The ‘evolution’ of language

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

I'm still not happy about them dumping Phlogiston. You can't trust scientists – they keep changing their minds. They'll be saying we go round the sun next or some such nonsense. Facts? No such thing. Make them dig cabbages I say while right thinking folk like me get on with running the country.

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

…but it's easy to get lost in theory and forget that behind it all there are individuals choosing, and being chosen as, mates.

…and as we all know, the mate selection problem is a complex one – often driven by mutual attraction, opportunity or otherwise, based upon innate characteristics which loosely approximate to "environmental fitness". In some cases it's also "the best available at the time"

It can even be arranged by human intervention as in the case of domesticated animals which formed part of Darwin's seminal work (esp pigeons).

I'd argue that the offspring, if viable, are really all individuals. Some may be better adapted than their parents to their environment or less so … but any classification, even if it's based around the potential for inter-breading, is still somewhat arbitrary and a convenience for us.

Jon

Edited By Jon Gibbs on 24/11/2017 14:31:17

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Jon Gibbs on 24/11/2017 14:30:38:

…but it's easy to get lost in theory and forget that behind it all there are individuals choosing, and being chosen as, mates.

…and as we all know, the mate selection problem is a complex one – often driven by mutual attraction, opportunity or otherwise, based upon innate characteristics which loosely approximate to "environmental fitness". In some cases it's also "the best available at the time"

It can even be arranged by human intervention as in the case of domesticated animals which formed part of Darwin's seminal work (esp pigeons).

I'd argue that the offspring, if viable, are really all individuals. Some may be better adapted than their parents to their environment or less so … but any classification, even if it's based around the potential for inter-breading, is still somewhat arbitrary and a convenience for us.

Jon

Edited By Jon Gibbs on 24/11/2017 14:31:17

Exactly!

Except in the case of a new species arising by hybridisation (which sholdn't happen if species can't interbreed…) where do you draw the line between the new species and the old one if in reality it's two populations drifting incrementally apart? When does individual variation become a new variety, a variety become a new sub-species and when does the sub-species become a species?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Hopper on 24/11/2017 13:55:51:

While we are on the subject, the use of square brackets is usually limited to enclosing words added by someone other than the original writer, usually an editor. Round brackets should be used to set off parenthetical comments by the original writer, or to set off information not essential to the rest of the sentence. Using square brackets in place of round results in turgid obsfuceration again.

.

Whilst we are on the subject …

In my line of work; square brackets are used inter alia to enclose explanatory text, and to indicate where optional text needs to be inserted.

On a purely practical level, though … On this forum they mitigate the risk of introducing "accidental smileys".

Suggestion: You write you posts your way, and let me write mine my way.

MichaelG.

.

P.S.

"Round brackets should be used to set off parenthetical comments" might well be nominated for tautology of the week.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 24/11/2017 14:06:45:

I have found some background reading for you, Michael:

eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527332073.html

.

Thank you, Neil

MichaelG.

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

I think it is worth bearing in mind that there is no fundamental truth in any of this classification. Mankind has developed models of the world that helps it to understand what is going on around it. These models need constant refining, as has been mentioned when the duality of light as both waves and particles became necessary for the various models to co-exist. Similarly, the definition of a species being defined by the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring seems no longer adequate to explain the knowledge gained by DNA analysis so the definition needs to change – such is progress.

All this keeps the taxonomists employed and Richard Forte has written a lovely book about why taxonomists are important: Dry Store Room No.1 (and it's currently available for 99p on Kindle)

Rod

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Would I be accused of being pedantic (over precise?) by saying that unless S O D is a Sapper, or an Explosives Engineer, he would be unlikely to be hoist by his own petard? Or maybe language IS evolving.

Howard

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 24/11/2017 14:38:01:

Exactly!

Except in the case of a new species arising by hybridisation (which sholdn't happen if species can't interbreed…) where do you draw the line between the new species and the old one if in reality it's two populations drifting incrementally apart? When does individual variation become a new variety, a variety become a new sub-species and when does the sub-species become a species?

…but I'd argue that in all cases a hybrid is nothing more than a recombination of a previously split line.

Just because offspring are viable though isn't the be-all. Sometimes one of the sexes ends up infertile which isn't particularly smart from an evolutionary p.o.v. – see Haldane's rule **LINK**.

Jon

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Howard Lewis on 24/11/2017 16:22:51:

Would I be accused of being pedantic (over precise?) by saying that unless S O D is a Sapper, or an Explosives Engineer, he would be unlikely to be hoist by his own petard? Or maybe language IS evolving.

Howard

.

Not at all, Howard

The Bard would probably also jest that he might be a B.O.F.

MichaelG.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 24/11/2017 17:04:32:

Posted by Howard Lewis on 24/11/2017 16:22:51:

…

.

…

The Bard would probably also jest that he might be a B.O.F.

MichaelG.

And he wouldn't have been the last to make that particular suggestion!

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 24/11/2017 17:48:07

[Anna 1Participant @anna1]

Hello all.

I have only just picked up on this thread, regarding species.

One of my other interests is growing Azaleas and Rhododendrons purely because of the beauty and diversity of the Genus. I have over 60 species and hybrids growing in the garden from rockery size plants to huge trees.

I have not studied the technicalities, but my understanding is that there are some nine hundred species rhododendron and something in excess of 20,000 hybrids developed and if I remember correctly, most but not all species can be hybridised. In fact they are a pretty promiscuous lot (Once upon a time Azalea and Rhododendron were considered separate Genus. Now they are both classed as Rhododendron.) .

Regards Anna

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Botanists were definitely ahead of the curve in appreciating how fluid the 'species' concept is, yet I found a quote earlier suggesting that animals hybridise more than plants!

Neil

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 24/11/2017 21:09:43:

… animals hybridise more than plants!

Neil

.

Maybe it's because they are more mobile

MichaelG.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 24/11/2017 15:03:11:

Posted by Hopper on 24/11/2017 13:55:51:

While we are on the subject, the use of square brackets is usually limited to enclosing words added by someone other than the original writer, usually an editor. Round brackets should be used to set off parenthetical comments by the original writer, or to set off information not essential to the rest of the sentence. Using square brackets in place of round results in turgid obsfuceration again.

.

Whilst we are on the subject …

In my line of work; square brackets are used inter alia to enclose explanatory text, and to indicate where optional text needs to be inserted.

On a purely practical level, though … On this forum they mitigate the risk of introducing "accidental smileys".

Suggestion: You write you posts your way, and let me write mine my way.

MichaelG.

.

P.S.

"Round brackets should be used to set off parenthetical comments" might well be nominated for tautology of the week.

Not sure what line of work you're in but the rest of us are not, so best to use the normal conventions so your audience can understand what the heck you are on about. To avoid smileys, simply add a space.

And perhaps we should just let the scientists write their posts their way, and we ours? I think if we are going to criticize someone else's use of language, we should get our own right while doing so.

No tautology in setting off a parenthetical comment. Quite justified for clarity in the context.

And "inter alia"? Do you mean amongst other things? Or are you just engaging in turgid obsfuceration again?

 

Edited By Hopper on 25/11/2017 00:58:26

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Suggestion: You write you posts your way, and let me write mine my way.

.

No further comment

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 25/11/2017 07:26:59

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

For anyone actually interested in the recently reported work:

The paper referenced in my opening post is available as a free download from the AAAS

[ American Association for the Advancement of Science ]

Free registration is required … Just follow the link in the BBC article.

MichaelG.

[MikeParticipant @mike89748]

A very interesting debate, but the thing that annoyed me was not the "evolution" of language, but the fact that two of the three birds pictured in the BBC report had hideously large rings on their legs. So called "scientists" these days seem to get away with hideous cruelty to wild creatures – behaviour which, if you and I did it, would lead to prosecution. It seems fashionable among the scientific crowd nowadays to fit larger birds and animals with sat-nav trackers – I ask you! Wild creatures have managed to evolve over millions of years without this "help." Observe wild creatures by all means, but it should be a strictly "hands off" study.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Mike,

I too find the widespread use of rings and tags rather disturbing … but the Galapagos research under discussion seems to be dependent upon satellite tracking.

I found the paper rather hard going, but it's worth a look.

MichaelG.

[Author]

Posts