One need not be a behaviorist sludge to see that the shoe must fit the foot, not even speaking of socks. "Women speak because they wish to speak, whereas a man speaks only when driven to speak by something outside himself like, for instance, he can't find any clean socks." - Jean Kerr
Therefore, the idea that speech, language and grammar are inherent in the human brain is ... quaint and directly contradicted, by none other than Eve's inheritors, who point to the necessity of outside influence.
We have just been reading Ben Smith at Politico.com in
The linguistic wars, all on the left
and marvelling at the inexigency (we coin it) of a modern linguistic world caught in its own virtual artificially created vision of human speech where theoretical grammatical constructs rather than real actual lexicology (word content) allegedly form the essence of language.
Theory over common sense prevails in modern linguistics, to the loss of the real world of actual language.
Could contemporary linguists decipher 00 on the Moon or would they be left in the dust? Verily.
The whole subject area is a paradise of rollicking relics for skeptics, panoramizing renown linguists astoundingly adept at broadcasting abstruse theories about language cognition more successfully than they are at unraveling the undeciphered mysteries of real human languages actually used in the past.
That work remains for others, who in order to succeed, must be firmly rooted in simple lexical parameters and "banal" human concepts of content and meaning.
The real question in this vein is whether the Kaulins Ancient Sign Concordance MinAegCon supports Chomsky's theory that the human mind instinctively "cognizes" thought grammatically as part of its innate structure, thus leading to a generative grammar, presumably of syllabic pictographic shape, even in the era of the origins of writing, or, to the contrary, as Lakoff might argue, whether these pictographic signs and symbols in syllabic expression are tangible evidence of subtle metaphors of meaning bound like Prometheus in intellectual struggle beyond the lexical pale?
The chicken or the egg!? Chicken feathers! Bite your tongue! And silence your lips. "It is all in your mind." Chomsky. Grammar rules there and it rules from the womb.
Much discussed, but little proven, we asked someone who should know.
Our pet parrot just said "poppycock". Now there is a born grammarian!
And yet, the resolution of the linguistic wars will surely not come from a study of language as it is found TODAY in our Western-Centric Marshall McLuhan media world. It is a world where not only grammar but also metaphor are often strangers to "kauderwelsh language posters" that dot the landscape of the likes of Facebook and Twitter.
Rather, the linguistic wars will abide when language AS IT WAS -- long ago, elsewhere, beyond the borders of Europe -- and far before the modern era, is studied AND understood. That age is yet to come.
As if it mattered in a world of inherent clones?
By "inherent grammatic theory", diverse invading hordes, Golden, barbarian or otherwise, necessarily thought as we do. They could not otherwise. We are innately all language wizards in our core, sharing an underlying identical language structure. What use then the linguists you may ask? We ask the same question.
Or can we envision the mind inherent in Chomsky's innate language virtually firing up and illuminating the ancient landscape as we come to understand the clear sign relations of diverse languages as revealed in the Kaulins Concordance?
Perhaps only the signs change and the grammar stays constant?
Or are the signs more-or-less constant and is it the grammar that changes?
Decipherment work suggests the second is more true than the first.
Manifestly, there must also have been a common physical origin in terms of human sign invention, albeit a mankindly creation immediately recognizable intellectually by others -- via their shared innate cognitive patterns.
In modern parlance: the first signs, inherent in origin, were instantly copyable.
To a man trained in the law, one might even easily argue today before a judge in a court of law on the basis of modern linguistic dogma that alleged legal infractions such as copyright infringement are INGRAINED in the human condition, for the grammar of any text allegedly stolen is inherent in all.
INHERENT, your honor. Certain forms of expression are GIVEN. We can not do otherwise. Chomsky. Like shooting sitting ducks. Pardon the metaphor. Lakoff.
But who are we to challenge sacred cows?
The linguistic wars rage on, oblivious to the foreboding oracles of Minoan, Aegean, Cypriot, Luvian, Elamite, Sumerian or Hieroglyphic scripts, where grammar is rare and content is pervasive.
That there is so much disagreement in linguistics, by the way, is rather a politically incorrect puzzlement, given the innately blessed character of the subject matter, think ye not? And surely overdone for anyone seeking rarely cooked metaphors.
Or is the inherency of language so deeply submerged that it is difficult to identify?
Potentially, a born analytical mind prone to metaphor might invoke the question whether spoken language, written language and modern linguistics are potentially separated each from the other by a cognitive digamma. A digamma is a letter that has come and gone as vivacious as the wind. That is the loss of inherency. WOW!
LINGWHIZT
