Neanderthals and Language

[Gary Childress]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcQVtXfu9ow

Noam Chomsky is a towering figure in contemporary linguistics. With such authority I almost feel a little suspicoius about what he says in this video concerning the "senselessness" or "uninteresting" quality which he seems to mention concerning scientific exploratoin of the topic of whether Neanderthals possessed language or not. BECAUSE, literally one of Chomsky's most influential premises concerning language is that only homo sapien sapiens possess it. Therefore if, by whatever means, it turned out that Neanderthals also possessed it, then perhaps Chomsky's main tennet about language would be incorrect. Why would that be "senseless" or "uninteresting" in terms of scientific research? To the contrary, wouldn't that be an earthshaking or "paradigm" shaking discovery?

Listening to the video, Chomsky almost seems to discourage people from exploring, speculating and asking questions concerning the subject of Neanderthals and language. It reminds me a little of Einstein's contention with Bohr over "God does not roll dice". It was almost as if Einstein believed that it was somehow something morally imperative for quantum theory to be inaccurate. That if quantum mechanics were discovered to be true, then something horrible would come from it.

Granted there was the atomic bomb which was perhaps developed consequently owing to the research of both Einstein and Quantum physicists. But was that what Einstein was worried about when he said, "God does not roll dice?"


I don't know. I am neither a physicist nor a linguist. But from what I learned decades ago from my studies in philosophy at George Mason University as well as from what seemed to be the prevailing opinion of a few popularizers of science when I was growing up (Carl Sagan, for example) was that science is supposed to be a tool which we humans use to better inform us when we decide to do things or to help inform our beliefs. Trying to discourage scientists from investigating certain things in the world for fear that it would somehow cause "harm" was literally what people like Sagan and others were suggesting represented everything bad about religious orthodoxies. When religious leaders condemned people like Bruno and Galileo, or discouraged accepting the views of Copernicus, Nietzsche and others, it was on the grounds that their views presented a danger to society because they undermined the teachings of the Church and if ordinary people stopped listening to the Church then society would come unraveled and people would stop believing in things like "thou shalt not kill" and other things the Church was teaching as the absolute commands of God.


So what are we to make of Chomsky and Einstein's apparent concerns over the specific things they seem to be concerned about with respect to scientists doing further research, to the point of perhaps even discouraging such research?

[commonsense]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcQVtXfu9ow

Noam Chomsky is a towering figure in contemporary linguistics. With such authority I almost feel a little suspicoius about what he says in this video concerning the "senselessness" or "uninteresting" quality which he seems to mention concerning scientific exploratoin of the topic of whether Neanderthals possessed language or not. BECAUSE, literally one of Chomsky's most influential premises concerning language is that only homo sapien sapiens possess it. Therefore if, by whatever means, it turned out that Neanderthals also possessed it, then perhaps Chomsky's main tennet about language would be incorrect. Why would that be "senseless" or "uninteresting" in terms of scientific research? To the contrary, wouldn't that be an earthshaking or "paradigm" shaking discovery?

Listening to the video, Chomsky almost seems to discourage people from exploring, speculating and asking questions concerning the subject of Neanderthals and language. It reminds me a little of Einstein's contention with Bohr over "God does not roll dice". It was almost as if Einstein believed that it was somehow something morally imperative for quantum theory to be inaccurate. That if quantum mechanics were discovered to be true, then something horrible would come from it.

Granted there was the atomic bomb which was perhaps developed consequently owing to the research of both Einstein and Quantum physicists. But was that what Einstein was worried about when he said, "God does not roll dice?"


I don't know. I am neither a physicist nor a linguist. But from what I learned decades ago from my studies in philosophy at George Mason University as well as from what seemed to be the prevailing opinion of a few popularizers of science when I was growing up (Carl Sagan, for example) was that science is supposed to be a tool which we humans use to better inform us when we decide to do things or to help inform our beliefs. Trying to discourage scientists from investigating certain things in the world for fear that it would somehow cause "harm" was literally what people like Sagan and others were suggesting represented everything bad about religious orthodoxies. When religious leaders condemned people like Bruno and Galileo, or discouraged accepting the views of Copernicus, Nietzsche and others, it was on the grounds that their views presented a danger to society because they undermined the teachings of the Church and if ordinary people stopped listening to the Church then society would come unraveled and people would stop believing in things like "thou shalt not kill" and other things the Church was teaching as the absolute commands of God.


So what are we to make of Chomsky and Einstein's apparent concerns over the specific things they seem to be concerned about with respect to scientists doing further research, to the point of perhaps even discouraging such research?

Chomsky aside, the conjugation of the verb, “to possess”
makes “possess” and “possessed” take place at completely different times. The tenet stands as neither disproved nor proved. As such, your claim that Chomsky’s main tenet would be incorrect is baseless. What follows a baseless claim is also baseless.

[henry quirk]

"So what are we to make of Chomsky and Einstein's apparent concerns over the specific things they seem to be concerned about with respect to scientists doing further research, to the point of perhaps even discouraging such research?"

Two kings a'fear'd of bein' deposed.

[Greta]

Chomsky eventually made some good points about the archaeological records not displaying evidence of Neanderthal language and how crossbreeding between species is not uncommon and does not require common language (and may well have not required consent either).

Still, Chomsky did seem to engage in some (very quiet) ranting about how "senseless" it would be to explore the lingual capacities of non-human species. "What would it prove?" he asks, as if exploration was only worthwhile if trying to prove a point. I assume this is a bias rather than him generally disapproving blue skies research.

Personally, I think human lack of interest in decoding the subtle behavioural signals between animals is at issue. In our human focus on "the big things" we ignore most body language of others, both human and otherwise, but it is perhaps the closest thing to a universal language. The closer one pays attention, the more information body language provides. The vast majority of readily-discernible signals go right past us or are picked up unconsciously. Why do we ignore them? Priority, and because we can.

Studying the subtleties of animal responses is much more of a bottomless well of information than most people assume. They are very much like us IMO, only with different senses and comforts and a childishly immediate sense of time and place.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't doubt that the Neanderthal would have had their own primitive language. Language is only a way of communicating. Language has obviously become more and more sophisticated, but it all started off as grunts.
Who the hell cares what Chompsky says about it?

[Greta]

The language might have also been purely verbal. Each of us starts off as nonverbal, then we become verbal and later usually becomes literate. Hominids may well have followed this same order of events.

For all we know, spoken Neanderthal language may have been quite developed. They might have been not yet developed enough to use abstract written symbols (maybe because they were such excellent artists?), and then climate change and competition of Homo spaiens finished them off.

[-1-]

Chomsky eventually made some good points about the archaeological records not displaying evidence of Neanderthal language and how crossbreeding between species is not uncommon and does not require common language (and may well have not required consent either).

At least not consent or the opposite of it that courts of law would recognize, and without due process, no Neanderthal ought to be convicted of rape.

My approach is different. I think human males PREFERRED Neanderthal females over the females of their own species, what with the N- females unable to talk.

A home, a household, with peace, quiet, and undisturbed harmony in bliss.

[Greta]

Chomsky eventually made some good points about the archaeological records not displaying evidence of Neanderthal language and how crossbreeding between species is not uncommon and does not require common language (and may well have not required consent either).

At least not consent or the opposite of it that courts of law would recognize, and without due process, no Neanderthal ought to be convicted of rape.

My approach is different. I think human males PREFERRED Neanderthal females over the females of their own species, what with the N- females unable to talk.

A home, a household, with peace, quiet, and undisturbed harmony in bliss.

Ha! They'd be able to talk, just not write.

To be fair, blow up dolls would be quiet if that's your priority. Maybe once you found the right inflatable gal you two could get a pet rock, your betrothed would give birth to Barbie and Ken dolls and the happy family would live silently ever after

[-1-]

To be fair, blow up dolls would be quiet if that's your priority. Maybe once you found the right inflatable gal you two could get a pet rock, your betrothed would give birth to Barbie and Ken dolls and the happy family would live silently ever after

That would lead to a logistics nightmare.

I am not going to blow my partner. No way. If I have to blow my doll before she blows me, it's for the pits.

[-1-]

To be fair, blow up dolls would be quiet if that's your priority. Maybe once you found the right inflatable gal you two could get a pet rock, your betrothed would give birth to Barbie and Ken dolls and the happy family would live silently ever after

One preeeck on her skin, and the marriage is over. With a big bangggg.

[Greta]

To be fair, blow up dolls would be quiet if that's your priority. Maybe once you found the right inflatable gal you two could get a pet rock, your betrothed would give birth to Barbie and Ken dolls and the happy family would live silently ever after

One preeeck on her skin, and the marriage is over. With a big bangggg.

A pr1ck and a big bang is how everything begins

[-1-]

To be fair, blow up dolls would be quiet if that's your priority. Maybe once you found the right inflatable gal you two could get a pet rock, your betrothed would give birth to Barbie and Ken dolls and the happy family would live silently ever after

One preeeck on her skin, and the marriage is over. With a big bangggg.

A pr1ck and a big bang is how everything begins

[gaffo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcQVtXfu9ow

Noam Chomsky is a towering figure in contemporary linguistics. With such authority I almost feel a little suspicoius about what he says in this video concerning the "senselessness" or "uninteresting" quality which he seems to mention concerning scientific exploratoin of the topic of whether Neanderthals possessed language or not. BECAUSE, literally one of Chomsky's most influential premises concerning language is that only homo sapien sapiens possess it. Therefore if, by whatever means, it turned out that Neanderthals also possessed it, then perhaps Chomsky's main tennet about language would be incorrect. Why would that be "senseless" or "uninteresting" in terms of scientific research? To the contrary, wouldn't that be an earthshaking or "paradigm" shaking discovery?

Listening to the video, Chomsky almost seems to discourage people from exploring, speculating and asking questions concerning the subject of Neanderthals and language. It reminds me a little of Einstein's contention with Bohr over "God does not roll dice". It was almost as if Einstein believed that it was somehow something morally imperative for quantum theory to be inaccurate. That if quantum mechanics were discovered to be true, then something horrible would come from it.

Granted there was the atomic bomb which was perhaps developed consequently owing to the research of both Einstein and Quantum physicists. But was that what Einstein was worried about when he said, "God does not roll dice?"


I don't know. I am neither a physicist nor a linguist. But from what I learned decades ago from my studies in philosophy at George Mason University as well as from what seemed to be the prevailing opinion of a few popularizers of science when I was growing up (Carl Sagan, for example) was that science is supposed to be a tool which we humans use to better inform us when we decide to do things or to help inform our beliefs. Trying to discourage scientists from investigating certain things in the world for fear that it would somehow cause "harm" was literally what people like Sagan and others were suggesting represented everything bad about religious orthodoxies. When religious leaders condemned people like Bruno and Galileo, or discouraged accepting the views of Copernicus, Nietzsche and others, it was on the grounds that their views presented a danger to society because they undermined the teachings of the Church and if ordinary people stopped listening to the Church then society would come unraveled and people would stop believing in things like "thou shalt not kill" and other things the Church was teaching as the absolute commands of God.


So what are we to make of Chomsky and Einstein's apparent concerns over the specific things they seem to be concerned about with respect to scientists doing further research, to the point of perhaps even discouraging such research?

Chomsky is overrated.

horsesence would assume that anyone Homo Erectus and beyond had words for objects.

and so language - from 2 million yrs go to today.

[Gary Childress]

I don't doubt that the Neanderthal would have had their own primitive language. Language is only a way of communicating. Language has obviously become more and more sophisticated, but it all started off as grunts.
Who the hell cares what Chompsky says about it?

Hi VT,

When you say, "who the hell cares what Chompsky says about it?"'; what do you mean? It seems like a relatively false statement. Do you mean, that YOU don't care? Because literally MOST scholars around the world who are considered "reputable" seem to "care" VERY much what "Chompsky" has to say about things concerning language. He's said to be one of the most (if not THE most) quoted authors in the world and even today--good or bad, for better or worse--even his critics seem to face an uphill struggle against his ideas--at least as far as those critics who work within the world of "academics" (at least as practiced within most institutions of higher learning around the world). So I'm a little unsure of how reality based your statement is, although I can maybe understand your sentiment.

[Gary Childress]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcQVtXfu9ow

Noam Chomsky is a towering figure in contemporary linguistics. With such authority I almost feel a little suspicoius about what he says in this video concerning the "senselessness" or "uninteresting" quality which he seems to mention concerning scientific exploratoin of the topic of whether Neanderthals possessed language or not. BECAUSE, literally one of Chomsky's most influential premises concerning language is that only homo sapien sapiens possess it. Therefore if, by whatever means, it turned out that Neanderthals also possessed it, then perhaps Chomsky's main tennet about language would be incorrect. Why would that be "senseless" or "uninteresting" in terms of scientific research? To the contrary, wouldn't that be an earthshaking or "paradigm" shaking discovery?

Listening to the video, Chomsky almost seems to discourage people from exploring, speculating and asking questions concerning the subject of Neanderthals and language. It reminds me a little of Einstein's contention with Bohr over "God does not roll dice". It was almost as if Einstein believed that it was somehow something morally imperative for quantum theory to be inaccurate. That if quantum mechanics were discovered to be true, then something horrible would come from it.

Granted there was the atomic bomb which was perhaps developed consequently owing to the research of both Einstein and Quantum physicists. But was that what Einstein was worried about when he said, "God does not roll dice?"


I don't know. I am neither a physicist nor a linguist. But from what I learned decades ago from my studies in philosophy at George Mason University as well as from what seemed to be the prevailing opinion of a few popularizers of science when I was growing up (Carl Sagan, for example) was that science is supposed to be a tool which we humans use to better inform us when we decide to do things or to help inform our beliefs. Trying to discourage scientists from investigating certain things in the world for fear that it would somehow cause "harm" was literally what people like Sagan and others were suggesting represented everything bad about religious orthodoxies. When religious leaders condemned people like Bruno and Galileo, or discouraged accepting the views of Copernicus, Nietzsche and others, it was on the grounds that their views presented a danger to society because they undermined the teachings of the Church and if ordinary people stopped listening to the Church then society would come unraveled and people would stop believing in things like "thou shalt not kill" and other things the Church was teaching as the absolute commands of God.


So what are we to make of Chomsky and Einstein's apparent concerns over the specific things they seem to be concerned about with respect to scientists doing further research, to the point of perhaps even discouraging such research?

Chomsky aside, the conjugation of the verb, “to possess”
makes “possess” and “possessed” take place at completely different times. The tenet stands as neither disproved nor proved. As such, your claim that Chomsky’s main tenet would be incorrect is baseless. What follows a baseless claim is also baseless.

Hi, "Commonsense". I take it you are a linguistic "prescriptivist"?