Where does language come from?
Yes, it is a rhetorical question; but that’s only because I’ve asked it many times before, and have always been given similar answers that address languages coming from different cultures and whatnot, but not its core origin.
So, what did I do? I went on a search for myself, and found this, by Dr. C. George Boeree:
“There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!” (C. George Boeree, 2003)
However, even this new insight into language invention, I still wonder, and find it fascinating, how people originally connected some words with their objects, and even more so, how words were prescribed a meaning, or vice-versa; how terms were appointed to various descriptions.
Did someone one day pick up a carrot and decide it should be called a carrot? What does ‘carrot’ even mean? The miraculous thing that comes out of this ‘naming’ is that now, whenever anyone mentions a ‘carrot’ for whatever reason, most people will know what they’re talking about. But, how, in any other way, does the word ‘carrot’ seem related to the long, pointy, orange vegetable?
To philosophers and to people in general, it is generally accepted knowledge, ironically, that ‘fact’ doesn’t exist. Nothing is certain; humans simply observe, analyse and label things to attempt to understand them. The names and descriptions we prescribe to these things is simply our method of understanding them.
So, in saying that language is a product of how we perceive and understand the world around us, and given that different cultures have different words for the same name (which, again, could be considered an entirely different word?? It’s just another way of identifying the same object in a more relevant way for a different society), doesn’t this mean that, as words and definitions are only a product of human ‘labeling’, and therefore changeable, other human-created ideas and concepts are just as changeable? Perhaps, due to the limits of our understanding, beyond this things are even more vulnerable to change or destruction.
Then again, if what I suggest has any truth, and language bares little truth bar what we make of it, perhaps this is fake! ... Fortunately, it seems that what we make of things is the most important thing.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Passion and Action Beyond Belief
This blog came to me in the half hour after I awoke from a brilliant dream, as I reflected on the depression I felt that a certain part (the only part I initially remembered) of the dream was, in fact, a figment of my subconsciousness, before I gradually remembered the rest of the dream, and was somewhat shocked by its contents. The thing is, no matter what a dream is, in whatever terms, what really matters is its contents; what story it tells you; what it reveals about you that, perhaps, you didn’t know, or had forgotten, about yourself.
My dream – the summary of important parts – I saved a tiny baby goat from the slaughter (the little thing was too cute!) and then seemed to be a spectator to the rest of the sheep slaughter process (well, something about dipping the sheep in water which I didn’t quite understand, but nonetheless...). Finally, I was nearly strangled by a rope tied around a tiger as it was led by its trainer, as it seemed I was in the grounds of a circus training facility of some sort.
The point – I am a big supporter of animal welfare and ethics. Supporter; yes, but the amount I have done about it in the previous couple of years; bordering on zilch. That was not the first dream I’ve had (in recent months) about animals suffering, and I think it’s telling me something ... perhaps not, but that’s what I feel I should take from it. And a lot of the time when it comes down to it, the importance of meaning is not in the actual meaning, but the meaning the spectator makes of it. The meaning (well, one of many that I won’t go into) I am taking from this dream is – I may say I support something and am even passionate about it, but passion does not in any way translate to action if there is no, well, action, involved!
Unfortunately, when it comes to causes people support, our own wavering focus and increasing distraction due to the general chaos of life does not by any account mean other people are paying the cause any more attention, or the people or animals suffering are enduring any less pain. All it means is we, the general population, go on living our own lives increasingly able to forget or ignore.
Of course, a huge credit should go to those people who do work so tirelessly, and many voluntary, to help humans, animals and environments in need.
The question I really seek an answer to, is: How are we supposed to get a message across effectively enough to stimulate action in the wider community, when people are constantly divided over its truth? An added difficulty here lies not in the simple, supportable ‘I believe or disbelieve this theory’, but in the fact that many people will choose their side based on bias, convenience or desire, or in the case that they believe that there is a wrongdoing, something that needs to be changed, will deny that anything can be done on the same bases.
As I was discussing with someone today, the only thing that seems to be progressing in the world is technology; not humanity.
My dream – the summary of important parts – I saved a tiny baby goat from the slaughter (the little thing was too cute!) and then seemed to be a spectator to the rest of the sheep slaughter process (well, something about dipping the sheep in water which I didn’t quite understand, but nonetheless...). Finally, I was nearly strangled by a rope tied around a tiger as it was led by its trainer, as it seemed I was in the grounds of a circus training facility of some sort.
The point – I am a big supporter of animal welfare and ethics. Supporter; yes, but the amount I have done about it in the previous couple of years; bordering on zilch. That was not the first dream I’ve had (in recent months) about animals suffering, and I think it’s telling me something ... perhaps not, but that’s what I feel I should take from it. And a lot of the time when it comes down to it, the importance of meaning is not in the actual meaning, but the meaning the spectator makes of it. The meaning (well, one of many that I won’t go into) I am taking from this dream is – I may say I support something and am even passionate about it, but passion does not in any way translate to action if there is no, well, action, involved!
Unfortunately, when it comes to causes people support, our own wavering focus and increasing distraction due to the general chaos of life does not by any account mean other people are paying the cause any more attention, or the people or animals suffering are enduring any less pain. All it means is we, the general population, go on living our own lives increasingly able to forget or ignore.
Of course, a huge credit should go to those people who do work so tirelessly, and many voluntary, to help humans, animals and environments in need.
The question I really seek an answer to, is: How are we supposed to get a message across effectively enough to stimulate action in the wider community, when people are constantly divided over its truth? An added difficulty here lies not in the simple, supportable ‘I believe or disbelieve this theory’, but in the fact that many people will choose their side based on bias, convenience or desire, or in the case that they believe that there is a wrongdoing, something that needs to be changed, will deny that anything can be done on the same bases.
As I was discussing with someone today, the only thing that seems to be progressing in the world is technology; not humanity.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Boundaries, Barriers and Beliefs
Is it not ironic that in a free and subjective world, each of us is victim to judgment?
How is it that any one person can make a choice or choose a perspective completely of their own when they are constantly enduring the fear of judgment from behind the spectacles of society?
Yes, these are deep statements, but I feel they are important questions to consider. How is true, healthy progress to be made on a global scale when each person’s, or group’s, definition of perfection or a desirable state differs to the point where we all exist on an equal plane with unfulfilled goals, and the people in charge represent not the progress of a state or nation, but the facade which wishes to be seen or believed?
I have recently studied Hard Times by Charles Dickens, and Dickens raises an extremely valid point through this story; we are each, as individuals, not prepared by education to tackle the real world; we are instead molded into beings capable of operating the mechanics of the constructed world. This is not to say that education is a bad thing; to the contrary, I think it is a great thing which shouldn’t be taken for granted. It cannot be denied however, that education authorities often selectively exclude certain theories from their programs, such as religion.
We all deserve the chance to discover for ourselves what is right and wrong or, in the case of many grey areas, at least form our own opinion. Who has the right to say what is and what isn’t, what is real and what is not, when the only sure thing is that nothing can be proven or disproven?
How is it that any one person can make a choice or choose a perspective completely of their own when they are constantly enduring the fear of judgment from behind the spectacles of society?
Yes, these are deep statements, but I feel they are important questions to consider. How is true, healthy progress to be made on a global scale when each person’s, or group’s, definition of perfection or a desirable state differs to the point where we all exist on an equal plane with unfulfilled goals, and the people in charge represent not the progress of a state or nation, but the facade which wishes to be seen or believed?
I have recently studied Hard Times by Charles Dickens, and Dickens raises an extremely valid point through this story; we are each, as individuals, not prepared by education to tackle the real world; we are instead molded into beings capable of operating the mechanics of the constructed world. This is not to say that education is a bad thing; to the contrary, I think it is a great thing which shouldn’t be taken for granted. It cannot be denied however, that education authorities often selectively exclude certain theories from their programs, such as religion.
We all deserve the chance to discover for ourselves what is right and wrong or, in the case of many grey areas, at least form our own opinion. Who has the right to say what is and what isn’t, what is real and what is not, when the only sure thing is that nothing can be proven or disproven?
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Actor Behind the Mask
Masks. A lot of them. What we all wear.
A few days ago, I jotted down a rough paragraph to write this from. It was inspired by something I noticed a while ago that I will explain after the paragraph;
"What is appearance? It is a representation of who we are; but then anyone who sees us judges us on that, and may interpret what they see as something entirely different from what the person intended; and who that person really is. It is because we all see things differently. We see a person with a flaw, and our attention is caught by that flaw. We may even be more apprehensive about approaching that person. There is much truth to the idea that appearance may be a barrier between people."
I jotted down the above paragraph after contemplating some people in my past, and others' pasts that I have heard about. I was surprised to realise, a while ago, that a few people I have become friends with in the past are people who, prior to meeting them, I have observed with negative judgement (I admit to this even though it's very shallow of me.. sometimes I have trouble talking to, or even trusting, people because of how they appear - too many horror movies? :P). The friendships I've formed with these people, and what I have learned about them and their histories, has taught me that appearance, even that which we create ourselves, can be considerably deceptive.
Of course, the problem may simply be that other people are perceiving our appearance differently to how it is intended, as I suggested above.
I suppose a good example of this would be any character in a movie or TV show, and the actor playing them. It's sometimes very surprising for some people to learn that an actor is different from their character (I could even go so far as to say it's sometimes surprising that an actor ISN'T their character, no matter how much we'd wish them to be so; how many movie couples have audiences wished would get married in real life?). Do people act in every day life, perhaps hiding various parts of their personality for fear of judgement? Are we all trapped within the bars of social expectations? (Just to get deep ;)).
Of course, the (sometimes) difference with actors is that they intentionally deceive the public into believing the character they play is an existing person (although it can be slightly disappointing when we realise the actor isn't, in fact, the character they portray.
I hope this wouldn't be the case in real life though; it is sad, and a bad reflection on society, when people fear revealing their true selves. Not to sound totally cliche and corny (although I know I'm going to anyway), but individuality / uniqueness should be cherished. That's how half of our entertainers came to the point where viewers smile and feel excitement simply upon hearing their name or seeing their face. It seems to be a common story in the entertainment industry that many successful actors / actresses / musicians etc had difficult childhoods and youths.
So, really, be nice to everyone, it may be the least likely person that you see that could be the person you are luckiest to meet ;)
A few days ago, I jotted down a rough paragraph to write this from. It was inspired by something I noticed a while ago that I will explain after the paragraph;
"What is appearance? It is a representation of who we are; but then anyone who sees us judges us on that, and may interpret what they see as something entirely different from what the person intended; and who that person really is. It is because we all see things differently. We see a person with a flaw, and our attention is caught by that flaw. We may even be more apprehensive about approaching that person. There is much truth to the idea that appearance may be a barrier between people."
I jotted down the above paragraph after contemplating some people in my past, and others' pasts that I have heard about. I was surprised to realise, a while ago, that a few people I have become friends with in the past are people who, prior to meeting them, I have observed with negative judgement (I admit to this even though it's very shallow of me.. sometimes I have trouble talking to, or even trusting, people because of how they appear - too many horror movies? :P). The friendships I've formed with these people, and what I have learned about them and their histories, has taught me that appearance, even that which we create ourselves, can be considerably deceptive.
Of course, the problem may simply be that other people are perceiving our appearance differently to how it is intended, as I suggested above.
I suppose a good example of this would be any character in a movie or TV show, and the actor playing them. It's sometimes very surprising for some people to learn that an actor is different from their character (I could even go so far as to say it's sometimes surprising that an actor ISN'T their character, no matter how much we'd wish them to be so; how many movie couples have audiences wished would get married in real life?). Do people act in every day life, perhaps hiding various parts of their personality for fear of judgement? Are we all trapped within the bars of social expectations? (Just to get deep ;)).
Of course, the (sometimes) difference with actors is that they intentionally deceive the public into believing the character they play is an existing person (although it can be slightly disappointing when we realise the actor isn't, in fact, the character they portray.
I hope this wouldn't be the case in real life though; it is sad, and a bad reflection on society, when people fear revealing their true selves. Not to sound totally cliche and corny (although I know I'm going to anyway), but individuality / uniqueness should be cherished. That's how half of our entertainers came to the point where viewers smile and feel excitement simply upon hearing their name or seeing their face. It seems to be a common story in the entertainment industry that many successful actors / actresses / musicians etc had difficult childhoods and youths.
So, really, be nice to everyone, it may be the least likely person that you see that could be the person you are luckiest to meet ;)
Friday, January 29, 2010
The World In 3d: A Whole New Perspec- Wait.. really?
I just saw the headline ‘Avatar: Biggest. Film. EVER.’ And it made me wonder what it is about this film that is drawing so many viewers. If I didn’t know better, I may go so far as to suggest there is something hypnotic about the blue stare of Sam Worthington’s humanoid. However, I’m not going to make such a ridiculous suggestion, because their eyes are actually greener in colour; it is just their flesh that glows blue.
Clearly, from the view point of setting / scenery and special effects in general, it is an amazing movie. Visually, it is captivating, even by normal viewing (i.e. for those of us who have only seen the film in 2d, as defeating-the-purpose as that is). However, there have been many other films in the past with scenery and effects just as incredible, and the storyline isn’t exactly original (many comparisons made to Pocahontas and other older films), so what exactly is it about this film?
Is it a case of psychology; we see our everyday lives in 3d, yet the idea of experiencing the same perspective of a fantasy world is compelling? Perhaps, instead of simply being a spectator, it creates the illusion for the audience that they are indeed part of the drama (minus the risk of being killed or the opportunity for that perfect romance). I was taught a while ago that watching a movie isn’t the same as escaping reality; it is simply experiencing another version of it; or a version of another reality. I see a lot of truth in that, since we apply our own memories and experiences to whatever image or animation we see; whatever story we investigate via words, performances or recordings.
So, Avatar is a film that was 15 years in the making, mainly because it was originally designed to be a 3d film, and the technology wasn’t available a few years ago. That’s something that straight away distinguishes this film from the others; it is in its own category, a form of technology that has no competition in its level of advancement. As humans, we are naturally curious about new inventions, technological feats and so on. That’s obviously one of the main reasons for the overwhelming popularity of this film; because it successfully evokes curiosity in those areas.
In saying this, would it be fair to hypothesise that a film could have the most generic, predictable storyline, but with the most advanced special effects possible, could overshadow any other successful film, owing simply to the power of human nature?
Clearly, from the view point of setting / scenery and special effects in general, it is an amazing movie. Visually, it is captivating, even by normal viewing (i.e. for those of us who have only seen the film in 2d, as defeating-the-purpose as that is). However, there have been many other films in the past with scenery and effects just as incredible, and the storyline isn’t exactly original (many comparisons made to Pocahontas and other older films), so what exactly is it about this film?
Is it a case of psychology; we see our everyday lives in 3d, yet the idea of experiencing the same perspective of a fantasy world is compelling? Perhaps, instead of simply being a spectator, it creates the illusion for the audience that they are indeed part of the drama (minus the risk of being killed or the opportunity for that perfect romance). I was taught a while ago that watching a movie isn’t the same as escaping reality; it is simply experiencing another version of it; or a version of another reality. I see a lot of truth in that, since we apply our own memories and experiences to whatever image or animation we see; whatever story we investigate via words, performances or recordings.
So, Avatar is a film that was 15 years in the making, mainly because it was originally designed to be a 3d film, and the technology wasn’t available a few years ago. That’s something that straight away distinguishes this film from the others; it is in its own category, a form of technology that has no competition in its level of advancement. As humans, we are naturally curious about new inventions, technological feats and so on. That’s obviously one of the main reasons for the overwhelming popularity of this film; because it successfully evokes curiosity in those areas.
In saying this, would it be fair to hypothesise that a film could have the most generic, predictable storyline, but with the most advanced special effects possible, could overshadow any other successful film, owing simply to the power of human nature?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Animania
I make no secret of it; Walt Disney was (and still is) my biggest idol and inspiration. While my writing style isn't quite the same, it is something like his position that I dream of being in (and I'm not entirely talking about the wealth ;)).
As I begin this paragraph, it is about 5 hours later. Mainly because the power went out for 3 or so hours. When sitting in darkness, one has plenty of time to think; and sing the numerous Disney songs remembered from childhood (and more recently), but that's another story :)
As I begin this paragraph, it is about 5 hours later. Mainly because the power went out for 3 or so hours. When sitting in darkness, one has plenty of time to think; and sing the numerous Disney songs remembered from childhood (and more recently), but that's another story :)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Media Frenzy
This was originally included in the post dedicated to Haiti, but on consideration I thought it might be nicer to keep my thoughts separate. So, here is the new post.
At times like this, I find I start to think about the global community. I mentioned in a previous post how, at certain times and in certain places it feels like people are divided more so, and more definitely, than they would be usually. It seems to be the complete opposite when disaster strikes; people bond at times like this.
At times like this, I find I start to think about the global community. I mentioned in a previous post how, at certain times and in certain places it feels like people are divided more so, and more definitely, than they would be usually. It seems to be the complete opposite when disaster strikes; people bond at times like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)