/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11563115
>Are there any two natural languages that, when put next to each other for comparison, have no phonemes in common?
Not 100% sure because I am a pseud, but any whistling language and any non-whistling language? I don't think any human society only uses whistling though. Comparing languages across species would be another hacky solution.

>>11563115
Somewhat impossible since every language would stem from a common ancestor

>>11563144
Oh, that's a nice catch; hadn't thought of that.
There is Silbo Gomero, a whistled form of Spanish used on the Canary Islands, which, according to Wikipedia at least, uses the hands as well as the tongue and lips. How out-of-left-field.
Phonology that in-depth is pretty far out of my realm of expertise, though. I'm not sure if the sounds of Silbo Gomero would even be considered proper consonants and vowels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero

>>11563152
>every language would stem from a common ancestor
Proof?

>>11563152
no reason language couldn't emerge more than once

>>11563115
To my knowledge, vowels a i u are universally present as the basis of vocalism.
But every dialect pronounces them a little differently, but then every human being pronounces things a little differently.
So it's the question of you measure.
Depending on the sensitivity of your measurements, every human has unique set of phonemes or every language uses the same collection of vowels, labials and linguals (including whistles and clicks)

>>11563240
maybe even among species that set of phonemes is continuum, maybe we know sound w from frogs

>>11563177
i mean they just substitute sets of phonemes for high and low whistling with different lengths, and they distinguish it based on context. its just a complex cipher of spanish

>>11563335
Phonemes are a continuum, the perception they are discrete are an illusion. (Each language does it differently as well) Dyslexics do not develop this illusion, which is what causes the trouble with literacy - there is nothing obvious in speech that could be put on paper.

>>11563335
Phonemes are a continuum, the perception they are discrete is an illusion. (Each language does it differently as well) Dyslexics do not develop this illusion, which is what causes the trouble with literacy - there is nothing obvious in speech that could be put on paper.

>>11563394
>▶
That could also be the other way around: bird's language is a legendary thing. And as whistling has poorer range of distinguished sounds, it may represent some basic set of phonemes (c g k q) as all one letter, and so on.
Do you know that language or can recommend a good source to know it? Do they have some mnemonic whistles? To whistle somebody is to call somebody in my language (and it's also "to steal" as if the thief has called that thing to go with him)
Whistle is also transmitted far, so I think it's only preserved in few places, but it could be some universal substrate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5lzt42Tb20 [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0CIRCjoICA [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ZMGBz8qgI [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQmF7kbOrmE [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eliANcZdkw [Embed]
these whistling systems are not connected, afaik
And there are also sign languages, and there are also many sign-languages, and their areas do not always correlate the areas of speaking languages.

>>11563394
Whistling languages follow either the second formant or pitch, whatever carries more information in the given language, if I remember correctly. Second formant carries far more information than just vowels. It's mostly just because you are not used to process whistling as speech that the word in it don't seem obvious.

>>11563394
>>11563414
Whistling languages follow either the second formant or pitch, whatever carries more information in the given language, if I remember correctly. Second formant carries far more information than just vowels. It's mostly just because you are not used to process whistling as speech that the words in it don't seem obvious.

>>11563414
>Do you know that language or can recommend a good source to know it? Do they have some mnemonic whistles?
It works more like whispering than a code or even a separate language. You should be abld to hear the words if you speak Spanish and listen carefully.

>>11563480
Also applies to>>11563144 and
>>11563177

>>11563115
Whistling-exclusive languages.

>>11563394
I mean, I think I understand how the language works in terms of communication, I'm just not sure what a whistle would be when transcribed into IPA for example. It starts to edge out of phonology and into acoustics.

Is everyone here retarded, has no one read Chomsky

>>11565029
fuck your kike and fuck you too

>>11565029
I actually haven't.

>>11565029
>>11565059
>>11565935
If you haven't, then don't. It's a pile of nonsense thet gets redone from scratch every decade and built on outright denial that langauges are immune from being studied using scientific principles and you have to rely on intuition what feels right.

>>11563196
Not him, but wouldn't language come quickly with the first humanoid with a functioning Broca's area?