A new genomic study suggests that the human capacity for language originated much earlier than previously thought, at least 135,000 years ago. By analyzing genomic data from diverse human populations, researchers identified specific gene variations linked to language abilities that are shared across these groups. This shared genetic foundation indicates a common ancestor who possessed these language-related genes, pushing back the estimated timeline for language emergence significantly. The study challenges existing theories and offers a deeper understanding of the evolutionary history of human communication.
This post explores a shift in thinking about programming languages from individual entities to sets or families of languages. Instead of focusing on a single language's specific features, the author advocates for considering the shared characteristics and relationships between languages within a broader group. This approach involves recognizing core concepts and abstractions that transcend individual syntax, allowing for easier transfer of knowledge and the development of tools that can operate across multiple languages within a set. The author uses examples like the ML language family and the Lisp dialects to illustrate how shared underlying principles can unify seemingly disparate languages, leading to a more powerful and adaptable approach to programming.
The Hacker News comments discuss the concept of "language sets" introduced in the linked gist. Several commenters express skepticism about the practical value and novelty of the idea, questioning whether it genuinely offers advantages over existing programming paradigms like macros, polymorphism, or code generation. Some find the examples unconvincing and overly complex, suggesting simpler solutions could achieve the same results. Others point out potential performance implications and the added cognitive load of managing language sets. However, a few commenters express interest, seeing potential applications in areas like DSL design and metaprogramming, though they also acknowledge the need for further development and clearer examples to demonstrate its usefulness. Overall, the reception is mixed, with many unconvinced but a few intrigued by the possibilities.
The "n" in "restaurateur" vanished due to a simplification of the French language over time. Originally spelled "restauranteur," the word derived from the French verb "restaurer" (to restore). The noun form, referring to someone who restores, was formed by adding "-ateur." The intrusive "n," present in older spellings, was likely influenced by the word "restaurant," but etymologically incorrect and eventually dropped, leaving the modern spelling "restaurateur."
HN commenters largely agree that the "n" pronunciation in "restaurateur" is disappearing, attributing it to simplification and the influence of American English. Some suggest it's a natural language evolution, pointing out other words with silent or changed pronunciations over time. A few users argue the "n" should be pronounced, citing etymology and personal preference. One commenter notes the pronunciation might signal class or pretension. Several simply express surprise or newfound awareness of the shift. There's a brief tangential discussion on spelling pronunciations in general and the role of dictionaries in documenting vs. prescribing usage.
Summary of Comments ( 31 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43384826
Hacker News users discussed the study linking genomic changes to language development 135,000 years ago with some skepticism. Several commenters questioned the methodology and conclusions, pointing out the difficulty in definitively connecting genetics to complex behaviors like language. The reliance on correlating genomic changes in modern humans with archaic human genomes was seen as a potential weakness. Some users highlighted the lack of fossil evidence directly supporting language use at that time. Others debated alternative theories of language evolution, including the potential role of FOXP2 variants beyond those mentioned in the study. The overall sentiment was one of cautious interest, with many acknowledging the limitations of current research while appreciating the attempt to explore the origins of language. A few also expressed concern about the potential for misinterpreting or overhyping such preliminary findings.
The Hacker News post titled "Genomic study: our capacity for language emerged at least 135k years ago" generated several comments discussing the research and its implications.
Several commenters questioned the methodology and conclusions of the study. One commenter pointed out the difficulty in establishing a causal link between specific genes and complex behaviors like language. They argued that the study identifies genes that might be relevant but doesn't definitively prove they are necessary or sufficient for language. Another echoed this skepticism, highlighting the complexity of language evolution and the likelihood that multiple genetic and environmental factors played a role. They suggested that pinpointing a single timeframe for language emergence is overly simplistic. A further commenter raised concerns about the limitations of relying solely on genomic data, advocating for a more interdisciplinary approach incorporating archaeological and anthropological evidence.
Another thread of discussion focused on the definition of "language" itself. One commenter asked what specific criteria the researchers used to define language and whether these criteria adequately captured the nuances of human communication. This led to a discussion about the potential for proto-language or simpler forms of communication existing even earlier than the proposed 135,000 years ago. Another commenter explored the possibility of convergent evolution, suggesting that language may have emerged independently in different hominin lineages.
Some commenters also discussed the implications of the study for understanding human evolution and the origins of modern human behavior. One commenter speculated on the role of language in the development of complex social structures and technological advancements. Another pondered the relationship between language and consciousness, wondering if the emergence of language was a catalyst for the development of abstract thought.
Finally, several comments provided additional context and resources related to the study, including links to related research and discussions on the topic of language evolution. One commenter shared a link to a previous discussion on Hacker News about a different study on language origins, allowing readers to compare and contrast the findings and methodologies of different research groups.