Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!justin
From: justin@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Why can't my cat talk?
Message-ID: <122700003@inmet>
Date: Wed, 4-Nov-87 08:49:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.122700003
Posted: Wed Nov  4 08:49:00 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Nov-87 04:54:04 EST
References: <11967@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:decwrl.DEC.COM:-1196700:inmet:122700003:000:1031
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!justin    Nov  4 08:49:00 1987


/* Written  4:03 pm  Oct 31, 1987 by roberts@cognos.UUCP in inmet:comp.ai */

Should this crystallization hypothesis prove true, what does this tell us about
gorillas?  And is AMSLAN, in which I understand at least one gorilla has
achieved not only a considerable vocabulary but a remarkable proficiency at
combining "symbols" to denote new concepts, a natural language?  That is to
say, does mastery of a sign language require the same brain functions as those
required to speak a natural language?

/* End of text from inmet:comp.ai */

As I understand it, AMSLAN is, in fact, a proper natural language. The rub is
that the gorillas learning it have only learned it to a point. AMSLAN has
its own particular syntax, and that seems to be the sticking point. While
the gorillas seem perfectly able to learn the concepts, and is able to stick
them together, they don't seem to be able to understand sophisticated
*syntax* (beyond two-word combinations). Just what this implies about
cognition, I'm not sure.
				-- Justin du Coeur