Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Piraha
77 views
Skip to first unread message
Mok-Kong Shen
Apr 2, 2012, 2:33:33 PM4/2/12
to
In a recent popularly fairly comprehensible article entitled
"The social instinct" Daniel Everett wrote: "The Piraha language
represents a solid counter example to the idea that recursion is
the principal genetic facilitator of human languages", see
NewScientist, 10 March 2012, pp.32-35.
Is this thesis well accepted in the scientific community? If yes,
has it any basic significance for language translations?
M. K. Shen
"The social instinct" Daniel Everett wrote: "The Piraha language
represents a solid counter example to the idea that recursion is
the principal genetic facilitator of human languages", see
NewScientist, 10 March 2012, pp.32-35.
Is this thesis well accepted in the scientific community? If yes,
has it any basic significance for language translations?
M. K. Shen
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2012, 4:04:10 PM4/2/12
to
This has been discussed at considerable theoretical length in the
journal Language and many other places. Everett's own data (published
before he decided to make his name by challenging Chomsky) do not
support his claims.
This popular article was placed in order to sell his new book.
Nathan Sanders
Apr 2, 2012, 5:20:06 PM4/2/12
to
In article <jlcrds$bau$1...@news.albasani.net>,
The whole Piraha/recursion debate is (or at least, should be) a
non-issue, for two reasons:
(1) The claim is not that every language has self-embedding (a very
specific sense of "recursion"); the true claim is that every human
language builds larger units hierarchically from smaller units (a
different, more general sense of "recursion"). Self-embedding is a
possible outcome of hierarchical structure, but not a necessary one.
(2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
and it's very difficult for anyone else to go in and collect the
necessary data. Besides, there are some very clear examples that seem
to be recursive of the specific type (for example, ). But even if
Piraha has no self-embedding (which it possible, but doubtful), it
would be a counter-example to a strawman claim (universality of
self-embedding), not to the real claim (universality of hierarchical
structure).
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
non-issue, for two reasons:
(1) The claim is not that every language has self-embedding (a very
specific sense of "recursion"); the true claim is that every human
language builds larger units hierarchically from smaller units (a
different, more general sense of "recursion"). Self-embedding is a
possible outcome of hierarchical structure, but not a necessary one.
(2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
and it's very difficult for anyone else to go in and collect the
necessary data. Besides, there are some very clear examples that seem
to be recursive of the specific type (for example, ). But even if
Piraha has no self-embedding (which it possible, but doubtful), it
would be a counter-example to a strawman claim (universality of
self-embedding), not to the real claim (universality of hierarchical
structure).
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
Adam Funk
Apr 3, 2012, 8:24:59 AM4/3/12
to
On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
> disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
> self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
> claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
> (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
> disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
> self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
> claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
> and it's very difficult for anyone else to go in and collect the
> necessary data.
while to do more research.
--
When Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under
Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342]
Ruud Harmsen
Apr 3, 2012, 10:18:06 AM4/3/12
to
Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:
>The whole Piraha/recursion debate is (or at least, should be) a
>non-issue, for two reasons:
>
>(1) The claim is not that every language has self-embedding (a very
>specific sense of "recursion"); the true claim is that every human
>language builds larger units hierarchically from smaller units (a
>different, more general sense of "recursion"). Self-embedding is a
>possible outcome of hierarchical structure, but not a necessary one.
>
>(2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
>disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
>self-embedding (specific recursion).
Can you clarify the difference between general and specific recursion
with an example?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/new
Aan toekomstige taalvorsers (5)
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/tuktalvr/nl05.htm
>The whole Piraha/recursion debate is (or at least, should be) a
>non-issue, for two reasons:
>
>(1) The claim is not that every language has self-embedding (a very
>specific sense of "recursion"); the true claim is that every human
>language builds larger units hierarchically from smaller units (a
>different, more general sense of "recursion"). Self-embedding is a
>possible outcome of hierarchical structure, but not a necessary one.
>
>(2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
>disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
>self-embedding (specific recursion).
with an example?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/new
Aan toekomstige taalvorsers (5)
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/tuktalvr/nl05.htm
Ruud Harmsen
Apr 3, 2012, 10:18:54 AM4/3/12
to
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
>while to do more research.
In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
>while to do more research.
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 11:22:43 AM4/3/12
to
In article <2i1mn7dev0h860mk8...@4ax.com>,
man on the street", where "the street" is embedded inside "the man on
the street"), or a sentence inside a sentence ("Mary said that John
saw a bird").
Hierarchical structure is just another way of saying that language has
nested syntactic structure (i.e., words are organized into meaningful
phrases that themselves are organized into larger meaningful phrases,
and ultimately sentences), rather than being purely linear. The
nested units need not be of the same type; it's the mere fact that any
syntactic nesting occurs at all that distinguishes human language from
animal communication.
Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:
>
> >The whole Piraha/recursion debate is (or at least, should be) a
> >non-issue, for two reasons:
> >
> >(1) The claim is not that every language has self-embedding (a very
> >specific sense of "recursion"); the true claim is that every human
> >language builds larger units hierarchically from smaller units (a
> >different, more general sense of "recursion"). Self-embedding is a
> >possible outcome of hierarchical structure, but not a necessary one.
> >
> >(2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
> >disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
> >self-embedding (specific recursion).
>
> Can you clarify the difference between general and specific recursion
> with an example?
Self-embedding would be a noun phrase inside a noun phrase (like "the
> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:
>
> >The whole Piraha/recursion debate is (or at least, should be) a
> >non-issue, for two reasons:
> >
> >(1) The claim is not that every language has self-embedding (a very
> >specific sense of "recursion"); the true claim is that every human
> >language builds larger units hierarchically from smaller units (a
> >different, more general sense of "recursion"). Self-embedding is a
> >possible outcome of hierarchical structure, but not a necessary one.
> >
> >(2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
> >disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
> >self-embedding (specific recursion).
>
> Can you clarify the difference between general and specific recursion
> with an example?
man on the street", where "the street" is embedded inside "the man on
the street"), or a sentence inside a sentence ("Mary said that John
saw a bird").
Hierarchical structure is just another way of saying that language has
nested syntactic structure (i.e., words are organized into meaningful
phrases that themselves are organized into larger meaningful phrases,
and ultimately sentences), rather than being purely linear. The
nested units need not be of the same type; it's the mere fact that any
syntactic nesting occurs at all that distinguishes human language from
animal communication.
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 11:38:27 AM4/3/12
to
In article <rp6r49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
complex sentences into separate sentences, claiming that they weren't
embedded in a larger sentence structure, but linearly ordered separate
sentences.
The syntax-semantics interface (such as things like negation and
quantifier binding) doesn't seem to work correctly in his post hoc
interpretation. But I'm neither a syntactician nor a semanticist, so
I've only minimally skimmed over the details, and don't recall the
specifics. But I believe they are along the lines of taking (1) and
turning it into (2):
(1) Everyone thinks that his mother is beautiful.
(2) His mother is beautiful. Everyone thinks it.
(1) and (2) can both mean that there is some contextually salient male
whose mother everyone thinks is beautiful, but (1) can also mean that
each person thinks his own mother is beautiful, while (2) cannot mean
that.
> > and it's very difficult for anyone else to go in and collect the
> > necessary data.
>
> I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
> while to do more research.
There are political difficulties acquiring the data. The Brazilian
government is protective of native populations, and Everett himself,
last I heard, had been barred from visiting the tribe.
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
> > disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
> > self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
> > claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
>
> Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
> my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
The latter. He re-glossed a lot of his older data, breaking up
> On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
> > disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
> > self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
> > claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
>
> Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
> my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
complex sentences into separate sentences, claiming that they weren't
embedded in a larger sentence structure, but linearly ordered separate
sentences.
The syntax-semantics interface (such as things like negation and
quantifier binding) doesn't seem to work correctly in his post hoc
interpretation. But I'm neither a syntactician nor a semanticist, so
I've only minimally skimmed over the details, and don't recall the
specifics. But I believe they are along the lines of taking (1) and
turning it into (2):
(1) Everyone thinks that his mother is beautiful.
(2) His mother is beautiful. Everyone thinks it.
(1) and (2) can both mean that there is some contextually salient male
whose mother everyone thinks is beautiful, but (1) can also mean that
each person thinks his own mother is beautiful, while (2) cannot mean
that.
> > and it's very difficult for anyone else to go in and collect the
> > necessary data.
>
> I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
> while to do more research.
government is protective of native populations, and Everett himself,
last I heard, had been barred from visiting the tribe.
Helmut Richter
Apr 3, 2012, 11:46:54 AM4/3/12
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> Self-embedding would be a noun phrase inside a noun phrase (like "the
> man on the street", where "the street" is embedded inside "the man on
> the street"), or a sentence inside a sentence ("Mary said that John
> saw a bird").
>
> Hierarchical structure is just another way of saying that language has
> nested syntactic structure (i.e., words are organized into meaningful
> phrases that themselves are organized into larger meaningful phrases,
> and ultimately sentences), rather than being purely linear. The
> nested units need not be of the same type; it's the mere fact that any
> syntactic nesting occurs at all that distinguishes human language from
> animal communication.
Consider the phrase:
> Self-embedding would be a noun phrase inside a noun phrase (like "the
> man on the street", where "the street" is embedded inside "the man on
> the street"), or a sentence inside a sentence ("Mary said that John
> saw a bird").
>
> Hierarchical structure is just another way of saying that language has
> nested syntactic structure (i.e., words are organized into meaningful
> phrases that themselves are organized into larger meaningful phrases,
> and ultimately sentences), rather than being purely linear. The
> nested units need not be of the same type; it's the mere fact that any
> syntactic nesting occurs at all that distinguishes human language from
> animal communication.
the transport connection urgently needed by the people living in this
conglomeration established shortly after WWII
Here the phrase "needed by the living ..." contains a subphrase "living in
this conglomeration ..." of the same syntactic structure, and so on. So
the logic of the sentence is recursive and in some sense self-embedding.
But it is not self-embedding in the sense that it is not a regular
language: the next enhancement of the phrase occurs always at the end,
hence producing a linear structure. I assume that you would still call
this a recursion in the specific sense.
If you translate the phrase into German, the next enhancement occurs
between the article and the remainder of the previous enhancement, and
thus there is a real parenthesis structure that is not regular:
die von den in dieser kurz nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg gebauten Siedlung
lebenden Menschen dringend benötigte Verkehrsanbindung
--
Helmut Richter
Mok-Kong Shen
Apr 3, 2012, 12:44:53 PM4/3/12
to
Am 03.04.2012 17:38, schrieb Nathan Sanders:
> In article<rp6r49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>
>>> (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
>>> disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
>>> self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
>>> claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
>>
>> Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
>> my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
>
> The latter. He re-glossed a lot of his older data, breaking up
> complex sentences into separate sentences, claiming that they weren't
> embedded in a larger sentence structure, but linearly ordered separate
> sentences.
So he at least hasn't yet formally admitted his errors, or has he
> In article<rp6r49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>
>>> (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
>>> disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
>>> self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
>>> claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
>>
>> Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
>> my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
>
> The latter. He re-glossed a lot of his older data, breaking up
> complex sentences into separate sentences, claiming that they weren't
> embedded in a larger sentence structure, but linearly ordered separate
> sentences.
somewhere?
M. K. Shen
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 1:17:46 PM4/3/12
to
In article <jlf9e1$2ae$1...@news.albasani.net>,
He has formally repudiated his original analyses in his new work. He
has yet to agree that his new analyses have weird semantics, and
instead, argues that the semantics are just fine, mostly by
repudiating his original glosses and providing new ones.
has yet to agree that his new analyses have weird semantics, and
instead, argues that the semantics are just fine, mostly by
repudiating his original glosses and providing new ones.
Mok-Kong Shen
Apr 3, 2012, 1:23:00 PM4/3/12
to
Am 03.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Nathan Sanders:
> In article<jlf9e1$2ae$1...@news.albasani.net>,
His recent article in NewScientist seems to give another impression.
There were quite strong claims there, if I don't err.
M. K. Shen
> In article<jlf9e1$2ae$1...@news.albasani.net>,
There were quite strong claims there, if I don't err.
M. K. Shen
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 1:42:08 PM4/3/12
to
In article <jlfblg$726$1...@news.albasani.net>,
I haven't read the New Scientist article. Is he now back-tracking on
his repudiation, and going back to his original analyses that show
recursion?
Or is one of us misunderstanding the other?
his repudiation, and going back to his original analyses that show
recursion?
Or is one of us misunderstanding the other?
Mok-Kong Shen
Apr 3, 2012, 1:48:56 PM4/3/12
to
Am 03.04.2012 19:42, schrieb Nathan Sanders:
> In article<jlfblg$726$1...@news.albasani.net>,
I have quoted one of his sentences in my OP. Elsewhere in his
article he explicitly gave some arguments against Chomsky's
Universal Grammer. Lacking knowledge, I couldn't know whether
he is right or not, though.
M. K. Shen
> In article<jlfblg$726$1...@news.albasani.net>,
article he explicitly gave some arguments against Chomsky's
Universal Grammer. Lacking knowledge, I couldn't know whether
he is right or not, though.
M. K. Shen
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 2:07:42 PM4/3/12
to
In article <jlfd64$ahv$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Ok, then I didn't understand what you meant when you said his new
article gives "another impression".
There are only two main stages of Everett's work of Piraha: his
original descriptions and analyses, which show clear evidence of
self-embedding structures (sentences in sentences, etc.), and his more
recent arguments repudiating his original analyses, with revised
structures and translations of the data from his original work to
avoid self-embedding.
article gives "another impression".
There are only two main stages of Everett's work of Piraha: his
original descriptions and analyses, which show clear evidence of
self-embedding structures (sentences in sentences, etc.), and his more
recent arguments repudiating his original analyses, with revised
structures and translations of the data from his original work to
avoid self-embedding.
Mok-Kong Shen
Apr 3, 2012, 2:23:10 PM4/3/12
to
Am 03.04.2012 20:07, schrieb Nathan Sanders:
> In article<jlfd64$ahv$1...@news.albasani.net>,
But his article in NewScientist seems thus then to be a repudiation of
his earlier repudiation. Very odd.
M. K. Shen
> In article<jlfd64$ahv$1...@news.albasani.net>,
his earlier repudiation. Very odd.
M. K. Shen
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 2:27:12 PM4/3/12
to
In article <jlff6a$flq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
If he is giving arguments against Chomsky, he is still singing the
same tune, and there is no repudiation of his repudiation:
Stage 1: his first analyses of Piraha, with complex sentences, etc.
Stage 2: repudiation of stage 1, of Chomsky, of recursion, of UG
same tune, and there is no repudiation of his repudiation:
Stage 1: his first analyses of Piraha, with complex sentences, etc.
Stage 2: repudiation of stage 1, of Chomsky, of recursion, of UG
Mok-Kong Shen
Apr 3, 2012, 2:45:51 PM4/3/12
to
Am 03.04.2012 20:27, schrieb Nathan Sanders:
> In article<jlff6a$flq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
So I have returned to a question implied in my OP: What is the current
status of UG? Has Everett shaken somewhat that thesis or not at all?
M. K. Shen
> In article<jlff6a$flq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
status of UG? Has Everett shaken somewhat that thesis or not at all?
M. K. Shen
Adam Funk
Apr 3, 2012, 4:07:02 PM4/3/12
to
On 2012-04-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
>>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
>>while to do more research.
>
> In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
Oh, I heard that Everett had been banned, but I didn't know there was
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
>>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
>>while to do more research.
>
> In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
a general policy. I was alluding to the fact that the place is (for
us gringos) fairly unpleasant.
--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and education.
[H G Wells]
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 4:41:21 PM4/3/12
to
In article <jlfggs$ihl$1...@news.albasani.net>,
No, because he is arguing against a strawman. What Everett claims
Chomsky says about UG is not what Chomsky says about UG. This
strawman is a reasonable interpretation of, I think, one line from a
piece that Chomsky wrote for the popular press, but it is not a
reasonable interpretation of the full corpus of Chomsky's work
(especially the more technical stuff, which is what Everett's
arguments should be based on, not on the simplified pieces Chomsky
wrote for layman media).
This was the point of my discussion about self-embedding versus
hierarchical structure, the two interpretations of "recursion".
Self-embedding is a specific type of hierarchical structure that is
*allowed* by UG, and in fact, happens to be seen in nearly every
language. Everett argues that there is no self-embedding in Piraha,
and thus, he claims it is a counter-example to UG.
But UG only specifies general hierarchical structure (the result of
the "Merge" operation in modern Chomskyan syntax) as a linguistic
universal exclusive to humans. It does not specify self-embedding
specifically.
The idea of Merge is that syntactically meaningful units X and Y can
be combined to form a new syntactically meaningful unit Z, which can
be combined with another syntactically meaningful unit to form a new
larger syntactically meaningful unit, which can be combined with
another syntactically meaningful unit to form a new larger
syntactically meaningful unit, which can be combined with another
syntactically meaningful unit to form a new larger syntactically
meaningful unit, which can be combined with another syntactically
meaningful unit to form a new larger syntactically meaningful unit, ...
*That's* the recursion Chomsky is talking about. It's one of the
first things a student of syntax learns: sentences aren't just
linearly concatenated strings of words; rather, there is intermediate
structure between the word and the sentence, and that intermediate
structure plays a role in various patterns in the language.
Chomsky says about UG is not what Chomsky says about UG. This
strawman is a reasonable interpretation of, I think, one line from a
piece that Chomsky wrote for the popular press, but it is not a
reasonable interpretation of the full corpus of Chomsky's work
(especially the more technical stuff, which is what Everett's
arguments should be based on, not on the simplified pieces Chomsky
wrote for layman media).
This was the point of my discussion about self-embedding versus
hierarchical structure, the two interpretations of "recursion".
Self-embedding is a specific type of hierarchical structure that is
*allowed* by UG, and in fact, happens to be seen in nearly every
language. Everett argues that there is no self-embedding in Piraha,
and thus, he claims it is a counter-example to UG.
But UG only specifies general hierarchical structure (the result of
the "Merge" operation in modern Chomskyan syntax) as a linguistic
universal exclusive to humans. It does not specify self-embedding
specifically.
The idea of Merge is that syntactically meaningful units X and Y can
be combined to form a new syntactically meaningful unit Z, which can
be combined with another syntactically meaningful unit to form a new
larger syntactically meaningful unit, which can be combined with
another syntactically meaningful unit to form a new larger
syntactically meaningful unit, which can be combined with another
syntactically meaningful unit to form a new larger syntactically
meaningful unit, which can be combined with another syntactically
meaningful unit to form a new larger syntactically meaningful unit, ...
*That's* the recursion Chomsky is talking about. It's one of the
first things a student of syntax learns: sentences aren't just
linearly concatenated strings of words; rather, there is intermediate
structure between the word and the sentence, and that intermediate
structure plays a role in various patterns in the language.
Mok-Kong Shen
Apr 3, 2012, 4:54:12 PM4/3/12
to
Am 03.04.2012 22:41, schrieb Nathan Sanders:
> In article<jlfggs$ihl$1...@news.albasani.net>,
I am a layman and have difficulty to understand argumentations in
depth. I think though that it would be great, if you would like to
to take a little bit of your time to write a reader's letter for having
it published in NewScientist such that the general readers of that
Journal would have obtained a "correct" view of the matter apparently
under dispute among the scientists.
M. K. Shen
M. K. Shen
> In article<jlfggs$ihl$1...@news.albasani.net>,
depth. I think though that it would be great, if you would like to
to take a little bit of your time to write a reader's letter for having
it published in NewScientist such that the general readers of that
Journal would have obtained a "correct" view of the matter apparently
under dispute among the scientists.
M. K. Shen
M. K. Shen
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 5:24:30 PM4/3/12
to
In article <6s1s49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
threatened to murder him and his family, but because they were drunk,
he was able to take their weapons away from them before they could.
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
> >>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
> >>while to do more research.
> >
> > In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
>
> Oh, I heard that Everett had been banned, but I didn't know there was
> a general policy. I was alluding to the fact that the place is (for
> us gringos) fairly unpleasant.
That too. Everett reported that, early on in his visit, the Piraha
> On 2012-04-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
> >>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
> >>while to do more research.
> >
> > In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
>
> Oh, I heard that Everett had been banned, but I didn't know there was
> a general policy. I was alluding to the fact that the place is (for
> us gringos) fairly unpleasant.
threatened to murder him and his family, but because they were drunk,
he was able to take their weapons away from them before they could.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 3, 2012, 5:29:39 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 5:24 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <6s1s49xone....@news.ducksburg.com>,
for hostility.
Ken Pike once took 20 minutes at the end of a long day to try to
explain to me why (trying to) convert(ing) the heathen was a benefit
for them in non-religious ways.
> In article <6s1s49xone....@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-04-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> > > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
> > >>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
> > >>while to do more research.
>
> > > In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
>
> > Oh, I heard that Everett had been banned, but I didn't know there was
> > a general policy. I was alluding to the fact that the place is (for
> > us gringos) fairly unpleasant.
>
> That too. Everett reported that, early on in his visit, the Piraha
> threatened to murder him and his family, but because they were drunk,
> he was able to take their weapons away from them before they could.
Didn't he originally go as a missionary? That could be grounds enough
>
> > On 2012-04-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> > > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
> > >>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
> > >>while to do more research.
>
> > > In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
>
> > Oh, I heard that Everett had been banned, but I didn't know there was
> > a general policy. I was alluding to the fact that the place is (for
> > us gringos) fairly unpleasant.
>
> That too. Everett reported that, early on in his visit, the Piraha
> threatened to murder him and his family, but because they were drunk,
> he was able to take their weapons away from them before they could.
for hostility.
Ken Pike once took 20 minutes at the end of a long day to try to
explain to me why (trying to) convert(ing) the heathen was a benefit
for them in non-religious ways.
Nathan Sanders
Apr 3, 2012, 7:05:45 PM4/3/12
to
In article
<c5d0d740-4974-43dc...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
can't talk about the past, so they can't tell us what their
motivations were!
And actually, even if someone had managed to ask them right as the
event was happening, "we tried to murder him because he tried to
convert us" requires multiple kinds of self-embedding, so I'm not sure
they could have explained it. I suppose they might could have said it
something like "He is convert-trying on us. Because. We are
kill-trying on him.", but I'm not sure how the semantics work out for
that...
<c5d0d740-4974-43dc...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:24 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <6s1s49xone....@news.ducksburg.com>,
> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2012-04-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >
> > > > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
> > > >>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
> > > >>while to do more research.
> >
> > > > In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
> >
> > > Oh, I heard that Everett had been banned, but I didn't know there was
> > > a general policy. I was alluding to the fact that the place is (for
> > > us gringos) fairly unpleasant.
> >
> > That too. Everett reported that, early on in his visit, the Piraha
> > threatened to murder him and his family, but because they were drunk,
> > he was able to take their weapons away from them before they could.
>
> Didn't he originally go as a missionary? That could be grounds enough
> for hostility.
It's hard to say. That happened in the past, and those exotic Piraha
> On Apr 3, 5:24 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <6s1s49xone....@news.ducksburg.com>,
> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2012-04-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >
> > > > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> schreef/wrote:
> > > >>I'm not aware of a big queue of linguists ready to go live there for a
> > > >>while to do more research.
> >
> > > > In general, in Brazilian authorities do not allow it.
> >
> > > Oh, I heard that Everett had been banned, but I didn't know there was
> > > a general policy. I was alluding to the fact that the place is (for
> > > us gringos) fairly unpleasant.
> >
> > That too. Everett reported that, early on in his visit, the Piraha
> > threatened to murder him and his family, but because they were drunk,
> > he was able to take their weapons away from them before they could.
>
> Didn't he originally go as a missionary? That could be grounds enough
> for hostility.
can't talk about the past, so they can't tell us what their
motivations were!
And actually, even if someone had managed to ask them right as the
event was happening, "we tried to murder him because he tried to
convert us" requires multiple kinds of self-embedding, so I'm not sure
they could have explained it. I suppose they might could have said it
something like "He is convert-trying on us. Because. We are
kill-trying on him.", but I'm not sure how the semantics work out for
that...
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 3, 2012, 11:11:22 PM4/3/12
to
> <c5d0d740-4974-43dc-ae7c-9c4f74019...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Oh -- that's right -- they're not human. Do they, then, have souls?
Adam Funk
Apr 4, 2012, 8:53:33 AM4/4/12
to
On 2012-04-03, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> In article <rp6r49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>
>> > (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
>> > disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
>> > self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
>> > claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
>>
>> Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
>> my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
>
> The latter. He re-glossed a lot of his older data, breaking up
> complex sentences into separate sentences, claiming that they weren't
> embedded in a larger sentence structure, but linearly ordered separate
> sentences.
Well, in most cases, the ability to say you were mistaken is
> In article <rp6r49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>
>> > (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
>> > disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
>> > self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
>> > claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
>>
>> Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
>> my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
>
> The latter. He re-glossed a lot of his older data, breaking up
> complex sentences into separate sentences, claiming that they weren't
> embedded in a larger sentence structure, but linearly ordered separate
> sentences.
considered a virtue, but I suppose his critics think he is fudging
things in order to make a bigger name for himself. (Based on what
I've read of his work, I don't get the impression he's particularly
egotistical, but ICBW.)
--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]
Nathan Sanders
Apr 4, 2012, 3:06:37 PM4/4/12
to
In article
<eb300ace-7911-479e...@f6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
The concept of a soul seems like too much of an abstraction for these
simple people to comprehend, so even if they have them, they aren't
aware of it!
<eb300ace-7911-479e...@f6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
simple people to comprehend, so even if they have them, they aren't
aware of it!
Nathan Sanders
Apr 4, 2012, 3:55:57 PM4/4/12
to
In article <drst49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
he was mistaken in the way he claims he was.
> but I suppose his critics think he is fudging
> things in order to make a bigger name for himself.
That's one interpretation. Many others believe it's not necessarily
ego, but rather animus towards Chomsky and (Everett's
(mis-)understanding of) Chomskyan theory. (I don't have much of an
opinion either way, but it's easy to see both interpretations given
the evidence.)
> (Based on what
> I've read of his work, I don't get the impression he's particularly
> egotistical, but ICBW.)
I've met him a few times. He's a pleasant enough man, but definitely
openly expresses very strong specific theoretical beliefs, and it's
hard to imagine those beliefs not having an impact of the particular
way he chooses to re-interpret his data, especially since the
re-interpretation is so extensive and strained.
It's one thing to translate a particular lexical item or sentence
wrong, but it's quite another thing altogether to have completely
mis-translated so much data, after living with the people for such a
long time, and to have that re-interpretation coincidentally be
internationally news-worthy?
Contrast Everett and his claim of no self-embedding in Piraha with
CERN and their faster-than-light neutrinos. CERN was so baffled at
having made such a monumental discovery that they openly questioned
their own results and invited the scientific community to run more
experiments to verify their results.
CERN didn't flatly assert their results as hard truth that
contradicted prevailing theory, and they most certainly didn't
re-interpret massive quantities of old results in such a way to
support their new results or claim that no one had found
faster-than-light neutrinos before because everyone is too blinded by
Einsteinian theory bother looking for them.
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-03, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > In article <rp6r49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> >>
> >> > (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
> >> > disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
> >> > self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
> >> > claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
> >>
> >> Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
> >> my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
> >
> > The latter. He re-glossed a lot of his older data, breaking up
> > complex sentences into separate sentences, claiming that they weren't
> > embedded in a larger sentence structure, but linearly ordered separate
> > sentences.
>
> Well, in most cases, the ability to say you were mistaken is
> considered a virtue,
It's not clear that he was mistaken (the first time around), or that
> On 2012-04-03, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > In article <rp6r49x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2012-04-02, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> >>
> >> > (2) Piraha has hierarchical structure (general recursion); no one
> >> > disputes that. What Everett claims, however, is that Piraha has no
> >> > self-embedding (specific recursion). But it's not clear that this
> >> > claim is factually correct: his own body of work contradicts itself,
> >>
> >> Does his work contemporaneously contradict itself, or does he (this is
> >> my understanding) in later work say his earlier work was wrong?
> >
> > The latter. He re-glossed a lot of his older data, breaking up
> > complex sentences into separate sentences, claiming that they weren't
> > embedded in a larger sentence structure, but linearly ordered separate
> > sentences.
>
> Well, in most cases, the ability to say you were mistaken is
> considered a virtue,
he was mistaken in the way he claims he was.
> but I suppose his critics think he is fudging
> things in order to make a bigger name for himself.
ego, but rather animus towards Chomsky and (Everett's
(mis-)understanding of) Chomskyan theory. (I don't have much of an
opinion either way, but it's easy to see both interpretations given
the evidence.)
> (Based on what
> I've read of his work, I don't get the impression he's particularly
> egotistical, but ICBW.)
openly expresses very strong specific theoretical beliefs, and it's
hard to imagine those beliefs not having an impact of the particular
way he chooses to re-interpret his data, especially since the
re-interpretation is so extensive and strained.
It's one thing to translate a particular lexical item or sentence
wrong, but it's quite another thing altogether to have completely
mis-translated so much data, after living with the people for such a
long time, and to have that re-interpretation coincidentally be
internationally news-worthy?
Contrast Everett and his claim of no self-embedding in Piraha with
CERN and their faster-than-light neutrinos. CERN was so baffled at
having made such a monumental discovery that they openly questioned
their own results and invited the scientific community to run more
experiments to verify their results.
CERN didn't flatly assert their results as hard truth that
contradicted prevailing theory, and they most certainly didn't
re-interpret massive quantities of old results in such a way to
support their new results or claim that no one had found
faster-than-light neutrinos before because everyone is too blinded by
Einsteinian theory bother looking for them.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 4, 2012, 4:54:02 PM4/4/12
to
> <eb300ace-7911-479e-95c7-f3bc491c1...@f6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
That's why they need missionaries!
Adam Funk
Apr 5, 2012, 7:27:34 AM4/5/12
to
something Everett's critics falsely accuse him of claiming or
implying.
--
Back off, man. I'm a scientist. [Dr Peter Venkman]
Adam Funk
Apr 5, 2012, 7:26:14 AM4/5/12
to
--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 5, 2012, 7:42:28 AM4/5/12
to
that the Piraha do not have a human language. Therefore, they are not
human. What could be clearer?
Adam Funk
Apr 5, 2012, 8:39:29 AM4/5/12
to
On 2012-04-03, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> Hierarchical structure is just another way of saying that language has
> nested syntactic structure (i.e., words are organized into meaningful
> phrases that themselves are organized into larger meaningful phrases,
> and ultimately sentences), rather than being purely linear. The
> nested units need not be of the same type; it's the mere fact that any
> syntactic nesting occurs at all that distinguishes human language from
> animal communication.
There's an interesting argument in Geoffrey Sampson's _The Language
> nested syntactic structure (i.e., words are organized into meaningful
> phrases that themselves are organized into larger meaningful phrases,
> and ultimately sentences), rather than being purely linear. The
> nested units need not be of the same type; it's the mere fact that any
> syntactic nesting occurs at all that distinguishes human language from
> animal communication.
Instinct Debate_ to the effect that anything complicated tends to
involve hierarchical structure. ISTR he uses an analogy of two
watchmakers with different systems: one of them has to put all 100
parts in the watch in one assembly, and the other builds a bunch of
smaller sub-assemblies then puts those together. The first one never
gets anything done because he has to start over every time he gets
interrupted.
(There's more to the argument than just that analogy, but it's been a
while since I read the book, and the analogy is particularly
memorable.)
--
There's a statute of limitations with the law, but not with
your wife. [Ray Magliozzi, Car Talk 2011-36]
Adam Funk
Apr 5, 2012, 8:33:04 AM4/5/12
to
AFAICT, he's claiming that Piraha doesn't conform to what he claims
are the the Chomskyan specifications for "human language", so those
specifications are wrong. If he considered the Piraha people as not
human, then the way they speak would be irrelevant to that argument.
(I'm not saying I agree with him.)
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]
Hans Aberg
Apr 5, 2012, 8:45:26 AM4/5/12
to
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 5, 2012, 11:36:38 AM4/5/12
to
things he attacks -- much as Nathan says Everett has done here. His
first publications I became aware of (they were sent to me for review
in Library Journal) were (rightwing) political screeds masquerading as
linguistics (one of them is called *Liberty and Language*), and then
in 1985 he trained his sights on *Writing Systems*, which is woefully
misconceived. His exchange on writing systems with the late John
DeFrancis and his student Jim Unger (that's J. Marshall Unger,
probably best-known for *The Fifth Generation Fallacy*; after I got to
know him, I tried to find a used copy of that formerly ubiquitous
"expose'" of the Japanese computer industry, and there aren't any
anywhere) makes his shortcomings very clear.
Happily, he left the field and now considers himself a "cognitive
scientist."
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 5, 2012, 11:48:02 AM4/5/12
to
exchange with Nathan? Or are you actually having a piss, or whatever
that disgusting British expression for teasing by pretending not to
undertstand a joke is?
Nathan Sanders
Apr 5, 2012, 12:36:27 PM4/5/12
to
In article <66c059x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
subject comes up, and I always take it to be meant as humor. As far
as I know, Everett has never said any such thing.
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-04, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 7:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> It's hard to say. That happened in the past, and those exotic Piraha
> >> can't talk about the past, so they can't tell us what their
> >> motivations were!
> >>
> >> And actually, even if someone had managed to ask them right as the
> >> event was happening, "we tried to murder him because he tried to
> >> convert us" requires multiple kinds of self-embedding, so I'm not sure
> >> they could have explained it. I suppose they might could have said it
> >> something like "He is convert-trying on us. Because. We are
> >> kill-trying on him.", but I'm not sure how the semantics work out for
> >> that...
> >
> > Oh -- that's right -- they're not human. Do they, then, have souls?
>
>
> Who says they're not human (or they're subhuman)?
Peter says something along these lines pretty much every time the
> On 2012-04-04, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 7:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> It's hard to say. That happened in the past, and those exotic Piraha
> >> can't talk about the past, so they can't tell us what their
> >> motivations were!
> >>
> >> And actually, even if someone had managed to ask them right as the
> >> event was happening, "we tried to murder him because he tried to
> >> convert us" requires multiple kinds of self-embedding, so I'm not sure
> >> they could have explained it. I suppose they might could have said it
> >> something like "He is convert-trying on us. Because. We are
> >> kill-trying on him.", but I'm not sure how the semantics work out for
> >> that...
> >
> > Oh -- that's right -- they're not human. Do they, then, have souls?
>
>
> Who says they're not human (or they're subhuman)?
subject comes up, and I always take it to be meant as humor. As far
as I know, Everett has never said any such thing.
Nathan Sanders
Apr 5, 2012, 12:42:19 PM4/5/12
to
In article
<01d0dace-6e51-469b...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
<01d0dace-6e51-469b...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> On Apr 5, 8:39 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-04-03, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> >
> > > Hierarchical structure is just another way of saying that language has
> > > nested syntactic structure (i.e., words are organized into meaningful
> > > phrases that themselves are organized into larger meaningful phrases,
> > > and ultimately sentences), rather than being purely linear. The
> > > nested units need not be of the same type; it's the mere fact that any
> > > syntactic nesting occurs at all that distinguishes human language from
> > > animal communication.
> >
> > There's an interesting argument in Geoffrey Sampson's _The Language
> > Instinct Debate_ to the effect that anything complicated tends to
> > involve hierarchical structure. ISTR he uses an analogy of two
> > watchmakers with different systems: one of them has to put all 100
> > parts in the watch in one assembly, and the other builds a bunch of
> > smaller sub-assemblies then puts those together. The first one never
> > gets anything done because he has to start over every time he gets
> > interrupted.
> >
> > (There's more to the argument than just that analogy, but it's been a
> > while since I read the book, and the analogy is particularly
> > memorable.)
>
> Geoffrey Sampson has made a career of wilfully misunderstanding the
> things he attacks -- much as Nathan says Everett has done here.
It's not clear to me that Everett has *willfully* misunderstood...
> > On 2012-04-03, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> >
> > > Hierarchical structure is just another way of saying that language has
> > > nested syntactic structure (i.e., words are organized into meaningful
> > > phrases that themselves are organized into larger meaningful phrases,
> > > and ultimately sentences), rather than being purely linear. The
> > > nested units need not be of the same type; it's the mere fact that any
> > > syntactic nesting occurs at all that distinguishes human language from
> > > animal communication.
> >
> > There's an interesting argument in Geoffrey Sampson's _The Language
> > Instinct Debate_ to the effect that anything complicated tends to
> > involve hierarchical structure. ISTR he uses an analogy of two
> > watchmakers with different systems: one of them has to put all 100
> > parts in the watch in one assembly, and the other builds a bunch of
> > smaller sub-assemblies then puts those together. The first one never
> > gets anything done because he has to start over every time he gets
> > interrupted.
> >
> > (There's more to the argument than just that analogy, but it's been a
> > while since I read the book, and the analogy is particularly
> > memorable.)
>
> Geoffrey Sampson has made a career of wilfully misunderstanding the
> things he attacks -- much as Nathan says Everett has done here.
Adam Funk
Apr 10, 2012, 10:38:27 AM4/10/12
to
On 2012-04-05, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> In article <66c059x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-04, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 3, 7:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's hard to say. That happened in the past, and those exotic Piraha
>> >> can't talk about the past, so they can't tell us what their
>> >> motivations were!
>> >>
>> >> And actually, even if someone had managed to ask them right as the
>> >> event was happening, "we tried to murder him because he tried to
>> >> convert us" requires multiple kinds of self-embedding, so I'm not sure
>> >> they could have explained it. I suppose they might could have said it
>> >> something like "He is convert-trying on us. Because. We are
>> >> kill-trying on him.", but I'm not sure how the semantics work out for
>> >> that...
>> >
>> > Oh -- that's right -- they're not human. Do they, then, have souls?
>>
>>
>> Who says they're not human (or they're subhuman)?
>
> Peter says something along these lines pretty much every time the
> subject comes up, and I always take it to be meant as humor.
Aha. It's in poor taste, even for Peter.
> In article <66c059x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-04, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 3, 7:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's hard to say. That happened in the past, and those exotic Piraha
>> >> can't talk about the past, so they can't tell us what their
>> >> motivations were!
>> >>
>> >> And actually, even if someone had managed to ask them right as the
>> >> event was happening, "we tried to murder him because he tried to
>> >> convert us" requires multiple kinds of self-embedding, so I'm not sure
>> >> they could have explained it. I suppose they might could have said it
>> >> something like "He is convert-trying on us. Because. We are
>> >> kill-trying on him.", but I'm not sure how the semantics work out for
>> >> that...
>> >
>> > Oh -- that's right -- they're not human. Do they, then, have souls?
>>
>>
>> Who says they're not human (or they're subhuman)?
>
> Peter says something along these lines pretty much every time the
> subject comes up, and I always take it to be meant as humor.
> As far as I know, Everett has never said any such thing.
--
No sport is less organized than Calvinball!
Adam Funk
Apr 10, 2012, 10:46:40 AM4/10/12
to
On 2012-04-05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:39 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> There's an interesting argument in Geoffrey Sampson's _The Language
>> Instinct Debate_ to the effect that anything complicated tends to
>> involve hierarchical structure. ISTR he uses an analogy of two
>> watchmakers with different systems: one of them has to put all 100
>> parts in the watch in one assembly, and the other builds a bunch of
>> smaller sub-assemblies then puts those together. The first one never
>> gets anything done because he has to start over every time he gets
>> interrupted.
>>
>> (There's more to the argument than just that analogy, but it's been a
>> while since I read the book, and the analogy is particularly
>> memorable.)
>
> Geoffrey Sampson has made a career of wilfully misunderstanding the
> things he attacks --
Well, I think the marketing & even the title of the book are a bit
>> There's an interesting argument in Geoffrey Sampson's _The Language
>> Instinct Debate_ to the effect that anything complicated tends to
>> involve hierarchical structure. ISTR he uses an analogy of two
>> watchmakers with different systems: one of them has to put all 100
>> parts in the watch in one assembly, and the other builds a bunch of
>> smaller sub-assemblies then puts those together. The first one never
>> gets anything done because he has to start over every time he gets
>> interrupted.
>>
>> (There's more to the argument than just that analogy, but it's been a
>> while since I read the book, and the analogy is particularly
>> memorable.)
>
> Geoffrey Sampson has made a career of wilfully misunderstanding the
> things he attacks --
misleading about its scope. IIRC, the content doesn't claim to
disprove the language faculty, just the universal grammar; but ISTR
the title of the book had to be changed between editions for some
strange reason.
> much as Nathan says Everett has done here. His
> first publications I became aware of (they were sent to me for review
> in Library Journal) were (rightwing) political screeds masquerading as
> linguistics (one of them is called *Liberty and Language*), and then
> in 1985 he trained his sights on *Writing Systems*, which is woefully
> misconceived. His exchange on writing systems with the late John
> DeFrancis and his student Jim Unger (that's J. Marshall Unger,
> probably best-known for *The Fifth Generation Fallacy*; after I got to
> know him, I tried to find a used copy of that formerly ubiquitous
> "expose'" of the Japanese computer industry, and there aren't any
> anywhere) makes his shortcomings very clear.
> Happily, he left the field and now considers himself a "cognitive
> scientist."
Adam Funk
Apr 10, 2012, 2:32:43 PM4/10/12
to
On 2012-04-05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Are you seriously unable to detect the jocular tone and content of my
> exchange with Nathan?
It certainly wasn't obvious to me, but Nathan says you've done it
> Are you seriously unable to detect the jocular tone and content of my
> exchange with Nathan?
before. Your supposed joke is certainly in very poor taste.
> Or are you actually having a piss, or whatever
> that disgusting British expression for teasing by pretending not to
> undertstand a joke is?
ought to know who glosses his own posts with things like "takeout (BrE
takeaway)" to show how cosmopolitan he is.
--
In the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for
-£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the
myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001)
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 10, 2012, 4:05:43 PM4/10/12
to
> > In article <66c059xvlo....@news.ducksburg.com>,
You seem to fail to understand that when he denies that their language
has one of the fundamental properties of human language, he is denying
their humanity.
has one of the fundamental properties of human language, he is denying
their humanity.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 10, 2012, 4:04:01 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 2:32 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Are you seriously unable to detect the jocular tone and content of my
> > exchange with Nathan?
>
> It certainly wasn't obvious to me, but Nathan says you've done it
> before. Your supposed joke is certainly in very poor taste.
Mocking Daniel Everett is in very good taste indeed.
> On 2012-04-05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Are you seriously unable to detect the jocular tone and content of my
> > exchange with Nathan?
>
> It certainly wasn't obvious to me, but Nathan says you've done it
> before. Your supposed joke is certainly in very poor taste.
> > Or are you actually having a piss, or whatever
> > that disgusting British expression for teasing by pretending not to
> > undertstand a joke is?
>
> Are you for real? The expression is "taking the piss", as anyone
> ought to know who glosses his own posts with things like "takeout (BrE
> takeaway)" to show how cosmopolitan he is.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 10, 2012, 5:33:07 PM4/10/12
to
the absence of this feature in Piraha shows that those who claim it as
a "fundamental property of human language" are mistaken. Everett's
position makes sense only on the assumption that the Piraha _are_
human and their language is a human language.
António Marques
Apr 10, 2012, 7:32:13 PM4/10/12
to
absence severly conditions the use you can put the language to, the two
issues cannot be decoupled.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 10, 2012, 8:46:37 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 11, 11:32 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Who's suggesting "decoupling" them, whatever that means? I'm just
pointing out that Peter misrepresents Everett's position.
pointing out that Peter misrepresents Everett's position.
António Marques
Apr 10, 2012, 10:36:03 PM4/10/12
to
doing it or not?
What I said is you can't decouple the description of their language from
their description as a people.
> I'm just
> pointing out that Peter misrepresents Everett's position.
postulated to be present in every human language. Your corollary is that it
isn't present in every human language. However, others consider it so
integral to all the known human languages, that rather than changing the
idea of how a human language is, it is more logical to consider the
language in question as not part of the same set as human languages.
Moreover, the use of a human language as presently understood is so
integral to our view of Humanity, that it is difficult to see how a whole
society lacking it can be what we otherwise consider as human.
--
Sent from one of my newsreaders
António Marques
Apr 10, 2012, 10:42:21 PM4/10/12
to
K as long as X is generally considered a trait of K, even if what A is
trying to say is that X isn't a trait of K. What weighs is not B's category
nor A's understanding, but the degree to which it is generally considered
whether X implies K. In some cases it may be a surmountable degree, but not
in all.)
Brian M. Scott
Apr 10, 2012, 11:15:27 PM4/10/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:36:03 +0000 (UTC), António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm2qmj$6gk$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
> "benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 11:32 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote (10-04-2012 22:33):
>>>> On Apr 11, 8:05 am, "Peter T.
>>>> Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> You seem to fail to understand that when he denies
>>>>> that their language has one of the fundamental
>>>>> properties of human language, he is denying their
>>>>> humanity.
>>>> You seem to misunderstand. His entire point (right or
>>>> wrong) is that the absence of this feature in Piraha
>>>> shows that those who claim it as a "fundamental
>>>> property of human language" are mistaken. Everett's
>>>> position makes sense only on the assumption that the
>>>> Piraha _are_ human and their language is a human
>>>> language.
>>> Given that no other known languages exhibits such
>>> absence AND that such absence severly conditions the
>>> use you can put the language to, the two issues cannot
>>> be decoupled.
[...]
>> I'm just pointing out that Peter misrepresents Everett's
>> position.
> Everett's position is that their language lacks something
> which was postulated to be present in every human
> language. Your corollary is that it isn't present in
> every human language.
No, according to Ross that corollary *is* Everett's
position.
[...]
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm2qmj$6gk$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
> "benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 11:32 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote (10-04-2012 22:33):
>>>> On Apr 11, 8:05 am, "Peter T.
>>>> Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> You seem to fail to understand that when he denies
>>>>> that their language has one of the fundamental
>>>>> properties of human language, he is denying their
>>>>> humanity.
>>>> You seem to misunderstand. His entire point (right or
>>>> wrong) is that the absence of this feature in Piraha
>>>> shows that those who claim it as a "fundamental
>>>> property of human language" are mistaken. Everett's
>>>> position makes sense only on the assumption that the
>>>> Piraha _are_ human and their language is a human
>>>> language.
>>> Given that no other known languages exhibits such
>>> absence AND that such absence severly conditions the
>>> use you can put the language to, the two issues cannot
>>> be decoupled.
>> I'm just pointing out that Peter misrepresents Everett's
>> position.
> Everett's position is that their language lacks something
> which was postulated to be present in every human
> language. Your corollary is that it isn't present in
> every human language.
position.
[...]
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 10, 2012, 11:26:23 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 11, 2:36 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
about them, no. But who suggested that?
>
> > I'm just
> > pointing out that Peter misrepresents Everett's position.
>
> Everett's position is that their language lacks something which was
> postulated to be present in every human language. Your corollary is that it
> isn't present in every human language. However, others consider it so
> integral to all the known human languages, that rather than changing the
> idea of how a human language is, it is more logical to consider the
> language in question as not part of the same set as human languages.
Really? Who were these others?
> Moreover, the use of a human language as presently understood is so
> integral to our view of Humanity, that it is difficult to see how a whole
> society lacking it can be what we otherwise consider as human.
Precisely why Everett is arguing that our definition of "human
language" (or some people's) is wrong.
> "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 11:32 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote (10-04-2012 22:33):
>
> >>> On Apr 11, 8:05 am, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> You seem to fail to understand that when he denies that their language
> >>>> has one of the fundamental properties of human language, he is denying
> >>>> their humanity.
>
> >>> You seem to misunderstand. His entire point (right or wrong) is that the
> >>> absence of this feature in Piraha shows that those who claim it as a
> >>> "fundamental property of human language" are mistaken. Everett's position
> >>> makes sense only on the assumption that the Piraha _are_ human and their
> >>> language is a human language.
>
> >> Given that no other known languages exhibits such absence AND that such
> >> absence severly conditions the use you can put the language to, the two
> >> issues cannot be decoupled.
>
> > Who's suggesting "decoupling" them, whatever that means?
>
> If you don't know what I mean by that, how can you know whether someone's
> doing it or not?
> What I said is you can't decouple the description of their language from
> their description as a people.
Insofar as their language is one of the many things one might describe
> > On Apr 11, 11:32 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote (10-04-2012 22:33):
>
> >>> On Apr 11, 8:05 am, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> You seem to fail to understand that when he denies that their language
> >>>> has one of the fundamental properties of human language, he is denying
> >>>> their humanity.
>
> >>> You seem to misunderstand. His entire point (right or wrong) is that the
> >>> absence of this feature in Piraha shows that those who claim it as a
> >>> "fundamental property of human language" are mistaken. Everett's position
> >>> makes sense only on the assumption that the Piraha _are_ human and their
> >>> language is a human language.
>
> >> Given that no other known languages exhibits such absence AND that such
> >> absence severly conditions the use you can put the language to, the two
> >> issues cannot be decoupled.
>
> > Who's suggesting "decoupling" them, whatever that means?
>
> If you don't know what I mean by that, how can you know whether someone's
> doing it or not?
> What I said is you can't decouple the description of their language from
> their description as a people.
about them, no. But who suggested that?
>
> > I'm just
> > pointing out that Peter misrepresents Everett's position.
>
> Everett's position is that their language lacks something which was
> postulated to be present in every human language. Your corollary is that it
> isn't present in every human language. However, others consider it so
> integral to all the known human languages, that rather than changing the
> idea of how a human language is, it is more logical to consider the
> language in question as not part of the same set as human languages.
> Moreover, the use of a human language as presently understood is so
> integral to our view of Humanity, that it is difficult to see how a whole
> society lacking it can be what we otherwise consider as human.
language" (or some people's) is wrong.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 10, 2012, 11:32:12 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Did you ask yourself why the Funkster didn't mock Nathan's "exotic"
and "have no past tense"?
and "have no past tense"?
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 10, 2012, 11:51:29 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 11, 2:42 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
I'm not sure where this formalized logic of "free to say" comes from,
but so far nobody has mentioned any person who has said "The Piraha
are not human" on the basis of Everett's findings. Peter has
attributed such a view to Everett, but I say he's wrong. Since I am
free to make up my own addenda to your rules, then under the above
conditions "P is not free to say that A claims B are K".
but so far nobody has mentioned any person who has said "The Piraha
are not human" on the basis of Everett's findings. Peter has
attributed such a view to Everett, but I say he's wrong. Since I am
free to make up my own addenda to your rules, then under the above
conditions "P is not free to say that A claims B are K".
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 7:12:28 AM4/11/12
to
> I'm not sure where this formalized logic of "free to say" comes from,
> but so far nobody has mentioned any person who has said "The Piraha
> are not human" on the basis of Everett's findings. Peter has
> attributed such a view to Everett, but I say he's wrong. Since I am
> free to make up my own addenda to your rules, then under the above
> conditions "P is not free to say that A claims B are K".
You're just being stubborn.
> but so far nobody has mentioned any person who has said "The Piraha
> are not human" on the basis of Everett's findings. Peter has
> attributed such a view to Everett, but I say he's wrong. Since I am
> free to make up my own addenda to your rules, then under the above
> conditions "P is not free to say that A claims B are K".
If you say you've found a type of triangle which doesn't have 3 sides,
anyone is free to say you're claiming those things are not triangles, even
if what you had in mind was to claim not all triangles have 3 sides.
Now I'm sure some smart alec will find it fit to introduce us to some
non-euclidean triangles.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 7:35:38 AM4/11/12
to
fundamental part of how other languages perform their functions. He hasn't
explained how it can perform the same functions without them. In fact, iinm,
his claims about their worldview suggest it is fundamentally different from
those of every other people. They can't even count?
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 11, 2012, 8:12:12 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 7:12 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> non-euclidean triangles.-
They still have 3 angles and hence 3 sides ... the angles just don't
have to add up to 360 deg.
They still have 3 angles and hence 3 sides ... the angles just don't
have to add up to 360 deg.
pauljk
Apr 11, 2012, 8:57:37 AM4/11/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:212c1d35-48e7-4714...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps you were thinking of a rectangle.
Rectangle has four 90 deg angles, total of 360 degs. If you draw
a diagonal line through it you get two identical triangles with
the total of 360 degrees. So each of the triangles must have
a total of exactly 180 deg.
In triangle with one side being of zero length the angles would still
add up to 180 deg (0+90+90). :-)
Would the number of sides still be three? :-)
pjk
Adam Funk
Apr 11, 2012, 11:02:13 AM4/11/12
to
On 2012-04-10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2:32 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-04-05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > Are you seriously unable to detect the jocular tone and content of my
>> > exchange with Nathan?
>>
>> It certainly wasn't obvious to me, but Nathan says you've done it
>> before. Your supposed joke is certainly in very poor taste.
>
> Mocking Daniel Everett is in very good taste indeed.
I mean it's in bad taste with regard to the Piraha.
> On Apr 10, 2:32 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-04-05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > Are you seriously unable to detect the jocular tone and content of my
>> > exchange with Nathan?
>>
>> It certainly wasn't obvious to me, but Nathan says you've done it
>> before. Your supposed joke is certainly in very poor taste.
>
> Mocking Daniel Everett is in very good taste indeed.
>> > Or are you actually having a piss, or whatever
>> > that disgusting British expression for teasing by pretending not to
>> > undertstand a joke is?
>>
>> Are you for real? The expression is "taking the piss", as anyone
>> ought to know who glosses his own posts with things like "takeout (BrE
>> takeaway)" to show how cosmopolitan he is.
>
> I don't memorize disgusting expressions.
Linguistics 101 refresher on "all dialects have equal merit" before
the LSA rips your epaulets off.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 11:20:53 AM4/11/12
to
it allowed.
> If you draw
> a diagonal line through it you get two identical triangles with
> the total of 360 degrees. So each of the triangles must have
> a total of exactly 180 deg.
>
> In triangle with one side being of zero length the angles would still
> add up to 180 deg (0+90+90). :-)
> Would the number of sides still be three? :-)
Patrick Karl
Apr 11, 2012, 12:50:53 PM4/11/12
to
On 4/11/2012 7:57 AM, pauljk wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:212c1d35-48e7-4714...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... >
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:212c1d35-48e7-4714...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... >
> In triangle with one side being of zero length the angles would still
> add up to 180 deg (0+90+90). :-)
> Would the number of sides still be three? :-)
Of course! As you said, "...with one side being of zero length". Or
> add up to 180 deg (0+90+90). :-)
> Would the number of sides still be three? :-)
are you concerned about the two non-zero, coincidental sides being
actually one side?
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 1:02:34 PM4/11/12
to
there that he's not noticed yet.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 11, 2012, 3:30:38 PM4/11/12
to
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > Perhaps you were thinking of a rectangle.
Nope. Just think of all those who say they're doing "a 360" when they
reverse direction.
> > Rectangle has four 90 deg angles, total of 360 degs.
>
> I think this is a grammatical sentence, but I can't explain when and how is
> it allowed.
No, being a count noun "rectangle" has to either have "a" or be plural
to make it a generic. And it should end "for a total of ..."
> > If you draw
> > a diagonal line through it you get two identical triangles with
> > the total of 360 degrees. So each of the triangles must have
> > a total of exactly 180 deg.
>
> > In triangle with one side being of zero length the angles would still
> > add up to 180 deg (0+90+90). :-)
> > Would the number of sides still be three? :-)
>
> See what it's come to?-
> >news:212c1d35-48e7-4714...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 11, 7:12 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >>> If you say you've found a type of triangle which doesn't have 3 sides,
> >>> anyone is free to say you're claiming those things are not triangles, even
> >>> if what you had in mind was to claim not all triangles have 3 sides.
> >>> Now I'm sure some smart alec will find it fit to introduce us to some
> >>> non-euclidean triangles.-
>
> >> They still have 3 angles and hence 3 sides ... the angles just don't
> >> have to add up to 360 deg.
>
> > That's true, except the angles in a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 deg.
d'oh!
> >> On Apr 11, 7:12 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >>> If you say you've found a type of triangle which doesn't have 3 sides,
> >>> anyone is free to say you're claiming those things are not triangles, even
> >>> if what you had in mind was to claim not all triangles have 3 sides.
> >>> Now I'm sure some smart alec will find it fit to introduce us to some
> >>> non-euclidean triangles.-
>
> >> They still have 3 angles and hence 3 sides ... the angles just don't
> >> have to add up to 360 deg.
>
> > That's true, except the angles in a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 deg.
> > Perhaps you were thinking of a rectangle.
reverse direction.
> > Rectangle has four 90 deg angles, total of 360 degs.
>
> I think this is a grammatical sentence, but I can't explain when and how is
> it allowed.
to make it a generic. And it should end "for a total of ..."
> > If you draw
> > a diagonal line through it you get two identical triangles with
> > the total of 360 degrees. So each of the triangles must have
> > a total of exactly 180 deg.
>
> > In triangle with one side being of zero length the angles would still
> > add up to 180 deg (0+90+90). :-)
> > Would the number of sides still be three? :-)
>
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 11, 2012, 5:22:39 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 11:12 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Nonsense. Having three sides is definitional for triangles, not
subject to empirical testing.
Linguists, by contrast, are always checking purported linguistic
universals against languages they study. Finding counterexamples is
thoroughly approved practice. (Though defenders of the universal may
want to argue the facts of the case.)
subject to empirical testing.
Linguists, by contrast, are always checking purported linguistic
universals against languages they study. Finding counterexamples is
thoroughly approved practice. (Though defenders of the universal may
want to argue the facts of the case.)
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 11, 2012, 5:25:13 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 11:35 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
The same has been said of some Australian Aboriginal groups. In no
case that I'm aware of did the linguist use these facts to conclude
that the speakers were not human.
case that I'm aware of did the linguist use these facts to conclude
that the speakers were not human.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 5:50:37 PM4/11/12
to
somewhere making the two propositions equivalent (Brian?), but someone had
to prove it.
> Linguists, by contrast, are always checking purported linguistic
> universals against languages they study. Finding counterexamples is
> thoroughly approved practice. (Though defenders of the universal may want
> to argue the facts of the case.)
to make clear, the issue is in the nature of the universal which happens to
be under question. Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
human language? Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
a human society? Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 5:56:25 PM4/11/12
to
who approved some project also took a gift from the person who submitted the
project, you may even think you're offering a counter-example to the
argument that 'taking gifts from interested parties is corruption', but in
fact you're calling the civil servant corrupt, even if you draw the opposite
conclusion in your view.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 11, 2012, 6:05:41 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 12, 9:56 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that others may come
to, even though I neither say it nor believe it". That seems a
misleading, even mischievous use of the term.
to, even though I neither say it nor believe it". That seems a
misleading, even mischievous use of the term.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 6:08:37 PM4/11/12
to
Peter T. Daniels wrote (11-04-2012 20:30):
> On Apr 11, 11:20 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
>> pauljk wrote (11-04-2012 13:57):
>>
>>> Rectangle has four 90 deg angles, total of 360 degs.
>>
>> I think this is a grammatical sentence, but I can't explain when and
>> how is it allowed.
>
> No, being a count noun "rectangle" has to either have "a" or be plural to
> make it a generic. And it should end "for a total of ..."
None the puzzling less, I think I've seen it a bit too often for it just to
> On Apr 11, 11:20 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
>> pauljk wrote (11-04-2012 13:57):
>>
>>> Rectangle has four 90 deg angles, total of 360 degs.
>>
>> I think this is a grammatical sentence, but I can't explain when and
>> how is it allowed.
>
> No, being a count noun "rectangle" has to either have "a" or be plural to
> make it a generic. And it should end "for a total of ..."
be an ommission.
Brian M. Scott
Apr 11, 2012, 6:09:13 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:50:37 +0100, António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm4ubb$m7v$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
[...]
>> Nonsense. Having three sides is definitional for
>> triangles, not subject to empirical testing.
> Not so. Having three angles is.
Who says?
[...]
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm4ubb$m7v$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
[...]
>> Nonsense. Having three sides is definitional for
>> triangles, not subject to empirical testing.
> Not so. Having three angles is.
[...]
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 11, 2012, 6:14:53 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 12, 9:50 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Not as I understand it. If someone claimed to have found a triangle
that didn't have three sides, the conclusion would be that he didn't
know what a triangle was.
But I will defer to Brian on this.
> > Linguists, by contrast, are always checking purported linguistic
> > universals against languages they study. Finding counterexamples is
> > thoroughly approved practice. (Though defenders of the universal may want
> > to argue the facts of the case.)
>
> The issue is not the non-universality of a supposed universal.
But it is exactly that.
Perhaps you mean "not just"?
As I've tried
> to make clear, the issue is in the nature of the universal which happens to
> be under question. Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> human language? Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> a human society? Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
Again we have differences in human language (and culture) which are
striking, and unexpected. We may have to re-think some of our textbook
assertions that "All human languages have..." or "All human societies
do...". But at no point do we have to conclude that the Piraha belong
to a different species. If you or Peter want to draw this conclusion,
you do it on your own, and don't blame Everett.
that didn't have three sides, the conclusion would be that he didn't
know what a triangle was.
But I will defer to Brian on this.
> > Linguists, by contrast, are always checking purported linguistic
> > universals against languages they study. Finding counterexamples is
> > thoroughly approved practice. (Though defenders of the universal may want
> > to argue the facts of the case.)
>
> The issue is not the non-universality of a supposed universal.
Perhaps you mean "not just"?
As I've tried
> to make clear, the issue is in the nature of the universal which happens to
> be under question. Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> human language? Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> a human society? Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
striking, and unexpected. We may have to re-think some of our textbook
assertions that "All human languages have..." or "All human societies
do...". But at no point do we have to conclude that the Piraha belong
to a different species. If you or Peter want to draw this conclusion,
you do it on your own, and don't blame Everett.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 6:24:04 PM4/11/12
to
wanted others to come to that conclusion. If it is an implicit claim, it may
have to be an unintentional claim, which implies a broader usage of 'claim'.
E: A is X, so X is not incompatible with Y.
P: You're claiming A isn't Y!
E: I'm not, I'm saying the opposite!
P: *Given the importance* of not-X to what is considered as Y, your
assertion must be interpreted as A isn't Y, rather than rethinking Y to be
compatible with X.
In my opinion, the whole issue of who is right or wrong in the above
exchange hangs on 'given the importance' and the actual truth value of 'A is
X'. Consider:
Kid: Dad took the neighbour's wallet!
Mom: Honey, you're saying dad is a thief!
Kid: No, the neighbour deserved it!
Mom: I find the whole story hard to believe.
Issues:
- Did the neighbout deserve it? (is it even possible to 'deserve'?)
- Did dad really take the wallet?
It's on these that I think the legitimacy of 'you're saying dad is a thief'
depends, not on the kid's intent.
But in your opinion, 'Everett is saying the Piraha aren't human' can't be
shockhand for 'Everett is making a very wild claim about the language of the
Piraha which seriously raises the question of whether they can function as
what we think of a human society, so we are disinclined to believe his
interpretation of the data'.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 6:24:51 PM4/11/12
to
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 11, 2012, 6:35:04 PM4/11/12
to
It is my assumption that the Piraha are human, and Everett is an
idiot.
Especially since he was raising one or two children in the field while
he was doing his fieldwork, so he should have had one or two perfect
bilinguals to consult.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 6:42:16 PM4/11/12
to
angles, of non-zero size. If we leave kindergarten, it really becomes
philosophy more than math.
>>> Linguists, by contrast, are always checking purported linguistic
>>> universals against languages they study. Finding counterexamples is
>>> thoroughly approved practice. (Though defenders of the universal may want
>>> to argue the facts of the case.)
>>
>> The issue is not the non-universality of a supposed universal.
>
> But it is exactly that.
> Perhaps you mean "not just"?
as I view it, an issue at all. I'm perfectly open to the possibility that
supposed universals may not be universal after all. What I find relevant is
that the trait in question seems to me much too important and fundamental
for language to be a real language without it. Had Everett indicated that
they make use of some other thing to replace recursion (not the right way to
frame it, but bear with me), then it would be ok. But aiui what he did was
point out how the lack of recursion impairs their functioning.
>> As I've tried
>> to make clear, the issue is in the nature of the universal which happens to
>> be under question. Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
>> human language? Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
>> a human society? Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
>> granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
>
> Again we have differences in human language (and culture) which are
> striking, and unexpected. We may have to re-think some of our textbook
> assertions that "All human languages have..." or "All human societies
> do...". But at no point do we have to conclude that the Piraha belong
> to a different species. If you or Peter want to draw this conclusion,
> you do it on your own, and don't blame Everett.
star-shaped creatures of Rigel VIII 'human' in the sense being used here if
they spoke Mura.
Brian M. Scott
Apr 11, 2012, 7:08:45 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
[...]
>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>> use of the term.
> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
*don't* want them to do so.
> If it is an implicit claim, it may have to be an
> unintentional claim, [...]
It doesn't.
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
[...]
>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>> use of the term.
> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
*don't* want them to do so.
> If it is an implicit claim, it may have to be an
It doesn't.
Brian M. Scott
Apr 11, 2012, 7:09:23 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:51 +0100, António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm50bg$1fo$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
I'm thinking that you're committing the etymological
fallacy.
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm50bg$1fo$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
fallacy.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 11, 2012, 7:19:02 PM4/11/12
to
"denies their humanity". You can impute such a belief to him only by
also attributing to him (without justification) the belief that the
alleged universal is inviolable.
Nathan Sanders
Apr 11, 2012, 9:34:42 PM4/11/12
to
In article <jm4ubb$m7v$1...@dont-email.me>,
(Whether it has self-embedding is a matter of debate.)
> Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> a human society?
Where does "full" come from? What is a "not full" (or Hermes forbid,
"empty"!) human language?
> Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
No. His claim is that their culture affects their language, not vice
versa. The title of his _Current Anthropology_ article is "Cultural
Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha", not "Linguistic
Constraints on Culture and Cognition in Piraha"!
Here's a more explicit quote from the article that defines his
position pretty clearly:
"I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha
language -- gaps that are very surprising from just about any
grammarianąs perspective -- ultimately derive from a single cultural
constraint in Piraha, namely, the restriction of communication to the
immediate experience of the interlocutors." (p.622)
He also cites Franz Boas:
"It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
António Marques <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> human language?
Other than being used by humans, how else does a language "fulfill the
> Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> human language?
role of a human language"?
Note that Piraha is a language used by humans...
(Whether it has self-embedding is a matter of debate.)
> Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> a human society?
"empty"!) human language?
> Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
versa. The title of his _Current Anthropology_ article is "Cultural
Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha", not "Linguistic
Constraints on Culture and Cognition in Piraha"!
Here's a more explicit quote from the article that defines his
position pretty clearly:
"I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha
language -- gaps that are very surprising from just about any
grammarianąs perspective -- ultimately derive from a single cultural
constraint in Piraha, namely, the restriction of communication to the
immediate experience of the interlocutors." (p.622)
He also cites Franz Boas:
"It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 10:23:15 PM4/11/12
to
relationship between number of sides and number of internal angles. Whether
they're really notationally equivalent or not.
DKleinecke
Apr 11, 2012, 10:26:01 PM4/11/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:35:38 AM UTC-7, António Marques wrote:
> No. By his analysis, the language of the Piraha lacks things which are a
> fundamental part of how other languages perform their functions. He hasn't
> explained how it can perform the same functions without them. In fact, iinm,
> his claims about their worldview suggest it is fundamentally different from
> those of every other people. They can't even count?
Not counting like we do is fairly common in the Amazon basin. It's not that they don't know how to count - just that they don't have counting words. When they need to count they do it with fingers and toes. Actually in their culture counting is not a very important factor and they get along fine without it. They don't do bookkeeping or use money (except with outsiders) and there is little in their lives that requires precise numbers.
> No. By his analysis, the language of the Piraha lacks things which are a
> fundamental part of how other languages perform their functions. He hasn't
> explained how it can perform the same functions without them. In fact, iinm,
> his claims about their worldview suggest it is fundamentally different from
> those of every other people. They can't even count?
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 10:26:05 PM4/11/12
to
Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:08):
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
> <news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>
>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 23:05):
>
> [...]
>
>>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>>> use of the term.
>
>> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
>> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
>
> Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
> *don't* want them to do so.
'Misleading' was Ross's characterisation of my usage of a term, not mine of
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
> <news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>
>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 23:05):
>
> [...]
>
>>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>>> use of the term.
>
>> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
>> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
>
> Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
> *don't* want them to do so.
Everett's argument.
>> If it is an implicit claim, it may have to be an
>> unintentional claim, [...]
>
> It doesn't.
António Marques
Apr 11, 2012, 10:27:29 PM4/11/12
to
even after a lot of effort.
pauljk
Apr 11, 2012, 10:32:03 PM4/11/12
to
"António Marques" <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:jm4df8$alo$1...@dont-email.me...
If I say, I see a triangle with one zero-length side then there is
a triangle with only two non-zero length sides. :-)
pjk
pauljk
Apr 11, 2012, 10:49:56 PM4/11/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:193b4103-b28c-44fc...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 11, 11:20 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> pauljk wrote (11-04-2012 13:57):
>> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >news:212c1d35-48e7-4714...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Apr 11, 7:12 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> >>> If you say you've found a type of triangle which doesn't have 3 sides,
>> >>> anyone is free to say you're claiming those things are not triangles, even
>> >>> if what you had in mind was to claim not all triangles have 3 sides.
>> >>> Now I'm sure some smart alec will find it fit to introduce us to some
>> >>> non-euclidean triangles.-
>>
>> >> They still have 3 angles and hence 3 sides ... the angles just don't
>> >> have to add up to 360 deg.
>>
>> > That's true, except the angles in a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 deg.
>
> d'oh!
???
>> pauljk wrote (11-04-2012 13:57):
>> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >news:212c1d35-48e7-4714...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Apr 11, 7:12 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> >>> If you say you've found a type of triangle which doesn't have 3 sides,
>> >>> anyone is free to say you're claiming those things are not triangles, even
>> >>> if what you had in mind was to claim not all triangles have 3 sides.
>> >>> Now I'm sure some smart alec will find it fit to introduce us to some
>> >>> non-euclidean triangles.-
>>
>> >> They still have 3 angles and hence 3 sides ... the angles just don't
>> >> have to add up to 360 deg.
>>
>> > That's true, except the angles in a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 deg.
>
> d'oh!
Are you saying it's obvious that by 360 you meant 180?
>> > Perhaps you were thinking of a rectangle.
>
> Nope. Just think of all those who say they're doing "a 360" when they
> reverse direction.
>> > Rectangle has four 90 deg angles, total of 360 degs.
>>
>> I think this is a grammatical sentence, but I can't explain when and how is
>> it allowed.
>
> No, being a count noun "rectangle" has to either have "a" or be plural
> to make it a generic. And it should end "for a total of ..."
"The rectangle has four 90 deg angles, a total of 360 degs."
Would that be sufficiently correct?
>> > If you draw
>> > a diagonal line through it you get two identical triangles with
>> > the total of 360 degrees. So each of the triangles must have
>> > a total of exactly 180 deg.
>>
>> > In triangle with one side being of zero length the angles would still
>> > add up to 180 deg (0+90+90). :-)
>> > Would the number of sides still be three? :-)
>>
>> See what it's come to?-
pjk
Nathan Sanders
Apr 11, 2012, 11:09:25 PM4/11/12
to
In article <jm5eif$84e$3...@dont-email.me>,
The last time I checked, he claims that they can count on some
rudimentary level, but that they do not do so for cultural reasons:
"The hypothesis of this paper, which explains both the lack of
counting and the lack of borrowing, is that Pirahaąs counting
'deficiency' [Everett's scare quotes -NS] and their failure to borrow
number words (in spite of commercial contact with Brazilians and in
spite of borrowing their pro- nouns) are due to cultural constraints."
(2005:634)
"A total lack of exact quantity language did not prevent the Piraha
from accurately performing a task which relied on the exact numerical
equivalence of large sets. [... T]he Piraha understand the concept of
one (in spite of having no word for the concept). Additionally, they
appear to understand that adding or subtracting one from a set will
change the quantity of that set" (Frank, Everett, Fedorenko, and
Gibson 2008:823)
He further argues that, because they have no names for exact
cardinality of sets, they have difficulty remembering the exact
cardinality of any specific set over time and space. But that's not
at all the same thing as being unable to *count*. Thus, the Piraha's
issue is a memory problem, not a computation problem.
I haven't read his 2012 book yet, so I don't know if he's back-tracked
from his 2008 position.
rudimentary level, but that they do not do so for cultural reasons:
"The hypothesis of this paper, which explains both the lack of
counting and the lack of borrowing, is that Pirahaąs counting
'deficiency' [Everett's scare quotes -NS] and their failure to borrow
number words (in spite of commercial contact with Brazilians and in
spite of borrowing their pro- nouns) are due to cultural constraints."
(2005:634)
"A total lack of exact quantity language did not prevent the Piraha
from accurately performing a task which relied on the exact numerical
equivalence of large sets. [... T]he Piraha understand the concept of
one (in spite of having no word for the concept). Additionally, they
appear to understand that adding or subtracting one from a set will
change the quantity of that set" (Frank, Everett, Fedorenko, and
Gibson 2008:823)
He further argues that, because they have no names for exact
cardinality of sets, they have difficulty remembering the exact
cardinality of any specific set over time and space. But that's not
at all the same thing as being unable to *count*. Thus, the Piraha's
issue is a memory problem, not a computation problem.
I haven't read his 2012 book yet, so I don't know if he's back-tracked
from his 2008 position.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 11, 2012, 11:28:37 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 10:23 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:09):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:51 +0100, António Marques
> > <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote in
> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:09):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:51 +0100, António Marques
> > <news:jm50bg$1fo$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>
> >> Brian M. Scott wrote (11-04-2012 23:09):
>
> >>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:50:37 +0100, António Marques
> >>> <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>
> >> Brian M. Scott wrote (11-04-2012 23:09):
>
> >>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:50:37 +0100, António Marques
> >>> <news:jm4ubb$m7v$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>
> >>>> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 22:22):
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>>>> Nonsense. Having three sides is definitional for
> >>>>> triangles, not subject to empirical testing.
>
> >>>> Not so. Having three angles is.
>
> >>> Who says?
>
> >> The word 'triangle'. Or are you thinking of 'trilaterals'?
>
> > I'm thinking that you're committing the etymological
> > fallacy.
>
> I suspected you'd say that, but I'd rather you'd say something about the
> relationship between number of sides and number of internal angles. Whether
> they're really notationally equivalent or not.-
> >>>> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 22:22):
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>>>> Nonsense. Having three sides is definitional for
> >>>>> triangles, not subject to empirical testing.
>
> >>>> Not so. Having three angles is.
>
> >>> Who says?
>
> >> The word 'triangle'. Or are you thinking of 'trilaterals'?
>
> > I'm thinking that you're committing the etymological
> > fallacy.
>
> I suspected you'd say that, but I'd rather you'd say something about the
> relationship between number of sides and number of internal angles. Whether
Isn't it early in Euclid's Book I?
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 11, 2012, 11:27:39 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 10:49 pm, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:193b4103-b28c-44fc...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Perhaps you were thinking of a rectangle.
>
> > Nope. Just think of all those who say they're doing "a 360" when they
> > reverse direction.
>
> The life is too short to think of what all innumerates may say.
Or that the more frequently used quantity might accidentally come out
where a quantity of a standard number of "degrees" is needed?
> >> > Rectangle has four 90 deg angles, total of 360 degs.
>
> >> I think this is a grammatical sentence, but I can't explain when and how is
> >> it allowed.
>
> > No, being a count noun "rectangle" has to either have "a" or be plural
> > to make it a generic. And it should end "for a total of ..."
>
> When I reread what I posted I thought to myself it should have been
> "The rectangle has four 90 deg angles, a total of 360 degs."
> Would that be sufficiently correct?
Yes, but less conversational.
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:193b4103-b28c-44fc...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 11:20 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> pauljk wrote (11-04-2012 13:57):
> >> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:212c1d35-48e7-4714...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Apr 11, 7:12 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> >>> If you say you've found a type of triangle which doesn't have 3 sides,
> >> >>> anyone is free to say you're claiming those things are not triangles, even
> >> >>> if what you had in mind was to claim not all triangles have 3 sides.
> >> >>> Now I'm sure some smart alec will find it fit to introduce us to some
> >> >>> non-euclidean triangles.-
>
> >> >> They still have 3 angles and hence 3 sides ... the angles just don't
> >> >> have to add up to 360 deg.
>
> >> > That's true, except the angles in a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 deg.
>
> > d'oh!
>
> ???
> Are you saying it's obvious that by 360 you meant 180?
Well, since the topic was triangles, Yes!
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 11:20 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> pauljk wrote (11-04-2012 13:57):
> >> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:212c1d35-48e7-4714...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Apr 11, 7:12 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> >>> If you say you've found a type of triangle which doesn't have 3 sides,
> >> >>> anyone is free to say you're claiming those things are not triangles, even
> >> >>> if what you had in mind was to claim not all triangles have 3 sides.
> >> >>> Now I'm sure some smart alec will find it fit to introduce us to some
> >> >>> non-euclidean triangles.-
>
> >> >> They still have 3 angles and hence 3 sides ... the angles just don't
> >> >> have to add up to 360 deg.
>
> >> > That's true, except the angles in a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 deg.
>
> > d'oh!
>
> ???
> Are you saying it's obvious that by 360 you meant 180?
> >> > Perhaps you were thinking of a rectangle.
>
> > Nope. Just think of all those who say they're doing "a 360" when they
> > reverse direction.
>
> The life is too short to think of what all innumerates may say.
where a quantity of a standard number of "degrees" is needed?
> >> > Rectangle has four 90 deg angles, total of 360 degs.
>
> >> I think this is a grammatical sentence, but I can't explain when and how is
> >> it allowed.
>
> > No, being a count noun "rectangle" has to either have "a" or be plural
> > to make it a generic. And it should end "for a total of ..."
>
> When I reread what I posted I thought to myself it should have been
> "The rectangle has four 90 deg angles, a total of 360 degs."
> Would that be sufficiently correct?
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 11, 2012, 11:33:32 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 9:34 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <jm4ubb$m7...@dont-email.me>,
transcendence, not denying their humanity?
How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
intellectual life.
> He also cites Franz Boas:
>
> "It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
> the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
> as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
> culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
> conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
>
> For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
And what was Boas talking about there?
(Oh, that's right, History of Science is a waste of time for you.)
> In article <jm4ubb$m7...@dont-email.me>,
> António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> > human language?
>
> Other than being used by humans, how else does a language "fulfill the
> role of a human language"?
>
> Note that Piraha is a language used by humans...
>
> (Whether it has self-embedding is a matter of debate.)
>
> > Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> > a human society?
>
> Where does "full" come from? What is a "not full" (or Hermes forbid,
> "empty"!) human language?
>
> > Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> > granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
>
> No. His claim is that their culture affects their language, not vice
> versa. The title of his _Current Anthropology_ article is "Cultural
> Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha", not "Linguistic
> Constraints on Culture and Cognition in Piraha"!
>
> Here's a more explicit quote from the article that defines his
> position pretty clearly:
>
> "I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha
> language -- gaps that are very surprising from just about any
> grammarian¹s perspective -- ultimately derive from a single cultural
>
> > Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> > human language?
>
> Other than being used by humans, how else does a language "fulfill the
> role of a human language"?
>
> Note that Piraha is a language used by humans...
>
> (Whether it has self-embedding is a matter of debate.)
>
> > Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> > a human society?
>
> Where does "full" come from? What is a "not full" (or Hermes forbid,
> "empty"!) human language?
>
> > Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> > granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
>
> No. His claim is that their culture affects their language, not vice
> versa. The title of his _Current Anthropology_ article is "Cultural
> Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha", not "Linguistic
> Constraints on Culture and Cognition in Piraha"!
>
> Here's a more explicit quote from the article that defines his
> position pretty clearly:
>
> "I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha
> language -- gaps that are very surprising from just about any
> constraint in Piraha, namely, the restriction of communication to the
> immediate experience of the interlocutors." (p.622)
And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> immediate experience of the interlocutors." (p.622)
transcendence, not denying their humanity?
How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
intellectual life.
> He also cites Franz Boas:
>
> "It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
> the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
> as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
> culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
> conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
>
> For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
(Oh, that's right, History of Science is a waste of time for you.)
Brian M. Scott
Apr 11, 2012, 11:41:58 PM4/11/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:26:05 +0100, António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm5efr$84e$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:08):
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
>> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>> <news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 23:05):
>> [...]
>>>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>>>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>>>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>>>> use of the term.
>>> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
>>> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
>> Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
>> *don't* want them to do so.
> 'Misleading' was Ross's characterisation of my usage of a
> term, not mine of Everett's argument.
And I was agreeing with him.
>>> If it is an implicit claim, it may have to be an
>>> unintentional claim, [...]
>> It doesn't.
> 'Doesn't' doesn't answer 'may have to'.
You said in effect that some implicit claims have to be
unintentional. Some implicit claims may in fact *be*
unintentional, but they never *have* to be unintentional.
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm5efr$84e$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:08):
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
>> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>> <news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 23:05):
>> [...]
>>>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>>>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>>>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>>>> use of the term.
>>> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
>>> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
>> Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
>> *don't* want them to do so.
> 'Misleading' was Ross's characterisation of my usage of a
> term, not mine of Everett's argument.
>>> If it is an implicit claim, it may have to be an
>>> unintentional claim, [...]
>> It doesn't.
> 'Doesn't' doesn't answer 'may have to'.
unintentional. Some implicit claims may in fact *be*
unintentional, but they never *have* to be unintentional.
Nathan Sanders
Apr 12, 2012, 12:23:20 AM4/12/12
to
In article
<10727aa7-131b-4261...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
> How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
How do you know they never ask "why"?
> It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
> intellectual life.
It's possible that is what is going on. He has claims that they like
to pull pranks on him.
> > He also cites Franz Boas:
> >
> > "It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
> > the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
> > as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
> > culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
> > conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
> >
> > For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
>
> And what was Boas talking about there?
He was talking specifically about race and "primitive man", but he was
a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
confines of race and primitivity.
To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
"there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
needed"
<10727aa7-131b-4261...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:34 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <jm4ubb$m7...@dont-email.me>,
> > António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >
> > > Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> > > human language?
> >
> > Other than being used by humans, how else does a language "fulfill the
> > role of a human language"?
> >
> > Note that Piraha is a language used by humans...
> >
> > (Whether it has self-embedding is a matter of debate.)
> >
> > > Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> > > a human society?
> >
> > Where does "full" come from? What is a "not full" (or Hermes forbid,
> > "empty"!) human language?
> >
> > > Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> > > granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
> >
> > No. His claim is that their culture affects their language, not vice
> > versa. The title of his _Current Anthropology_ article is "Cultural
> > Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha", not "Linguistic
> > Constraints on Culture and Cognition in Piraha"!
> >
> > Here's a more explicit quote from the article that defines his
> > position pretty clearly:
> >
> > "I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha
> > language -- gaps that are very surprising from just about any
> > grammarianąs perspective -- ultimately derive from a single cultural
> On Apr 11, 9:34 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <jm4ubb$m7...@dont-email.me>,
> > António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >
> > > Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> > > human language?
> >
> > Other than being used by humans, how else does a language "fulfill the
> > role of a human language"?
> >
> > Note that Piraha is a language used by humans...
> >
> > (Whether it has self-embedding is a matter of debate.)
> >
> > > Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> > > a human society?
> >
> > Where does "full" come from? What is a "not full" (or Hermes forbid,
> > "empty"!) human language?
> >
> > > Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> > > granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
> >
> > No. His claim is that their culture affects their language, not vice
> > versa. The title of his _Current Anthropology_ article is "Cultural
> > Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha", not "Linguistic
> > Constraints on Culture and Cognition in Piraha"!
> >
> > Here's a more explicit quote from the article that defines his
> > position pretty clearly:
> >
> > "I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha
> > language -- gaps that are very surprising from just about any
> > constraint in Piraha, namely, the restriction of communication to the
> > immediate experience of the interlocutors." (p.622)
>
> And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> transcendence, not denying their humanity?
Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> > immediate experience of the interlocutors." (p.622)
>
> And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> transcendence, not denying their humanity?
Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
> How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
> It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
> intellectual life.
to pull pranks on him.
> > He also cites Franz Boas:
> >
> > "It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
> > the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
> > as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
> > culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
> > conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
> >
> > For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
>
> And what was Boas talking about there?
a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
confines of race and primitivity.
To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
"there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
needed"
António Marques
Apr 12, 2012, 7:16:23 AM4/12/12
to
Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 04:41):
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:26:05 +0100, António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
> <news:jm5efr$84e$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>
>> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:08):
>
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
>>> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>>> <news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>
>>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 23:05):
>
>>> [...]
>
>>>>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>>>>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>>>>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>>>>> use of the term.
>
>>>> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
>>>> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
>
>>> Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
>>> *don't* want them to do so.
>
>> 'Misleading' was Ross's characterisation of my usage of a
>> term, not mine of Everett's argument.
>
> And I was agreeing with him.
Then it's the impersonal 'you' in your sentence, or did you mean to write 'he'?
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:26:05 +0100, António Marques
> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
> <news:jm5efr$84e$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>
>> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:08):
>
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
>>> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>>> <news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>
>>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 23:05):
>
>>> [...]
>
>>>>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>>>>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>>>>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>>>>> use of the term.
>
>>>> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
>>>> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
>
>>> Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
>>> *don't* want them to do so.
>
>> 'Misleading' was Ross's characterisation of my usage of a
>> term, not mine of Everett's argument.
>
> And I was agreeing with him.
>>>> If it is an implicit claim, it may have to be an
>>>> unintentional claim, [...]
>
>>> It doesn't.
>
>> 'Doesn't' doesn't answer 'may have to'.
>
> You said in effect that some implicit claims have to be
> unintentional. Some implicit claims may in fact *be*
> unintentional, but they never *have* to be unintentional.
'May be' didn't sound right to me. I admit I have a problem with 'may', it
often sounds to me like introducing syntactic ambiguity.
What I meant was not that some (by kind) implicit claims have to be
unintentional, but that a given claim must, given the circumstances, be
interpreted as unintentional.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 12, 2012, 7:34:38 AM4/12/12
to
> <10727aa7-131b-4261-b0f0-0fe8b2b49...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
doesn't understand what that is.)
> > How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
>
> How do you know they never ask "why"?
Because of, as you quoted it, "a single cultural constraint in Piraha,
pranks" certainly requires advance planning and anticipation of
adverse consequences.
> > > He also cites Franz Boas:
>
> > > "It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
> > > the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
> > > as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
> > > culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
> > > conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
>
> > > For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
>
> > And what was Boas talking about there?
>
> He was talking specifically about race and "primitive man", but he was
> a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
> that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
> confines of race and primitivity.
(I don't quite see how that quote pertains to "race and 'primitive
man'"; of course Boas's entire career was a battle against the concept
of "primitive man." If Everett takes that seriously, why does he
describe "his" people in the same terms as the first ethnologists
described, say, the Andamanese?
> To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
> earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
>
> "there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
> connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
> needed"
Does Everett quote that?
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 9:34 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <jm4ubb$m7...@dont-email.me>,
> > > António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > > > Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> > > > human language?
>
> > > Other than being used by humans, how else does a language "fulfill the
> > > role of a human language"?
>
> > > Note that Piraha is a language used by humans...
>
> > > (Whether it has self-embedding is a matter of debate.)
>
> > > > Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> > > > a human society?
>
> > > Where does "full" come from? What is a "not full" (or Hermes forbid,
> > > "empty"!) human language?
>
> > > > Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> > > > granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
>
> > > No. His claim is that their culture affects their language, not vice
> > > versa. The title of his _Current Anthropology_ article is "Cultural
> > > Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha", not "Linguistic
> > > Constraints on Culture and Cognition in Piraha"!
>
> > > Here's a more explicit quote from the article that defines his
> > > position pretty clearly:
>
> > > "I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha
> > > language -- gaps that are very surprising from just about any
> > > grammarian¹s perspective -- ultimately derive from a single cultural
> > On Apr 11, 9:34 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <jm4ubb$m7...@dont-email.me>,
> > > António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > > > Can a language without recursion fulfill the role of a
> > > > human language?
>
> > > Other than being used by humans, how else does a language "fulfill the
> > > role of a human language"?
>
> > > Note that Piraha is a language used by humans...
>
> > > (Whether it has self-embedding is a matter of debate.)
>
> > > > Can a society without a full 'human language' be considered
> > > > a human society?
>
> > > Where does "full" come from? What is a "not full" (or Hermes forbid,
> > > "empty"!) human language?
>
> > > > Iinm Everett points out that some things we take for
> > > > granted are impossible for the Piraha precisely because of their language.
>
> > > No. His claim is that their culture affects their language, not vice
> > > versa. The title of his _Current Anthropology_ article is "Cultural
> > > Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha", not "Linguistic
> > > Constraints on Culture and Cognition in Piraha"!
>
> > > Here's a more explicit quote from the article that defines his
> > > position pretty clearly:
>
> > > "I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha
> > > language -- gaps that are very surprising from just about any
> > > constraint in Piraha, namely, the restriction of communication to the
> > > immediate experience of the interlocutors." (p.622)
>
> > And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> > transcendence, not denying their humanity?
>
> Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
Wow, he can even do tautology! (But since he "hates philosophy," he
> > > immediate experience of the interlocutors." (p.622)
>
> > And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> > transcendence, not denying their humanity?
>
> Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
doesn't understand what that is.)
> > How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
>
> How do you know they never ask "why"?
namely, the restriction of communication to the immediate experience
of the interlocutors."
of the interlocutors."
> > It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
> > intellectual life.
>
> It's possible that is what is going on. He has claims that they like
> to pull pranks on him.
How is that compatible with the "constraint" quoted above? "Pulling
> > intellectual life.
>
> It's possible that is what is going on. He has claims that they like
> to pull pranks on him.
pranks" certainly requires advance planning and anticipation of
adverse consequences.
> > > He also cites Franz Boas:
>
> > > "It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
> > > the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
> > > as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
> > > culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
> > > conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
>
> > > For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
>
> > And what was Boas talking about there?
>
> He was talking specifically about race and "primitive man", but he was
> a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
> that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
> confines of race and primitivity.
man'"; of course Boas's entire career was a battle against the concept
of "primitive man." If Everett takes that seriously, why does he
describe "his" people in the same terms as the first ethnologists
described, say, the Andamanese?
> To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
> earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
>
> "there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
> connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
> needed"
Adam Funk
Apr 12, 2012, 8:38:04 AM4/12/12
to
On 2012-04-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> It is my assumption that the Piraha are human, and Everett is an
> idiot.
>
> Especially since he was raising one or two children in the field while
> he was doing his fieldwork, so he should have had one or two perfect
> bilinguals to consult.
Would they have been *perfect* bilinguals, being brought up by a
> It is my assumption that the Piraha are human, and Everett is an
> idiot.
>
> Especially since he was raising one or two children in the field while
> he was doing his fieldwork, so he should have had one or two perfect
> bilinguals to consult.
linguist doing fieldwork, or would his work have --- at least slightly
--- affected their validity as subjects?
--
Mathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen
sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes
daraus wird. [Goethe]
Adam Funk
Apr 12, 2012, 8:47:10 AM4/12/12
to
On 2012-04-12, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
>> transcendence, not denying their humanity?
>
> Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
Ah, but how do you determine the latter? Maybe those traits are
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
>> transcendence, not denying their humanity?
>
> Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
relevant. There's some debate in archaeological & palaeontological
circles about the culture & behaviour of archaic Homo species & Homo
sapiens subspecies.
>> How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
>
> How do you know they never ask "why"?
>
>> It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
>> intellectual life.
>
> It's possible that is what is going on. He has claims that they like
> to pull pranks on him.
implausible, but I suppose it might explain why his later observations
& interpretations contradict his earlier ones.
>> And what was Boas talking about there?
>
> He was talking specifically about race and "primitive man", but he was
> a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
> that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
> confines of race and primitivity.
>
> To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
> earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
>
> "there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
> connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
> needed"
to learn to count --- in order to make better deals with the Brazilian
traders --- but were unable to learn from his lessons. Weird.
(Just to be clear, I'm not pro-Everett. I find his claims interesting
but extremely bizarre, but I think it's grossly unfair to him & to the
Piraha to make jokes to the effect that he calls them sub-human.)
--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]
yangg
Apr 12, 2012, 9:42:58 AM4/12/12
to
> >
> >> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:08):
> >
What do you think you gaggithaler möngi asshole can say on that topic??
You shit the same shit as Brian Maynard Scott, the Absolute Asshole of All Assholes.
We have got: Tavi, the Lord of All Trolls, and Brian Maynard Scott, the Absolute Asshole of All Assholes,
The latter protecting the former...
Arnaud
***
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 12, 2012, 10:41:01 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 8:38 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > It is my assumption that the Piraha are human, and Everett is an
> > idiot.
>
> > Especially since he was raising one or two children in the field while
> > he was doing his fieldwork, so he should have had one or two perfect
> > bilinguals to consult.
>
> Would they have been *perfect* bilinguals, being brought up by a
> linguist doing fieldwork, or would his work have --- at least slightly
> --- affected their validity as subjects?
They would have been playing with all the other children. It's rather
> On 2012-04-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > It is my assumption that the Piraha are human, and Everett is an
> > idiot.
>
> > Especially since he was raising one or two children in the field while
> > he was doing his fieldwork, so he should have had one or two perfect
> > bilinguals to consult.
>
> Would they have been *perfect* bilinguals, being brought up by a
> linguist doing fieldwork, or would his work have --- at least slightly
> --- affected their validity as subjects?
unlikely that any of the children would have the slightest interest in
watching the grown-ups struggling to misunderstand each other.
Nathan Sanders
Apr 12, 2012, 1:24:41 PM4/12/12
to
In article <efvi59x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Maybe those traits are relevant.
I'm sure those traits are helpful. But they are not *definitional*.
A mentally retarded human is still a human, regardless of how little
imagination or concept of transcendence they may or may not have.
> >> How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
> >
> > How do you know they never ask "why"?
> >
> >> It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
> >> intellectual life.
> >
> > It's possible that is what is going on. He has claims that they like
> > to pull pranks on him.
>
> Could the whole group of people pull a prank on this scale? It seems
> implausible, but I suppose it might explain why his later observations
> & interpretations contradict his earlier ones.
There are a lot of oddities about his (reports about) his interactions
with the Piraha.
> >> And what was Boas talking about there?
> >
> > He was talking specifically about race and "primitive man", but he was
> > a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
> > that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
> > confines of race and primitivity.
> >
> > To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
> > earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
> >
> > "there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
> > connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
> > needed"
>
> Everett claims (in his popular book) that the Piraha genuinely wanted
> to learn to count --- in order to make better deals with the Brazilian
> traders --- but were unable to learn from his lessons. Weird.
Is this newer or older than his 2008 paper where he claims that they
can perform the necessary computations to count, but they cannot
memorize the cardinalities of specific sets?
> (Just to be clear, I'm not pro-Everett. I find his claims interesting
> but extremely bizarre, but I think it's grossly unfair to him & to the
> Piraha to make jokes to the effect that he calls them sub-human.)
I'm pretty much in agreement, except that I think the jokes are fine,
as long as they are clearly understood as jokes (as was the case
originally with Peter's joke), and not defended as serious
interpretations (as Peter and Antonio are now doing).
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-12, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> >> transcendence, not denying their humanity?
> >
> > Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> > Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
>
> Ah, but how do you determine the latter?
The same way biologists determine membership in any species.
> On 2012-04-12, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> >> transcendence, not denying their humanity?
> >
> > Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> > Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
>
> Ah, but how do you determine the latter?
> Maybe those traits are relevant.
A mentally retarded human is still a human, regardless of how little
imagination or concept of transcendence they may or may not have.
> >> How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
> >
> > How do you know they never ask "why"?
> >
> >> It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
> >> intellectual life.
> >
> > It's possible that is what is going on. He has claims that they like
> > to pull pranks on him.
>
> Could the whole group of people pull a prank on this scale? It seems
> implausible, but I suppose it might explain why his later observations
> & interpretations contradict his earlier ones.
with the Piraha.
> >> And what was Boas talking about there?
> >
> > He was talking specifically about race and "primitive man", but he was
> > a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
> > that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
> > confines of race and primitivity.
> >
> > To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
> > earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
> >
> > "there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
> > connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
> > needed"
>
> Everett claims (in his popular book) that the Piraha genuinely wanted
> to learn to count --- in order to make better deals with the Brazilian
> traders --- but were unable to learn from his lessons. Weird.
can perform the necessary computations to count, but they cannot
memorize the cardinalities of specific sets?
> (Just to be clear, I'm not pro-Everett. I find his claims interesting
> but extremely bizarre, but I think it's grossly unfair to him & to the
> Piraha to make jokes to the effect that he calls them sub-human.)
as long as they are clearly understood as jokes (as was the case
originally with Peter's joke), and not defended as serious
interpretations (as Peter and Antonio are now doing).
Nathan Sanders
Apr 12, 2012, 1:57:53 PM4/12/12
to
In article
<f9747723-498e-4266...@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
definition for granted!
> (But since he "hates philosophy," he
> doesn't understand what that is.)
Your conclusion does not follow.
I didn't say I "hate" philosophy; I said "I've always found philosophy
to be exceedingly dull, except to pass time as a drunken undergrad
hanging out with friends with no romantic interests around."
And even if I did hate it, that hatred could in fact stem from a clear
understanding of it, as with a variety of things, like organized
religion and most politicians, for which my dislike has grown the
*more* I understood them.
> > > How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
> >
> > How do you know they never ask "why"?
>
> Because of, as you quoted it, "a single cultural constraint in Piraha,
> namely, the restriction of communication to the immediate experience
> of the interlocutors."
Your conclusion does not follow.
Interlocutors are staying perfectly within the realm of Everett's
understanding of "immediate experience" if one asks another why he is
doing something.
They may not ask "why are we here" in the metaphysical sense, but so
what? Lots of people don't bother asking that question, because they
have more pressing matters to worry about.
> > > It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
> > > intellectual life.
> >
> > It's possible that is what is going on. He has claims that they like
> > to pull pranks on him.
>
> How is that compatible with the "constraint" quoted above? "Pulling
> pranks" certainly requires advance planning and anticipation of
> adverse consequences.
I agree. This and other similar inconsistencies seriously weaken in
his claims.
> > > > He also cites Franz Boas:
> >
> > > > "It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
> > > > the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
> > > > as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
> > > > culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
> > > > conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
> >
> > > > For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
> >
> > > And what was Boas talking about there?
> >
> > He was talking specifically about race and "primitive man", but he was
> > a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
> > that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
> > confines of race and primitivity.
>
> (I don't quite see how that quote pertains to "race and 'primitive
> man'";
Precisely.
> of course Boas's entire career was a battle against the concept
> of "primitive man." If Everett takes that seriously, why does he
> describe "his" people in the same terms as the first ethnologists
> described, say, the Andamanese?
Perhaps you should ask him.
> > To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
> > earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
> >
> > "there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
> > connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
> > needed"
>
> Does Everett quote that?
Not that I'm aware of.
<f9747723-498e-4266...@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <10727aa7-131b-4261-b0f0-0fe8b2b49...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> > > transcendence, not denying their humanity?
> >
> > Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> > Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
>
> Wow, he can even do tautology!
Well, sure, a definition looks like a tautology if you take the
> > In article
> > <10727aa7-131b-4261-b0f0-0fe8b2b49...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > And how is claiming that they have no imgination, no concept of
> > > transcendence, not denying their humanity?
> >
> > Having those traits is not a defining characteristic of being human.
> > Being a member of _Homo sapiens_ is.
>
> Wow, he can even do tautology!
definition for granted!
> (But since he "hates philosophy," he
> doesn't understand what that is.)
I didn't say I "hate" philosophy; I said "I've always found philosophy
to be exceedingly dull, except to pass time as a drunken undergrad
hanging out with friends with no romantic interests around."
And even if I did hate it, that hatred could in fact stem from a clear
understanding of it, as with a variety of things, like organized
religion and most politicians, for which my dislike has grown the
*more* I understood them.
> > > How can they be the only people in the world who never ask "Why?"?
> >
> > How do you know they never ask "why"?
>
> Because of, as you quoted it, "a single cultural constraint in Piraha,
> namely, the restriction of communication to the immediate experience
> of the interlocutors."
Interlocutors are staying perfectly within the realm of Everett's
understanding of "immediate experience" if one asks another why he is
doing something.
They may not ask "why are we here" in the metaphysical sense, but so
what? Lots of people don't bother asking that question, because they
have more pressing matters to worry about.
> > > It seems rather clever of them to have concealed from Everett their
> > > intellectual life.
> >
> > It's possible that is what is going on. He has claims that they like
> > to pull pranks on him.
>
> How is that compatible with the "constraint" quoted above? "Pulling
> pranks" certainly requires advance planning and anticipation of
> adverse consequences.
his claims.
> > > > He also cites Franz Boas:
> >
> > > > "It does not seem likely... that there is any direct relation between
> > > > the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far
> > > > as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
> > > > culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is
> > > > conditioned by the morphological traits of the language.
> >
> > > > For the record, I think Boas has it spot on.
> >
> > > And what was Boas talking about there?
> >
> > He was talking specifically about race and "primitive man", but he was
> > a smart man and chose his words carefully here. It's pretty obvious
> > that he intended his claims to be interpreted beyond the superficial
> > confines of race and primitivity.
>
> (I don't quite see how that quote pertains to "race and 'primitive
> man'";
> of course Boas's entire career was a battle against the concept
> of "primitive man." If Everett takes that seriously, why does he
> describe "his" people in the same terms as the first ethnologists
> described, say, the Andamanese?
> > To bring this back around to something that is actually relevant, he
> > earlier makes a very prescient, bold claim about language and counting:
> >
> > "there is no proof that the lack of the use of numerals is in any way
> > connected to the inability to form the concepts of higher numbers when
> > needed"
>
> Does Everett quote that?
Brian M. Scott
Apr 12, 2012, 4:09:34 PM4/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:16:23 +0100, António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm6di6$dcq$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 04:41):
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:26:05 +0100, António Marques
>> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>> <news:jm5efr$84e$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:08):
>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
>>>> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>>>> <news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>>>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 23:05):
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>>>>>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>>>>>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>>>>>> use of the term.
>>>>> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
>>>>> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
>>>> Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
>>>> *don't* want them to do so.
>>> 'Misleading' was Ross's characterisation of my usage of a
>>> term, not mine of Everett's argument.
>> And I was agreeing with him.
> Then it's the impersonal 'you' in your sentence, or did
> you mean to write 'he'?
No, I meant *you*.
[...]
<anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:jm6di6$dcq$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 04:41):
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:26:05 +0100, António Marques
>> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>> <news:jm5efr$84e$2...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote (12-04-2012 00:08):
>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:24:04 +0100, António Marques
>>>> <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in
>>>> <news:jm50a2$1fo$1...@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:
>>>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote (11-04-2012 23:05):
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> By "implicit claim" you seem to mean "conclusion that
>>>>>> others may come to, even though I neither say it nor
>>>>>> believe it". That seems a misleading, even mischievous
>>>>>> use of the term.
>>>>> I think it would only be misleading or mischievous if I
>>>>> were saying he wanted others to come to that conclusion.
>>>> Nonsense. If anything, it's *more* misleading if you
>>>> *don't* want them to do so.
>>> 'Misleading' was Ross's characterisation of my usage of a
>>> term, not mine of Everett's argument.
>> And I was agreeing with him.
> Then it's the impersonal 'you' in your sentence, or did
> you mean to write 'he'?
[...]
yangg
Apr 12, 2012, 4:14:09 PM4/12/12
to b.s...@csuohio.edu
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages