>languages do not become more simple over time, they retain complexity in other areas
When will this meme finally end?
It is obvious to anyone who studied a bit of history and linguistics that modern languages are but pale imitations of their archaic versions. English in particular is degrading exceptionally rapidly. >b-but orthography is getting more complex Yeah, but writing is a human invention. The rules of orthography are as complex - or simple - as we make them. >b-but we have a bigger vocabulary That isn't exclusive to us. Archaic languages had the capacity for that, along with their more complex grammar.
there isn't really much evolutionary favor to improving our language
Kayden Ward
>Yeah, but writing is a human invention.
So are the languages. Your argument is invalid. Also orthography is part of grammar.
>Archaic languages had the capacity for that
Which not one of them used. Argument invalid again.
Kevin Nguyen
Since this is a science board, could you please back up your claims with some sort of review paper for those of us who aren't experts?
Owen Gonzalez
not the OP but here's a graph showing that phonemic diversity is greatest in the places humans have lived the longest and degrades with dispersal distance out of Africa
Jack Hughes
Top fucking kek. Of course some fucking acdemicucks are going to define anything that's not African to be less diverse.
William Perez
t. neet
Henry Taylor
>t. Doesn't know what a phoneme is
Grayson Hill
The line is rather far away from the graph. However, it's true that Africa, with his various climates and relatively isolated tribes, is a treasure of human biodiversity. It doesn't make them superior, though.
William Morgan
back to /pol, brainlet
one might argue that a simpler, more streamlined language carries benefits for communication and societal development
Eli Lopez
>implying "science" refers exclusively to physics and chemistry chill senpai language science can be pretty cool
Dylan Reyes
>I don't know anything about linguistics but I'm going to make large sweeping statements that go against the consensus without giving any sort of argument or proof also >implying language can 'degrade' >implying complexity is necessarily a good thing
Cooper Sullivan
So you dispute the observation that languages might simplify in one area but increase in complexity in others because you have observed that English has lost complexity in some areas but increased in complexity in others?
Nolan Jackson
People like to think that they are smarter than other people because they speak a less complex language.
It is undeniable that the complexities of languages are degenerating into something simple. For instance - no language has gained more grammatical cases with time.
Kayden Bailey
>It is undeniable that the complexities of languages are degenerating into something simple. I'm fairly sure it's an indo-european thing.
>no language has gained more grammatical cases with time. Hungarian and Finnish would like a word with you though.
Xavier Young
>anyone who has studied a bit of linguistics whatever you've studied, it isn't linguistics. what do you think is so complex about latin, that it has a few morphological declensions and conjugations?
Ethan Rogers
English isn't changing. It hasn't changed since it existed.
Are you confusing dialect and vocabulary with grammar.
Jack Cook
>It is obvious to anyone who studied a bit of history and linguistics that modern languages are but pale imitations of their archaic versions. English in particular is degrading exceptionally rapidly. Oh shut the fuck up.
Cooper Mitchell
> It is obvious to anyone who studied a bit of history and linguistics that modern languages are but pale imitations of their archaic versions. English in particular is degrading exceptionally rapidly. So you only speak English. Ok.
Owen James
>English isn't changing. It hasn't changed since it existed.
Try reading Beowulf and tell me it's just a dialectal variation. Old English had fucking case declension, for Christ's sake
Elijah Diaz
I just want some new auxiliary verbs. Can science give me these?
Ryder Williams
very simple video for people who have no understanding of linguistics which gives a basic idea of why OP's claim is false.. youtube.com/watch?v=wIWiR9anx04