Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum ...and it's also an insult to those who speak sign language which in all of its different forms does involve very complex inflections, declensions and phrase structure rules.
No, it is not an insult. If course people may choose to feel insulted at just about anything, but the statement is in no way inherently insulting, nor does it belittle the complexity of sign language.
If I were to say that I have managed to learn 20 Chinese words, and can read 10 Chinese characters, then have I insulted speakers of the Chinese language? If course not.
In reality I can read well over 2000 Chinese characters but have totally failed to master the tonal aspect of the language, nor all the subtleties of the grammar - presumably because I have zero practice speaking with Chinese speakers. Again, my small knowledge in no way is an insult to a native Chinese speaker.
Originally posted by sonhouse Not meaning to offend, I thought maybe you were coming off a bit pedantic. Do you do sign language? Just wondered if this was a personal issue. I don't think any of those scientists involved in training the great apes in signing are claiming they know sign language as the deaf knows it, of course it is a very complex language in the hands of experts.
Yo ...[text shortened]... mber of signs to communicate simple concepts. They wouldn't be able to talk philosophy for sure.
Not meaning to offend, I thought maybe you were coming off a bit pedantic. Do you do sign language? Just wondered if this was a personal issue. I don't think any of those scientists involved in training the great apes in signing are claiming they know sign language as the deaf knows it, of course it is a very complex language in the hands of experts.
I don't do sign language. If I am being pedantic, it's because I don't agree that the use of signs (or to go back to my original point, the use of names) is itself a linguistic phenomenon. I can appreciate that in a broad way it can be communicative, but I think we should have a higher standard for what we call a 'language'. It's not about composing a book but about making complex utterances, like the ones you and I are making. It's not about the subtlety of language or 'higher meaning' but just about the level of grammatical complexity.
But maybe the issue of language is a distraction. Couldn't dolphins have religious commitments and practices without any language? Maybe it is signs and not language that is fundamental for religion.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, it is not an insult. If course people may choose to feel insulted at just about anything, but the statement is in no way inherently insulting, nor does it belittle the complexity of sign language.
If I were to say that I have managed to learn 20 Chinese words, and can read 10 Chinese characters, then have I insulted speakers of the Chinese language? ...[text shortened]... Chinese speakers. Again, my small knowledge in no way is an insult to a native Chinese speaker.
It would be an insult to say that you know Chinese, yes. You are being sophistical here - I am not suggesting that it is an insult for you to learn a set of Chinese character, but rather to precociously claim knowledge of Chinese. Knowledge of Chinese characters does not pass for knowledge of the language itself.
Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum It would be an insult to say that you know Chinese, yes.
Only if someone was trying very hard to be insulted. Typically I would just be laughed at.
But keep in mind that I never said that Chimps or Gorillas 'knew sign language'. I said they could learn some sign language, just as I know some Chinese.
You are being sophistical here - I am not suggesting that it is an insult for you to learn a set of Chinese character, but rather to precociously claim knowledge of Chinese. Knowledge of Chinese characters does not pass for knowledge of the language itself. It does pass for partial knowledge of the language itself. I think it is you being sophistical and the whole 'they would be insulted' thing was because you lacked a more genuine argument.
Originally posted by twhitehead Only if someone was trying very hard to be insulted. Typically I would just be laughed at.
But keep in mind that I never said that Chimps or Gorillas 'knew sign language'. I said they could learn some sign language, just as I know some Chinese.
[b]You are being sophistical here - I am not suggesting that it is an insult for you to learn a set of Chi ...[text shortened]... cal and the whole 'they would be insulted' thing was because you lacked a more genuine argument.
It does pass for partial knowledge of the language itself. I think it is you being sophistical and the whole 'they would be insulted' thing was because you lacked a more genuine argument.
I made my argument very clear at the outset (without any mention of insult). Knowledge of names or of signs or of characters does not constitute knowledge of a language, and indeed is very remote from any evidence of cognition and even further from any evidence of religious commitments or practices.
In spite of the triple locked heavily reinforced doors with their tiny little 3 inch thick windows and two security guards stationed at each end of the hallway...
No, no, I don't need any help. Just made a wrong turn, that's all.
I'll let myself out... thank you.
Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum [b]It does pass for partial knowledge of the language itself. I think it is you being sophistical and the whole 'they would be insulted' thing was because you lacked a more genuine argument.
I made my argument very clear at the outset (without any mention of insult). Knowledge of names or of signs or of characters does not constitute know ...[text shortened]... evidence of cognition and even further from any evidence of religious commitments or practices.[/b]
The latest theory of the origin of language a hundred thousand or more years ago is first naming common objects, trees, animals and so forth. That is the foundation of language.
I can imagine a scene a hundred thousand years ago where the village shaman grabs a tree branch and goes 'YUGI' and the people around him grabbing the same branch going "YUGI" and they all understand that means tree or tree branch.
Originally posted by sonhouse The latest theory of the origin of language a hundred thousand or more years ago is first naming common objects, trees, animals and so forth. That is the foundation of language.
I can imagine a scene a hundred thousand years ago where the village shaman grabs a tree branch and goes 'YUGI' and the people around him grabbing the same branch going "YUGI" and they all understand that means tree or tree branch.
Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum thought, sensation, ratiocination, etc
Well then your statement that learning the names of objects does not indicate cognition doesn't make any sense. Besides, it is blatantly obvious that most animals larger than a worm are capable of thought, sensation and even some ratiocination.
Originally posted by twhitehead Well then your statement that learning the names of objects does not indicate cognition doesn't make any sense. Besides, it is blatantly obvious that most animals larger than a worm are capable of thought, sensation and even some ratiocination.
You might be right; just to be clear, this is in a discussion of whether dolphins have a religion. I am thinking of cognition in this context.
Do Dolphins have a religion?
28 Apr '15 18:45
Back to Top