Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject

Gary Shannon wrote:
> --- R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
[snip]
>
>>Yes - having had children of my own and now
>>observing grandchildren,
>>there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that
>>Henrik is absolutely
>>correct.
>
>
> It is also absolutely correct that children find teddy
> bears and elephants in puffy clouds.
Do they all? I haven't noticed this either as a universal of all
children, nor as something peculiar to children and not to grown ups
(except that grown will see other less innocent shapes in clouds).

I see no relevance in this trivial observation to that which Henrik drew
our attention.

> That we seek
> something is not proof that what we seek exists.
Nor do I understand the relevance of that sentence. As far as I can
understand it, the only one actually seeking something here is yourself.
Indeed, that fact that you seek a particularly theory of grammar is not
proof that that theory is true.

> However, "rules" DO exist. There's no doubt of that,
> but they exist as artificial human constructs, not as
> genetically wired givens.
Umm - there are other views about grammar than that they are genetically
wired givens. I am still of the opinion that language is acquired and
learnt just as, apparently, is bird song among birds.

But I am now confused. You wrote on the 27th Dec.: "It's because it
[grammar] is an artificial attempt to discover "rules" in what is really
a monstrous collection of exceptions. There ARE no rules; only
exceptions!"

Now two days later you write: '"rules" DO exist!'

Sorry, but to my simple mind "There ARE no rules" and "rules do exist"
appear to be contradictory statements.

> By my definition a "rule of
> grammar" is simply a description of a habit of speech.
So what? We all know, I thought, that rules of grammar like 'laws of
nature' are human abstractions trying to make sense of the data
available to us.

> <...>
>
>>Quite so! Nor am I at all comfortable, to put it
>>mildly, with the
>>apparent assumption that early hominids spoke in the
>>comic book "me see
>>tiger" idiom.
>
>
> Surely you are not suggesting that on day one, when
> the first homonid made the first sound with his mouth
> that it was as grammatically sophisticated as Chaucer!
I don't think the first hominids spoke late Middle English. But, yes, I
do think their social communication had sophistication.

> Certainly there was a time, however brief, when
> utterances were little more than grunts and gestures.
Grunts & gestures, eh? Not even 'me see tiger'!

> I can't imagine how language could have emerged fully
> developed overnight.
Pardon me, but I do not recall suggesting that language developed
overnight.

As far as I am concerned human development is the result of billions
upon billions of years of evolution. For goodness sake, even some
insects appear to have sophisticated communication systems. There is
rather more than just grunts and gestures with bird-song or the
'singing' of humpbacked whales. Why should hominids be _less_ developed?

I find it not at all surprising that the earliest recorded literary
forms are (nearly) always verse. I would be extremely surprised if the
earliest social intercommunication between hominids did not contain
elements of what we would now call poetry - I am sure song and dance
played an important role. For, as I said, I agree with Kit, but I should
also have said I agree with Cian.

Cian wrote: "Language  doesn't seem to be necessary for survival at all:
AFAIK humans are the only species that use syntactic language as such"
And Kit wrote:"there are those who hold that  language's initial purpose
was probably for gossip.  it's very much a  tool for social networks,
more than for description of the  surrounding environment."

I say amen to both.

But I suspect we shall not agree on this, and without time-travel it is
really impossible to know what the first loquent hominids did sound like.

[snip]
>
> That WAS tongue in cheek. ;-) Certainly I'm not
> foolish enough to proclaim the manner in which ALL
> conlangs MUST be produced.
Good - something we can agree on.

[snip]
>
> Certainly. And some prefer golf to bowling. But we all
> know that the world would be a better place if all the
> bowlers and golfers would get out of the alleys and
> off the greens and start conlanging! We must picket
> the bowling alleys with our conlang flags!
Eh? Do not count me among the 'all', please. I do not know that. Indeed
I do not understand the relevance of the paragraph - must be senility
clicking in - sigh!

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Replies