Can`t see the wood for the trees

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri May 25, 2007 9:46 pm

Read some Chomsky to see what I mean.

It might be an idea if you read some, since you clearly haven't read much more than his name. Your ridiculous statement about Albanian kids speaking Greek shows that.

Just to put you on the right track the acquisition of language is genetically determined but which language is acquired depends on environment.

bonnietyler · Post by **bonnietyler** » Sat May 26, 2007 4:25 pm

Just tell him to remember that "call" doesn't take "to.

Thanks for all your replies...

Lorikeet who posted a reply very early on in this topic (above quote) made it very simple certainly as a good explanation point.

Those that kindly said that its a mother tongue problem and
"In English we don't require that to be used whenever there is a reference to a person, whether it's a pronoun or noun" have also given me food for thought..

However what i also should have mentioned is why then would we say for example..

" I have to speak to john" after trying various alternatives with "call" bar quotes or rare phrases i see that call doesn't take "to. !

Any other tips on this type of thing is welcome with open arms - bye for now !

mesmark · Post by **mesmark** » Wed May 30, 2007 2:50 am

Stephen Jones wrote:
Just to put you on the right track the acquisition of language is genetically determined
I would think the only way you could prove that statement would be to find someone with a genetic alteration that makes them incapable of acquiring language. Could you elaborate?

Cranky Reinke · Post by **Cranky Reinke** » Wed May 30, 2007 4:37 am

What if Bill, Jose, and my son Mike are playing basketball in our driveway? It's time to eat supper. I call to Mike, "Suppertime!"

As I sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand, I call to God.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

I would think the only way you could prove that statement would be to find someone with a genetic alteration that makes them incapable of acquiring language. Could you elaborate?

The basic evidence for language acquisition being genetically determined, in the same way learning to walk is, is that it has all the characteristics of genetically determined behaviour.

It occurs at set stages following a clear developmental order, there appears to be a cut off time, the level of skill acquired is basically the same in all members of the species, and it appears to proceed independent of widely differing types of input.

Compare that with learning a second language, or learning to play chess or play the piano.

Chomsky wrote over twenty years ago that he was amazed that linguists opposed the idea of language acquisition was genetic because they didn't consider the science hard enough, yet geneticists and evolutionary biologists, both followers of a 'harder' science, accepted it without reservation.

Finding somebody with a genetic defect that prevents him learning to speak would be as difficult as finding one that prevented him learning to walk. The hypothesis presumes a single gene responsible for either ability, and that is not the way genes work.

If you want a layman's introduction look at "The Language Instinct" or "The Way the Mind Works" by Stephen Pinker.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:41 am

It's time to eat supper. I call to Mike, "Suppertime!"

As I sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand, I call to God.

Different meaning of 'call' in your first example. It has the meaning of "say or shout", both of which take 'to'.

And again a seperate meaning for 'call' in the next example (I would use 'call on God" by the way. If He had given you His mobile number you could just "call God".

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed May 30, 2007 12:01 pm

There are some critics of Chomsky, who don't know even his name correctly. Once I heard someone criticising 'Tomsky'.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed May 30, 2007 12:04 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:

And again a seperate meaning for 'call' in the next example (I would use 'call on God" by the way. If He had given you His mobile number you could just "call God".
2 Samuel 22:4 (New International Version)

I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise,
and I am saved from my enemies.

Psalm 4:3 (New International Version)

Know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself;
the LORD will hear when I call to him.

For me, "call on" can imply obligation, whereas "call to" does not.

Or here, it means "proclaim":

Genesis 4:26 (New International Version)

Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.

Cranky Reinke · Post by **Cranky Reinke** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:32 pm

call = call = call

Shout, use a cell phone, whatever. "Call" is still "call". "Call to" is very understandable.

Cranky Reinke · Post by **Cranky Reinke** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:40 pm

And "seperate" is correctly spelled "separate".

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed May 30, 2007 5:56 pm

Cranky Reinke wrote:call = call = call

Shout, use a cell phone, whatever. "Call" is still "call". "Call to" is very understandable.

"Me Tarzan, you Jane" is also understandable, but would you teach it?

mesmark · Post by **mesmark** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:45 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:Finding somebody with a genetic defect that prevents him learning to speak would be as difficult as finding one that prevented him learning to walk.

So if I got this right, you are stating the theory, which isn't falsifiable, is fact?

Cranky Reinke · Post by **Cranky Reinke** » Wed May 30, 2007 11:48 pm

Not only is "call to" understandable, it also is grammatically correct as I used it. "Me Tarzan, you Jane" is not grammatically correct as Tarzan used it.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu May 31, 2007 11:08 am

<Not only is "call to" understandable, it also is grammatically correct as I used it. >

Can you point to a few real-life examples?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Thu May 31, 2007 12:41 pm

IIRC there's a scene near the end of Terminator 2 where the "bad" Terminator inflicts severe pain on Sarah Connor, while telling her to "Call to John (Connor, her son)".