Thai Language - Primitive Language?

[SpoliaOpima]

In my attempts to learn Thai with a highly qualified teacher (former professor of Thai literature) I have been struck by the aspect of data compression in the language. Tones give you a way to use one syllable (mai is a good example) to indicate 5 different meanings. The grammatical usage seems to me to be very highly contextual (drives me crazy), this also allows (for those who speak it well) to convey a lot of meaning without using a lot of words. Any comments from those more expert in Thai language on this thought?

Yes, I would agree. Thai is a very complex and subtle language. I find I can express emotional states, for example, much more clearly and specifically in Thai than in English. Other things I can express more easily in English.

I know of no linguist who would describe any language historic or existing as 'primitive'.

Is There Any Such Thing as a Primitive Language?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n2/language

"Simple, complex, degenerate and primitive languages are figments of the imagination."

http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test1materials/origin_of_language.htm

It can't be proven that language is as old as humans, but it is definitely true that language and human society are inseparable. Wherever humans exist language exists. Every stone age tribe ever encountered has a language equal to English, Latin, or Greek in terms of its expressive potential and grammatical complexity. Technologies may be complex or simple, but language is always complex. Charles Darwin noted this fact when he stated that as far as concerns language, "Shakespeare walks with the Macedonian swineherd, and Plato with the wild savage of Assam." In fact, it sometimes seems that languages spoken by preindustrial societies are much more complex grammatically than languages such as English (example: English has about seven tense forms and three noun genders; Kivunjo, a Bantu language spoken on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, has 14 tenses and about 20 noun classes.) There are no primitive languages, nor are any known to have existed in the past--even among the most remote tribes of stone age hunter-gatherers.

[SpoliaOpima]

http://www.uefap.com.../ess2/quirk.htm

'Primitiveness' in Language

'Primitive' is a word that is often used ill-advisedly in discussions of language. Many people think that 'primitive' is indeed a term to be applied to languages, though only to some languages, and not usually to the language they themselves speak. They might agree in calling 'primitive' those uses of language that concern greetings, grumbles and commands, but they would probably insist that these were especially common in the so-called 'primitive languages'. These are misconceptions that we must quickly clear from our minds.

[Richard W]

http://www.uefap.com.../ess2/quirk.htm

says, "every language appears to be as well equipped as any other to say the things its speakers want to say."

That only applies to monolingual societies. In multilingual societies, speakers have a choice, and therefore speakers may switch languages to discuss certain matters.

Dying languages do degenerate. As the number of users decreases, vocabulary is lost.

[tgeezer]

I am confused. The example of น้ำแข็ง would not seem to be a case of idiomaticity since its semantic structure is indeed more or less available from its components. i.e. what else could "hard water" be but "ice?" Similarly with น้ำไฟฟ้า.

Everything in language is idiomatic; words only mean what we agree for them to mean, and hard, fixed meaning is an illusion.

Thais don't take the phrase "hard water" to mean "water that is hard" any more than English speakers take "cupboard" to mean "a board for cups". To Thais, "hard water" is "ice", just as "cupboard" in English means "a cabinet for storing dishes or food".

These meanings only arise because they're agreed upon by the community of speakers. They could refer to anything at all, so long as everybody agrees on what it is.

(Incidentally, since you ask what else "hard water" could mean: In English, it refers to water with a high mineral content, as distinguished from "soft water", or water with reduced mineral content. See http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hard_water for more info.)

EDIT: Whoops, I see Bytebuster beat me to it on the hard water.

One can't argue with that; all words are metaphors.

น้ำกระด้าง is what the Thais call 'hard water' when they mean it.

Edited August 12, 2012 by tgeezer

[SpoliaOpima]

http://www.uefap.com.../ess2/quirk.htm

says, "every language appears to be as well equipped as any other to say the things its speakers want to say."

That only applies to monolingual societies. In multilingual societies, speakers have a choice, and therefore speakers may switch languages to discuss certain matters.

That's not the context of the claim, ie it's not addressing monolingual vs multi-lingual societies. So the statement still holds for for any given language.

The point is, no language is more 'primitive' than the other.

If a language dies out, ie isn't spoken or used anymore, it doesn't mean it has degenerated. Only its usage has degenerated. Take Sanskrit and Latin, for example. Although almost no one uses them in everyday situations anymore, the fact remains they are as complete as any other language. I suppose you could argue that because they are not in general usage anymore, that they aren't adding or synthesising new vocabulary. But that makes the static, not 'degenerate'.

[Richard W]

http://www.uefap.com.../ess2/quirk.htm

says, "every language appears to be as well equipped as any other to say the things its speakers want to say."

That only applies to monolingual societies. In multilingual societies, speakers have a choice, and therefore speakers may switch languages to discuss certain matters.

That's not the context of the claim, ie it's not addressing monolingual vs multi-lingual societies. So the statement still holds for for any given language.

The statement is *FALSE*. A particular case in point is Mon nationalists lamenting that they had to discuss politics in Burmese because Mon lacks the vocabulary.

If a language dies out, ie isn't spoken or used anymore, it doesn't mean it has degenerated.

It's what happens as it dies that is relevant. Vocabulary loss is frequently attested, though that may be made up by spontaneous borrowing from the dominant language. What is also seen is a loss of control of the subtler grammar features. I presume you've come across Leonard Bloomfield's description of White-Thunder:

"White-Thunder, a man around forty, speaks less English than Menominee, and that is a strong indictment, for his Menominee is atrocious. His vocabulary is small; his inflections are often barbarous; he constructs sentences of a few threadbare models. He may be said to speak no language tolerably. His case is not uncommon among younger men, even when they speak but little English.”

[mca]

Everything in language is idiomatic; words only mean what we agree for them to mean, and hard, fixed meaning is an illusion.

Thais don't take the phrase "hard water" to mean "water that is hard" any more than English speakers take "cupboard" to mean "a board for cups". To Thais, "hard water" is "ice", just as "cupboard" in English means "a cabinet for storing dishes or food".

These meanings only arise because they're agreed upon by the community of speakers. They could refer to anything at all, so long as everybody agrees on what it is.

Exactly. I like to tease my daughter and nieces when it's thundering and say " The sky's singing a good song tonight" not really thinking that the Thais are mentally saying and thinking "sky sing" when they refer to it.

When I've jokingly pointed out stuff like "hard water", "sky sing" or "school eat sleep" most of the Thais I've been talking to have considered it for a moment and then broke into a " I've never thought of it like that" grin.

Same as English. Come round mine tonight. Come over to my house .I've had a few Thais ask me over the years about our use of these two phrases.

And don't get me started on "roundabout" Yes it's round. But what's it about ?

Edited August 12, 2012 by mca

[Johpa]

"White-Thunder, a man around forty, speaks less English than Menominee, and that is a strong indictment, for his Menominee is atrocious. His vocabulary is small; his inflections are often barbarous; he constructs sentences of a few threadbare models. He may be said to speak no language tolerably. His case is not uncommon among younger men, even when they speak but little English.”

And yet sometimes languages are born from the ashes. You can start from a pidgin, a partially formed trade language, and that becomes the basis for a creole language, which then over only a very few generations becomes a language like Bahasa Indonesian which is now taught in universities around the world. But by the same standards used by Bloomfield, at the earliest stages you could have entire societies "said to speak no language at all".

[Somtamnication]

This conversation is now way above my intellect and far higher in IQ than my single digit version. I shall withdraw, resign and willfully hand over my wife as a sign of surrender.