[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 62 KB, 518x398, complex.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11105258 No.11105258 [Reply] [Original]

Is there a scientific reason why primitive societies tend to speak advanced languages, while advanced societies tend to speak primitive langauges?

>> No.11105269

>>11105258
Is there scientific evidence that they do?

>> No.11105271

In an isolated society you have a whole life to learn your language.

In a globalized society there are immigrants who've only had a year or a few to learn. They will use simplified grammar, and a reduced vocabulary. The natives are influenced by them and also reduce complexity.

>> No.11105287

What language is that?

No amount of grammatical complexity will make a language difficult to parse if you've been exposed to it from birth. Also, primitive societies that lack a writing system consequently have much smaller vocabularies.

>> No.11105298

>>11105258
Can you define 'primative language', 'advanced language', 'primative civilization' and 'advanced civilization'?

>> No.11105302
File: 108 KB, 484x443, 1528915933714.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11105302

>>11105258
>baby, wife say, cushion breast, out hot, breathe and sleep
>again caravan set off really far, caravan go, then arrive house
>and now always knife always thus, reindeer kill

>> No.11105325

>>11105287
Chukchi

>> No.11105359

>>11105298
Advanced language has a complex system of productive grammar, compounding and derivation.
Primitive language mostly relies on a number of predefined, arbitrary words that are memorized and used without further modification.

>> No.11105370

>>11105258
more people + more time = non-deterministic finite automatons reaching optimal grammars

>> No.11105376

>>11105359
So it's illdefined, got it.

>> No.11105381

>>11105376
In what way is it ill defined? Explain how it's unclear or provide a better definition.

>> No.11105390

>>11105381
Complex is ambiguous
Arbitrary is ambiguous
And you still haven't defined advanced/primitive civilization
>provide a better definition.
No. I'm not the one who started the thread. I'm skeptical of OP's claim that "advanced" languages even come from primitive societies in the first place.

>> No.11105412

>>11105390
>Complex is ambiguous
I didn't use that word in my definition.
>Arbitrary is ambiguous
No it isn't.

>> No.11105429 [DELETED] 

>>11105390
>Arbitrary
eat, have a meal, start eating, finish eating, gobble up, delicious, inedible. No obvious relationship between those.

>> No.11105433

>>11105390
>Arbitrary
eat, food, have a meal, start eating, finish eating, gobble up, nibble on, delicious, inedible. No obvious relationship between those.

>> No.11105463

>>11105412
>I didn't use that word in my definition
Yes you did. Re-read your post, guy.
>No it isn't
Okay. What makes a word "arbitrary"
>>11105433
I actually have no idea what you are trying to communicate.

This is a silly digression, anyway. My point is that OP first has to demonstrate that "primitive societies create advanced language, and vise versa" is even a true statement in the first place.

>> No.11105477

>>11105463
>Yes you did. Re-read your post, guy.
You're reading my OP, not the definition that you requested.
>Okay. What makes a word "arbitrary"
Having no discernble relationship to words with related meanings. As in >>11105433

>> No.11105478

>>11105258
Same reason math notation is dense. Compression of shared useful patterns.

>> No.11105487

>>11105477
>the definition that you requested.
>>11105359
Yep. The word "complex" is the fifth word used.
To stay on topic, you still havent shown that the OP even makes sense as a question.

>> No.11105532

>>11105258
>Primitive societies speak advanced languages while advanced societies speak primitive languages
What makes you think this?

>> No.11105548

>>11105487
>Yep. The word "complex" is the fifth word used.
All right. Switch it for "extensive".
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

>> No.11105560

>>11105548
Actually, the OP cannot be discussed because it is a loaded question.

>> No.11105587

>>11105532
Take any language of a primitive (let's say tools only, no machineery) society and compare it with english.

>>11105560
No, it isn't.

>> No.11105598

>>11105587
>Take any language of a primitive (let's say tools only, no machineery) society and compare it with english
Okay, let's use Nahuatl. What does this show?

>> No.11105612

>>11105258
OP, are you asking:

"Why do industrialized societies tend to evolve their language towards being relatively more analytic, while pre-industrial tribes tend to have more synthetic languages?"

>> No.11105627

>>11105258
They don't. You don't know what "advanced", "complex", or "primitive" mean in terms of linguistics, whatsoever. Not only do you not understand the terms you're trying to use - including whatever the hell you mean by "scientific reason" - you've also failed to accurately classify the languages used by "primitive" societies and those used by "advanced" societies that you tried to establish here >>11105359, again because you demonstrably have no idea what you're talking about.
Stop thinking simplistic rationlization and a google search makes you an authority on anything. A literal 100 level linguistics course at any college in the world would give you all the knowledge you need to understand that nothing you've stated in this thread remotely makes any sense or agrees at all with commonly accepted terminology in linguistics, let alone act as a robust critique or analysis of language complexity.

This is just another sophomoric "this language is more vague and ill defined, so therefore it has to be more complex than this other language that has the same level of connotative capacity plus a set of well-defined denotative meanings!" take from someone who doesn't know a damn thing about linguistics.

>> No.11105630

>>11105598
>Okay, let's use Nahuatl. What does this show?
Ok, let's start with nouns. Nahuatl nouns show number and their possessor. English nouns only show number. There is a way to derive related nouns:
-yōtl derives from a noun X a noun with an abstract meaning of x-hood or x-ness.
-yoh derives from a noun X a noun with a meaning of "thing full of X" or "thing with a lot of X"
and some verbs as well:
-tia derives from noun X a verb with an approximate meaning of "to provide with X " or "to become X".
-huia derives from noun X a verb with an approximate meaning of "to use X " or "to provide with X".
No clear way to do this in English.

Distinguishes inclusive and exclusive first person in pronouns, English is ambiguous.

Verbs are clearly most complex, and show the person of both the subject and the object, and the number of the subject (if animate).

Verbs also distinguish:
present tense
perfect or simple past tense, which is further marked for completeness at the time of speaking
pluperfect
imperfect
habitual
future
imperative/optative
counterfactual (intended action that didn't happen)
vetitive (something that could possibly happen, but isn't desired)

verbs can further be extended by:
applicative (noting that the action is done to/for something/somebody)
causative (something or somebody is made to do the action described by the verb)
passive

Another set of suffixes indicates the direction of the action described by the verb

Instruments, body parts and objects can be incorporated into the verb

verbs can be compounded together

And nouns can be derived from the verb as well:
-lli used to derive passivized nouns from verbs.
-liztli used to derive abstract nouns from verbs.
-qui used to derive agentive nouns from verbs.

And those are only the things mentioned on wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Nahuatl_grammar

>> No.11105656

>>11105630
Also, Aztecs were relatively advanced still, the difference would be more striking with more "tribal" languages.

>> No.11105660

>>11105258
Stupid people are ineffective at creating a tool to communicate with while smart people can create something easy that works better.
It's that simple.

>> No.11105672

>>11105660
grammar/derivation is far more effective than having to learn a completely new word when you need a word with different nuances.

>> No.11105681

>>11105672
And yet the societies with the "less effective" methods are the most advanced.

>> No.11105697

>>11105681
Which is why I'm asking this question, because one would expect the opposite.

>> No.11105724

>>11105697
Have you considered that a better metric for efficiency than your opinion might be real world success?

>> No.11105735 [DELETED] 

>>11105724
Are you trying to suggest that societies get more advanced BECAUSE they langauges get more primitive?

>> No.11105738

>>11105724
Are you trying to suggest that societies get more advanced BECAUSE their langauges get more primitive?

>> No.11105749

>>11105735
Here are my two cents.

Languages that are used as a lingua franca tend to become more analytic(simpler grammar). I think English and Chinese are examples of this.

Analytic languages have some benefit for ease of communication of information and I suspect evidence of this is that programming languages are analytic-seeming to me (no grammatical gender nor tons of grammatical cases, verb conjugation in a programming language seems like a dumb as fuck idea)

I am not a linguist or a computer scientist so take everything I say with a grain of salt. But that is the way it looks to me.

>> No.11105756

>>11105749
Programming languages have arguments instead.

>> No.11105757

When you have more words you also have more ways to say the same thing. Eventually the grammar is simplified because the extra vocabulary makes up for the loss of grammar functions.

>> No.11105769

>>11105269
You need just one single counter example to shoot down that hypothesis. I suggest Japan.

>> No.11105804

>>11105769
If that is your argument, then it really shows the opposite. It is the level of complexity where tribalr langauges start, meaning most will be more complex and only few will be simpler.

>> No.11105886

>>11105738
you’re an actual brainlet

>> No.11105917

>>11105757
Written languages naturally amass much vaster vocabulary than non-written languages, which are limited to the words passed down orally between the living speakers, so this makes sense.

A rich vocabulary is a better tool for expressing specific meaning than very complex grammar.

>> No.11105938

>>11105917
>A rich vocabulary is a better tool for expressing specific meaning than very complex grammar.
Explain why.

>> No.11106054

>>11105938
Because having more specific words for more particular concepts enables the transmission of a greater range of ideas. This seems pretty self-evident. If you come across something previously unseen and there is a communicative need to refer to it, you create a new term, enriching the language and widening its capability to express thought.

By contrast, having such things as cases or grammatical genders at best only speeds up communication of a limited set of ideas.

>> No.11106103

>>11106054
That's how it works in langauges with minimum grammar. You create the word from roots and suffixes as necessary (and people may be expected to understand it without further explanation) in langauges with more advanced grammar.

>> No.11106104

>>11105359
it sounds like you're basically saying complex/primitive language means synthetic/analytic. are you saying english and chinese are primitive?

>> No.11106109

>>11105258
because when you start to write it down you codify it/create rules.
and as others have said when you teach it to nonnative speakers you also codeine it.
this is well known and ducumsted

>> No.11106131

>>11106104
Did you read my question? Why are you asking me this?
>>11106109
Shouldn't that result in more advanced grammar (or at least keeping the complexity), rather than elliminating it?

>> No.11107500

>>11105359
>>11105390
>>11105258
Study historical linguistics. The only reason "advanced societies" have "primitive languages" is because most of the developed world speaks either european languages, all of which are fairly analytic atm, or chinese, which also has very simple morphology. I can point to a million advanced societies in history which have had very "complicated" morphology (Rome, ottoman empire, egypt, maya ect ect).

>> No.11107502

>>11105630
>dunning kruger, the post

>> No.11107506

>>11105258
You not understanding it doesn't make other languages "advanced". If we're talking about primitive societies, some african languages are known to be incredibly narrow in their "meaning scope", which is said to influence intellectual development.

>> No.11107523

>>11105630
>Nahuatl nouns show number and their possessor. English nouns only show number
>this means nahuatl is more advanced
Honestly, yikes. Different languages have different characteristics, who could've known. And if you went through the effort of reading about nahuatl grammar then I suppose you know english has been very simplified in recent centuries(which shows there can be "complexity" with simpler grammar).

>> No.11107532

>>11107523
>I suppose you know english has been very simplified in recent centuries(which shows there can be "complexity" with simpler grammar).
It doesn't show that in any way, unless you want to claim complexity cannot be lost over time.

>> No.11107618

>>11105258
t. monolingual ape