Varmaa siksi koska mƤ veikkaan et puhu mitƤƤn muuta kieltƤ, joten jos mƤ rupeen kirjottaa jollai muul kielel, ni sun pitƤƤ vaivautua itse kƤƤntƤmƤƤn se (mikƤ ei tosin nykyƤƤn vaadi kun sen kaks klikkaust, sillonku mnƤƤ olin piƤn ni sullei ois ollu mitƤƤ tsƤnssiƤ).
Monolinguistic people rarely realise just how overtly ethnocentric theyāre being. Guess itās hard to see when you donāt have any other languages to think in.
How hard would it have been to just refrain from the word English in that sentence? Why did you feel the need to add it? Does āanimals donāt speakā somehow not convey the meaning of that? (Genuine questions, not sarcasm.)
Of course people donāt fucking speak english, what a stupid fucking comment.
If you think thatās stupid, wait until you hear about the guy who said the same thing of animals.
There are lots of parrots who can clearly utter recognisable English, so yes, there are animals who speak English. On what level can they understand the language they use, thatās another question entirely. Which more or less was my point in replying to you. :)
Anyway, for those actually interested in what the current research says about how much animals can use language, NativLang on YT has an awesome series on animal speech/grammar that goes into depth on the subject. Hereās the first video.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, itās not that they understand english, or words, or language. Itās that theyāre capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesnāt mean that iām speaking the language.
Youāre repeating the age-old myth of āparrots just parrot, they donāt actually understand anything they parrotā.
This is decidedly untrue, and thereās heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie āwrongā.
ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language.
This is also just plain wrong. Itās a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? Thatās the video I linked in my very first reply.
Monolinguistic people rarely realise just how overtly ethnocentric theyāre being. Guess itās hard to see when you donāt have any other languages to think in.
and it also probably helps when youāre classifying humans separately to animals for the purpose of a semantical argument, where classifying humans as animals would only cause further problems.
Along with the fact that itās arguably hate speech to some degree to refer to certain groups of people as animals separately from others, but this isnāt relevant.
How hard would it have been to just refrain from the word English in that sentence? Why did you feel the need to add it? Does āanimals donāt speakā somehow not convey the meaning of that? (Genuine questions, not sarcasm.)
are you actually genuinely mad at me for this? And yes, āanimals donāt speakā doesnāt convey it properly, because animals literally do speak, they just donāt speak the same kind of interpreted languages that humans often do, though we have taught monke sign language a couple of times, so thereās that, which might count i guess. (though itās not particularly fluent, or communicative)
But generally, for all intents and purposes, for this semantic argument, no, they donāt speak spoken languages, with semantic meanings, and rooted histories. The same way that humans do āenglishā for example.
This is like being mad at someone for talking about transportation, and using cars as an example, because they like cars, or drive one all the time. Itās just the basic bias of existing as a human being, where being impartial to literally everything that ever exists, at any point in time, is quite literally impossible.
There are lots of parrots who can clearly utter recognizable English, so yes, there are animals who speak English. On what level can they understand the language they use, thatās another question entirely. Which more or less was my point in replying to you. :)
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, itās not that they understand english, or words, or language. Itās that theyāre capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesnāt mean that iām speaking the language. In order for me to speak that language, i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that iām capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this.
regardless, my point was that animals have their own code of ethics, independent from the human concept of ethics, as defined in languages like english, which i used as the example, because i donāt know if you know, ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language. Iām just using the system relevant to the words iām speaking about. Itād be a little weird if i was using fucking C the programming language, as an example of language, wouldnāt it?
and it also probably helps when youāre classifying humans separately to animals for the purpose of a semantical argument
Nice try but the implication of animals being distinct was quite clear. The point is that there was absolutely no need to add the extra āEnglishā to the end of āanimals donāt speak [English]ā, and actually omitting it wouldāve made the sentence more inclusive and less prescriptively wrong. Even less wrong wouldāve been to say āanimals donāt have languageā, although weāre actually not a 100% on that, given that there are definite communications. Weāre having a hard time defining what level weāre on ourself and where we came from to be able to understand a similar evolution happening on an entirely different branch of evolution.
Along with the fact that itās arguably hate speech to some degree to refer to certain groups of people as animals separately from others,
Is it? Is it really? Because I donāt think it is in any way, unless itās explicitly hate speech that youāre doing in the context, and then anything in that context is hate speech. So you think no-one should ever refer to āFinnish peopleā for instance, because they would be doing a hate-speech on me, eh? Or that you canāt talk about the differences between European and American cultures, as you canāt refer to people separately without it being hate speech?
no, they donāt speak spoken languages, with semantic meanings, and rooted histories. The same way that humans do āenglishā for example.
But see, they do. They do speak the same way, but language isnāt just about speech. Speech is only a part of language. You seem to be having trouble seeing those two concepts as different from each other. Animals can speak, ie remember and use words.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, itās not that they understand english, or words, or language. Itās that theyāre capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesnāt mean that iām speaking the language. In order for me to speak that language, i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that iām capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this.
See, this is sort of my core point that came out very strongly from just you having had to use āEnglishā in your sentence. Youāre ignorant, but you donāt like to think of yourself as ignorant. Youāre intellectually lazy, but you donāt like thinking about yourself that way. So you pretend youāre not.
First off, I already gave you way more information on the subject, which clearly you didnāt even open let alone peruse although itās a very in-depth dive to what properties of languages weāve observed animals using and how much do we understand about how they understand their own understanding. And that sort of thing. Anyway, with just 30 secs in Google youād find the most famous parrots on the matter:
Alex had a vocabulary of over 100 words,[17] but was exceptional in that he appeared to have understanding of what he said. For example, when Alex was shown an object and asked about its shape, color, or material, he could label it correctly.[15] He could describe a key as a key no matter what its size or color, and could determine how the key was different from others.[7] Looking at a mirror, he said āwhat colorā, and learned the word āgreyā after being told āgreyā six times.[18] This made him the first non-human animal to have ever asked a question, let alone an existential one (apes who have been trained to use sign-language have so far failed to ever ask a single question).[19]
Alex was said to have understood the turn-taking of communication and sometimes the syntax used in language.[14] He named an apple a ābanerryā (pronounced as rhyming with some pronunciations of ācanaryā), which a linguist friend of Pepperbergās thought to be a combination of ābananaā and ācherryā, two fruits he was more familiar with.[18]
You were saying that " i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that iām capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this."?
because i donāt know if you know, ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language.
Iāve more than likely been using English for longer than you have, and Iām sorry to say you got it wrong again.
āEthicsā as word with the very same meaning it has today was spoken aloud long before English was a thing. It actually comes from Greek, through Latin.
late 14c., ethik āstudy of morals,ā from Old French etique āethics, moral philosophyā (13c.), from Late Latin ethica, from Greek Äthike philosophia āmoral philosophy,ā fem. of Äthikos āethical, pertaining to character,ā from Äthos āmoral character,ā related to Äthos ācustomā (see ethos). Meaning āmoral principles of a person or groupā is attested from 1650s.
You make bold assumptions which I donāt see have much scientific basis in them. Like yes, animals have their āownā ethics and one could make the argument that all ethics are subjective and no such thing exists as objective ethics. However, saying theyāre āwholly independentā might be a reach, since we know that we share some of our most fundamental concepts of what is āunfairā with some of our close cousins.
My point is that you should look question yourself a bit more and be open to other people actually knowing what yourāe speaking about, and adding to it, instead of thinking everyone is always arguing against you.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, itās not that they understand english, or words, or language. Itās that theyāre capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesnāt mean that iām speaking the language.
Youāre repeating the age-old myth of āparrots just parrot, they donāt actually understand anything they parrotā.
This is decidedly untrue, and thereās heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie āwrongā.
ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language.
This is also just plain wrong. Itās a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? Thatās the video I linked in my very first reply.
Youāre repeating the age-old myth of āparrots just parrot, they donāt actually understand anything they parrotā.
This is decidedly untrue, and thereās heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie āwrongā.
show me someone conversing with a parrot in a legible manner and i will believe you. I also handed you a much better example to use anyway.
This is also just plain wrong. Itās a Greek word that comes to English from Latin.
most prominent languages are based on latin, and latin is literally dead. Also technically if weāre being pedantic here, like you are, itās not from latin, because latin isnāt the premiere progenitor of all language. Latin itself is actually a massive hodge podge of other various lingual devices, as are most languages.
But judging by your level of intellectual prowess, english isnāt a real language, because it steals words and grammar from other languages, often in non sensical mannerisms, that are inconsistent with itās own grammatical constructions. Which is ironically, a fair statement, because english is a fucking mess.
Maybe bilingual people just donāt have a very multinational view of the world when it comes to history, and how it tends to play out, i donāt know though, because i follow history from time to time.
(See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
again this is like me getting into an older american car, to go somewhere, because itās a car that i like and i drive it, because itās reliable, only for you to inform me that iām actually pretentious for using an american car because āthere are other countries that manufacture carsā you keep acting like the one fucking statement that i made in passing is the arbiter of truth, solely defining every logical facet of the world. Itās not that deep, iām just expressing my thoughts in a rather terse manner to get my point across without typing three fucking pages of text on the etymological history of every fucking word iām using for fear that someone thinks i only understand english, and donāt understand the totality of all history ever, because otherwise āi would look like a dumbassā
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? Thatās the video I linked in my very first reply.
this is also literally what i re-iterated. I didnāt watch the video or click on any links, because unless youāre going to present it to me in a genuine manner that isnāt just trying to patronize me, i donāt really give a fuck to be honest. Maybe if you had read what i had written, you would understand this.
Can animals grammar? ā introduction to my animated series which goes deep in just what the capabilities are, because there is a lot of debate in the science world.
you know itās funny that you mention this, because in the very first post that i made, iām pretty sure i literally said āanimals have methods of communication, itās just not the same way that we do, I.E. englishā or something along those lines. And iām pretty fucking sure i reiterated that multiple times.
Thoguht you might be interested, but guess youāre more interested in āwinningā a conversation than actually having one.
itās kind of interesting, and iād like to discuss it, but itās also hard to discuss something when literally everything you say is disputed for the purposes of āuhm nah actually ur wrong, because hereās a technicality where itās actually kind of sort of wrong, and you should feel bad because iām better than youā but maybe you donāt intend it that way, in which case, thatās how it fucking reads.
Am i brazen? Yes, i feel iām being equally as brazen as you are though.
Edit lol replied to myself accidentally. Meant to put this at the bottom end of the thread.
Lots of people in the world who donāt speak English.
correct me if im wrong here, but do any animals, ever, at all, speak any human language at all?
I just used english as a force of habit. A stand in statement if you will.
Perhaps maybe even the fact that weāre speaking in fucking english right now, will lead you to the reason as to why i stated english.
Of course people donāt fucking speak english, what a stupid fucking comment.
Varmaa siksi koska mƤ veikkaan et puhu mitƤƤn muuta kieltƤ, joten jos mƤ rupeen kirjottaa jollai muul kielel, ni sun pitƤƤ vaivautua itse kƤƤntƤmƤƤn se (mikƤ ei tosin nykyƤƤn vaadi kun sen kaks klikkaust, sillonku mnƤƤ olin piƤn ni sullei ois ollu mitƤƤ tsƤnssiƤ).
Monolinguistic people rarely realise just how overtly ethnocentric theyāre being. Guess itās hard to see when you donāt have any other languages to think in.
How hard would it have been to just refrain from the word English in that sentence? Why did you feel the need to add it? Does āanimals donāt speakā somehow not convey the meaning of that? (Genuine questions, not sarcasm.)
If you think thatās stupid, wait until you hear about the guy who said the same thing of animals.
There are lots of parrots who can clearly utter recognisable English, so yes, there are animals who speak English. On what level can they understand the language they use, thatās another question entirely. Which more or less was my point in replying to you. :)
Anyway, for those actually interested in what the current research says about how much animals can use language, NativLang on YT has an awesome series on animal speech/grammar that goes into depth on the subject. Hereās the first video.
Youāre repeating the age-old myth of āparrots just parrot, they donāt actually understand anything they parrotā.
This is decidedly untrue, and thereās heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie āwrongā.
This is also just plain wrong. Itās a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? Thatās the video I linked in my very first reply.
This:
Can animals grammar? ā introduction to my animated series which goes deep in just what the capabilities are, because there is a lot of debate in the science world.
Thoguht you might be interested, but guess youāre more interested in āwinningā a conversation than actually having one.
and it also probably helps when youāre classifying humans separately to animals for the purpose of a semantical argument, where classifying humans as animals would only cause further problems.
Along with the fact that itās arguably hate speech to some degree to refer to certain groups of people as animals separately from others, but this isnāt relevant.
are you actually genuinely mad at me for this? And yes, āanimals donāt speakā doesnāt convey it properly, because animals literally do speak, they just donāt speak the same kind of interpreted languages that humans often do, though we have taught monke sign language a couple of times, so thereās that, which might count i guess. (though itās not particularly fluent, or communicative)
But generally, for all intents and purposes, for this semantic argument, no, they donāt speak spoken languages, with semantic meanings, and rooted histories. The same way that humans do āenglishā for example.
This is like being mad at someone for talking about transportation, and using cars as an example, because they like cars, or drive one all the time. Itās just the basic bias of existing as a human being, where being impartial to literally everything that ever exists, at any point in time, is quite literally impossible.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, itās not that they understand english, or words, or language. Itās that theyāre capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesnāt mean that iām speaking the language. In order for me to speak that language, i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that iām capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this.
regardless, my point was that animals have their own code of ethics, independent from the human concept of ethics, as defined in languages like english, which i used as the example, because i donāt know if you know, ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language. Iām just using the system relevant to the words iām speaking about. Itād be a little weird if i was using fucking C the programming language, as an example of language, wouldnāt it?
Nice try but the implication of animals being distinct was quite clear. The point is that there was absolutely no need to add the extra āEnglishā to the end of āanimals donāt speak [English]ā, and actually omitting it wouldāve made the sentence more inclusive and less prescriptively wrong. Even less wrong wouldāve been to say āanimals donāt have languageā, although weāre actually not a 100% on that, given that there are definite communications. Weāre having a hard time defining what level weāre on ourself and where we came from to be able to understand a similar evolution happening on an entirely different branch of evolution.
Is it? Is it really? Because I donāt think it is in any way, unless itās explicitly hate speech that youāre doing in the context, and then anything in that context is hate speech. So you think no-one should ever refer to āFinnish peopleā for instance, because they would be doing a hate-speech on me, eh? Or that you canāt talk about the differences between European and American cultures, as you canāt refer to people separately without it being hate speech?
But see, they do. They do speak the same way, but language isnāt just about speech. Speech is only a part of language. You seem to be having trouble seeing those two concepts as different from each other. Animals can speak, ie remember and use words.
See, this is sort of my core point that came out very strongly from just you having had to use āEnglishā in your sentence. Youāre ignorant, but you donāt like to think of yourself as ignorant. Youāre intellectually lazy, but you donāt like thinking about yourself that way. So you pretend youāre not.
First off, I already gave you way more information on the subject, which clearly you didnāt even open let alone peruse although itās a very in-depth dive to what properties of languages weāve observed animals using and how much do we understand about how they understand their own understanding. And that sort of thing. Anyway, with just 30 secs in Google youād find the most famous parrots on the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
You were saying that " i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that iām capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this."?
This must be a deepfake then
Iāve more than likely been using English for longer than you have, and Iām sorry to say you got it wrong again.
āEthicsā as word with the very same meaning it has today was spoken aloud long before English was a thing. It actually comes from Greek, through Latin.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/ethic
You make bold assumptions which I donāt see have much scientific basis in them. Like yes, animals have their āownā ethics and one could make the argument that all ethics are subjective and no such thing exists as objective ethics. However, saying theyāre āwholly independentā might be a reach, since we know that we share some of our most fundamental concepts of what is āunfairā with some of our close cousins.
My point is that you should look question yourself a bit more and be open to other people actually knowing what yourāe speaking about, and adding to it, instead of thinking everyone is always arguing against you.
ok cool so weāre just shitposting now
Youāre repeating the age-old myth of āparrots just parrot, they donāt actually understand anything they parrotā.
This is decidedly untrue, and thereās heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie āwrongā.
This is also just plain wrong. Itās a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? Thatās the video I linked in my very first reply.
This:
Can animals grammar? ā introduction to my animated series which goes deep in just what the capabilities are, because there is a lot of debate in the science world.
Thoguht you might be interested, but guess youāre more interested in āwinningā a conversation than actually having one.
Edit lol replied to myself accidentally. Meant to put this at the bottom end of the thread.
show me someone conversing with a parrot in a legible manner and i will believe you. I also handed you a much better example to use anyway.
most prominent languages are based on latin, and latin is literally dead. Also technically if weāre being pedantic here, like you are, itās not from latin, because latin isnāt the premiere progenitor of all language. Latin itself is actually a massive hodge podge of other various lingual devices, as are most languages.
But judging by your level of intellectual prowess, english isnāt a real language, because it steals words and grammar from other languages, often in non sensical mannerisms, that are inconsistent with itās own grammatical constructions. Which is ironically, a fair statement, because english is a fucking mess.
Maybe bilingual people just donāt have a very multinational view of the world when it comes to history, and how it tends to play out, i donāt know though, because i follow history from time to time.
again this is like me getting into an older american car, to go somewhere, because itās a car that i like and i drive it, because itās reliable, only for you to inform me that iām actually pretentious for using an american car because āthere are other countries that manufacture carsā you keep acting like the one fucking statement that i made in passing is the arbiter of truth, solely defining every logical facet of the world. Itās not that deep, iām just expressing my thoughts in a rather terse manner to get my point across without typing three fucking pages of text on the etymological history of every fucking word iām using for fear that someone thinks i only understand english, and donāt understand the totality of all history ever, because otherwise āi would look like a dumbassā
this is also literally what i re-iterated. I didnāt watch the video or click on any links, because unless youāre going to present it to me in a genuine manner that isnāt just trying to patronize me, i donāt really give a fuck to be honest. Maybe if you had read what i had written, you would understand this.
you know itās funny that you mention this, because in the very first post that i made, iām pretty sure i literally said āanimals have methods of communication, itās just not the same way that we do, I.E. englishā or something along those lines. And iām pretty fucking sure i reiterated that multiple times.
itās kind of interesting, and iād like to discuss it, but itās also hard to discuss something when literally everything you say is disputed for the purposes of āuhm nah actually ur wrong, because hereās a technicality where itās actually kind of sort of wrong, and you should feel bad because iām better than youā but maybe you donāt intend it that way, in which case, thatās how it fucking reads.
Am i brazen? Yes, i feel iām being equally as brazen as you are though.
officially a shitpost now lmao