Tuesday, August 14, 2012

This is why we can't have nice things: The Politics of Historic Preservation, and Colonial Gardens

I happened to catch Mandy Connell's program on WHAS radio this morning. And usually, we're on the same side of an issue, Mandy and I. I'm quite the fan. But we part company on the issue of historic preservation. Today, she was talking about Metro Council's override of Mayor Fischer's veto of the new landmarks ordinance. She thinks it's a good thing. I think it's a bad bet that will allow short-term interests to affect the longterm trajectory of the city's development. I foresee the return of the bad old days of the 1950s, when large swathes of the city's historical properties were rendered into parking lots.

 It seems that the preservation commission will now answer to Metro Council; the Council will have the power to deny a Landmarks designation to historic properties approved by the Preservation people. Furthermore, of the 200 signatures required to bring a property under historic consideration, half of them will now be required to come from within one mile of the site under question.

At first glance, this seems sensible- after all, the Preservationists are a group of unelected officials who can make life difficult for developers and businesspeople. Mandy hammered home the fact that they literally have no one over them, no one to gainsay their decisions, and that this new change would provide the public a bit more power in determining what gets designated a historic landmark. And who could be upset that the neighbors' decisions carry a little more weight than people living farther afield, when discussing the fate of a historic building? Surely, living close to a site, they are more qualified to determine its relevance to their neighborhood.

And I'd agree with all of that, if I didn't know much about the controversy over Colonial Gardens. The site has been unoccupied for most of my life. But it began its story as an early 20th century Beer Garden, a major tourist destination and entertainment venue. It housed the area's first zoo, and has played host to myriad musicians and celebrities in its heyday. It's a large, ramshackle building in a serious state of decline, which will be expensive to rehabilitate and return to public use. But its unique status in local history, its unusual architecture, and its prime location (across from Iroquois Park) suggest it could be a successful location again, with the right owners.

The problem is, the good people of the South End hate this building. Its nearby neighbors regard it as an eyesore. I remember when it was still occupied, when I was a girl. It housed a bar for rough clientele, like many other bars in the area. Even then, it wasn't uncommon to hear people wishing the place would burn to the ground. It's always been dirty and poorly maintained. It's synonymous with peeling paint, drooping rooflines, and detached guttering. It seems to attract trash from all sides, collecting along the base of the building. It looks bad, it looks dangerous and scary.

Colonial Gardens is close to some nicer early 20th century homes in Kenwood Hills, and some tidy mid-century moderns along New Cut Road. It's a stone's throw from beautiful Victorians over on Southern Parkway. But the majority of homes in the area are inexpensive, single story ranch houses, cheap apartment dwellings, and low income rental houses. The entirety of New Cut Road and Taylor Boulevard has a sort of depressed, down-on-its-luck atmosphere of the lower working class and the hopelessly poor. These people are unfamiliar with the history of the area they live in. They lack the imagination to envisage a new use for this old building. The historic sites of the South End have withered away over three decades, being pulled down and replaced with a plethora of gas stations, pawn shops, and discount stores. They're also pretty well desperate for good shops and services here, much like everywhere else in southwest Louisville. Over the last few decades, the area has seen its business base eroded- the department stores have all folded up and moved away. The local restaurant scene has been replaced with chains of fast-food retailers. The only places to buy new books are the grocery stores. The neighbors would like to see Colonial Gardens' teetering facade replaced with something useful. Perhaps a nice drugstore; something clean and well lit, with plenty of parking.

The neighbors can't really imagine a Colonial Gardens that houses a fine restaurant, nightclub, movie theatre, or specialty shop. They know those sorts of places just don't open up around here. They know that the spot is too large and will require too much renovation to make it viable as a liquor store, pawn shop, flea market, tobacco retailer, or one of those Dollar Generals that seem to spring up with alarming regularity in these parts. And it must seem that bulldozing it and putting up something new is a better option than watching it continue to disintegrate.

But this is exactly why historic preservation is so important to a community. It is the job of preservationists to look not just at what a community is like at this moment in time, but at where it has been before, and from that, to try to envisage where it could go in the future. We are in an economic depression, and Southwest Louisville has been hit hard. But that does not mean we will continue in this downward spiral. Why shouldn't the area become more profitable and wealthy in years to come? Perhaps, even, enough to sustain more successful ventures, and to afford the restoration of buildings like Colonial Gardens.

The site was granted protection in 2008. With the proposed change to preservation law here in Louisville, this protection is in danger of being overturned. But if that happens, if Colonial Gardens is razed, we will have lost something precious, and we will never get it back. One of the few remaining early structures in the area will go, to be replaced with something as common and unremarkable as another dollar store or flea market. Perhaps if we're really lucky, it'll become the site for yet another cheap Mexican restaurant. We will have surrendered the site's uniqueness, history and potential, to the forces of the mundane, to a lack of imagination and a pervasive sense of hopelessness and failure. Because that's what another concrete and steel box surrounded by asphalt really is: an acceptance that we can't do any better. We'll always be too poor to have things like historic preservation and rejuvenated business districts. Things will never improve, and all we can hope for is a bit more parking while we pick up our shampoo and detergents, or refill a prescription.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Corpses at the Titanic Wreck Site

Just got up and thought I'd have a cup of tea and look at the news, and I saw this. In the immortal words of twelve year olds everywhere, "duh." There are corpses on the site where the Titanic sank- or at least bits of corpses. You can't tell me this is news to the public?

That bit about the shoes- I've seen the "cropped" picture before, back in 85, I guess; on one of the documentaries. I distinctly recall the voiceover stating that, owing to the way the shoes are arranged, they used to have feet in them.

If they cropped out the coat, that was just placating delicate sensibilities: 1500 people died, of course there are bodies. It's a massive graveyard. And we're supposed to be surprised there are forensic people bits in the dirt?

After a hundred years in dry ground, there sometimes isn't much left to show where a body was interred, but there are almost always some clues to go on, some hints. Coffin nails. Changes in color and texture to the soil, if nothing else.This is the same thing; the leather and fabrics are marking the presence of bodies; it's even possible that there would be forensic traces in the soil, evidence of microbial activity in decomposition. When did this become news?

Update: So, there's actual news, it's just not showing up over on this side of the globe. I found this article, which brings up interesting ideas- there are lots of shoes in the debris field, but it's theoretically possible that there could be anoxic areas of the ship, with greater organic preservation. So possibly, not just shoes and coats, but bone. There's even a claim of a finger bone (in a wedding ring) in the debris field itself. So that's news. Grim news, but actual news, that might be useful in the legal wrangling about salvage vs site preservation.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Thinky Thoughts...

Amid all the class warfare and "tax the rich!" nonsense, no one seems to have stated the obvious. I figured this was because it WAS obvious. Now I am not so sure...

So, a little thought for those of you convinced the millionaires can make up the overruns on the public treasury: The "Rich" don't pay income tax. Because, technically speaking, they don't earn income. See, money comes from two sources. A man works and earns it from his employer. Or money itself works; it moves around in the economy, accruing interest and paying dividends. "The Rich" do not typically work for a living, they move money around. All the income tax reform in the world won't squeeze a dime out of them.

Which leads me to the obvious point... "The Rich" know how to move money around. They have a degree of economic mobility the rest of us lack. That economic mobility translates to physical mobility and moreover, to personal autonomy and socioeconomic power. I'll put it simply- you can't squeeze "The Rich" because "The Rich" have a power the middle and lower classes do not; if things get bad enough, they can leave.

They've been leaving for decades, and we as a nation are poorer for it, because they go, and they take their money with them. It stops funding innovation, research, and employment in this country, and starts "working" elsewhere. Meanwhile, the government starts looking around at who is left to take money from. The answer is always the middle class. See, the poor don't pay taxes; they don't make enough money to do so in our "progressive" income tax system. The middle class, however, are in a bind... they make "extra" money (by lower class and governmental standards) and they are tied to jobs, mortgages, and debts that mean they can't go anywhere. Often their "wealth" is tied up in retirement plans they dare not touch, and homes they cannot easily sell.

The truth of the matter is that "taxing the rich" is a myth, a dream. What they're really talking about is "taxing the trapped."

Monday, February 21, 2011

Ranty post: Quit assuming I'm stupid because I'm female.

So my laptop needs a new lcd screen. There is currently a spreading crack from top to bottom that makes viewing a website something akin to a Jackson Pollock painting. So I decided to go get some estimates on screen replacement. I figured I'd get a few, then do some looking at customer reviews of the businesses, then make my decision. I'm not even sure yet that I will fix this thing; I may sell off its component parts and buy a new one; the parts go for quite a bit on ebay, and in the three months since I bought it, the price for my laptop has gone down 200.00. Dell's warranty apparently covers everything BUT my screen; they won't tell me how much to fix it til I pay to ship it to them. I'm not going to ship it off so they can hold it hostage to whatever price they choose to quote me.

The three "small business" computer repair places around here surprised me; only one of them will give a written estimate for free. That place quoted me 205 for the job. The other two quoted "ranges" of prices- one said 184-240, but wanted 10.00 to put it in writing. The other said 250, but refused to write it down at all and said "it might change once we get it open." Neither of these folks inspired confidence in me.

But the worst of the worst was Best Buy. Their very sincere-sounding employee told me it'd be "at least 500" and then said, "but honestly, if it was me, I'd just toss it and buy a new one." The laptop is three months old and cost 729.00. Toss it? He's either the stupidest man who ever lived, or he's just plain evil. My guess is, he looked at a middle-aged housewife-type and the dollar signs just clouded his vision; he thought he could sell me a new computer instead of quoting me a price on fixing this one. Asshole. I swear, I loathe people like that; I will likely never set foot in Best Buy again, after the experience. He wanted to take advantage of me, only he didn't know I'm NOT stupid and I already priced the job elsewhere. (Actually? I priced the screen online myself- 150.00; I just was gathering job costs in order to decide if it's worth me fixing it at all, or fixing it myself. The hassle of finding a schematic online, and borrowing appropriate tools, might make it worth paying someone else to do it.)

Anyway, I just wanted to put this out there: Best Buy's "Geek Squad" service is a scam, designed to prey on the ignorant. Don't shop there, don't use their services. Put them out of business.

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Post - Partisan Academia?

This is truly the article I thought I would never see. The NY Times examines anti-conservative bias among psychologists. I can think of a number of professors I've had over the years who could stand to read this piece; portions of the anthropological community bank hard to the left. Many is the time I've sat in a classroom biting my tongue so hard it might bleed, trying not to answer back to commentary that makes me, and my values, the butt of a joke. The soft sciences all seem to lean left, with a strong emphasis on "social justice" and cultural relativity.

I'll buy cultural relativity writ small; if we're to study societies then we should study them without prejudice. But to be honest, I'm not sure what part "social justice" should play in anthropology;if an ethnographer is documenting a people, is it right to also advocate for them? Is there a conflict of interest? If you're an archaeologist, to whom do you owe your loyalties, the bones in the ground, the people living in the area, or the people (sometimes states away) laying claim to them as ancestors? (In reality, I think the loyalties may too often go to whomever paid the grant money. But the right answer ought to be "to the truth," regardless of what sacred cows get gored.)What about the folks doing research into human genetics- is it okay to investigate the differences between genders and ethnicities? What if we bump into things nobody wants to hear? What about investigations into human origins and the first migrations out of Africa- is there any danger of political bias there as well? (Non-africans derive some small percentage of their genome from Neanderthals; imagine how something like that could be twisted for racist use.)

Whenever we examine paradigms, we look at the historical context of the argument. Unless we're talking about "Now." The now never gets contextualized by current trends, everyone assumes that we're all past the colonialist, racist, misogynist, anti-whatever crap of the past. And we definitely are not; the present era has its own shibboleths and bugaboos and sacred cows beyond which we dare not tread. Humanity still has prejudices and preconceptions, just different ones. Myself, I'm looking forward to a Post- political correctness period in American culture. That is, whenever we get one.

Friday, February 04, 2011

Egypt

If, like me, you have been watching the news voraciously, you might be wondering, "Why the hell aren't they talking about the antiquities? How bad is the damage to museums, and archaeological sites? What about all the foreigners who were there doing research?" And you might be quite angry that none of this information is showing up on CNN or Foxnews. Fortunately, there's plenty of accounts coming in online- unfortunately, they're contradictory and full of rumor.

This looks like a good place to keep up on the more solid accounts:
http://egyptopaedia.com/2011/

The information about Saqqara is confusing; Some sources say the tomb of Maia (Tuthankamun's wetnurse) has been completely destroyed; Hawass is saying nothing happened there. I'm hoping he's right.

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Book Review by Melissa Nussbaum

“Don't Sleep, There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle”
by Daniel L. Everett
Vintage Departures, 2009 first edition
New York


In 1977, Daniel Everett made his first trip to the Amazon, beginning a course of study that would dominate his life for the next two and a half decades. He did not go as an anthropologist or ethnographer, but as a Christian Missionary and a classically trained Chomskyan linguist. Among the Piraha people, he lost his faith in God and Noam Chomsky. He went home an atheist, and proceeded to publish papers that enraged mainstream linguistics and still generate controversy a decade later. Everett's, “Don't Sleep, There are Snakes,” is both autobiography and ethnography, at once a study of a people and a study of the author himself. It tells a unique story: how the Tribe converted the Missionary.

Everett currently serves as Dean of Arts and Sciences at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts. He is the primary authority on the Piraha language of Brazil. According to his CV, he speaks Portuguese, Piraha, and his native English fluently. He describes his Spanish as “fair,” and his French, Italian, and Koine Greek as “reading only.” He has also studied literally dozens of native American languages and identified the Amazonian language isolate OroWin in 1994. His anthropological interests grew out of his linguistic research, and much of his ethnography is derived from his linguistic research in the field. His book's focus is on the Piraha people and their culture and society; he reaches his conclusions based on the relationships he formed while learning their language over the course of more than twenty years of living and working alongside them.

Everett divides up his book in two sections- the first is devoted to cultural questions, and uses personal stories and vignettes to treat diverse subject matters. He attempts to shed light on a tribe that has, historically, been difficult to access, utilizing a language that has been inscrutable to the outside world. His book contains sections on Piraha culture, community, family and kinship, as well an entire chapter devoted to his methods and the mistakes he made in sussing out those details.

Everett references the lessons he learned from the Piraha, “ both scientific and personal,” but acknowledges that, “someone else would no doubt have learned other lessons.” Thus he owns his interpretations, but acknowledges that there could be alternative understandings of his data. By the end of his tale, Everett has a new outlook on the Piraha. His conclusions rock his faith in his religion, as well as his conceptions of how language and culture interact. In the course of learning Piraha, and getting close to the Piraha people themselves, Everett comes to see that much of what he thinks he “knows” is wrong.

The Piraha tribe live in the Amazonian interior, and is comprised of about 300 individuals living in small villages; Everett has lived with and studied each of these groups in the course of his research. In his book, the voices of the tribe members come through clearly, he quotes conversations with many people recorded across the totality of his career. These persons are clearly drawn characters with distinct personalities and viewpoints. They are not mere research subjects, but friends, allies, enemies, and strangers. Occasionally, they are just the neighbors, and he talks of how it was to live and work with them. Through these relationships, he comes to better understand how the Piraha see other native tribes, as well as Brazilian society at large, and Americans like Everett himself.

He comes to understand their social mores and cultural values, and seeks in vain for hallmarks of anthropological study such as myths, folk tales, or religious practices. Repeatedly he looks for expected cultural commonalities, and finds that they are not there. Once he accepts that they aren't, he is forced to ask himself why- and his true work begins. Everett must uncover why it is that the Piraha don't talk about their ancestors, or make up stories to entertain themselves; he must learn why they have resisted the missionaries and resisted “civilized” ideas such as counting, numbers, money, and powerful languages that would give them more agency in the larger economy. His answer is profound and, to some degree, intellectually threatening. It strikes at the heart of modern linguistic theory and our current ideas about how and why language use evolved.

The first half of the book is more autobiography than ethnography. Everett examines his preconceptions through the lens of a two-decade history, and marvels at his youthful naivete'. He tells the story of how the natives saw “spirits”in their environment. He could not, and he tried to reason why that was, without success. He says, “As a scientist, objectivity is one of my most deeply held values. If we could just try harder, I once thought, surely we could each see the world as others see it and learn to respect one anothers' views more readily. But as I learned from the Piraha, our expectations, our culture, and our experiences can render even perceptions of the environment nearly incommensurable cross-culturally.”

This is the crux of Everett's argument; that culture affects every aspect of our life, even the way we interpret sensory information. He tells the story of a caiman he failed to spot in the jungle. He says, “My inability to see beyond my own nose is a source of constant merriment among the Pirahas...This had been another lesson about cognition and culture, though I didn't quite realize it at that time. We all perceive the world the way our cultures have taught us. If our culture-constrained perceptions hinder us, however, then for the particular environment in which they do so, our cultures obscure our perceptions of the world and put us at a disadvantage.” To Everett, the inability to perceive nature spirits is no different than the inability to make out the red-eyes of a caiman lurking in the tree canopy; his cultural perceptions have him trained to spot cars and pedestrians, because they are the dangers encountered in the urban environment. The Piraha spot prehistoric reptiles and nature spirits that warn them out of the river; these are their native dangers.

The second half of the book focuses on the linguistics of Piraha, but buried within it are cultural examinations of something he terms, “ the experience principal,” as well as ruminations on religion and spirituality. The overarching theme of the book itself is not only what Daniel Everett learned about the Piraha people, but what he learned from them. Everett comes away from his time with the tribe with completely new worldview. He realizes that the Piraha are the happiest people he has ever known, and that they are happy, not in spite of, but because of the social institutions they lack- a hierarchical government, personal property, or a belief in Gods or an afterlife. He takes away new ideas about the origins and arrangement of language, and the relationship between language and culture.

The tribe itself has had sporadic contact with the outside world for centuries, but all attempts to “civilize” the Piraha have failed. While other tribes have gone extinct, or blended into the larger Brazilian culture, the Piraha have rejected the trappings of mainstream Brazilian culture, and have remained almost exclusively monolingual. Their kinship system covers the self, and the generations preceding and following the self. They use absolute directions (North, South, East, and West) given in relation to the river; they have no words for right or left. They lack words for yesterday or tomorrow. They have imported their pronouns from another native language, but this seems to be the limit of their borrowing. Despite regular trade contact with Portuguese speakers, they have not incorporated words from that language into their own.

Their language is incredibly complex and difficult for outsiders to master; it has one of the smallest inventories of phonemes known anywhere in the world. Piraha makes use of tones, and yet it has an enormous repertoire of verb endings. (Everett claims 65000 possible conjugations for each verb.) Piraha has evidential marking, so that every assertion contains within it an expression of how that information was obtained. For example, in Piraha, one does not simply say, “there is a monkey in the woods,” rather, one indicates that they have heard or seen said monkey. Evidential marking is not unknown in the world's languages, but it is uncommon. It also plays into Everett's larger conclusions about the nature of Piraha culture.

The language also has a high degree of allophonic variation. For example, in English, there are two acceptable pronunciations of the word, “the.” We use a long e pronunciation before words beginning with a vowel sound, but a short e before words beginning with a consonant. (“thee apple, thuh table.”) Piraha has hundreds of these allophones, enabling the language to be used in strange ways. It is whistled, hummed, or sang, and these manifestations of the language carry cultural information- children learn the language from their mothers, who interact with them almost exclusively by singing. In order to lessen their impact on game, men whistle their communications while hunting. The language can actually be understood in humming; the words themselves are comprehensible through a closed-mouth, in a fashion unknown elsewhere among the world's languages. The language has no set color words. Items are likened to blood if they are red, to dirty blood if they are black, or transparent if they are white. Perhaps most intriguing (and controversial) are Everett's claims about numerical concepts. He states categorically that the language has no counting words, no numbers, and no quantifiers such as most, many, every, or all. Unusually, the language has no perfect tenses or recursive structures. Recursion has long been accepted as one of, if not the only, universal of human language- all languages are assumed to contain the ability to embed clauses within one another, in the manner of Russian nesting dolls. For example, the sentence “This is the cat that ate the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.” contains the ideas that the cat ate the rat, the rat ate the malt, the malt lay in the house, and Jack built the house. According to Everett, there is no way to say that sentence in Piraha. Rather, the idea would exist as separate sentences- “Jack built a house. The house of Jack contained a malt. A rat ate the malt. A cat ate the rat.” This is one of the most controversial allegations of Everett's research, but it is by no means the only one.

A great deal of Everett's work goes into explaining the concept of experiential liminality, what he calls the experience principal. The Piraha place much importance on how knowledge is obtained; evidential marking indicates how one knows a given fact: it was observed visually, it was heard about from someone else, or it was deduced intellectually. (Lest we wonder if they are perfectly empirical, Everett is quick to point out that the evidential markers are often used to play jokes or to tell lies.) Non-recursive sentence structures may help limit ambiguity in statements.

“Xibippio” is a word that baffled him for years; ultimately he realized the word means something is just now coming into or out of experience- it is becoming seen or known, it is flickering on the edge of awareness, or it has just disappeared from view. Everett sees a uniting thread between evidential marking, experiential liminality, and the experience principal. And he believes this cultural aspect explains why none of the missionaries have been able to convert the tribe.

In simple terms, the Piraha only believe in what they've seen with their own eyes, or have heard in first hand accounts from other eyewitnesses. Everett calls them “the ultimate empiricists.” He recounts how he had to tell them that no one alive right now has ever seen Jesus. When hearing this, the Piraha deduced that there was no reason to believe He existed. They themselves have no stories of what has gone before, no myths, no storytelling fiction or even nonfiction about their forefathers. Once a person has died, and all those who knew him personally have died, then that person's experiences are gone. They have no concept of history. They profess no belief in any sort of a creator or an afterlife. Everett believes the function of this “immediacy of experience” principle is to keep information transfer slow and verifiable. Culturally, they empirical evidence, and Everett believes that their language has become structured in such a way as to enforce that societal value.

Everett chronicles the slow shift in his own perspectives and in his methods of gathering information. He goes from the etic, to the emic- from socially-outside observer to socially involved participant. Early in the book, on page 70 he explains , “I wanted to come up with a theory of Piraha identity based on my own observations. At this time I had only minimal training in Anthropology, so I was largely groping in the dark.”

He apologizes for this inexperience in a painful recounting of errors he made early in his research, and describes how he surrounded himself with Anthropology and Sociology textbooks as he tried to work out methods for gathering information. He quotes extensively from journals kept furtively, scribbled in whenever he had shut himself up in his little house. He could not take notes adequately while traipsing about the jungle, but neither could he rely on nighttime solitude to write-up the days' events. The Piraha do not sleep through the night. Rather than a single stretch of sleep, they take short naps throughout the day or night, evincing a social belief that sleep deprivation makes them “hard.” Hard is good; hard is wary, alert, and alive. Everett is not “hard,” and his weakness for sleep, food, and shelter is a source of amusement to his neighbors, along with his strange predilections for writing in notebooks, praying to God, and recording people's voices to tape. If anything, the Piraha humor him, and watch out for him and his family in the manner of indulgent parents with some not-terribly-bright children.

Everett describes his interactions with the Piraha, and how they change through time. Initially, he is a missionary, they are wary and suspicious; as his research interests grow, a sort of trade develops between them. In the beginning, the Piraha come into and out of his house at all hours, but only engage in his tests if and when the whim hits them. When it does, there is usually exchange involved- the Piraha will humor him for access to trade items, or in exchange for favors. Ultimately, the relationship becomes that of friends and equals, with participants learning from each other on both sides.

Everett tries desperately to improve their lives, but over and over he misunderstands them and makes the wrong assumptions. He tells of how he hired someone to teach them to make dugout canoes, since they steal them. He bought tools, and with their teacher they made a canoe. Later, they came to him wanting another canoe, and he told them to make one. “Piraha do not make canoes,” he was told; the tools were left untouched, abandoned to the elements. Later, he comes to understand that the Piraha make disposable tools; they weave poor baskets that do not last, and dispose of them when the material they were crafted for is gone. They make knives that can be easily and quickly replaced, they steal canoes if they need them, or strip birch trees to make single use birchbark canoes. Even when they know how to do something the outside world does routinely, they are very slow to incorporate it into their own culture. The Piraha are extremely culturally conservative. This is perhaps why, despite centuries of contact with cultures who use counting and money, they do not use these themselves.

Everett does not go into great detail about the methods he used to gather data, except when explaining the ways in which he tested Piraha number sense. He describes how he would use fish in groups of one, two, or more, to elicit words he initially took for “one” or “two” or “many.” Then he describes using two larger fish, and one smaller fish, to elicit the same words but for different groupings. Then he explains how he identified this “one” word with the suffix that was attached to the word for “man” to create the word for “boy.” Thus the word did not mean, “one”, it meant “a small amount.” Subsequently he proved that the other words meant “a larger amount” and “the bulk” (a very large amount, all or almost all.) They lacked numbers in any concrete sense; all number is relative quantity based on context.

One goal of the book is to show how living among the Piraha changed his life and attitudes, but Everett also intends the book as a challenge to a primary tenet of linguistic theory. While his work has been embraced by Neo-Whorfians as evidence of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in action, he himself does not go that far. (The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the idea, first promulgated by Edward Sapir, that language affects thought. Essentially, that the type of language a person speaks affects the sorts of ideas, and thoughts, that they can think.) Writ large, it suggests that societies differ based in part of the differences in the structure of their languages. Neo-Whorfians, embracing the work of Sapir and his successor, Benjamin Lee Whorf, suggest that language affects thought in rather smaller ways- such that a language that lacks distinct color words will impact its speakers so that they are slower to distinguish shades of color than speakers of a language with many color terms. Rather than take on Sapir-Whorf, Everett challenges the very notion of the Language Instinct (the idea that all humans are hardwired to speak languages organized along similar, biologically-specified lines), by attributing the oddities of Piraha language to particular cultural values they possess. Primarily, he sees their principle of “immediacy of experience” as a potential reason for their language's evidential markers and and non-recursive structures. That is, Everett doesn't say that language effects thought, but rather that cultural values shape language use. In the same way, he accounts for their lack of number sense by examining the communal nature of their property, and their innate social conservatism. Anything unique to the outside world is, to the Piraha, largely uninteresting. It is not part of their daily experience, and Everett claims that, for the Piraha, experience trumps all else. Experience is reality.

Everett's is clearly a confessional tale, in that it acknowledges his shortcomings and incorporates his personal experience of events. But it also draws upon conventions of the impressionist tale, retelling stories in a dramatic first-person perspective. It reads well and quickly, and the subject matter lingers with the reader, raising as many questions as it answers, encouraging the audience to think more deeply about what it means to be human, and the ways in which humans use language.

Book Review- "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue" by John McWhorter

John McWhorter's “Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue”
Gotham Books, 2008
A Review by Melissa J. Nussbaum

The Linguist John McWhorter subtitles his book, “The Untold History of English,” and he delivers on that promise. There is little in the way of the usual tale, such as we might know from PBS's “The Story of English” or the Baugh and Cable textbooks used in introductory linguistic classes around the globe. But there's a great deal about the structure of language, the ways in which language families differ, and how historical situations of language contact have left their imprint on the language today.
This tasty little tome clocks in at just over 200 pages, but it navigates everything from orphan Germanic loanwords to the mysterious, meaningless “do” that permeates every question we ask today. Along the way, McWhorter gets in his licks at linguists who ignore everything outside their own area of interest, prescriptivists who tell us we speak wrongly, and academics pushing discredited theories about the structure of languages dictating types of thought. In some ways, the book is the author's rant against academic inertia. But it's a very polite rant, rendered in a breezy, conversational fashion.
McWhorter studies creoles, languages that grow out of a contact situation, passed on by adult learners in an abbreviated, altered form. It's common to find that an English word traces back to Latin, French, Greek, or some other language, but McWhorter makes the point that this situation is not unusual. Languages in contact exchange words. As he puts it, “Languages like sex,” and he points out that pretty much every language borrows from its neighbors. For McWhorter, the story isn't just about the words, it's about the syntax. Changes to syntax are a lot less common than word-borrowing. For the grammar to change, something has to happen to a language. McWhorter has intriguing theories on what some of those happenings were.
He suggests that English grammar is “in a word, weird.” English not only outsourced a third of its vocabulary, but it shaved off most of its cases and tenses, chucked its gender, and rearranged its word order. He offers a mouthful of words in this example sentence: “Did she say to my daughter that my father has come alone and is feeling better?” It's awkward, but it's very recognizable English.
And it's all wrong. English is a Germanic descendant of Proto-Indo-European, and a good, card-carrying Germanic language is ordered and constructed in a particular way. “Said she to my daughter that my father alone come is and himself better feels?” McWhorter examines those syntactic changes and ties them into historical context, suggesting that English is, “Miscegenated, abbreviated,” and “interesting.”
McWhorter tells a convincing story, the tale of a language battered by contact, crushed under the heel of Viking invaders and Norman French conquerors, and seasoned with Celtic quirks. But he's not content just to examine the weirdness of English. He goes back further, investigating the mother language. He says, “There was a history of bastardy in English long before it was even a twinkle in Proto-Germanic's eye.” Simply speaking, Germanic languages pronounce Indo-European sounds in a way that suggests everyone speaking the language had a speech impediment. Linguists call this, “Grimm's Law,” and it describes sound changes from Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Germanic. “P,” “T,” and “K” turned into “F,” “Th,” and “H.” Pater becomes Vader. Vader becomes Father.
But who messed up Proto-Germanic? Not surprisingly, McWhorter has a suspect for this crime. He hypothesizes a contact situation between Proto-Germanic and some Semitic language in the dark recesses of prehistory. In evidence, he offers a strange structural anomaly in the Germanic languages: strong verbs. These are verbs that indicate a change in tense with a change in internal structure. Come, Came. See, Saw. Drink, Drank. This kind of tense-building is wrong for Proto-Indo-European, but it is de rigueur for Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew.
McWhorter's book reads quickly and easily, but it's jam-packed with information and ideas that are almost unheard of outside the realms of academia. For the layman, it is an excellent introduction to the study of the English language. For the academic, it is an enjoyable survey of some of the latest thinking in the field. Either way, its well worth its price in hardcover.