[Fwd: Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social']

Tue Dec 3 06:28:51 UTC 2002

I have so far written two accounts dealing with language and
evolution.  One of them follows.  Unlike most of what I have seen
here and elsewhere, it uses very few high-powered and/or allegedly
technical words.  It also makes no pretence to be scientific.

But I wonder if it may not come closer to the truth than many of the
pieces sporting high-powered vocabularies and claiming allegiance to
scientific method.

Here's a question for you.  Given the sheer immensity of the period
being studied and the absence of any "time machine" or other
conveyance to transport us to specific points within that period,
what reason is there to suppose that any allegedly scientific
procedures or allegedly complete and precise technical vocabularies
(which inevitably turn out to be based on one specific age and/or
fashion) can ever bring back to us a sufficiently detailed account
of how language evolved for the game to even be worth playing?

The account that follows comprises part of the author's program
"Truth About Translation," which can be downloaded at the URL shown in the
very last line.

Very best to all!

Alex Gross

____________________

SPRAY IT AGAIN, SAM
The Real Story of Language And Translation
A Semi-Humorous Account
By Alexander Gross

Once upon a time there were only animals.

No men.

No women.

Not even persons.

They needed to tell each other things.
At least about their own lives.

They needed to talk about territory.
About food and mating.
 About mutual status and danger.

BUT HOW COULD THEY DO THIS?

By spraying everything around them with a special scent.

"This is my turf."

"My store of food."

"My mate."

It was messy.
It wasn't always clear.
And it could cause trouble.

So just to clear things up,
some of the animals
started barking at each other too.

Others tried howling.

Or hissing.

Or grunting, moaning, and groaning.

And that's how they managed things.

Either by spraying,
or by barking, grunting, hissing, etc.

But there were problems.

At one point a whole bunch of creatures
got together at an Evolutionary Progress
Conference and had an argument.

It was a waste of energy, said some.
Why should we have two ways
of communicating, why should we both
spray and make sounds, they asked.

Why not combine them both
INTO ONE FUNCTION?        [Achtung Funktoid Alert!]

But others objected.
They enjoyed spraying
and didn't want to give it up.

So very little changed.

After a few billion years,
a whole new bunch
of apes came along.

Some decided they could say
things better by combining
barks, howls and hisses
in very specific ways.

But this idea had a few problems.
The old way of doing
things--spray, growls,
and hisses--didn't say much.

BUT IT WAS PRETTY UNMISTAKABLE.

Combining all these sounds
made it harder to tell
one meaning from another.

This meant you could sometimes
get the wrong message.

Besides, where did this leave spraying?

It also meant a few things
had to happen before such
a system could work.

First, these apes needed a way
to make these sounds PLUS a
special kind of hearing
to tell them apart.

Not to mention
greater intelligence,
so they could be sure
what the sounds meant.

Some say this is
still a problem.

It also meant limiting
the number of sounds permitted
in any spray-growl-hiss system.
That way there would be less confusion.

After several million years,
a few apes finally
got this right.

At the next Evolutionary
Progress Conference, they told
the other creatures
that they were moving
their spray apparatus upstairs
and combining it
with their biting system.

This was not a hit
with the other creatures,
and these apes had no choice
but to go off on their own.

But the apes didn't mind this at all.

They were proud,
because they were sure
they had solved
all the world's
communication problems
for all time.

First, they set up
a system for making sure
all their "spray-sounds"
were always spoken correctly.

They would enclose
each moan in a little capsule
with a distinctive shape.

Call these little capsules "consonants"
and the moan sounds they contain "vowels,"
and it all makes fairly good sense.

There were rules
for placing capsules together
so they could be spoken correctly.

This also helped you
to tell members of your own clan
from dangerous outsiders.

But many problems remained.

You could only tell
these new sounds apart
if a single clan kept
living closely together
in the same area.

If families and clans
drifted apart, their sounds
and meanings started drifting too.

In some places they are
still drifting even today.

But these apes started
migrating in every direction,
their sound systems constantly
changing as they went.

And this whole process
may have started twice or more
in different places.

There's no way we can know for sure.
Apes don't write histories.

As they wandered,
all their sound-spray
systems scattered to the winds.

And so did the capsules
containing their moans.
Even the systems for making capsules changed.

Apes living in new climes
started inventing new spray-sounds
to describe things.

They launched new technologies,
world outlooks, religions,
all requiring new spray-sounds.

After a few million years,
these apes had another idea.

They were tired of repeating themselves,
and they also needed some system
for recording the growing number
of their possessions.

This is important, said some,
so let's carve it in stone.

It's easier stamping it
in clay, said others.

Still others longed for
a brush or quill,
if only they could
find some paper.

And so after a while
Science Marched On...
finally.

But not without a multitude
of languages and dialects to deal with.

And here it is that Translators enter the scene!

Consider all these different
sound-spray systems, each with
its own way of encapsulating
sound and meaning.

What do they most resemble?

Are they not in some ways
similar to highly sophisticated
hydraulic networks?  Or perhaps
more homespun plumbing systems,
each one built from different materials
according to different rules?

Could this be what translators and interpreters
really are--hydraulic engineers of the mind
and/or pioneering plumbers of meaning,
in the several senses of "to plumb?"

Whatever system of pipes or hydraulic devices
are used in Language A,
translators must build a
comparable system in Language B,
even though the two systems
can never be the same.

The watery element is unavoidable,
since language is still
largely based on spray.

Animals spray everything around
them--people talk at or about
everything around them.

And we become quite upset
when our spray marks prove mistaken
or are violated by others.

If you doubt this, consider how
we still use language today:

To defend turf or property.

To proclaim our rights.

To proclaim our love for--and
property rights in--our mate.

To assert our status.

Perhaps these categories
are now enlarged by political
disputes, intellectual pursuits,
and academic feuding.

But this is debatable.

These spray-sounds can
also cause trouble...

Many creatures assume
the spray-sound they assign
to something
         IS
the thing itself.

Sometimes other creatures
don't agree and insist that
another spray-sound
         IS
that very same thing.

Once this happens,
matters often deteriorate...

Or perhaps two creatures agree
on the spray-sound
but don't agree on
what it means.

This rarely works out much better.

Using language as a form of spray
could also explain many forms of
fundamentalism, literalness, and
congealed ideologies seen around us.

Such behaviors spring from
those still clinging to the spray-using
stage of producing language.

Moreover, spray is still
so much a part of language
that we would still prefer
to stand at a distance
when some people speak.

Human language is quite literally
"glorified" animal spray.

And animal spray is primal language.

     IMPORTANT:

     Author's Apology!!!

But all this must be mistaken!
It is only a joke and
could not possibly be true.

We humans have gone
   _FAR BEYOND_
primitive spraying
of our surroundings!

After all, we have invented
the Arts, Literature, Literary
Criticism, Linguistics, Transformational
Syntax, Universal Grammar,
Deep Structure, Computational
Semantics, Translation Studies,
and many other sublime
and elevated sciences.

Obviously, if such a primitive theory
were true, these advanced sciences
would
       _CERTAINLY_
have long ago
confirmed its validity.

But they have not done so...
they have never remotely
suggested such a theory.

So there is no need for you
to believe any of this,
if you find it
the slightest bit
objectionable.

On the other hand, you
just might want to
make up your own mind...

NOTE: The preceding theory has
appeared in print in two scholarly
publications: the Sci-Tech
Translation Journal (Oct, 1993)
and Vol. VI of the ATA Scholarly
Series (1993).

-----------------------
If you are wondering whether the author is truly serious about
this theory, you might want to read the file SPRAY.TXT for
further information.  It is also contained in his program
"Truth About Translation."  You can select this section from
the "Related Articles" sub-menu.  This program can be
obtained free of charge from the Downloads section of the
author's web site, as shown below.

visit the language home...    http://language.home.sprynet.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Givon <tgivon at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 12:01 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social']

>
>