Re: Indo European Origins (language mutability, efficiency)
"Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >On Ken's >> > All contemporary natural languages, like all biological species, are >> > the same age. > >At first this parsed because I was thinking in the sense of >"all organisms have ancestries going back the same amount of >time". (And humans aren't the 'goal' of evolution.) Not sure >if non-bioheads got this. Anyway others' complaints clarified >"speciation" --if you are willing to identify a bifurcation point >then you *can* age a species or any other fork --Linux 2.4, >Latin, Corvettes, etc. > I guess bifurcation points and speciation seem very clear because of the aliasing problems in our sampling methods. The speciation exists but is prolly ( probably ) often fuzzier than we think. Almost everyone would say that an American Bison and a Scot's Highland are two different species but they can hybridize. Maybe we non-Biologists measure the distance between "species" inaccurately. >At 10:36 AM 1/14/03 -0800, Michael Motyka wrote: >>An interesting question that arises out of the observation that some >languages >>are relatively static and others - like English - have been changing >steadily. Is >>there any connection between the evolution behavior of the language and >the >>vitality of the culture? I think so. > >"Vitality" is fuzzy. > Choose your measure : population? power? innovation? environmental impact? rate of change? The US seems more vital by some measures. Less so by others. More dangerous to the species by others. >Clearly America admitting everyone (cf Japanese) helps. >Clearly not having an Acadamie Anglaise helps (cf surrender-monkeys). >Electronic media probably help. > >There's an even more interesting technical evolution: >English is also undergoing "entropic refinement" or Hamming-like coding, >as speakers prune or invent for efficiency. > >As it is, it takes fewer letters in English to say something than every >other common language. >Look at the instruction manuals for your domestic appliances. > That is interesting. >Forms (memory requirements) get simpler ---can you believe that the >surrender-monkeys retain >a gender-bit for every friggin object-- and phonetically simpler too. >The sounds get more orthogonal. >Also the influence of immigrants and children and lazy native speakers >who can't tell a "v" from a "w" or "d" from "th", >or remember the 150 irregular verbs. > >Some of this is natural. I've adopted the southern "y'all" because >English has no plural third person and this >ambiguity is annoying when you're emailing to several people. Note also >the efficiency of the contraction. >You hear "data" used as singular enough times, you say fuck it, I'll >have a beer, or several beer [sic]. Talk to >Eastern Europeans long enough, you'll start dropping your articles, >though you may miss the FEC/prompting >and flash back to Boris & Natasha cartoons... > Is the evolution towards a more efficient language an active or passive process? Is it driven by an internal inclination towards expansion, freeing up system resources as it were, or is it a coping mechanism for sensory overload? Mike
Re: Indo European Origins (language mutability, efficiency)
At 12:47 PM 01/14/2003 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Some of this is natural. I've adopted the southern "y'all" because English has no plural third person and this ambiguity is annoying when you're emailing to several people. Note also the efficiency of the contraction. "You" and "Y'all" and "Youse guys" and similar forms are second person; third person is he/she/it/they/ dem guys. Thou shouldst know that "You" is already plural, having been adopted as more formal than the second person familiar single "Thee / Thou" and replacing the nominative second person plural "ye". The analogy in German is "Sie" used as formal singular/plural as opposed to "du" and "ihr". And while some of the edges have been bashed off of irregular verbs, if you'd a-been fixin' to talk about some verb forms being simpler, you shouldn't'a started out pickin' Southern grammar as an example.
Re: Indo European Origins (language mutability, efficiency)
At 02:48 PM 1/14/03 -0800, Michael Motyka wrote: >I guess bifurcation points and speciation seem very clear because of the aliasing >problems in our sampling methods. The speciation exists but is prolly ( probably ) often >fuzzier than we think. Almost everyone would say that an American Bison and a Scot's >Highland are two different species but they can hybridize. Maybe we non-Biologists >measure the distance between "species" inaccurately. Probably not. Lay knowledge usually has substantial truth. (The major problem with lay knowledge in bio/geo/climatology is lack of scale ---no sense that things change, and this is a snapshot, so don't get so attached.) A species is operationally defined as a population that can't breed with another. The layman and/or farmer knows this, or learns this upon trying to cross things :-) Its empirically verifiable. On forking: Nature's RCS is distributed. Un-interoperable forks (species) are documented by those wetboy cladistics folks, gnostic Linneans. And these days the sequencemensch and their fluorescing machines, ravers dancing to evolution's endlessly refined tune.. >Is the evolution towards a more efficient language an active or passive process? Is it >driven by an internal inclination towards expansion, freeing up system resources as it >were, or is it a coping mechanism for sensory overload? A major job of Mr Brain is finding efficient representations (ie by finding regularity). At every level, from sensory to conceptual. Humans are also very very good at imitation and linguistic acquisition. (The same ready programmability is maladaptive when e.g., religion infests the mind...) . Summary: It is adaptive for a critter to maximize the bits/baud over a given channel. Xerox errors in the genome try lots of things. Similarly with memes & culture & linguistics. Some things work better. You can get hurt if you misunderstand. You might not have children if you get hurt. Do the math :-)
Re: Indo European Origins (language mutability, efficiency)
On Ken's > > All contemporary natural languages, like all biological species, are > > the same age. At first this parsed because I was thinking in the sense of "all organisms have ancestries going back the same amount of time". (And humans aren't the 'goal' of evolution.) Not sure if non-bioheads got this. Anyway others' complaints clarified "speciation" --if you are willing to identify a bifurcation point then you *can* age a species or any other fork --Linux 2.4, Latin, Corvettes, etc. At 10:36 AM 1/14/03 -0800, Michael Motyka wrote: >An interesting question that arises out of the observation that some languages >are relatively static and others - like English - have been changing steadily. Is >there any connection between the evolution behavior of the language and the >vitality of the culture? I think so. "Vitality" is fuzzy. Clearly America admitting everyone (cf Japanese) helps. Clearly not having an Acadamie Anglaise helps (cf surrender-monkeys). Electronic media probably help. There's an even more interesting technical evolution: English is also undergoing "entropic refinement" or Hamming-like coding, as speakers prune or invent for efficiency. As it is, it takes fewer letters in English to say something than every other common language. Look at the instruction manuals for your domestic appliances. Forms (memory requirements) get simpler ---can you believe that the surrender-monkeys retain a gender-bit for every friggin object-- and phonetically simpler too. The sounds get more orthogonal. Also the influence of immigrants and children and lazy native speakers who can't tell a "v" from a "w" or "d" from "th", or remember the 150 irregular verbs. Some of this is natural. I've adopted the southern "y'all" because English has no plural third person and this ambiguity is annoying when you're emailing to several people. Note also the efficiency of the contraction. You hear "data" used as singular enough times, you say fuck it, I'll have a beer, or several beer [sic]. Talk to Eastern Europeans long enough, you'll start dropping your articles, though you may miss the FEC/prompting and flash back to Boris & Natasha cartoons...
