Re: Ur languages and sign language

From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_free.fr>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:32:35 +0100


Charles :

(thanx for this enlightened input)

> I'm sorry to participate in this Glorantha-irrelevant thread, but
> perhaps an injection of facts will assist a humane death.

:-)

Good luck with the sharp weaponry !

> Linguists
> do believe that new languages come into being unrelated to any
> existing languages, and Nicaraguan sign language (NSL) is the best
> documented example.

I think you may have misapprehended part of my position.

The Ur-Language is a myth. Also, the linguistic model assumes several basic morphological facts, including inspiration and aspiration (which are the basis of speech, but also sign language, body language, etc.

The theory is that new languages cannot be unrelated to the human linguistic faculty.

> General points:

Frankly, I read them as spot facts, but ...

> My wife (who is the linguist, I am not), says she guesses about
> 2/3s of linguists believe there is a spoken Ur language, but very few
> believe the evidence for this is overwhelming.

Sure.

To get back to Alex' objections, there's always been a problem with the idea that linguistics is a bona fide science. Linguistics includes a model, but it's based on various untestable tenets. It's a bit like mathematics in this sense, except that the bases are uncomfortably vague (from the hard science POV). OTOH, hard science is involved, such as that describing the linguistic apparatus of the human body (including brain).

IM fairly abstract O, I'd say that a Gloranthan Ur-Language would be the lowest common denominator of human ability to communicate, including vocal, gestual, and written means.

To get to the superficial point of the objections, too, Linguistics can provide no testable and therefore "scientific" model, because language and meta-language (which is used to discuss language) share many common features, which are impossible to analyse because of their shared inherently linguistic nature.

Ob-Glorantha, it's simply a fact that humans share certain common features that are used to produce meaning, and that these features could be linguistically described as an ur-language.

But ... Gloranthan languages may contain several magical components that wouldn't belong in such a rational model.

> Gloranthan relevance: surely Glorantha has sign languages?

Definitely.

> And as
> surely glorantha has myths for them too.

Definitely.

:-)

Julian Lord



Sumwhyle wyth wormez he werrez, and with wolues als, Sumwhyle with wodwos, that woned in the knarrez, Bothe wyth bullez and berez, and borez otherquyle, And etaynez, that hym aneled of the heze felle;

and then I think : "Hmmm, I've heard of other powers. Can you tell me about ...

... Real Life ?"

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail