Are you sure you want to delete this post?
REGARDING THE SYSTEMATICITY
OR LOGIC OF LANGUAGE
The program of human cognition is, essentially, universal and similar. No matter the race, region, spoken tongue, etc., man conceives of, cogitates, and communicates much the same reality-spread (beginnings, ends, heavens, earth, feelings, states, things.) Details and foci differ. Some language may lack terms for colors other than black or white. Another may have numerous terms for rain (expanding the realm of English – drizzle, sprinkle, downpour, mist, etc. – into a whole precipitational vocabulary in itself. Causal attributions vary, say from scientific to superstitious. But human mentality is recognizably human mentality in the manifestation of language.
There’s system and logic discernable here.
1. The languages of man are sonically similar (being sounded by specie-specific mouths, tongues, lips, vocal chords, breath, accentuations, stressings, inflections, prosodies, gender-ization, and neural routings and muscular mechanisms. From the guttural German to the “tonal-inclusive” Chinese and myriads between, there’s system to language, whatever it might be. And essential similarity too, no matter the differences. From the distinctive characteristics of Russian to the significantly variant yet equally individualistic speech of, say, Polynesia, a singular sonic systematology is salient.
There’s logic and order here too.
2. Language “configuration” is quite universal as well. Syntax, domains (verbs, nouns, qualifiers, etc.) phraseology/pause periodicities, sequencings and orderings are basically similar, are human dynamics and forms. Granted there are variables. Where we’d state “I went to the store to buy food”, another language might state “The store to, food to buy, went I” or some other variation of order. Does the one ordering reveal a subtle, or insidious, egocentricity (the “I” or other “self-referent” or “self-projectant” term given primacy, prioritized)? Would another language display a contextual set transcending or “submerging” self within existential dynamics? And would this second format evidence social dynamics during the aggregation of language such that the individual was in lesser control of matters than was the case of the first utterance-form?
Does syntactic ordering of a language reveal derivative or ongoing systematic state of the culture and individuals therein? Interesting area to investigate.
Simply, though, it seems that here (syntax, phraseology, subject-predicate order, etc.) there is rationality and logic in the formulation of language,
3. But when you get to the words themselves, things go rather berserk!!
Where is the moth in mother?
Where is the fart in farther? The fur in further?
Why, with just the removal of the “rrrrr” phoneme, does that which is more distant become that which is paternal (father)?
Is the dam in damage indicative of some phonetic-root pre-revealing ecological detriment caused by the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Army Corps of Engineers or something?
Garbage . . . .when was that epoch?
And there are thousands if not millions of further examples.
A somewhat different area of consideration: to, too, two.
Throw, threw, through.
So, sew, sow.
Tow, toe. Often affixed to a vehicle being pulled by another is a sign, “vehicle in tow”. Now sonically, we might picture something about a foot with a wheeled tumor? And how about getting kissed under the missiletoe at Cape Canaveral?
Does sextet refer to an ensemble or an orgy?
For a feast, the ancient Israelis slew a fatted calf. When times were tough, did they slay a fetid calf? And why didn’t they slayed or wasn’t whichever calf slewn?
What have you won if you wonder? And why would the substitution of a single letter (a for o) change the mental process of the cipher from a ponder or marvel to a meander or excursion (wander)?
Male. Given female (fe-male), why isn’t a young one a feboy? If her sibling is a brother, why isn’t the female sibling of the brother termed by a gender-shift of the “siblimic” term brother (analogous to the feminization of male to female) . . .why wouldn’t sis be called a brather or something?
Language, is an ultimately profound representation and conveyance of the very universal scope of existence. Thus is its “being” as, (again I’ll say it), an analog of the very cosmic expanses and differential dimensions (macro- to micro, for example). Thus the field of language (interfacing mind and existence) is an astounding trans-dimensional replication.
But get to the quanta , the phonemes and phonetics, the words, -- and the lack of order. even rationality is also astounding. About the only place where language conveys true organization and scientific interrelationship and conjunctivity is in chemistry’s terminology and taxonomy. There, the terms “parallel” as well as analogue the substantive referents. Hydrogen plus Chlorine yield Hydrogen Chloride, etc. etc., making sense and concatenation of relationships referentially and terminologically as well as atomically and molecularly! Not so “father” plus “mother” yield “baby” or “infant” or “child” or equivalent terms/names totally unrelated to the relationships and contributants thereof!!
It’s almost as if language (though not awareness) is the substance (so to speak) of a cognitive universe in its own semi-separate dimension from the reality-realm -- the actuality/material. And the words and terms are the infinity of fragments and foci and fusions generated by (in toto) the “Big Bang” of neurology with, still, the spontaneous generation (the “little burps”) of words and terms and jargon and taxonomy expanding that universe. And it is from an individual, a “jargonizer” or “neologizer”, that the word is first spoken into that analogue universe (sonic-cognitive), thence to join in the gravitations and orbits of influence through galaxies of races and epochs and places and mentalities, theories, and all.
Yes, the aspects of language that I’ve so superficially, perhaps sophomorically, considered herein, are fascinating, intriguing, even baffling.
And interesting too . . . .that English with its chaotic spelling and sometimes senseless pronunciations . . . .English is fast becoming the long-sought Esperanto . . .the universal language spoken by all everywhere!!
A word . . . .just one of thousands of such incomprehensible cases?
Linked phonemes (eh, ks, ih, t, ih, ng). Exiting. Each of these sounds results from a neuro-physiological complex (1) representing an interface of a sentient being (person) with its existential domain inclusive of material universe, own organism, juxtaposition with the beyond, temporality, etc. etc. (2) Conveying at least awareness/identity, but significantly the ‘bio-dynamics’ of communication, emotion, enaction, and more . . . . .EXITING (eh,ks,ih,t,ih,ng)
The letter S, a phoneme (“ssssss”) termed “white noise”. It and
the other phonemes stimulate physio-emotional correlates, even
evolutionarily. “Ssss” is significant in maternal prosody (the sound
of mother to offspring for calming or reassuring) but also as a signal] of status or import of the individual “hissed” to others (MIT ref.p.52) and see page my page of this here linguistics section.
EXITING (eh,ks,ih,t,ih,ng) . . .now we add “sssss”EXCITING (eh,ks,sss,ih,t, ih,ng).And by just rearranging a little, from the same sounds comes a totally different referent (cognitive analogue of reality-state) again:EXISTING (eh,ks,ih,sss,ti,ng).
THERE CAN OBVIOUSLY BE NO PERIODIC TABLE OF
THE ELEMENTS OF LANGUAGE!!!
We could consider that language is a neurological systematology and that the sonic or signaged (vocalized or ciphered) manifestation thereof is a physiological phenomenon (enactment) sort of “beyond the point” of linguistics per se. Yes, I’m risking a semantic and linguistic muddle of meaning here. But the standpoint of language is, in part a conveyance of information and/or directive from one individual to another or from one to a multitude – and even the obverse wherein the singular is “informed” by the group. And further interpolating the factors of abstract, social, and even complexly mathematical (vector, distance, etc.) information interchanged . . . . . language is surely “data-ful” even when silent.
But there is, too, sound made by creatures that, of course, isn’t at all linguistic even though it’s meant to be. And this includes by the “highest” of the species!!
Thus, can we postulate the possibility that a lotta bugs got a lot more language stuff going on than some of us people? And can we consider that of the neurological circuitry of life-forms, the brain if but one module and its gross or componential size and even connectivity isn’t exclusively important?