The AFU and Urban Legend Archive
Language
 language origins of kandolf




From: cindy@lise.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Neener Neener Neener
Date: 1 Dec 93 22:35:56

Helge Moulding (don't call him Helga) writes: > Like, the language
>dudes at the, like, university, like MIT, like, they have
>three theories, which is, bow-wow (language is onomatopeic),
>poo-poo (language derives from physical reflex), and ding-
>dong (language is hard-wired). That Cecil Dude says that
>most language dudes don't like any of these ideas, and
>that they are mostly from party dudes like you and me, see.

The linguistics department at MIT takes itself far too seriously.

Anyway: i've heard three theories, plus two more with equally silly names that i can't remember at the moment, proposed as theories for the _origin_ of language, i.e., why we humans picked up this strange habit of talking in the first place. The problem is that none of them adequately explain everything. Take the "bow-wow" theory, for example, that language originated by humans imitating the sounds of the world around them. A moment's thought should make it obvious that most words have nothing to do with imitating natural sounds. Another theory claims that language originated with rhythmic chants that helped people work together. The problem here is that most of the time our speech isn't very rythmic. (Plus, how are you going to go about rounding up all these people to work together if you can't use language? For extra credit, explain Stonehenge.)

As for me, i have no idea why language was invented, but i strongly suspect it caught on because it was an effective way to spread gossip and tell nasty jokes about the tribe on the other side of the river.

-Cindy Kandolf
cindy@lise.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway


Any proceeds (net proceeds from merchandise sales) from TAFKAC solely benefit The Chuck Reed Fund.

Copyright Information

http://tafkac.org/