Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Panda-s1" data-source="post: 7929155" data-attributes="member: 59554">not really, I'm talking about human language specifically.NOPE, a lot of languages are signed, not verbal.it's not about the ability to communicate at all. a cat might get food meowing constantly. another cat might get food by batting it's owner's face. or not, a cat might have a different problem and use the same method because they realize that's a way of getting their owners attention. what's at question here is are these primates cognisizing language the same way humans do, or did they just find a way to get food from their caretakers. I never said interpretation invalidates any of this. what I'm saying is the need for the interpreter to tell us exactly what they're saying is a problem. if Koko was taught ASL it should follow that any ASL signer should be able to communicate with her through ASL.yes, there are things such as jargon, or dialect. but assuming we have two speakers of English, say one from America and one from India, it's reasonable to assume they can communicate using English without having to strain themselves. if they don't understand something the other does they can explain concepts to one another, like "in this part of America, we usually say package instead of parcel". this was literally me and a roommate I had a few years ago, we got along just fine.what? how exactly are you ordering that you feel I would interpret you're not using language?is there a discernible difference whether or not he wants to go out to just walk or needs to pee? can you have a deep discussion about politics with your dog?neither would I. this misses the point.I mean you're apparently capable of understanding what others are saying and can reply in a way that shows you feel he is describing someone like you.how bad? afaik the only real barrier for a human to learn language is severe brain damage or underdevelopment. there's a lot of debate over whether or not the only time someone can really learn language is at a very young age. as you can imagine there's a lot of ethical issues with isolating a young child from any sort of linguistic communication. the only real examples we have are children who were abused and isolated at a very young age until they were in their teens, with almost no language input. they had difficulty learning language, but even then questions such as whether or not they were malnourished or if their trauma has affected their brain too severely makes that hard to figure.the only cases we have that aren't outright abusive are kids with congenital deafness who grow up in a family that only uses spoken language, but iirc they are capable with learning how to sign at a later age, just maybe not as "articulate" as someone who learned how to sign at a very young age.</blockquote>

Verification