They all do that, sir...

In a modern environment communication cannot be avoided. If it doesn't
exist it would have to be invented. There's no way around it.

But remove that modern environment ... does that then remove the
inevitable development of a sign language?

The only examples to disprove CRN's hypothesis are groups of D&D kids
within speaking and hearing communities, whereas CRN said an isolated
community.

Speaking as someone who has no knowledge of social development (shat ya
marf yoo slarg!) it would seem both sides are right, within their
specific contexts.

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

Is CRN not well liked or something?

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

i don't know why you say *modern* environment. certainly there appear to
have been sign languages and other semiotic and paralinguistic forms of
communication such as thieves' cant since the earliest recorded history.

crn is right if and only if all forms of communication other than speech
have to be translated into speech in order to be meaningful. while he
may have to read the words out loud in order to understand them, this
doesn't apply to many others, which kind of invalidates his thesis.

 

Knowing how pedantic this place is, I was thinking cave men, for
example, didn't use language. So, modern meant a time when complex
communication was common.

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

This is getting Orwellian. Without a word in Newspeak to describe it,
would the idea of 'freedom' exist?

 

If they could draw complex and beautiful pictures on cave walls, I'd be
very surprised if they didn't have some form of communication.

 

No. See my other post. In at least one 'ghetto school' for deaf kids
(where no attempt by hearing people was made to teach them) the kids
developed a complex sign language of their own.

 

But does this really matter in answering the original question ?.
If any (spoken or signed) language develops the signed language is
equivalent to spoken language. If/when a written form develops it
remains a derivative of the (spoken or signed) language which has
no life of its own. Thus our original putative question mark remains
nothing more or less than a pronounciation indicator.

QED.

 

There are a many ways in which the US Army mangle the English language.

The context in question (pun intended) implies the noun form of
"interrogative", which would be incorrect. However, I concede that if it
was intended to be the adjectival version of "interrogative" then it could
be acceptable. Nevertheless, it would have been far better (and less
pretentious) simply to ask, "Why [use] the question mark?"

 

Again:

Having fun. - Just a statement.

Having fun? - Now a question.

In the world of the written word, you
can only definitely tell the statement
from the interrogative by the punctuation.

Hardly makes a question mark nothing more than
pronounciation guide, does it?

The question mark for that ^ question gives no
clues as to how it should be pronounced.
I could finish it tonally rising or falling or even
neutrally and you'd still understand you'd been asked
a question.

A question mark is a written interrogative
device, not a pronounciation guide.

 

As they say on wikipedia... [citation needed]

 

Why do you persist? It's clear that you've not got a clue, yet you
keep on digging. Quite apart from the deaf and dumb examples given,
where sign languages have developed in the absence of a spoken
language, what do you think about older written forms, like
heiroglyphics, which first developed as written forms entirely
seperate from the spoken language, with most characters having no
inherent one-to-one relationship with any given word.

Kanji is a good example, too, given that the same characters are used
for several different Chinese languages, as well as Japanese, where
completely different words are used for the same written character. So
while you could say that spoken languages can be ascribed to written
forms, the written language itself is in no way representative of a
spoken form.

You didn't demonstrate anything.

 

yes, you've already stated that this is your belief. however you haven't
produced any evidence for it yet, whereas others have produced a great
deal of evidence to the contrary.

conclusions from an unproved hypothesis are equally unproved.

unfortunately just saying something don't make it so.

 

"Cave men".

Would that be Cro-Magnon (ie modern humans with all the abilities that
that implies - including speech) or Neanderthal? Who (most scientists
think anyway) had a fairly wide vocabulary.

Even non-sapients (cats & dogs for example) have language. Which is a
mixture of posture, sound and gesture.

Langauge is after all (as dog has said) merely a way of communicating
concepts. So when a cat hisses at you then you know it is expressing
hostility/displeasure - both of which are concepts (which don't have to
be abstract at all).

Phil.

 

I can't stand that Larry King.

 

They probably had a pictogram for '****'.

 

Yes, but they're usually referred to as 'vulva'.

 

Or CRN

--
Lozzo
Versys 650 Tourer
Fireblade 929 (For sale)
CBR600F-W trackbike
SR250 SpazzTrakka,
SR250 wivva topbox
TS250C
RD400F, somewhere
I see a bright new future, where chickens can cross the road with no
fear of having their motives questioned

 

Azure.

Sapphire.

Cerulean.

Porny.

 

Donner.

Blitzen.

Rudolf.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CB1300SA-9/CBX1000Z
|_\_____/_| ..99843../..00312.../..32117.
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 WG*
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 PM#5
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4 YTC#4 two#11
'^' RBR Clues: 00 Pts:0000 Miles:0000