this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
262 points (98.9% liked)
Today I Learned (TIL)
6513 readers
3 users here now
You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?
/c/til is a community for any true knowledge that you would like to share, regardless of topic or of source.
Share your knowledge and experience!
Rules
- Information must be true
- Follow site rules
- No, you don't have to have literally learned the fact today
- Posts must be about something you learned
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Strictly-speaking, the article just claimed that the parrot was the last speaker of the language. It is possible for someone to be able to understand a language without being able to speak it themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_speaker_(language)
So theoretically, the parrot could be speaking to someone else. They just wouldn't be able to respond in the same language. Though I suppose that if the parrot was bilingual, maybe they could use that language.
The wording of the article does directly blame Humboldt once, and the parrot three times (if we count the headline).
Parrots do have some understanding of what they're saying, so I would be willing to accept that it was the last true speaker on those grounds, but they lack much (if any) ability to teach humans those words. At the very least, I'm not aware that it taught Humboldt anything. It may have, but if so, it really should have mentioned that.
So I'm left to assume the understanding of the words are gone, and it's the understanding that's the point. The turkish word for "milk" sounds very close to the English word for "suit," but that doesn't mean you've been speaking turkish all your life. All we're left with in the case of the Atures is mimicking sounds I have no proof we've defined.
The subject of passive bilingualism is a super interesting one, though, and I've never heard of it before. It does make sense and having very little command, I could see. You do tend to understand the words of others more/faster than you can speak them yourself, but you gradually get there through repetition. By contrast, grammar is the hard part and not liable to be picked up at all without work.
But they're...including no understanding in this? One can live their life with a fluent situational understanding and not retain a single often repeated word? How? Why?? Your brain would have to squirrel away one single word, surely, even if that word is "hello" or "shut up," or "come here."