About the Development of Language

We make language to communicate with one another. Making language is our unique talent. Both sexes evolved with the talent. And there's a problem that has not been named.

The value of a language stands on symbols that name reality-as-is and experience-as-is, with the relationships of cause-and-effect between name-and-reality correct, i.e. logical. As a species that evolved with the capability to make sounds and give these sounds meaning, we are the makers of names. We make names to use, like bowl-makers make bowls to use. If some names made do not do what they're supposed to do, i.e., name reality as is, then why are these names currency in language?

If a speech-maker makes a name carrying 'Q is also P', and maybe even 'also R', the name transforms the speaker into a trust-breaker. The name-user breaks social and individual trust in violating logic. Evidence-based language, correct information, useable to develop straight thinking and moral behaviour in our species are eroded.

The value of a language is the truths, facts, it transmits in true-to-reality names, names reflecting reality-as-is. We make language. We transmit truths in names we make about ourselves that push forward our trust in one another, or, we make names that transmit bias, break down trust building mistrust.

If the names we use today build mistrust, this makes our species believe in lies.

It's a fact that we make names, sounds that denote something specific, like box. We don't bark, squeal, moo, caw, or peep. We squeak, i.e., make hundreds of different sounds, and put these together in hundreds of thousands of symbols and names to which we give a meaning.

We did not evolve to make wool, fur, pearls or honey - and no squeak. We evolved to 'squeak' different sounds. The bottom line is that as animals we evolved with the talent to make different sounds to make names, like sheep evolved to make wool, bees honey and oysters pearls. That is, as an animal species our capability to make many squeaks is also our talent for developing language, our major distinction from other animals. Making names to communicate is our way of being what we are as speech-making animals by evolution, like sheep are wool-makers and bees honey-makers by evolution. One squeak like baa-a-a does not a language make.

Name-making however, does not put us above in value to wool-making, honey-making or dam-making animals. Each animal has value for what it does, and contributes to planet earth. We have value as speech-makers-and-users in our own eyes. Non-language animals likely have a whole other opinion on this subject!

Be that as it may, every animal species is different from every other, even within close genetically related species. Every animal species does a distinctly different thing from every other kind of animal since it took part in evolving its own evolutional difference distinguishing it. So, what does difference mean here?

The differences between a giraffe and a kangaroo are enormous, so does one have a higher value than the other because of this difference? I talk a lot about difference in this book. It's important to keep difference in mind and what it does to value as you read this book. Do apple trees have a higher value than orange trees?

Our species evolved as a speech-making one, making names, and by consequence, a speech-using one, and by further consequence a language developing species. Speech-making/making names to develop language is our distinction in the animal category. The difference between our squeaks and the sounds of all other animals is that we develop our squeaks into a complex system we call language. Does this difference mean we have a higher value than any or all other animals?

Every animal species is different from every other, even within close genetically related species. Every animal species does a distinctly different thing from every other kind of animal because it helped to evolve its own evolutional difference distinguishing it. So, what does difference mean here?

The differences between a giraffe and a kangaroo are enormous, so does one have a higher value than the other because of this difference? I talk a lot about difference in this book. It's important to keep difference in mind and what it does to value as you read this book. Do apple trees have a higher value than orange trees?

Our species evolved as a speech-making one, making names, and by consequence, a speech-using one, and by further consequence a language developing species. Speech-making/making names to develop language is our distinction in the animal category. The difference between our squeaks and the sounds of all other animals is that we develop our squeaks into a complex system we call language. Does this difference mean we have a higher value than any or all other animals?

All seven-plus billion of us on planet earth have the capabilities to make and use speech to develop language. Giraffes do not talk about delicious leaf salads. Kangaroos do not ask for trampolines.

Due to evolution the names we have today didn't come "ready-made." To make names to use name-makers had to exist like paper-makers must exist to make paper for paper-users. Due to evolution, we make names, one at a time, according to a need we have to make a name for. Logically, name-users first need name-makers to be name-users at all. Like desk-users first need desk-makers.

The first speaker to utter "Oh!" as an expression of surprise, was the name maker who put "Oh!" into language to use. The sound /o/ needs a fine throat-tongue-mouth organic arrangement that most animals cannot learn to do.

When our early ancestors saw that a clean coconut shell made a pretty good container to hold food, they needed a name for this effect. It did not pop out of nowhere, nor from a voice in the sky. After many tries, someone came up with bowl. It became the symbol naming 'a container holding water or soup'. Later, seeing coconuts were not a sure supply of bowls some started to make bowls with what they were standing on, clay. Observation, new sight, imagination and insight went in to invent the idea of making bowls for the obvious reason that many people would be bowl-users. Bowl-makers had to come into being to supply bowl-users. So too, speech-makers -> speech-users.

Observation, insight, necessity, imagination and creation follow in language like ducklings follow the duck in a row. This is how basic the making of useful names is. Thus, the technology in making names, like all other technology, has rules and regulations. If name-making is to be at all scientific, logical in basis and true, it must follow rules and regulations in a trial and error process built on our everyday experiences with the consensus of ordinary people like you and me. Like bowl-makers -> bowl-users, so too name-makers -> name-users.

We see trees in nature, we say they are natural. We use what they offer, shade, lumber, beauty as evidence to consent that they are what we call trees in nature. We give each different tree a name, so, in this way, we can say names are artificial. The name maple does not make the maple tree exist; the tree we named maple evolved, now exists, and we needed to make the name maple. 1, Existing thing, then 2, name. Not the other way around.

If names made by the name-makers aren't based on evidence or not true to realty, name-users use the errors in these names as if they were not false, simply because having no other names to use, they do not know the names are false.

And so, the story goes awry...


Return to   Home Page