Re: Introducing myself, and several questions

Hallo!

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:52:00 -0500,
Sally Caves <scaves@...> wrote:

> [...]
>
> >> > I find naturalistic conlangs (i.e., conlangs that look like natlangs,
> >> > with a sense of historicity) beautiful and conlangs that give away
> >> > their artificiality at first sight ugly, but there are people around
> >> > here who have a different taste.
> >>
> >> So Jörg, what conlangs give their artificiality away?  There are so many
> >> features of a language that could considered "artificial."  Many of the
> >> linguistic scholars of glossolalia were so sure they could identify the
> >> artificial aspects of that linguistic practice by noting the 1) open
> >> syllables, 2) reduced phonology, 3) echoism, etc. that we find in
> >> Hawaiian,
> >> for instance.  An over regularity of grammar?
> >
> > It is not easy to say, but an extreme regularity of phonology, grammar
> > and word formation looks artificial, so does, for example, a language
> > which superimposes some sort of grammatical categories onto the IPA
> > chart.
>
> Now what would that be? Curious.
An example (conlang, of course; I doubt that there are natlangs
like that):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lostlangs/message/269

Here's a quote:

] The division voluntary/involuntary is the main one, with a plosive
] (when representing no other manner, or, in their linguistic
] terms, 'clear' it is ?) representing voluntary, and fricatives
] (when 'clear' h). Other manners are indicateded by POA. If mutual,
] bilabial or labiodental, if reflexive alvolear, if conditional,
] velar. In the case of velar, for fricative one uses a post-alvolear
] fricative.

The author in question abandoned that idea after being told (by me)
that it doesn't feel natural.

> >  The worst offenders are philosophical languages and closed-
> > vocabulary schemes.
>
> Yes.  Wilkins allowed no room for neologism.  But as someone else remarked,
> no language that intends to have things to say in general about the world
> can have a closed-vocabulary--not even a philosophical language (should it
> ever be put to use).  If you couldn't neologize, then you would just produce
> clumsy circumlocutions.
Exactly.

> [...]
>
> >> Sounds, rather,  like that South American tribe whose name I can't
> >> remember;
> >> I have it on the tip of my tongue.  Their language was also almost devoid
> >> of
> >> abstractions, and they showed an inability to calculate, as well, i.e.,
> >> to
> >> think in abstractions.  We even discussed it about a year ago.
> >
> > Pirahã is the name.  I could believe the story if it was set in a
> > Eurasian relic area and involved the speakers of that language
> > having bony ridges above their eyes and mixed offspring between
> > them and normal humans being sterile etc., because then it would be
> > a candidate for a Neanderthal or Homo erectus survival.  However,
> > it is in the wrong location for that, and I am pretty sure that
> > it is a hoax.
>
> A hoax, huh?  Hadn't thought of that.  But what would be the incentive of
> creating such a fiction?
There is a tradition of such hoaxes, which usually concern some kind
of "discovery" that challenges a well-established assumption of the
discipline in question (this time, the linguistic uniformitarian
principle).  I have seen several such hoaxes; the Pirahã matter
looks like another one of those.

Another explanation would be some kind of mistake, of course.

>       Isn't it more interesting to consider that there
> are pockets of Homo Sapiens that do feature "alternative" cognitive skills?
> I think I read something about how the Piraha~ exhibit certain traits that
> may be due to overbreeding and isolation.  They may have evolved no need (or
> lost it) for history, raconteurship, or calculation.  I remember asking
> whether any study had been done of a Pirah child being brought up in a
> different environment, interested in knowing whether there was a genetic
> disposition towards discalculus, non-abstract thinking, etc., or if it was
> just cultural.
>
> Not sure I am convinced that these features can only be assigned to
> Neanderthals or Homo Erectus.  They seem to suggest a regression rather than
> a lack of development.   And who really knows how cognitively developed the
> Neanderthals were?  BTW, latest Scientific American has an article on the
> "hobbits" of Flores again.  We talked about that last year.  It seems that
> homo sapiens can go through quite a number of physical and mental
> adaptations at the group level--given circumstances.
The "Flores dwarfs" (Homo floresiensis) did not evolve from H. sapiens,
but from H. erectus.  They are thus a cul-de-sac sister species of us,
just like H. neanderthalensis.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Reply