>languages do not become more simple over time, they retain

>science and mathematics

there isn't really much evolutionary favor to improving our language

>>8541766

>Yeah, but writing is a human invention.

So are the languages.
Your argument is invalid.
Also orthography is part of grammar.

>Archaic languages had the capacity for that

Which not one of them used.
Argument invalid again.

>>8541766
Since this is a science board, could you please back up your claims with some sort of review paper for those of us who aren't experts?

File: out_of_africa.gif (31KB, 440x365px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 440x365px

>>8541941
not the OP but here's a graph showing that phonemic diversity is greatest in the places humans have lived the longest and degrades with dispersal distance out of Africa

>>8541954
Top fucking kek. Of course some fucking acdemicucks are going to define anything that's not African to be less diverse.

>>8541970
t. neet

>>8541970
>t. Doesn't know what a phoneme is

>>8541954
The line is rather far away from the graph.
However, it's true that Africa, with his various climates and relatively isolated tribes, is a treasure of human biodiversity. It doesn't make them superior, though.

>>8541970
back to /pol, brainlet

one might argue that a simpler, more streamlined language carries benefits for communication and societal development

>>8541808
>implying "science" refers exclusively to physics and chemistry
chill senpai language science can be pretty cool

>>8541766
>I don't know anything about linguistics but I'm going to make large sweeping statements that go against the consensus without giving any sort of argument or proof
also
>implying language can 'degrade'
>implying complexity is necessarily a good thing

>>8541766

So you dispute the observation that languages might simplify in one area but increase in complexity in others because you have observed that English has lost complexity in some areas but increased in complexity in others?

People like to think that they are smarter than other people because they speak a less complex language.

It is undeniable that the complexities of languages are degenerating into something simple. For instance - no language has gained more grammatical cases with time.

File: daily-magyar-hungarian-cases.jpg (143KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 960x640px

>>8542167
>It is undeniable that the complexities of languages are degenerating into something simple.
I'm fairly sure it's an indo-european thing.

>no language has gained more grammatical cases with time.
Hungarian and Finnish would like a word with you though.

>>8541766
>anyone who has studied a bit of linguistics
whatever you've studied, it isn't linguistics.
what do you think is so complex about latin, that it has a few morphological declensions and conjugations?

>>8541766
English isn't changing. It hasn't changed since it existed.

Are you confusing dialect and vocabulary with grammar.

>>8541766
>It is obvious to anyone who studied a bit of history and linguistics that modern languages are but pale imitations of their archaic versions. English in particular is degrading exceptionally rapidly.
Oh shut the fuck up.

>>8541766
> It is obvious to anyone who studied a bit of history and linguistics that modern languages are but pale imitations of their archaic versions. English in particular is degrading exceptionally rapidly.
So you only speak English. Ok.

File: 1481546142811.jpg (183KB, 656x425px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 656x425px

>>8542627

>English isn't changing. It hasn't changed since it existed.

Try reading Beowulf and tell me it's just a dialectal variation. Old English had fucking case declension, for Christ's sake

>>8542167
I just want some new auxiliary verbs. Can science give me these?

>>8541766
very simple video for people who have no understanding of linguistics which gives a basic idea of why OP's claim is false..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIWiR9anx04