3 ms·

> the notion that our intelligence potential has remained static for at least 50k years and we hadn’t figured out how to cooperate and plant seeds until relativ

> the notion that our intelligence potential has remained static for at least 50k years and we hadn’t figured out how to cooperate and plant seeds until relatively recently is difficult to swallow. I wonder the same things, but we can see the fact that development varies greatly among humans with the same intelligence potential. Today there are isolated societies with neolithic technology, and they have the same brains that people commenting on HN have. Also, there are other examples. The alphabet was invented once, in Greece around 700 years ago. How could nobody else think of it? (One explanation comes from experiencing contemporary technological development - many things are obvious in hindsight.)

CogitoCogito 3y ago
> Also, there are other examples. The alphabet was invented once, in Greece around 700 years ago. How could nobody else think of it? The Greeks did not invent the alphabet.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Yeah according to wikipedia there was a phonetic alphabet invented in Egypt which was used by workers and slaves who didn't understand the complexities of hieroglyphics. The Greeks would later borrow this alphabet, using the same letters and placing them in the same order, adding vowels to better suit their own language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    The definition of an alphabet is that it includes vowels. Sans vowels it's an abjad - named for the first four letters of the Arabic abjad, alif, bā', jīm, dāl, just like 'alphabet' is named for the first two letters of the Greek one. Arabic and Hebrew are modern abjads. There is also another form, an abugida, where each character typically represents a paired consonent and vowel sounds; Devanagari, which I believe is used to write Hindi, is an abudiga. And of course there are yet more forms.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      The jump from the Phoenician abjad to the Greek alphabet was very minor. It was almost guaranteed. Phoenicians didn’t _need_ to write down vowels due to the structure of their language. When the Greeks adapted the Phoenician abjad (they certainly didn’t invent their own) they made some changes to make it work with their language. This happened again and again throughout history. Languages always made changes to alphabets when adapting them from other languages. But yes if you argue semantically that the alphabet is the object that the Greeks first put together then yes they did it first. But they certainly only made extremely minor changes compared to what came before. As an aside, “alphabet” is quite clearly named for the first two letters in the Phoenician abjad. Though the Greeks did take the same names for their first two letters as well.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > The jump from the Phoenician abjad to the Greek alphabet was very minor. According to who? Linguists call it the invention of the alphabet and think it highly significant. Why should I listen to your claim? > As an aside, “alphabet” is quite clearly named for the first two letters in the Phoenician abjad. Though the Greeks did take the same names for their first two letters as well. How do you know that? If the Greeks used the same first two letters, that still doesn't mean they didn't use those letters, and not they etymological ancestors, as the basis for their word. Also, isn't alpha a vowel, and thus not in the abjad? Maybe the Greeks re-purposed alpha?
        CogitoCogito 3y ago
        > According to who? Linguists call it the invention of the alphabet and think it highly significant. Why should I listen to your claim? I’m not really sure what your argument is here. Linguists have basically defined “alphabet” to mean the symbols the Greeks used (by deciding to require symbols for vowels in an “alphabet”). That in no way means they think the Greeks are the inventors or even the main contributors to the overall concept. It’s just a starting point. Besides people usually just refer to the Phoenician abjad as the Phoenician alphabet. The fact that they didn’t use vowels didn’t mean it was less developed or anything. It just means it was adapted to the Phoenician language. Were Phoenician around today they could very well still have no symbols for vowels. That said, I’ll let you choose for yourself how important you think this all is. > Isn't alpha a vowel, and thus not in the abjad? Maybe the Greeks re-purposed alpha? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet Look at the letter names in the section “Table of Letters”. Look familiar?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Why do you say that? Every such history I've read says they did - though 'develop' is probably a better word than 'invent'.
  - timeon 3y ago
    If we are talking about alphabet as Alpha, Beta, etc... but not sure What your point was here: > The alphabet was invented once, in Greece around 700 years ago. How could nobody else think of it? As there were other writing systems before.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      It was just an example of a technological innovation that is 'obvious' in hindsight - of course we'd assign a letter to each phonetic sound. I could have used many other technologies as the example.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

> Also, there are other examples. The alphabet was invented once, in Greece around 700 years ago. How could nobody else think of it? The Greeks did not invent the alphabet.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Yeah according to wikipedia there was a phonetic alphabet invented in Egypt which was used by workers and slaves who didn't understand the complexities of hieroglyphics. The Greeks would later borrow this alphabet, using the same letters and placing them in the same order, adding vowels to better suit their own language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet
- wolverine876 3y ago
  The definition of an alphabet is that it includes vowels. Sans vowels it's an abjad - named for the first four letters of the Arabic abjad, alif, bā', jīm, dāl, just like 'alphabet' is named for the first two letters of the Greek one. Arabic and Hebrew are modern abjads. There is also another form, an abugida, where each character typically represents a paired consonent and vowel sounds; Devanagari, which I believe is used to write Hindi, is an abudiga. And of course there are yet more forms.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    The jump from the Phoenician abjad to the Greek alphabet was very minor. It was almost guaranteed. Phoenicians didn’t _need_ to write down vowels due to the structure of their language. When the Greeks adapted the Phoenician abjad (they certainly didn’t invent their own) they made some changes to make it work with their language. This happened again and again throughout history. Languages always made changes to alphabets when adapting them from other languages. But yes if you argue semantically that the alphabet is the object that the Greeks first put together then yes they did it first. But they certainly only made extremely minor changes compared to what came before. As an aside, “alphabet” is quite clearly named for the first two letters in the Phoenician abjad. Though the Greeks did take the same names for their first two letters as well.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > The jump from the Phoenician abjad to the Greek alphabet was very minor. According to who? Linguists call it the invention of the alphabet and think it highly significant. Why should I listen to your claim? > As an aside, “alphabet” is quite clearly named for the first two letters in the Phoenician abjad. Though the Greeks did take the same names for their first two letters as well. How do you know that? If the Greeks used the same first two letters, that still doesn't mean they didn't use those letters, and not they etymological ancestors, as the basis for their word. Also, isn't alpha a vowel, and thus not in the abjad? Maybe the Greeks re-purposed alpha?
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        > According to who? Linguists call it the invention of the alphabet and think it highly significant. Why should I listen to your claim? I’m not really sure what your argument is here. Linguists have basically defined “alphabet” to mean the symbols the Greeks used (by deciding to require symbols for vowels in an “alphabet”). That in no way means they think the Greeks are the inventors or even the main contributors to the overall concept. It’s just a starting point. Besides people usually just refer to the Phoenician abjad as the Phoenician alphabet. The fact that they didn’t use vowels didn’t mean it was less developed or anything. It just means it was adapted to the Phoenician language. Were Phoenician around today they could very well still have no symbols for vowels. That said, I’ll let you choose for yourself how important you think this all is. > Isn't alpha a vowel, and thus not in the abjad? Maybe the Greeks re-purposed alpha? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet Look at the letter names in the section “Table of Letters”. Look familiar?
wolverine876 3y ago
Why do you say that? Every such history I've read says they did - though 'develop' is probably a better word than 'invent'.
- timeon 3y ago
  If we are talking about alphabet as Alpha, Beta, etc... but not sure What your point was here: > The alphabet was invented once, in Greece around 700 years ago. How could nobody else think of it? As there were other writing systems before.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    It was just an example of a technological innovation that is 'obvious' in hindsight - of course we'd assign a letter to each phonetic sound. I could have used many other technologies as the example.