Bushman clicks and tsks
Julia Altshuler
new to this group. I've been reading here for a day. I have only one
undergraduate course in linguistics, and that's from 25 years ago. So
while I find the subject interesting, much of the discussion here is tad
over my head. Having said that, I hope y'all won't come down too hard
on me for the following question.
I've been enjoying The Teaching Company's lectures on the history of
language by John McWhorter. He mentions a theory that Bushman languages
with their clicks and tsks might be the oldest on earth, a language that
pre-dates the evolution of our vocal cords. I mentioned this in an
off-topic discussion elsewhere, and it was suggested that I come here.
This isn't a troll where I ask a controversial question, sit back, and
watch the fireworks. I'm not asking anyone to repeat an old argument.
I would like to hear pros and cons to the theory. Could anyone direct
me to a succinct source for that? Maybe the dates and subject lines
where it's been discussed in the past so I could google? Or a paper
written on the undergraduate level that I could read?
Much appreciated.
--Lia
Peter T. Daniels
There's a good reason John McWhorter didn't get tenure at Berkeley and
is now a "fellow" of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think
tank. He tends to make things up.
Did they warn you, 25 years ago, to avoid the books by Mario Pei?
McWhorter is our generation's Pei.
Does he provide any evidence or argumentation for the "pre-vocal
cords" theory? Of course not. Unless you can find a footnote in one of
his books that mentions this, I'm afraid you're out of luck!
There has been quite a bit of work (speculation, of course) on the
origins of language over the past decade or so, and I'm not sure
anyone has brought together and comprehensibly set out the competing
theories, but you can find collections of papers at your local
research library. A good place to start might be Carstairs-McCarthy's
chapter in the Blackwell Handbook of Linguistics, but that's now
nearly ten years old.
And I see that David Crystal has yet another, probably excellent, book
on the nature of language, which probably touches on the topic.
Another fine writer to check out is Jean Aitchison. She has written on
this in the past and tends to issue new editions of her books in
preference to new titles.
Julia Altshuler
>
> There's a good reason John McWhorter didn't get tenure at Berkeley and
> is now a "fellow" of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think
> tank. He tends to make things up.
I haven't studied the subject enough to have an independent opinion on
the origins of language, but I did want to address this point. Of
course McWhorter makes things up. That's what theorists do. Darwin and
Einstein also made things up. That doesn't make them right or wrong.
That comes with the quality of the evidence. (And there are plenty of
reasons why people are denied tenure.)
> Did they warn you, 25 years ago, to avoid the books by Mario Pei?
> McWhorter is our generation's Pei.
I can't recall any time in my undergraduate career that I was ever
warned away from any book or any professional scholar's writings.
That's in any department. Some professors weren't on the reading list
or weren't in a bibliography, but if the students found them on their
own in the library, we were expected to use the tools at our disposal to
weigh the arguments as presented to us and come to our own conclusions.
> Does he provide any evidence or argumentation for the "pre-vocal
> cords" theory? Of course not. Unless you can find a footnote in one of
> his books that mentions this, I'm afraid you're out of luck!
It's been a while since I listened to McWhorter's _History of Language_
tapes. He did provide some interesting ideas to back up his theory. He
was careful to note that it was only a theory.
> There has been quite a bit of work (speculation, of course) on the
> origins of language over the past decade or so, and I'm not sure
> anyone has brought together and comprehensibly set out the competing
> theories, but you can find collections of papers at your local
> research library. A good place to start might be Carstairs-McCarthy's
> chapter in the Blackwell Handbook of Linguistics, but that's now
> nearly ten years old.
>
> And I see that David Crystal has yet another, probably excellent, book
> on the nature of language, which probably touches on the topic.
>
> Another fine writer to check out is Jean Aitchison. She has written on
> this in the past and tends to issue new editions of her books in
> preference to new titles.
It looks like I have some reading to do. Thanks for the direction for
my reading.
--Lia
benl...@ihug.co.nz
The clicks as regular speech sounds are found only in a few languages
in Africa, which may or may not be members of a single family
(Khoisan). (They have also been borrowed into some neighbouring non-
Khoisan languages.) Some of the speakers of these languages are the
socalled Bushman (San), about whom people love to make up theories.
One recent theory is that the clicks are somehow "old", maybe going
back to an earlier stage in the evolution of language.
It's true that the clicks are made without using the vocal cords.
However, the Khoisan languages contain, in addition to (and in
combination with) the clicks, a full complement of vocal-cord speech
sounds like those of other languages. So it cannot be true that these
languages as a whole are survivals from some pre-vocal-cord age. The
idea that the click component itself is specially "old" seems to me as
unprovable as most speculations about language evolution.
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > There's a good reason John McWhorter didn't get tenure at Berkeley and
> > is now a "fellow" of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think
> > tank. He tends to make things up.
>
> I haven't studied the subject enough to have an independent opinion on
> the origins of language, but I did want to address this point. Of
> course McWhorter makes things up. That's what theorists do.
If he actually had a theory, wouldn't he have published in a
professional, peer-reviewed forum?
> Darwin and
> Einstein also made things up. That doesn't make them right or wrong.
> That comes with the quality of the evidence. (And there are plenty of
> reasons why people are denied tenure.)
Even people who are African American and well known to the gen.pub.
and do well on TV? He must have shown great promise out of the gate if
his first job was at Berkeley. (Every publicity publication from the
University of Chicago for decades prominently featured Erica Reiner
and John Hope Franklin, who were among the very few senior faculty
members who were female and black respectively. I didn't know him, but
I did see her once become heatedly offended when someone was foolish
enough to suggest in her presence that her in-house recognition was
not entirely due to her nearly unmatched accomplishments in
Assyriology.)
Please hang around here, too -- we can use some sanity at the moment.
> --Lia
An unusual clipping! -or is it not short for Julia?
Julia Altshuler
>
> An unusual clipping! -or is it not short for Julia?
My college roommate, and still my dearest friend, is Julie. So I'm
Julia or Lia, but never Julie.
I'm not sure I'll fit your definition of sanity. We have vastly
different opinions on why some professors are denied tenure.
--Lia
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > An unusual clipping! -or is it not short for Julia?
>
> My college roommate, and still my dearest friend, is Julie. So I'm
> Julia or Lia, but never Julie.
Is she called Lee?
> I'm not sure I'll fit your definition of sanity. We have vastly
> different opinions on why some professors are denied tenure.
In McWhorter's case, it's sheer incompetence.
piotrpanek
>
>
> It's been a while since I listened to McWhorter's _History of Language_
> tapes. He did provide some interesting ideas to back up his theory. He
> was careful to note that it was only a theory.
>
I know nothing about McWorther and almost nothing about linguistics, but
seeing PTD's remarks, I think that the idea in question seems not to be
a theory (in scientific sense) but just a hypothesis.
piotrek
Julia Altshuler
>
> The clicks as regular speech sounds are found only in a few languages
> in Africa, which may or may not be members of a single family
> (Khoisan). (They have also been borrowed into some neighbouring non-
> Khoisan languages.) Some of the speakers of these languages are the
> socalled Bushman (San), about whom people love to make up theories.
> One recent theory is that the clicks are somehow "old", maybe going
> back to an earlier stage in the evolution of language.
>
> It's true that the clicks are made without using the vocal cords.
> However, the Khoisan languages contain, in addition to (and in
> combination with) the clicks, a full complement of vocal-cord speech
> sounds like those of other languages. So it cannot be true that these
> languages as a whole are survivals from some pre-vocal-cord age. The
> idea that the click component itself is specially "old" seems to me as
> unprovable as most speculations about language evolution.
Your post spurred an interesting discussion last night between me and my
boyfriend. Jim is an engineer. He's always been interested in the hard
sciences. My undergraduate majors were English and anthropology. I've
always been most drawn to the social sciences. We started talking about
speculation. He can't abide it. He thinks imaginitively, but he wants
the imagination and speculation to move towards proof and resolution.
I'm fine with speculation as long as it is clear that it is NOT moving
towards resolution. As long as the speculation isn't presented as fact,
I love to think about the ideas and their implications. I don't hold
the person who came up with the theory responsible if others move the
theory into the realm of urban legend.
In another post in this thread, it was pointed out that I'm not using
"theory" in its scientific meaning. True. It's not a theory the way
the theory of evolution is a theory with mountains of evidence
supporting it and nothing serious challenging it. Nor is it a
hypothesis which is testable. It is a speculation. I'll try to be more
careful in the words I choose (should know to do that in a language
group), but may slip into using the words the way they're used in casual
conversation.
With that in mind, I like to think about McWhorter's speculation. I
agree that the San languages in their present day state can't be
survivals from a pre-vocal cord age. All languages change. But
couldn't the clicks and tsks as phonemes be survivors? The alternative
would be to suggest that humans evolved vocal cords first and language
second. I can't figure out how that would work, how vocal cords could
offer an evolutionary advantage without language proceeding them.
--Lia
António Marques
> I can't figure out how that would work, how vocal cords could offer
> an evolutionary advantage without language proceeding them.
You shouldn't look to a dumb excuse for a theory* (cf. 'evolutionary
advantage') as a measure of the merits of an independent hypothesis.
That's a covert but adamant begging of the question.
(*) Wake me up next time 'evolutionary advantage' successfully predicts
anything.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Christian Weisgerber
> The alternative would be to suggest that humans evolved vocal
> cords first and language second. I can't figure out how that
> would work, how vocal cords could offer an evolutionary advantage
> without language proceeding them.
A larynx with vocal cords can be found in amphibians, reptiles, and
mammals. (Birds have developed a different vocal organ, the syrinx.)
The ability to vocalize and make calls seems to be quite handy.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Peter T. Daniels
> With that in mind, I like to think about McWhorter's speculation. I
> agree that the San languages in their present day state can't be
> survivals from a pre-vocal cord age. All languages change. But
> couldn't the clicks and tsks as phonemes be survivors?
The tsks _are_ one of the four kinds of clicks. Note that in some
languages all of them occur in voiced, glottalized, or nasalized
varieties.
mb
...
> couldn't the clicks and tsks as phonemes be survivors? The alternative
> would be to suggest that humans evolved vocal cords first and language
> second. I can't figure out how that would work, how vocal cords could
> offer an evolutionary advantage without language proceeding them.
Positing that everything necessarily has a so-called "evolutionary
advantage" is pure teleology - theology (apart from the fact signaled
by Weisgerber).
John Atkinson
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> With that in mind, I like to think about McWhorter's speculation. I
>> agree that the San languages in their present day state can't be
>> survivals from a pre-vocal cord age. All languages change. But
>> couldn't the clicks and tsks as phonemes be survivors?
>
> The tsks _are_ one of the four
five (bilabial, dental, alvoeolar, palatal, lateral)
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> With that in mind, I like to think about McWhorter's speculation. I
> >> agree that the San languages in their present day state can't be
> >> survivals from a pre-vocal cord age. All languages change. But
> >> couldn't the clicks and tsks as phonemes be survivors?
>
> > The tsks _are_ one of the four
>
> five (bilabial, dental, alvoeolar, palatal, lateral)
Has bilabial click (aka kiss) turned up in a language now?
Keith GOERINGER
<39aa6ff7-36d1-491c...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Yep, some Khoisan language(s?) in Botswana, if memory serves.
Cheers,
Keith
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:39aa6ff7-36d1-491c...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
!Xух and |Xam use all five, according to Ladefoged and
Maddieson.
Brian
Julia Altshuler
>
> Positing that everything necessarily has a so-called "evolutionary
> advantage" is pure teleology - theology (apart from the fact signaled
> by Weisgerber).
Granted, not everything is due to natural selection/evolutionary
advantage. Genetic drift and gene flow also have a place in changes in
gene frequency. Random changes explain a lot too. But to suggest that
complex changes are not adaptations that confer evolutionary advantage,
THAT sounds like theology.
The point in another post about vocal cords and the ability to vocalize
makes a lot of sense to me. I suppose it does make sense that vocal
cords could preceed language.
As I think about this more, defenses that McWhorter's speculation might
be true do come down to trying to prove something by pointing out that
you can't disprove a negative. I still find the idea interesting.
--Lia
mb
> advantage. Genetic drift and gene flow also have a place in changes in
> gene frequency. Random changes explain a lot too. But to suggest that
> complex changes are not adaptations that confer evolutionary advantage,
> THAT sounds like theology.
How so? Changes that do not shorten the bearer's survival are just
that, random changes. Complex or not.
...
> As I think about this more, defenses that McWhorter's speculation might
> be true do come down to trying to prove something by pointing out that
> you can't disprove a negative. I still find the idea interesting.
As interesting as any other negative-unprovables, like Santa Claus,
the Tooth Fairy or the Phaistos Disk.
hagen
I do not want to intervene your conversation, only correct a serious
piece of disinformation, or perhaps a typo: Sancta Claus or the
Phaistos disc ?, but the code to the disc was broken on februar the 22
in 1982, by the aid of 22 stem-elements. I remember it so well, and
this is not a joke, because I was the one myself, who did it!
If you meant the tooth fairy and linear A, in that I can agree,
because what sane person will not keep it as his privat secret
throughout life, should he find the key, having heard about my down
fall, to be spared for todays legalisation of greed and censorship.
Those are the days, my friend. Please carry on with your conversation.
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/fig02.htm
best wishes
Ole Hagen
António Marques
> mb wrote:
>>
>> Positing that everything necessarily has a so-called "evolutionary
>> advantage" is pure teleology - theology (apart from the fact signaled
>> by Weisgerber).
>
>
> Granted, not everything is due to natural selection/evolutionary
> advantage. Genetic drift and gene flow also have a place in changes in
> gene frequency. Random changes explain a lot too. But to suggest that
> complex changes are not adaptations that confer evolutionary advantage,
> THAT sounds like theology.
Quite the contrary. To assume that 'complex changes are adaptations that
confer evolutionary advantage' is a statement of faith. What does it
even mean? Can't people think critically anymore? What is 'evolutionary
advantage'? What is an 'adaptation'? What is 'complex'? More to the
point, what is a possible falsification of the statement that 'complex
changes are adaptations that confer evolutionary advantage'?
Julia Altshuler
> To assume that 'complex changes are adaptations that
> confer evolutionary advantage' is a statement of faith. What does it
> even mean? Can't people think critically anymore? What is 'evolutionary
> advantage'? What is an 'adaptation'? What is 'complex'? More to the
> point, what is a possible falsification of the statement that 'complex
> changes are adaptations that confer evolutionary advantage'?
You ask some good questions. You'll find answers in these sources:
Darwin, Charles, _The Origin of Species_
Pinker, Steven, _How the Mind Works_ (especially the chapter on the
evolution of the eye)
Anything by Stephen Jay Gould.
Or look at any basic biology book that covers evolution.
They'll be able to define for you concepts such as "evolutionary
advantage," "adaptation," "complex," "natural selection," "mutation,"
"genetic drift," and a number of other basics.
--Lia
Peter T. Daniels
But they won't explain why you're misapplying those concepts, which is
what Antonio was trying to get you to see.
mb
But I think you are interpreting them in a... ehm "creative" way. Some
additional grounding in statistics and basic biology might be needed.
mb
...
> I do not want to intervene your conversation, only correct a serious
> piece of disinformation, or perhaps a typo: Sancta Claus or the
> Phaistos disc ?, but the code to the disc was broken on februar the 22
> in 1982, by the aid of 22 stem-elements. I remember it so well, and
> this is not a joke, because I was the one myself, who did it!
> best wishes
But it was deciphered at least 26 times at different times and in very
different keys. Including the shameless moron Faucounau-Grapheus. So
all of you will be seen as mountebanks, at least until independent
additional material is available to test. Good luck.
Peter T. Daniels
Far more than 26 times. Bob Biggs said the Journal of Near Eastern
Studies used to get a new one every month or so.
hagen
> On Dec 14, 6:19 am, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > I do not want to intervene your conversation, only correct a serious
> > piece of disinformation, or perhaps a typo: Sancta Claus or the
> > in 1982, by the aid of 22 stem-elements. I remember it so well, and
> > this is not a joke, because I was the one myself, who did it!
> ...
> > best wishes
>
> But it was deciphered at least 26 times at different times and in very
> different keys. Including the shameless moron Faucounau-Grapheus. So
> all of you will be seen as mountebanks, at least until independent
> additional material is available to test. Good luck.
If all the tablets of linear B had come from the same dig (Knossos
3369 + Pylos 1107), there were no additional material to compare
either. The Phaistos disc imprints form a coherent system, that I've
proved satisfactory. Finale.
Julia Altshuler
>
> But I think you are interpreting them in a... ehm "creative" way. Some
> additional grounding in statistics and basic biology might be needed.
I may not have expressed myself well, but I do believe in evolution as
found in basic biology books, no creative interpretation. It's also
possible that I've expressed myself perfectly and have run into creative
interpretations of my words.
Ah, the ambiguities of language and communication.
--Lia
António Marques
Good grief.
mb
> mb wrote:
>
> > But I think you are interpreting them in a... ehm "creative" way. Some
> > additional grounding in statistics and basic biology might be needed.
>
> I may not have expressed myself well, but I do believe
?
> in evolution as
> found in basic biology books, no creative interpretation. It's also
> possible that I've expressed myself perfectly and have run into creative
> interpretations of my words.
Can't follow at all. Sorry.