Sociological Linguistics

Patrick C. Ryan proto-language at email.msn.com
Sat May 22 16:02:23 UTC 1999


[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Joat and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <JoatSimeon at aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 11:24 PM

>>Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>> My own studies and common sense decree that, at some point after the onset
>> of linguistic communication, languages were simpler than they are now; and
>> hence, less explicitly expressive.

>Joat responded:

> -- irrelevant to the present discussion, as all extant and historically
> recorded languages, as well as those which can be reconstructed with any
> degree of confidence (like PIE) are equally "expressive", ie., basically
> equally efficient as means of communication.

Pat rejoinds:

What you wrote but conveniently have deleted from your present posting was:
"All they intended to do was talk, and they did -- and _you can talk just as
effectively in any language, *in any era*_ of the human race (emphasis
added)."

My comments were relevant to what you wrote whether you can see it or not.
Whether you agree or not, that it what is irrelevant.

The research that is currently being performed now on the origins of
language suggests strongly that language began very simply, as calls and
gestures, which were gradually perfected into language --- unless, of
course, you believe that God bestowed fully developed language on Adam,
which belief would disqualify you from any rational discussion of the topic.

Joat continued:

> Languages are more or less useful for communication according to their
> degree of ubiquity or social status; which is to say, for non-linguistic
> reasons.

> Eg., English is not spoken more widely than Serbian because it's in any
> way a "better" language, but simply due to historical accident.

Pat responds:

Sociologically oriented people just simply seem to be unable to stay away
from terms like "better". I have asserted that early language, for any
non-believer, would have had to have gone through a stage that was less
expressive (more ambiguous) than languages of which we currently have
documented information. This has nothing to do with its "useful"ness. It
does not mean that its was 'worse'. It just means that it was different. Is
that really so hard to understand?

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)



More information about the Indo-european mailing list