Thursday, September 05, 2019
  Linguists finally catch on

Via Atlantic:
In the early 1960s, a doctoral student at Cornell University wanted to figure out whether there was any truth behind the “cultural stereotype” that certain foreigners speak faster than Americans. He recorded 12 of his fellow students—six Japanese speakers and six American English speakers—monologuing about life on campus, analyzed one minute of each man’s speech, and found that the two groups produced sounds at roughly the same speed. He and a co-author concluded that “the hearer judges the speech rate of a foreign language in terms of his linguistic background,” and that humans the world over were all likely to be more or less equally fast talkers.
This demonstrably false nonsense was still accepted doctrine in the '80s when I worked in academic speech research. Experts "explained" that Spanish sounded faster because it had a more equal stress on syllables, compared to English with its strong stressed and weak unstressed. I knew it was nonsense at the time. You can prove it for yourself with a good parallel translation (not computer translations). Just count the syllables. Spanish consistently has twice as many syllables as English for the same sentence, but the spoken sentence takes the same amount of time. I had also observed this in SW listening. International broadcasters featured identical news broadcasts in several languages. The Spanish version and the English version said the same things in the same five minutes.

It's good to see that linguists are starting to accept the obvious reality:
In the half century since then, more rigorous studies have shown that, prejudice aside, some languages—such as Japanese, Basque, and Italian—really are spoken more quickly than others. But as mathematical methods and computing power have improved, linguists have spent more time studying not just speech rate, but the effort a speaker has to exert to get a message across to a listener. By calculating how much information every syllable in a language conveys, it’s possible to compare the “efficiency” of different languages. And a study published today in Science Advances found that more efficient languages tend to be spoken more slowly. In other words, no matter how quickly speakers chatter, the rate of information they’re transmitting is roughly the same across languages.
Obviously true, but the emphasis on energy misses part of the reason for "inefficient" languages.

Life is the OPPOSITE of efficiency. Life NEVER takes the path that minimizes energy usage. Modern Darwinians are DIAMETRICALLY wrong when they base their theories on energy efficiency. They do it because drunk streetlight. Energy usage is easy to measure with treadmills and calorimeters and other simple instruments.

Those extra syllables and phonemes and tones and intonations serve several purposes that are more important than conveying data but harder to measure. I've been discussing this from several angles. I'll just do three partial reprints:

Partial reprint 1.
Agglutinative languages mark the noun and stop there. Mechanistic logic says that one set of attachments gets the meaning across, so that's all you need. Synthetic languages spread the grammar across a major part of the sentence, generally with different forms and different mappings for nouns and adjectives and articles.

In synthetic languages the splashed-out forms are more like a spice or color than a mechanism. In German the article normally carries the case and number fairly reliably; the noun may carry only the number; and the adjective may carry only the case. Everything depends on everything else, so each word carries less of the load both productively and receptively. You can sniff the relationship from one or all of the pieces, and that's enough.


Partial reprint 2.
The Latin-loving youngsters are magnetized by the PERMANENT force field of Natural Law. They are repelled from the Satanic chaos of Soros and Bergoglio, attracted to PERMANENT AND MEANINGFUL STRUCTURE.

Why is Latin more suitable than modern languages to pull you into permanence?

For the same reason that Bach is better than Hillsong, the same reason that the Mass and Rosary are better than Mindfulness. PERMANENT AND MEANINGFUL STRUCTURE.

The rule is repeated in other religions. Eastern Orthodox uses Old Slavonic in its services. Hindus use Sanskrit. Muslims use classical Arabic. Serious Protestants prefer King James. Those differences aren't nearly as stark as Latin vs modern English, but they are always in the same direction.

In simple terms, more God means more grammar. In technical linguistic terms, tradition goes toward 'synthetic' and modernity goes toward 'isolating'.

Modernity is more efficient for damn sure. Measured by Shannon information, you can transfer the same message in a much shorter utterance when you skip the 'redundant' suffixes of Latin. English is unquestionably better for everyday business.
Partial reprint 3.
Continuing with Del Giudice's magnificently productive question about mental defensible spaces against pathogens.

How about defensible cases? Languages are certainly distinct mental spaces. Well known. An idea or a joke rarely transfers properly between languages. I've noted before that a well-structured language with good internal modularity protects people against invasive ideas.

Often-invaded cultures and languages like Russia develop sophisticated complexities that are impossible for invaders to understand.

Invading cultures like USA and invading languages like English are simple and crude. We are the pathogen, so we don't need to defend against other pathogens.

Babel tells us that God wanted modularity, not universality. Why? To protect us against both physical and cultural pathogens.

Labels:

 


<< Home

blogger hit counter
My Photo
Name:
Location: Spokane

The current icon shows Polistra using a Personal Equation Machine.

My graphics products:

Free stuff at ShareCG

And some leftovers here.

ARCHIVES
March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / November 2011 / December 2011 / January 2012 / February 2012 / March 2012 / April 2012 / May 2012 / June 2012 / July 2012 / August 2012 / September 2012 / October 2012 / November 2012 / December 2012 / January 2013 / February 2013 / March 2013 / April 2013 / May 2013 / June 2013 / July 2013 / August 2013 / September 2013 / October 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / May 2014 / June 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / September 2014 / October 2014 / November 2014 / December 2014 / January 2015 / February 2015 / March 2015 / April 2015 / May 2015 / June 2015 / July 2015 / August 2015 / September 2015 / October 2015 / November 2015 / December 2015 / January 2016 / February 2016 / March 2016 / April 2016 / May 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 / August 2016 / September 2016 / October 2016 / November 2016 / December 2016 / January 2017 / February 2017 / March 2017 / April 2017 / May 2017 / June 2017 / July 2017 / August 2017 / September 2017 / October 2017 / November 2017 / December 2017 / January 2018 / February 2018 / March 2018 / April 2018 / May 2018 / June 2018 / July 2018 / August 2018 / September 2018 / October 2018 / November 2018 / December 2018 / January 2019 / February 2019 / March 2019 / April 2019 / May 2019 / June 2019 / July 2019 / August 2019 / September 2019 / October 2019 / November 2019 / December 2019 / January 2020 / February 2020 / March 2020 / April 2020 / May 2020 / June 2020 / July 2020 / August 2020 / September 2020 / October 2020 / November 2020 / December 2020 / January 2021 / February 2021 / March 2021 / April 2021 / May 2021 / June 2021 / July 2021 / August 2021 / September 2021 / October 2021 / November 2021 /


Major tags or subjects:

2000 = 1000
Carbon Cult
Carver
Constants and variables
Defensible Cases
Defensible Times
Defensible Spaces
Equipoise
Experiential education
From rights to duties
Grand Blueprint
Metrology
Natural law = Sharia law
Natural law = Soviet law
Shared Lie
Skill-estate
Trinity House
#Whole-of-society

Powered by Blogger