LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.12 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 12 January 2009 - Volume 06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.12 (01) [E]

> From: Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
> Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.11 (02) [E]

>     This is a very important string. I cannot immediately motivate my
> thesis, but I know I am not alone in my assurance that language
> 'programs' the Mind, to its possessor's great advantage or otherwise.

I don't believe it for a moment! Time to motivate your thesis if you
can, Mark  :)

>     For a modern example, until Einstein developed the concept of a
> 'Local Frame of Reference', Classical Newtonian Physics was at a loss
> to explain phenomena already subject to observation.

But what's that got to do with language? The language involved (let's
say German in Einstein's case?) has nothing to do with the concepts. If
you were saying that Newtonian physics couldn't explain the precession
of Mercury's orbit because the explanation couldn't be expressed in
English but Einstein managed to explain it because it could be expressed
in German, then I might agree that language programs the mind. But it's
not the case.

> Sandy, you  ultimately wrote:
>
> > Re Bushmen, I was somewhat wrong, they happen to count to four (not
> > three) and then say many. Maybe their system matches the five
> fingers
> > of one hand, with which they may want to sign those numbers...
>
> And:
>
> Traditionally, Bushmen are hunter-gatherers, so their language is
> probably still rooted in that stage. Once agriculture took off, the
> notion of "property" must have boomed, making new ideas necessary...

I didn't write any of that! Nor would I have, even ultimately.
Especially not the bit about being wrong  :)

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.

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.

I think much of this idea of language "programming the mind" is about
the way people tend to inflate the importance of their own subject in
their minds. Mathematicians tend to think that maths is everything and
everything is maths, geographers tend to think similarly about geography
(I know this because I've had this discussion with a geographer!) and
linguists tend to think language is everything.

> BTW It may be the elevation & the thin atmosphere of our Highveld, but
> not a few of European stock with young eyes can see & are on record as
> having seen from here the four moons of Jupeter with the unaided eye.

Yes, as I said, I wouldn't have seen this as unlikely. I suspect that
given good atmosphere and youthful eyesight you could also see the
crescent of Venus. I thought I could when I was a teenager, though
others assured me I must be imagining it!

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.12 (01) [E]

> From: Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
> Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.11 (02) [E]
>
> Mark:
>
> The Bushmen I know can certainly count beyond three. Their system is
> decimal as I can understand. We all have ten fingers, but their
> numeral terminology goes up to twenty. Well we have toes also. Beyond
> that they go up in multiples of men under the same system. What I
> can't understand is the development in the Middle-East of numerology
> in base 12 & base sixty.

I missed this bit but had meant to answer it.

Bases 12 and 60 have a mathematical motivation much more sensible than
finger and toe counts, because the most difficult of the four basic
mathematical operations is division and 12 can be divided evenly by more
numbers than ten.

Twelve divides by 2, 3, 4 and 6, as opposed to 10 dividing by just 2 and
5. I think the existence of base 60 does suggest this as the motivation,
because it's as if someone thought about the fact that five was excluded
from division in base 12, but multiply 12 by five and get base 60: then
you can divide by all integers up to 6.

Of course this many numerals begins to put a strain on the memory,
otherwise they'd surely have included 7 by using base 420  :)

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language programming

Sandy:

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.


I often think that too. And then I come across (reliable?) data that seem to
support the claim that Australian languages range in counting between up to
3 and up to 6; e.g.

Alyawarr:
1. anyent [ʌˈɲəntʰ]
2. atherr [ʌ'tθəɾə]
3. irrpety [iɾ'pitʃ]
4. irrpetyap [ir'pitʃʌp] (lit.: 'a few' ) 5. akngerr [ʌk'ŋəɾə]   (lit.:
'many' )
6. akngerr innga [ʌk'ŋə in'ŋʌ] (lit.: 'very many' )

Anmatyerr:
1. (a)nyent [(ʌ)ˈɲəntʰ]
2. atherr [ʌ'tθəɾə]
3. urrpety [uɾpitʃ], rrpwety [ɾpwitʃ] (lit.: 'a few' )
4. akngerr [ʌk'ŋəɾə]   (lit.: 'many' )

Eastern Arrernte:
1. anyente [ʌˈɲəntʰə]
2. atherre [ʌ'tθəɾə]
3. urrpetye [uɾpitʃə] (lit.: 'three or more' )

Ngaanyatjarra:
1. kutju [kucu]
2. kutjarra [kucar]
3. mankurrpa [maŋkurpa]
4. kutjarra kutjarra ( 2 + 2  )
5. mara [maɻa ]
6. pirni [piɻni] (lit.: 'many' )

[Source: http://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/numeral/

However, the data are scarce and many of the languages are moribund or
extinct. I don't know if we can really be sure that there was not some other
system that allowed counting beyond that, such as while sharing food (e.g.
roots, berries or grubs). Furthermore, I don't know how well especially
early European researchers understood those languages.

When you look comparatively at the Eskimo-Aleut family it looks as though
counting up to 1000 is native and above it you deal with European loans.
However, in today's reality loan numerals are much more widespread, even
below 1000. Listen to Greenlandic Inuktitut, for instance, and you will hear
Danish numerals flying around all over the place, especially in combination
with prices and measures, i.e., within "European contexts". Let this trend
continue and people will begin claiming that those languages can only count
up to X or Y.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090112/b3cd7187/attachment.htm>