Between the three hashers with linguistic degrees present yesterday it didn't take Brainiac* to refute the assertion by [NAME REDACTED] that the Aboriginal languages are "simple" or "primitive". But for the record, here is the definitive word on the subject from the renowned British linguist Randolph Quirk in his book
The Use of English:
'Primitive' is a word that is often used ill-advisedly in discussions of
language. Many people think that 'primitive' is indeed a term to be applied
to languages, though only to some languages, and not usually to the language
they themselves speak. They might agree in calling 'primitive' those uses of
language that concern greetings, grumbles and commands, but they would probably
insist that these were especially common in the so-called 'primitive languages'.
These are misconceptions that we must quickly clear from our minds.
So far as we can tell, all human languages are equally complete and perfect
as instruments of communication: that is, every language appears to be as well
equipped as any other to say the things its speakers want to say. It may or
may not be appropriate to talk about primitive peoples or cultures, but that
is another matter. Certainly, not all groups of people are equally competent
in nuclear physics or psychology or the cultivation of rice or the engraving
of Benares brass. But this is not the fault of their language. The Eskimos can
speak about snow with a great deal more precision and subtlety than we can in
English, but this is not because the Eskimo language (one of those sometimes
miscalled 'primitive') is inherently more precise and subtle than English. This
example does not bring to light a defect in English, a show of unexpected 'primitiveness'.
The position is simply and obviously that the Eskimos and the English live in
different environments. The English language would be just as rich in terms
for different kinds of snow, presumably, if the environments in which English
was habitually used made such distinction important.
Similarly, we have no reason to doubt that the Eskimo language could be as
precise and subtle on the subject of motor manufacture or cricket if these topics
formed part of the Eskimos' life. For obvious historical reasons, Englishmen
in the nineteenth century could not talk about motorcars with the minute discrimination
which is possible today: cars were not a part of their culture. But they had
a host of terms for horse-drawn vehicles which send us, puzzled, to a historical
dictionary when we are reading Scott or Dickens. How many of us could distinguish
between a chaise, a landau, a victoria, a brougham, a coupe, a gig, a diligence,
a whisky, a calash, a tilbury, a carriole, a phaeton, and a clarence ?
The discussion of 'primitiveness', incidentally, provides us with a good
reason for sharply and absolutely distinguishing human language from animal
communication, because there is no sign of any intermediate stage between the
two. Whether we examine the earliest records of any language, or the present-day
language of some small tribe in a far-away place, we come no nearer to finding
a stage of human language more resembling animal communication and more 'primitive'
than our own.
*Who anyway seems to be on strike, still miffed by that guy who accused him of using Wikipedia. According to Brainiac, Wikipedia uses him.
