[zR0x]

Yep. Babies can add and subtract when they’re days old.

Can they write Shakespeare?

If human language is fundamental, how is it missing from the start? Are we learning language or muscle mechanics? Why can a word or phrase mean one thing in this country and nonsense in another? If language processing has a universal basis, why all the confusing variety and ignorant ideas? 1+1=2 everywhere because we can observe the physical process everywhere, because light, eyes, etc

Who cares?

Like I said back in the day we didn’t know that. We had to theorize these abstract schemes to establish something.

But like religion, doesn’t mean linguistics is building on something that means what we want it to.

Given how hard it is to learn language while arithmetic seems innate, how do we know emphasizing it’s value is leading us where we want?

It’s easier for me to see that long dead scientifically illiterate humans we inherited those ideas from were just stupid.

[mcswell]

"If language processing has a universal basis, why all the confusing variety..." Because the universal processing mechanism provides lots of options for individual languages--the option for different words, obviously, but the option to use or not to use morphology (and lots of varieties of morphology), and different syntax rules, etc. etc.

To use an analogy, a computer chip provides a single instruction set at the machine language level--yet you can run a huge variety of computer languages on it: FORTRAN, LISP, Python, Prolog and so forth.