LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.13 (01) [E]

Tue Jan 13 15:24:59 UTC 2009

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 13 January 2009 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language programming"

Beste Sandy,

You wrote:

*It seems obvious enough that there's some sort of nonsense going on*
*behind the idea of human beings who can't count past three. I suspect it*
*was just European colonials trying to say the natives are inferior.*

Maybe more precise to say there's people who won't count past three (not
"can't" in the sense of being unable). I don't think anybody seriously means
that a normal human being is intellectually unable to count past three (or
four *s*). Every member of "homo sapiens" surely has those capacities. But
capacities they àre in my view, and they're not necessarily exploited. For
thousands of years most people considered it completely useless to be able
to read (in the West until the start of the 20th century in some places); I
can imagine that in pre-agricultural days, being able to calculate _well_,
was marginally more profitable (if you didn't want to become an outcast).
Not only that, but moreover, it wasn't always considered ethically right to
exploit those capacities. I think the Bible contains enough passages to show
that man who calculates, anticipates and reckons is not immediately
considered an example of high moral standards. Just think of the parable of
the Pharisee and the tax collector. Even today, banks, bankers and the
financial world are not yet automatically considered very humane in many
parts of the Islamic world.

*You don't need language in order to count. Perhaps you need a language*
*of some sort (even if it's only the language of sticks and notches) to*
*_communicate_ numbers, but you don't need language to employ numbers as*
*a concept if you're a lone hunter.*

Here's one technique how to count without names for numbers beyond 4. From
http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/lecture3.html<http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/%7Emattom/science+society/lectures/lecture3.html>

(a site maintained by Tomczak, a professor in Australia):

*Counting** without numbers*

*If primitive societies have no need to count and therefore do not develop
names for numbers beyond 4, when did the need to count arise? It could not
have been the large numbers of animals in a herd - the Australian Aborigines
also encountered many kangaroos during their hunting trips and were
satisfied to say that there were many kangaroos, enough to satisfy their
need for food and clothing. The need to establish the exact number of
animals in a herd arises as soon as this herd becomes private property and
can be traded.*
*Does the owner of the herd need words for numbers beyond 4 to be able to
count his animals? Consider this problem: The owner of the herd asks you to
deliver 40 head of sheep to a friend of his and return proof of delivery. He
hands you a clay container, sealed with his personal stamp, containing 40
pebbles.*
*His friend will open the container and count the sheep by picking up one
pebble for every sheep. He will then give you a receipt, for example a clay
tablet with his personal stamp. By handing over the clay tablet to the
vendor you can offer proof that you delivered 40 head of sheep as asked.
Nobody involved in the transaction has to know the names of any numbers or
be able to count. Evidence that this method of "counting" was widespread
through several millennia is found in
**excavations*<http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/%7Emattom/science+society/lectures/illustrations/lecture3/excavations.html>
* from Mesopotamia and retained in the English language: Calculus is Latin
for "pebble", so to calculate means "to move pebbles."*
*This method, sometimes called counting by association, works fine as long
as the number of sheep is not too large. How do you use pebbles to count
very large numbers? You introduce pebbles of **different
shape*<http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/%7Emattom/science+society/lectures/illustrations/lecture3/pebbles.html>
*. This system of counting was in use in many early societies of all
continents.*

The very word "calculus" appears to be etymologically related to this
transaction of pebbles.

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

From: Leslie Decker <leslie at familydecker.org>
Subject: LL-L Numbers

Regarding the subject of numbers, I thought people here would be interested
in reading this blog post and the follow-up discussion on the ways different
English speakers groups things like telephone numbers when saying them.  In
particular, it starts off with many Americans' (myself included--though I
didn't participate in this!) cognitive dissonance when someone says "double"
or "triple"when reading off a number or letter sequence.

http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2007/01/double.html

Leslie

----------

From: M.-L. Lessing <marless at gmx.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.12 (06) [E]

Dear all,

there have been suggestions that language may "format" the brain and now
that it may "program" the brain. What exactly is this
formatting/programming, and what is the difference? (Any neurologists
around?) The formatting metaphor I spontaneously felt to be plausible,
partly because it is a fine metaphor :-) It would mean that any common type
of data can be written in every mind, only would be coded differently. (A
reassuring thought.) But if language "programs" the mind, the consequences
seem to imply actions and the behaviour of the individual. This thought
upsets me more. Please explain this a little more. It is so interesting
because it is all about our idea and image of what we humans are. Nobody
likes to feel so very conditional a being, having your brain branded by the
first words you heard as a baby.

Now as to numbers and counting. I think we should make clear what counting
is. Counting is not a private sense of the right number. This sense exists
in many creatures. Mother duck knows exactly how many ducklings have to be
there before she leaves the nest. When all n-1 are collected around her, she
waits and calls for number n. Does this mean that she can count to 10? My
cousin's cat Emma had 5 young ones, of which one was killed on the road. For
months Emma went about the house and garden moaning and searching the
missing kitten. Could she count 5? There is a sense of number, differing
from a "sense of amount". But real counting should imply the *communication*
of numbers, so that numbers can be denominated exactly. This means that
information as to exact numbers must be important. This can be true in
hunter-gatherers, as somebody remarked here recently; they may have to count
enemies or prey and to communicate this to others. In this case, there must
be names for the higher numbers.

Hartlich!

Marlou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090113/555dd473/attachment.htm>