This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824

(free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)

It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.

On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>
> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>
> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.

Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>
> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>
> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.

Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.

On 11/05/2021 1:32 p.m., Ross Clark wrote:
> On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>>
>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>>
>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>>
>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
>
> Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
> Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.

Also not a free download in its entirety.
Some items seem to be downloadable by all comers.
Others, even when accessing the journal via my university library, I
can't see anything but an abstract.
Strange.

Le lundi 10 mai 2021 à 22:12:51 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>
> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>
> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.

They don't care for linguists and linguistics, at least since the early 2010s...

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> > (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> > It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> > appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
..
> Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
> Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.

Any relation to the charlatan Dan Everett?

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> >
> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> >
> > (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> >
> > It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> > appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
> Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.

stay away from their chapters, then.

On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:38:10 AM UTC-6, S K wrote:
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> > >
> > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> > >
> > > (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> > >
> > > It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> > > appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> > Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
> > Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.
> stay away from their chapters, then.
Thanks for sharing Peter T. Daniels.

On 12/05/2021 2:56 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> .
>> Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
>> Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.
>
> Any relation to the charlatan Dan Everett?

I wasn't aware that Dan had been convicted of charlatanry; but Caleb is
his son. He's an anthro/linguist at the University of Miami. Has a book
on linguistic relativity which seems quite good. (I just started it and
then got distracted by something else.)

On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>>
>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>>
>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>>
>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
>
> Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.

You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.

On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> >>
> >> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> >>
> >> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> >>
> >> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> >> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> >
> > Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
> You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
> Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.

I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)

On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:39:28 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 12/05/2021 2:56 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >> On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> >>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> >>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> >>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> >>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning. .
> >> Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
> >> Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.
> > Any relation to the charlatan Dan Everett?
>
> I wasn't aware that Dan had been convicted of charlatanry; but Caleb is
> his son. He's an anthro/linguist at the University of Miami. Has a book
> on linguistic relativity which seems quite good. (I just started it and
> then got distracted by something else.)

So that's the boy who could have been raised bilingual in Paraha
and English -- he was a toddler during some of the fieldwork --
but wasn't. (The father, and presumably the mother, was a Missionary
Linguist in the early days and seems to have had odd ideas about the
people he was "helpiing.")

Compare David Stuart, who was raised bilingual in Maya country,
which made it basically easy to read Maya hieroglyphs and propose
dozens of new glyph readings.

On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> > >>
> > >> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> > >>
> > >> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> > >>
> > >> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> > >> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> > >
> > > Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
> > You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami)..
> > Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.
>
> I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)

If you knew anything about linguistics, you'd have been aware
that his bizarre notions about Pirahã (no, they're not named for
vicious Amazon fish) were motivated by animus toward Chomsky;
he changed his analyses in order to "show" that Pirahã is unlike
any other human language. (A mini-symposium was published
in *Language* years ago.)

On 13/05/2021 2:16 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>> On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>>>>>
>>>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
>>>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
>>>>
>>>> Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
>>> You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
>>> Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.
>>
>> I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)
>
> If you knew anything about linguistics, you'd have been aware
> that his bizarre notions about Pirahã (no, they're not named for
> vicious Amazon fish) were motivated by animus toward Chomsky;

Really? Resulting from what?

> he changed his analyses in order to "show" that Pirahã is unlike
> any other human language.

By his own account, his original analysis was based on certain
widely-held assumptions about universals, which he later realized there
was no good evidence for in Piraha.

(A mini-symposium was published
> in *Language* years ago.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

On 12/05/2021 9:39 a.m., Ross Clark wrote:
> On 12/05/2021 2:56 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>> On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
>>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
>> .
>>> Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
>>> Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.
>>
>> Any relation to the charlatan Dan Everett?
>
> I wasn't aware that Dan had been convicted of charlatanry; but Caleb is
> his son. He's an anthro/linguist at the University of Miami. Has a book
> on linguistic relativity which seems quite good. (I just started it and
> then got distracted by something else.)
>

Perhaps you know that Chomsky himself has used that c-word of Everett?
Here's the apparent source:

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ciencia/fe0102200904.htm

It's surprising to see you and Noam on the same side of the fence.

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 10:16:51 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > > On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > >> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> > > >>
> > > >> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> > > >>
> > > >> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> > > >> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> > > >
> > > > Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
> > > You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
> > > Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.
> >
> > I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)
> If you knew anything about linguistics, you'd have been aware
> that his bizarre notions about Pirahã (no, they're not named for
> vicious Amazon fish) were motivated by animus toward Chomsky;
> he changed his analyses in order to "show" that Pirahã is unlike
> any other human language. (A mini-symposium was published
> in *Language* years ago.)

Actually, both you and I and presumably all linguists use the wrong name, they refer to themselves as Hi'aiti'ihi, the straight ones. Unless you meant the fish...

The thing I know about linguistics is that the human language is artificially broken into numerous "languages", which is equivalent to a black lab speaking a different dog language than a chocolate lab.

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 10:12:15 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:39:28 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On 12/05/2021 2:56 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > >> On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > >>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> > >>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> > >>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> > >>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> > >>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning. .
> > >> Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
> > >> Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.
> > > Any relation to the charlatan Dan Everett?
> >
> > I wasn't aware that Dan had been convicted of charlatanry; but Caleb is
> > his son. He's an anthro/linguist at the University of Miami. Has a book
> > on linguistic relativity which seems quite good. (I just started it and
> > then got distracted by something else.)
> So that's the boy who could have been raised bilingual in Paraha
> and English -- he was a toddler during some of the fieldwork --
> but wasn't.

Caleb has focused on an entirely different "language" than his father.

(The father, and presumably the mother, was a Missionary
> Linguist in the early days and seems to have had odd ideas about the
> people he was "helpiing.")
>
> Compare David Stuart, who was raised bilingual in Maya country,
> which made it basically easy to read Maya hieroglyphs and propose
> dozens of new glyph readings.

Writing & reading are helpful in learning a language, and vice versa.

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 9:27:46 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 13/05/2021 2:16 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>> On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> >>>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
> >>> You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
> >>> Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.
> >>
> >> I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)
> >
> > If you knew anything about linguistics, you'd have been aware
> > that his bizarre notions about Pirahã (no, they're not named for
> > vicious Amazon fish) were motivated by animus toward Chomsky;
>
> Really? Resulting from what?

The reviewers in *Language* didn't go into the psychology of his
rebellion.

> > he changed his analyses in order to "show" that Pirahã is unlike
> > any other human language.
>
> By his own

disingenuous

> account, his original analysis was based on certain
> widely-held assumptions about universals, which he later realized there
> was no good evidence for in Piraha.
> (A mini-symposium was published
> > in *Language* years ago.)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 9:29:21 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 12/05/2021 9:39 a.m., Ross Clark wrote:
> > On 12/05/2021 2:56 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>> On 11/05/2021 8:12 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>
> >>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> >>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> >>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> >>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> >>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> >> .
> >>> Thanks for the tip. Most of the names are unfamiliar, but David Gil,
> >>> Andreea Calude, and Caleb Everett are certainly linguists.
> >>
> >> Any relation to the charlatan Dan Everett?
> >
> > I wasn't aware that Dan had been convicted of charlatanry; but Caleb is
> > his son. He's an anthro/linguist at the University of Miami. Has a book
> > on linguistic relativity which seems quite good. (I just started it and
> > then got distracted by something else.)
> >
> Perhaps you know that Chomsky himself has used that c-word of Everett?

No, I don't.

> Here's the apparent source:
>
> https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ciencia/fe0102200904.htm
>
> It's surprising to see you and Noam on the same side of the fence.

He also thinks that English orthography is a pretty good guide
to the morphophonemics of the language. What he did with
that fact is a different problem.

Wed, 12 May 2021 19:21:28 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:

> The thing I know about linguistics is that the human language
> is artificially broken into numerous "languages", which is
> equivalent to a black lab speaking a different dog language
> than a chocolate lab.

You are crazy. But that no news.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 13/05/2021 11:55 p.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 9:27:46 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On 13/05/2021 2:16 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>>> On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
>>>>>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
>>>>> You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
>>>>> Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.
>>>>
>>>> I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)
>>>
>>> If you knew anything about linguistics, you'd have been aware
>>> that his bizarre notions about Pirahã (no, they're not named for
>>> vicious Amazon fish) were motivated by animus toward Chomsky;
>>
>> Really? Resulting from what?
>
> The reviewers in *Language* didn't go into the psychology of his
> rebellion.

But they made the claim about his motivation?

>>> he changed his analyses in order to "show" that Pirahã is unlike
>>> any other human language.
>>
>> By his own
>
> disingenuous
>
>> account, his original analysis was based on certain
>> widely-held assumptions about universals, which he later realized there
>> was no good evidence for in Piraha.
>> (A mini-symposium was published
>>> in *Language* years ago.)
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:04:30 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 12 May 2021 19:21:28 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > The thing I know about linguistics is that the human language
> > is artificially broken into numerous "languages", which is
> > equivalent to a black lab speaking a different dog language
> > than a chocolate lab.
> You are crazy. But that no news.
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

The mad Dutchman whispering sweet nothings...

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 5:09:47 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 13/05/2021 11:55 p.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 9:27:46 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >> On 13/05/2021 2:16 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> >>>>>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
> >>>>> You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
> >>>>> Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)
> >>>
> >>> If you knew anything about linguistics, you'd have been aware
> >>> that his bizarre notions about Pirahã (no, they're not named for
> >>> vicious Amazon fish) were motivated by animus toward Chomsky;
> >>
> >> Really? Resulting from what?
> >
> > The reviewers in *Language* didn't go into the psychology of his
> > rebellion.
> But they made the claim about his motivation?
> >>> he changed his analyses in order to "show" that Pirahã is unlike
> >>> any other human language.
> >>
> >> By his own
> >
> > disingenuous
> >
> >> account, his original analysis was based on certain
> >> widely-held assumptions about universals, which he later realized there
> >> was no good evidence for in Piraha.
> >> (A mini-symposium was published
> >>> in *Language* years ago.)
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

Ancestors May Have Created 'Iconic' Sounds As Bridge To First Languages
5/12/2021 06:00:00 PM

The 'missing link' that helped our ancestors to begin communicating with each other through language may have been iconic sounds, rather than charades-like gestures -- giving rise to the unique human power to coin new words describing the world around us, a new study reveals.

It was widely believed that, in order to get the first languages off the ground, our ancestors first needed a way to create novel signals that could be understood by others, relying on visual signs whose form directly resembled the intended meaning.

However, an international research team, led by experts from the University of Birmingham and the Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin, have discovered that iconic vocalisations can convey a much wider range of meanings more accurately than previously supposed.

The researchers tested whether people from different linguistic backgrounds could understand novel vocalizations for 30 different meanings common across languages and which might have been relevant in early language evolution..

These meanings spanned animate entities, including humans and animals (child, man, woman, tiger, snake, deer), inanimate entities (knife, fire, rock, water, meat, fruit), actions (gather, cook, hide, cut, hunt, eat, sleep), properties (dull, sharp, big, small, good, bad), quantifiers (one, many) and demonstratives (this, that).

The team published their findings in Scientific Reports, highlighting that the vocalizations produced by English speakers could be understood by listeners from a diverse range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Participants included speakers of 28 languages from 12 language families, including groups from oral cultures such as speakers of Palikur living in the Amazon forest and speakers of Daakie on the South Pacific island of Vanuatu. Listeners from each language were more accurate than chance at guessing the intended referent of the vocalizations for each of the meanings tested.

Co-author Dr Marcus Perlman, Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics at the University of Birmingham, commented: "Our study fills in a crucial piece of the puzzle of language evolution, suggesting the possibility that all languages -- spoken as well as signed -- may have iconic origins.

"The ability to use iconicity to create universally understandable vocalisations may underpin the vast semantic breadth of spoken languages, playing a role similar to representational gestures in the formation of signed languages."

Co-author Dr Bodo Winter, Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Linguistics at the University of Birmingham, commented: "Our findings challenge the often-cited idea that vocalisations have limited potential for iconic representation, demonstrating that in the absence of words people can use vocalizations to communicate a variety of meanings -- serving effectively for cross-cultural communication when people lack a common language."

An online experiment allowed researchers to test whether a large number of diverse participants around the world were able to understand the vocalisations. A field experiment using 12 easy-to-picture meanings, allowed them to test whether participants living in predominantly oral societies were also able to understand the vocalisations.

They found that some meanings were consistently guessed more accurately than others. In the online experiment, for example, accuracy ranged from 98.6% for the action 'sleep' to 34.5% for the demonstrative 'that'. Participants were best with the meanings 'sleep', 'eat', 'child', 'tiger', and 'water', and worst with 'that', 'gather', 'dull', 'sharp' and 'knife'.

The researchers highlight that while their findings provide evidence for the potential of iconic vocalisations to figure in the creation of original spoken words, they do not detract from the hypothesis that iconic gestures also played a critical role in the evolution of human communication, as they are known to play in the modern emergence of signed languages.

Source: University of Birmingham [May 12, 2021]

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:11:13 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 5:09:47 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On 13/05/2021 11:55 p.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 9:27:46 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > >> On 13/05/2021 2:16 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > >>>>> On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >>>>>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
> > >>>>>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
> > >>>>> You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
> > >>>>> Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)
> > >>>
> > >>> If you knew anything about linguistics, you'd have been aware
> > >>> that his bizarre notions about Pirahã (no, they're not named for
> > >>> vicious Amazon fish) were motivated by animus toward Chomsky;
> > >>
> > >> Really? Resulting from what?
> > >
> > > The reviewers in *Language* didn't go into the psychology of his
> > > rebellion.
> > But they made the claim about his motivation?
> > >>> he changed his analyses in order to "show" that Pirahã is unlike
> > >>> any other human language.
> > >>
> > >> By his own
> > >
> > > disingenuous
> > >
> > >> account, his original analysis was based on certain
> > >> widely-held assumptions about universals, which he later realized there
> > >> was no good evidence for in Piraha.
> > >> (A mini-symposium was published
> > >>> in *Language* years ago.)
> > >>
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett
> Ancestors May Have Created 'Iconic' Sounds As Bridge To First Languages
> 5/12/2021 06:00:00 PM
>
> The 'missing link' that helped our ancestors to begin communicating with each other through language may have been iconic sounds, rather than charades-like gestures -- giving rise to the unique human power to coin new words describing the world around us, a new study reveals.
>
> It was widely believed that, in order to get the first languages off the ground, our ancestors first needed a way to create novel signals that could be understood by others, relying on visual signs whose form directly resembled the intended meaning.
>
> However, an international research team, led by experts from the University of Birmingham and the Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin, have discovered that iconic vocalisations can convey a much wider range of meanings more accurately than previously supposed.
>
> The researchers tested whether people from different linguistic backgrounds could understand novel vocalizations for 30 different meanings common across languages and which might have been relevant in early language evolution.
>
> These meanings spanned animate entities, including humans and animals (child, man, woman, tiger, snake, deer), inanimate entities (knife, fire, rock, water, meat, fruit), actions (gather, cook, hide, cut, hunt, eat, sleep), properties (dull, sharp, big, small, good, bad), quantifiers (one, many) and demonstratives (this, that).
>
> The team published their findings in Scientific Reports, highlighting that the vocalizations produced by English speakers could be understood by listeners from a diverse range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Participants included speakers of 28 languages from 12 language families, including groups from oral cultures such as speakers of Palikur living in the Amazon forest and speakers of Daakie on the South Pacific island of Vanuatu. Listeners from each language were more accurate than chance at guessing the intended referent of the vocalizations for each of the meanings tested.
>
> Co-author Dr Marcus Perlman, Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics at the University of Birmingham, commented: "Our study fills in a crucial piece of the puzzle of language evolution, suggesting the possibility that all languages -- spoken as well as signed -- may have iconic origins.
>
> "The ability to use iconicity to create universally understandable vocalisations may underpin the vast semantic breadth of spoken languages, playing a role similar to representational gestures in the formation of signed languages."
>
> Co-author Dr Bodo Winter, Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Linguistics at the University of Birmingham, commented: "Our findings challenge the often-cited idea that vocalisations have limited potential for iconic representation, demonstrating that in the absence of words people can use vocalizations to communicate a variety of meanings -- serving effectively for cross-cultural communication when people lack a common language."
>
> An online experiment allowed researchers to test whether a large number of diverse participants around the world were able to understand the vocalisations. A field experiment using 12 easy-to-picture meanings, allowed them to test whether participants living in predominantly oral societies were also able to understand the vocalisations.
>
> They found that some meanings were consistently guessed more accurately than others. In the online experiment, for example, accuracy ranged from 98.6% for the action 'sleep' to 34.5% for the demonstrative 'that'. Participants were best with the meanings 'sleep', 'eat', 'child', 'tiger', and 'water', and worst with 'that', 'gather', 'dull', 'sharp' and 'knife'.
>
> The researchers highlight that while their findings provide evidence for the potential of iconic vocalisations to figure in the creation of original spoken words, they do not detract from the hypothesis that iconic gestures also played a critical role in the evolution of human communication, as they are known to play in the modern emergence of signed languages.
>
> Source: University of Birmingham [May 12, 2021]

Another article on iconic sounds
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/no-shared-language-no-problem-people-across-cultures-understand-clues-vocal-charades

On 16/05/2021 11:17 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:11:13 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 5:09:47 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2021 11:55 p.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 9:27:46 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>>> On 13/05/2021 2:16 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/05/2021 1:42 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:12:51 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This appeared as a paid advertisement in the LSA Newsletter:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1824
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (free download, or buy a print copy for 35 GBP)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's in Trans Roy Soc B (Biological Sciences), and no linguists
>>>>>>>>>> appear to be involved, which is a bit concerning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is is unfortunate that the absolute commonality of human language as tool kit of domeshield-inhabiting humans is ignored.
>>>>>>>> You can't be too far away from Caleb Everett (Anthropology, U of Miami).
>>>>>>>> Why not get in touch? Send him some of your stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just went by there yesterday. I was interested in chatting with him back when I read his father's book on the Piranhã, but then I read the one on Homo erectus, which merely supported Dan Lieberman's Endurance Running hypothesis, which I consider largely fictitious, and decided not to get into that mess, so I've held off. (If either of them had also spent some of their youth living with traditional Congo Pygmies, then I would surely have contacted them.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you knew anything about linguistics, you'd have been aware
>>>>>> that his bizarre notions about Pirahã (no, they're not named for
>>>>>> vicious Amazon fish) were motivated by animus toward Chomsky;
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Resulting from what?
>>>>
>>>> The reviewers in *Language* didn't go into the psychology of his
>>>> rebellion.
>>> But they made the claim about his motivation?
>>>>>> he changed his analyses in order to "show" that Pirahã is unlike
>>>>>> any other human language.
>>>>>
>>>>> By his own
>>>>
>>>> disingenuous
>>>>
>>>>> account, his original analysis was based on certain
>>>>> widely-held assumptions about universals, which he later realized there
>>>>> was no good evidence for in Piraha.
>>>>> (A mini-symposium was published
>>>>>> in *Language* years ago.)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett
>> Ancestors May Have Created 'Iconic' Sounds As Bridge To First Languages
>> 5/12/2021 06:00:00 PM
>>
>> The 'missing link' that helped our ancestors to begin communicating with each other through language may have been iconic sounds, rather than charades-like gestures -- giving rise to the unique human power to coin new words describing the world around us, a new study reveals.
>>
>> It was widely believed that, in order to get the first languages off the ground, our ancestors first needed a way to create novel signals that could be understood by others, relying on visual signs whose form directly resembled the intended meaning.
>>
>> However, an international research team, led by experts from the University of Birmingham and the Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin, have discovered that iconic vocalisations can convey a much wider range of meanings more accurately than previously supposed.
>>
>> The researchers tested whether people from different linguistic backgrounds could understand novel vocalizations for 30 different meanings common across languages and which might have been relevant in early language evolution.
>>
>> These meanings spanned animate entities, including humans and animals (child, man, woman, tiger, snake, deer), inanimate entities (knife, fire, rock, water, meat, fruit), actions (gather, cook, hide, cut, hunt, eat, sleep), properties (dull, sharp, big, small, good, bad), quantifiers (one, many) and demonstratives (this, that).
>>
>> The team published their findings in Scientific Reports, highlighting that the vocalizations produced by English speakers could be understood by listeners from a diverse range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Participants included speakers of 28 languages from 12 language families, including groups from oral cultures such as speakers of Palikur living in the Amazon forest and speakers of Daakie on the South Pacific island of Vanuatu. Listeners from each language were more accurate than chance at guessing the intended referent of the vocalizations for each of the meanings tested.
>>
>> Co-author Dr Marcus Perlman, Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics at the University of Birmingham, commented: "Our study fills in a crucial piece of the puzzle of language evolution, suggesting the possibility that all languages -- spoken as well as signed -- may have iconic origins.
>>
>> "The ability to use iconicity to create universally understandable vocalisations may underpin the vast semantic breadth of spoken languages, playing a role similar to representational gestures in the formation of signed languages."
>>
>> Co-author Dr Bodo Winter, Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Linguistics at the University of Birmingham, commented: "Our findings challenge the often-cited idea that vocalisations have limited potential for iconic representation, demonstrating that in the absence of words people can use vocalizations to communicate a variety of meanings -- serving effectively for cross-cultural communication when people lack a common language."
>>
>> An online experiment allowed researchers to test whether a large number of diverse participants around the world were able to understand the vocalisations. A field experiment using 12 easy-to-picture meanings, allowed them to test whether participants living in predominantly oral societies were also able to understand the vocalisations.
>>
>> They found that some meanings were consistently guessed more accurately than others. In the online experiment, for example, accuracy ranged from 98.6% for the action 'sleep' to 34.5% for the demonstrative 'that'. Participants were best with the meanings 'sleep', 'eat', 'child', 'tiger', and 'water', and worst with 'that', 'gather', 'dull', 'sharp' and 'knife'.
>>
>> The researchers highlight that while their findings provide evidence for the potential of iconic vocalisations to figure in the creation of original spoken words, they do not detract from the hypothesis that iconic gestures also played a critical role in the evolution of human communication, as they are known to play in the modern emergence of signed languages.
>>
>> Source: University of Birmingham [May 12, 2021]
>
> Another article on iconic sounds
> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/no-shared-language-no-problem-people-across-cultures-understand-clues-vocal-charades

About the same study, in fact. Gives a better idea of what they actually
did.