Underrated talk... hope the KZread algorithm picks it up soon

@heatherb812

4 жыл бұрын

Justin Power it may have already, I just had this video recommended to me (seemingly) out of nowhere. I’ve listened to other lectures by Dan Everret, but that was months ago. He is fantastic.

@Vikanuck

3 жыл бұрын

Welp, it seems to appear when you’ve spent 2 days straight trying to learn about the origin of language haha 😆🤷🏻‍♂️ For real though. I’ve been watching as many videos as I can about it, then it literally JUST showed up in my recommended feed lol. So, I think that’s the road you have to start going down before stumbling upon this absolute gem of a TED Talk lol.

@ironman5034

3 жыл бұрын

true that

@mawnkd

2 жыл бұрын

It did. Recommendation brought me here

@dominiclombardi5305

2 жыл бұрын

Well it was just recommended to me. I love this guy's work on the Piraha.

Excellent … and let’s not forget body language. Must be the earliest form communication.

@Gottenhimfella

Жыл бұрын

That's something we inherited from earlier animals, as opposed to spoken language which is unique to us.

I love his ability to share such dense information in a way that we can hear it. Bravo! I love his books too!! Just a born teacher and communicator!!!!!

This is definitely a very interesting and worthwhile talk by an interesting presenter, however, it is important to note that the title is misleading. The speaker does not attempt to explain how language began; instead, he discusses what is necessary for language, and the first humans who used language. In fact, I believe there is a lot of debate about how humans developed language and a lot of disagreement about how it happened and no one really knows how it is that humans began speaking languages.

@felipelunap

2 жыл бұрын

EXACTLY!!!

@user-pk5ej3hy2v

2 жыл бұрын

Hi . But I know that. I have researching for about 50 years.

@notsocrates9529

2 жыл бұрын

K.

@ian12346

2 жыл бұрын

The leading theory is psychedelics. We ate mushrooms or moldy rye, started tripping out and the brain made the new synapses and connections necessary for language self reflection, which of course gives us religion and worship as well. Humans didn’t start just imaging a god, they tripped out and created them, then the stories get recycled. 🤙

@user-pk5ej3hy2v

2 жыл бұрын

@@ian12346 I am gratitude from the University under license of M.I.T ( U.S.A) That a group of science and engineering ( electronic, electrical, mechanical , and another's ....) one of my love and fondness or Inclination was thermodynamics and branch. somewhat phisics or machinery ! So searching and studying ; and developing study and research to another field like history, philosophy, religion, or brain norology Paleontology and paleopycychology , and how to learn a language ( talking ) for example homoerectus animal human about 3.2 millions until 1 million years ago . And I found it [ place and time and another helps , from another factors and foo d ; animals ,and why ? And reason ;and., , ,.......)

Archaeology and linguistics also interest me. This is so fascinating to know and think about!!!

@Son_of_aesthetics

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly👍🏻

@Ak-oi2gl

4 жыл бұрын

One day we will go extinct and another species will replace us and imagine them talking about us and our technology in the far future isn't it crazy

@asimations

3 жыл бұрын

me2

@juncchiramen517

3 жыл бұрын

It sparks your imaginative capability.

A great talk! Yes, TEDx Talks are a great example of language using and its harness, indeed.

Bravo! What a remarkable talk. Loved it. Thanks Dan Everett.

word from thought is more than enough magic for any lifeform.

Great talk Dan, very informative.

Thing i love most about languages is being able to read it. So many people have shut down my efforts though bc i keep hearing "find native speakers to talk to". Social anxiety autism = no thank you. Now I'm finally like, no one else is going to set my goals for me anymore. Dziekuje.

So interesting! No matter where people are from they came up with a way to communicate

So much behind the evolution of language!! Never knew this

it's really a good video, I believe that language is the basis for all modern architecture and it's important to have a relatively good knowledge of language learning and developing it.

Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!

This was a fascinating talk!

Watched the video multiple times (been trying to learn Piraha for the last 3 years or something... duh I can’t find any resource and I’d never get the chance to travel to Brazil or the permission to even meet them but they’re like my favorite human people) but just now scrolled through the comments. Loved to see Mr. Everett answered some people and how he did it😂

@treydarkholm2181

3 жыл бұрын

Whoa we'll be discussing pirahá Language soon, however I cannot find much details about it, can you give me some details that you know about it?

Back in the late 80's I thought I read that one researcher in particular was convinced that mated pairs of ravens had a mutually understood vocabulary of up to 100 utterances. Problem being, of course, that the next mated pair of ravens had no idea what they were talking about.

@beyondthepale9071

3 жыл бұрын

birds of a feather flock together :-)

@brenkelly8163

Жыл бұрын

Oh that's great, and perhaps inadvertently accurate. i have millions of utterances, many of them bland and banal, but I also have trillions of possible utterances, both meaningful or meaningless. That vast number is the issue in the difference between the ravens and humans (but quoth the raven Nevermore).

@arlrmr7607

Жыл бұрын

Wow! You have revealed the horrendous tragedy of this species! So, mated pairs take giant leaps for Raven-kind but which take Ravens, the Species, *nowhere* because the leaps are *never additive.* Evolution - you cruel jokester - how dare you!

So interesting. So inspiring. Thank you Dan Everett.

Thanks for a good and interesting presentation

Good work. Thank you.

Greatly useful!

Almost platonistic to say that linguistics and it's origin is the root of the way everything has emerged. Thanks, Everett.

good teaching !,good work !, when will we interface with our evolution without lateral or exo- intervention !!

fascinating!

Throws shade at Chomsky, and refuses to name him 😆

@DocStrange0123

Жыл бұрын

what a tragedy, how dare he not mention Chomsky, go get 'em!!!

@scratchoriginalsdh

Жыл бұрын

Totally. Chomsky is, however, one of the most intriguing philosophers of our time.

Excellent talk from the great linguist Daniel Everett.

I believe that we used the few sounds to create chants to bring us together as a tribal unit. These sounds were joined to refer to objects in life - ma = mother, ba - father, etc

amazing!

great stuff!

I used to be an evangelical missionary in Europe, but now am an atheist. After 46 years I was having doubts about my religion. Then I read his book written about his years in the Amazon jungle, as a Wycliffe Bible Translator, who eventually realized his religious worldview was BS. (The book is "Don't Sleep - There Are Snakes"). It gave me permission to leave my lifetime religion, and living my life without guilt. Daniel Everett is amazing.

@JulioRodriguez-eg7fi

4 ай бұрын

You might have been an atheist all along, just decided to be an evangelical missionary for a time.

Facial expression is half of human communication. It must be preserved

Ted has usually interesting speakers but this guy is fascinating.

Which is why we need a common language that every human can understand. Let's do it!

@Santu7220

Жыл бұрын

This is one conclusion you can draw. The same talk could inspire us to learn many different languages, immerse in different cultures to grow our experience and brain. Remember the cultural indexes, icons and symbols that have been created by each community and language groups. Let´s listen to each other and make an effort to understand , you are right about that in my eyes.

In general, the language is ultimately; The great leap of the human animal!

Huh? Brilliant!

I'm not sure that humans ARE the only animals that use grammar. It is possible that animals have grammar that we don't recognize. We have to be open to that possibility because it could very well be out there.

@kc_h7h

2 жыл бұрын

We know every animals has its own language because they use body language differently then us. They also can make sounds to express emotions and what they want or what they mean. So basically they have a language

@brenkelly8163

Жыл бұрын

They might have grammar, but they don't have phonetics, phonology, morphology, and can only create a very limited number or words and utterances, whereas humans can create near infinite utterances or sentences. Birds can fly, but they will never reach the moon simply by flapping harder.

@hazzah5572

Жыл бұрын

@@brenkelly8163 If a bird could flap its wings several times the escape velocity of the Earth, it would be able to push hard enough against the upper atmosphere that it might be launched all the way to the moon. I think.

This talk is more of a value today with the rise of LLMs, language dictates intelligence.

Hi Mr. Everett. Thank you very much for your talk and I admire your work very much. In your lecture you mentioned that anything in a G3 grammar can be represented in a G1 grammar. I am having a hard time imagining how that would happen in a practical way. Can you please give an example of how a sentence using extensive recursion could be expressed in a G1 grammar? I hope that you can take the time to respond to me comment as I have seen you have responded to some others. Thank you.

@dipankarbhattacharya8104

4 жыл бұрын

Because G1 grammar is the building element for both G2 and G3. It is nothing but the similar idea of Simple , complex and compound sentence. You can simply imagine G1 as the simple sentence , G2 as the complex and G3 as the compound one. It is nothing but the evolution of intricate expression. From a very simple idea how you can propound and express yoursefl completely irrespective of it's complexity is what he was trying to say.

@momosaku16

3 жыл бұрын

he mentioned 2 examples in the talk. in G1 you can say You drink. You drive. You go to jail. grammaticaly speaking, those are 3 separate simple sentences, but we still understand that the meaning is connected. we know that what the speaker is actually trying to say is If you drink and drive, you go to jail. which would be the same meaning only expressed in one sentence in G2. in G3 you can add more stuff like If you drink and drive you`ll go to jail and you`ll get scolded by your wife, because she bailed you out last time and she said she wouldn`t do it again, and... in G1 you would say You drink. You drive. You go to jail. Your wife is angry. You go to jail again. She doesn`t give money. or something like that. I`ve just read his book about the Piraha `Don`t sleep, there are snakes` and he just sais that it`s important to think about thinking and grammar separately. The Piraha can use recursive reasoning, they obviously understand that there`s a past and a future, they just don`t express that grammatically.

@brenkelly8163

Жыл бұрын

Nonsense examples. All language in humans is fundamentally recursive. Try throwing this theory of G1 versus G2 versus G3 versus the G8 into the shredder then putting the pieces back together, striking a match under it, and roasting a marshmallow over it. You at least can create a nice smore, which is tastier that this G-man theory.

@chriswysocki8816

Жыл бұрын

Let me address your question, Nikolos (unlike the other 3 replies). I have doubts that G1 can express any sentence from G2, let alone from G3. At least not without some helper words that would embed the structure of the complex sentence in the short sentences of G1. Even the given example of G1 here is ambiguous. Let me show that there are 2 possible ways to interpret these 3 sentences: You drink. (and) You drive....... (then) You go to jail. -> (obvious and idiomatically understood version) You drink (you'll get arrogant and therefore...) You drive. (and presumably you get caught) You go to jail. -> (slightly awkward but possible meaning) Let's look at a similar example that is less awkward: You drive. (and) You crash. (then) You pay damages -> (fairly obvious advice) You drive. (then) You (will) crash. You pay damages -> (in this version the speaker has very low opinion the the other's driving abilities; clearly a very different meaning than the first one) So, without the helper words (ones on brackets, for example) I don't see how you can unambiguously express any G2,G3 sentence in G1

The man he does not want to name is Noam Chomsky, who formulated the theory of universal grammar. Dan Everett's discoveries in the Amazon jungle with the Piraha refuted Chomsky's theory, which shook the world of linguistics.

What's actually funny is there is evidence that the brain doesn't stop forming until you're almost 30 years old and then some more evidence and suggest that your brain never stops forming indicating we reached a new level where our childhood for brain at least never ends

From the book TALK TALK TALK By Jay Ingram … an investigation into the mystery of speech … Even the believers admit it’s a tricky business, because if you are trying to re-create proto-World, your starting materials are languages which themselves have been reconstructed. There’s no firm ground to stand on, and you are reduced to comparing lists of words you think were part of languages thousands of years old in order to uncover the even more ancient ancestors of those words: and none of the words on the lists you’re starting with are written anywhere, even in the oldest available stone tablets.

@TEDx Talks Include subtitles in the video, please.

@monqueyshank505

4 жыл бұрын

isnt it a good way to train your listening without subs? lol

@unusuario5173

4 жыл бұрын

@@monqueyshank505 some people don't speak English that well. I used to be one of them. And subtitles helped me greatly.

@rajukep6599

4 жыл бұрын

@@unusuario5173 yup true

@amandarios448

3 жыл бұрын

@Tristan Davis the Ted official website has that

@amandarios448

3 жыл бұрын

Go to the official website. They tend to have more options

Some ppl laughed for "size doesnt matter" jokes. Damn, their thought still traveling in this kind of forum 😂

@rand49er

3 жыл бұрын

Towards the end, he threw in a reference to the term "erectus" having a second meaning. Totally unnecessary and unprofessional ... I was disappointed.

@stuntmaster127

3 жыл бұрын

@@rand49er you're probably fun at partys

@DazToke

2 жыл бұрын

@@stuntmaster127 haha for real lol

@montmaudit

2 жыл бұрын

@@DazToke and what was the point for the girl in bikini on that picture he showed?

@bruhstandler

2 жыл бұрын

@@montmaudit so people don't get bored throughout the ted talk

Add please speaching of Dana Mussa at London

It seems like it might be worth mentioning that most linguists don’t share this point of view.

Good .

Hi . Mr DEv. I knew that how humen to talk ; and when.

A brilliant new book, "SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human" by Simon Prentis, draws together all the themes discussed here and provides a radical yet surprisingly obvious solution to the origin of language. It's an amazing insight. Check it out!

Way better than the T talk by Wassima Fahsi on the same topic. She put me to sleep.

I guarantee the most brilliant HE was 10 times smarter than me

or one sound with pitch and time modulation...

If language was invented like any other human tool (for example the wheel) it would have to have been re-invented by every human group because early on human communities were quite isolated and sharing by dispersion and diffusion would be unlikely. Although we have examples of human cultures that never invented the wheel (although some did) to my knowledge we have no examples of human groups who never invented the "tool" of language. It seems to be something that comes to humans naturally without prompting. I would say this is a species-specific quality to humankind, like various birds each have their own call or song. That every isolated human tribe would spontaneously and independently discover and elaborate system of vocalizations to communicate seems unlikely.

@larrydunn4626

2 жыл бұрын

you assume that human groups appeared in a disconnected way from other human groups... rather than acknowledging that every human ever, anywhere on earth, was connected to other humans before they arrived at the location in which they lived.

@Gottenhimfella

Жыл бұрын

It's worth remembering that protohumans (and even some humans) walked to their eventual locations across what subsequently became sea. What is now the main island of Britain was connected to Europe as recently as 10 - 15,000 years ago, and in earlier times, many more of today's islands (some of which are quite distant from any continent) would have been accessible by foot.

@harrydoherty8299

6 ай бұрын

this is why there are so many different languages. great distances makes for many languages. also i believe there’s a reason for many religions. like language, religion is also made up. also shorter distances causes dialects, acents.. such as a boston, newyork or southern accent. also thing are called differant name. such as foods. a grinder, hoggie or a sub are all the same thing . depending on where you live. any thoughts on this? btw im not a religious person . i do wonder how the solar system got here and all the mysteries.

@gene1012

Ай бұрын

@harrydoherty8299 I am reading The Language Puzzle - How We Talked Our Way Out of The Stone Age. By Steven Mithen. It's very fascinating. I recommend you read it. It gives a rather interesting take on things

I can get on board with technological (barely), but discovery? It's like saying a complex eye or the wall (wheel, definitely) was a discovery.

At 13:15, he begins to describe his classification of existing grammars as G1, G2 and G3. What would define a G4 grammar were it to be invented?

6:26 man started speaking enchantment table

@shouu3732

3 жыл бұрын

Hahahaah minecraft

Ted!!! The title is wrong dude. He doesn't explain what I expect to find when I google ' How did language originate '

11:35 we have an australopithecus in the audience

A great and insightful TED talk and I'm gonna use it for my research. However, I disagree with only one part of Mr. Everett's explanation: Shovel isn't a symbol of blisters, gardening, etc. The shovel is one of their indexes. And I'm using his own correct definition of symbols. The shovel could be a symbol of blisters, gardening, etc if it were culturally or conventionally defined so. But shovel is part of a big sign of gardening which signifies another part of the sign of gardening which could be blisters.

@brenkelly8163

Жыл бұрын

That reasoning is surprising, confusing and nonsensical. His archaeological discoveries and discussion were interesting and enlightening. his ideas of grammar--not so much. And fundamentally wrong and primitive.

@Santu7220

Жыл бұрын

Astute observation. I also made a mental note of that in order to examine the meaning of association as opposed to symbol. His own example hints at what it represents to him, what his first associations are. To others it could represent trauma, trenches, to someone freedom of own land, food, stability, being a creator and provider.

Nice talk but it didn't get to the point of the title until minute 8-9

Doc Brown snuck in 11:35

Noam Chomsky

@fgaze72

4 жыл бұрын

shhhhhhhh

good

So it's collective consciousness versus individual consciousness

Man discussed everything except about what's written in the title.

I think Morse Code would have provided more direct, accurate and easily grasped instance (than digital encoding of language in computers and word processors) for the notion that two sounds would be sufficient to communicate any written language. The analogy (because of the virtures I mentioned) does reveal that such encoding is difficult to learn. Unlike natural spoken languages, a child would have to learn to spell before they could talk or listen, as a deaf child must to master Braille. In the absence of a written language, this would be very difficult, as decoding a binary language is a very cerebral process, and by definition you cannot communicate verbally to help the child with that process. I think linguists sometimes forget that language is not just a communication tool. It's a thinking tool. There is also a tendency to overlook singing, a crucial social interaction in early humans which may sometimes predate speaking.

@Gottenhimfella

Жыл бұрын

It is not enough that something be possible (a spoken language with only two sounds) It also has to be practicable.

Hmm so symbols like you said "footprint" how did print mean what it means?? How did the sound/word foot come about and how didn't everyone know to relate it to you hands on the bottom? Like how did it start?? It's all I'm looking for.

@corriemcnab730

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent observation my friend....

@littlesnowflakepunk855

2 жыл бұрын

Are you asking where the words "foot" and "print" came from specifically? Most languages have a distinct word for foot as opposed to hand. Generally speaking these words come about as a way to indicate verbally where an injury is. As for print, prints in mud are an important part of hunting, having a way to indicate that you've found evidence of an animal being there and what direction it went is important. Linking the two is pretty intuitive, but not universal. Some languages have a separate word for animal tracks vs footprints vs any imprint, some use the same word for all three.

Does anyone know, has he seen the piraha again since 2012?

@13:39 that woman in the audience is fascinated.

That 30 years development joke hit different. 😂

He looks like Jimmy Osmond

8:41 what makes language?

I love his talks, but I sure wish someone would tell him that the plural if index is indices, not indexes.

This should be a Ted, not a Tedx

@anthonybruni1967

3 жыл бұрын

orangevst Generally I find ted x better. They are way less corporately influenced

i dont get how we speak different languages but we all say/mean the samething. its like one person went around the world and just started making them lol

@Crutoiful

4 жыл бұрын

Chris king well there are differences, like a lot of them. But mostly sapiens’ logic is the same, so we come to the same thing in the end. There’s not enough difference between humans for it to make a notable change in language

@Bluepanda555

3 жыл бұрын

It's in the bible..

@Bluepanda555

3 жыл бұрын

Not a lot of languages are being made this days or say from the time history started to be written and yet we have hundred thousand languages many becoming extinct so we can guess that there were millions of languages hundred thousand years ago or millions of years ago and its hard to believe that those early men who could hardly know how to cook food properly can makes all this languages it just doesn't fit... People can speak about a language but when it comes to hundred thousand language or million language all this explanations doesn't make sense..

@Bluepanda555

3 жыл бұрын

THERE IS NO GOOD EXPLANATION TO WHY THERE ARE WERE SO MANY LANGUAGES IN THIS WORLD NO AMOUNT OF EXPLANATION WILL BE SUCCESSFUL TO EXPLAIN IT WE CAN GIVE THEORIES AFTER THEORIES BUT IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN A THEORY.. MAKING A LANGUAGE OR A COUPLE OF LANGUAGE IS POSSIBLE BUT MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF LANGUAGES FROM THE TIME OF INCEPTION IS IMPOSSIBLE..

@Bluepanda555

3 жыл бұрын

@Language and Programming Channel Did you just say tea is tea in every language?

I admire the life’s work that led to Daniel coming to have the experiences he did with the Piraha people but why does Daniel still prescribe to origin stories at all? I thought the Piraha people had cured him of thinking about the distant past or anything with no immediacy of experience?

@Andulsi

4 жыл бұрын

why would it? It s interesting

@bethn.b.2673

4 жыл бұрын

Andulsi the Piraha people wouldn’t be interested and their way of seeing things is what revolutionized Daniel’s own take on life etc. it seems to me he just traded one origin story in for another, first he was preaching one and now he is preaching the other. If the Piraha people were to have a true influence on him, he would have stopped believing in creation and then got on with living a normal life, with no thought as to an alternative original story. Just saying :)

@nothing5779

Жыл бұрын

he is not free, he needs an occupation. And I think he does this for a living. It's his culture?

@uvpdesch

Жыл бұрын

@@bethn.b.2673 Why should one wholesale adopt a system of thought and way of being? I would prefer to learn from someone who is perpetually emerging and developing novel ideas in dialogue with a differentiating world....not someone who holds himself captive to a set way of thinking.

13:09 Noam chosmky

When we think of a shovel we think of family?

@anomienormie8126

2 жыл бұрын

If you’re a farmer, yes

Why did he refuse to mention Noam Chomsky?

@JuliaGarcia-gc6bd

3 жыл бұрын

It's a joke, because Chomsky's theory says language is natural and innate and Everett's theory claims language was an invention, it was created.

@joaowiciuk

3 жыл бұрын

@@JuliaGarcia-gc6bd I see Thanks for clarifying :)

Why was he hesitant to mention Chomsky?

@brenkelly8163

Жыл бұрын

Because Chomsky as a political thinker is meh, not great, and not a professor of politics, political thinking, or law. Interesting, but not great. As a professor of linguistics, he is a genius and made a very very deep impact on the field of modern linguistics, after de Saussure created the field-- another genius responsible for creating the theoretical substructure of the field the way Nils Bohr created quantum mechanics. Einstein didn't believe Bohr and lost the battle against him, then Einstein created the quantum idea of spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement. Einstein learned from Bohr on serious reflection but also knew the field he was dealing with. Professor Dan is not dealing in this field, doesn't understand Chomsky as a linguist outside a basic understanding of "innate", and so doesn't mention Chomsky because his argument will be destroyed. Chomsky's linguistics books are difficult reads (Generative grammar, Governance and Binding). But Chomsky mainly refined his ideas, not overthrew them, just like Einstein refine Bohr's ideas (and they were based on Einstein's anyway). Mentioning Chomsky, to those who have read and studied it, would mean openly challenging him and getting destroyed.

Which grammarian was he talking about? Noam Chomsky? Why wouldn’t he mention the name?

@belixjellburg8152

4 жыл бұрын

Because he opposed Dan Everett's research on Piraha language in the deep Amazon that defied Chomsky's universal grammar theory😁 His scientific doscoveries were opposed by a lot of linguists, and he was banned from ever going to the Pirahas' again. You should watch the documentary of Dan Everett with the Pirahas, titled Amazon's Code. And his book about the Piraha. It's such an interesting scientific inquiry that opposed a lot of theory about language.♥️♥️♥️

@trosa23

4 жыл бұрын

@@belixjellburg8152 Where did you find information that he was banned from working with the Piraha people? Also Chomsky's universal grammar theory does not necessarily denounce Everett's research. Chomsky's universal grammar theory essentially states that grammar and language are innate for humans and that linguistic capabilities are infinite, though our sounds (or signs, in the case of sign languages) are finite. Now, where they clash on ideologies is the fact that Everette states that Piraha has no subordination nor iterated genitive determiners - a fact he revised from his dissertation 25+ years ago in 2005. This would seem to limit linguistic capabilities and cause them to be finite, but that's not actually the case. Piraha does not need subordination, as they have been able to communicate efficiently without it for presumably their entire history. That means that their linguistic capabilities are still as infinite as any language that uses subordination. No hate or shade, I love Chomsky and Everett and am honestly tired of the old men bickering lol

@Luis-ej4ei

4 жыл бұрын

@@trosa23 your comment is really interesting. I stumbled upon this video while researching about linguistic relativity . Do you know what's Dan Everett's opinion on this hypothesis? And what's yours?

@daithiocinnsealach3173

4 жыл бұрын

@@belixjellburg8152 The documentary I watched was called 'Grammar of Happiness'.

@daithiocinnsealach3173

4 жыл бұрын

@sappo14 You clearly haven't studied anything by Everett.

The lady at 9:00 is out cold 😂

All guess work

@TheGeorgegenesis

5 жыл бұрын

Like nothing points to any hard fact!!! Great talk though, but no concrete fact backing it up.

@momosaku16

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheGeorgegenesis it was too short, you can see he had to speed though a lot of stuff

"There is one popular theory of grammar by someone I will not mention." LOL, I was like... this guy is awesome... but then he spoiled it with: "You can express anything from G3 grammar in G1 grammar. Mathematically, they're all of equal power." Oh, you don't say... so we can parse English with a finite-state automaton? The whole point of the Chomsky's hierarchy of formal grammars and their relationships to automata is that the grammars are not of equal power (at least not mathematically).

@JamesPeach

5 жыл бұрын

@Dan Everett I have a question about the Piraha. Do they have names for numbers or just use "many" and "few"?

@belixjellburg8152

4 жыл бұрын

Seth Perry just watch the documentary "Amazon's Code" aka "The Grammar of Happiness".

@monqueyshank505

4 жыл бұрын

@Dan Everett ??? Dan Everett?? The Dan Everett??

@littlesnowflakepunk855

2 жыл бұрын

We can parse English without using recursion or hierarchy. Watch. "Dan saw the dog. The dog ate the shoe. The shoe was owned by Dan. Dan was very angry." That can be expressed much more succinctly in a standard English recursive format, "Dan was angry because he saw the dog eat his shoe." But it can still be understood if expressed as though English had a G1 grammar, lacking recursion or hierarchy.

We were all chimpanzees but some were experimented by aliens and starts to evolve differently and intelligently and now we're a totally different species capable of understanding complex things and evolving further and have the ability to become God like beings

Are people like trying to teach mathematical concepts and other ideas to indigenous people or do we let them be like we should?

Did he make this entire talk just to throw shade at Noam Chomsky?

@scratchoriginalsdh

Жыл бұрын

😅😅😅

Very informative. I felt like I was listening to someone who knew what he was talking about. I could’ve done without the sexiest baby on the beach. And maybe add a grammar lesson On the difference between the use of few and less.

10 secs in?....error.

Interesting approach, but IMO we can say a lot more about the biological origins of human speech & language, google e.g. "Speech originS 2018 Verhaegen PPT".

10:00

Why does he avoid mentioning Chomsky?

@RodGibsonMusic

3 жыл бұрын

Because he has some serious disagreements with some of his (Chomsky's) theories. Everett actually went and lived and studied some primitive peoples in the amazon, whereas Chomsky never immersed himself in any other language/culture. I recommend a channel called What I've Learned, there Everett waa interviewed by the host of the channel and had a very interesting conversation about this topic.

@MichaelMarko

3 жыл бұрын

@@RodGibsonMusic Actually Chomsky studied Arabic at least. But I'm not really disagreeing with you. But what I meant was that at a certain point he says something like "some guy said...". It's clear he's talking about Chomsky so I just wondered why he didn't say the name. I could be wrong.

@owl6218

3 жыл бұрын

he probably feels chomsky monopolized and smothered the study of language. chomsky's language hierarchy is good to classify computational problems. all undergraduates of computer science are taught it. but it is a big, unnecessary leap to speculate about the special grammar machine in the brain. chomsky was free to make that speculation, but for the rest of academia to latch onto it as the revealed truth must have been counter productive. chomsky's ideas were just a beginning, not the last word. it is a pattern in science. some ideas become too entrenched for the good of field. people become reluctant to explore alternatives

@MichaelMarko

3 жыл бұрын

@@owl6218 Thanks. I get that and you'll get no argument. Really, I just thought it was weird that he wouldn't say the name.

Does a sponge communicate?

@EddieKMusic

4 жыл бұрын

Yup, as documented in spongebob

@scratchoriginalsdh

Жыл бұрын

Yup.

Interesting. But why might Johnny erectus be male? Why not female?

First three minute is out of world just imagination

❤️🇰🇼🇰🇼🇰🇼🇰🇼🇰🇼🇰🇼🇰🇼🇰🇼❤️

He dissin Chomsky?

The theologian he won't mention is Chomsky. Sorry, I meant scholar. The dogma he challenged is Universal Grammar. Sorry, I meant theory.

@desiderata8811

3 жыл бұрын

Barbara Mulvaney . Agree

The best technology ever created is language, and the worst technology ever created is cars.

I have been watching TED Talk for about a month and this is the only video that is waste of time.

Animals don't communicate often. Once human changed their body to present stage, they might have started communication through direct touch, then through sounds and then with grammar and then with texts (pictures/signs/symbols)