Skip to main content
Worldbuilding

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • $\begingroup$ This is an interesting answer with some background, but it has non-sequiturs. While morse code and similar things simply encode other languages, there is no reason it has to be that way. They prove it could be done with two states. You also do not provide any support for the claim that a species needs to be capable of producing more distinct sounds than it actually uses in a developed language. Why would that necessarily be? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 6, 2023 at 17:18
  • $\begingroup$ @TimothyAWiseman it's observational. Many species are capable of producing at least two distinct sounds, and none other than humans has produced something that can meaningfully be called language (there are key features of human language that have not been observed in extant forms of animal communication, and stories about animals learning sign languages or using sound boards are reported in an extremely misleading way and no such actual learning of human language has been observed). Likewise, all extant human languages use far fewer distinct sounds than we are able to produce $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2023 at 10:24
  • $\begingroup$ seeing as human languages are the sole examples we have of natural languages, it's a reasonable bet that things that hold for all human languages have a better than chance likelihood of holding for non-human natural languages, unless explicable by factors obviously linked to humans themselves (e.g. the fact that all human languages use the tongue to form consonants is clearly an accident of our biology) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2023 at 10:26
  • $\begingroup$ I am very skeptical of that reasoning. You are basing it on a sample size of 1. It may be true, but there is essentially no evidence for it. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 10, 2023 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ @TimothyAWiseman but that is the sole evidence we have. It may be wrong, but a conclusion based on that evidence is going to be better than one which ignores it $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 10, 2023 at 15:30