Re: Borgs speak IE

ME (Glen):

>One wonders how old such sign languages are.

Gerry:

>Yes! And are sign and other forms of nonverbal communication
>present in that template (from Chomsky) that lies within our brain?
>N'thals used signs; A'piths used signs; and on that evolutionary >ladder,
>which species predated A'piths? Or is that question too >difficult to
>assess?

What template is needed? I still don't understand this Chomskian issue. The
only thing necessary to have developed from our primate origins is "grammar"
or rather the ability to organize our thoughts into succinct elements like
noun, verb, adjective, etc. The ability to communicate had to have been
inheirant in us already from the beginning but the use of a set of hand
symbols was an innovation.

The development of "grammar" would no doubt be tied in with the continued
use of this sign as a means of communication. With sign, a greater degree of
organization of thought would be needed to get more and more complex ideas
across. Body language can only go so far in exercising people's "grammar
organs", as it were :)

For some reason or another, this linguistic organization or grammar was
obviously bred into us. Perhaps it's like modern day culture where people
who have trouble communicating or even those who don't communicate using the
commonly accepted grammar of a language are often quickly misanalysed as
"slow". People labeled "slow", as un-politically correct as it is, are not
usually considered prospective mates. Intellectual and/or social ability
(aka signing/speaking ability) would be an obvious asset for survival and
flourishment of one's future generations as is still often the case and
perhaps more so now than ever.

Gerry:

>>Don't be silly! A given is a given and doesn't need to be
>>proved. Such with laws of God as well as laws of science.

Glen (ME):

>>Well then you must practice a different kind of science because as >> far
>>as I understand, all facts must be supported with logical reasoning
>>whether these "facts" are of God or of science. If they >> are not proven
>>in some way they > cannot be rationally called "givens". They are
>>_assumptions_ or _beliefs_.

Gerry:

>Not necessarily; hmmmm, possibly so. Now I don't mean to go
>relativistic on you, but *science* is only ONE way of analyzing a
>problem. Take "mindreading" for example; or all forms of *art*.
>Neither can be fully analyzed scientifically and to think one could >do so
>is wrong headed.

Basically, I believe you are dividing "science" from "art" and "logic" from
"faith". Is that it? The problem is all can be answered with logic...

>An example: in an oil painting, the canvas can be
>scientifically analyzed and it's composition determined; so can the
>chemistry of the oils. The arrangement of oils on canvas can be
>mathematically/geometrically described. However, the artist's >feeling
>cannot be placed in that scientific analysis machine.

Scientifically analyzing an oil painting can in no way disprove the feeling
one obtains from looking at an oil painting. This is illogical. In the case
of the universe, we must arrive at the simplest solution - that existence
and non-existence are the same. This ultimately disproves my arguement
completely and makes "faith" an equally potent arguement to any topic. On a
similar note, if existence and non-existence are the same, this allows the
existence as well as the simultaneous non-existence of God. Thus, there is a
place for "faith" and "art" in this universe. One wonders what arguement you
are trying to make when I'm both agreeing and fighting everything you're
saying. :)

Gerry:

>Absolutely correct. And not only on the internet! Can and does
>occur in academe. And it's necessary for both sage and fool to be
>present. One balances off the other. Even Valery Alekseev said so >when
>we discussed scholarship and academe. What's interesting is >the fact that
>the followers of the fool think they are following the >sage. But no
>matter as long as everyone is happy.

Yes, ignorance is bliss. Or is ignorance wisdom? There is and isn't a
nirvana to finally come to in the end. Perhaps I shouldn't be so assertive.
:)

>Gerry: Absolutely. For noun and verb are both words and exist as >part of
>the syntax. And I-E and Uralic are part of the great mega->language spoken
>by the people of the world (as opposed to the >languages spoken by the
>Borgs who live on another planet). It's a >simple matter of lumper vs
>splitter.

Erh, I hate to break this to ya, Gerry, but the Borg are only a
science-fiction concept... but then with everything existing and not
existing equally, there is no doubt a parallel universe somewhere across
the expanses of the nth dimension where TV characters come alive and where
people are still debating whether they should let heterosexuals into the US
military.

- gLeN




______________________________________________________