>From: bnathyuw <bnathyuw@...>7 +0100
>
>DAMNIT. SOMEONE TEACH THE BOY TO USE PARAGRAPHS !
>
>
>--- lu su <intelligent888@...> wrote: > Even
>George Bernard Shaw subconsciously aware that
> > increasing sounds’ number can understand the world
> > better. In his Pygmalion, Higgins can distinguish
> > one
> > hundred and thirty vowel sounds, so he is smarter
> > than
> > Pickering. This technique enables Higgins to turn a
> > flower gird into a princess magically. But do you
> > ever
> > think? If Higgins’ one hundred and thirty vowel
> > sounds
> > instead of promoting a flower girl, he uses it in
> > the
> > transmission of message? Isn’t it what we are
> > looking
> > forward to? Since a vowel has to be pronounced with
> > a
> > certain tone, you can’t separate them. It is just
> > like
> > that you cannot separate vowel with consonant. As
> > every Mandarin speaker can distinguish four tones of
> > every vowels, so we may say that every vowel for
> > English speaker is four vowels for a Mandarin
> > speaker.
> > The 20 vowels of English are 80 vowels for Mandarin
> > speaker, and the 35 Chinese vowels are 140 vowels
> > for
> > Mandarin speaker, 10 vowels more than Higgins’.
> > Any way, I believe the strongest power of the human
> > world is reason. Once you violated reason, people
> > call
> > you nonsense, and with nonsense, a strong army can
> > turn to weaker, a richer person can turn to poorer.
> > Some anthropologist believed between the species
> > that
> > could use language (human) and that couldn’t use
> > language (animal), there were some species that
> > could
> > speak little language or speak a backward language.
> > Later they found some evidence from the discovery of
> > Neanderthal.
> > From
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~tec/FitchWray.pdf
> > “For the last thirty years, fossil analysis has been
> > the dominant approach to the study of the evolution
> > of
> > speech. Paleoanthropologists have attempted to use
> > the
> > hominid fossil record to deduce the timing and order
> > of speech-related adaptations such as the descent of
> > the larynx and enlargement of cortical regions. This
> > approach was initiated by the seminal observation by
> > Lieberman et al. (1969) that the human vocal tract
> > differs from that in other primates, in having a
> > lowered larynx (Figure 1), a configuration that
> > allows
> > humans to make a wider variety of vowels that other
> > primate species. Soon afterward, Lieberman and
> > Crelin
> > (1971) used a reconstruction of the Neanderthal soft
> > tissue vocal tract, based on basicranial anatomy and
> > some comparative data, to infer that larynx position
> > in Neanderthals was closer to that of other primates
> > than of modern humans. This suggested that
> > Neanderthals could not make certain speech sounds
> > that
> > are typical of modern human languages. Although
> > those
> > authors never claimed that Neanderthals lacked
> > language entirely, the paper spurred a vigorous (and
> > still ongoing) debate about the speech and language
> > capacities of Neanderthals, and extinct hominids in
> > general (Falk 1975, DuBrul 1976, Arensburg et al.
> > 1989, 1990). A review of this literature makes clear
> > that there is still no general agreement about when
> > articulate speech came to play the crucial role that
> > it subserves in modern human language. This is not
> > surprising, because the vocal tract is largely made
> > up
> > of soft tissue that does not fossilize, and thus
> > there
> > are no obvious skeletal indicators that would
> > provide
> > unambiguous evidence for speech. Thus, despite many
> > years of hard work, new fossils, and creative new
> > approaches to analysis, the currently available
> > fossil
> > data are inconclusive.”
> >
> > In
http://zolatimes.com/V2.41/dognose.html, there is
> > an interesting supposition:
> > “About 100,000 years ago we all were wandering over
> > the face of the earth, nibbling here and there. Some
> > of us, members of Homo Erectus, evolved with a
> > smaller, flatter face, but essentially our brain
> > size
> > was the same as our Neanderthal cousins. Although we
> > differed in mild respects physically, both types of
> > humans behaved similarly. We buried our dead, used
> > fire and tools, cared for the old ones and raised
> > kids. We hunted and gathered together on the planet
> > and lived side by side from 120,000 years ago till
> > about 30,000 years past. Then came a crucial moment
> > in
> > our evolution. Homo Sapiens survived and the
> > Neanderthal did not. This fact is rather curious
> > since
> > they were bigger and stronger than us, with huge
> > noses
> > and large muscles. It would seem that they had an
> > advantage to ensure their survival over us. So why
> > did
> > we survive and they didn’t?
> > The Homo Sapiens, having a smaller flatter face with
> > a
> > narrower nose subsequently lost the accurate sense
> > of
> > smell that had allowed us to smell danger. Our
> > olfactory bulb (nerve for smell) is the smallest
> > among
> > all human species, and when it went, about 14,000
> > years ago, we were ready to gain speech. This was
> > due
> > to the fact that we could now lift our lighter heads
> > upward and forward giving us an advantage in seeing
> > our prey, and free up the voice box to reverberate
> > sounds. - -
> > Life in and around the camp adjusted to the
> > presence
> > of the wolf. But an added boon became apparent very
> > quickly. Since the sense of smell in humans had
> > reduced their ability to detect oncoming prey, the
> > noisy wolves sounded the alert when danger was
> > immanent, because they could smell for miles. This
> > interdependence was a cozy situation for both. Each
> > understood the other in an easy symbiosis. For the
> > wolf this was a good deal and they knew it. They
> > chose
> > us and in time man's best friend was the result.
> > Despite our thinking that our favorite Benji
> > understands the words we use, he still only
> > recognizes
> > the gestures, movements and the tonal sound of
> > emotion, as any one who yells at a dog will know.
> > They
> > refuse to cooperate with irrational humans.”
> > From the standpoint of empiricism, some one
> > criticise
> > that this conclusion is not true. They believe that
> > the soft tissue of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal are
> > no
> > different. At least, no body have every seen it. But
> > from rationalism thinking, it is convincible. It is
> > the principle of evolutionist. Or we may say no
> > matter
> > it is true or not, there should be some species
> > between able and unable to use language. If it were
> > not the Neanderthal, it would be some species else,
> > which have not been discovered yet.
> > I am always wondering wether the computer will be
> > the
> > next helper of human being? It is just like the dog
> > (wolf) to Homo Sapiens, by their help we lost some
> > of
> > our abilities, but on the other hand we developed
> > some
> > sense. Yet maybe more carefully decoding information
> > that carried by sounds could be one of them also. Or
> > in one word, we lose or save some of the visual
> > ability but for an exchange, we gain a more
> > sensitive
> > auditory ability. The current human beings of the
> > world has found no different of speak-listen organ
> > among different races. Chao Yuan Ren had taught
> > Chinese language in America for several decades, yet
> > he found that only one student couldn’t utter the
> > tone
> > properly. It did not to say that he was unable to
> > use
> > the tones. For when Chao taught him the first tone
> > of
> > Mandarin, he always repeating in second tone, and
> > when
> > taught him the third tone of mandarin, he always
> > repeating in fourth tone. I thought that it does not
> > originate from articulate organ but by tradition.
> > The
> > best example is that when we teach children
> > alphabetic
> > letters, we set all the 26 letters to music, in
> > order
> > to help them to remember.
> > Currently, the articulate and auditory organ of
> > all
> > humankind is exactly the same, but no one dare say
> > that after long period evolution, with different
> > languages, they will still be the same.
> > The power of military can beat a country, the
> > power
> > of economy can weaken a country, but the power of
> > reason can cause geno-sui-cide.
> >
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Everything you'll ever need on one web page
>from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
>
http://uk.my.yahoo.com