Comments on: The Ecology of Language http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:10:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Discerning Spirits (The Anthropik Network) http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-28055 Discerning Spirits (The Anthropik Network) Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:06:57 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-28055 [...] Naturally this is couched in Christian terminology, but there is an important element here for anyone who would attempt to understand what a babbling brook is babbling about, or why the boughs of a tree sigh. As David Abram explains so brilliantly in Spell of the Sensuous, the root of all communication is empathy. Since the only life we will ever know is our own experience of it, we see life in other things only insofar as we can see ourselves in that other. We recognize other human being as "alive" only by our capacity for empathy—we can put ourselves in their place, and we imagine their experience of living to be roughly similar, in most ways, to our own. We imagine they feel pain or joy, that they think and dream, roughly the same as we do. We relate to them and their words primarily by means of putting ourselves in their place; what would we be thinking or feeling, to say those words. We take the words not as the speakers means them—because, in truth, we can never know how the speaker means them, this is the existential problem of language—but as we mean them. One of the primary points Abram makes is that language arises from ecology, that it is not, strictly speaking, arbitrary; rather, that it is informed and shaped on a very basic level by the interaction not just of human speakers, but of the non-human communities—from birds, insects and mammals, to winds and streams—upon which those humans depend. We use this medium to relate to another person. [...] […] Naturally this is couched in Christian terminology, but there is an important element here for anyone who would attempt to understand what a babbling brook is babbling about, or why the boughs of a tree sigh. As David Abram explains so brilliantly in Spell of the Sensuous, the root of all communication is empathy. Since the only life we will ever know is our own experience of it, we see life in other things only insofar as we can see ourselves in that other. We recognize other human being as “alive” only by our capacity for empathy—we can put ourselves in their place, and we imagine their experience of living to be roughly similar, in most ways, to our own. We imagine they feel pain or joy, that they think and dream, roughly the same as we do. We relate to them and their words primarily by means of putting ourselves in their place; what would we be thinking or feeling, to say those words. We take the words not as the speakers means them—because, in truth, we can never know how the speaker means them, this is the existential problem of language—but as we mean them. One of the primary points Abram makes is that language arises from ecology, that it is not, strictly speaking, arbitrary; rather, that it is informed and shaped on a very basic level by the interaction not just of human speakers, but of the non-human communities—from birds, insects and mammals, to winds and streams—upon which those humans depend. We use this medium to relate to another person. […]

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21346 Jason Godesky Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:30:15 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21346 Well, good luck. I suspect there's a very good reason why there's never been a viable, gender-blind culture, despite several failed attempts to make one. A culture that's blind to real biological differences fails in its primary mission: to be an adaptive means for humans to engage the world around them. Doesn't mean our typical, strict, two-gendered approach is the only possible way, though. Many cultures have had anywhere from three to five genders. But it is important to bear in mind that all the examples we have of sustainable societies are all very conservative. Well, good luck. I suspect there’s a very good reason why there’s never been a viable, gender-blind culture, despite several failed attempts to make one. A culture that’s blind to real biological differences fails in its primary mission: to be an adaptive means for humans to engage the world around them. Doesn’t mean our typical, strict, two-gendered approach is the only possible way, though. Many cultures have had anywhere from three to five genders. But it is important to bear in mind that all the examples we have of sustainable societies are all very conservative.

]]> By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21344 ChandraShakti Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:23:34 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21344 I have come across the article on E-Prime on this site. Rather than elimination of the copula (be-verb for you non-linguists) I am more interested in eliminating sex differentiated pronouns. More generally in eliminating gender from the language. I have considered the form I would like my tribe to take and whether I'd prefer distinct male and female cultures/languages as occurs in some Austrailian and some African tribes or if I'd prefer a culture that is more gender-blind. I ran it past a friend I'd like to have as part of my tribe. We both prefer the more gender-blind type. Other than that, I just want to work to make the language distinct from English fairly quickly. I'd like within a generation to have a language that is not comprehensible to other surviving tribes so as to provide extra cohesion to the group. Jason's article has provided me with an excellent way to naturally work toward that end. I have come across the article on E-Prime on this site. Rather than elimination of the copula (be-verb for you non-linguists) I am more interested in eliminating sex differentiated pronouns. More generally in eliminating gender from the language. I have considered the form I would like my tribe to take and whether I’d prefer distinct male and female cultures/languages as occurs in some Austrailian and some African tribes or if I’d prefer a culture that is more gender-blind. I ran it past a friend I’d like to have as part of my tribe. We both prefer the more gender-blind type. Other than that, I just want to work to make the language distinct from English fairly quickly. I’d like within a generation to have a language that is not comprehensible to other surviving tribes so as to provide extra cohesion to the group. Jason’s article has provided me with an excellent way to naturally work toward that end.

]]> By: Giulianna Lamanna http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21297 Giulianna Lamanna Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:03:50 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21297 Chandra: What language are you considering using? And have you heard about E-prime? Chandra: What language are you considering using? And have you heard about E-prime?

]]> By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21245 ChandraShakti Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:01:54 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21245 Ah, now you hit on a topic that I've been contemplating for some time. When the Change comes, I'd like to not continue speaking English. I'd like my tribe to speak in a way more conducive to tribal function and ways of thinking. Thank you for this very useful and informative essay. I will soon be moving to the area in which I intend to be to survive the collapse. I will begin learning the way the land in that area talks to assist in my growing a new language. Also, I've had foreigners describe American English as sounding like the barking of dogs... This seems sensible, as dogs are one of the few animals we continue to allow in our midst in appreciable numbers. Ah, now you hit on a topic that I’ve been contemplating for some time. When the Change comes, I’d like to not continue speaking English. I’d like my tribe to speak in a way more conducive to tribal function and ways of thinking. Thank you for this very useful and informative essay. I will soon be moving to the area in which I intend to be to survive the collapse. I will begin learning the way the land in that area talks to assist in my growing a new language.
Also, I’ve had foreigners describe American English as sounding like the barking of dogs… This seems sensible, as dogs are one of the few animals we continue to allow in our midst in appreciable numbers.

]]> By: Peter http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21238 Peter Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:36:30 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/08/the-ecology-of-language/#comment-21238 Never underestimate the intelligence of our animal companions. I once met a man in a pub who claimed to have taught his dog basic map reading skills and to bark twice whenever a right hand turn was called for. Never underestimate the intelligence of our animal companions.

I once met a man in a pub who claimed to have taught his dog basic map reading skills and to bark twice whenever a right hand turn was called for.

]]>