I’m not sure where someone would get the impression that it’d be easy for any linguist to decipher a language in which the only exposure they can get is through radio transmissions. You miss out on any sort of context and any thing that can be inferred from non-verbal communication. You miss out on the written text of the language (if the language has one.)
It’d be one thing if the language you were exclusively hearing on the radio was very closely related to a language that was well-known and well-understood. But for a language that you’ve probably never been exposed to any language like it? Sounds highly unlikely that you’d be able to decipher it. Keep in mind there are some languages of indigenous groups in the Americas that professional linguists have been unable to learn even after spending years with the natives that speak it. Just a few weeks ago I believe there was a thread in this forum about a Amazonian tribe that has a language that only 2-3 linguists have ever been able to speak successfully (and arguably only 1 really has the ability to converse in it extensively.)
Yet humans manage to learn languages without a specific reference or translation constantly. Sure, those patterns in our brain are more active when we’re infants, and may be more tuned to auditory learning, but I don’t doubt that many people could learn a (written) language with nothing more than a dictionary in that language to study from, given enough time.
One way codes are broken is by separating text into words or syllables and looking for patterns. To defeat that, modern codes are usually grouped into regular clumps instead of true words to deliberately obscure such patterns:
so for example it would look like this
sofo rexa mple itwo uldl ookl iket hisx
(grouped by four, note dummy letters inserted to make the last group an even four)
My understanding from hearing about this decades ago – and it may well be wrong – is that spoken Navajo was a continuous, varying tone, and as such, defied separation into regular words at all, even if it could be written down.
Re: looking for patterns: A classic example occurred in breaking Germany’s Enigma machine cipher. Polish theorists had already deduced that the machine must have a set of rotating wheels with letters on the outside that could be dialed to a specific setting to start encryption/decryption. Probably as few as three or four wheels (this was a shrewd analysis; it turns out the machines initially had three wheels and at least one more was later added).
A keyword was used to set the rotors initially before encipherment began. Guessing the settings used as the “key” would theoretically be enormously unlikely.
One of the cryptographers working on the cipher, however, knowing the machines were operated by young German men far from home, guessed that three-or-four-letter names or nicknames of German girlfriends might sometimes be used as keys. Of course the Germans seldom actually did this – but occasionally they did.
Many possible combinations would still have to be checked – some of the first modern computing science was driven by the need to break Enigma – but that insight alone simplified the search by statistically turning out more correct answers than random searching alone would have.
And more importantly, parents and other adults will actively correct the toddler and let the toddler know when they got something even partially right.
I have often wondered how well I could learn something like Japanese(written only obviously) by comparing the various sections in my cellphone and stereo and rice cooker etc. instruction books.
The fact that the Japanese tried torturing Joe Lee Kieyoomia to get him to give up the code suggests that they at least had a hunch the code was Navajo. How did they figure that out?
No, they don’t. Children don’t learn to speak by hearing out-of-context speech. Young children are constantly seeing, feeling, and even smelling the things that adult speakers are referring to.
*I, on the other hand, very much doubt that anyone could do that. People don’t learn to read their native language just by looking at a dictionary, why should anyone be expected to learn a foreign language that way?
I used to teach English in Japan and saw firsthand the kind of weird English people came up with when they relied too much on a Japanese-English dictionary – and these were people who had some grasp of English already and were using a bilingual dictionary that included their native language. I don’t believe anyone could learn to read an unfamiliar language with nothing more than a dictionary written entirely in that language.
Infants get people teaching them the language, most also get a combination of visual and auditory information. The grown-ups don’t give you the doll until you make a noise resembling “doll,” later until you add “please,” etc.
Navajo is no harder and no easier than any other language (that you don’t know) to separate into words. That is, it’s very difficult. Furthermore, the phonemes of Navajo are greatly different from English or Japanese. If you don’t know what the phonemes of a language are, it takes a long time to figure out how to transcribe the language.
There are many ways that the Japanese could have figured out that Navajo was being used. Among other things, once they recorded some of the codetalking and brought it back to Japan, they could have tried every professor of language they could find at Japanese universities. Having established that it wasn’t a common language, they could have said, “Hmm, the Americans used American Indian languages in World War I. So what’s the American Indian language with the most speakers?”.
Or German universities. If they had sought the help of the Nazis (or their allies) they could have had access to language experts from all over Europe.
Remember, despite the hype, it wasn’t used all that much. Nor was it written down much, and it’s much harder to crack a oral message. In fact, I have heard the Nazis had problems understanding hard-core Brooklynese with slang or even a deep Southern accent.
Unless I misread, they originally captured him and were torturing him for being a Japanese-American “traitor”, fighting against Japan. Mr. Kieyoomia spent considerable effort telling them “Just because I have epicanthic folds on my eyes doesn’t mean I’m Japanese, you idiots. I’m Navajo!”. From there it dawned on them that maybe his being Navajo could be useful but they seemed to go about it in a dumb manner (bringing him a couple words written in English phonics and having him translate them literally).
Edit: My mistake for assuming the eyes had anything to do with it (my wife had indigenous eyes and is mistaken for Asian on a regular basis).
And… whoops. I misread the originally quoted material saying “How did they know the code was Navajo”. I thought joebuck20 was aksing how they knew Kieyoomia was Navajo.
That suggests that they knew it was a Native American language, but weren’t sure which one. And that a Navajo speaker who did not know the code wouldn’t be able to understand the code unless he had the training of a code breaker and the resources.