Is there a natural language?

[FreezBee]

I daresay any culture would have the same fear responses (hysterical laughter for example) - just because we can laugh when scared or cry when happy doesn't mean that those are still not universal. They are.

Quite right, but that still means that there isn't a 1-1 relationship between emotions and expressions.

- FreezBee

[Sparko]

Quite right, but that still means that there isn't a 1-1 relationship between emotions and expressions.

- FreezBee

yeah but I dont think I ever said there was. I just said that body language (expressions of emotions) is about as "natural" language as we have. MOST people can tell whether you are happy, sad, scared, being shifty, etc by your body language.

Have you ever seen that show on the scifi channel about Derren Brown?

http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/

he is basically like an illusionist, but what he does is subtley use key words to manipulate you, and he is really really good at reading body language and muscle tension/twitches.

He can make it look like he is reading your mind just by using some cold reading techniques and watching your face. There was one show where he somehow guessed some word a person was thinking about just by asking questions and watching their eyes.

our bodies give away a lot. most of us just don't pay conscious attention to it.

[hamandcheese]

"Is there a natural language."

No. There is no evidence that language is completely innate (extreme nativism). In fact, it is a fundamental assumption amongst linguists (not without reason) that verbal sounds which we apply to words is essentially arbitary. This is what allows so many languages to develop.

We do have innate conceptuals however, that work through metaphor, aesthetics, and Chomsky's universal grammar. This is called Conceptual Linguistics. In other words, humans have an innate understanding of causality, substance, mass, and a slew of other things, which render themselves universally among all languages, and are used in creating, combining, organizing, and learning new words. These are the particulars of language.

Another problem with "natural language" is that if it is more complex than strictly the fundamental conceptuals (and the conceptuals aren't themselves capable of being language) then it be evolutionarily impossible and very noticeable. For example, it would require that one has the concept of "Trombone", "Gatorade", "Horse", and "Dagger" as innate concepts: an absurdity.

[FreezBee]

We do have innate conceptuals however, that work through metaphor, aesthetics, and Chomsky's universal grammar. This is called Conceptual Linguistics. In other words, humans have an innate understanding of causality, substance, mass, and a slew of other things, which render themselves universally among all languages, and are used in creating, combining, organizing, and learning new words. These are the particulars of language.

So, some structure and a few building blocks are innate?

Another problem with "natural language" is that if it is more complex than strictly the fundamental conceptuals (and the conceptuals aren't themselves capable of being language) then it be evolutionarily impossible and very noticeable. For example, it would require that one has the concept of "Trombone", "Gatorade", "Horse", and "Dagger" as innate concepts: an absurdity.

But why is a horse then called a "horse" and not a "spade"?


- FreezBee

[hamandcheese]

Again. The sounds in languages are arbitrary. You could study the etymology, to see from what arbitrary sound it is derived, and understand why a spade is called a spade.

For example, spade comes from the Old English word spadu, which is in turn came from a series of languages before it. You will eventually find the documentation runs dry, because ultimately it is arbitrary, or is based of similarities in other words that are themselves arbitrary: Like in the case of "Shovel". Shovel gets its name from the verb Shove, so Shovel it could be said is not arbitrary, but eventually you'll play this game until you find (or get lost) it's meaningless origin.

Onomatopoeia are often quasi-non arbitrary origins for word sounds, but then again, looking at the onomatopoeias of different cultures, even they range along a long line of seemingly arbitrary voice cracks.

[Paintbucket]

Why is the origin meaningless?

[hamandcheese]

When I said "meaningless origin" I was referring to the arbitrariness in word sound. A word is simply a vocalization with meaning attached. What the vocalization is is entirely arbitrary.

[FreezBee]

When I said "meaningless origin" I was referring to the arbitrariness in word sound. A word is simply a vocalization with meaning attached. What the vocalization is is entirely arbitrary.

Yet there must have some reason or another for the choice, no?

- FreezBee

[Teluog]

Yet there must have some reason or another for the choice, no?

- FreezBee

This is what I'm curious about. Why do we attach the word "fork" to the utensil that we eat our food with? Why don't we call that utensil "spoon" or "booger" or "sfhksfasf" instead?

[hamandcheese]

Yet there must have some reason or another for the choice, no?

- FreezBee

If there were it would not be arbitrary. Onomatopoeia is the only quasi-objective origin for a word sound, but other then that, word sounds are arbitrary (though after a while languages start to have a certain tone: for example, French words avoid the H sound). If word sounds weren't arbitrary then we wouldn't have the plethora of different languages we have today.

[FreezBee]

This is what I'm curious about. Why do we attach the word "fork" to the utensil that we eat our food with? Why don't we call that utensil "spoon" or "booger" or "sfhksfasf" instead?

Yes, that's my point. I don't think our ancestors grabbed the words out of a bag.

If there were it would not be arbitrary. Onomatopoeia is the only quasi-objective origin for a word sound, but other then that, word sounds are arbitrary (though after a while languages start to have a certain tone: for example, French words avoid the H sound). If word sounds weren't arbitrary then we wouldn't have the plethora of different languages we have today.

Well, they are arbitrary in the sense of not necessary, yet they must have some history. I have a great interest in the etymology of words, but of course we can only trace words back to the first written sources, or even less in the case of languages without written sources.

Still, why is a fork called a 'fork'? It's from latin furca, but where is that word from?


- FreezBee

[Sparko]

if we called a fork a "sfhksfasf" you would be asking the same question. its moot.

[Ratnat]

Yes, that's my point. I don't think our ancestors grabbed the words out of a bag.



Well, they are arbitrary in the sense of not necessary, yet they must have some history. I have a great interest in the etymology of words, but of course we can only trace words back to the first written sources, or even less in the case of languages without written sources.

Still, why is a fork called a 'fork'? It's from latin furca, but where is that word from?


- FreezBee

Etymology seems to be Fleshhook of Phorkys which is based on the Pheonician/Egyptian hieroglyph of a deity holding a trident.

The greek deity phorkys sounds like forkus. All sea deities were represented in glyphs with a trident. The trident was a fleshhook used by priests in many of the archaic religions. The use of the trident can be found in 1 Samuel 2:13

[Ratnat]

if we called a fork a "sfhksfasf" you would be asking the same question. its moot.

All words have a traceable origin.

[Teluog]

Yes, that's my point. I don't think our ancestors grabbed the words out of a bag.

But maybe they did in the same way that babies do when they begin speaking. It could be that the first human made random noises that eventually developed into a series of noises, which became the first speech?