Could our language of words evolve into a completely new form?
- Thread starter i-am-your-idea
- Start date
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
I think i might be able to better express myself if i was fluent in signing. It looks like you can be more expressive by the positioning of words in the air and the way you dance the signs together. Maybe voice can be equally expressive, but if you are fluent in both you can express yourself more.
For example if two hearing people were fluent in signing, if they signed at the same time as speaking then i think they would be communicating more.
mrsfran
Well-Known Member
I think i might be able to better express myself if i was fluent in signing. It looks like you can be more expressive by the positioning of words in the air and the way you dance the signs together. Maybe voice can be equally expressive, but if you are fluent in both you can express yourself more.
For example if two hearing people were fluent in signing, if they signed at the same time as speaking then i think they would be communicating more.
A nice idea, but it doesn't really work. I can't talk in English and sign at the same time because the grammar is so different. While you can sign using English grammar, this is called Sign Supported English (SSE) and is different from British Sign Language (BSL). SSE is follows the same rules as English grammar, whereas BSL has its own syntax and grammar.
It's very difficult to explain in English, but a very basic example is that in English you say "what's your name?" and in BSL you sign "Name yours what?" - you can't really do both at the same time. When I sign to another hearing person, we use BSL.
BSL can be better at expressing emotions than English because you physically show your reaction. Also, the signs that don't exist in English are most commonly emotional ones - there's one, which I'll call "Vee" because that's the shape you make with your mouth while signing, that expresses "I should've known that would happen" or "How ironic" or "bloody typical" (although really it means more than that, but I can't express it in words). It's a very useful sign indeed.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
Ah I see. But in theory, two people in the future could communicate through a highly compatible sign language and spoken language at the same time, and therefore be more expressive? The interaction between the two forms of lanuage could add another level of depth and feeling to what was being said.
I'm trying to make an example to help people imagine my idea of a whole new sort of language/communication. Can you help?
mrsfran
Well-Known Member
Yes, I can see that working. Sign language would be better at indicating emotional signifiers and greater context to the spoken language. It would be very complicated but it could work.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
that is fascinating! any other possible results of this combination of sign and speech?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
every single individual has their own 'inner dictionary' which tells them what all the words they use in speech mean
the problem with verbal language (as a way of communicating meaning to other people) is that the words i say, are chosen from my dictionary, but each person hearing my words uses their dictionary to determine what they think i mean.
And our internal dictionaries are not the same as each others
so each person possesses their very own, strictly private language, or their own specific, individualised version of their culture's language, but when I talk to another person, I normally totally ignore this, and tacitly assume that the person i am talking to, is translating my words in their head, exactly as i meant them, in my head, although this is never really the case
so we never really understand each other when we use words to communicate, an evolved, telepathic language would overcome this barrier of communication
the problem with verbal language (as a way of communicating meaning to other people) is that the words i say, are chosen from my dictionary, but each person hearing my words uses their dictionary to determine what they think i mean.
And our internal dictionaries are not the same as each others
so each person possesses their very own, strictly private language, or their own specific, individualised version of their culture's language, but when I talk to another person, I normally totally ignore this, and tacitly assume that the person i am talking to, is translating my words in their head, exactly as i meant them, in my head, although this is never really the case
so we never really understand each other when we use words to communicate, an evolved, telepathic language would overcome this barrier of communication
mrsfran
Well-Known Member
Well, blind people would be fucked
To a certain extent, the combination of physical and verbal language already exists in the the perception of body language. But BSL works exeptionally well at storytelling - it lends itself very well to conveying the description, positioning and context of a series of events. In English, we might say say "There was this guy, he was really lanky and loose-limbed, and he was standing by the door, and I was accross the room, feeling a bit nervous, and I saw him and he looked at me, and then I thought of my friend who was in Spain who I missed very much and I thought that this guy, who is accross the room from me, really reminds me of my friend" - in sign language, that's conveyed in 3 or 4 signs. Spacial awareness and visual description is very high.
It opens up the ability to strongly and quickly describe a specific situation both emotionally and physically.
I think you're right about that up to a point, - but I also think that there's core features to most concepts that are generally shared in all private dictionaries.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
we have computers that can show us general activity in the brain. in the future these could be developed to a point where they can add depth to a spoken conversation. but this would probably be too personal for people, like always being connected up to a lie detector.
also another question to missfran- because of the emotional content of signing is it more difficult to lie, or express a different emotion to that which your feeling?
also another question to missfran- because of the emotional content of signing is it more difficult to lie, or express a different emotion to that which your feeling?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
that is a good point, if we were communicating in this future language, would it still be possible to lie? Or would this become impossible?
Someone said that octopuses squirt ink into the water in order to have private thoughts, because their thoughts are on the surface of their skin
max_freakout
Nothing matters
there is certainly features that each person's dictionaries share, but i think they would be dwarfed by the sheer amount of inconsistencies
? 
!
mrsfran
Well-Known Member
Nah, you just learn to lie better physically. I can look happy when I'm angry, look confident when I'm scared, look excited when I'm bored. On the other hand, if I want to show that I'm unhappy, or whatever, I can make it very physically obvious.
I'm often told I come accross as very physically confident, and particularly given that I am 4ft10 people ALWAYS think I'm taller. I put this down to a greater physical presence. I use my body more than most people, which means that even though inside I'm nervous and anxiety-ridden and embarressed, I come across as outgoing and confident. It's a blessing and a curse.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
yeah, but even then, you wouldnt be able to hide that you were hiding something. you are still saying 'no i dont want you to see my emotional language now' - which in itself is a bold statement.
however if people really understood each other, maybe we wouldnt want to hide very much? if i can see your real emotions, maybe even sense the history behind them, then what is there to hide?
if you really understand someone, then unconditional love can open everything up.
A body language (even a shapeshifting body language) is also a code - it could be described verbally by saying what the positions of each muscle and joint were at any given point in time.
It may be that the human brain has difficulty connecting information expressed in certain ways (eg smell having emotional associations),
or that a visual language by having a higher bandwidth allows communication that if you tried to use words you would forget the first part of the message before the rest arrived...
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
*pokes the thread
Careful, if you surprise a thread, it might surprise you telepathically when you aren't expecting it.
or worse still, get in league with your toaster and put pictures on bread that you can't quite be sure are really there, and you could be thinking about it when you are crossing the road and..
Stamps on thread. Thread is dead.
Perspective aside, It's passed on! This thread is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-THREAD!
max_freakout
Nothing matters
i think this new form of language must first require some kind of technological and/or biological breakthrough
maya
timewasting fool (in every universe)
There was this theorist in the 1930's who proposed a simpler, more logical variant of english which omitted the use of the words "[it] is", for instance- In his opininon, implying that A is B is a false statement, since A can never be B, that is just our interpretation... Since our interpretation of the world is based on how it appears to us filtered through our neurological/nervous system, we can never truly know what the world is like and our concepts and definitions are reductionist rough sketches, often self-contradicting.
re: Linguistic structure as basis for thought/worldview:
I find it interesting, for instance, that Japanese almost never use the word "I", which is one of the most frequently used words in English. According to my japanese MA friend, they state the topic of the conversation in the first sentence, and unless they change the subject, they don't need to repeat the word- it's all based on context. So, if I start to tell someone in japanese, "yesterday this happened to me...", i won't have to repeat the word "me" or "i" again throughout the conversation.
I've also e-mailed with japanese people who wrote "it" instead of "I", probably something to do with the above preference.
How many constructed languages exist, and why did they fail?
Languages like esperanto is an IMHO incredibly clumsy, impractical attempt... How does one talk about everyday things in esperanto? There's not enough words in esperanto to talk in esperanto!
If machines became intelligent, would their language structure be based on the binary system?
re: Linguistic structure as basis for thought/worldview:
I find it interesting, for instance, that Japanese almost never use the word "I", which is one of the most frequently used words in English. According to my japanese MA friend, they state the topic of the conversation in the first sentence, and unless they change the subject, they don't need to repeat the word- it's all based on context. So, if I start to tell someone in japanese, "yesterday this happened to me...", i won't have to repeat the word "me" or "i" again throughout the conversation.
I've also e-mailed with japanese people who wrote "it" instead of "I", probably something to do with the above preference.
How many constructed languages exist, and why did they fail?
Languages like esperanto is an IMHO incredibly clumsy, impractical attempt... How does one talk about everyday things in esperanto? There's not enough words in esperanto to talk in esperanto!
If machines became intelligent, would their language structure be based on the binary system?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
language evolves. That's how it works unless you have concerted efforts to mantain linguistic stagnation (like the french).
Medieval english is almost incomprehensible to me even though when written down I can make some sense of it. The stresses and emphasis points, the flow of the patter, is almost alien.
Re the Japanese point. I don't know how true it is but I was told that there isn't much use for actual swearwords in Japanese. You can convey great disrespect just by refusing to use the correct honorifics and politeness built into the language. Odd but fascinating.
Medieval english is almost incomprehensible to me even though when written down I can make some sense of it. The stresses and emphasis points, the flow of the patter, is almost alien.
Re the Japanese point. I don't know how true it is but I was told that there isn't much use for actual swearwords in Japanese. You can convey great disrespect just by refusing to use the correct honorifics and politeness built into the language. Odd but fascinating.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Naturally, you are already there and waiting for the rest of us mere humans to catch up.
Nonsense. Whilst we might attach a whole plethora of alternate cultural/social and personal significances to words and syntactic patterns (and for that matter, modes of expression such as sign language) there must be more shared meaning than non-shared meaning for communication to take place at all.
Similar threads
