language and
>>> understand that the distinction between morphemes and words is a
>>> conventional one based on Standard Average European, and so is the
>>> distinction between words and clauses. Even if there were such persons,
>>> there are none who understand that the distinction between a clause
>>> and a
>>> turn in a dialogue is largely an artifact of written language.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, nobody is claiming that Piraha is not dialogically
>>> recursive--that is, nobody is saying that you cannot refer to what
>>> someone
>>> just said in Piraha. That is enough, for me, to prove that Piraha is
>>> recursive: that, had we world enough and time, Piraha can say
>>> anything that
>>> needs to be said in Piraha. So Piraha is a language which (like
>>> Hawaiian)
>>> has a rather austere and economical sound system, a lexicon perfectly
>>> adapted to its environment, and the ability to produce an infinitely
>>> long
>>> dialogue we call culture. Can infinity ever be called primitive?
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>
>>> On 27 December 2014 at 20:57, Martin John Packer
>>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> David, I know you know more about this than I know.... but the debate
>>>> today centers on the Pirahã, no? Do they have color terms? Do they
>>>> have
>>>> number terms? Do they have recursion?
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 27, 2014, at 5:35 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, of course Carol's really right, Andy. We need to say what we
>>>>> mean
>>>>>
>>>> by
>>>>
>>>>> primitive. Does it mean that the language is historically young? In
>>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>>> case, the most primitive language is probably modern Hebrew. Does it
>>>>>
>>> mean
>>>
>>>>> that the language is grammatically simple? Which aspect of the
>>>>> grammar?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's take case, since this is Vygotsky's model for linguistic
>>>>>
>>> complexity
>>>
>>>>> in the Lectures. Annaluisa will tell you about Sanskrit's eight
>>>>> cases;
>>>>> modern Tamil has seven; Greek and Latin had about six. Tsez, in the
>>>>> mountains of the Caucasus, has 64 cases (mostly locatives).
>>>>>
>>>>> English is probably the most primitive languages in the world from
>>>>> this
>>>>> point of view; it has a distinction between "I" and "me" and "he" and
>>>>>
>>>> "him"
>>>>
>>>>> but that's about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27 December 2014 at 19:14, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Carol. :)
>>>>>> I am OK from here then.
>>>>>> Much appreciated.
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Syntax, semantics. pragmatics, phonology, discourse orientation:
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> just give their own version of these aspects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27 December 2014 at 12:10, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>
>>> <mailto:
>>>
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Carol.
>>>>>>> Can those "key characteristics" be given in a few lines?
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's true. Languages all share key characteristics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27 December 2014 at 12:02, Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have heard, and I believe it to be the case, that
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>> such thing as a "primitive language."
>>>>>>> I am not talking about the "language" of children raised
>>>>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>>>>> isolation, or the "home sign" of deaf children, I mean
>>>>>>> among the
>>>>>>> languages of actual historical peoples.
>>>>>>> I would just appreciate that if this is wrong, could
>>>>>>> someone on
>>>>>>> this list who knows about this kind of thing disabuse
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>> Otherwise I will assume this to be factual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist
>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow:
>>>>>>> Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist
>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow:
>>>>>>>
>>> Department
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>>>> Linguistics, Unisa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list