Re: OT: Non-Human Phonology

On Mon, 15 May 2006 Herman Miller wrote:
>
> Rob Haden wrote:
>
> > Pretty soon the question of language came up.  The way I see it, the
> > anthroposaurs would have been pretty bird-like, with feathers
> and probably
> > even beaks.  As a result, the sounds they made would have also been
> > similar to those of real-life birds.  That means their language
> would have
> > to be radically different from that of humans, at least when it
> comes to
> > phonology.  So I started thinking: what meaningful elements
> would develop
> > in such creatures?
>
> The sound-producing organ in birds (the syrinx) has two separate sources
> of sound; some birds are able to control these independently. So in
> addition to controlling pitch and duration, you might have a distinction
> between single and double sounds. Some birds also have a certain amount
> of control over timbre.
>
> On the other hand, most of the versatility of bird sounds is in the
> songbirds (oscines), which would have evolved long after birds split
> from (the rest of the) dinosaurs. So you probably should look at the
> sounds made by non-passerine birds like ostriches, turkeys, geese, and
> so on. There's still quite a variety of sounds. I have a page of links
> to animal sounds which hasn't been updated in a while, but some of the
> sites I linked to might still be around.
>
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/animals/sound-sites.html
>
> You could also check out the "Crocodile Communication" link. Other than
> birds, crocodilians are the closest thing to dinosaurs that have
> recordings of their sounds available.
>
> http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/brittoncrocs/croccomm.html
>
Good stuff, Herman!  I'd like also to remind
you, Rob, that several birds are "accomplished
mimics", able to reproduce at will almost any
sound they hear.  One example is the lyre-bird,
(Superb Lyrebird - Menura novaehollandiae)
found in the Sherbrooke Forest quite near
metropolitan Melbourne among other parts of
the Australian bush, which has varied its reper-
toire over the years, taking on new sounds made
by humans, for example the two-man cross-cut
saw used from the middle of the nineteenth
century, and the power chainsaw used for the
last sixty years or more.  Their mimicry of
probable competitors for food, such as the
Australian magpie and the laughing kookaburra,
of course predates these human sounds, but is
astonishingly close to the "real thing" - even
under spectral analysis.

Some links:
http://www.naturesongs.com/lyrebirds.html
The Albert Lyrebird's gronking songs include
portions in different metres: 3, 4, 5, or 6 beats
to the bar!  Counting is of course an ideal way
for passing on some abstract information.

The site:
http://www.naturesongs.com/
provides sounds of birds, mammals, reptiles and
amphibians, as well as many other natural sounds.
Although copyright, "Non-commercial use is
granted freely" for many of these sounds.

In particular, "The Sights and Sounds of Costa Rica,
Bird Sounds", at:
http://www.naturesongs.com/CRsounds.html,#birds
will give you much listening material, organised by
avian order, which points up similarities and quasi-
dialectal variations.

After tonight's research and listening, I'm starting
to think of using bird-song samples as raw materials
for some extended musical compositions ...

I personally haven't a clue how one could begin to
organise or classify the wide variety of bird sounds
in a purely phonological way, except for the fairly
obvious dimensions, such as frequency range, song
duration, phrasal variety etc.  But these are the
exact ways in which I would think of them a musical
material ... that may say something about their po-
tential linguistic uses?

Best of luck with your anthroposaurs, Rob!

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/338 - Release Date: 12/5/06

Reply