LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.18 (02) [EN]

Wed Aug 18 20:46:06 UTC 2010

=====================================================
*L O W L A N D S - L - 18 August 2010 - Volume 02*

lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk>

Subject: LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.17 (05) [EN]

> From: Mike Morgan <mwmbombay at gmail.com>
> Subject: Mike Morgan <mwmbombay at gmail.com>
>
> I think a misunderstanding has crept unawares into the discussion of
> language origins and sign language
>
> Although there seems to be little question that some great apes have
> acquired a certain degree of faculty with sign VOCABULARY (exactly
> what degree is maybe still in question), I am fairly certain that they
> have NEVER been shown to possess sign LANGUAGE.

Yes, of course. The only sentence I've ever seen an ape make was a young
bonobo in a documentary who signed with British signs, "doll in cup".
This was the only example offered in an hour-long documentary. The
bonobo was playing with a doll and a cup at the time, and the signs were
clear enough for it to be quite startling if you know the language. But
thinking about it afterwards you realise that the signs aren't in BSL
order and the sentence makes no sense as the doll wouldn't have fit in
the cup.

The ape was very young and the researches assumed that her progress
would continue as it had begun, so what happened after that, I wonder?
But researchers back then were very keen to put forward the idea that
apes had language, I think, even if it meant pretending they had more
evidence than they did.

I also wonder about claims of apes being able to understand English
sentences. Researchers obviously have to spend a long time with the apes
and it must be very difficult to remain impartial... and then you think
of your friends who insist that their dog or cat "understands every word
they say" (but not "sit", apparently :)

> ALL that said, I have no doubt that the acquisition of language by
> mankind involved both vocal speech and manual signs developing
> equally ... and taught exactly that when I was at Addis Ababa U,with
> ድንቅ ነሽ aka Lucy (or a reasonable facsimile) lying peacefully just down
> the road a block.

Expressing a strong opinion or being near an appropriate object doesn't
lend credence to a scientific theory.

Heather originally said that the Fox P2 gene originally resulted in fine
finger control, and fine control of areas like the mouth came later.
This suggests that they didn't develop equally.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>

Subject: LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.18 (01) [EN]

From: clarkedavid8 at aol.com

Subject: LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.17 (03) [EN]

All geologists agree that the current ice age never ended and that we are
still in it. The current interstatial (warm period) began around 12,000 BC
and will probably end soon (although not quite as suddenly as in the
blockbuster film made on the subject a few years ago). On past experience,
the ice will advance to just north of London and there will be a wide belt
of tundra to the south of it. Global warming is not the problem. I think the
north African countries should be welcomed into the European Union with open
arms.

In fact, ice ages are a quite unusual phenomenon in geological history
(there was another one in the Permian), it's just that we happen to be in
one and it's still going on. The earth has usually (outside occasional ice
ages) been quite a lot warmer than it is now.

It's getting off-topic-er and off-topic-er, but: What's "Global warming is
not the problem." supposed to mean? Climate change is indeed a natural
phenomenon that has always happened throughout the whole history of the
world and the world has always survived (even the most apocalyptic climate
changes following cosmic impacts etc.). From a geological point of view on a
geological scale of time the man-made global warming will just be a small
bump in the time/temperature graph (and a steep fall in the
time/biodiversity graph). But we are living now and here and we care about
our puny little human lives and those of our children, grand-children etc.
When the ice age ended the sea level rose about 100 m. The sea level rise in
the 21st century will be ridiculously small compared to that number. But the
difference is that today there are cities and villages on our coasts with
millions of people living in them. These didn't exist in the ice age. The
ice age people were nomads and the water rose so slowly they hardly even
noticed that they retracted to higher lying areas. Many species went extinct
with the onset of the ice age and many went extinct with the end of the ice
age (or any of the previous ice ages). From a geological point of views they
are just some fossils, but here and now we are speaking about sweet little
furry buddies with big eyes and a sad look on their face: "please sir, Mr
Human, do not extinguish me!" I never saw a dodo, I never saw a Tasmanian
tiger, I never saw one of Steller's sea cows or a passenger pigeon or a
great auk. They are all gone. Their departure did no harm to humans, but
still I'd rather live in a world in which they are not gone. And if my
grandchildren one day ask: "Grampa, where are all the animals gone?" I don't
want to answer them: "Well, it would have been uncool to drive to buy my
morning rolls with a bike! I needed to drive the SUV so my neighbors don't
think I'm poor or a silly tree hugger! Priorities, my son, priorities!"

Global warming is a fact of the present. I don't know the data for other
areas, but there is temperature data for Germany since 1761. The data shows
that the middle temperature was stable at about 7.8 °C until 1900. Since
then the middle temperature has risen to 9.3 °C and is constantly rising
with 0.3 °C per decade since 1960. I don't think it's in any way meaningful
to think that this development can be stopped by a new glacial. This new
glacial period could still be 10,000 years away. I don't think the European
union will last that long.

Marcus Buck

=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498<http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#%21/group.php?gid=118916521473498>
=========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20100818/5d3877be/attachment.htm>