this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35714 readers
1773 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Related to the question about whether facial expressions are universal.

Are there words/verbal expressions/sounds that exist in every language and have the same meaning in every language?

(I'd also count words that are very similar.)

One example, that I believe is universal is M followed by a vowel followed by another M and optionally another vowel, meaning "Mother".

At least in any language I know, this seems to hold true (mom, Mama, mamma, Mami, ...).

Any other examples?

Edit: To clarify, I am not looking for very popular words that have been imported into most languages (like how almost everyone worldwide knows what Ketchup is), but about words that are "native" to humans. So if you pick someone from an uncontacted native tribe and tell them nothing, they would be able to understand/use that word/sound/verbal expression.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I would put some doubt on that story, since most children that were born deaf still survive.

Also, in many orphanages throughout the centuries, children often didn't get much more care than described in that experiment.

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're thinking critically, which is good. But your bias is showing.

need language and social interaction to survive

Being deaf does not preclude one from gaining language or interacting socially.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Don't worry, I can hold a basic conversation in British Sign Language.

Being deaf does preclude you from hearing spoken language, which was what the mentioned experiment was about. It was specifically about a "natural human language" to emerge. That is why I brought up that point.

The better argument was the second point, which you glossed over:

Also, in many orphanages throughout the centuries, children often didn’t get much more care than described in that experiment.

If you read stories of orphanages <1900, you will see that this experiment wasn't really unique, but instead the de-facto standard for orphanages. Actually being fed and bathed might have been an improvement to many of these orphanages.

But you don't even have to go that far. Check out for example the "works" of Johanna Haarer. She wrote the main book teaching women in Nazi Germany how to raise their children. And the main points there were:

  • Give the children just what they physically need
  • Do not socially interact with the child at all
  • If the child screams, lock it into it's room
  • Emotionally deprive the child as much as possible

A whole generation was raised with these principles.

And while that created a ton of traumatized people, there was still not an incredibly high death rate among these children.

Also, check out this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

There are quite a few examples (especially in the "Raised in confinement" section) of children being raised without any human (or even animal) contact at all. Still they didn't just die from lacking social interaction. They were severely impaired, many of them for their whole life. But they lived unless they died of some actual medical condition.

[–] mystik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If that story is true, there was no communication with these children. But children born deaf still learn to communicate via sign language or other motions. The language becomes non-spoken, but is visual and very rich and expressive.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

I am able to hold a basic conversation in British Sign Language, don't worry, I do understand the concept.

But if you know your history, you also know that widespread sign languages are a comparatively recent thing. For most of human existence, not being able to hear/speak was equated with a mental disability. You can still see this in many languages like e.g. in the English word "dumb", which means "not being able to speak" and "not being intelligent".

Quite a few deaf children over the millennia grew up in severely understaffed orphanages, because their parents didn't want to raise a deaf child that would never return their investment. And still many of these children did grow up, in spite of never learning any meaningful language.

Sadly enough, we have a similar case in the extended family. They have a child that was born deaf, but he was only diagnosed as deaf at the age of 4 (it still baffles me how it's possible for parents to not notice that their <4 year old can't hear them). His vision is also severely impaired. His parents are conspiracy theorists, so they didn't believe the doctors and they didn't accept any medical/psychological/pedagogic help for this kid.

He's now in his mid 20s, and he can still not communicate in any meaningful way, because he never learned to. He is now in some form of daycare, and the staff there told the parents that he is too old to learn any meaningful form of communication, because he didn't when his brain was young enough to learn the concept of languages (signed or spoken).

But, I digress: My original mentioning of deaf people was to disprove that it "not hearing spoken language kills children". But the second point that I brought up (children growing up in orphanages where they are massively neglected) is something that nobody picked up, even though that's the stronger point.