6 ms·

Still, studying only 31 languages and argue that something is universal is dumb as heck. Given there are 6000 of them safer approach would be the search for alm

• adrianN 8y ago
  If those 31 languages cover >90% of all humans I think making claims about universality is reasonably justified.
  • packet_nerd 8y ago
    If the claim is that the majority of humans speak a language which includes huh? as a feature, then sure. But that doesn't seem very interesting scientifically... By calling it a universal word, I guess I thought they were referring to the concept of linguistic universals [1], which are interesting since they might suggest something about the deeper way in which our brains work. To make a claim about linguistic universals like that I really think they should study more than 10 (31) languages. According to this page [2], 44% of people speak an Indo-European language, and 96% speak a member of one of the top 10 language families. The remaining 4% includes 84 language families. I imagine there's a ton of variety there, and for understanding human language and cognition they all probably have just as much value as the larger language families. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universal [2] https://www.vistawide.com/languages/language_families_statistics1.htm https://www.vistawide.com/languages/language_families_statis...
  • Retra 8y ago
    Universal should mean that virtually every human in history used it. Just because something is pervasive in modern societies does not mean is a fundamental feature of human nature. Language is universal. Fear and anger are universal.