[ 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: 2 KB, 126x112, BattleToads at the dentist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4679988 No.4679988 [Reply] [Original]

Would a baby create it's own language if you just spoke gibberish to it for all its life?

>> No.4680007

No.

Languages evolve over the course of centuries through rhetorical intercourse between a group of humans.

Constructed languages speed up this process, but it still takes decades for them to develop properly.

>> No.4680033

Maybe, although the only data we have is from the 13th-16th centuries, James IV lied when he said the children spoke Hebrew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation_experiments

>> No.4680039

>>4680007
Then how do you explain Poto and Cabengo; a pair of twins that invented their own language because of non human contact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poto_and_Cabengo

>> No.4680042

>>4680039
i explain it with chomsky

>> No.4680098

>>4680039
That language would develop because it has standards. One refers to an object as the same think constantly and the language evolves together over time.

OP's wants to know if speaking gibberish would work, which implies adlibbed nonsense. A "tree" would be a different thing every time. Sentence structure wouldn't be consistent. etc.

>> No.4680108

>>4679988
THis might be out of character and lulzy but you ever watch Baby Geniuses OP? Check it out.

>> No.4680112

>>4680098
Sure, speaking gibberish would indeed be non-productive, for it's the meaning we imbue into words that makes sentences consistent, which creates language

>> No.4680291
File: 9 KB, 321x240, Skeptical Irishman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4680291

>>4680039
>Wikipedia

>> No.4680343

>>4680291

Here you go faggot, since apparently your pea sized brain is useless.

http://youtu.be/PsQEjF_I7eo?t=35s