Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Misc Language Message-ID: <50@rtp47.UUCP> Date: Sat, 25-May-85 17:17:30 EDT Article-I.D.: rtp47.50 Posted: Sat May 25 17:17:30 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 03:19:21 EDT References: <1134@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: Data General, RTP, NC Lines: 89 In <1134@uwmacc.UUCP>, Paul DuBois mentioned several things that my companion posting on this subject did not address at all. I do have some specific comments to make, but my previous posting was general background, and I am separating specific points into this posting. > You were awfully silent when K A Dahlke adduced linguistic "evolution" > as evidence in *favor* of evolution. But when a creationist brings up > a counter-point favorable to creation, ah! Then it's irrelevant... Well, in general, weaknesses in evolutionary argument are pointed out PDQ in this newsgroup (public service provided by Paul DuBois, I think :-). More seriously, this article didn't show up on my site. In any event, I support the position that linguistic evolution (if any) doesn't have very much to do with biologic evolution (if any). Nevertheless, I find linguistics an interesting subject, so I'll press on. > > [P Samuel Odoms] > > Languages are primarily directed by the type of society in which they are > > used. Any given language can go from "simple" to "complex" many times > > during its life. > > Examples of such, please. Aren't pidgin languages modern examples? The syntax gets more irregular than the base language, idiom appears, redundancies are added. People normally think of pidgin languages as simplified, but aren't they primarily simplified in terms of vocabulary, while being equally complex or more complex than the 'parent' language in terms of syntax and idiom? This is clearly speculation and can't be used as evidence of anything, but perhaps a listening linguist can shed some light. > > A language with the gender, mood, case, etc. constructs > > could be considered "simpler" than the same one without (Old English and > > New English though, of course, the language has gone through enormous > > modifications other than lose of gender, mood, etc.) because to get the > > correct idea across, we now must use a fairly restricted word order > > or a phrase will not mean the correct thing. Therefore, we have more not > > less rules governing our language. I disagree with the basic notion here. Modern languages *are* simpler than antique ones. However, I don't agree with the "devolved" label often given to the simplified language. > > > 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the > > > simplest. And of course I disagree with this also. The first stab at developing something like a language seems likely to be complex in structure and simple in vocabulary, and develop towards simplicity in structure and complexity in vocabulary. My other posting on this subject expands on this ad nauseaum. Any time a language is "reinvented from (near) scratch" (such as pidgin languages, or in general language spoken by a new group of non-native speakers) this trend could be reversed for a short time. > None of these responses dealt at all with the sudden appearance of > language full blown out of nowhere. I posted an article on this a > while ago, but nobody said anything. The conclusion of that article > was: the *evidence* does not suggest evolution; the evolutionary > framework must *presuppose* evolutionary development of language and > fit it in post hoc. I missed that article also. In what sense did languages appear "full blown", and "out of nowhere" yet? I was under the impression that language as we know it developed before records, and since it doesn't leave fossils (:-) what evidence could there be for this? (Feel free to mail me the missing posting, but in the meantime, I'll go on.) I can't imagine what evidence for the sudden appearance of *spoken* language there might be, but sudden appearance of *written* language seems to be the most natural thing in the world. Once any bright fellow had figgured out how to write things down, the idea ought to spread like wildfire in dry grass. How could it *not* do so? I can see (sort of) why you would maintain that new species cannot arise from old ones, but surely the notion of written language (or even spoken language) is an idea, and I don't think you mean to maintain that you can't teach humans new ideas. (:-) So, given that language can spread by teaching, why wouldn't it appear "all at once" in a population of humans capable of it? And I can't see what implication it would have, other than that humans learn fast, which we knew already, more or less. In any event, as several folks have said, the sudden advent of language, (if any), neither supports nor contradicts biological evolution (if any). Linguistic evolution is a whole 'nother can of worms. (An interesting can of worms, but a 'nother one nonetheless.) -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC !mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw