Comments on: Continuing Discussion of the Sweetness of Cucumber http://www.n-line.co.uk/2005/06/21/continuing_discussion_of_the_sweetness_of_cucumber/ a personal blog indulging in the unsolicited, uninvited, and often unwelcome views of yet another pesky foreigner... Sat, 19 May 2012 13:58:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Nick http://www.n-line.co.uk/2005/06/21/continuing_discussion_of_the_sweetness_of_cucumber/#comment-40 Nick Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:39:30 +0000 http://www.n-line.co.uk/?p=99#comment-40 In fact guy does mention it directly in one of the comments (sorry, had missed this): <blockquote> The glottis and tonal tract of a human is formed differently for different races, even different regions within the same race. Also, the muscles whcih control the tract react - and are formed (!) differently depending on the (kind of) language or dialect which is spoken regularly. For instance, the semi-soft "g" in Flemish (as in my name) is nearly impossible to pronounce for people from Holland or Germany, two adjoining countries with (very) similar languages. </blockquote> In fact guy does mention it directly in one of the comments (sorry, had missed this):

The glottis and tonal tract of a human is formed differently for different races, even different regions within the same race. Also, the muscles whcih control the tract react - and are formed (!) differently depending on the (kind of) language or dialect which is spoken regularly. For instance, the semi-soft “g” in Flemish (as in my name) is nearly impossible to pronounce for people from Holland or Germany, two adjoining countries with (very) similar languages.

]]> By: Nick http://www.n-line.co.uk/2005/06/21/continuing_discussion_of_the_sweetness_of_cucumber/#comment-38 Nick Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:17:21 +0000 http://www.n-line.co.uk/?p=99#comment-38 Hi Prairie Biker, thanks for commenting! Well, I agree with almost everything you say. I think I just approached the discussion from a different viewpoint to you, please allow to explain what I mean... Well, as I see it there are actually three strands of argument taking place here: 1) LHM -> his stance of accepting new knowledge without proof (and hence rejecting traditional doctrine) fails to serve the interest of the sanctity of knowledge which he preaches (the main point of that last post, with required lots of back arguing to the two points and ideas). 2) My Guy's hereditary strand (clearly wrong, as you say, totally discredited by your references to Lamarckian doctrine) 3) However, there is a third (implicit) idea in Mr Guy's suggestion. This is borne out in the comments, such as "Frenchmen all seem to have certain physical characteristics, particularly around the mouth, <strong>from speaking French all those years</strong>" [emphasis added]. The suggestion is that facial muscles become cemented through use and cease to be capable of use in other languages (I know that you believe it is through psychological changes in the brain - as do I - but I was trying to argue this point as well as the two above) I also note that it's not something he directly said but it is an alternative explanation for his claims and other comments do refer to this idea. Pleased to have you commenting here :) Cheers! Hi Prairie Biker, thanks for commenting!
Well, I agree with almost everything you say. I think I just approached the discussion from a different viewpoint to you, please allow to explain what I mean…

Well, as I see it there are actually three strands of argument taking place here:
1) LHM -> his stance of accepting new knowledge without proof (and hence rejecting traditional doctrine) fails to serve the interest of the sanctity of knowledge which he preaches (the main point of that last post, with required lots of back arguing to the two points and ideas).

2) My Guy’s hereditary strand (clearly wrong, as you say, totally discredited by your references to Lamarckian doctrine)
3) However, there is a third (implicit) idea in Mr Guy’s suggestion. This is borne out in the comments, such as “Frenchmen all seem to have certain physical characteristics, particularly around the mouth, from speaking French all those years” [emphasis added]. The suggestion is that facial muscles become cemented through use and cease to be capable of use in other languages (I know that you believe it is through psychological changes in the brain - as do I - but I was trying to argue this point as well as the two above) I also note that it’s not something he directly said but it is an alternative explanation for his claims and other comments do refer to this idea.

Pleased to have you commenting here :)
Cheers!

]]> By: prairie biker http://www.n-line.co.uk/2005/06/21/continuing_discussion_of_the_sweetness_of_cucumber/#comment-36 prairie biker Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:30:49 +0000 http://www.n-line.co.uk/?p=99#comment-36 Nick- You do understand that by casting the Lamarckian question on Mr. Guy's argument I was stating that his whole argument was a non starter since Lamarck's premise being true is the only way Guy's could be as well? The real question resides in the human brain, not in facial muscles. Chomsky and many other psycho-linguists have shown that the neural pathways for language are near solidified in humans by the onset of puberty. This isn't to say it's an absolute but it is much more difficult for mature individuals to acquire new linguistic patterns than it is for juveniles. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has everything to do with learning and the physiology of the brain. That's my entire point and my only contribution to the discussion. I believe that this little tidbit is all that is really necessary to prove Mr. Guy to be incorrect so it is all I'm going to offer. Nick- You do understand that by casting the Lamarckian question on Mr. Guy’s argument I was stating that his whole argument was a non starter since Lamarck’s premise being true is the only way Guy’s could be as well?

The real question resides in the human brain, not in facial muscles. Chomsky and many other psycho-linguists have shown that the neural pathways for language are near solidified in humans by the onset of puberty. This isn’t to say it’s an absolute but it is much more difficult for mature individuals to acquire new linguistic patterns than it is for juveniles.

It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has everything to do with learning and the physiology of the brain.

That’s my entire point and my only contribution to the discussion. I believe that this little tidbit is all that is really necessary to prove Mr. Guy to be incorrect so it is all I’m going to offer.

]]>