# Language that breaks rules **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 27, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459 "2019-12-27T17:16:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/21 "2019-12-30T14:33:49Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > htetrasme, when I click on the first link, I get to a webpage that includes a button called “How to Listen”. When I click on it, it sends me to a webpage that gives a bunch of options for listening. One option is to listen on radio, as long as you live near Perth, Australia. The other options are for things that I’ve heard of but haven’t used. Are any of them free? Do they sign you up for something that means you will be deluged with E-mail? They’re apparently free and no strings attached, but each of them only archives the last 100 podcasts. There are nearly 400 and none of them reaches as far back as the Pirahã episodes at #104, 105. I looked further on the Talk the Talk page, and found that more recent episodes are listenable right on the TtT page, with a normal podcast play button. If there is any way to access those old Pirahã podcasts anywhere, they give no indication. ---
**Author:** ![linguisticslinguistics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8c91f0/32.png) [@linguisticslinguistics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/linguisticslinguistics)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/22 "2019-12-30T14:36:18Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > I read an article from about 10 years ago that refutes the linguistic claim that the Pirahã language actually “breaks rules” in some kind of truly unique way. They make a good argument, and they by no means disagree with the general anthropological observations which Everett makes: > > Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. (2009). Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. _Language_. 85(2). 355-404. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0107](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0107) The article can be downloaded at [https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000411](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000411) ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/23 "2019-12-30T15:00:59Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > I may be recalling things incorrectly, but isn’t there a theory that Piraha ended up that way because at some time in the past the adults all died and the children who were left hadn’t yet mastered the language as it used to be spoken before that event? This is what I’ve read, that the Pirahã culture lacks particular elements that seem to suggest it’s the survivor of some cataclysm that wiped out the adults and left only the knowledge of the children who were alive at the time. But I think it was more missing cultural knowledge (like any kind of world creation myth) than language features. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/24 "2019-12-30T15:53:25Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Specifically, he asserts that Pirahã culture itself _ **precludes** _ embedding, because of an “immediacy of experience principle.” Nevins et.al (cited above) show that embedding itself is not necessarily incongruous with such a principle, in that embedding can represent singular experience, as well as multi-event experience, so one of Everett’s primarily claims falls flat. Embedding applied to immediacy of experience principle? It’s elementary. “The booger that I picked yesterday is still on my hammock!” Pirahã grammar doesn’t allow you to say that? You’d have to say “I picked a booger yesterday. (full stop) It’s still on my hammock!” OK, but I bet you that in Pirahã you can still interrupt yourself with additional information, the way everyone does when their thoughts outrace their mouth. “That booger—I picked it yesterday—it’s still on my hammock!” Now this isn’t recursion—but _it’s damn close_. The only thing missing is to invent the relative pronoun. Funny, isn’t it, that in English and many other languages, relative pronouns are the same words as demonstrative pronouns? It’s like demonstrative pronouns got repurposed as relative ones when recursion appeared. In fact, Pirahã may just offer valuable insight into how recursion first developed in language. One sentence incorporating another… kind of how ancient cells incorporated bacteria and they turned into mitochondria. Wow. The more I think about it, the less I can understand Everett’s theory that syntactical embedding has \*anything \*to do with “immediacy of experience principle.” It’s starting to look pretty inane. That aside, I’ve been listening to Talk the Talk’s more recent stuff, anyway, and it’s pretty enjoyable. So thanks for that. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/25 "2019-12-30T16:46:07Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > So what we need to look at are Everett’s claims about the structure of Pirahã. Some of the things that he notes are true of some other (perhaps not well-known) languages. **He says that [Pirahã] has no color terms.** It is very well-known that the number of color terms in languages varies greatly. To riff on the bolded: The article that **linguisticslinguistics** (welcome aboard!) linked gives lie to the “no color terms!” conceit. What Pirahã seems to lack is _abstract_ color terms, semantically divorced from real-life objects. Apparently, they can describe the color of objects in their language just fine – but they will do it by making some nouns pull double-duty as adjectives. _“Which looks better on me? The blood-like dress or the hyacinth-macaw-like dress?”_ This is not super-different from English speakers using “gold”, “silver”, and “turquoise” to describe colors. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/26 "2019-12-30T16:48:43Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > He says that it has no words for numbers. I don’t understand this part, since in the OP link, it has this: > [@](#): > > (212) The Pirahas would converse with me and then turn to one another, in my presence, to talk about me, as though I wasn’t there. > “Say Dan, could you give me some matches?” Xipoogi asked me one time with others present. > “OK, sure.” > “OK, he is giving us two matches. Now I am going to ask for cloth.” They are clearly using the word “two” ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/27 "2019-12-30T16:57:10Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t understand this part, since in the OP link, it has this: > > They are clearly using the word “two” According to Wikipedia, Everett initially thought their number words were “one” and “two” but later determined that it was more like “few”, “several”, and “many”. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/28 "2019-12-30T17:01:13Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > According to Wikipedia, Everett initially thought their number words were “one” and “two” but later determined that it was more like “few”, “several”, and “many”. Ah ok. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![zimaane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@zimaane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zimaane)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/29 "2019-12-30T17:14:23Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > To riff on the bolded: > > The article that **linguisticslinguistics** (welcome aboard!) linked gives lie to the “no color terms!” conceit. What Pirahã seems to lack is _abstract_ color terms, semantically divorced from real-life objects. Apparently, they can describe the color of objects in their language just fine – but they will do it by making some nouns pull double-duty as adjectives. > > _“Which looks better on me? The blood-like dress or the hyacinth-macaw-like dress?”_ > > This is not super-different from English speakers using “gold”, “silver”, and “turquoise” to describe colors. Lots of languages have a limited color vocabulary. > **[Could early man only see three colors?](https://www.straightdope.com/21341625/could-early-man-only-see-three-colors)** The Waali language of northern Ghana only has bright (kpienga), dark (sagane), and occasionally the word for blood (jii) is used for red. They mostly just don’t describe things in terms of color. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/30 "2019-12-31T00:46:51Z")
Come to think of it, Guy Deutscher’s book _[The Unfolding of Language](https://archive.org/details/unfoldingoflangu00deut)_ tells of a time before subordinating conjunctions were invented. On p. 223 Deutscher presents a Hittite text from the 14th century BCE, a narrative, but it consists of nothing but flat, separate clauses in a monotonous sequence, because the subordination of clauses didn’t exist yet. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/31 "2019-12-31T15:22:42Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > Come to think of it, Guy Deutscher’s book _[The Unfolding of Language](https://archive.org/details/unfoldingoflangu00deut)_ tells of a time before subordinating conjunctions were invented. On p. 223 Deutscher presents a Hittite text from the 14th century BCE, a narrative, but it consists of nothing but flat, separate clauses in a monotonous sequence, because the subordination of clauses didn’t exist yet. I wonder if there was a significant split back then between spoken and written language? I can’t help wondering if there was ever some kid in Hittite language arts class who got an F for using subordinating conjunctions in his “What I Did Over the Summer” essay. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/32 "2019-12-31T15:37:32Z")
I wouldn’t be surprised. I’m pretty sure at that point in history, the ability to write was limited to a small number of scribes as it was laborious to learn. Written records would be business transactions, political commentaries and treaties, and religious hymns and rituals. I doubt there’s the equivalent of Samuel Pepys’ diary buried in any of the tels. So the language available for research is highly formal and probably not indicative of ‘street’ hittite. It does make me wonder how different a constructed version of English would look if historical linguists in the future only had access to some congressional records and the bible. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/33 "2019-12-31T17:51:31Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > I wonder if there was a significant split back then between spoken and written language? > > I can’t help wondering if there was ever some kid in Hittite language arts class who got an F for using subordinating conjunctions in his “What I Did Over the Summer” essay. I think your scenario could actually be the case. Language must change, and change has to start somewhere. (Only nitpick is Hittite doesn’t have F, it would have been a cuneiform.) For that matter, if the Pirahã language survives—and I think it will, it’s pretty healthy—I predict in the fullness of time it will develop recursion. Most likely as a result of contact with other languages. The kids will start doing it first, exasperating their elders. ---
**Author:** ![linguisticslinguistics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8c91f0/32.png) [@linguisticslinguistics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/linguisticslinguistics)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/34 "2019-12-31T18:57:26Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > Come to think of it, Guy Deutscher’s book _[The Unfolding of Language](https://archive.org/details/unfoldingoflangu00deut)_ tells of a time before subordinating conjunctions were invented. On p. 223 Deutscher presents a Hittite text from the 14th century BCE, a narrative, but it consists of nothing but flat, separate clauses in a monotonous sequence, because the subordination of clauses didn’t exist yet. Indeed Hittite (and the older Indo-European languages more generally) lacked subordinate clauses introduced by a subordinating conjunct (modern linguists use the term “complementizer”) similar to English “that” in “I think that it will rain”. But as far as I can tell from my reading (I’m not a Hittite expert), there was lots of clause subordination of other kinds, including infinitival subordinate clauses, if-clauses (_If it rains, we will get wet_), so-called “corelative clauses” (e.g. _Whatever she did, we praised it_) and more. I don’t know what exactly Deutscher claims in his book, but Hittite is definitely not said to have lacked subordination of clauses in general. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/35 "2019-12-31T20:28:15Z")
> [@linguisticslinguistics](#): > > I don’t know what exactly Deutscher claims in his book, but Hittite is definitely not said to have lacked subordination of clauses in general. Here is [the exact excerpt from Deutscher’s book](https://books.google.com/books?id=0G1WAhzSX4QC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=hittite,+Deutscher,+subordinating+conjunctions&source=bl&ots=Sygwl5D7YU&sig=ACfU3U0SSOJ9Q08wiaajdHL_4vQJyC1WCg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq8cDhiuDmAhVtB50JHQcmAxsQ6AEwDXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=hittite%2C%20Deutscher%2C%20subordinating%20conjunctions&f=false) (from Google Books review). ---
**Author:** ![linguisticslinguistics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8c91f0/32.png) [@linguisticslinguistics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/linguisticslinguistics)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/36 "2019-12-31T20:59:42Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > Here is [the exact excerpt from Deutscher’s book](https://books.google.com/books?id=0G1WAhzSX4QC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=hittite,+Deutscher,+subordinating+conjunctions&source=bl&ots=Sygwl5D7YU&sig=ACfU3U0SSOJ9Q08wiaajdHL_4vQJyC1WCg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq8cDhiuDmAhVtB50JHQcmAxsQ6AEwDXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=hittite%2C%20Deutscher%2C%20subordinating%20conjunctions&f=false) (from Google Books review). Thanks! A bit of contrary information here: > **[Hittite Grammar - Clauses](http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/hittite/en_syntaxe_proposition.htm)** > > hittite grammar [https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/hitol/70#grammar\_839](https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/hitol/70#grammar_839) ---
**Author:** ![lingyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@lingyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lingyi)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2020, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/37 "2020-01-01T00:10:47Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > What you are describing is called flow and has been shown to be complex when it comes to how it works. Like how it works and that it only applies to simple tasks. This is too funny. You’re unable to definitively refute my claim, but you continue to persist and ask people to unequivocally answer YOUR questions and doubts. :smack: Anyway, have a Happy 2020 and beyond as you continue to bang your head against imaginary walls! ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2020, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/38 "2020-01-01T04:13:28Z")
> [@lingyi](#): > > This is too funny. You’re unable to definitively refute my claim, but you continue to persist and ask people to unequivocally answer YOUR questions and doubts. :smack: > > Anyway, have a Happy 2020 and beyond as you continue to bang your head against imaginary walls! You didn’t make a claim, just cited a story. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2020, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/39 "2020-01-02T20:04:33Z")
> [@linguisticslinguistics](#): > > Indeed Hittite (and the older Indo-European languages more generally) lacked subordinate clauses introduced by a subordinating conjunct (modern linguists use the term “complementizer”) similar to English “that” in “I think that it will rain”. But as far as I can tell from my reading (I’m not a Hittite expert), there was lots of clause subordination of other kinds, including infinitival subordinate clauses, if-clauses (_If it rains, we will get wet_), so-called “corelative clauses” (e.g. _Whatever she did, we praised it_) and more. I don’t know what exactly Deutscher claims in his book, but Hittite is definitely not said to have lacked subordination of clauses in general. Ah, thank you, that’s enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2020, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459/40 "2020-01-02T20:11:56Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > Here is [the exact excerpt from Deutscher’s book](https://books.google.com/books?id=0G1WAhzSX4QC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=hittite,+Deutscher,+subordinating+conjunctions&source=bl&ots=Sygwl5D7YU&sig=ACfU3U0SSOJ9Q08wiaajdHL_4vQJyC1WCg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq8cDhiuDmAhVtB50JHQcmAxsQ6AEwDXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=hittite%2C%20Deutscher%2C%20subordinating%20conjunctions&f=false) (from Google Books review). That being the page before the Hittite excerpt, GB cut off the actual text on page 223. Try [this (keyword “_Kunnuwa_”)](https://books.google.com/books?id=0G1WAhzSX4QC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q&f=false). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-that-breaks-rules/845459.md?page=3)