Language, Sounds and Intelligent Design

[Goemon_]

Two typos in the last installment.

"Ancient languages like Akkadian sound very "choppy" and repetitive, because most clauses are simply juxtaposed, one after the other, linked only by words like "and" or “then”, and organizes mainly according to the order in which events take place in time."

It should be "organized" or maybe "organize".

"I leave your with an example which, I think, will make all these points clearer."

you

My 2 cents

 

[nicklebleu]

Thanks, Chu, for the latest installment - fascinating stuff!

Once again I was comparing Swiss-German to High German. SG is a lot simpler in terms of Grammar (so I would say in complexity). For instance all the ‘past tenses’ are always and only formed by the perfect, whereas HG has perfect and past tense (and plusquamperfect). In many other ways, too, SG is a simpler language, but we have an oddity that I believe is missing (at least to the same degree) in HG - an almost tonal ‘sub-language’.

Take for instance the ‘hmmm’ - it can mean:
- ahemmmh - yes
- hehmmh - no
- hmmh? - what?
- hmmm_ - “that’s odd”, or “you don’t say”, an acknowledgement of what has been said

Which leads to all sorts of funny situations when I do the same here in Oz - when I use the acknowledging “hmmm_”, the Ozzies repeat what they said, as they thought I was asking ‘what’?

Now I am not totally sure that HG or English don’t have similar structures, but I may not be proficient (as in native language proficient enough to make that call.

I also have worked with many Aborigines over the years and have noticed quite a few differences about how they express themselves - of course only from the way they ‘translate’ their own language into English.

Like when an Aborigine answers your question with “little bit” he means “a lot”! Took me a long while to figure that one out.

Anyway, just some random thoughts - thanks again for posting, and looking forward to the next installment.

 

[Chu]

Thank you very much, @Goemon_ ! Corrections made.

And thank you, @nicklebleu, for your interest comments. Swiss German is mostly spoken, right? That would explain the "simplicity" you noticed, and the use of prosody (music) to change meaning.

The same is true, it seems, for other "dialects", especially when they are just spoken.

And for the "little bit", I heard that before. In some cases, it seems to stem from politeness (in Chinese, for example, sometimes you say "no" to mean "yes" and be modest). In other cases, they use repetitions. So, "little" is one word, and "littlelittle" is big, but sometimes also very little. Go figure!

 

[Ollie]

Two typos in the last installment.

"Ancient languages like Akkadian sound very "choppy" and repetitive, because most clauses are simply juxtaposed, one after the other, linked only by words like "and" or “then”, and organizes mainly according to the order in which events take place in time."

It should be "organized" or maybe "organize".

Either organized ..., or organizes them ... would be correct.

 

[Goemon_]

@Ollie
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that "most clauses" (plural) is the subject of "organize". So it's like "they organize" and not "it organizes".
Am I wrong?

 

[Ollie]

@Ollie
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that "most clauses" (plural) is the subject of "organize". So it's like "they organize" and not "it organizes".
Am I wrong?

I'm agreeing with you! '(organized') And, plural, 'organizes them' (as 'them' (most clauses, which is the subject of organize) is plural).

 

[meadow_wind]

Take for instance the ‘hmmm’ - it can mean:
- ahemmmh - yes
- hehmmh - no
- hmmh? - what?
- hmmm_ - “that’s odd”, or “you don’t say”, an acknowledgement of what has been said

That tonal Hmmm also works the same in French and in English.

 

[Breo]

That´s fascinating again that in your fourth installment you focus on the language of primitive societies and conclude that

So there you have it: in general, simpler societies use less words, less sounds, and less subordination. But they make very complex words, containing bits of information that in complex societies’ languages would necessitate entire clauses. Strange, isn’t it?

I find that an intriguing observation and question. Frrom my non linguistic lay perspective I wondered, how come the lesser words/sounds/subordination in these societies developed into complex words. I find that pretty efficient :)
One example comes to my mind: when I traveled in the North African desert, I noticed that the native Nomads (speaking a local Arab dialect) would be able to describe a "rock" in a myriad of ways. It was the time before GPS and they would use rocks as signposts to give directions for their travel routes. Its not complex words, I am able to quote but I remember their very detailed and complex ability to describe "a rock".

There is a post by Gaby in the thread "The New History of Mankind: Who Are we? What are we? How did we get here?" where the C´s are quoted that certain races, eg. the Orientals, were

designed to best fit the earth climate and cosmic ray environment then existent on earth.

Then Gaby writes about a specific polar psychology research on "a cross-psychology comparison between modern East Asian and Inuit populations, using the latter as a model for paleolithic Arctic populations."

The author claims that East Asian people, specifically descendants from Ancient Northern East Asian Populations, inherited certain "recalcitrant" psychological traits that were best adapted for an Ice Age. The same traits have been identified by polar psychologists (psychology researchers on expeditioners and workers living in polar environments). Among those "recalcitrant" traits there is high emotional control, ingroup harmony/cohesion, unassertiveness, indirectness, self and social consciousness, introversion, cautiousness, pragmatism and perseverance/endurance.

So I wonder, as the simpler societies, like the Aborigines, that you have been researching now, which had and might still have a stronger connection to nature and climatic influences, if these factors contributed to the development of languages with less but complex words/sounds/subordinations too? Maybe similar to the development of these specific "recalcitrant" traits, could there be a connection?