I'm now highly tempted to make a language consisting solely of "me", "give", "eat", "orange", and "you". Maybe Nim was trying to tell us something all along (other than the fact that he wanted oranges, of course).
Obviously what Nim said should translate to "All human beings and chimpanzees are born free and equal in dignity and rights.". Or maybe "Never gonna give you up."
Plastic explosives - Orange eat orange Nuke - Give eat orange Statue - Give you Economics - Give orange eat orange Bed - Orange orange Container - Orange give Brain - Give orange Mental Illness - Give you give orange Schizophrenia - Orange you give you give orange Cannibal - You eat you
Some species of parrots ABSOLUTELY use human language correctly. They may learn limited numbers of roots, but they're then capable of using those few roots as metaphors. I've seen a video of one going "there's a dangerous bath surprise, I need to get in" to express "there's a weird noise coming from the bathroom [ed.: it was the hairdryer], I want to check on it". And if we're being honest, they're the easiest family of species to test, since they're the only ones who can reliably imitate human phonology, so, while that ability has a high chance of being evolutionarily connected to the intellectual ability for speech, there could easily be other species with the same intellectual ability that just don't have the same ease in translating to human methods of communication.
@@amerashi1111 pretty sure they do, though what mastery they have of it would need further testing (ie., I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between a compound noun AB and one BA, or in Italian that they'd be able to parse the slight difference between adj n and n adj)
@@bacicinvatteneaca I don't think I've ever seen any bird use understand syntax or Grammer. Some of them are super smart and amazing, but I wouldn't say they're perfect at using human language, they're still missing some major components.
Not quite the only ones, though my counter-example is still another bird. Crows can imitate human voice well and are quite intelligent too. Now, how able they are to communicate with it, that's another question.
There’s an African grey parrot i know of called ‘apollo’. And in one video he started chewing on the base of a window. And whilst he did that he said ‘apollo, stop’. Expressing that he understand what he’s doing is wrong. smart bugger.
I'm too tired to write a lenghty lengthy post detailing one wonderful afternoon in my 20's in Riverdale, in the Bronx, but walking along W246th street one day, I ran into an acquaintance I'd met who was studying language down at Columbia in the city. He was walking along on a lovely fall (I think, coulda been spring) day with another friend I'd yet to meet. That friend was Nim. I lit up with joy and wonder, and he asked me if I'd like to take a walk and hang out with him and Nim (who I'd never heard of). Um, yeah, I think I would. And did. It was a magical day. Nim cradled himself in my arms and looped his arm over my shoulder, and we 'talked' and looked into each other's eyes, and I swung him from a fencepost that he'd hold onto with his feet, as though he was a simian jump rope. He loved it. As did I. What a great, serendipitous day it was.
Dogs and birds can learn words, and there's anecdotal evidence that cats understand more than we give them credit for. There's also circumstantial evidence for some birds having a concept of grammar and syntax. The question is what constitutes language and therefore language acquisition - and frankly, there are more interesting and more important questions in the world than essentialism and human exceptionalism.
It's unbelievable the different way dogs and cats use those little soundbite buttons. Dogs think for a few seconds, then they run to the buttons and press the sequence fast, then they look at the human for a response. Cats stop in their tracks, stop interacting with humans completely as they reflect, then they press one button, think for ten seconds more, press another, and so on, but they sometimes at this slow and mechanical rate end up expressing abstraction that goes further than that of dogs
This is the channel you expect to have ~1mil views per video, yet it can't even get to 10k. When it eventually will, I'll be there to say I WAS THERE AND I BELIEVED.
In some ways, humans are possibly hardwired to speak human languages. Given that we know that genetics and epigenetics can greatly influence the behavior and instincts of animals, it's possible. Of course, that something is possible doesn't mean that is probable. What I wonder is specifically about the different frequencies at which sets of grammatical features evolve. Should we reasonably expect those to be uniform (the different sets have basically the same level of expressiveness, so there's probably no selective pressure of ones in favour of the others), and if they aren't, what determines which are more likely to evolve than others (regardless of past linguistical development). If we get another sapient species, we would reasonably expect their language to have a way to refer to individuals (instantiations of concepts) and to actions. But do we really expect that the features of their languages are gonna match one on one those of humans? And even the frequencies at which they develop their languages? If their languages evolve under different principles, then there has to be something that conditions that evolution.
Koko's an interesting case! She certainly understood a ton of signs (and a lot of English words, too, although she couldn't reproduce the sounds). She also understood a lot of abstract concepts, including death and mortality. However, she didn't display any syntax (her signs didn't follow consistent rules, just like Nim). I do think it's important to remember that just because an animal doesn't have grammar doesn't mean it's incapable of expressing how it's truly feeling. Nim was a very affectionate ape, and when he asked for tickles, he genuinely wanted to play with people he loved. Koko was a deeply emotional creature, and when she expressed how she felt about her mother's death, she genuinely felt mourning and wanted to express it. Neither of them could acquire grammar, but that doesn't mean they couldn't communicate. If anything, it speaks to how remarkable and widespread communication is across species.
@@babelingua thank you for your thorough answer! I get that the point is whether we should call it a language when it has no syntax. I agree with you on the *language* vs *human language* thing. I want to point out that Koko did not just ask for oranges. She communicated on a past event and was (maybe) aware that the listeners (supposedly) didn't know about that event. It was true communication, although arguably not with what we call a true language.
@@v4nadium Yes! I agree. Koko's communication is certainly more advanced than Nim's. Koko demonstrates displacement in that she refers to things that are not necessarily present or known about by the other person. Some other animals are capable of that, too (including bees). It definitely shows a desire to communicate, which shouldn't be underplayed.
@@babelingua Training dogs to hit a button that says "food" and then they get food, and eventually introducing dozens of buttons that lead to different commands. There is a recorded instance of a dog that had its "ocean" button run out of batteries, so it instead pressed the buttons "water" and "outside" to mean "ocean," which seems pretty smart, but who knows.
Yeah basically what Core said, they've done it with cats too. They introduce different buttons that mean different words, stuff like pet, food etc. But it seems to have more merit than Koko or Nim, especially because the buttons make more sense for the animal to want to communicate. Instead of "world peace" or something that an ape, I seriously doubt, has the concept of care for. But who knows
I mean isn't grammar kind of one of the defining features of language? If you call things language without having grammar then it would be language to just point at a bunch of things, no?
Yeah, grammar(defined as a set of rules to modify words to change there meaning) is crucial to language. Without it words are static signs that have one defined meaning. However, you could argue that circumstance is a grammatical component if one can reliable infer meaning when presented with specific signs & situations. Source: I'm not a linguist. I'm not a credible source.
I'm now highly tempted to make a language consisting solely of "me", "give", "eat", "orange", and "you". Maybe Nim was trying to tell us something all along (other than the fact that he wanted oranges, of course).
Oh THIS sounds great
Obviously what Nim said should translate to "All human beings and chimpanzees are born free and equal in dignity and rights.". Or maybe "Never gonna give you up."
Plastic explosives - Orange eat orange
Nuke - Give eat orange
Statue - Give you
Economics - Give orange eat orange
Bed - Orange orange
Container - Orange give
Brain - Give orange
Mental Illness - Give you give orange
Schizophrenia - Orange you give you give orange
Cannibal - You eat you
I entirely agree with this.
Like, orange give you eat me orange give me eat orange you.
call it the nim language
At least he used his language abilities to get oranges, grapes, and weed instead of using it to deny multiple genocides like the original Chomsky
Holy shit lmaaao
Some species of parrots ABSOLUTELY use human language correctly. They may learn limited numbers of roots, but they're then capable of using those few roots as metaphors. I've seen a video of one going "there's a dangerous bath surprise, I need to get in" to express "there's a weird noise coming from the bathroom [ed.: it was the hairdryer], I want to check on it".
And if we're being honest, they're the easiest family of species to test, since they're the only ones who can reliably imitate human phonology, so, while that ability has a high chance of being evolutionarily connected to the intellectual ability for speech, there could easily be other species with the same intellectual ability that just don't have the same ease in translating to human methods of communication.
But do they have syntax
@@amerashi1111 pretty sure they do, though what mastery they have of it would need further testing (ie., I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between a compound noun AB and one BA, or in Italian that they'd be able to parse the slight difference between adj n and n adj)
@@bacicinvatteneaca I don't think I've ever seen any bird use understand syntax or Grammer. Some of them are super smart and amazing, but I wouldn't say they're perfect at using human language, they're still missing some major components.
Not quite the only ones, though my counter-example is still another bird. Crows can imitate human voice well and are quite intelligent too. Now, how able they are to communicate with it, that's another question.
There’s an African grey parrot i know of called ‘apollo’. And in one video he started chewing on the base of a window.
And whilst he did that he said ‘apollo, stop’. Expressing that he understand what he’s doing is wrong.
smart bugger.
I live for the casual nft slander
The musical number might be the hardest I’ve laughed in weeks. Obsessed with your vids dude, excellent work.
Making this my ringtone yesterday
that musical number at the end :,) it moved me to tears
Thank you so much for relisting these videos, they are a national treasure.
I'm too tired to write a lenghty lengthy post detailing one wonderful afternoon in my 20's in Riverdale, in the Bronx, but walking along W246th street one day, I ran into an acquaintance I'd met who was studying language down at Columbia in the city. He was walking along on a lovely fall (I think, coulda been spring) day with another friend I'd yet to meet. That friend was Nim. I lit up with joy and wonder, and he asked me if I'd like to take a walk and hang out with him and Nim (who I'd never heard of). Um, yeah, I think I would. And did. It was a magical day. Nim cradled himself in my arms and looped his arm over my shoulder, and we 'talked' and looked into each other's eyes, and I swung him from a fencepost that he'd hold onto with his feet, as though he was a simian jump rope. He loved it. As did I. What a great, serendipitous day it was.
your channel is fantastic I can't believe you don't have a wider audience
Dogs and birds can learn words, and there's anecdotal evidence that cats understand more than we give them credit for. There's also circumstantial evidence for some birds having a concept of grammar and syntax. The question is what constitutes language and therefore language acquisition - and frankly, there are more interesting and more important questions in the world than essentialism and human exceptionalism.
It's unbelievable the different way dogs and cats use those little soundbite buttons. Dogs think for a few seconds, then they run to the buttons and press the sequence fast, then they look at the human for a response. Cats stop in their tracks, stop interacting with humans completely as they reflect, then they press one button, think for ten seconds more, press another, and so on, but they sometimes at this slow and mechanical rate end up expressing abstraction that goes further than that of dogs
is there a name for research focused on understanding animal communication as it is, as opposed to just comparing it to humans?
@@smoothjazz2143 ethology
There is also circumstantial evidence that I had sex with ur mom
How bout that
Anti human sentiments 🤢
This is the channel you expect to have ~1mil views per video, yet it can't even get to 10k. When it eventually will, I'll be there to say I WAS THERE AND I BELIEVED.
In some ways, humans are possibly hardwired to speak human languages. Given that we know that genetics and epigenetics can greatly influence the behavior and instincts of animals, it's possible.
Of course, that something is possible doesn't mean that is probable. What I wonder is specifically about the different frequencies at which sets of grammatical features evolve.
Should we reasonably expect those to be uniform (the different sets have basically the same level of expressiveness, so there's probably no selective pressure of ones in favour of the others), and if they aren't, what determines which are more likely to evolve than others (regardless of past linguistical development).
If we get another sapient species, we would reasonably expect their language to have a way to refer to individuals (instantiations of concepts) and to actions. But do we really expect that the features of their languages are gonna match one on one those of humans? And even the frequencies at which they develop their languages? If their languages evolve under different principles, then there has to be something that conditions that evolution.
A beautiful tribute
yes but mr chimpsky was thinking that's all i'm giving you till i get a good wage.
This channel is very polished, hope to see you at the top! ❤
Seriously you need a bigger audience. NOW. This is FANTASTIC. YOU GIVE ME EAT ME ORANGE ME GIVE YOU EAT ME ORANGE YOU GIVE ORANGE ME GIVE YOU ME.
Give me eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me eat orange give me *you!*
5:48 I knew it was Nguh
G I V E
M E
Y O U
🎶 *E A A A A A A T*
*M E*
*Y O U* 🎶
TFW conlangers roast crypto-bros
As a BilliSpeaks fan, yeah, talk about animal communication
Animal communication!! Animal language give me give you give
This is a masterpiece
Why is the background music Elvis crespo's hit song suavemente
Parrots parrots can talk
R.I.P
What about Koko who said her mother was killed and that made her sad?
Koko's an interesting case! She certainly understood a ton of signs (and a lot of English words, too, although she couldn't reproduce the sounds). She also understood a lot of abstract concepts, including death and mortality. However, she didn't display any syntax (her signs didn't follow consistent rules, just like Nim).
I do think it's important to remember that just because an animal doesn't have grammar doesn't mean it's incapable of expressing how it's truly feeling. Nim was a very affectionate ape, and when he asked for tickles, he genuinely wanted to play with people he loved. Koko was a deeply emotional creature, and when she expressed how she felt about her mother's death, she genuinely felt mourning and wanted to express it. Neither of them could acquire grammar, but that doesn't mean they couldn't communicate. If anything, it speaks to how remarkable and widespread communication is across species.
@@babelingua thank you for your thorough answer! I get that the point is whether we should call it a language when it has no syntax. I agree with you on the *language* vs *human language* thing.
I want to point out that Koko did not just ask for oranges. She communicated on a past event and was (maybe) aware that the listeners (supposedly) didn't know about that event. It was true communication, although arguably not with what we call a true language.
@@v4nadium Yes! I agree. Koko's communication is certainly more advanced than Nim's. Koko demonstrates displacement in that she refers to things that are not necessarily present or known about by the other person. Some other animals are capable of that, too (including bees). It definitely shows a desire to communicate, which shouldn't be underplayed.
Your comment doesn't tell us how much of that was actually her utterances, and how much was prompting and/or interpreting by humans.
Hmm... Apeisch-ASL pidgin? 😂
Reverse Nim's longest sentence
You me give orange eat me give orange eat me orange eat give me orange give
me eat orange
gIVe me video animals speak, speak animals video me give you
why are you horror creature beast man
I'm curious to know what you think of the TikTok animal button trend, it seems legit but I'm not sure
It's a tiktok trend now? Animal button stuff has been around for a while
@@coreblaster6809 idk 🤷🏻♀️ I just saw it on TikTok and I haven't really seen it talked about on RUclips or anything. Just thought it was interesting
I have no idea what you're talking about
@@babelingua Training dogs to hit a button that says "food" and then they get food, and eventually introducing dozens of buttons that lead to different commands. There is a recorded instance of a dog that had its "ocean" button run out of batteries, so it instead pressed the buttons "water" and "outside" to mean "ocean," which seems pretty smart, but who knows.
Yeah basically what Core said, they've done it with cats too. They introduce different buttons that mean different words, stuff like pet, food etc. But it seems to have more merit than Koko or Nim, especially because the buttons make more sense for the animal to want to communicate. Instead of "world peace" or something that an ape, I seriously doubt, has the concept of care for. But who knows
Wait why is there a picture of Epstein lmfao
as a gamer i consider gorilla tag as more of "monke"
To be fair concerning Chomsky (man, not ape), the "Language" he is discussing Has less to do with utterances or communicative means....
4:40 is that Jeffrey Epstein
@@woombus4086 the Republicans and the Air Force is connected to Epstein
It sure is! Also RIP Chomsky in the same boat now too. But Pinker definitely sucks infinitely more. Chomsky has some good takes at least.
ANIMAL COMMUNICATION PLEASE
what if Nim’s chimp IQ was relatively low?
The orange sign lookin kinda.. 🤨
*How To Get White Text, Step One, Add These To Your Texts * Before And After To Make Your Text White*
But is grammar needed for language? Could animals have grammarless language?
I mean isn't grammar kind of one of the defining features of language?
If you call things language without having grammar then it would be language to just point at a bunch of things, no?
Yeah, grammar(defined as a set of rules to modify words to change there meaning) is crucial to language. Without it words are static signs that have one defined meaning. However, you could argue that circumstance is a grammatical component if one can reliable infer meaning when presented with specific signs & situations.
Source: I'm not a linguist. I'm not a credible source.
Wait why is there a picture of Epstein lmfao