Human Vocal Tract

(Click to enlarge)

Vocal tract is the cavity which produces voice. Human vocal tract is said to be unique from that of all other animals. Human language from all aspects remains quite unique. The adjoining diagram shows a vocal tract, we all share. As the primary medium of language is speech, historically and quantitatively (e.g. about 6000 languages are not written, but spoken), so is the vocal tract important.

* Source of the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_tract

Arab Rhetoric

Be it a conversation (even poetic) or a sound literary piece of work, Arabs are very indirect in their expression. As for the style – hyperbolism, ellipsis, simile, metaphors, tautology, their balagah is full of them. An Arab has a reputation. It has a certain character (I will show it just not now) which gives a peculiar shape to its balagah. That character, psychological in nature, is inherited after a long time of conditioning. A Semite character, as Frithjof Schuon calls it.

But wait!

What is balagah?

If you know this word, please forgive me for the redundancy. Balagah, precisely, is just a synonym of term rhetoric. Apart from their rhetoric, the later doctrinal works of Arab Sufis and scholars were evidently focused on Islamic spirituality. And despite this fact, the psychological imprints of conditioning on this nation did produce intelligible and vivid effect on their rhetorical and scientific and theological works, as well.

What is that psychological character I just mentioned that has shaped its rhetoric, giving birth to indirect use of speech? If you recall, Allah didn’t blame the believers (Arabs in that case) for their inconsiderate oaths. F. Schuon says that the Arab has inherited such a volatile temperament that “it would draw a sword for ‘just a yea or nay’!” So are his expressions, volatile and spontaneous. But the Arab tongue is subtle too. It doesn’t follow its immediate nature; rather it resorts to the Semite’s way of expression.

How does it say the truth? Say it nakedly? No. He cannot afford to. Rather, he would follow the injunction of Gospel which advises “not to cast pearls before Swine nor to give what is sacred to dogs”. Just like the Arab covers women, abstains from wine, to save themselves from befuddling and intoxicating, he covers his language too. He must not say what can drive people mad with the ‘naked truth’. Arab’s tongue is thus filled with ellipsis and hyperbolism, as well with metaphors and tautology. This character of his native expression resembles to Semite’s way of expression, notes Schuon. And, also, this is what makes its rhetoric so much so rich of ‘indirect expressions’. And without baffling today's already baffled.

In a lonely desert, with my Arab friend, I would drink to the fountain of words and expressions from his mouth. Especially when I am not a Sumari warrior and I have to tell a serious truth to him and expect at least one from him. Would you not?

* This manuscript is a handwritten manuscript of Arab rhetoric, available for sale at ebay here.

Don't mess up Pronouns

But it's fun to. Allow Tom Stoppard to explain:

Septimus: Geometry, Hobbes assures us in the Levithan, is the only science God has been pleased to bestow on mankind.

Lady Croom: And what does he mean by it?

Septimus: Mr Hobbes or God?*

* Quoted in the Fowler's Modern English usage.

The Language We Seek!

Following is a text, a comment on YouTube, by some reader who had some catastrophic experiences with standard language as a kid, perhaps it made him or her to sallow a bad medicine at that time. And as a consequence of those psycho-commotions, they provided us some reason to cry for them. The article, which treated the abuses of our dear language, is named "Ten YouTube Comments Translated into Standard English". Here are a few samples for your consideration:

Subject: Slipknot is Emo?

o, gawd...ya dont kno how retarded you ar do you!!??haha...emo...maybe tats wat you ar and tats why yur sayin tat...yur jus tryin to deny it huh!? im surprised you even kno the word 2000!!! haha!!! n00b!!! SLIPKNOT PWNZ and MAGGOT 4 LIFE!!!!!!

What We Think They Meant:

With all due respect, good sir, I must hereby declare your statement to be highly objectionable. In fact, your comment causes me to speculate whetheryou are afflicted with a learning disability so severe that it prevents you from fully comprehending your diminished mental capacity. I further theorize that you could be described to by today's youth as "emo", and by calling out others as such, I have concluded that you are in denial about this "emo" lifestyle, subject to the cultural stigmas and stereotypes associated therewith. I also believe you to be several years my junior and have little memory of the year 2000, which implies a sexual and cultural immaturity on your part. Newcomers to this website are often subject to ridicule and mockery because of their unfamiliarity with the it, an unfamiliarity I find to be intensely amusing. Lastly, I would like to state that I am a fan of the rock band Slipknot. I hereby pledge my support to this band – a band that endearingly refers to its fans as "maggots" --for the rest of my days. The words I have written above are to be conveyed with great enthusiasm and vigor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Miley Cyrus
wel sed. u dont ave 2 answer or owt but i just wna say i totally agree wiv u. every1 is so mean bout her wen she asnt actually dun anyfin 2 hurt YOU! so y dont u just leave her alone if u dont like then dont bother wacthn the videos. duh. peace x

What We Think They Meant:
Even though I do not expect a return of correspondence, I must heartily concur with what you have said. Furthermore, I would like to commend you on both the veracity of your statement and your well-crafted phrasing. Capital effort, indeed. I, too, am thoroughly and continually puzzled by the resentment that some parts of our society (although sometimes it feels like the whole of the world) directs toward Ms. Cyrus, especially considering that she has done nothing personally to impede anyone, at least to the best of my knowledge. If certain people find Ms. Cyrus to be distasteful, then I believe their efforts would be better spent viewing sites they actually find enjoyable, rather than subjecting themselves to content they do not care for. It befuddles me to think that someone would endeavor to waste their time on something that angers him/her so. I would also like to take this opportunity to convey a universal message of peace and love.

Read more here (reconstructions)

I do not intend to relate it to any of my readers. Or, perhaps to everyone, who is accustomed to such habits in the use of language. But, is not the plight of educated masses? These people, as I expect, belong to those societies where literacy rate is supposed to be 100%. 100%. And yet this much insanity....

Mad, Mad, Mad Writers

There are sentences of 125, 159 and 218 words. This the minimum one, of only 62 words. Can you decipher the esotericism the following sentence contains deep within its inner being? Here is a humble sample:

Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained no partial surrender may be effected unless both the sum payable on the partial surrender and the total after the surrender of the Participating Sum Assured and the Related Bonuses thereon and of all Further Paricipating Sums Assured and Related Bonuses thereon exceed a minimum sum which the Society shall determine at the time of partial surrender.

In the policy documents of Equitable Life,

a U.K. based insurance company.

Intuitive Analysis of Grammar

Very funny. Image Source

When intuition judges something not by its 'meaning', it does so by the 'form' and 'position' of it. This not to say that it does so with any subject under its consideration. But, this is very much the case with grammatical analysis of language. However, as they say that an argument triggers off another, so is what happens when we talk about analyzing language in terms of grammar: Which comes first - language or grammar? This can be a moot debatable point. Yet, it may have been already resolved in the already present ocean of knowledge. In fact, it owes to the ignorance of the writer and his plight that he has read so much so less that he is unable to commit: I don't know sir.

But. A definition of grammar: 'Grammar can be briefly described as a set of rules for constructing and for analysing sentences.' [G. Leech et al, 1982]

Then as per this definition of grammar, grammar is primarily a tool for constructing and analysing the language or sentences. It sees sentences as independent units which are made of up of different constituents or parts. We have the definitions of those constituents on which a sentence is constructed, and when analysed into its parts. And, when the analysis is done, it is usually done in a formal way by correlating the parts of the sentence with their actual 'meaning' already defined. For instance, in the sentence [(Mark) (is) (on) (a) (mission)] The square brackets show that it is a complete sentence (or an independent clause), whereas the round brackets contain the CONSTITUENTS. (Mark) is noun, (on) a preposition and so on. The question was how to parse or analyze the sentence. We did it on with help of definitions and their meaning that (Mark) is a noun because it satisfies the definition of a 'noun' and because knew the meaning of the noun. (I must caution you here that even having developed sets of constituents, yet the boundries of the grammatical terms are very much in fusion.)

This method is carried out at the basic and formal level in grammar studies in schools and colleges. But, there is another subtle and advance way of parsing or analysing sentences which goes beyond the meaning of words. For instance, when we do not know the meaning of the words, what do we do? How do we parse or analyse the sentence and find its grammatical components?

Take this silly poem Jabberwock by Lewis Carrol and one will come to fully appreciate the use of intuitive analysis, i.e, analysing the sentences with identifying the form and position of the'constituents', instead of analyzing the grammar in terms of meaning of the grammatical terms.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Toves and borogoves = nouns

Gyre, gimble, and outgrabe = verbs

Slithy and mimsy = adjectives

How did we know that? Obviously not on the basis of meaning! Instead, it was through identifying their 'position' and 'form', we reckoned it so. For instance, G. Leech and et al explain:

Borogoves is a noun because it ends in -s and because it follows the. (All mimsy were the borogoves,)

Slithy is an adjective because it comes between the and the plural noun toves. (...the slithy toves)

And, the rest you can at your own decode very easily, but by taking in view the form and position of the respective constituents. What it proves and shows is our intuitive skill in the analysis of grammar. And, also that intuition does not concern itself with rigorous findings of meaning. That is why it is more subtle and advanced. And, partially, it may also explain why we do not understand intuition fully, because of its independence from meaning.

* Quotes taken from the book by G. Leech et al, English Grammar for today.

Of Our Language 'Urdu' - An Opinion

Umer: Do you think we lack cultural expression, in our idiom and language? Is it unoriginal?

A Philosopher: I think Urdu language is the most developed of all the local languages of sub-continent. This language is comparable to English. Urdu can excellently express feelings, emotions, events and stories. It also can express philosophies. The only edge of English is the better capacity of it to express and preserve scientific and technical knowledge. Quantitatively Urdu literature is not sufficient as compared to English. But Urdu has manifested quality literature comparable to that of  English.

[Do you agree?]

Word Power

cerulean - 'as blue as the sky'. Looking into her wide, cerulean eyes, he could confuse her nothing.

Quoted from "The Redear's Digest"

Unique Features of Human Language

Posted by. Muhammad Umer Toor, On Nov, 23 2008.


Those who meditate on their human nature and their enviornment with a keen or philosophical outlook, find themselves eagerly observing and studying human language. I am no exception as I have an intellect that takes pleasure in reflecting over its own 'self', and certainly there's a language of self.

In this post I will be sharing with my intelligent readers a few basic but unique features of human language - rather 'design featurs' as R. L Trask call them. This man - R. L. Trask - wrote a book for layman like me, Language: The Basics [1], from where I actually came to appreciate the following conepts of human language:

Desgin Features of Human Language:

1. Duality or Duality of Patterning.

In simplest terms, duality or duality of patterning states that 'by combining a very small set of meaningless speech sounds in various ways, we can produce a very large number of different meaningful item: words. For example, let these be special symbols for speech sounds: /K/, /a/ and /t/. These are called by Trask phonemes [2]'. Individually they mean nothing. But, if we combine them together in different ways, different meaningful English words will be produced, like cat, tact, tacked or act.

It is unique to human language only that we have a very small number of phonemes and we can produce a very large number of meaningful words, even such words which we never have heard before [3]. Whereas non-human creatures communicate on the basis of "one word, one meaning" principle, as the book says. That means, they can't combine their signals to form new signals or calls. Their this signalling system 'consists of usually between three and six signals, or calls - monkeys remarkably have total of twenty or so!![4]'. On the other hand, humans have around 45 phonemes, as mentions the book, and, many, many thousand words, increasing day-by-day, which are made only by the combination of different phonemes.

2. Displacement.

"Displacement is the use of language to talk about things other than the here and now."[5] Have you ever seen the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" or "10,000 B.C"? Even if you've not, the title suggests clearly that both movies must be about time and space not in the present, and they do so (as I have seen both). This is exactly displacement. And no non-human creature except honeybee enjoys this quality. Even so, honeybee's ability to communicate things in displacement is seriously limited as to be compared with that of humans', e.g, it can't mention height, it cannot refer to future events, and so on. Its systems of communications can have no match to what we possess.

3. Open-endedness.

Here are some interesting, mind-boggling sentences from the book:

(1.1) Luxembourg has invaded New Zealand. [Keep in mind, Luxembourg has no Navy, no Air Force and only a small Army of 800 men.]
(1.2) A large pink spider wearing sunglasses and wielding a feather duster boogied across the floor.
(1.3) Shakespeare wrote his plays in Swahili, and they were translated into English by his African bodyguards. (Shakespearean fans are requested not to outrage for few moments only.) [6]

"Open-endedness is our ability to use language to say anything at all, including lots of things we've never said before [7]." The preceding examples are ones you most probably have never heard before, and almost all of them, to my knowledge, are flat lies. A monkey can warn, "[Roger that] Look out - hunters," if data's at hand'. But they cannot certainly say, "Two hunters with Rifle Belgian FAL prototype (ca.1950) chambered for British .280 (7x43mm) intermediate cartridge." [8]

4. Stimulus-Freedom

This ability of ours, as it will be defined in the next sentence, also testifies of a fact Stephen Covey has advocated in the Ist habit (I leave it upto you to detect this, and mention it in the comments, if it pleases you. Further, see note # 8). I have a friend in some part of Pakistan, when I like to irritate him, I reply to his serious questions and requests in some of these ways: "Well, Well" or "Yes, yes", or, to bruise him completely, by saying, "No thanks." I do this in a context which is utterly different to the answer. We usually don't prefer answering a person, "No thanks," when he's asking, "Hello, how are you?"! I have done this many time, because I'm stimulus-free!

Trask's knowledge also shows that almost all non-human signals do not have such 'liberty' in saying or reacting to particularsituations, as humans normally can do. He labels non-human creature's signalling system as being, "stimulus-bound" [9]. Humans are, to the contrary, stimulus-free. Most of us reply in 'expected' manner only because of, what Trask puts as, 'social norms or pressures'. Otherwise, "there's nothing about English that prevents us [10]" from saying whatever we want, no matter what is being asked or whatever be the context.

Conclusion.

To finish the post in Trask, author of Language: The Basics [1], "Lacking duality, lacking displacement, lacking open-endedness, lacking stimulus-freedom, animal signalling systems are almost unfathombly different from human languages." And, he goes further to declare boldly, "...human language is unique on earth, and without it we could not count ourselves human at all."! [11]

---

Notes:

[1] "This second edition of R. L. Trask's Language: The Basics (LTB), provides a concise introduction to the study of language, Routledge - Publisher." [Source is here.]

[2] LTB, 2nd Ed. Routledge. Reference to quotation, Pg. # 3.

[3] The concept human language can produce words which we know not of before, falls under the heading of arbitrariness [Pg. # 12, LTB, 2nd Ed.]. Which says that words do not, mostly, contain inherent meaning within themselves, they are only labelled particular meaning. And, its, obviously, is a matter of convention. For instance, what is the meaning of word meaning? Why we call dog, d-o-g in English? This is arbitrariness. To give you more clearer idea, consider word mean again. Trask explains that mean has different meanings in English. [This is again arbitrariness.] 'The French word mine sounds exactly like English mean, but the French word means (coal)mine', he says. And, there are so many other meanings of words of form like of mean, yet they represent utterly different truths. Now, it should be clear to my reader that this happens because mostly words are born out of conventions. And, conventions are conventions, they're absolute in such cases.

[4] Quote: LTB, 2nd Ed. Routledge, Pg. # 4.

[5] Quote: LTB, 2nd Ed. Routledge, Pg. # 5.

[6] Quote: LTB, 2nd Ed. Routledge, Pg. # 6.

[7] Quote: LTB, 2nd Ed. Routledge, Pg. # 5.

[8] The book accounts of one rare spectacle ever recorded, which is an example of stimulus-freedom in animals. 'A fox, Arctic one, was found signalling danger signs to her cabs, when there was no danger around. Probably to distract them from her meal she was trying to eat'. [Pg # 11, LTB, 2nd Ed.]

[9] Quote: LTB, 2nd Ed. Routledge, Pg. # 11. Moreover, notice, this can be a clue to my question.

[10] Quote: LTB, 2nd Ed. Routledge, Pg. # 10.

[11] Quote: LTB, 2nd Ed. Routledge, Pg. # 11.

---