C-94. Linguistic roots
Why so many natural languages: scores, even hundreds of them within a political and/or geographic area? Because of needed functionality (App. XIX, App. XX)? Because it was not that difficult, technologically (App. VII), to produce one, via naming and refinements on naming to establish identity and place? Because it could be done by committee, over time?Because the groundwork in cognition and communication capacities and capabilities (App. III, App. XIX) had been laid and then further developed?
Should we even speak of an origin for language? We begin here with the familiar secondary Reads and Tells (App. IV), that which is learned, in sanctioned Stage 4 fashion (App. XIX), as two of the “3R’s” in elementary schools, at home and in local communities.”Origin” hardly fits the history of language. Language now looks more like a tree. With roots, trunk, limbs and leaves. Setting aside proprietary consideration for any similarities and differences among the particulars of these, that which is general about language is the needed Stage 1 linguistic capability. Which, via CEM-history development (App. XI), has given us a profusion of particulars, within and between languages.
Skinner and Chomsky are what you get when observers try to make sense of linguistic particulars.In the first instance: a community’s referential and usage agreements re points AT. In the second instance: singularity (VIII) of points ABOUT, re what is being said about what is being talked about. (The gestural point AT didn’t work in the dark, nor did it work adequately for steps taken or being taken – and most assuredly not for steps that might be taken.)
If we are to take “living language” seriously – and we should, then we need further development of linguistic capability. Not just a word at a time, as useful as “sensery” might be relative to “sensory,” or “thingk” relative to “thing.” Not just by grammatic acknowledgement of noun fractals (C-40). Not just by capitalizing behavioral terms (e.g., Presence rather than presence) to indicate theoretical construct rather concept (C-81, C-85). Everything incomplete and inaccurate about the languages we have invented needs correction, to be brought into accord with the Nature of Things.Most certainly not just by combining particular features of particular languages (e.g., Esperanto).
As helpful as languages are – and they are that, they need to be more helpful. They do stand, even now, toward the front of our frontier. Progress? Yes. But not progress enough (See C-93, C-95). Our minding capability as a resource needs the help of a better linguistic technology, especially for our work as a community at/in the frontier (App. XVI).
(c) 2013 R.F. Carter
Should we even speak of an origin for language? We begin here with the familiar secondary Reads and Tells (App. IV), that which is learned, in sanctioned Stage 4 fashion (App. XIX), as two of the “3R’s” in elementary schools, at home and in local communities.”Origin” hardly fits the history of language. Language now looks more like a tree. With roots, trunk, limbs and leaves. Setting aside proprietary consideration for any similarities and differences among the particulars of these, that which is general about language is the needed Stage 1 linguistic capability. Which, via CEM-history development (App. XI), has given us a profusion of particulars, within and between languages.
Skinner and Chomsky are what you get when observers try to make sense of linguistic particulars.In the first instance: a community’s referential and usage agreements re points AT. In the second instance: singularity (VIII) of points ABOUT, re what is being said about what is being talked about. (The gestural point AT didn’t work in the dark, nor did it work adequately for steps taken or being taken – and most assuredly not for steps that might be taken.)
If we are to take “living language” seriously – and we should, then we need further development of linguistic capability. Not just a word at a time, as useful as “sensery” might be relative to “sensory,” or “thingk” relative to “thing.” Not just by grammatic acknowledgement of noun fractals (C-40). Not just by capitalizing behavioral terms (e.g., Presence rather than presence) to indicate theoretical construct rather concept (C-81, C-85). Everything incomplete and inaccurate about the languages we have invented needs correction, to be brought into accord with the Nature of Things.Most certainly not just by combining particular features of particular languages (e.g., Esperanto).
As helpful as languages are – and they are that, they need to be more helpful. They do stand, even now, toward the front of our frontier. Progress? Yes. But not progress enough (See C-93, C-95). Our minding capability as a resource needs the help of a better linguistic technology, especially for our work as a community at/in the frontier (App. XVI).
(c) 2013 R.F. Carter
S