Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So you too, BJ, define language as solely verbal in the sense of human spoken language. But we see marine life has language, including fish, which the above article on octopuses makes clear.
Presumably, you reject the term “body language” then.
I’d agree that telling someone to f*** off is not an act in the same way as shooting them is, but it is more than “just a sound” and conveys a strong message of hatred and contempt.
I will admit it were better had i written “All SOCIAL beings have language”, but that is not strictly true, since solitary animals also require language for communication with each other upon meeting, and also with other species as necessary. Their body language (and/or vocal) has reason and emotion behind it. A fire alarm has neither, but merely an inanimate mechanical and artificial effect that is constructed by an animal for a specific purpose. It is not a living response.
Is not the communicating of emotions also language?
Even humans among themselves speak of body language.
And other animals also vocalise.
Their communication is language, which brings me back to the fact that your interpretation of the word is limited to the verbal.Use of the word language beyond the human ape:
Octopuses.
If language is communication, then it is applicable beyond the human ape alone.
Then you don’t want to use the word to apply to nonhuman communication.
In terms of the Latin “lingua” you are correct historically, as it means “tongue”, but it has a broader definition today.
Yes, language changes. It’s use as an expletive today does, however, reflect rage, and specifically rage against women (though not in all cases). There are other uses, e.g. in erotic poetry, and historical uses. The same with f*””, one of the oldest terms for coitus in Latin; but context is also an aspect of language, and when used as expletives, or superfluously, that is what the words indicate.
In English it is mostly offensive to say “I’m f****d”, but in French it is less so.
