this post was submitted on
230 points (87% like it)
269 up votes 39 down votes

linguistics

unsubscribe30,373 readers

~36 users here now

lin⋅guis⋅tics: the scientific study of human language

  • what form does it take?
  • how is meaning constructed?
  • how is it structured?
  • how is it produced?

join us at #reddit-linguistics on irc.freenode.net


Encouraged:

  • publicly-available scholarly articles
  • helpful resources
  • well-written news articles
  • self-post discussions on linguistic topics
  • discussions on the linguistics field
  • interesting examples of language

Use sparingly:

  • memes/advice-animals

Discouraged and potentially removed:

  • translation requests
  • blogspam (link directly to source!)
  • non-self-posts to examples of "poor" language
  • reposts of content less than two weeks old from /r/linguistics
  • "Is there a word for x?" (where x is not a linguistic concept)

Discussion:

  • Cite your sources and don't be afraid to ask others to do the same
  • Keep the anecdotal evidence and layman speculation to a minimum
  • No personal attacks

Some helpful IPA characters:

ɑ ɒ ã ɔ ç ð ɖ θ ɘ ẽ ə ɚ ɛ ɜ ɣ ɤ ɥ ɦ ɨ ɩ ĩ ɫ ɬ ɯ ɱ ɲ ɳ ŋ õ ɶ ɸ ɹ ɺ ɻ ɾ ʀ ʁ ʃ ʈ ũ ʉ ʊ ʋ ʌ ʍ ʎ ʏ ʒ ʔ ʕ ʡ

For more characters, see this list.


FAQ


sister subreddits:

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 27 comments

[–]digital_carver 13 points14 points ago

That's a clever comic, but it got me thinking: if fish could actually speak, they would want to communicate other fish in the same water body (obviously), so they'd more probably evolve to create pressure waves in water itself (and not in air like us and as presumably in the comic). But then, makes us wonder, would water be as effective as air in conducting the sound? Would it perhaps be much more directional? Would it attenuate sound much more? Pretty interesting to think about.

[–]Andrenator 27 points28 points ago

Water, because it's a liquid, travels sound way better than air (and a solid would travel sound best of all).

Whale songs can be heard miles away.

[–]ANewLowInGettingHighlinguistics amateur 36 points37 points ago

Did you just transitive the verb "travel?"

[–]skrillexisokay 27 points28 points ago

Did you just verb the adjective transitive?

[–]ANewLowInGettingHighlinguistics amateur 20 points21 points ago

I did. I take full advantage of the verbing English allows me.

[–]HunterTlanguage documentation and description 6 points7 points ago

[–]topherclay 3 points4 points ago

If you check any dictionary, the word "travel" already has transitive definitions.

[–]ANewLowInGettingHighlinguistics amateur 12 points13 points ago

Fair enough, but Andrenator's use,

"X travels Y." meaning X conducts Y, is new to me.

[–]phobiac 0 points1 point ago

I would say "better" is too subjective of a word to describe how sound travels in water. Sounds travel further but direction is difficult to determine. This might have more to do with the way the human ear works and it being better adapted to air. I think conversation involving sound would be difficult underwater and require more of a visual component.

Honestly, a sign language or even a light based one would probably work better.

[–]ANewLowInGettingHighlinguistics amateur 0 points1 point ago

Well, if dolphins can use sonar to determine where things are, directionality can't be impossible.

[–]phobiac 0 points1 point ago

Fair enough. I still think a visual language would be better suited to the water though.

[–]ANewLowInGettingHighlinguistics amateur 0 points1 point ago

Distance would be a limiting factor. Visibility gets lower the deeper you go, and it's not even that great near the surface.

[–]phobiac 0 points1 point ago

That's why I suggested a light based form of communication.

[–]ANewLowInGettingHighlinguistics amateur 0 points1 point ago

You suggested a light based form of communication because the ocean is a much worse conductor of light?

[–]phobiac 0 points1 point ago

Huh? No, visibility is crap at depth due to lack of light. Sure there's areas where the water is murky but if you're close enough for sound you're close enough for light.

[–]Neurodefekt 1 point2 points ago

Better, but and slower faster. Just to point that out.

Edit: Looks like I mixed something up. Thanks for clarify.

[–]crwper 4 points5 points ago

Looks like the speed of sound in water is more than 4 times as fast as in air:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Water

[–]Hakaku 1 point2 points ago

All cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are capable of communicating underwater using various sound production tactics (clicks, buzzing, singing, bellowing, etc.). Depending on the situation, some sounds can be emitted in strong directional pulses capable of stunning prey, others are semi-directional used for general orientation (echolocation), while others again can be very low and non-directional allowing messages to be carried across extremely vast distances (especially during mating season or when being attacked). The array and types of sounds they can emit is really quite incredible; but yes, sounds produced underwater carry over much greater distances.

However, it's worth noting that they use stocked air to produce these sounds, not water itself. As fish don't stock air like cetaceans and are generally small, they can't really do much to create such loud sounds. But some appear to be able to communicate using rudimentary popping and grunting sounds by vibrating a part near the back of their bodies, flicking their spines or grinding their teeth. As these sounds aren't very strong, they don't carry too far, and they aren't focalized in any way (unlike those of cetaceans) so they travel sporadically all around and get easily drowned by other sounds. It also seems that some fish and other sea-dwelling creatures use bioluminescence to communicate, though you can imagine it only carries a message so far, and representing such a phenomenon in a comic might be a little difficult.

[–]viktorbir 0 points1 point ago

Not "fish" (although fish means nothing taxonomically), but whales communicate subwater. The main difference is the way sounds travel, not in a euclidiand way, but hyperbolic one.

[–]ANewLowInGettingHighlinguistics amateur 1 point2 points ago

Being paraphyletic doesn't mean nothing taxonomically.

[–]viktorbir 0 points1 point ago

Sorry?

[–]TheMathmanProphecies -2 points-1 points ago

Sound still travels in a Euclidean way in water, just as it does in air. The pressure wave created by sound travels via atoms of the medium bumping into one another and transferring their momentum. Sound travels faster and farther in denser media because the atoms are closer together.

Assuming no obstacles and consistent density of the medium, sound travels from the source in an expanding sphere, regardless of the medium. Obstacles create reflections (echos) and redirect the sound. Changes in density cause the waves to bend (refraction—as with a straw half in a glass of water or mirages in the desert).

Hyperbolic geometry doesn't come into it.

[–]viktorbir 0 points1 point ago

Are you assuming density is the same all around?

[–]deeut 1 point2 points ago

I laughed so hard at this. Thank you for making my day better.

[–]brick_in_my_hand 2 points3 points ago

what is this shit doing in /r/linguistics

[–]Neker[S] 0 points1 point ago

I don't have references at hand, but the relation between the language ability and the complex thought ability is a core question in linguistics and cognitive sciences. Of course, there are many exemples, including your comment, where language seems to occur without intelligence but, broadly speaking, both involve the handling (some say computation) of abstract symbols.

Here is a quick starter.