NationStates Jolt Archive

Can a serpent use language?

Clearly they can. The best biology textbook ever written, the bible, states that one spoke to Eve. Now if you'll excuse me I'm rather busy picking the blasphemous extra legs off of some insects.

obviously you've never seen harry potter.

If it happened in a movie it muset be real.

Snakes can clearly communicate with each other on some level. Whether this is a "snake language" depends on whether you feel communication requires language of some kind. And what your definition of language is.

Thus:

"Insufficient data. Does not compute."

*coughsymbolismcough*
*coughitwasreallysatancough*

And instead of arguing whether or not a snake can talk, perhaps you should be arguing whether or not God can or did ask for light and have it granted.

If God can create the universe, I'm pretty sure a snake can talk somewhere in there.

Snakes can clearly communicate with each other on some level. Whether this is a "snake language" depends on whether you feel communication requires language of some kind. And what your definition of language is.
What is it that you get that ophidiologists are missing? Because communication between snakes pretty much consists of threats that are also used for anything else they are threatened by, and by biting each other. Snakes are far, far, far from social animals.

*coughsymbolismcough*
*coughitwasreallysatancough*

And instead of arguing whether or not a snake can talk, perhaps you should be arguing whether or not God can or did ask for light and have it granted.

If God can create the universe, I'm pretty sure a snake can talk somewhere in there.
See, I told you. Snakes can talk. The bible says so.

Can a serpent use language?
Well I manage OK. Except for the damn lisp....

*coughsymbolismcough*
*coughitwasreallysatancough*

'Can an abstract personification of the evil believed to be inherent in the cosmos (although not placed there by the Creator) use language' doesn't really have the same snappy quality, though, does it?

Well I manage OK. Except for the damn lisp....

Lithp?

*coughsymbolismcough*
*coughitwasreallysatancough*

And instead of arguing whether or not a snake can talk, perhaps you should be arguing whether or not God can or did ask for light and have it granted.

If God can create the universe, I'm pretty sure a snake can talk somewhere in there.
Random thought: When God said "let their be light"...who was He talking to? :confused:

Random thought: When God said "let their be light"...who was He talking to? :confused:
God has DID (dissociative identity disorder), didn't you know?

Random thought: When God said "let their be light"...who was He talking to? :confused:
One of the other Elohim. Remember, the word is plural. The bible says there are other gods. I think the god in charge of lighting is named Phil or something.

Lithp?
Well I don't lisp when I type. Dumbass

Random thought: When God said "let their be light"...who was He talking to? :confused:

It was (allegedly) a performative action, and thus was directed at no-one and nothing.

Random thought: When God said "let their be light"...who was He talking to? :confused:
The same person an atheist is talking to when he curses something?

Um...us? As in, "All I have to do is say and it happens...I'm cool, and you're not."

Well I don't lisp when I type. Dumbass

If I post a one word answer here consisting solely of the word 'Dumbath?' do we end up in a never ending cycle when you respond in the same manner? ;)




"things have learnt to type which have yet to learn to crawl"

Can serpants speak? No. However, in the Bible that was no ordinary serpant that spoke to Eve. It was Satan in serpant form.

Can serpants speak? No. However, in the Bible that was no ordinary serpant that spoke to Eve. It was Satan in serpant form.

Where does it say in the Bible that it was Satan in the form of a serpent?

If I post a one word answer here consisting solely of the word 'Dumbath?' do we end up in a never ending cycle when you respond in the same manner? ;)




"things have learnt to type which have yet to learn to crawl"
I use my tail, alright?

Jesus, freakin' anti-snake party over here. You damn rascist! Yeah, I'm angry. I'm a snake, I have a right to be freakin' angry. One of my brothers does something wrong, and the rest of us end up with chronic stomach rashes for all of freakin' eternity.

Cobra Commander could talk, and he turned into a snake. Does that count?

Its the logical conclusion. Satan is the great deciever, so it seems natural that he would try and disrupt Gods great plan.

What is it that you get that ophidiologists are missing? Because communication between snakes pretty much consists of threats that are also used for anything else they are threatened by, and by biting each other. Snakes are far, far, far from social animals.

A threat isn't a form of communication?

If a snake uses body language to threaten another snake or other animal for that matter, it is using a limited form of language (non-verbal) to communicate that threat. Like I said, it depends on how broadly you want to define language. Is it a language that can communicate a broad spectrum of things? No. But can it communicate something? Yes. And if we recognize non verbal body language as language, then we can theoretically accept the snake's limited form of communication as language.

As I said earlier:

"Insufficient data. Does not compute."

(Although to be honest, I just whipped up a rationalization for using BWO's "insufficient data" option. I don't really care one way or another.)

Jesus, freakin' anti-snake party over here. You damn rascist! Yeah, I'm angry. I'm a snake, I have a right to be freakin' angry. One of my brothers does something wrong, and the rest of us end up with chronic stomach rashes for all of freakin' eternity.

I'm sure you already know what St Patrick said as he was driving all the snakes out of Ireland, yes?

Random thought: When God said "let their be light"...who was He talking to? :confused:

Maybe he was talking to himself for a laugh, because there was nobody else around.
"Hey, God, why don't you create light?"
"That's a good idea, God. I wish I'd thought of it"
"But you did, you're just talking to yourself"
"Oh yeah, silly me"

Obviously they had to cut it down a bit for the Bible, for quotability.

'Can an abstract personification of the evil believed to be inherent in the cosmos (although not placed there by the Creator) use language' doesn't really have the same snappy quality, though, does it?
True. 'Course, you could just say "Can Satan talk?"
Or "Can a snake possessed by Satan talk?"

Its the logical conclusion. Satan is the great deciever, so it seems natural that he would try and disrupt Gods great plan.
Logic should never be applied to the bible.

I'm sure you already know what St Patrick said as he was driving all the snakes out of Ireland, yes?
No. Enlighten me, you freakin' snake hater you

p.s. write "freakin'" a lot. It's really fun!

Its the logical conclusion. Satan is the great deciever, so it seems natural that he would try and disrupt Gods great plan.

This doesn't fit in too well with his role in Job.

A threat isn't a form of communication?

If a snake uses body language to threaten another snake or other animal for that matter, it is using a limited form of language (non-verbal) to communicate that threat. Like I said, it depends on how broadly you want to define language. Is it a language that can communicate a broad spectrum of things? No. But can it communicate something? Yes. And if we recognize non verbal body language as language, then we can theoretically accept the snake's limited form of communication as language.
I do not believe that a universal code of animal behaviour can be considered language. Sure, language can be non-verbal. I consider ants' ability to communicate via pheromones to be a type of language. But it is specific for those who can interpret the pheromones. If it is a universal language, then it really isn't language.

Okay, Bodies Without Organs, now that you've started all this, could you whisper to me what point you're trying to make? I'm curious, as I'm certain you started this for a reason, but have been curiously silent on the topic since your original post.

No. Enlighten me, you freakin' snake hater you

p.s. write "freakin'" a lot. It's really fun!

"Are you alright in the back there?"

* mimes hands on the steering wheel motion *

Where does it say in the Bible that it was Satan in the form of a serpent?

I think it does in the story... Lemme check

Maybe he was talking to himself for a laugh, because there was nobody else around.
"Hey, God, why don't you create light?"
"That's a good idea, God. I wish I'd thought of it"
"But you did, you're just talking to yourself"
"Oh yeah, silly me"

Obviously they had to cut it down a bit for the Bible, for quotability.
Isolation has shown to destroy the psyche, so I think that it actually was DID, not just a form of entertainment.

Maybe he was talking to himself for a laugh, because there was nobody else around.
"Hey, God, why don't you create light?"
"That's a good idea, God. I wish I'd thought of it"
"But you did, you're just talking to yourself"
"Oh yeah, silly me"

Obviously they had to cut it down a bit for the Bible, for quotability.
:eek:
EPIPHANY!!
God has DID!
That explains the whole father-son-holy spirit thing!
Multiple personalities!
:D

Okay, Bodies Without Organs, now that you've started all this, could you whisper to me what point you're trying to make?

I'm just seeing what comes of it. It would appear that the only vocal believer in the tale of Genesis doesn't believe in it literally - despite the fact that nowhere is it stated that the serpent is the devil in a fiendish disguise, that appears to be what he believes. This somewhat weakens any case he might later make if he is to claim that the story of Genesis is actually, literally true.

One of the other Elohim. Remember, the word is plural. The bible says there are other gods. I think the god in charge of lighting is named Phil or something.
That's the prince of insufficient light.

Isolation has shown to destroy the psyche, so I think that it actually was DID, not just a form of entertainment.
Ack!
You stole my idea...
:(
Except you posted first, so you must have gone back in time to steal my idea and give it to yourself!
:p

:eek:
EPIPHANY!!
God has DID!
That explains the whole father-son-holy spirit thing!
Multiple personalities!
:D
Yes, I have stated that twice already. Also explains why the OT God is so different than the NT God.

Isolation has shown to destroy the psyche, so I think that it actually was DID, not just a form of entertainment.
I've got it! God is stuck, alone in nothingness. He (assuming it is a he) goes loopy and gets in an argument with himself. He hits Himself in the mouth and the resulting drop of blood formed the world. Realising He now had someone to talk to, he goes sane again and talks to people (Adam, Eve, Moses etc.). Eventually He realises that He is a much better conversationist thatn humans, so stops talking to us.

Ack!
You stole my idea...
:(
Except you posted first, so you must have gone back in time to steal my idea and give it to yourself!
:p
Actually, I posted it on the first page:

Random thought: When God said "let their be light"...who was He talking to?

God has DID (dissociative identity disorder), didn't you know?

I've got it! God is stuck, alone in nothingness. He (assuming it is a he) goes loopy and gets in an argument with himself. He hits Himself in the mouth and the resulting drop of blood formed the world. Realising He now had someone to talk to, he goes sane again and talks to people (Adam, Eve, Moses etc.). Eventually He realises that He is a much better conversationist thatn humans, so stops talking to us.
Gentlemen, I believe we have just found the next prophet!

I think it does in the story... Lemme check

Genesis 3:14
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

I think Satan's first appearance as Satan is in Job, where this occurs:

Job 1:7
And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Walking != going on the belly.

It is true that Satan is later claimed to be the father of all lies, but God is omniscient, and so it is implausible that Satan would mouth lies knowing that God knew the truth.

Therefore there is little direct evidence that the serpent = Satan.

My friends, I believe we have just found the next prophet!
Ha! Yet more proof that TWitches is the Second Coming. I am one of His desciples and I can prophesise/remenisce stuff.

Just curious, but what version of the Bible are you quoting, BWO?

Just curious, but what version of the Bible are you quoting, BWO?

King James Version. I guess my Protestant roots are showing.

King James Version.
*Retches*

Random thought: When God said "let their be light"...who was He talking to?

It was (allegedly) a performative action, and thus was directed at no-one and nothing.

Kind of like when I say "O.K. legs lets walk" but I don't really say it I just say it in my head and it just happens?

Random thought: If god wanted light why didn't he just invent the "clapper" then he could turn it on and off anytime he wanted. Seems he did things the hard way, I mean with the rotation of the earth dividing night and day and all. Although if he fell asleep and left the lights on for a couple thousand years he would have had one hell of a light bill when he woke up.

This doesn't fit in too well with his role in Job.

all that going to and fro on the earth and walking up and down on it was just part of his attempt to disrupt god's great plan, obviously.

Its the logical conclusion. Satan is the great deciever, so it seems natural that he would try and disrupt Gods great plan.

Yhen thats not much of an All-Powerful God now, I mean if a fallen angle reduced in power and wear snake drag could disrupt His plans. And if God is the creator of time...how can he go about making plans before He created time?

So basically, this has come down to a debate on the definition of language? Does language require speach?

So basically, this has come down to a debate on the definition of language? Does language require speach?

Obviously not: witness the Nicaraguan deaf children that developed their own sign language which isn't directly based upon a spoken form of language.

Obviously not: witness the Nicaraguan deaf children that developed their own sign language which isn't directly based upon a spoken form of language.
I appear to be the only one well versed in any type of zoology here, and I addressed what should define language on the inter- and intraspecies levels. Read my post on that.

I do not believe that a universal code of animal behaviour can be considered language. Sure, language can be non-verbal. I consider ants' ability to communicate via pheromones to be a type of language. But it is specific for those who can interpret the pheromones. If it is a universal language, then it really isn't language.

Like I said, it depends on how broadly you define language. If you don't believe a 'universal language' is a language, then you're simply adopting a stricter definition of language than I used.

:D Not to be a pain, but the sentence I bolded in your quote I found particularly amusing. You called this form of communication a 'universal language', but then said if a language is universal, it's not really a language. I know what you meant, but the logic of the sentence has me all twisted up. :)

:D Not to be a pain, but the sentence I bolded in your quote I found particularly amusing. You called this form of communication a 'universal language', but then said if a language is universal, it's not really a language. I know what you meant, but the logic of the sentence has me all twisted up. :)
Yes, poor phraseology, I admit. I should have said that if a vorm of commincation is universal, and not specific to certain ways of deciphering the message, then it really should be considered a language. It also must have variety, if there is only one message able to be transmitted through a certain medium, then it really isn't language.

I appear to be the only one well versed in any type of zoology here, and I addressed what should define language on the inter- and intraspecies levels. Read my post on that.

Well, I was responding to the question as to whether speech is required for a language: it is clear that there exist human languages which do not depend upon speech, that much is clear, and requires no supposition.

As far as inter-species language goes it is interesting to note that sign-language again crops up with reference to creatures such as Washoe that appeared to learn some basic form of its use, even to the extent of creating new compound sequences of signs to describe previously unencountered phenomena - such as the rubber crocodile that she used the signs 'toilet-devil' for IIRC. (can't find a confirmation of this one on the net, but she used the signs 'eye-hat' in connection with a mask and "white-tiger" for a zebra.)

*coughsymbolismcough*
*coughitwasreallysatancough*

And instead of arguing whether or not a snake can talk, perhaps you should be arguing whether or not God can or did ask for light and have it granted.

If God can create the universe, I'm pretty sure a snake can talk somewhere in there.

And why could no other diety create the universe? You Christians seem to have the idea that if evolution is wrong you are right. If a=/=b then it does not follow that a=c. Similarly, if evolution is wrong it does not mean the bible is right. Why could Ahura Mazda or Brahma not be the one responsible.

Well, I was responding to the question as to whether speech is required for a language: it is clear that there exist human languages which do not depend upon speech, that much is clear, and requires no supposition.
It is also clear because ants have their own chemical language using pheromones. Bees utilise pheromones as a language too, though even bees not quite as much as ants. I'd wager that termites do too, but I am more learned in myrmecology followed by apiology, I just know about termites in their relations to ants. Humans still use pheromones, though our pheromonal olfactory sensors have really diminished to nearly vestigial organs. But we still secret pheromones, certainly, which is the main purpose of pubic hair. But, again, humans barely use pheromones at all anymore--they are likely to dissapear completely if we cotninue on our current evolutionary trend.

It is also clear because ants have their own chemical language using pheromones. Bees utilise pheromones as a language too, though even bees not quite as much as ants. I'd wager that termites do too, but I am more learned in myrmecology followed by apiology, I just know about termites in their relations to ants.

I certainly accept that creatures such as these communicate with each other, and have a system of doing so, but whether we can define such a system as somehow equatable with a language is a different matter: thus I was working from what I believe to be a firmer ground: I'm sure we won't argue that sign languages such as ASL constitute actual languages, and it appears that it has been possible to teach the rudiments of these languages to non-humans. Thus it seems that there is nothing exclusively privileged about humans and the use of language. It may be that we are much more adept at it than other animals, but it does not seem that we are the only animals that can use language.

I certainly accept that creatures such as these communicate with each other, and have a system of doing so, but whether we can define such a system as somehow equatable with a language is a different matter
No, it's not. The chemical sequences of pheromones are used almost identically to words. Read Empire of the Ants by Bernard Werber for an anthropomorphised version. Sure, it is put into words, but it is explain by the 15-year entomologist just how those words were translated. It is indeed fiction, but finds its base on fact. Ants truly are abso-fecking-lutely incredible. Seeming as the foremost of all current scientific minds, Edward O. Wilson, is also an entomologist seems to prove my point. He's even written a book entites The Ants. So, yeah.

It may be that we are much more adept at it than other animals, but it does not seem that we are the only animals that can use language.
Certianly we seem to be the most adept, but bees also have the "bee dancing", as it is known. We even have been able to translate it. Yes, we can translate (to an extent) what the movements of bees mean into words! If there weren't so many chemical compounds used in pheromonal communication, we might be albe to understand it. But there are other complications as well, but I won't get into that here.

No, it's not. ...

The possibly limited scope of the system of communication is what prevents me from being certain that it should qualify as a language.

The serpent talking in the Bible is most likely a metaphor for humans following their lower animal instincts rather than God (or for that matter, any sort of higher spiritual power), and it was probably meant as a warning that if humans obey only their animal instincts (and not any sort of higher, selfless, or basically good spiritual stuff), then they are doomed to suffering on earth.

note: I myself am not a follower of any organized religion; I think I just have my own sort of bundle of spiritual beliefs that probably not many people share. So don't take my interpretation of the Bible too seriously.

The possibly limited scope of the system of communication is what prevents me from being certain that it should qualify as a language.
I understand, but the thing is that it actually isn't limited. It has been observed among entomologists that focus on ants that new pheromones occasionally emerge, form god-knows-where. Pheromones are not limited, there are nearly infinite potential combinations of chemicals that ants produce that other ants could percieve that can mean a nearly infinite amount of things. And bees compounded pheromone-dance method of communication--same. Though I don't know quite as much about bees as ants.

It's so fun how I get to start using my Linguistics degree..

Can serpents use language?
Simply, no.

Wait, just to be safe, I'll check my notes.
Nope, they agree, serpents can't use language.

In fact, baring Sign Language tests with primates, no animal other then humans can use language.


There is a BIG difference between language and communication. Language is a form of communication, but communication is not language.

Let me give you some quotes from my notes.

Communication:
“Any transmission of information between a transmitter and a receiver, by means of a common code.” (Léon 1992)


What is language?
"Language is...
- dually patterned
- displaced
- creative/productive/open-ended
- stimulus-free
- (allows for) prevarication
- arbitrary
- traditionally transmitted
- interchangeable"

Anyway, because i'm getting too lazy to type more, that is what language is defined as. The examples listed (most notablythe forager bees), are not language, but communication.
If you really want to debate that, I can do it easily.

If you really want to debate that, I can do it easily.
W00t! Linguist to argue with! Did you read about the pheromones? Pheromones in ants demonstrate all the characteristics of language that you listed.

It's so fun how I get to start using my Linguistics degree..

Can serpents use language?
Simply, no.

Wait, just to be safe, I'll check my notes.
Nope, they agree, serpents can't use language.

Did you also cover Wittgenstein's "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him" ?

In fact, baring Sign Language tests with primates, no animal other then humans can use language.

No other animal does use language, whether they could or not is possibly a different matter.

No other animal does use language, whether they could or not is possibly a different matter.
If an animal had practical means to language, it would develop ways to use it quickly. Evolution would cover that, since language is so useful for any and all social animals!

If an animal had practical means to language, it would develop ways to use it quickly. Evolution would cover that, since language is so useful for any and all social animals!

On that basis, seeing as how you have conceded in your previous post that non-human primates are able to use language, then they should have developed it already...

EDIT: sorry there, I thought I was responding to D.L. with that post, but make of it what you will anyway.

W00t! Linguist to argue with! Did you read about the pheromones? Pheromones in ants demonstrate all the characteristics of language that you listed.

Um.. no. In fact, pheromones only meet up with a few. Here's the ones it doesn't meet with:

- creative/productive/open-ended
- stimulus-free
- (allows for) prevarication
- traditionally transmitted

To start, about pheromones, they can not be used to say 'sanything at all'. Especially with the limited mental ability of ants (compared to say, humans or Dolphins), instead they can only be used to 'discuss' things like an attack, food, or a warning. Which brings me to the next part.
The pheromones have to be triggured by something, they can not be turned on and off at will of the individual ant.
The ants can not lie.
The ants are borne with these pheromones, language is learned, or "traditionally transmitted".

And no BWO, I personally didn;t read it. But I believe it was an option for my Human Communication class.

If an animal had practical means to language, it would develop ways to use it quickly. Evolution would cover that, since language is so useful for any and all social animals!


Communication is so useful to social animals.
Language is a tool.