Let's step away from politics for a moment and look at a question from the blog. It can be fun to switch gears and stretch your mind in a new direction:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fddKrsKx-zI&pp=ygUTcGlyYWjDoyB0aGUgQSBzbGljZQ%3D%3D
A. To wrap my mind around this and explain my response I need to give clarity to the term "recursion" and what that means in language. The example I found to make clearer sense is this:
You can say: “I have a dog.” which is simple. Then you can expand the thought to say: “I have a dog that barks.” Then you can add thoughts to say: “I have a dog that barks at cats that chase mice.” As the sentence grows to add details inside it, that is how "recursion" works. It’s building a sentence structure with little ideas inside each other. .jpg)
I think the difference in the Pirahã language versus surrounding language is real. The anthropologist spent years living with them and studying how they talk. He noticed they don’t build long, complicated sentences like most people do. Instead, they keep things short and straightforward. This is no stacking ideas inside each other (which is recursion). For example, they might say “I see fish” and “Fish swim” separately, instead of “I see fish that swim.” That’s unusual compared to most languages.
Why is it so different? It’s not necessarily because they’re “more primitive.” The Pirahã live in a unique way of small groups focused on the here and now, with a culture that doesn’t value history or future planning much. Their language fits their life: they don’t need complicated sentence structures to survive. Neighboring tribes might have more contact with outsiders or different needs, so their languages evolved differently. It’s less about “primitive” and more about what works for them.
Some researchers didn’t like anthropologist’s idea because recursion is a huge deal in linguistics. It’s what makes human language unique. If Pirahã doesn’t have it, that challenges theories (and we can't have that). There are researchers however that think he’s onto something. I’d say it’s possible their language is just a different flavor of human communication, shaped by their world. (But this is just my opinion.)
.jpg)
I think the difference in the Pirahã language versus surrounding language is real. The anthropologist spent years living with them and studying how they talk. He noticed they don’t build long, complicated sentences like most people do. Instead, they keep things short and straightforward. This is no stacking ideas inside each other (which is recursion). For example, they might say “I see fish” and “Fish swim” separately, instead of “I see fish that swim.” That’s unusual compared to most languages.
Why is it so different? It’s not necessarily because they’re “more primitive.” The Pirahã live in a unique way of small groups focused on the here and now, with a culture that doesn’t value history or future planning much. Their language fits their life: they don’t need complicated sentence structures to survive. Neighboring tribes might have more contact with outsiders or different needs, so their languages evolved differently. It’s less about “primitive” and more about what works for them.
Some researchers didn’t like anthropologist’s idea because recursion is a huge deal in linguistics. It’s what makes human language unique. If Pirahã doesn’t have it, that challenges theories (and we can't have that). There are researchers however that think he’s onto something. I’d say it’s possible their language is just a different flavor of human communication, shaped by their world. (But this is just my opinion.)
Have fun stretching your mind a bit this morning with something non-political!
Much love,
Lynn
Looking to support the blog with a one time tip? You can donate via PayPal or Buy Me A Coffee
Cryptos are on FIRE right now. Join my Free Pi Crypto team and get your piece of the pie!
Want exclusive content that Blogger can't handle? See me on the following platforms: Patreon, SubscribeStar, Substack, Buy Me A Coffee, Truth Social and X (formerly Twitter)
Stay connected!! Please join me on the Telegram Channel or Telegram Chat
2 comments:
Hi Lynn, thank you so much! They're actually telling us: live in the present, as Guru's from India keep stressing. The researcher Daniel Everett actually went there as a missioner wanting to convert them to Christianism but got converted himself. They actually dont have a specific god but recon his presence in rocks plants and animals reminding this phrase from the gnostic gospel of Thomas:"Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there”(77). Much appreciated and thanks again.
You are most welcome!
Post a Comment