Conference back40::soapbox

    Ok, Joe - ask your question here.
    

    	Do you think we are supposed to stick solely to the original 
    	meanings of words, or are we supposed to allow for new meanings
    	to develop?

    Joe, we can't stick 'solely' to the original meanings of words.
    If we did that, we'd be speaking some early form of German (with 
    generous doses of Latin) here, I suppose.

    Our language changes over time.  The people who speak it make
    the changes, and eventually the changes become part of the language.

    Next question.

    	Great.  Then why make such an issue about the origins of the
    	word 'hysterics' when your claimed use isn't even listed in
    	any of the usages in the dictonary?  Our language has changed.
    	You preach that.  Only a thin-skinned feminist looking to be
    	offended would consider 'hysterics' to be an insult.

re: "Do you think we are supposed to stick solely to the original 
meanings of words, or are we supposed to allow for new meanings to
develop?"

Why don't we just do whatever they do over in woman-notes?

Pete 8^O

    RE: .4  Joe Oppelt

    / Great.  

    Why, thank you.  :)

    / Then why make such an issue about the origins of the word 'hysterics' 
    / when your claimed use isn't even listed in any of the usages in the 
    / dictonary?  

    'Hysteria' was derived from the Latin word for uterus, which means
    that it was designed to describe women in particular, not men and
    women in general.  The reason given in my dictionary states that
    hysteria was 'originally thought to occur more often in women than
    in men.'  As I understand it, hysteria was once believed to be a
    condition which occurred because of certain problems with a woman's 
    uterus.

    Now the word 'hysteria' is defined as 'wild and uncontrolled feeling'.
    Although the term 'mass hysteria' is sometimes used to describe large
    numbers of people, it's still less usual for a man to be described
    as 'hysterical' because our culture still has very strong stereotypes
    about women as being more 'emotional' than men.  

    A 'stereotype' is defined as 'a fixed or conventional notion or
    conception.'  Women are stereotyped as 'emotional', so the word
    which is used to express the condition of 'wild, and uncontrolled
    feeling' is more often assigned to women. Thus, women are usually 
    the ones described (as individuals) as being 'hysterical' or having
    'hysterics'.  

    / Our language has changed.  You preach that.  Only a thin-skinned 
    / feminist looking to be offended would consider 'hysterics' to be 
    / an insult.

    Actually, crying 'hysterics' in response to anyone's argument could
    be considered insulting, especially when the person (male or female)
    has taken great care to explain their position in detail.

    When someone says 'That term is insulting', though, it's not the same
    thing as saying 'I FEEL insulted'.  Insulting language isn't required
    to elicit specific types of responses from every recipient of a term 
    in order for the language to be considered 'insulting'.

    For example, one could easily say that calling someone 'Pond Scum'
    is insulting, yet some people don't really respond to that term much
    if they've never been around ponds.  The word 'scum' gives a hint as 
    to what the nature of 'pond scum' might be, but we also have a term
    called 'soap scum' in our language.  Surely, 'soap scum' isn't as
    disgusting or insulting as a term like 'pond scum' might be.  But
    the point is that "Pond Scum" can be called insulting language whether
    a specific individual actually takes insult to it or not.

    Many people in our culture now recognize that women's arguments are
    often greeted with accusations that these arguments are mere 'hysterics'.
    Given the continued existence of negative stereotypes about women being
    'emotional', calling a woman 'hysterical' or saying that her arguments
    are 'hysterics' is recognized by many to be part of this stereotype.
    The fact that the word 'hysteria' was invented to apply to women only
    adds to the very real perception that this word is most often used to
    apply to women today, even though dictionaries now carefully define
    'hysteria' as being gender-neutral.

    In other words, regardless of what dictionaries say about 'hysteria',
    it's still used more often to describe women (and much of this has to
    do with unfair stereotypes which still exist about women.)

    So.  When someone tells you that it's a sexist slur to greet a woman's
    argument with the exclamation "Hysterics!", there is much to support
    this notion (as described above.)

    You can choose to believe that it has nothing to do with unfair
    stereotypes about women, but if you know that some regard the word
    as a sexist slur, then be prepared for their perception of you as
    someone who intentionally and knowingly invokes sexist slurs.

    It's like any other word which has acquired a reputation for being
    a racial/ethnic/etc. slur.  You may believe you have a very good
    reason for continuing to use such a slur to describe someone who
    just happens to be in a particular race, gender or ethnic group.
    If they have identified the word as being a slur, it's a good idea
    to be aware of it before you use the word frequently to describe them.

    Isn't there some other word you could try using as an expletive in
    response to the careful arguments other people make?  If I can be
    of help in this, just let me know.

          <<< Note 583.6 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

>    In other words, regardless of what dictionaries say about 'hysteria',
>    it's still used more often to describe women 
    
    	You attribute it to unfair stereotypes.  I suggest that women 
    	are more prone to utilizing hysterics in their arguments.  It's
    	just my observation, and you contribute to my perception.
    
    	Would you prefer I use "irrationally emotional"?  Does that
    	phrase's etymology protect me from sexist charges?

	wow..... joe, it's all the same, no matter how you word it. i guess i
just don't see women prone to doing that.


Glen

This is a stupid topic.

Mods: Isn't there some rule we can bend to get rid of this goddam thing?

I received this in the mail today - I've seen bits of it before, I know not 
where :^)

\Chele




Carpe per diem
Seize the money.

Harlez-vous francais?
(Can you drive a French motorcycle?)

Ex post fucto
(Lost in the mail)

Idios amigos
(We're wild and crazy guys!)

Veni, VIPi, Vici
(I came; I'm a very important person; I conquered)

J'y suis, J'y pestes
(I can stay for the weekend)

Cogito Eggo sum
(I think; therefore, I am a waffle)

Rigor Morris
(The cat is dead)

Respondez s'il vous plaid
(Honk if you're Scots)

Que sera, serf
(Life is feudal)

Le roi est mort. Jive le roi
(The King is dead.  No kidding.)

Posh mortem
(Death styles of the rich and famous)

Pro Bozo publico
(Support your local clown)

Monage a trois
(I am three years old)

Felix navidad
(Our cat has a boat)

Haste cuisine
(Fast French food)

Veni, vidi, vice
(I came, I saw, I partied)

Quip pro quo
(A fast retort)

Aloha oy!
(Love; greetings; farewell; from such a pain you should
never know)

Mazel ton!
(Lots of luck)

Apres Moe, le deluge
(Larry and Curly get wet)


Porte-Kochere
(Sacramental wine)

Iic liebe rich
(I'm really crazy about having dough)

Fui generis
(What's mine is mine)

VISA la France
(Don't leave chateau without it)

Ca va sans dirt
(And that's not gossip)

Merci rien
(Thanks for nothin')

Amicus puriae
(Platonic friend)

L'etat, c'est moo
(I'm bossy around here)

L'etat, c'est Moe
(All the world's a stooge)

    
    She's the Queeeeeeen......
    of next unseeeeeeeen.....
    
    (no, not you Chele...)
    
    -b

    RE: .7  Joe Oppelt

    // In other words, regardless of what dictionaries say about 'hysteria',
    // it's still used more often to describe women 
    
    / You attribute it to unfair stereotypes.  I suggest that women 
    / are more prone to utilizing hysterics in their arguments.  It's
    / just my observation, and you contribute to my perception.

    You made a big deal out of getting my attention for your question
    so you could say this, right?  :)

    / Would you prefer I use "irrationally emotional"?  Does that
    / phrase's etymology protect me from sexist charges?

    No.  You're a bigot either way, actually.

    Remember that 'anger' is also an emotion.  When men go ballistic
    with insults and accusations about politicians or people who
    disagree with them, they're being emotional *and* they're making 
    emotional arguments.

    Congress does this constantly, and all the political topics in
    Soapbox are filled with angry emotional arguments.  Both arenas 
    have a male majority.  As long as 'anger' still counts as an
    actual emotion, men are stuck with being noticeably emotional
    on this planet.

    Moderators, if you can find some other topic to place these replies,
    it's more than fine with me.
    
    I doubt that this topic will 'take off'.

    
    Ban language.

Nah, there's enough grunting in here already, without disposing of language 
entirely :^0



\C

 Me?  I like language..so much in fact, I use it everyday!

>This is a stupid topic.
    
    It's less stupid than many. Things to lick today, etc.
    In fact, it has the possibility of being a positive addition to our
    fine conference.
    
>Mods: Isn't there some rule we can bend to get rid of this goddam thing?
    
    Sorry, wrong conference for rule bending by the mods.

    
    
    Hey, the topic of things to lick today was a fine topic.  It was in
    keeping with the foolishness of what was going on at the time.
    
    
    Mike

    <--- disk space/cpu cycle waster!

    .4
    
    > Joe, we can't stick 'solely' to the original meanings of words.
    > If we did that, we'd be speaking some early form of German (with
    > generous doses of Latin) here, I suppose.
    
    Actually, no.  Both German and Latin are Indo-European languages, whose
    parent, known as proto-Indo-European, was probably closer to Sanskrit
    than to either German or Latin.  IF only "original" meanings are
    allowed, we'd be speaking proto-Indo-European.

    re: "Language." topic title
    
    <Hand raised, waving wildly in the air>
    
    Horshack:  "Oh!  Oh!!Oh!! Oh!!Oh!!Oh!!"
    
    Sooo-woh, why is there a period after the word "Language" in the
    topic title?  Is this a well-formed sentence?
    
    Thank you, thank you, class dismissed, and have a safe drive home.
    
    Mister Penguin

    
    Have you noticed that the English noters put periods after their names?
    
    
    

    
      Language is a bad idea.
    
      bb

    
    "Language is a virus."
    
    	- Laurie Anderson
    

          <<< Note 583.12 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

>    / Would you prefer I use "irrationally emotional"?  Does that
>    / phrase's etymology protect me from sexist charges?
>
>    No.  You're a bigot either way, actually.
    
    	What manipulation of the language brings you to this conclusion?
    	You have shown us that you are going to see bigotry when you
    	want to whether it is there or not.

>    Remember that 'anger' is also an emotion.  When men go ballistic
>    with insults and accusations about politicians or people who
>    disagree with them, they're being emotional *and* they're making 
>    emotional arguments.
    
    	And such a display could rightly be called hysterical.  You
    	don't have to be afraid of the word, you know...

    	-------------
    
    	Just a question for you, Suzanne, that is a little off topic
    	but worth bringing up.
    
    	How many replies did you consume accusing Mark of cowardice
    	because his 'cronies' were supporting him?  Eventhough it
    	was shown to you that he did not solicit that support, you
    	complained that he did not call for an end to that support.
    
    	It has been brought to my attention that you have cross-posted
    	this into womannotes.  (34.260)  Surely you can understand 
    	how such an action is easily seen as a cowardly attempt to solicit 
    	your own cronies.  Now, maybe that would be understandable under
    	different circumstances, but after all your indignant posturing
    	yesterday, one has to wonder about this obvious trolling for
    	high-fives and all... (Maybe not high-fives, being WN and all...
    	Probably more like hugs and tissues.)

    
    
    Perhaps BJ's has a bulk sale on Midol for all her cronies????
    

and maybe they have some exlax for you..... 

    
    >and maybe they have some exlax for you.....
    
    
    THHHHCREEEEEEEAAAAAAAMM!!!
    
    Good Note!!!
    
    <grin>.... <grin>... <grin>...

    I saw a recommendation in another conference that the word "testeria"
    by used to suggest the male version of what is implied  by "hysteria".
    I find it a clever use of language, which should admirably serve to
    heighten consciousness about the gender-specific use of such words.
    Sauce for the ganders, as it were.
    
    DougO

Is it OK to use the word hysteresis?

	Andy, you missed both the :-) & ;-). 


Glen

    RE: .25  Joe Oppelt

    /// Would you prefer I use "irrationally emotional"?  Does that
    /// phrase's etymology protect me from sexist charges?

    // No.  You're a bigot either way, actually.
    
    / What manipulation of the language brings you to this conclusion?
    / You have shown us that you are going to see bigotry when you
    / want to whether it is there or not.

    Joe, you describe women as a group as "more prone to utilizing
    hysterics in their arguments" and you offer "irrationally emotional" 
    as another way of expressing this view.

    This is bigotry, pure and simple.  You're implying that you do not
    regard women (as a group) as being rational human beings.

    If you were to say that you don't regard African Americans as being
    rational human beings, you'd be seen as a bigot in that situation, too.

    // Remember that 'anger' is also an emotion.  When men go ballistic
    // with insults and accusations about politicians or people who
    // disagree with them, they're being emotional *and* they're making 
    // emotional arguments.
    
    / And such a display could rightly be called hysterical.  You
    / don't have to be afraid of the word, you know...

    Such displays from men are very, very, very frequent, which makes
    any statement about women being "more prone" to hysterics or
    emotional arguments grossly inaccurate.

    The degree of inaccuracy is so gross in fact, that such statements
    about women amount to bigotry against women.
    
    / It has been brought to my attention that you have cross-posted
    / this into womannotes.  (34.260) 
    
    I cross-posted my response to you in a note which serves as a
    repository (more or less) for sexism.  I haven't been a very
    active participant in Womannotes for several months (and I haven't
    even checked to see if anyone has responded to my posting yet.)
    
    Your blatant statements of bigotry were worth posting in a repository
    for sexism in Womannotes, so I did.  I haven't checked yet, but most
    likely I will actually take more heat for this than you will in =wn=
    for calling you a 'bigot'.  I'm not even sure that my note will be 
    allowed to stand for that reason.  I'll find out later today, I guess.

    
    Suzanne, you have far to much time on your hands.

	What does time look like when it is on your hands? How can one go about
getting some?

          <<< Note 583.32 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

>    This is bigotry, pure and simple.  You're implying that you do not
>    regard women (as a group) as being rational human beings.
    
    	Nope.  It says that I see women as being more prone to
    	hysterics.  If one group does it 1% of the time and another
    	does it 2%, one is more prone, but ceretainly I do not see
    	it as an absolute defining characteristic.  Your attempt
    	to make it an absolute as you do is bigotry of your own
    	making.  Don't lay that baby on my doorstep.  

>    If you were to say that you don't regard African Americans as being
>    rational human beings, you'd be seen as a bigot in that situation, too.
    
    	I will not defend your false characterization of my position.
    	However I will use your example to demonstrate my point.
    
    	Blacks statistically have more out-of-wedlock kids.  Therefore
    	my observation is that they are more prone to it.  In no way
    	do I say that all blacks are born out of wedlock, but using your
    	treatment of my statements, that would be the conclusion you
    	are making.

>    Such displays from men are very, very, very frequent, which makes
>    any statement about women being "more prone" to hysterics or
>    emotional arguments grossly inaccurate.
    
    	It's more than just emotional though, Suzanne.  Look at the
    	dictionary.  It says OVERLY emotional.  I've already pointed
    	out why I see certain arguments as being overly emotional,
    	and it doesn't matter if you say them or Meg, or Dick Binder.
    	Yes, Suzanne, 'overly' is in the eye of the beholder.  
    
    	If you have a problem with that, take it to the language topic.
    	:^)

    My time has a gold case with a white face covered by a clear lens. 
    There are 6 hands that allow me to decipher the relative temporal state in 
    which I reside.  This is affixed to my wrist via a band rendered from
    the hide of some extremely rare amphibian culled from its natural
    habitat for the sole purpose to please me.  HTH.
    
    Brian

    
    
    
    
    -.-.  .-.  .-  .--.

    re: .36
    
     <snicker>

    RE: .35  Joe Oppelt

    // This is bigotry, pure and simple.  You're implying that you do not
    // regard women (as a group) as being rational human beings.
    
    / Nope.  It says that I see women as being more prone to hysterics. 

    You do this while admitting that men's angry rhetoric against 
    politicians and ideological opponents is something you ALSO
    regard as hysterics.

    Considering that most angry political rhetoric comes from men,
    it is obviously quite false that women are more prone to such
    arguments than men are.  

    You keep SAYING that women are more prone to such arguments, but
    you don't back it up with anything more than 'Hey, it's my perception'
    in spite of facts to the contrary.

    Well - hey, Joe, you are a bigot.  Pure and simple.

    Part of the bigotry against women involves the negative stereotype that 
    women are more prone to being "irrational" and/or more prone to using
    hysterics in arguments.  It's clearly not true, and it's not enough
    to simply state that it's your 'perception'.

    If you said 'It is my perception that African Americans are more prone
    to being irrational than white people', it would be bigotry as well.

    	Hey, Suzanne.
    
    
    	last word.

    Well, Joe, I did finally check the topic in Womannotes where I had
    deposited my note to you last night - no one's having a big discussion
    about it, you'll be glad to know.

    The topic is a repository for sexism (as I mentioned to you earlier)
    and folks there have agreed that it is a good place to store examples
    of overt sexism from any place it happens to be found.

    Just thought you'd like to know that Joe Oppelt isn't being discussed
    there.

    	hmmm...  Maybe I should have said 'penultimate word' in .40...

    Joe, you had expressed concerns earlier about a note to you that
    was posted in Womannotes last night and I told you that I would
    check on it for you later.  So I did.  I agree with you that
    it wouldn't be fair for us to discuss you in particular in a 
    forum where you don't participate.  No one's doing that - I just
    thought you'd like to know.

    If you'd like me to respond to your notes elsewhere (outside this
    topic) from now on, I'd be happy to do so.

    [By the way, I did see you mention my name in various places in
    the file in the past couple of days, too, and if I had intended to 
    berate you about these mentions, I'd have done so by now.]  :)

    	Last word.

 nope, sorry.

 last

 word

    <whistling>
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    									word

    
    
    re -[...]  
    
    you forgot to say thank you!

I think that since the time when a number of scholars of language sat down
and made their respective language effectively hard and fast by writing it
down for posterity in a dictionary, it should not change or evolve.  Many
of the said changes are merely fads or fashions of a transitional nature,
and because of that should not leave a permanent or indelible mark on the
language.  A particularly bad effect would be to include slang or erroneous
definitions of words, which would ultimately render the language unusable.
I'd also like to see language freed from the grasp of people who seem hell
bent on creating a type of newspeak, such as the self appointed thought-
police of the Politically Correct fraternity, who would seek to outlaw words
they deem to be offensive or unsuitable and replace them with alternative
words which either lose their meaning, or degenerate into gobbledegook.  A
particularly sad example is the hijacking of the word `gay' for homosexual,
and a notably stupid example is `differently abled' for a person with a
disability of sorts, as well as the multitude of words that have been
`amended' for sexist/racist connotations.

Language should be left alone, otherwise it will grow too large and complex
to sustain itself.  The time and effort of people who seek to change it would
be better spent on educating people not to take offence where none is intended.
Some people may not like the sound of this, but, if language changes to suit
fashion or politics become the norm, it will only be a matter of time before
the current proponents of such changes become the victims of some new and
trendy political crusade to alter language.

A language isn't `free' to evolve, because it would become open to manipulation
by people who seek to change it to limit the expression of others whose
opinions are different.  George Orwell's `1984' is a good example of how
horribly wrong things can go.

Chris.

   .51  Rubbish.  If languages didn't evolve, we'd still be making
	grunting sounds.  Language will never be rendered "unusable"
	through evolution, imo.

    
    	Di, didn't you ever see the movie "Cyborg"?
    
    	They apparently hadn't gotten to the evolution stage when that
    	was made.
    

    
>    	Di, didn't you ever see the movie "Cyborg"?

	nope.  it's one of the myriad ways in which i'm deficient.

    .51
    
    What .52 said, in spades.  The idea that language should not evolve is
    codswallop.  Were language to stagnate as you propose, we'd lack such
    important words as "television," "radio," and the ever-popular
    "Trojan�."
    
    On the other hand, if language stagnated, "ain't" would be used
    correctly, as a contraction of "am I not?"  Might not be a bad
    tradeoff.  We could all learn to speak Latin, which was the basis on
    which those estimable scholars tried to formulate English rules.

    
    Youse guys are good talkers.
    

    
    
    and they speak gooder english that alla youse...
    

    Vous �tes des hostie'd blokes en sacrament!

None of the replies to my note convince me that a language should evolve;
we weren't making grunting noises at the times when dictionaries were
compiled, words like `television' are technical terms, and slang words
and usage will always be around.  In the latter case, I don't see why
contemporary slang should be allowed to influence the language as a whole.
The net effect of every item of slang, street talk, regional dialect and
word misuse due to illiteracy would be to bloat the language with numerous
words with the same meaning and many examples of words with many different
meanings.  This situation already exists to a certain degree, if it gets
much worse then the English language will become virtually impossible to
learn or teach.

Chris.

    
    
    Hey man!!! You dissin' me cause of the way I talk???
    

    .59
    
    > None of the replies to my note convince me...
    
    That should be, as made plain by those who formulated the rules, "None
    of the replies ... convinces me..."  The word "none" is a shortening of
    "not one."  If you want to push for standardizing the language, then
    learn to use the standard forms.
    
    > ... words like `television' are technical terms ...
    
    No, they're not.  More than half of all words in English derive from
    Latin roots, and may of those can trace their heritage back to Greek. 
    "Television" is a perfectly acceptable Graeco-Latin word, and it isn't
    any more a technical term than "binoculars," which latter has come to
    describe a particular type of field glass, one making use of prisms to
    shorten the optical path.
    
    > I don't see why
    > contemporary slang should be allowed to influence the language as a
    > whole.
    
    The point is communication.  What would you call the place in an
    aircraft where the pilot sits, if not the cockpit?  Why is called that? 
    Because it's where the action happens.  The word communicates, but you
    would discard it for something less useful simply because when the
    codifiers of our language wrote their books it wasn't used to refer to
    aircraft.  Fie on thee, sirrah!
    
    > words with the same meaning and many examples of words with many different
    > meanings.
    
    I knew there was a reason I love English so much.  Because of its many
    words, it has the ability to communicate more subtle shades of meaning
    than any other language.
    
    > if it gets
    > much worse then the English language will become virtually impossible to
    > learn or teach.
    
    So do as I suggest.  Learn Latin.  Or maybe Newspeak, which is
    precisely what you're lobbying for.  Limit the vocabulary, limit the
    ability to think.  You're not thinking very cogently anyway, so for you
    that would apparently be little loss.

>    > None of the replies to my note convince me...
>    
>    That should be, as made plain by those who formulated the rules, "None
>    of the replies ... convinces me..."  The word "none" is a shortening of
>    "not one."  If you want to push for standardizing the language, then
>    learn to use the standard forms.
 
I'm not claiming to be a scholar of English, my language abilities are
the sum of what I was taught.  I'm also not an expert on the subject,
I'm merely voicing my opinion.
   
>    > ... words like `television' are technical terms ...
>    
>    No, they're not.  More than half of all words in English derive from
>    Latin roots, and may of those can trace their heritage back to Greek. 
>    "Television" is a perfectly acceptable Graeco-Latin word, and it isn't
>    any more a technical term than "binoculars," which latter has come to
>    describe a particular type of field glass, one making use of prisms to
>    shorten the optical path.
 
then I stand to be corrected (I'm not about to start another argument
of the magnitude of, er, another recent one!)
   
>    > I don't see why
>    > contemporary slang should be allowed to influence the language as a
>    > whole.
>    
>    The point is communication.

that's really my point, too.  Different regions adopting differing versions
of slang words that may eventually be seen as correct usage will have difficulty
communicating.

>    > words with the same meaning and many examples of words with many different
>    > meanings.
>    
>    I knew there was a reason I love English so much.  Because of its many
>    words, it has the ability to communicate more subtle shades of meaning
>    than any other language.
 
I must admit to sharing a (possibly masochistic) liking for this `feature'!
   
>    > if it gets
>    > much worse then the English language will become virtually impossible to
>    > learn or teach.
>    
>    So do as I suggest.  Learn Latin.  Or maybe Newspeak, which is
>    precisely what you're lobbying for.  Limit the vocabulary, limit the
>    ability to think.

the current vocabulary isn't at all limiting, but mucking about with the
words and claiming that it's linguistic evolution is.

>    You're not thinking very cogently anyway, so for you
>    that would apparently be little loss.

Cheap shot, I'm surprised at you.

Chris.

    The evolution of language is extremely important to the evolution of
    man. Man could not evolve into his present state of consciousness until
    he developed a language sophisticated enough to produce metaphors and
    analog models. The genus Homo began about two million years ago.
    Rudimentary oral languages developed from 70,000 BC to 8000 BC. Written
    languages began some time before 3000 BC and gradually developed into
    syntactical structures capable of generating metaphors and analog
    models. The written language evolved and nessessarily continues to 
    evolve today. A need for new metaphors and new analog models will
    continue eternally into the future if man is to continue his
    advancement.

    The previous is still true, even for someone who can't spell
    necessarily every time.  :)

    .62
    
    >> You're not thinking very cogently anyway, so for you
    >> that would apparently be little loss.
    
    > Cheap shot, I'm surprised at you.
    
    This is the box, Chris.  Sorry my omission of a smiley broadsided you. 
    :-)

>    This is the box,

oh yeah, I almost forgot.  Well in that case, bollox to the lot of yers!  :)

Chris.

What does "BUSY" mean?

I thought I knew.

I grew up understanding that when you placed a phone call and got a BUSY
signal, that meant that the other party was using their phone - that they
were already BUSY and couldn't communicate with you.

I have one phone line in my house. I like it that way. 75% of the time,
when I'm home, I have my phone line in use due to the fact that I'm tied
into either DIGITAL or my Internet service provider. When I do this sort
of thing, my line is "BUSY". I am, for all intents and purposes, "BUSY"
communicating with someone/thing I desire to communicate with.

During the other 25% of the time, often I'll receive calls from people
who proceed to piss and moan because my line was tied up. They apparently
don't understand what "BUSY" means, even though they've spent as much of their
lives as have I exposed to this technological concept.

For some reason, they don't understand that when I'm "BUSY", I don't care to
talk to them, anyway.

Odd thing, this "language".

    
    Gee Jack, If you put in a second line, you could put your first line
    on an answering machine while telnet'ing with the other.
    Then you can listen to them piss and moan about your answering machine
    :-)
    
    Doug.

Well, actually, Doug, my only line IS on an answering machine when I'm
not tying it up otherwise, and it's absolutely amazing how many calls
connect without leaving a message (which is fine with me) when they get 
"the machine". Then of course, I'm faced with the personal responses of
"I tried and tried to reach you and when I finally got through all I
got was a machine." My response is generally, "Look - if you didn't care
to identify yourself to the machine, why the hell should I care to talk
to you?" [I haven't spoken with a telemarketer in years.]

Nope - not worth any more bucks for another line. Even if it's someone
I might want to talk to, like I said, I'm BUSY.

    Jack's a hermit for the 90's....  only *1* phone line.	;^)
    

    When people get a 'BUSY' signal, they probably think the phone
    is broken. :)
    

>         -< "It must be broken, operator. What about call-waiting??" >-

Call waiting? Another "service" I haven't any need for. If I'm using the phone
I don't give a crap if someone else is trying to call.

Actually, my kids talked me into getting it years ago when they lived at home.
It was the first thing to go after them.

    Back on track, I have to agree with Mr. Binder on this evolving
    language business; language must and will evolve: no amount of
    prescription is ever going to change that, and it's A Good Thing.
    However, I can also see what Chris is on about. He, I suspect, like me,
    is against changes for change's sake, and against "bad" changes to the
    language. By bad, I mean changes born of ignorance or poor education,
    changes that devalue existing words, changes that replace a richness of
    several words with a newer, poorer word. Most importantly, changes that
    fly in the face of the underlying foundations of the language; its
    structure, its syntax, and its grammar.
    
    Different evolutions are inevitable, given geographic divides, and some
    countries are more prone to demeaning and devaluing the language than
    others. The US has given much of value to English, but it is also by
    far the bigest destroyer of much that is good in the language, mostly,
    it seems to me, as a result of poor education and ignorance of the
    structure, rules and syntax which are elements which *must* be
    preserved if a language is to survive.
    
    In short, I suspect that Chris is against the destructive evolution of
    the language so prevalent these days, rather than against *any*
    evolution.
    
    Laurie.

    re:  .51
    
    I think it is not evolution of language that you don't like, but the
    neutering of it by PCspeek. 
    
    If my conclusion is correct, then I agree with you.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .63
    
    That is only a valid argumnet if humans evolved from a lesser species.
    
    
    -steve

    .75
    
    Q.E.D.

    Jack, you should get "Call Random Character Generator" for your phone
    line.

    ^That is only a valid argumnet if humans evolved from a lesser species.
    
    True

    
    I watched a program (on Disney Channel, of all places) where a
    linguist theorized that human anatomy was behind the development
    of language, which in turn led to the development of "higher
    thought".
    
    Apparently, most apes are only capable of a very limited set
    of phonemes, whereas humans have voice boxes capable of over
    80 basic speech elements (unique among all known species.)
    
    -b

    
      problem is, the customers get cleverer, so you constantly need
     new gobbledyspeak to deke them out
    
      bb

 the instructor said "paradigm" three times in the class i was
 in last week.  i wanted to scream, but i'm not the type.

    Well, be thankful you weren't admonished to step out of your paradigm.

    .79
    
    > Apparently, most apes are only capable of a very limited set
    > of phonemes
    
    Correct.  They lack a hyoid bone, which is necessary for sufficient
    mobility of the tongue.
    
    They can and do, however, demonstrate intelligent comprehension of
    language.  I've mentioned Koko the gorilla before; unable to speak
    coherently, she was taught a modified form of ASL and now has a
    vocabulary of about 1000 words.  She understands and can manipulate
    such concepts as morality and abstraction of time.
    
    We are not so vastly superior as we want to think we are, but hey,
    we're the only ones who can write it down, so we win by default.

    
    I favour capital punishment for the utterance of "paradigm".
    

A paradigm used to get you a cup of coffee.

    Brother, can youse paradigm?
    
    The (tm) on this, I believe, belongs to DrDan.

Buddy?

    .87
    
    Buddy is the revised version.  Brother is the original, as sung during
    the Great Depression.

But which one's in DrDan's version?

    .79 .83
    
    Dick,
    
    Your MAC laptop did a pretty good job of welcoming us to the HTML
    meeting the other day.  What can it do when you talk to it?
    
    Figure that one out, and you'll realize that focusing on the mecahnical
    speech production system is a small part of the problem of
    understanding the development of language and communication.
    
    (The above language produced in 7 binary bits, with no phonemes)
    
    Iechyd da i chi.
    
    (The above language produced with 7 binary bits, no phonemes)

    .90
    
    > focusing on the mecahnical
    > speech production system is a small part of the problem of
    > understanding the development of language and communication.
    
    I thought that was what I suggested in .83 as a response to .79. 
    Because gorillas are physically incapable of complex speech, other
    means have been fopund to communicate with them, and the results show
    that gorillas' ability to communicate using language is far greater
    than one would suspect if one judged solely on their "speech."
    
    As for what my Mac (not MAC, it's not an acronym) laptop can do when
    spoken to, that's nothing - because it lacks the ability to hear. 
    Other computers, both Mac and PC, can hear (using such facilities as
    Apple's PlainTalk, built into AV Macs, or similar products for PCs) and
    can learn to recognize and respond to simple language.  The capacity of
    living beings for language is immeasurably greater than that of
    existing computers, probably because only now are researchers beginning
    to understand how we create and use language.
    
    As has been pointed out in this string, the evolution of language
    parallels the evolution of sentient thought.  Neither can happen absent
    the other.  And I hasten to point out that morality is a product of
    sentient thought.

    Dick,
    
    The point is, that the Gorilla is not comprehending random spoken
    language, It is simply responding to a learned signal or set of
    signals, processing them and producing a behaviour.  Much of the
    ape-languge studies are in deep dispute.
    
    Even before the language studies, Harlow demonstrated that you can
    establish complex patterns of behaviour in animals that seemed to
    demonstrate human concepts of "morality".  Similar field studies of
    Japanese Macaques, and also Goodall's studies show behavioural
    complexity which is equal to that of Ko-Ko.  These studies can also be
    described using human concpets such as morality and altruism but
    then we're just falling into the trap of anthropomorphism.
     
    (The "Monkey Taboo" study by Harlow is a classic).
    
    Sure, this stuff looks pretty impressive, but it's basically operant
    conditioning.  The US navy once put out a tender for a guided missile
    system in the 50's and the behaviourist B.F. Skinner turned up with a
    black box. The box could shine a light on a silhouette of a destroyer. 
    No matter how the target was moved, the light tracked it.  The Navy ws
    amazed as none of the major electronics companies could produce such a
    system.  When the box was opened, the key component was a pigeon,
    rewarded with a grain of corn each time it moved the light onto the
    target.   The navy baulked then, but now they are using trained
    dolphins to perform complex underwater tasks that humans can't do.
    
    The question was whether the ability to produce certain phonemes is key
    to the development of language.  Whether or not apes or computers can
    do this is irrelevant.  In fact the phoneme issue itself may be too
    simplistic a notion.
    
    Whether I say "I wanna" or "I want to" or if I say it in person or on
    the telephone or via speech synthesis, there is a huge amount of
    variance in the information contained in the phoneme.  However,  you
    will have no problem comprehending it.   There is a very small amount
    of variance in the information in ASL, and just watch how many times
    Ko-Ko's handlers have to sign and re-sign to get it across.  On the
    other hand, the apes often make a token attempt at the sign and
    many ASL users have trouble understanding the signs.
    
    In fact, if you look at a sonogram of normal speed speech, you'll
    find that phonemes actually overlap each other and interact.  Whichever
    subset of the basic 80 phonemes used by a particular language
    are recombined into a much larger set of morphs.  Then throw in
    complexities such as glottal clicks, (Hottentot) tones, (Chinese),
    and timbre (any speech accents).
    
    Nearly all of the compute power in spoken language is vested in
    understanding, NOT in production.  The ear has to pick out data from
    a hugely variant mass, transduce it into nerve impulses, send
    it to Broca's/Wernicke's area of the brain for raw processing then
    on to the cortex for comprehension.  One current theory is that the
    aural system is able to perform complex inverse fourier transformations
    as a basic skill, and that existing skill gaves proto-humans the
    ability to extract relevant data from the "noise" of normal speech.
    Natural selection may have favoured this ability.  
    
    I'd go for the argument that mankind developed the ability to make and
    communicate simple plans (for the hunt) and devise tools without the
    need for complex language.  He did need improved processing power of
    the brain to do these tasks, so the brain power development began before
    language became a requirement.  Man could easily demonstrate concrete
    ideas by simply showing them to others.  How to knap a flint or mount
    it on a shaft.  A cave painting to demonstrate a killing techniques
    perhaps.  However, as the ideas got more complex, then language
    developed to deal with abstractions that could not be conveyed by
    showing alone.
    
    If you consider the ways that we acquire language as a child, language
    acquisistion supports the notion of brain development coming first,
    most kids are much smarter than their linguistic production skills
    indicate.  Their speech comprehension is also much better than
    their speech production.
    
    The ape data is interesting, but it doesn't fit into the big picture.
    
    Colin
    

    
      The best English-speaking non-human I ever heard was a parrot.
    
      This bird was over 40 years old and had a vast vocabulary, which
     it would put to use in hilarious ways.
    
      I have no idea how it could do this with such a very different
     set of sound-producing structures.  No lips, etc.  Also, could
     produce sounds no human could.
    
      bb

    .92
    
    > The point is, that the Gorilla is not comprehending random spoken
    > language, It is simply responding to a learned signal or set of
    > signals, processing them and producing a behaviour.
    
    Explain this one then:  Koko, the gorilla on whom most of the studies
    have been done, was once introduced to a new friend, a gorilla named
    Michael.  Michael had been given only the rudiments of sign language. 
    Koko and michael sat down together, and Koko taught Michael SEVERAL
    HUNDRED additional signs.  As their acquaintanceship progressed the two
    developed signs that the humans had not given them.  When asked what
    those signs meant, they explained in terms the humans recognized.  One
    day, Koko and Michael were playing together and she became angry enough
    to strike him.  The humans immediately removed him from the room. 
    After thinking it over a while, Koko came without being prompted in any
    way and signed that she was sorry she had hurt Michael.  She then
    asked, again with no prompting, whether he would be allowed to come
    back the next day.
    
    This is Pavlovian behavior?  I doubt it.  But it *is* documented.

    Koko also expressed and demonstrated grief when she was told that her 
    pet kitten had died.  She didn't see the kitten's body after it had
    been run over by a car.  She learned of the death in a sign language
    conversation.

    20/20 featured a segment several months ago about a medical research 
    Chimpanzee who had formerly been trained in sign language.  They
    brought the trainer to the Chimpanzee's cage for a reunion - they'd
    been apart for something like 15 years.  The Chimpanzee immediately
    recognized the man and began communicating in sign language with him
    (including signing both of their names.)  The camera was videotaping
    the Chimpanzee from the side, but it was very obvious that this animal
    was showing a great deal of joy at being reunited with his trainer.
    20/20 received so much mail about this that the Chimpanzee was retired
    to a place that could provide an open area environment for him.  He
    was given a Hepatitis virus as part of the medical research, so he is
    isolated, I believe.

    Another sign language Chimpanzee was part of an experiment to see how
    he would react in this situation:

    His sister did not sign at all, but the trainer began to sign to her
    with directions about things she was supposed to do.

    The signing brother stood next to her and performed the actions (using
    HER HANDS) for her.  When the trainer told the sister to scratch her
    brother's back, the signing brother took HER HAND and scratched his
    own back with it.

    He was able to translate the commands into something that his sister
    was supposed to be doing to interact with him (and he performed the
    sister's actions towards him for her.)

    
    Yeah, but can they fill out IRS tax forms? Eh?
    
    Huh, whazzat? Oh. Well, no I can't either... :-)
    
    -b

They don't have to.  They have no income.  HTH.

    
    Oh, so we have that in common too! :-)
    
    -b

    In another experiment, a Chimpanzee was asked to add the numbers of
    oranges in two buckets about 10 feet apart.

    He added the oranges and pointed to the card with the correct written
    number on it.

    When the Chimpanzee went to the candy dish to get his reward, he
    pulled out the same number of candies and demonstrated how he could
    make two piles of candies (containing the same number as the piles
    of oranges) and get the same number of candies from these piles
    as he had gotten from the two piles of oranges.

    He was reasoning that he should get the same number of candies as
    the number of oranges he'd added (instead of getting just one candy
    as a reward for his efforts.)

    The trainer allowed it, of course.  :) This behavior was entirely
    new for this Chimpanzee in this situation, per the trainer.  The
    trainer found it pretty inventive and humorous.

    In an experiment with a Chimpanzee who has been trained to understand
    human speech (and respond with a board of symbols which plays back 
    recorded words in human speech as responses to what the trainers say)
    - the trainer called the Chimpanzee on the phone for the first time
    to see if the Chimpanzee would understand what was happening.

    The Chimpanzee and another trainer were in a room and the phone rang.
    The trainer handed the phone to the Chimp ("It's for you") and he
    listened.  The trainer on the phone told the Chimpanzee that they
    were going to go on a picnic.  She asked the Chimpanzee what foods
    he would like to take to their future picnic.  The Chimpanzee looked
    at his language board and pressed the words for his favorite candy
    and some fruit, as I recall.

    They had been doing experiments to see if the Chimpanzee would be
    able to discuss and plan future events.  The Chimpanzee could easily
    do this.  He was also able to do this over the phone (the first time
    he'd ever heard a human voice on a telephone.)

    RE: .97  Brian
    
    / Yeah, but can they fill out IRS tax forms? Eh?
    
    Most of these Chimps sound smarter than some of the folks who work 
    at the IRS, though, doncha think?  :)

    
    RE: .103
    
    Suzanne:
    
    Let's put it this way. When they're too smart for the IRS,
    there's always the Department of Motor Vehicles! :-) :-)
    
    -b

    By the way, the Chimpanzee with the language board is also able to
    help the trainer fix dinner.

    They go into the kitchen and the trainer tells the Chimpanzee when
    to put water in pots and put things on the stove, etc.  The Chimp
    follows all the voice instructions, including stirring the contents 
    of the pots.

    RE: .104  Brian
    
    / Let's put it this way. When they're too smart for the IRS,
    / there's always the Department of Motor Vehicles! :-) :-)
    
    Agreed!  :)

    Do you have a leee saaance for your minky?

    Pavlovian conditioning, which is also called classical conditioning,
    is different. I used the term "operant" conditioning which is used to
    distinguish the very types of behaviours demonstrated in these studies.
    
    Operant conditioning theory has no problem in explaining these
    behaviours.  I can give you more examples - including the "dolphin
    telephone" that indicate a high level of ability to communicate
    abstractions, to generalize solutions to problems and to propagate a
    behaviour throughout an animal community.   There are even examples
    where this kind of behaviour is demonstrated spontaneously outside the
    lab.  The Macacque studies showed that they could solve abstract
    problems and pass on the learning to some of their offspring. However,
    last I heard none of them had moved to Manhattan and got jobs at
    brokerage firms.
    
    Heck, if you give me 15 years and enough funding and I'll make the
    buggers sing Dixie. What I will never be able to do is make the animal
    comprehend random sentences of spoken english language - because I
    already know it has neither the facilities or the abilities.
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
    
    
    

    
    .92
                                         
    Operant conditioning, phenomena known as "one trial learning".
    
    The demonstration is completely unscientific.  Animals that spend a lot
    of time with humans are extrmely good at picking up very subtle
    behavioural cues.  (As any Dog owners will know.)   Some of these cues
    are almost subliminal - other humans may not even have the faculties to
    detect them.  
    
    Suppose Ko-KO was highly tuned into pleasing her captor/trainer.
    Each time she made a "new sign" the captor/triner would unwittingly
    give a sign that she was pleased.  Ko-Ko, being a very good
    behavioural poker player would read the cue and repeat the
    behaviour.  Before you know it, Mike is picking up on the
    behaviour and is also demonstrating it.
    
    The very presence of humans in the rooms taints the observation. the
    difficulty with language studies is that it's very hard to design
    experiments that exclude humans from the interaction.  I've seen
    one study where a computer replaced the human and the results indicated
    that the animal was able to make responses based on the noises made by
    the hard disk.
      
    BTW, don't be impressed by the edited-for-TV highhlights that you see on
    the TV.  I've had to sit through up to 10 hours of tapes like this,
    and then have someone put it in slo-mo and point out the sign.
    Strains the cred somewhat.
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin

    re 101
    
    How many trials were performed to get the right answer?
    
    The field study of Japanese Macaques showed that they were very good at
    apportioning food, without human intervention.
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
    
    

    
    .102
    
    I can program a computer to do that.
    
    Is the computer understanding language or responding to a
    pre-programmed set of rules?
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
    

    Can someone explain to me how shagging means dancing in Myrtle
    Beach and something quite different across the pond?
    
    

    
    > Can someone explain to me how shagging means dancing in Myrtle
    > Beach and something quite different across the pond?
    
    I'll have to remember to keep my cool next time someone in
    Myrtle Beach asks me if I want to shag!
    
    -b

    The answer depends on:
    
    	whether Myrtle Beach is a place or a person.
    
    	if there is such a thing as a dancing willy. 

    Brian,
    
    Would I try and trick you?  Trust me, in Myrtle Beach shagging
    is dancing (ala jitter bug, bebop, jive etc).
    
    BTW, could I borrow some of your gadinkydust? ;-}
    
    

    
    Karen,
    
    The "trick question" part was in reference to what I would
    say to someone who asked me if I wanted to shag! :-) :-)
    
    -b

    It can also mean the act of covering your floors with a deep-pile
    carpet.

    Colin, the Chimpanzee training we've seen most recently includes
    studies where the humans were helmets and hold perfectly still
    during the experiment (so that no facial expressions or body
    language is visible.)

    I'm sure you know that both dolphins and Chimps can understand
    new sentences which contain instructions which use the random
    ordering of words they know.  For example, if dolphins have
    ten objects in a pool, they can be given instructions which
    explain NEW actions on these objects.  The dolphins respond
    with completely new behaviors which they perform based on the
    new ways these words are place together (such as "Put the ball
    through the ring and then touch the ring with a frisbee".)
    Chimpanzees can make sense out of new arrangements of words,
    too, even if the instruction doesn't make sense (such as, "Put
    the frisbee into the refrigerator.")

    Something we saw recently (which doesn't have to do with language,
    but is certainly evidence of reasoning skills):  The trainer orders
    two other trainers (one at a time) to give the Chimpanzee a cup of 
    juice.  One trainer accidentally spills the juice (so the Chimp doesn't
    get the juice) and the other trainer deliberately pours the juice onto
    the floor (so the Chimp doesn't get the juice.)

    They ask the Chimp to pick one of the trainers to make another try
    at giving him juice, and the Chimp chooses the one who accidentally
    spilled the juice earlier.  (I guess the Chimp figured that this
    trainer would at least TRY to give him the juice instead of making
    a point of spilling it onto the ground.)  :)

    Colin, I've seen programs which discuss the controversy about whether
    or not language experiments prove that animals can comprehend language.
    Many of your arguments have been addressed by researchers who believe 
    it has been proven that chimps, dolphins and some other animals DO 
    understand the language used in the experiments.

    I tend to believe that they do comprehend this language, but I guess
    we'll have to see how research comes out about this in the future.
    You could be right.

    
    >Chimpanzees can make sense out of new arrangements of words,
    >too, even if the instruction doesn't make sense (such as, "Put
    >the frisbee into the refrigerator.")
    
    
    	Does a chimp know that this doesn't make practical sense?
    	Or can it learn it eventually?
    
    	"Make sense" can have different connotations ... "put the
    	refrigerator into the frisbee" doesn't make sense any way
    	you look at it, unless it's a really big frisbee, but "put
    	the frisbee into the refrigerator" is possible while not
    	very practical.
    

    
    I don't know  who the "we" is referring to, but I still read the
    Journals and I continue to see serious flaws in these studies.
    
    As I stated before, the cues emanating from the human experimenters
    are very subtle.  They may be too subtle to eliminate except by
    eliminating the humans from the equation. Even smells may be a factor
    and I've seen good evidence that there is a "sixth sense" that we may
    not be able to detect.  When you do eliminate humans from the studies,
    you get very different results, with far less success.
    
    Secondly, what happens whe you remove humans from the equations for
    long periods of time? is the behaviour maintained spontaneously
    or does it start to degrade?  All evidence shows it degrades
    in the absence of any reinforcers - which means that it's
    no different to the trained elephants that I saw at the circus a few
    weeks ago (and very impressive they were.)  I have not seen a study
    that showed that the behaviour would persist and grow, indeed, logic
    would tell me that it obvously cannot, or Chimps would be doing it
    irrspective of the presence or absence of humans.
    
    (i.e. if these animals are capable of understanding language, why
    is this capability not manifested anywhere else except inside certain
    labs?)
    
    In have not disputed that organisms can take individual operants and
    join them together in complex chains, reorder the chains and perhaps
    even create their own chains.  But this is nothing more than normal
    behaviour for them in the wild.  You probably saw the recent programs
    that showed squirrels solving extremely difficult problems in order to
    get a reward.  This is the same phenomenon, the apes are NOT
    comprehending language, just responding to a series of complex
    operants.  You are forgetting that these chimps undergo years of
    *training*, while the squirrels demonstrate the same language-free,
    reasoning-free problem-solving ability in the wild.  The point about
    new actions therefore causes me no wonder.
    
    What has developed in the last few decades is greatly improved
    techniques in operant conditioning, which allows us to train much more
    efficiently than before.  I think that makes people wonder, and attempt
    anthropomorphic interpretations of the behaviour. 
    
    What would constitute proof?  Introduce incrementally increasing
    randomness into the animal's "language" learning process so that cause
    and affect is increasingly difficult to determine.  At a certain point,
    the animal would cease to be able to discern causality.  On the other
    hand, a human child would gradually improve it's ability to extract
    valuable data from the random.
    
    The human child will eventually come to know that
    
    	"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
    
    (Chomsky's syntactically correct nonsense) is good grammar but
    bad sense, the ape will nver come remotely near that stage.
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
                 
      

    RE: .121  Colin

    / I don't know  who the "we" is referring to, but I still read the
    / Journals and I continue to see serious flaws in these studies.

    Oh, sorry - the 'we' refers to me and my husband.  We both watch
    programs and read literature about this subject, too.

    / As I stated before, the cues emanating from the human experimenters
    / are very subtle. 

    Experimenters have been trying to reduce the ways that the animals
    can receive the cues.  Dolphins are receiving instructions over TV
    monitors placed inside their pools, for example.  Interestingly
    enough, the Dolphins recognized immediately that the images on the
    TV sets were the types of beings they normally see in person.  They
    followed the instructions on TV as though they were from 'in person'
    trainers on the first try.

    / Secondly, what happens whe you remove humans from the equations for
    / long periods of time? is the behaviour maintained spontaneously
    / or does it start to degrade? 

    Well, we do have instances where signing animals have taught signs
    to other animals - and we also have a case where a signing Chimpanzee
    remembered the signs he had been taught after 15 years of not knowing
    anyone else who used these signs.

    / (i.e. if these animals are capable of understanding language, why
    / is this capability not manifested anywhere else except inside certain
    / labs?)

    Dolphins use language (clicks and squeaks) to communicate with each
    other.  We don't understand what the noises mean, but apparently
    they do.  :)  One dolphin researcher has been able to figure out
    that certain sounds are descriptions of food.

    / At a certain point, the animal would cease to be able to discern 
    / causality.  On the other hand, a human child would gradually improve 
    / it's ability to extract valuable data from the random.                      

    In one experiment, chimpanzees where given the task of pulling a
    rake towards themselves to pull a cookie close enough to reach
    (so they could eat it.)  They had a choice of two rake-cookie
    setups.  In one setup, there was a hole on the table in front
    of the cookie (so if they pulled the cookie towards them, it
    would fall onto the floor.)  In the other setup, there was a
    drawing of a hole - a black circle - in front of the cookie.

    The experiments compared the behavior of young children and
    Chimpanzees in this experiment.  The young children (around 
    5 years old, I believe) pulled either one of the rake setups
    randomly (without seeming to realize that they would lose the
    cookie if they pulled it over a hole in the table.)

    The Chimpanzees saw both setups - and some of the Chimpanzees
    actually looked under the tables (realizing that the cookie was
    going to fall through the real hole in one of the tables.)
    MORE of the Chimpanzees than the human children chose to rake the
    cookie over the DRAWING of the hole rather than the actual hole.

    This shows that they could anticipate that raking a cookie over
    a hole would cause it to fall to the floor (and be lost to the
    Chimpanzee.)

    / The human child will eventually come to know that
    
    / 	"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
    
    / (Chomsky's syntactically correct nonsense) is good grammar but
    / bad sense, the ape will nver come remotely near that stage.

    This reminds me of a time when my son was 2.5 years old and someone
    described him as a 'self-contained little man'.  I told my son about
    this at the time, and he said 'Does this mean that I can carry myself??'
    (I thought that was a pretty clever interpretation for a 2 year old.) :)

    At any rate, you could easily be right about the research into these
    animals' language capabilities.  I'm still reading and watching to
    see what the researchers do next.  It's interesting regardless of the
    results, no?

    
    
    > I thought that was a pretty clever interpretation for a 2 year old.) :)
    
    That's a nice one.
    
    Yes, it is interesting and stimulating.  And of course, as the
    experiments get better the "eat crow" stakes get higher for me.
    
    C
    

    By the way, in the rake-cookie experiments, the researchers did offer
    an explanation of why the human children didn't do as well as the
    Chimpanzees in avoiding the problem of raking the cookie over a hole
    in the table (and losing it).

    The human children knew that they could get the human adults to give
    them a cookie any time they asked for one, pretty much.

    The Chimpanzees view cookies (and other food) as their salaries in
    the work they do all day, every day.  They knew that cookies don't
    come that easily, so they were more careful to make sure they got
    the rake-cookie task right.  :-)

    .117
    
    Now Brian, I KNOW what you would say if someone asked you to shag,
    
    
                      No thank you, I'm a happily married man
    
    

    
    RE: .125
    
    Well, yes that is what I would think (and do), but no that is
    not what I would say, since it's nowhere near smartalec enough
    for my temperament! :-) :-)

    -b

Re Shagging,

over here it means the `horizontal dance'.
HTH,

Chris.

    .108
    
    > What I will never be able to do is make the animal
    > comprehend random sentences of spoken english language - because I
    > already know it has neither the facilities or the abilities.
    
    You have right here encapsulated very neatly the reason for the failure
    of many such experiments.  The experimenter has decided a priori what
    the subject is capable of.  Anything beyond the preconceived notions is
    explained away instead of being accepted for what it might really be.

    
    Bosh.  Applying your much vaunted Occam's Razor, I gave full reason for
    such a determination.  In the absence of the largely artificial
    construct that is the "experiment", the phenomena is not observed
    spontaneously in nature.  The "language" comprehension is an artifact
    of the study, not a phenomena that is being studied.   These studies
    are rarely, if ever conducted along the lines of the traditional
    double-blind, null hypothesis design, using subject and a control
    samples.  In that respect, they provide much data, but little
    statistical support. The doubter is using the basic rules of
    experimental design to point out the flaws in the conclusion "apes
    can understand language".  
                                                          
    An interesting study was on the TV last night, concerned with the
    learning of music.  Studies of pitch-perfect musicians showed that a
    certain region of the brain was larger than control subjects.
    Longitudinal studies of child musicians indicates that this region can
    be enlarged & enhanced by early training.  
    
    A similar scenario could exist for the ape language subjects, where the
    constant training from early age has reinforced a region of the brain
    and increased their ability to discern the spoken word or an increasing
    number of ASL patterns.  This creates an artificial aptitude in an
    organism that would not spontaneously develop the aptitude, no more
    than we humans all become musicians.
    
    The experiments are an exercise in brain developmental plasticity.
    While the Chimp is learning all this language stuff, it is relatively
    unconcerned with all the vast repertoire of other behaviours that it
    would normally have to deal with in the wild.  100% of its limited 
    abilities are devoted to learning signs instead of finding food and
    avoiding predators.  What happens if you put the subject ape back in
    the wild?  It signals "eat me no" to the Cheetah?
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
    
    

    .129
    
    So you posit that a child raised without language will just magically
    start learning language on its own because, after all, it is a human,
    and its brain's language centers will therefore grow - but of course
    this doesn't REALLY apply to apes because you've already decided that
    it can't apply.
    
    Now THAT, sir, is bosh.

    No, I propose that a child raised in isolation would still retain a
    facility for learning language at a later age, whereas the ape will
    never demonstrate such a facility.  Perhaps the child's facility will
    be impaired by lack of exposure, but it cannot be totally negated by
    lack of exposure.  
    
    As a practical example, Hellen Keller was in her teens before she began
    to learn language.  As a deaf, blind and mute she had no exposure to
    language during her formative years and yet became a very competent
    user of language.  
    
    Even after decades of intensive training, ko-ko is still linguistically
    inferior to an average three year old on all counts of syntax,
    vocabulary and error rate.  Yet, the normal three-year-old will simply
    absorb language with no reinforcers and a minimum of feedback and
    interaction.
    
    An yes, I'd bet that if you put a child in a room with a TV on 12 hours
    a day, regular meals and no other humans, the child would "magically"
    learn *some* language on its own.  Except I wouldn't really see it as
    magic, as the child already has all the wiring under the hood.  My
    expectations of the ape are somewhat less.
    
    And that sir, is my last word on the matter!
    
    Colin
 

    
    
    Saw a program a few months ago on this very subject.  It was about a
    girl who was isolated (locked in a closet I think) for years and then
    discovered.  She was never able to make up for the skills she didn't
    learn as a child.  She was able to communicate, but in a much more
    primative level than someone who had been brought up in a "normal"
    environment even after several years.
    
    
    Miek

    
    >Miek
    
    
    	Hmmm, so how old were YOU when you got out of the closet?
    

>    No, I propose that a child raised in isolation would still retain a
>    facility for learning language at a later age, whereas the ape will
>    never demonstrate such a facility.

   .131  I don't understand your reasoning at all.  It would seem that
	 an ape either has the facility for learning language or 
	 does not.  Why does having been raised in isolation enter into
	 the equation?

    
    Scratch the "last word".
    
    The isolation statement is in relation to the developmental context - 
    isolation from interaction with humans.  Most of the ape studies take
    an infant ape and train it intensively.  I argue that this capitalises
    on the devlopmental plasticity of the young brain and enhances an apes
    ability to learn skills that mimic language acquisition.  
    
    If you take an ape that has NOT been exposed to this intensive training
    (and socialisation) they will not even demonstrate the capacity for
    language mimicry that ko-ko does.   If you take a normally-socialised
    wild ape, you'll have a hard time getting it to do anything.
    
    Wolf-boy aside, a language-deprived child is still pre-wired for
    language and will retain some language ability.
    
    Colin
    
    
    (Lots of caveats, IMOs, and the recent reminder from EDP about doubt &
    certainty in science, I hasten to add.)
      

RE: 583.129 by SMURF::WALTERS

> A similar scenario could exist for the ape language subjects, where the
> constant training from early age has reinforced a region of the brain
> and increased their ability to discern the spoken word or an increasing
> number of ASL patterns.  This creates an artificial aptitude in an
> organism that would not spontaneously develop the aptitude, no more
> than we humans all become musicians.

It's interesting to look at the case of a group of deaf individuals in
Nicaragua.  Before there were schools for the deaf,  generally deaf people 
did not know a sign language.  They did make some signs,  but these were
non-standard,  and mostly related to simple pointing or signing that was
part of the general language.  Once there were schools for the deaf,  a new 
sign language was invented there.

The people raised before sign language usually have found it difficult to 
learn this or any other sign language.  In other words,  much of the human 
ability to learn and use language is an "artificial aptitude",  as you 
would say.  The reason why we learn it is that it helps us to live better, 
and prevents us from needing to learn less useful skills,  like hand to
hand combat skills with cheetahs.


> While the Chimp is learning all this language stuff, it is relatively
> unconcerned with all the vast repertoire of other behaviours that it
> would normally have to deal with in the wild.  100% of its limited 
> abilities are devoted to learning signs instead of finding food and
> avoiding predators.  What happens if you put the subject ape back in
> the wild?  It signals "eat me no" to the Cheetah?

Perhaps it signs "Jon and George,  throw rocks at that cheetah.  Bill and
John,  watch the back.  Dan and Bob,  grab big sticks and follow me!"   
Wonder if that cheetah is going to learn something.  Maybe to stay far,  far 
away from chimps.

Another interesting skill to teach to a chimp and then release to the wild
would be use and making of a distance weapon,  like a spear or a bow or
even an atole (a "spear thrower",  midway in technology and power between 
hand thrown spears and bows).  

I'll bet a chimp could learn to make a spear,  use a spear,  would live 
better in the wild because of this skill,  and would teach this skill to 
young chimps.  Wonder how many generations before almost every chimp group 
learned the same skill?  Want to try this experiment?  


Phil

Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 5 November 1995  Home News

Talking apes? That's a laugh, say scientists

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

SCIENTISTS have solved the mystery of why apes cannot be taught to speak
- by tickling them.

A team at the University of Maryland Baltimore County found that their
grunt-like chuckling shared rhythmic characteristics with that of humans,
thought to have evolved from laboured breathing during play.

But the study, which also involved 51 human volunteers, revealed a different
link between the breathing and laughter patterns of man and apes.

Prof Robert Provine and Dr Kim Bard studied - and tickled - seven
chimpanzees from the Yerkes Regional Primate Centre.

They found that human laughter was composed of stereotyped, vowel-like,
notes - ha, ho, he - lasting about one-fifteenth of a second and made only
while breathing out. Chimps made only one "laugh note" per inhalation or
exhalation.

The difference could be appreciated by placing a hand on the abdomen while
laughing, or imitating the pants of a chimp. Laughter produced a steady
contraction of the diaphragm, while panting produced pulsations.

Prof Provine believes that this different laughing mechanism accounts for
why chimpanzees cannot produce human-like speech, which involves
modulating sounds during only exhalation.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

    
    Time to eat part of my hat.
    
    A very robust field study has been written up in a number of the
    journals over the last few months.
    
    The studies support my view about the excessive lab training required 
    to elicit behaviours that seem to point to mathematical ability or use
    of language.  However, Marc Hauser of Harvard has found that wild
    rhesus monkeys demonstrate innate math abilities that are not observable in
    Human infants until age 10 months.  Verrrry interesting.
    
    (Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences vol93, P1514)
     

He tested them by having them do arithmetic with their favorite food:
Reese's Pieces.

    argh!

    NewsModels
    
    I like it EDP! Can I use you as the creator of this?
    
    How about:
    
    Tech-no-zero (from Roger Provencher) Brings to mind a lot of
    managers...
    
    
    Steve

    Re .141:
    
    Yah, sure.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I just called up Ticketmaster to order some tickets for the Boys Choir
    of Harlem... while on hold, a description was given for tickets to an
    Opera that will be sung in Italian, with English "sir" titles.  Has
    anyone ever heard that expression before?  Of course, I know they mean
    subtitles, but maybe this is just some new high-falootin, upper-class
    snobby way of saying the same thing?

Prolly surtitles.  Meaning they're above rather than below.

    Sur, meaning over as opposed to sub.  But a neologism nonetheless.

    In nautical speak then it would on the SURface versus sub-SURface aka
    underwater?  This opera is a remake of the HMS Pinafore?   

    The American Heritage Dictionary, under "surtitle," says "See
    supertitle."  At "supertitle, I found this:
    
    su�per�ti�tle n. A written translation of the dialogue or lyrics of a
    foreign-language performance of an opera or a choral work, for example,
    shown on a screen above the performers. Also called surtitle

    I don't care if it is in a book, dagnabit.  I'm agin it.

    Yeah, but you're a bleedin' Brit.  Worse, you're a Celt!

    <casts druidic spell>

Colin, you in that blue man thingie?

    Yep, I'm a woad warrior.

    Probably got a two-handed sword, he has.

Better than a six-handed watch.  Oops, wrong topic.

    It's easier to be safe with no swords.

    don't fence me in.

    
    		   Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above,
                                  Don't fence me in.
                      Let me ride thru the wide-open country that I love, 
                                  Don't fence me in.
                         Let me be by myself in the evening breeze,
                        Listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees,
                         Send me off forever, but I ask you, please,
                                  Don't fence me in.
    

    .156
    
    Poor Colin.  Foiled again.

    .157
    
    D'ya know who wrote that?

    
    Dick, _really_.  I'm almost offended 8^).
    
    

    Mz_Debra, I have a copy of Porter's original recording of it.  Gawd, he
    had a lousy singing voice.

    
    Realllllly?  Neat!
    
    He may not have been much of a singer, but could really turn a phrase. 
    Light verse, not doggerel.