🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan25.233640.1895@Csli.Stanford.EDU> malouf@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Rob Malouf) writes:

> In his dissertation (which is soon to be published by John Benjamins),
> Revere Perkins correlates "cultural sophistication" with certain
> grammatical features found in languages.  He found that if anything
> more primitive languages tend to have more elaborate pronominal
> systems.  Primitive languages have a different set of problems to
> solve than more culturally advanced languages and therefore tend to
> have different characteristics, but there is no reason to believe that
> primitive languages should be in any way simpler than, for example,
> English.

This should be really interesting.  ARe these languages from
certain regions, say the American continent, or Pacific islands
or what ??

I'd agree with the part about having different problems to solve. If
the problems don't have many specific things to do with geography
and climate, it would seem that other more advanced societies would
have already solved those problems.



  (Of course, I use the terms "primitve" and "advanced" here
> in a technical sense as defined by Perkins.  I mean to make any value
> judgements about languages or societies).


Why not?  There's no need to be so PC.  A language either has
5-6,000 words or has 100,000.  It doesn't matter much what you
call it, does it?

The lexicon is obviously going to have an influence on how you
go about saying things.  Furthermore the word-formation structure
will also influence it.  For example, you can easily make up
about 30 nouns from one verb-root in Turkish but none of them
will be in the dictionary. LIke this;


 Verb root==sev==to love::: Let XX = The State of..

sevmeklik= XX being in love i.e. love
sevmemeklik= XX not being in love..
sevinmek== to be joyful, happy
sevinmeklik==XX being happy, i.e. happiness
sevinememeklik==XX being unable to be happy
sevdirmek== to cause to love
sevdirememeklik==XX not being able to cause to love
sevdirtememeklik==XX of being unable to cause one to love another
sevilememeklik==XX of being unable to be loved

Much more, plus the usual short nouns and adjectives from it
like sevgi, sevinch, sevda, sevgili, sevimli, sevimsiz


It's true that a language like this (supposedly with a small
lexicon) can express a lot but there's a practical limit to
how far it can be carried.  If every word was 20 syllables long,
people might revolt :-)..


> Actually, there is nothing universal about the category `tree'.  We
> impose our own organizational system onto the world, and there is no
> reason why other languages might not organize things another way.

Like the guy who did not know there was a number over a 100, the
eskimos might not know that other things besides snow fall from
the sky. It takes contrast in order to be able to make abstractions
to make classes and sets.  We are all products of our environment.


> What I would be surprised to find was a language which had no
> superordinate categories but instead view each kind of plant as a
> complete unique sort of thing.

It might happen.  If some people on a small island only saw fishes
there'd be no need for them to contrast them with anything else
except themselves.  Many primitive people who live in isolation
may have no concept of what they're called (maybe just people).
They have no reason to distinguish themselves from any other
people. Words will develop either in response to a need or when
they are seen in other languages to express concepts which don't
exist.  Primitive people would not have needed separate words for
plate, soup bowl, cup, saucer, box, container,...... one single
word ***container*** might have been fine.
-- 

	mark	

   hubey@amiga.montclair.edu         hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
   hubey@pilot.njin.net               ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey