Archive for March, 2014

Two Options

on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

According to a study on brain development in infants and young children, the critical period has little effect on language development. According to the research done by Brown University and Kings College, London, in an article by Science Daily; “We found that between the ages of 2 and 4, myelin asymmetry doesn’t predict language very well.”

Symmetry is the mirrored image from left to right. Asymmetry is the lack of that mirrored image. As far as brains go, the language area is in the left hemisphere of the brain and it is larger than in the right hemisphere—asymmetrical. In this case, it is the myelin which is larger. Myelin is the coating that covers and insulated the neurons and synaptic circuits. The myelin is denser in the language area, but plays little importance in the development of language.

The article draws an important conclusion; “So if it’s not a child’s brain anatomy predicting their language skills, it suggest their environment might be more influential.” However, the conclusion misses one important factor, and that is the extra myelin, set to help wire in the electrical connections. There is another option.

If language is treated as an instinct and concluded to be innate, then one should see both finding as true. It is highly likely that this myelin asymmetry is predictive of our calls, cries and other survival noises. Predictive does not mean they will manifest as calls and cries to an immature brain. However as I have stated many times now, our digital sounds replaced our analog calls and cries. The digital sounds are created from the analog sounds, so from an innately instinctual basis for communication, there is no real difference in the concepts from the sounds.

This predicts that small talk, even complicated small talk, can be learned at a rapid rate, without effecting the brain’s asymmetry too much. Even through the critical period. In theory, we speak to our children in digital so calls and cries are never learned, and the wiring is short circuited, but they still carry meaning in their sounds.

This strongly suggest, that on the contrary, language is not learned from scratch, but has an innate basis to build from. It predicts that environment plays an additional role in learning: naming things as one example. The proper digitalized structure of language is learned later in life—from 4 years old and upward.


©copyright 2011-2014



on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

Universally, every language has a sound that is produced when something is not understood. The sound is not a word. If language evolved one word at a time, designated for by natural selection, then we would not have need for such sounds.

It makes much more sense to use a non-word sound, in the “voice” of questioning, to indicate that you don’t understand the meaning behind another sound. It is not possible to evolve different sounds for every single meaning or concept. You would need millions of distinct sounds for every word we use today. Humans, collectively, only use 140 different sounds. It is not possible for selection to act upon language this way as there is no selective quality to act upon.

Digitalizing calls and cries requires altering calls and cries! If selection were lucky, or magic, and hit upon, say, the question what, first, then language would have a questioning word to drive digital selection. This is unlikely, in the extreme! Why would a question evolve before a statement? In prehistory the word food would be a statement! As would any of the predators that feed on us. Tiger, then, would be a statement! Technically, a statement about an action, or verb, turned into a noun.

It is highly probable that digital words evolved from calls and cries using altered forms of the call or cry. There would have to be a producible sound requesting clarity on the alteration of the call or cry. The questions: who, what, where, when, why and how, would need to evolve from a call or cry too. No? How would you question a question without a question?   ©copyright–+Language+Acquisition%29

©copyright 2011-2014


According to the below attached article link from Science Daily spatial skills and written letter skills, not oral language skills predict mathematical skills. At first read it seems to be a counter-diction to what I have been advocating as brain relativity.

I have used the spatial elements in blog post before, but not the written letters. How can I possibly reconcile this problem if my language/math relativity is true? Let’s check out a quote from the journal Child Development and see what is actually going on.

“As a practical matter, programs that build young children’s spatial and written language skills might help accelerate subsequent number-related knowledge and, in turn, the development of competence in math.”

This is the first time it has been brought to my attention on the written language skills concept of learning so I was thrown off guard. I was quick to recover from the seeming counter-diction. In order to write any letters at all one must use spatial skills. Letters are symbols of the sounds they represent. Therefore, space, distance, geometry, or in short spatial skills are developed. Letters and spatial skills are one and the same. It does not affect anything I have written in the past, but adds to my theory a few more teeth.–+Language+Acquisition%29

©copyright 2011-2014


Counting Backwards III

on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

You can’t understand language origins and function if you do not understand mathematical thinking in terms of relativity. Math influences singular, plural, distance and time just to name a few. I will take two more of the world’s counting systems and inspect them for a basis of relativity.

The Babylonian system of counting is based on the same principle as Roman with slight differences. The hand representing five as a number is now five plus one. The system works because you can look at your hand and add one more quantity to it with easy cognition. The system then, gets based on six: the infamous 666.

The piles counted become half-a-dozen, dozen and up through their group of quantity bunching. When written down, they too, use the form of first counted bunch written first and last counted, the singles, written last. This also applies to systems like the peck, bushel, ounce, pound, and so on.

The Chinese have a different way of counting too. They count singles until ten, then they count ten-one, ten-two, ten-three… they write them in the form of the larger units first in descending order to the singles as other math systems do.

As my last blog post stated, one would not walk back to where an arrow was shot from and count to the target hit when you are standing at the target. You would count backwards from the target to the point of the arrow shot. All of these systems are counting backwards.

The only answer that fits, is that the brain is selected to make the past as a universal time reference point under any and all conditions. This I call Brain relativity. It creates mathematical relativity—past based counting, and language relativity which is also past based in orientation. Past is always the reference point even when talking in terms of the future.

This will be the last time I visit math for a while, that is, one the concept of counting. The importance of a mathematical system in language huge.  For example, one cannot divide a holistic concept into the separate sub-parts of the concept without being able to mentally, unconsciously track the singled out portions in past orientation. One cannot add letter sounds to build words without saying the word in the past first form of the first letter sound in the built word. One cannot place nouns on numbers if one cannot count different piles on the proper past first order.

©copyright 2011-2014


Knowledge From an Arrow

on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

You are out on the hunt with you friend and you end up at the same hunting spot where you usually go. The spot is by the brook at the boulder. You friend sees a fowl perched in a tree and whips out his bow and fires an arrow straight through the fowls’ wishbone. You walk up to the fowl to retrieve it and you think: this must be the longest shot ever made.

Your friend looks back at the boulder and agrees. Wait now, no one will believe you unless you can tell them how far it was. You and your friend think of a way to describe the distance. If you count how many strides you take to walk back you can communicate this to others in terms of yards. You leave the foul, walk back to the boulder where you took your shot, then count the steps back to the fowl. When you reach the fowl the second time you pick it up and walk back to the boulder. Right?

This waste precious energy and time! Of course you would count from the fowl back to the boulder and save a second trip. What are you doing? You are counting backwards in time and place! You would never walk all the way back and count from the starting point. Natural selection would favor he who made the one trip and counted backwards. On this basis alone, we should be counting numbers backwards, from the last counted, up to the first counted: ones, tens, hundreds… We count: …hundreds, tens, ones. Why?

One might make the observation that the first scenario was not counted until they reached the fowl. The second scenario the objects get grouped into hundreds, then tens, then ones as you move in time and space. That is true, but not the solution. Counting 200 yards form the arrow shot is automatically moved backwards into hundreds, tens, and ones as you count. The only difference then, is the place you start counting from.

In both cases you are counting from the position in time where you made the conscious decision to count. One case started by grouping objects into piles of hundreds, then tens then ones or single pieces not large enough to place in bigger groups. The other case, you started counting backwards in time form the reference of the arrow, but forward in time in reference to your returning to the boulder. We can gain knowledge from the arrow. It is used as the reference point from the past! The first pile of objects, the hundreds, are used as the reference point from the past as well.

One counts from the past toward the future! Oddly enough, time and space are referenced from the past, toward the future. This is a product of relativity. Brain relativity follows the laws of physics or relativity. This produces mathematical relativity when counting!

©copyright 2011-2014


Counting Backwards II

on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

I covered Arabic numbering systems a few post back. I played with the notion that we count backwards to what evolution would select for. I return to the topic on this posting because of the importance time-direction makes in both mathematics and grammar.

I went over what it means to count backwards to selection pressures and I will refresh your memory. When dividing single units into groups of ten, one hundred and so forth, we go all the way back to the start and recount them. Selection predicts that we should look back at what we counted and recount from the finishing point. This should give us 1, 20, 200, and so forth, not 200, 20, 1 or 221. You can read that blog post to refresh your memory.

I am going to break the Counting Backwards topic into a few smaller post over the next few weeks. One post I will go over the time-direction in perfect detail, but for this one I plan to dissect another counting system.

Rome had a distinctive method of counting. It was based on the hands. A full hand gave you V, or five, and two full hands gave you X, two hands back to back. The rest of the counting was based on either single fingers added together or subtracted as in: III being three; IV being four; VI being six.

It too, has distinctive grouping! Singles are counted last and placed in either addition or subtraction. Groups of five are counted after groups of ten and so on. When one looks at the groups, one finds the same pattern. You count backwards to natural selection probabilities. After counting all the groups, you should be at the singles group last. Looking back you should see the singles, then the one hand group and finally the two hand groups. The count should go as follows: I, then V, then X giving the number sixteen. In actuality, they are counted backwards the same was as Arabic. They are counted XVI for the number sixteen. Don’t get confused with the addition and subtraction of fingers. This is different!

Same rule applies here as in Arabic, and the other number systems I will explore later. They are time-relativity related by the brain in orientation of past, present and future. This I call Brain Relativity and it works for grammar too.

©copyright 2011-2014


Chariots of the Gods

on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

It was Saturday, October-19-13

I just witnessed one of the most incredible natural events of my lifetime. I was sitting at the grocery store in Riverview, just about to get out of my car when I saw lights in the heavens. It was a slightly cloudy evening between 8:00 and 8:30 PM. The lights appeared from over the trees north of where I was parked. There were so many lights in the sky, one could envision an invasion by alien space craft. Upon seeing the first few, I thought it was likely aircraft. When more than fifty lights appeared in the sky at once I had to rethink the possibilities.

The fixed pattern of movement established by the lights soon reminded me of geese flying south for the winter, although not in a V formation. The assumption somewhat fit as they were, after all, flying from the north to the south. As the first wave disappeared in mid-air, without dropping off the horizon, the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the light stopped being reflected from their eyes.

More and more groupings appeared above the trees: some in groups of three and some in groups of five or more. I was cursing myself for leaving my video recorder at home, but who takes a camera to the grocery store? Just a rough guess, but I think there were over a hundred of them in total. I could not believe how much light could be reflected off the eye of a goose. I was amazed at how big the points of lights appeared to be in the sky. As bright as an aeroplane headlights they were! In the daylight, one would barely see the whole goose!

Imagine such an incredible sight as this appearing in the northern sky ten-thousand years ago. If they looked to me like stars moving across the heavens, how much more so to civilizations past? The vision that I witnessed would have been adequate to explain certain aspects of mythology. Stars moving in the heavens could become predecessors to the constellations. Appearing magically from the north would impart witness to Gods’ home. If you were en route to entering battle with the enemy at dawn, and were swiftly victorious, the gods went ahead of you to do battle on your behalf. If you were driven back from a sore battle, then the gods were set against you for your sin. A peace offering would be offered-up before every battle. The tradition would be passed down from generation to generation, but badly distorted.

By the time chariots were developed, the gods would be using them to move about in the heavens. Perhaps evolving over time from carrying the sun around the earth, into using chariots of fire. This would be even more obvious to any clans that carried their own fire with them when changing camp locations. They had no matches after all. Most of these points I unveil are deeply cast in mythology.

©copyright 2011-2014


Caught In A Lie?

on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

The astute reader might’ve observed in my last post that some discrepancy lies in all nouns coming from verbs. I assure you that I was not lying to you and I have not been caught doing so! I covered all verbs being produced from actions, and how they became nouns: giving us the ability to talk about actions. One might protest that rocks and other non-living or moving objects could not be represented as verb first, then noun. I ask you then to define verb!

If we examine Newtonian physics, one sees that it accounts for verbs holding true. An object in motion wants to stay in motion. An object at rest wants to stay at rest. If we define verbs as motion (and we do) then rest must be nouns. Again, I would ask you: is rest is not an action? What do you do when you rest? You restrain yourself from action! For a template to follow, I will use the words: do and do not. Do is a positive action, whereas do not is a negative action.

This brings me to the relative point of a negative verb! Relative as in relativity! I thought of using the term of anti-verb, but it connotes another definition. We don’t count positive numbers as such. We don’t say: positive one, positive two, positive three…, we say one, two, three… On the other hand when counting negative amounts we do add the word negative. Negative one, negative two, negative three and so on. This in mind I do not have to re-name the verb as: Positive Verb.

Using Negative Verb as a non-action allows any discrepancies to vanish, legally, as far as relativity theory is concerned. Rock, would be classified as non-movable, the negative form of movable. Permanent, consequently, is to noun negative verb so negative verb of permanent can be communicated.

Relativity stands on the premise that action produced matter. Brain Relativity stands on the premise that verb produced noun. Relativity demands a past, present and future. Brain Relativity demands a past, present and future. Language relativity demands a past, present and future, better known as grammar or ordered sentence structure. Since past, present and future are motions of a time continuum, and we live in this continuum, then we live in motion. What do you think should come first: verb or noun?

©copyright 2011-2014


Before Nouns

on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

It should not be any surprise to have me state that language did not evolve on the premise of nouns! Any concept of the real world, would out of necessity, have been in verb form!

Running is a verb! It too becomes a noun when named. In the strictest sense, the action of running is the action of running and not the action of names. This might seem strange, but if you don’t noun running, you can’t talk about running. The word running or the noun running is the name for the action or verb.

A sabre-toothed tiger is an action, not a noun or name. Sabre-tooth tigers bring up the action of being killed and eaten. Written in this way, I think that everyone will agree with me. If you don’t noun tiger, you can’t talk about tiger. You are only left with the instinct of the action tigers preform on humans.

Water is also a verb or action. The concept your brain will have of water is drinking; getting wet; cooling off. You need the action or verb of water to become noun in order to talk about it. I could write a list a mile long and they all state the same thing: actions are birthed in every concept and they are verbs.

The article pasted below points out that some languages are better learned as noun based and others like Korean are better learned verb based. To make this a little clearer read the article. If what I write is to be held true, then it goes back to having something for natural selection to act on. In different tongues, language has the opportunity to get selected for in different formats. Does it matter if one language holds stronger to the verb base and another language pushes towards a more noun base? Understanding that learning language is what is in question here. Once the tongues are learned they are more or less on equal footing. They are all space/time structured, but ordered in the slight variances of the different tongues selecting doing the selection.–+Language+Acquisition%29

©copyright 2011-2014


As the below linked article observes, words such as “the” are used more frequently than verbs or nouns. I have covered language relativity many times and shown how brain relativity produces it. I covered verbs and nouns separately in two post. Brain relativity works perfectly to solve the issues.

Words like “the” which get used more often are also directly related to the space/time phenomena that selects for grammar and mathematics. “The” is just signalling out a specific element of space/time. As is the word “a” and: here; higher; lower; in; over; beside; that; this; and;… All of the supporting words to out sentence structure, or almost all of them, are derived directly from space/time manipulation. Probably a third of my book deals with space/time and the words produced by brain relativity/language relativity. These are more important to language evolution for supporting the communication of ideas than noun/verb order. Noun/verb order is tongue based and not articulated language based. Verb Object (VO) order or Object Verb (OV) order is also tongue based in language selection.

Tongue based simply means the difference between English and Spanish, or French. In crude form it would be like saying (he ran) or (ran he did). Both mean the same, but in different languages or tongues. Articulated language is based on selection for brain relativity/language relativity: grammatically space/time ordered structure. Different languages or tongues are based on articulation preferences.

The below article concludes that once a base articulation preference is established in infants they prefer hearing that order. It also concludes the effect is carried over into adult learning. The article does not make the distinction between the two processes! They are still caught up in grammar evolving on its own instead or being carried on the back of relativity.–+Language+Acquisition%29


©copyright 2011-2014



Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: