h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: does language impede communication? - A865767
Author: Iskander-rany - U206941

Some argue that Language was the main reason why human civilization developed the way it did; fast, furious and complex. Human language is complicated indeed and does allow for the exchange of information that compared to that handled by ‘other animals’ might seem highly sophisticated.
I simply agree that language did contribute to the way human civilization developed in the manner it did; vague, savage, hypocritical and, because of all the semantic nonsense, a tool to set peoples further apart.

Interesting thought, but surely that's just your opinion? You'd be better off posting this as a journal entry or to one of the existing entries on communication - try some of the entries at C37, for example.

A109711 - Jargon and its Siblings - by Barton - is well worth a read, if quite long. He makes a very similar point to you, in fact.

Have fun
-Martin

And no mention of the babel fish - or The Tower of Babel. This is too much of a subject for so small an entry. I'm with L(etal) on this one.

That was nearly lethal

The main things that separates we humans from animals is the ability to communicate abstract thoughts. For that you need a pretty sophisticated method of communication in the form of language. Your article is an example of communicating abstract thought. Try doing that with grunts, whistles and facial expressions.

Stuart

Many thanks for the advice. Yes the subject might have been exhausted (I found Barton’s article very interesting), or the entry too small for such a subject or even too obvious. Probably, somewhat-unintentionally-intentionally, I didn’t make myself very clear; my friends say I hold the mystery of ambiguity.
Right my take on the subject is that humans are animals; driven by the very same needs, performing the same acts no matter how sophisticated and complex this might seem to us in our vain conception of ourselves as demi-gods, and subject to the same survival and hate-other-species laws of nature.
Because we possess the gift of ‘complex’ language –all other creatures do have a language of some kind and we are not really sure how ‘sophisticated’ those languages are- we have:
1- fancied ourselves as different from other animals and thus became prone to self-deception as to our motives and needs,
2- failed to communicate effectively with other peoples –species really,
3- turned the world into a worse place to live,
4- ended up being manipulated by the heads of our ‘herds’,

The result? Failing relationships, a crooked understanding of other cultures and wars that we either fail to comprehend or gullibly justify on the totally false reasons.
Therefore, I think we would have been much better off without language; I’m hungry I eat, you trespass on my territory I threaten or kill, I need to mate I show off my possessions (of all kinds) etc. Isn’t that what we do every single day of our lives anyway?
The fact that my intentions in writing the article weren’t properly transparent to all of you is a proof of how failing language as a method of communication is even without jargon, dialects or even a different language.
What I needed is to know what others think. What lessons are there in store for me?

"is a proof of how failing language as a method of communication"

Afraid not. All it proves is the inability to use it properly. A bad work man always blames his tools. If language is a bad a communication medium as you are trying to make out, the only person that would know anything about the Theory of Relativity would be Albert Einstein and we wouldn’t be able to enjoy the pleasures of William Shakespear.

Seems to me your prefer the basic simplicity of an animal. If so, which one? Bearing in mind that rape, murder and infanticide is common amongst certain species of animals.

Stuart

Hi Iskander,

you said, "What I needed is to know what others think. What lessons are there in store for me?"

Well, i'd say lesson 1 could be 'Where to post this kind of comment.'

Lucinda has already suggested a journal entry (that's on your personal space)

alternatively, since you seem to want to get plenty of feedback and discussion going, why not start a conversation over at <./>Askh2g2</.>?

This is an interesting subject and i think you should get a good response.

If you did that, you could leave us a link in this thread so that anyone here who is interested could join the discussion over at Ask h2g2...



Lesson 2, however, might usefully be 'What NOT to submit to peer review'.

This forum is really for entries that authors hope will end up in the edited guide.

That doesn't mean that only edited entries are 'real' or 'valid' entries. You can write whatever you like here and there are other forums (i know, i know, forA - but no! forums ) like the Writing-Alternative where you can submit all those fun entries, personal entries, creative writing and even (gasp!) poetry. Yes, there is some in there!

anyway, lesson 3: 'How to remove an entry from PR'

Can you find the main PR list? Are you looking at it in Brunel? You should see a little cross next to your entry. Just click on that cross and your entry will be removed from the PR list.

DONT PANIC! THIS DOES NOT DELETE THE ENTRY!!!!!

That list is nothing more than that - a list of links.

Your entry never was *actually* moved from your user-space. But a link was created to it in the PR list. See?

hope those three little points will be helpful for you
have fun on h2g2
spiff

Cheers Spif!
It took me a while to figure out what to do exactly and now I hope this's not on peer review any more.

"If language is a bad a communication medium as you are trying to make out, the only person that would know anything about the Theory of Relativity would be Albert Einstein"
I'm simply not sure who else does understand Einstein's work, but don't you think that if anybody does that'd be becaue they could understand the concepts rather than the 'language' he used to 'record' and explain his theories?

"and we wouldn&#8217;t be able to enjoy the pleasures of William Shakespear."
Are we now? To many people, especially those who do read him, the Bard is just as ambiguous as the Peruvan chalk drawings. In most cases people enjoy their own guess work about his work rather the work itself; we're still trying to figure out what he meant when he wrote "to be or not to be". Four words that got all the great'literary' critics confused.

"Seems to me your prefer the basic simplicity of an animal. If so, which one? Bearing in mind that rape, murder and infanticide is common amongst certain species of animals".
We are all animals after all, remember! And aren't the vices you listed most common to man? Yes I do enjoy the simplicity of an animal, why not?
It seems to me that we spend half our lives trying to clarify what we are saying, and the other half misunderstanding others, this's why I think 'our language' is imperfect in fact a blight. Think of the times when you were blamed for things you didn't do or say, when you blamed others for the same thing, when old lovers went on about what you said or didn't say. In many cases I found that communication was most successful without human language but rather through naked, and yes animal, basic behaviour; a kiss, a hug, a touch or even a punch!
Peace!


Reply

"Yes I do enjoy the simplicity of an animal, why not?"

"old lovers went on about what you said or didn't say. In many cases I found that communication was most successful without human language but rather through naked, and yes animal, basic behaviour; a kiss, a hug, a touch or even a punch!"

..else does understand Einstein's work, but don't you think that if anybody does that'd be because they could understand the concepts ..

I’m sure they do, it was Eienstein’s work that put the concepts their heads in the first place. Just think how many scientific achievements have occurred in the last 60 years or so that depend on the theories put forward by Eienstein. An understanding of Eienstein’s theories made these discoveries possible, not least of all, space travel and computers - the biggest and the smallest.

.we're still trying to figure out what he meant when he wrote "to be or not to be".

Are we? It seems pretty obvious to me. Hamlet was toying with the idea of suicide and was undecided whether to be alive or to be dead. Of course, it help if you know what a bodkin or a fardel is. But then, that’s language for you.

“aren't the vices you listed most common to man?”

Rape and murder perhaps, but not infanticide. That is still, fortunately, rare amongst humans. There are animals where rape is the only means of procreation and murder the only means of survival. I’m not talking about killing another species for food, I mean killing there own species for territory, mates and dominance.

Of the four ‘failings’ of human species that you mention in post 5, only the fourth one is objective and that is something that is almost universal in the animal kingdom, to a greater extent than we humans. Are you now advocating anarchy as social system?
a kiss, a hug, a touch or even a punch!"

I agree that these things can communicate something but you have to be stood right next to the person do it. How to you communicate the same concepts over a distance, even a hundred yards or so. For that you need language and the English language has three little words that will communicate the first two very effectively and two words that will communicate the last one just as effectively.

It’s a pity my article on the various uses of the F word got moderated. It demonstrated the versatility of language to perfection.

Stuart