if we did not have language...

[Jimmy P]

do you think we would be better off?

[Hoatzin]

Nope.

[neodude1212]

hell no.

[edyb123]

do you think we would be better off?

In what way?

We wouldn't have to listen to bigots.
We also wouldn't be able to communicate.

[Hoatzin]

I'm sure the bigoted and intolerant would be perfectly able to express themselves without language. They've managed in the past.

[edyb123]

I'm sure the bigoted and intolerant would be perfectly able to express themselves without language. They've managed in the past.

true

[Varuna]

I think your question may yield considerable insight.

Think about this - We don't have enough words for all the un-named "things." For these un-named things, there IS no language. When is the last time you thought about any of them? How DO you think about them?

Maybe language is an artifact of experience.

Peace and Love

[Radiation]

No.

That was easy.

[OldTroll]

I'd rather be a dolphin.

[*°GhOsT°LyRiC°*]

nope.

are you ruling out sign language, body language, etc? actions speak louder than words anyways.

[liquidlight]

We'd be telepathic as a matter of course.

[comfortablynumb90]

life would be boring if we couldn't communicate

..or if we had to go to great lengths to communicate non-lingusitically

[Hoatzin]

I think your question may yield considerable insight.

Think about this - We don't have enough words for all the un-named "things." For these un-named things, there IS no language. When is the last time you thought about any of them? How DO you think about them?

Maybe language is an artifact of experience.

Peace and Love

At the risk of asking an impossible question, what are these un-named things? I'm not aware of anything that cannot be named - or rather, described - with existing language. The reason the English language incorporates so many foreign or Anglicised words is specifically because we've acknowledged the limits of our own language but refuse to just accept some things as undescribable.

I'm aware of the argument that we struggle to think about things we don't have words for, that we think in language. But to me, that's a reason to have more words, not give them up altogether.

[Jimmy P]

I am speaking of written and spoken language - words.
words are inherently deceitful. they are what enable us to lie and deceive. action is truth. if we did not have words, our every expression would be truthful.

bigotry would express itself through action, as would the reprisal towards bigotry. a word without language would be a world without lies, a world of accountability.

to those who think we would be unable to communicate.. One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues

[Jimmy P]

At the risk of asking an impossible question, what are these un-named things? I'm not aware of anything that cannot be named - or rather, described - with existing language. The reason the English language incorporates so many foreign or Anglicised words is specifically because we've acknowledged the limits of our own language but refuse to just accept some things as undescribable.

I'm aware of the argument that we struggle to think about things we don't have words for, that we think in language. But to me, that's a reason to have more words, not give them up altogether.do you speak more than one language?
take translation between languages, for example. great confusion can arise from very minor mistakes in translation (the bible, anyone?)

another example is trying to explain something, and misunderstanding occuring because your explanation was insufficient or the person you are explaining to is in a different mind pattern from yourself and thus will interpret your explanation in a manner quite different from how you intended. I'm sure you've heard the expression "a picture says more than a thousand words." the same can be said of body language and non-verbal cues.

[Jimmy P]

life would be boring if .......... if we had to go to great lengths to communicate non-lingusitically
boring? I highly disagree. every story would be relayed through action and demonstration, as would teaching. learning would be accomplished by doing.

language might make communication easier, but it is also far less sincere than, say, a smile or a frown.

[redyelruc]

I am speaking of written and spoken language - words.
words are inherently deceitful. they are what enable us to lie and deceive. action is truth. if we did not have words, our every expression would be truthful.

bigotry would express itself through action, as would the reprisal towards bigotry. a word without language would be a world without lies, a world of accountability.

to those who think we would be unable to communicate..Hi Jimmy, just a minor nitpick. I don't think that language is what enables us to deceive. I mean, actors, clowns and especially mimes can deceive pretty well with no words.

[Hoatzin]

do you speak more than one language?
take translation between languages, for example. great confusion can arise from very minor mistakes in translation (the bible, anyone?)

another example is trying to explain something, and misunderstanding occuring because your explanation was insufficient or the person you are explaining to is in a different mind pattern from yourself and thus will interpret your explanation in a manner quite different from how you intended. I'm sure you've heard the expression "a picture says more than a thousand words." the same can be said of body language and non-verbal cues.

A picture can be every bit as vague or deceptive as language. A picture can be edited, and may in doing so lack the kind of cues and nuances we would use in verbal communication to detect such deceit.

I don't really see much argument for getting rid of one method of communication purely because it can be used to lie. I mean, the simplest argument I can respond with is: I think we should keep it because it can be used to tell the truth.

And okay, here's some other thoughts. When you talk about a picture, you talk about the ability to represent something. But say you want to express an opinion about the object you're representing. How do you do it? If you're painting, you can maybe draw it in a different way - more jagged lines, e.g. If you're photographing it, your options may be more limited. Now, think: say you've been in this position, and suddenly, you gain the power of speech. What a wealth of possibilities open up. You can tell someone that it was warm where you were when the events in the picture took place, and how warm, and whether it was uncomfortable or not. You can tell them how you remember it, rather than just showing them how it happened. Isn't that great?

At the heart of your argument seems to be that words are deceptive. I guess that depends on what you do with them. Opinions are not deception if they are explained as being as such. And for the life of me, I can't imagine how we'd continue with a new method of communication without finding a way to deceive or express that which is not absolute. How long before a picture didn't quite tell the story as a person remembered it? Would they just accept that their version of events was inferior? I find that pretty hard to imagine.

In other words, if subjectivity didn't exist, we'd have to invent it. I don't see what benefit we'd gain from losing language.

And I'd draw a distinction between non verbal cues and a language. Even if 90+% of communication is formed by these cues, I do wonder whether they would mean anything in the absence of verbal communication. The way someone's hands move when they talk might tell us a very complex story about how they feel about the subject that they're describing. But they don't tell us what that subject is.

[Hoatzin]

bigotry would express itself through action, as would the reprisal towards bigotry. a word without language would be a world without lies, a world of accountability.

How so? What would you be doing that would be undetectable if you were to talk about it, but totally detectable if you weren't talking about it? It seems to me that verbal lying is the only thing you wouldn't be able to do; none of the things you were lying about would necessarily disappear with it.

We'd be telepathic as a matter of course.

I've seen very little evidence that evolution occurs purely because we need it to.

[Hoatzin]

Oh, Jimmy, I do understand what you're driving at with the language/translation question. Translation of a kind occurs even within a language. There's an argument that we only know what any word means by a consensus amalgamation of what we know of that word in relation to other words. (Hence why you can't give a chimp or an alien an Oxford English Dictionary and expect him to learn English by "reading" it).

This is only one theory, but it seems quite persuasive to me; the less common a word, the more likely it is that two people will have a different idea of its meaning in their mind when the word is said. True, it's likely that the definitions/ideas will have some characteristics in common, but nevertheless, there is no way even to ascertain what those ideas are. Many of our misunderstandings occur because person X says something a certain way and person Y, using their equally legitimate understanding of the same words, finds a different meaning conveyed. The standard example of how we could know if we see colours differently from one another is a little overused, but nevertheless, it's a good example if, say, I ask you to buy me a "red" T-shirt. Chances are, the red I imagine when I say "red" is not going to be exactly the same as the one you imagine when you hear "red". You can test this out by getting everyone to draw a dog or a pig, but practically speaking, the point where it becomes harder to demonstrate - like establishing what the difference between "neat" and "tidy" is to two people, e.g. - is the point at which it starts affecting communication, because people are less aware of it, and also because this is the point at which people think they're being more precise and descriptive. It's almost like you're loading a sentence up with ambiguities, and the more there are, the more likely it is to be interpreted a certain way.

I'm sure you're aware of this, and on the face of it, it might look like a solid argument against verbal communication. But to me, it's a more persuasive argument for having several types of communication working in coalition, so that two uses of the same word can have their differences in meaning/intent conveyed more accurately when accompanied by, say, a shrug, or a nod, or a raising of eyebrows. I see little advantage in limiting our communication, and I honestly think it's naïve to imagine that people would cease to be able to lie or deceive purely because they couldn't talk. The motives to lie and deceive would still exist, and whatever other method of communication became the most prevalent and recognised would be the new medium for those lies.

[Jimmy P]

Hoatzin, thank you for actually putting some thought into this.

First off, let me clarify that I don't think we should remove language (as if that would be possible.) I love language. I love learning new ones, and I especially love the understanding that is achieved through being able to speak different ones. I am merely curious as to whether our world would be more peaceful if we did not have such an easy way of deceiving, arguing and aggravating one another.

A lot of arguments, fights, wars, and broken hearts occur because of simple misunderstandings of words and language. I think a great deal of war especially could be avoided if there were no words with which to create hostility. Sure, it would still be possible to do so through action, but the realization of the terrible consequences would be greater as they would be more in-your-face. Example, a soldier might talk about killing someone as if it's no big thing, but to actually do it is something else entirely.

The heart of my argument is that words enable us to lie - although you fairly corrected me; that it makes lying and deceit easier. (Although would you not agree that this is not a good thing?) But my argument is also about the horrible consequences that can come from minor misunderstandings, mispronounciations and mistranslations. Something intended to be completely innocent and harmless can be taken greatly offensive, especially between different cultures. (Also true for action, but I believe moreso for words.)

Another point I am trying to make is that, to use a cliche, action speaks louder than words. Action is truth - if you do something, there is no doubt about it. It was done. If you say something, what have you really done but express an intention, opinion, whatever?

All right, I completely agree with what you're saying about person X saying one thing and person Y interpreting that one thing in a different way, legitimately so. But if you would show instead of speak, I believe the chance of misinterpretation would be lesser.

And yes, translation of a kind definitely occurs within a language. Depending on context, choice of words, the speaker/listener's definition of any given word, etc, the intended message can be very, very different from the actual message received.

My main beef with language and words is that it makes deceit so simple, which in turn makes it more appealing,(to some people) and its potential for disaster due to misunderstandings. Although I suppose you could argue that that's just the nature of the world; some people are malicious and shit happens.

I am very glad we have language, however, and I could argue the other side of this argument much better than I can the one I am. Language enables us to do a lot of wonderful things, like read books, exchange opinions and ideas, etc.

red, I don't think those people deceive as much as they "show". Although they would certainly better equipped for wordless deception than most others.

[Hoatzin]

All right, I completely agree with what you're saying about person X saying one thing and person Y interpreting that one thing in a different way, legitimately so. But if you would show instead of speak, I believe the chance of misinterpretation would be lesser.

Thing is, I don't think you could "show" effectively without language. Say I show you this picture:

http://www.bunnylicious.org/public/2007/12/from_plane.jpg

How do you know what I'm actually trying to draw your attention to?

There was a writer talking about narration in film whose name I've forgotten (referenced by Michel Chion early on in Audio-Vision, if you wanna look it up) who disputed the possibility of a "neutral" voice, or the desirability of it. I feel this would be the same with showing. A person is placed within what is being shown, either by themself or by the person doing the showing. It is not even necessarily consciously deceptive in intent, but one can only see an event from one perspective at a time. Check out Rashomon to see this in action.

[Face Eater]

No, we would be apes.

Not that we are not apes now, but we would not have culture.