dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
> [K. A. Dahlke] > Since most creationists are Bible oriented (whether they admit it > or not), I would like to ask: do you believe in linguistic creationism as > well? Perhaps if you give it a definition we shall be able to tell you whether we agree with it or not. (Don't bother to say you define it in the next paragraph; you don't) > Since some (especially evolutionists) are not familiar with this > interesting story from Genesis, allow me the privilege of paraphrasing: > "Once upon a time, some evil egotistical people > who lived in the land of Babble > decided to build a tower to reach heaven. God was angered > by this blasphemy, distroyed the tower, dispersed the > workers, and gave them different languages. > Thus we get our word babble." > Ironically, the words themselves provide contradictory evidence. > Simply read a King James version (still quite common), > and thou shalt witness linguistic evolution at work. Contradictory to WHAT? Where does the Bible state that from henceforth and forevermore languages would remain static? > The Bible has passed through Hebrew, Greek, Latin, middle English, > and finally the revised standard version distributed today. ---------- > Linguistic evolution is easily documented historically (through > writings), just as evolution is revealed by the fossil record. > Although this evidence is probably adequate, there is considerable > independent corroboration for both evolutionary theories. Adequate for WHAT? What are you trying to show? That language changes? That's no news - what's the implication? If all you are saying is that language changes, we have a very uninteresting proposition. The relevance to biological evolution is unclear as well: language changes within a single species. Biological change is (supposed to be) the production of new species from existing species. Endless variation within a single species (the analogue of language change within human usage) wouldn't get you very far. Even if it is maintained that new languages come from old and that this corresponds to new species from old, the extension of the argument to biological evolution is of necessity an analogy. And that, you realize, means that the argument falls within the same class as arguments from design based on analogy. No doubt you're aware of the warm reception such arguments receive in this newsgroup, and therefore you know how much validity should be accorded to your own argument. > Consider English and German (the languages I know best). > Historically, we know these two languages are related, > and the copious linguistic similarities provide independent evidence. > While I was reading Hamlet, certain Germanic constructs became apparent. > Consider the conjugation of regular verbs. > subject German middle English > you st est > he/she t eth > Also notice Hamlet's word order, which often the verb at the > end of the relative clause places. Prepositional phrases become ordered > (time manner place), and often occupies the verb the second > position of declarative sentences. > Although evolution has modified both languages, similarities remain today. > When analogous words (by meaning) differ by only one phoneme, > and this phoneme substitution appears consistently, > the languages are probably related. > Several phoneme substitutions are apparent, and most people faking a German > accent know what they are. w->v s->z th->d ... > Example words: sing, house, foot, hand, cold, water, wagon, the, ... > The ubiquity of these phoneme substitutions directly indicates > the age of the two languages relative to their common ancestor. > When the only differences are a couple phoneme substitutions, > the languages are called dialects, and are usually mutually understandable. > Longer separation yields more substitutions, and word order changes, > and general random variations, > making the languages incomprehensible to each other. > Of course, sufficient evolution will separate the languages > completely, prohibiting comparisons altogether. That's interesting (and I mean no sarcasm). But, what you need to show is that when you go back in time, languages do not just suddenly appear instantly where they didn't exist before. That's a tough job. I was going to say that this shows little about whether the different languages started the same or not. But I have the feeling that no matter which way it appeared to happen (same or different), it wouldn't be taken to contradict evolution. My impression is that whatever happens is interpreted in terms of the evolution that is assumed to have occurred. Which is a reasonable procedure as long as one doesn't forget that it IS an assumption and then go on to state that the interpretation provides confirmation of the theory. You, in fact, did forget just this very thing. But that sort of confirmation is vacuous. Since adoption of the evolutionary theory as an interpretive framework precludes this possibility, it is impossible that it should conflict. "Independent confirmation" in this context means very little, if anything. So, yes, language changes. And? > Similarly, analogous proteans in differing species can provide > independent evidence for evolution. As soon as a species splits > into two, random variation can and will replace some amino-acids > within proteans. A few of these changes will be harmless, and will > propagate. This explanation is too facile to be taken seriously, because it assumes as answered a question that remains open. This is a chicken and egg problem. Does a species split facilitate amino-acid replacement, or does amino-acid replacement faciliate speciation? Or both? What is the cause and what is the effect? The above explanation is devoid of expanatory value, and I think that its adoption would serve to stultify thought more than it would encourage inquiry. That's just my opinion. > Thus, our hemoglobin differs from other animals' hemoglobin, and the > differences accurately reflect the time of species separation. What was the divergence time of soybeans and hemoglobic animals? When did we diverge from the crustacean _Daphnia_? > Surely an omnipotent creator wouldn't have gone too all the trouble of > making analogous proteans match fossil evidence; only a few > hemoglobin molecules are really necessary to keep all the aerobes happy. I'd be interested to hear how you know this to be true. Might very well be so, but as you've stated it, this is just a bare assertion without evidence. > Surely an omnipotent creator wouldn't have gone too all the trouble of > making analogous proteans match fossil evidence; only a few > hemoglobin molecules are really necessary to keep all the aerobes happy. Surely not. How do YOU know? GADZOOKS!! This fallacy really comes up rather too often, I think. What fallacy? That evolutionists often say to creationists "you can't say what a creator would or wouldn't do" - and then (e.g., in the above paragraph) offer their own COMPLETELY USELESS (by *evolutionist* standards!) speculations about what a creator would or wouldn't do. Here's another recent example: > [Stanley Friesen] > In fact the existance > of ad hoc, opportunistic "designs" in living things is one of the > principle predictions of evolutionary theory. If God had created > from scratch I would think he would use good engineering principles > and design each organism for its specialty independantly instead of > using kludged up, ad hoc solutions like we actually see in many > cases. You can think what you wish, of course, Mr. Friesen, but if you guys really applied the same standards to yourselves as you do to creationists, you would immediately say "such statements are unscientific." I've said it before: >> I find it curious that evolutionists continually raise the point >> about our inability to predict, *a priori*, any limits on the way in >> which a creator would create - and then go ahead and make their own >> suppositions. So knock it off. ---------- > [Dahlke again] > It is a shame that most people (including judges) are not educated enough > to appreciate the overwhelming, independent, and fascinating > evidence supporting evolution. > So what about languages? Does anyone out there > believe in linguistic creationism? Or has this too become > re-interpreted in the wake of contradictory evidence? Well, it's certainly true that reinterpretation in the wake of contradictory evidence is a cardinal sin. For a creationist, that is. Off with his head, right? If an evolutionist did it, that would simply be revising a theory to more accurately reflect reality. Nothing wrong with that. Why do you imply it's a poor practice for creationists? By the way ... what was that evidence that was "contradictory", anyway? You've not indicated in your discussion *what* exactly was contrary to linguistic creationism, or *why* it was contradictory. Partly this is because you never said what you meant by linguistic creationism (see, it's not only creationists that are vague about creationism :-), or what you would expect from it. Really all you've done is say that it's baloney, without saying why. Maybe it is. But why? An allusion to Genesis accompanied by a dismissal won't do it. Even I could (and will - next article) do a better job of criticizing it than that. (Or at least criticizing what I would guess you mean by LC.) > And why is linguistic creationism not a hot topic? > Is it the strength of written evidence against it? Might be; we'll know when you give some. > Perhaps, but I believe there is more. > A round Earth and evolving languages do not jeopardize the creationist's > status (created in God's image). > When you realize there is nothing divine about humans, > do you allow earthworms into heaven, or what? > I am always intrigued by the > psychological insecurities which compel individuals to retain > various beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. I guess I'd better act hurt and stung, then, and lash out at you with some vitriolic and vituperative remarks, as a result of having my insecurities exposed ... :-) ---- Anyway, leaving Genesis aside, here are some questions that could be discussed on this topic. (i) Did all languages start the same? If so, why did they split? If not, what would you make of that? Polyphyletic linguistic origins? Would either instance "contradict" linguistic evolutionary theory? Is there anything you would "expect" from an evolutionary linguistic theory, or is anything you find simply interpreted in those terms? (ii) Is there anything that provides some ground for a difference in what you would expect on the basis of what you take creationist linguistics to be, and evolutionary linguistics? (iii) What accounts for the gap between human language and communication in other species? (This is the giveaway question.) (iv) Ancient languages and languages of primitive cultures are more complex than modern languages. (I don't expect anyone to take this at face value - I'll try to provide some documentation in another posting.) Linguistic evolution as we know it, then, is from the complex to the simple. How come? (v) Does linguistic evolution have anything to do with biological evolution? Analogies between the two were offered, but I didn't notice any compelling conclusion to be drawn from this anywhere in the article. I did indicate that this stuff about 'independent confirmation' can't be taken seriously. (vi) And the big question: How did language start? A linguistic creationist would say, I suppose, that language was given by the creator full-blown. This is certainly in accord with the written record. The first evidence we have of language from written records indicates that language was already at that time completely functional. And also, as I have already noted, MORE complex than language today. I imagine that most creationists would feel that this phenomenon is a striking example of data consistent with their position. (I'm assuming the position would be: language by fiat ex nihilo.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
K. A. Dahlke inquired about creationist views on language. One creationist position on linguistic diversity is that of Henry Morris. This position may be briefly summarized as follows: "[H]ow can we explain the origin of different languages? If all tribes and races come from a common ancestral population, they must have all had, at one time, the same language. As long as they had the same language, they would never separate sufficiently to develop distinct racial characteristics. The fact is, however, that by some means such characteristics have developed; which means that the tribes were somehow separated; which means that languages somehow became different." Henry Morris, _Scientific Creationism_. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, 1974, p183. (See also Henry Morris, "Language, Creation, and the Inner Man". _Acts and Facts_, Number 28, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, October 1975.) Morris feels that the segregation could not occur unless the language changed. (And I assume that the incident of the Tower of Babel is what he would propose to account for much of linguistic diversity.) That is possible, I suppose, but I see no reason to believe, however, that his explanation MUST be true. Morris says that a change in language leads to geographical separation. This is not the only possibility. For example, geographic separation could lead to a change in language. Whatever the origin of language, it does change once it is in use. It is not difficult to see that a large increase in population would force spread of that population over a large geographical area. When this happened, differences would emerge - local dialects, if you will. Carried far enough, we end up with different languages, e.g., French, Italian and Spanish from Latin. (I sound uncomfortably like a Darwinian gradualist here!) So I think that Morris' theory may be dismissed on these grounds. It may also be criticized in that it relies (in sections that I have not discussed) on charges of racism against evolutionary theories. I think most of us know that both creationists and evolutionists can, and have, levelled accusations of this sort against each other for some time now. Ray recently provided us with a list of the epithets that have been hurled at creationists on this net. I don't know that I see the value of this. I will ask instead, what do we know about the origin of language? And, as a corollary, is there something we cannot know? ---------- *What we cannot know* Julia S Falk, Linguistics and Language. Xerox College Publishing, Lexington, 1973. [pp52-53] "Since most, if not all, languages have onomatopoeic words, some people believe that early man first began to use language by imitating the sounds of nature. There is no evidence to support this bow-wow theory of the origin of language, just as there is no way to support the pooh-pooh theory (that language started with grunts, groans and cries of pleasure) or the ding-dong theory (that man happened to make noises when he saw certain objects and the noises gradually acquired the status of words naming the object). All such theories on the origin of human language are pure speculation; they go back beyond the period of recorded history and, because of this, can never be either supported or refuted." Ralph Linton, "The Tree of Culture". Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1955. [p9] "We know absolutely nothing about the early stages in the development of language." He adds, "although this has not prevented philologists from putting foward a number of more or less ingenious theories." John Paul Hughes, _The Science of Language_. Random House, New York, 1969. [pp30-32] "It has been pointed out that a bylaw of the Linguistic Society of Paris constitutes anyone _ipso facto_ out of order who wishes to read before it a paper on the origin of language. This is a scientifically sound attitude for, whenever and however language originated, one thing is sure: it was at a time so remote that there is not a shred of evidence on which to reconstruct any part of the story. But a word or two should be said in any serious linguistic work to counter the arrant nonsense on this subject which is still circulated in Sunday-supplement science features. "According to this pseudo-evolutionary foolishness, based on nothing but rampant imagination, language originated among our caveman ancestors when someone tried to tell the hitherto speechless tribe about the wolf he had killed, and was forced to give an imitation of the wolf, so that _owoo-owoo_ became the word for "wolf" (this is called the "bow-wow" theory); or when he hit his thumb with the mallet while shaping a stone spear, so that _ouch_ became the word for "pain" (the "ouch-ouch" theory); and similar fairy stories. "What needs to be pointed out is that there _is_ evidence against several of these hypotheses. For one thing, we are _not_ descended from the cave man - if by cave man we mean those prehistoric people whose remains were found in caves in France and Germany. (To assume that the whole human race went through a cave-dwelling stage is another inadequately founded hypothesis.) We know that the Indo-Europeans, from whom most Europeans and their languages are descended, entered Europe proper later than 3000 B.C.; how then could they be descendants of people who had lived in France some thousands of years before? The Basques _could_ be descendants of the cave man, likewise the _Tuatha Dea Danann_ of old Irish legend, and the people who built Stonehenge and the dolmens and menhirs of Brittany; but not any other present-day Europeans. "As to onomatopoeic theories of the origin of language, note first that in no language is a dog called a "bow-wow" or a cat a "meow." Secondly, it can easily be shown that we hear and imitate the sounds of nature _within the limitation of our first language;_ in fact, we cannot reproduce a sound of nature with a sound that is not used in our own language. Thus, to speakers of English it seems obvious that the sound a bell is _ding-dong;_ but to speakers of French, which has no _ng_ sound, it cannot be - and as _dindon_ is a turkey, a bell is more commonly _tam-tam_. The Spanish hear the same sound as _tin-tin_, the Germans as _bim-bam-bum_. The sound a cat makes is _meow_ to us, but _minou-minou_ to a French child. In Germany, the cock does not crow _cock-a-doodle-do,_ but _kikeriki;_ the dog does not go _bow-wow_, but _wau-wau_ (in which the _w_ is pronounced as _v_ in obedience to German spelling). Since onomatopoeia is influenced by language, it obviously cannot be the source of language. "There is an _a priori_ notion that language must have originated from "primitive grunts," and that consequently the tersest and most disjointed expressions we use today represent an earlier stage in the development of the language. Here again, however, scientific study of language reveals that all such expressions are merely fragments from more elaborate expressions containing all the structure of the fully developed language. Thus, when a Frenchman colloquially says _dac_, it is an abbreviation of _d'accord_, which is in turn an abbreviation of _je suis d'accord_. When a German says _guten Tag_, the adjective has an accusative form, showing that it comes from a sentence _ich wunsche Ihnen einen guten Tag;_ a polite exclamation like _bitte_ is in the first person singular - because it is abbreviated from _ich bitte Ihnen (dass Sie davon nicht sprechen)_. Since short forms presuppose developed ones, they cannot be the nucleus of the latter's development. "If we leave off pursuit of these will-o'-the-wisps, originally loosed across our path by, probably, Herbert Spencer, and set ourselves to seeing how far sound reasoning would carry us (undiscouraged by the fact that it will not carry us very far), we find ourselves in possession of three or four solid facts. "First of all, as far back as we can trace the process, every language ever spoken has originated from a previous language, and the lines usually converge: several languages in use at a given time derive from one in use some centuries before. It is therefore not impossible that all the languages of the world descend from a single language; though it is improbable that we shall ever have the data to prove this. "Second, as far as we can ascertain, each first speaker of any language has learned it from his parents, or, in rare cases, from other mature individuals who were already in full possession of its total structure. This poses us a problem analogous to the old riddle, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Before anyone can learn a language, someone has to have learned it. "Third, there is some indication that "immediate" speech preceded "referred" or "displaced" speech (for a full explanation of these terms, see Chapter IX). This would seem to justify what we would assume _a priori_, that language arose from the need of human beings to signal to each other, and from their mental capacity to appreciate symbolism and to construct a system of symbols. The moment they could, by this means, manipulate phenomena not present to the eye, we may say that human language was born. But this leaves us one dilemma - if they were not living in society they would not need language; and how could they have commenced to live in society without it? "Here the data run out, and science abandons us. From here on, any hypothesis is equally possible - and equally unprovable. Let each choose his favorite, and find whither it leads him." [pp30-32] ---------- *What we do know* Linton. "It is safe to conclude that the use of language is exceedingly old, but unwritten languages disappear without leaving a trace. By the time that writing first appeared, in Egypt and the Near East, about 4000 B.C., the evolution of language was complete. [I believe that what Linton means here is that the development from animal communication to human language was complete, not that human language has become static.] The earliest languages which have left a record were as complex in their grammar and as adequate for the conveyance of ideas as any modern ones. Moreover, everything indicates that during the early part of human history there were far more languages spoken than there are at present. Each of the little, strictly local groups in which early man must have lived probably had its own. "The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples." [don't know page - it's close to the other quote from Linton, though.] Albert C Baugh, "A History of the English Language". Appleton-Century-Crafts, New York, 1957. [p10, 2nd ed] "A second asset which English possesses to a pre-eminent degree is inflectional simplicity. The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification. The farther back we go in the study of languages to which English is most closely allied, the more complex we find them." Baugh also said, regarding the relationship between complexity and primitiveness of a language: [p13, 1st ed] "Since grammatical simplification appears to be a mark of progress in language, English has some right to be considered the most advanced among the languages of Europe today." Baugh evidently had some doubts about this statement himself, as it was dropped from the second edition. I shouldn't wonder. The logical conclusion would be that the most complex languages are the most primitive, and the very simplest the most advanced. This might be a difficult proposition to defend in view of its manifest absurdity. George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man". Science, 152, 22 April 1966, 472-478. [p477] "Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view." Noam Chomsky, "Language and Mind". Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1968. "There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of 'higher' from 'lower' stages, in this case, than there is for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking." (However, it is fair to add that Chomsky has always despised the "teaching animals language" studies.) Suzette H Elgin, "What is Linguistics?". Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973. "The most ancient languages for which we have written texts - Sanskrit, for example - are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many modern languages." [don't know page] Mario Pei, _The Story of Language_. J B Lippencott, Philadelphia, 1965. [p23] "It seems at least partly established that language changes least rapidly when its speakers are isolated from other communities, most rapidly when they find themselves, so to speak, at the crossroads of the world." An inference to be made from this, given the observed trend towards simplification in civilized languages, and the high degree of complexity of the languages of primitive cultures, is that the languages of the latter cultures are more closely related to their original languages than are the civilized ones. This is entirely consistent with the hypothesis of an origin of language that was complex and completely functional from the start. It is also inconsistent with a developmental theory of language origin positing increasing complexity arising from non-linguistic sources. [pp26-27] "What are the chances that modern linguists, equipped with the powerful aids of present-day science, may one day break down the veil of mystery that enshrouds the origin of language? Frankly, very slight...The languages of primitive groups do not cast too much light upon the problem. They are, as a rule, anything but primitive, save with reference to the vocabulary of modern civilization. Linguists who explore these tongues regularly find in them refinements of distinctions and complexities unknown to our own languages, even though circumscribed by the primitive group's experience and environment." It should be noted that all or nearly all of these writers believe that language did evolve from non-language (e.g., animal communication systems) - but can give us no facts to support this supposition. They merely cast what facts we have into the framework of an evolution that is assumed to have occurred. And the framework does not hold them too well. ----- It appears that languages become progressively simpler and that the oldest languages are the most complex. This is all wrong for a theory which must have language coming from non-language, although it is perfectly consistent with a model positing language beginning full-blown from nothing. The data also suggest that degeneration (or simplification) processes be must be a component of such a model. I daresay that it would not be impossible to come up with an evolutionary interpretation that would incorporate these facts. However, I doubt that the facts themselves would derive the interpretation. An interpretation must be derived into which the facts will fit. Such information as we have is difficult to explain on evolutionary grounds, since language must develop from non-language, i.e., become qualitatively different and quantitatively more complex. One might postulate an increase of complexity to a level higher than currently, followed by a period of decline, but the facts do not suggest this. It is an assumption that is required by the evolutionary interpretation. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/29/85)
I recently referred back to a couple of articles I wrote on language. It appears from some of the responses (and some of my mail) that they did not propagate through the net well. I am reposting them; two articles should follow this one. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/29/85)
> [K. A. Dahlke] > Since most creationists are Bible oriented (whether they admit it > or not), I would like to ask: do you believe in linguistic creationism as > well? Perhaps if you give it a definition we shall be able to tell you whether we agree with it or not. (Don't bother to say you define it in the next paragraph; you don't) > Since some (especially evolutionists) are not familiar with this > interesting story from Genesis, allow me the privilege of paraphrasing: > "Once upon a time, some evil egotistical people > who lived in the land of Babble > decided to build a tower to reach heaven. God was angered > by this blasphemy, distroyed the tower, dispersed the > workers, and gave them different languages. > Thus we get our word babble." > Ironically, the words themselves provide contradictory evidence. > Simply read a King James version (still quite common), > and thou shalt witness linguistic evolution at work. Contradictory to WHAT? Where does the Bible state that from henceforth and forevermore languages would remain static? > The Bible has passed through Hebrew, Greek, Latin, middle English, > and finally the revised standard version distributed today. ---------- > Linguistic evolution is easily documented historically (through > writings), just as evolution is revealed by the fossil record. > Although this evidence is probably adequate, there is considerable > independent corroboration for both evolutionary theories. Adequate for WHAT? What are you trying to show? That language changes? That's no news - what's the implication? If all you are saying is that language changes, we have a very uninteresting proposition. The relevance to biological evolution is unclear as well: language changes within a single species. Biological change is (supposed to be) the production of new species from existing species. Endless variation within a single species (the analogue of language change within human usage) wouldn't get you very far. Even if it is maintained that new languages come from old and that this corresponds to new species from old, the extension of the argument to biological evolution is of necessity an analogy. And that, you realize, means that the argument falls within the same class as arguments from design based on analogy. No doubt you're aware of the warm reception such arguments receive in this newsgroup, and therefore you know how much validity should be accorded to your own argument. > Consider English and German (the languages I know best). > Historically, we know these two languages are related, > and the copious linguistic similarities provide independent evidence. > While I was reading Hamlet, certain Germanic constructs became apparent. > Consider the conjugation of regular verbs. > subject German middle English > you st est > he/she t eth > Also notice Hamlet's word order, which often the verb at the > end of the relative clause places. Prepositional phrases become ordered > (time manner place), and often occupies the verb the second > position of declarative sentences. > Although evolution has modified both languages, similarities remain today. > When analogous words (by meaning) differ by only one phoneme, > and this phoneme substitution appears consistently, > the languages are probably related. > Several phoneme substitutions are apparent, and most people faking a German > accent know what they are. w->v s->z th->d ... > Example words: sing, house, foot, hand, cold, water, wagon, the, ... > The ubiquity of these phoneme substitutions directly indicates > the age of the two languages relative to their common ancestor. > When the only differences are a couple phoneme substitutions, > the languages are called dialects, and are usually mutually understandable. > Longer separation yields more substitutions, and word order changes, > and general random variations, > making the languages incomprehensible to each other. > Of course, sufficient evolution will separate the languages > completely, prohibiting comparisons altogether. That's interesting (and I mean no sarcasm). But, what you need to show is that when you go back in time, languages do not just suddenly appear instantly where they didn't exist before. That's a tough job. I was going to say that this shows little about whether the different languages started the same or not. But I have the feeling that no matter which way it appeared to happen (same or different), it wouldn't be taken to contradict evolution. My impression is that whatever happens is interpreted in terms of the evolution that is assumed to have occurred. Which is a reasonable procedure as long as one doesn't forget that it IS an assumption and then go on to state that the interpretation provides confirmation of the theory. You, in fact, did forget just this very thing. But that sort of confirmation is vacuous. Since adoption of the evolutionary theory as an interpretive framework precludes this possibility, it is impossible that it should conflict. "Independent confirmation" in this context means very little, if anything. So, yes, language changes. And? > Similarly, analogous proteans in differing species can provide > independent evidence for evolution. As soon as a species splits > into two, random variation can and will replace some amino-acids > within proteans. A few of these changes will be harmless, and will > propagate. This explanation is too facile to be taken seriously, because it assumes as answered a question that remains open. This is a chicken and egg problem. Does a species split facilitate amino-acid replacement, or does amino-acid replacement faciliate speciation? Or both? What is the cause and what is the effect? The above explanation is devoid of expanatory value, and I think that its adoption would serve to stultify thought more than it would encourage inquiry. That's just my opinion. > Thus, our hemoglobin differs from other animals' hemoglobin, and the > differences accurately reflect the time of species separation. What was the divergence time of soybeans and hemoglobic animals? When did we diverge from the crustacean _Daphnia_? > Surely an omnipotent creator wouldn't have gone too all the trouble of > making analogous proteans match fossil evidence; only a few > hemoglobin molecules are really necessary to keep all the aerobes happy. I'd be interested to hear how you know this to be true. Might very well be so, but as you've stated it, this is just a bare assertion without evidence. > Surely an omnipotent creator wouldn't have gone too all the trouble of > making analogous proteans match fossil evidence; only a few > hemoglobin molecules are really necessary to keep all the aerobes happy. Surely not. How do YOU know? GADZOOKS!! This fallacy really comes up rather too often, I think. What fallacy? That evolutionists often say to creationists "you can't say what a creator would or wouldn't do" - and then (e.g., in the above paragraph) offer their own COMPLETELY USELESS (by *evolutionist* standards!) speculations about what a creator would or wouldn't do. Here's another recent example: > [Stanley Friesen] > In fact the existance > of ad hoc, opportunistic "designs" in living things is one of the > principle predictions of evolutionary theory. If God had created > from scratch I would think he would use good engineering principles > and design each organism for its specialty independantly instead of > using kludged up, ad hoc solutions like we actually see in many > cases. You can think what you wish, of course, Mr. Friesen, but if you guys really applied the same standards to yourselves as you do to creationists, you would immediately say "such statements are unscientific." I've said it before: >> I find it curious that evolutionists continually raise the point >> about our inability to predict, *a priori*, any limits on the way in >> which a creator would create - and then go ahead and make their own >> suppositions. So knock it off. ---------- > [Dahlke again] > It is a shame that most people (including judges) are not educated enough > to appreciate the overwhelming, independent, and fascinating > evidence supporting evolution. > So what about languages? Does anyone out there > believe in linguistic creationism? Or has this too become > re-interpreted in the wake of contradictory evidence? Well, it's certainly true that reinterpretation in the wake of contradictory evidence is a cardinal sin. For a creationist, that is. Off with his head, right? If an evolutionist did it, that would simply be revising a theory to more accurately reflect reality. Nothing wrong with that. Why do you imply it's a poor practice for creationists? By the way ... what was that evidence that was "contradictory", anyway? You've not indicated in your discussion *what* exactly was contrary to linguistic creationism, or *why* it was contradictory. Partly this is because you never said what you meant by linguistic creationism (see, it's not only creationists that are vague about creationism :-), or what you would expect from it. Really all you've done is say that it's baloney, without saying why. Maybe it is. But why? An allusion to Genesis accompanied by a dismissal won't do it. Even I could (and will - next article) do a better job of criticizing it than that. (Or at least criticizing what I would guess you mean by LC.) > And why is linguistic creationism not a hot topic? > Is it the strength of written evidence against it? Might be; we'll know when you give some. > Perhaps, but I believe there is more. > A round Earth and evolving languages do not jeopardize the creationist's > status (created in God's image). > When you realize there is nothing divine about humans, > do you allow earthworms into heaven, or what? > I am always intrigued by the > psychological insecurities which compel individuals to retain > various beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. I guess I'd better act hurt and stung, then, and lash out at you with some vitriolic and vituperative remarks, as a result of having my insecurities exposed ... :-) ---- Anyway, leaving Genesis aside, here are some questions that could be discussed on this topic. (i) Did all languages start the same? If so, why did they split? If not, what would you make of that? Polyphyletic linguistic origins? Would either instance "contradict" linguistic evolutionary theory? Is there anything you would "expect" from an evolutionary linguistic theory, or is anything you find simply interpreted in those terms? (ii) Is there anything that provides some ground for a difference in what you would expect on the basis of what you take creationist linguistics to be, and evolutionary linguistics? (iii) What accounts for the gap between human language and communication in other species? (This is the giveaway question.) (iv) Ancient languages and languages of primitive cultures are more complex than modern languages. (I don't expect anyone to take this at face value - I'll try to provide some documentation in another posting.) Linguistic evolution as we know it, then, is from the complex to the simple. How come? (v) Does linguistic evolution have anything to do with biological evolution? Analogies between the two were offered, but I didn't notice any compelling conclusion to be drawn from this anywhere in the article. I did indicate that this stuff about 'independent confirmation' can't be taken seriously. (vi) And the big question: How did language start? A linguistic creationist would say, I suppose, that language was given by the creator full-blown. This is certainly in accord with the written record. The first evidence we have of language from written records indicates that language was already at that time completely functional. And also, as I have already noted, MORE complex than language today. I imagine that most creationists would feel that this phenomenon is a striking example of data consistent with their position. (I'm assuming the position would be: language by fiat ex nihilo.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/29/85)
K. A. Dahlke inquired about creationist views on language. One creationist position on linguistic diversity is that of Henry Morris. This position may be briefly summarized as follows: "[H]ow can we explain the origin of different languages? If all tribes and races come from a common ancestral population, they must have all had, at one time, the same language. As long as they had the same language, they would never separate sufficiently to develop distinct racial characteristics. The fact is, however, that by some means such characteristics have developed; which means that the tribes were somehow separated; which means that languages somehow became different." Henry Morris, _Scientific Creationism_. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, 1974, p183. (See also Henry Morris, "Language, Creation, and the Inner Man". _Acts and Facts_, Number 28, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, October 1975.) Morris feels that the segregation could not occur unless the language changed. (And I assume that the incident of the Tower of Babel is what he would propose to account for much of linguistic diversity.) That is possible, I suppose, but I see no reason to believe, however, that his explanation MUST be true. Morris says that a change in language leads to geographical separation. This is not the only possibility. For example, geographic separation could lead to a change in language. Whatever the origin of language, it does change once it is in use. It is not difficult to see that a large increase in population would force spread of that population over a large geographical area. When this happened, differences would emerge - local dialects, if you will. Carried far enough, we end up with different languages, e.g., French, Italian and Spanish from Latin. (I sound uncomfortably like a Darwinian gradualist here!) So I think that Morris' theory may be dismissed on these grounds. It may also be criticized in that it relies (in sections that I have not discussed) on charges of racism against evolutionary theories. I think most of us know that both creationists and evolutionists can, and have, levelled accusations of this sort against each other for some time now. Ray recently provided us with a list of the epithets that have been hurled at creationists on this net. I don't know that I see the value of this. I will ask instead, what do we know about the origin of language? And, as a corollary, is there something we cannot know? ---------- *What we cannot know* Julia S Falk, Linguistics and Language. Xerox College Publishing, Lexington, 1973. [pp52-53] "Since most, if not all, languages have onomatopoeic words, some people believe that early man first began to use language by imitating the sounds of nature. There is no evidence to support this bow-wow theory of the origin of language, just as there is no way to support the pooh-pooh theory (that language started with grunts, groans and cries of pleasure) or the ding-dong theory (that man happened to make noises when he saw certain objects and the noises gradually acquired the status of words naming the object). All such theories on the origin of human language are pure speculation; they go back beyond the period of recorded history and, because of this, can never be either supported or refuted." Ralph Linton, "The Tree of Culture". Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1955. [p9] "We know absolutely nothing about the early stages in the development of language." He adds, "although this has not prevented philologists from putting foward a number of more or less ingenious theories." John Paul Hughes, _The Science of Language_. Random House, New York, 1969. [pp30-32] "It has been pointed out that a bylaw of the Linguistic Society of Paris constitutes anyone _ipso facto_ out of order who wishes to read before it a paper on the origin of language. This is a scientifically sound attitude for, whenever and however language originated, one thing is sure: it was at a time so remote that there is not a shred of evidence on which to reconstruct any part of the story. But a word or two should be said in any serious linguistic work to counter the arrant nonsense on this subject which is still circulated in Sunday-supplement science features. "According to this pseudo-evolutionary foolishness, based on nothing but rampant imagination, language originated among our caveman ancestors when someone tried to tell the hitherto speechless tribe about the wolf he had killed, and was forced to give an imitation of the wolf, so that _owoo-owoo_ became the word for "wolf" (this is called the "bow-wow" theory); or when he hit his thumb with the mallet while shaping a stone spear, so that _ouch_ became the word for "pain" (the "ouch-ouch" theory); and similar fairy stories. "What needs to be pointed out is that there _is_ evidence against several of these hypotheses. For one thing, we are _not_ descended from the cave man - if by cave man we mean those prehistoric people whose remains were found in caves in France and Germany. (To assume that the whole human race went through a cave-dwelling stage is another inadequately founded hypothesis.) We know that the Indo-Europeans, from whom most Europeans and their languages are descended, entered Europe proper later than 3000 B.C.; how then could they be descendants of people who had lived in France some thousands of years before? The Basques _could_ be descendants of the cave man, likewise the _Tuatha Dea Danann_ of old Irish legend, and the people who built Stonehenge and the dolmens and menhirs of Brittany; but not any other present-day Europeans. "As to onomatopoeic theories of the origin of language, note first that in no language is a dog called a "bow-wow" or a cat a "meow." Secondly, it can easily be shown that we hear and imitate the sounds of nature _within the limitation of our first language;_ in fact, we cannot reproduce a sound of nature with a sound that is not used in our own language. Thus, to speakers of English it seems obvious that the sound a bell is _ding-dong;_ but to speakers of French, which has no _ng_ sound, it cannot be - and as _dindon_ is a turkey, a bell is more commonly _tam-tam_. The Spanish hear the same sound as _tin-tin_, the Germans as _bim-bam-bum_. The sound a cat makes is _meow_ to us, but _minou-minou_ to a French child. In Germany, the cock does not crow _cock-a-doodle-do,_ but _kikeriki;_ the dog does not go _bow-wow_, but _wau-wau_ (in which the _w_ is pronounced as _v_ in obedience to German spelling). Since onomatopoeia is influenced by language, it obviously cannot be the source of language. "There is an _a priori_ notion that language must have originated from "primitive grunts," and that consequently the tersest and most disjointed expressions we use today represent an earlier stage in the development of the language. Here again, however, scientific study of language reveals that all such expressions are merely fragments from more elaborate expressions containing all the structure of the fully developed language. Thus, when a Frenchman colloquially says _dac_, it is an abbreviation of _d'accord_, which is in turn an abbreviation of _je suis d'accord_. When a German says _guten Tag_, the adjective has an accusative form, showing that it comes from a sentence _ich wunsche Ihnen einen guten Tag;_ a polite exclamation like _bitte_ is in the first person singular - because it is abbreviated from _ich bitte Ihnen (dass Sie davon nicht sprechen)_. Since short forms presuppose developed ones, they cannot be the nucleus of the latter's development. "If we leave off pursuit of these will-o'-the-wisps, originally loosed across our path by, probably, Herbert Spencer, and set ourselves to seeing how far sound reasoning would carry us (undiscouraged by the fact that it will not carry us very far), we find ourselves in possession of three or four solid facts. "First of all, as far back as we can trace the process, every language ever spoken has originated from a previous language, and the lines usually converge: several languages in use at a given time derive from one in use some centuries before. It is therefore not impossible that all the languages of the world descend from a single language; though it is improbable that we shall ever have the data to prove this. "Second, as far as we can ascertain, each first speaker of any language has learned it from his parents, or, in rare cases, from other mature individuals who were already in full possession of its total structure. This poses us a problem analogous to the old riddle, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Before anyone can learn a language, someone has to have learned it. "Third, there is some indication that "immediate" speech preceded "referred" or "displaced" speech (for a full explanation of these terms, see Chapter IX). This would seem to justify what we would assume _a priori_, that language arose from the need of human beings to signal to each other, and from their mental capacity to appreciate symbolism and to construct a system of symbols. The moment they could, by this means, manipulate phenomena not present to the eye, we may say that human language was born. But this leaves us one dilemma - if they were not living in society they would not need language; and how could they have commenced to live in society without it? "Here the data run out, and science abandons us. From here on, any hypothesis is equally possible - and equally unprovable. Let each choose his favorite, and find whither it leads him." [pp30-32] ---------- *What we do know* Linton. "It is safe to conclude that the use of language is exceedingly old, but unwritten languages disappear without leaving a trace. By the time that writing first appeared, in Egypt and the Near East, about 4000 B.C., the evolution of language was complete. [I believe that what Linton means here is that the development from animal communication to human language was complete, not that human language has become static.] The earliest languages which have left a record were as complex in their grammar and as adequate for the conveyance of ideas as any modern ones. Moreover, everything indicates that during the early part of human history there were far more languages spoken than there are at present. Each of the little, strictly local groups in which early man must have lived probably had its own. "The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples." [don't know page - it's close to the other quote from Linton, though.] Albert C Baugh, "A History of the English Language". Appleton-Century-Crafts, New York, 1957. [p10, 2nd ed] "A second asset which English possesses to a pre-eminent degree is inflectional simplicity. The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification. The farther back we go in the study of languages to which English is most closely allied, the more complex we find them." Baugh also said, regarding the relationship between complexity and primitiveness of a language: [p13, 1st ed] "Since grammatical simplification appears to be a mark of progress in language, English has some right to be considered the most advanced among the languages of Europe today." Baugh evidently had some doubts about this statement himself, as it was dropped from the second edition. I shouldn't wonder. The logical conclusion would be that the most complex languages are the most primitive, and the very simplest the most advanced. This might be a difficult proposition to defend in view of its manifest absurdity. George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man". Science, 152, 22 April 1966, 472-478. [p477] "Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view." Noam Chomsky, "Language and Mind". Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1968. "There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of 'higher' from 'lower' stages, in this case, than there is for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking." (However, it is fair to add that Chomsky has always despised the "teaching animals language" studies.) Suzette H Elgin, "What is Linguistics?". Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973. "The most ancient languages for which we have written texts - Sanskrit, for example - are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many modern languages." [don't know page] Mario Pei, _The Story of Language_. J B Lippencott, Philadelphia, 1965. [p23] "It seems at least partly established that language changes least rapidly when its speakers are isolated from other communities, most rapidly when they find themselves, so to speak, at the crossroads of the world." An inference to be made from this, given the observed trend towards simplification in civilized languages, and the high degree of complexity of the languages of primitive cultures, is that the languages of the latter cultures are more closely related to their original languages than are the civilized ones. This is entirely consistent with the hypothesis of an origin of language that was complex and completely functional from the start. It is also inconsistent with a developmental theory of language origin positing increasing complexity arising from non-linguistic sources. [pp26-27] "What are the chances that modern linguists, equipped with the powerful aids of present-day science, may one day break down the veil of mystery that enshrouds the origin of language? Frankly, very slight...The languages of primitive groups do not cast too much light upon the problem. They are, as a rule, anything but primitive, save with reference to the vocabulary of modern civilization. Linguists who explore these tongues regularly find in them refinements of distinctions and complexities unknown to our own languages, even though circumscribed by the primitive group's experience and environment." It should be noted that all or nearly all of these writers believe that language did evolve from non-language (e.g., animal communication systems) - but can give us no facts to support this supposition. They merely cast what facts we have into the framework of an evolution that is assumed to have occurred. And the framework does not hold them too well. ----- It appears that languages become progressively simpler and that the oldest languages are the most complex. This is all wrong for a theory which must have language coming from non-language, although it is perfectly consistent with a model positing language beginning full-blown from nothing. The data also suggest that degeneration (or simplification) processes be must be a component of such a model. I daresay that it would not be impossible to come up with an evolutionary interpretation that would incorporate these facts. However, I doubt that the facts themselves would derive the interpretation. An interpretation must be derived into which the facts will fit. Such information as we have is difficult to explain on evolutionary grounds, since language must develop from non-language, i.e., become qualitatively different and quantitatively more complex. One might postulate an increase of complexity to a level higher than currently, followed by a period of decline, but the facts do not suggest this. It is an assumption that is required by the evolutionary interpretation. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (06/01/85)
I'd like to thank Paul for reposting some articles about language that I missed. I've always been interested (in an amature sort of way) in linguistics. I do have some comments on these postings now that I've seen them. These comments mainly go into the relationship between facts, assumptions, and explanations, and get most interesting (I think) at the end of the article. Bored readers might want to skip ahead to Paul's "One might postulate" note and my response to that. *Very* bored readers have hit "n" already, so I won't worry about them. :-) In <1168@uwmacc.UUCP> Paul DuBois > [regarding the notion that the earliest languages are the most > complex] > Baugh evidently had some doubts about this statement himself, as it was > dropped from the second edition. I shouldn't wonder. The logical > conclusion would be that the most complex languages are the most > primitive, and the very simplest the most advanced. This might be a > difficult proposition to defend in view of its manifest absurdity. Why is it manifestly absurd? It seems quite reasonable to me, for reasons I've gone into before. (See the recent posting pair from me entitled "Re: Misc Language") (I realize this is a reposting, and Paul's position may have changed in the meantime, but if it has not, I'm curious as to why this notion is considered manifestly absurd.) > [excelent exposition of the details of the normal direction of > linguistic change, with clear references, and so on] > An inference to be made from this, given the observed trend towards > simplification in civilized languages, and the high degree of > complexity of the languages of primitive cultures, is that the > languages of the latter cultures are more closely related to their > original languages than are the civilized ones. This is entirely > consistent with the hypothesis of an origin of language that was > complex and completely functional from the start. It is also > inconsistent with a developmental theory of language origin positing > increasing complexity arising from non-linguistic sources. Again, *why* is it inconsistent? It doesn't seem strange to me at all, for two reasons. 1) the phase of increasing complexity (if any ) is necessarily lost to us completely, 2) there are many examples of newly "invented" languages which are initially complex and get simpler (see previous postings). Note: clearly this is not inconsistent with the view that languages arose "instantly" at some time in the past, nor is it inconsistant with the notion that somebody *taught* language to humans and that language did not spontaneously arise. However, I can't see how this is inconsistant with the "spontaneous" explaination of language origin either. > It appears that languages become progressively simpler and that the > oldest languages are the most complex. This is all wrong for a theory > which must have language coming from non-language, although it is > perfectly consistent with a model positing language beginning > full-blown from nothing. The data also suggest that degeneration (or > simplification) processes be must be a component of such a model. Again, *why* is it all wrong. I just don't see it. > I daresay that it would not be impossible to come up with an > evolutionary interpretation that would incorporate these facts. > However, I doubt that the facts themselves would derive the > interpretation. An interpretation must be derived into which the facts > will fit. What, exactly, is the difference between "facts themselves ... derive the interpretation", and "an interpretation [is] derived into which the facts fit"? The first case has the "facts" "derive" an "interpretation". I take this to mean that some actor (clearly not the facts, I hope), creates an interpretation which does not conflict with the facts. This also seems to be exactly what is going on in the second case. What is the difference besides the possibly misleading syntax? > Such information as we have is difficult to explain on > evolutionary grounds, since language must develop from non-language, > i.e., become qualitatively different and quantitatively more complex. A clarification: *Human* language does not have to arise from non-language (though clearly, at some point language must (under evolutionary assumptions) have arisen from non-language). Human language has only to have arisen from (depending on one's viewpoint) proto-human language, or human proto-language. Neither of these steps (nor the required previous steps in less sophisticated species) is so large as to boggle the evolutionary hypothesis. I think that even Noam Chomsky would allow that difference between human speech and primate sign language is not all *that* great (though from his writings he clearly thinks there is a distinct and important difference). (I may, of course, be mistaken on this point. :-) > One might postulate an increase of complexity to a level higher than > currently, followed by a period of decline, but the facts do not > suggest this. It is an assumption that is required by the evolutionary > interpretation. I'm not ceartain what is being claimed here. "The facts" I take to mean that older languages are more complex, and languages become simpler over time. I take "it" to mean that an increase in complexity (of language) occured at some time in the past. Now then, why is "it" an unwarranted assumption, and in what way do "the facts" not support it? The only real assumption (that is not supported by the facts) is that language was once simple. However, the creationist position makes that same assumption (or the related assumption that language didn't exist at all at one time). It seems to me that *assumptions* are (or should be) supported by facts. Any *explaination of* these facts are not (and do not need to be) *supported by* the facts. One more note about language. I think that Paul is quite correct in stating that there is no connection between "language evolution" and "biological evolution" except analogy. Therefore, to say that either one "supports" the other one is not correct. However, I think it is also not correct to draw the opposite conclusion: that this lack of support for evolution is support for creation. (Obvious disclaimer: I do not accuse anyone of making this point explicitly. I am trying to steer readers away from taking this point implicitly from what Paul had to say.) Philosophical side issues: It is useful to keep track of exactly what are the facts, what are the assumptions, and what are the explanations involved in a discussion. - facts are things that are known by observation - assumptions are things that (ought to be) supported by facts, and are necessary (and taken as true) for explanations. - explanations account for facts, given that assumptions are true. Two parallel examples (yes, the creationist one may be a parody, but I don't know how else to illustrate my point, so feel free to correct it): - facts: languages now are simpler than they once were - evolutionist assumption: languages were at one time simple, and selection pressures can cause languages to get more complicated creationist assumption: languages were at one time simple (or non-existant), and more complicated languages must have been taught (or "magically" introduced) - evolutionist explaination: early humans developed complicated structures in response to communication needs, and simplified them over time creationist explaination: God taught language to (or "magically" introduced language to) early humans, and then language use "degenerated" In general, the relative merits of two hypotheses are often judged by explainatory power (how many facts can a hypothesis account for, and how economically). It is on the grounds of explainatory power that I prefer evolutionary explainations over creationist ones, because (as I see it) creationist explainations *explain fewer facts*, and they do it a the expense of *a greater cost in newly introduced assumptions*. (The last there might seem a little strange. Creationists seem to make one assumption: God. Evolutionists make many assumptions (this arose, there is a mechanism at this obscure point, etc). However, I rate the *cost* of the God assumption high, since it is invoked at all the same points as the evolutionary assumptions, and some more besides, and is even invoked at times to deny the validity of many things that seem to be valid facts. Note that the God assumption is *not* bad in and of itself (as far as I can see), but the way it is used in creationist explainations of observations is unconvincing.) > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (06/01/85)
In <1167@uwmacc.UUCP>, Paul DuBois says: > Contradictory to WHAT? Where does the Bible state that from > henceforth and forevermore languages would remain static? > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois I may be being dense, but this makes me ask: Where does the Bible state that from henceforth and forevermore *species* would remain static? I seem to remember a passage about "reproducing acording to kind", but I couldn't find the specific passage, and I'm fairly sure that even if I did, it wouldn't imply total, eternal statis. I'm aware that this query isn't strictly net.origins material... feel free to reply via mail rather than by posting. I post the question here to reach the intended audience (creationists, that is). (It is worth noting that (in general, ignoring certain nits) I agree with most of what Paul had to say in the referenced posting, though I don't find any "instantaneous appearance" theory of language origin very convincing) -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (06/07/85)
| > An inference to be made from this, given the observed trend towards | > simplification in civilized languages, and the high degree of | > complexity of the languages of primitive cultures, is that the | > languages of the latter cultures are more closely related to their | > original languages than are the civilized ones. This is entirely | > consistent with the hypothesis of an origin of language that was | > complex and completely functional from the start. It is also | > inconsistent with a developmental theory of language origin positing | > increasing complexity arising from non-linguistic sources. Complexity is not a sign of being completely functional from the start. Imagine someone thinking "Gee, wouldn't it be nifty if we had a dative case? .... Eureka! All we need to do is to have vowel shifts of such-and-such, then add special endings (depending on the gender of the word), and we've got it!." If there are several such decisions made as a language develops, one has a very complex, kludged up language. Computer languages are like this; the early ones had "kitchen-sink" tendencies, but more recent ones are simpler. Dave Long -- {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long