Re: NonVerbal Conlang?

Dan Sulani wrote:
> On 26 June, R A Brown wrote:
>
>
> <snip all the good stuff>
>
>> Confused & seeking enlightenment.
>
>
> I'm not sure whether I'll enlighten or
> confuse further, but FWIW:
>
> As a speech-language-pathologist, I would
> use the term "verbal" to refer to language,
> use of words. Verbal cognition can usually
> be expressed (by people) orally, gesturally, or graphically.
Thanks - That is precisely what I understand. It's comforting to know
that senility is not setting in yet    :)

>    The term "verbal language", to me, is a
> tautology.
>    The term "non-verbal" , to me, refers to "outside
> of the use of words". It does not necessarily
> mean lack of communication.
I guess it depends on how one defines 'language'. I've checked to see
how both Trask and Crystal define language, and in their definitions
"verbal language" would, as you write, be a tautology and thus
"non-verbal language" would be a contradiction. The only contexts in
which "non-verbal language" would have a meaning in their definitions is
to denote a verbless language (if such a natlang - there are, as we
know, conlangs that seek to be verbless).

If, however, one means by language 'a means of communication', thus
including most (all?) of the animal kingdom as possessors of language,
then "non-verbal language" would have a meaning. But this IMO is
stretching the meaning of "language."

>    I would not, in a technical sense, use "verbalize" in place of the
> word "speech",
> although I am aware that, informally, it has come to
> mean this, at least in my dialect of English (midwest US).
I suspect it's probably not confined to the midwest US. But it seems
crazy to me when:
(a) the verb "verbalize" already has two different, but
well-established, meanings. It doesn't need a third meaning, thus
increasing the possibility of ambiguity.
(b) there is a perfectly good centuries old verb "to speak" - and it's
shorter.

There's nowt so queer as folk!

>    One does not "verbalize in Morse code", IMHO.
> One verbalizes the thoughts and _expresses_ them
> in code.
Doesn't that apply also to writing or any secondary medium of expressing
language?

> And, BTW, only beginners divide up the
> flow of dots and dashes into words.
I never got past that stage in the Cubs above 55 years or so ago  :)

[interesting stuff about Morse code snipped]

> Among psychologists, the subtests of the Wechsler
> test for IQ are often grouped into two sets:
> the "verbal" set (testing language) and the other one. No, it is not
> "non-verbal". For them,  the opposite of "verbal"
> is "performance".
	 :-)

> Anyhow, I hope that these thoughts help.
Thanks, Dan - it helps in that it confirms what I thought.

BTW I just love you conjugation: "I am creative! You tinker!
He fumbles around meaninglessly"
	:-D

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Replies