From tpeterpark@erols.com Tue Aug 01 15:12:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32070 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 22:12:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000 22:12:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net) (207.172.4.61) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 22:12:23 -0000 Received: from 216-164-220-15.s15.tnt5.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com ([216.164.220.15] helo=umktgghc) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.15 #2) id 13JkGr-0000pQ-00; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:12:22 -0400 Message-ID: <39874ACF.D0D@erols.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:10:23 -0400 Reply-To: tpeterpark@erols.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-DH397 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting)" Cc: lojban@egroups.com, cbrooks@pilot.infi.net Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives References: <8m78vj+epib@eGroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "T. Peter Park" Dear Alfred, Yes, you're right, you expressed it more concisely and elegantly than I myself did--it's our brains that create the nouns, by perceiving certain bundles of qualities as holistic unities. Our brains do it in the first place--and then language reinforces this by "sanctifying" some of these brain-created unities with words--granting, too, as you point out, that language may "sanctify" them either by trating them as nouns (English) or as verbs (Nootka)--but, remember, a Nootka "it houses" or "it's housing" is as much an arbitrary brain-created unity imposed on a vast complex flux of individual perceptions as the English "house," German "Haus," Latin "domus," Russian "dom," or Greek "oikos"! You also expressed my own other point beautifully: Locke and Hume were correct in stating that there is no perception of the world outside except by our senses, but that this performs in an integral way, not in a sequence--at least the result of it when processed in our brains! Locke and Hume were correct in pointing that all we ever perceive when we see, taste, feel, or experience a skunk, apple, or kiss is a bunch of sense data, certainly no invisible, tasteless, odorless, colorless "apple-itself" or "skunk-itself" somehow holding together the sense-data--but, as typical products of 17th and 18th century European culture, it did not occur to them to add that our brains are "wired" so as to perceive these sense-data compresent in an integral way, nor to remind us that we normally do not experience these sense-data in a sequential way--though if we specifically want to do so for some reason, we certainly are capable of thinking and speaking about them in a sequential way. As I myself said in my original essay, survival needs in the African veldt 100,000 or 1,000,000 years ago would have militated against our ancestors perceiving their sense-data of leopards and snakes in a sequential way! Pax, T. Peter Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting) wrote: > > --- In lojban@egroups.com, "T. Peter Park" wrote: > > > ... in his chapter on "Language and Neural Codes," Prof. > > Smith wrote: > > > > < > incompatible classes of information [visual, auditory, olfactory, > > tactile, etc.] together for some common processing step? There is > no way > > that these disparate inputs can be fed into any common processor > without > > being translated into a code that is capable of handling all of the > > modalities at once. What might that code be? It cannot talk about > sights > > or sounds or smells. Such information would be meaningless to all > but > > the specialized portion of the sensory brain that had always been > > committed to each of these senses. It cannot, in short, be a code > that > > deals with sensory signals emitted by some outside agent. It must > be a > > code that refers to the thing *itself*, not the stimuli it emits. > The > > new code symbol would not be "small, black and white, furry," nor > > "pitter, patter, snuffle, stomp," nor yet "awful, acrid smell!" The > code > > would have to be a symbol that stood simply for *skunk*--a symbol > for > > the external reality itself, rather than a set of partial sensory > > reports *about* the outside world. Sensory codes consisted entirely > of > > adjectives, and this universal cross-modal code introduced *nouns*. > By > > the same cross-modal process the nervous system developed a code > that > > integrates individual messages from muscles, stretch receptors, and > > again the eye, to move beyond the body with a symbolic code that > refers > > to space and [pp.143/144] movement in the world outside of the skin, > > rather angles of joints and stretch of muscles. Thus verbs were > born.>> > > > > This, I think, helps beautifully to account for my own observation > that > > all known human languages without exception possess nouns and verbs > as > > well as adjectives, words for objects and actions as well as words > for > > qualities or individual discrete sense-data. If Curtis Smith and his > > theories about cross-modal sensory processing are correct, the very > > existence of language requires the existence of words for objects as > > whole *Gestalts* and not just stringings-together of their various > > qualities. To use Curtis Smith's own example, language from the very > > beginning necessarily included words like "skunk" and never ever > used > > stringings-together of quality-words like > > "black-white-furry-pitter-patter-stinky" more than perhaps to a very > > limited extent! A language composed of adjective-chains like > > "black-white-furry-stinky," if it had ever existed, would have > defeated > > the whole purpose of language--and could not perhaps have even > existed > > in the first place, as I see Curtis Smith's argument! Curtis Smith's > > theory of linguistic origins, by the way, also suggests that, in > talking > > about the psychology of human sensory perception and the origin of > our > > mental concepts and complex ideas, the Gestalt psychologists may > well > > have gotten it more nearly right than John Locke and David Hume! > > T. Peter, I totally can agree with you in this final conclusion: It's > our human brain that creates the nouns. We don't perceive those > "bundles" of stringed qualities unwinding the coil (the Gestalt!) > into a string of "black-white-furry-stinky" or even a "red- > smooth-soft-causing pleasant emotions...", but as one whole, parallel > impression (=image) of a "skunk" (Stinktier) or a "kiss" > (=soft mouth kissing). Locke and Hume are correct for sure stating > that there is no perception of the world outside except by our > senses, but this performs in an integral way, not in a sequence - at > least the result of it when processed in our brains! > What is more interesting to me, is: why are there languages like > Nootka expressing "real" nouns (e.g. house) in a *verbal* > category? This cannot be due to natural human perception (see above), > but rather to a metaphysical (better: physical) > comprehension of our world outside! Did they really have deep insight > in physics (the *fact* that all material is nothing but a > "flowing" (panta rhei!) process - a stream of electrons etc.)? > > co'o mi'e .aulun. > > http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de > Traces of Butterflies' Dreams - ***/*™ "Tieh Meng Hen" > My Poetry > > > > To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com