Slashdot Mirror
Computers Emulate Neanderthal Speech
Clarence writes "After some 30,000 years of silence, the Neanderthal race is once again speaking thanks to some advanced computer simulation. A Florida Atlantic University professor is using software vocal tract reconstructions to emulate the speech of our long-dead distant relatives. 'He says the ancient human's speech lacked the "quantal vowel" sounds that underlie modern speech. Quantal vowels provide cues that help speakers with different size vocal tracts understand one another, says Robert McCarthy, who was talking at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Columbus, Ohio, on April 11. In the 1970s, linguist Phil Lieberman, of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, inferred the dimensions of the larynx of a Neanderthal based on its skull. His team concluded that Neanderthal speech did not have the subtlety of modern human speech.'"
I'm imagining, then, that it sounded something like "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
[ducks]
I can see the fnords!
Computers are already cryptic enough when they speak normal English. I'd rather not have to hear one say "Me get segfault. Me dump core."
If he can take the vocal tract of a fresh cadaver, and using only that, comes up with software that says "Nice weather we're having, eh wot?" then I'll be impressed... Otherwise, how can we verify his claims?
Let me guess.. the simulator immediately tried to sell people car insurance.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Anyone else find it funny that the Neanderthal sounds oddly familiar.
How did they sound as our ancestors clubbed them on the head?
It's remarkable that they were able to get that close to the actual sound. I feel like I've gone back in time hearing that reproduction.
Who would have guessed.
I wonder if early humans, such as Neanderthals, communicated primarily by speech or by a combination of speech and hand signals. The fact that human infants as young as 7 months (at the extreme) are capable of communication by signs, even before they are able to talk, suggests to me that language ability in humans might have evolved prior to the development of a modern vocal tract.
I would not be surprised, if we could go back in time, to see early humans communicating primarily by signs, with vocal communication only as a backup. After all, you don't want to make noise when hunting game anyway.
Throw in a Tuvan throat singer, an Aussie with a digidiroo, and Hal, and we'll have oen halluv an ensemble going.
(Oh, throw in Shatner with some Esperanto, too... and some Kirk-being-stunned-on-heavy break dance...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Unless I'm not finding a link in the article, it seems like they only managed to simulate the letter "e". Not exactly full speech emulation (yet) and sounds a bit like Stephen Hawking. Still, kinda cool. One can only assume the next effort will include the full poetic expression: Eegah
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
Why all the hard work? We see & hear it on David Letterman show every night (great moments in Presidential history, last segment)
I think that Caucasians have lots of Neanderthal genes. We are so big and bulky compared to other regions...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
It's well-established in our cartoons and such that neanderthals often use the objective "me" rather than nominative "I", i.e. "me doug". Looks like the verb of being wasn't invented yet, either...
Do you have ESP?
In other news: Monkey boy utters something
Le Ugh? Or El Ugh?!?
That's assuming that "Ugh" is masculine. Maybe, the Neanderthals had different genders for their nouns.
Honestly. Neanderthal man lacked our subtlty?
Color me shocked.
What were they expecting? Cavemen who recited poetry?
So after 30,000 years we've managed to invent the technology to make sounds like we did 30,000 years ago. Wow... We've come so far
But much like Jock speech, it was still sufficient to get Neanderthal man laid.
like the sub-jurassic park adventure movie dressed up as science "walking with dinosaurs"... pure speculation that is pretty much unable to be substantiated in any way.
seriously, if we could tell everything about an animal, how it sounded, how it acted etc from a fossil, it would make the interpretation of new living species discovery easier. just take a dead body back to the lab, it will tell you EVERYTHING you need to know.
No please or sweety.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
our inarticulate Neanderthal overlords
A more limited vocal range does not necessarily imply more limited communication abilities. If it did, dolphins might be justified in deciding that we bipeds are clearly incapable of intelligent communication.
fencepost
just a little off
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
- He was truly huge. Not knowing how big Robert the Pirate was I didn't get a clear idea how big Andre was when they had their battle. At 7'4" and 500 pounds, he was easily the biggest man I've ever seen by far.
- He had several features that suggested he had Neanderthal genes in his blood. He had a very pronounced brow ridge, the lumbering aspect you would expect of a Neanderthal and solid muscle mass.
I know that Neanderthals aren't thought to have cross bred with Cro-Magnon but seeing Andre in the flesh made me seriously doubt that theory. Perhaps we've recovered Neanderthal DNA and I'm all wet but absent definitive proof that no cross breeding was possible, Andre's collection of phenotypes suggests that cross breeding did take place. His acting suggested he was quite bright as playing dumb isn't that easy so if he indeed did have Neanderthal genes, it suggests Neanderthals died out for some reason other than intellect. Maybe they just assimilated over 50,000 years.I see some posts about how it's not surprising that Neanderthal speech wasn't surprising, and what did they expect, poetry?
This research isn't about what the Neanderthals said - it's about the kinds of sounds they were able to produce with their vocal tracts (or Liberman's models of them). The lack of subtlety is the lack of the ability to produce recognizably distinct vowel sounds.
Sweet. So if computers can simulate neanderthals can it run a quick simulation to tell the citizens of Detroit why Kwame Kilpatrick won't resign?
There doesn't seem to be a single working human speech synthesizer that doesn't sound like metal squeaking.
:-)
I'd say first they should "emulate" human speech, then move to more difficult targets
They all went north, eh?
How can I contribute to this excellent piece of... work?
Where the hell is Ogg the Caveman when you need him?
This article is all speculation and conjecture. Besides we all know all you need to communicate is one sound. Clicking in a certain sequence will work just as well as Morris Code or Binary.
Could this be an evolutionary leap in the old saying "Make it idiot-proof, the world will make a bigger idiot." Now we are making it Neanderthal-proof?
What real world benefits can we obtain by having a computer that can communicate in a Neanderthal's native language? Are expecting to have an intergalactic run-in with a group of Neanderthals from another planet? All of the Neanderthal people on earth are either dead, or work for the return department at Best Buy, in which case they are provided with a computer by their employer.
What's on Slashdot tomorrow? A laptop for every cro-magnon?
Based on the sample apparently they were able to talk to frogs. Don't believe me, play the clip several times fast.
Although this doesn't make the simulation any less interesting, the article is misleading:
Neanderthals are not really "ancient humans", they are a different branch of the hominid line that probably co-existed with our ancestors.
I suppose it is fitting for an anthropologist but I also find it a bit anthroprocentric that because the simulation suggests they did not produce the same types of sounds as humans that they somehow did not have subtleties in their language nor could they have a spoken language. It is possible they simply spoke to one another differently (maybe in Morse Code using grunts and whistles).
And it sounded just like chicken.
"I say, unhand me you confounded, unsanitary homonid!"
Similar to the upcoming US election results
How is babby formed...how girl get pragnant?
Now, we're fairly sure that ...
It's fine that you've said this, so long as it's understood that by "we," you do not mean "professional historical linguists," but far rather "Dan Brown-level crackpot armchair speculators."
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Here are a few samples. I don't know why the researchers published them this way, but then I'm not a scientist.
http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Boy_gets_butter_knife_stuck_in_head
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=5i01M_JMaoE&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D5i01M_JMaoE%26feature%3Drelated
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
This assumes several things. It assumes phonemes were used, for example. There's an island where the native language is communicated by whistles. The language, if I recall the article correctly, is descended from Spanish. The series of whistles constitute a series of samples at regular intervals along Spanish words, so there is a 1:1 translation between the two. Whistles, of course, do not use phonemes at all and therefore such a form of communication is not subject to the intelligability of sounds. (All I need is one example to prove that there exists a real, plausible solution that violates the assumptions made. I don't need to prove that the solution actually applied to Neanderthals, so long as my attempt to falsify really is plausible.)
If phonemes were used, then it assumes that language drifted sufficiently for a communication barrier to exist. That's more reasonable. Neanderthals didn't have that much mobility, so maintaining a unified language and accent across the entire space they occupied, over the entire time Neanderthals existed, would likely have been impossible. I can buy into the idea of there being sufficient drift to cause problems over a large enough distance, but if there is an intelligability problem and communication with nearest neighbour is absolutely essential, that drift was locked within certain parameters and (if you want to look at it in modern networking terms) could not have exceeded some limit on a per-hop basis. That might be an interesting result to have.
It also assumes that the constraints were the same. Modern languages are heavily based on very complex grammars and therefore don't need a particularly wide range of sounds or symbols. Very early written languages directly descend from pictographic systems and require a considerably greater number of symbols and signifiers. By inference, I'm going to say that very early spoken languages would also use a much wider range of sounds and fewer rules for inferring a specific meaning for a specific sound in a specific context. If that is correct, and the parent poster seems to have vastly more knowledge on this than I do so can probably answer this, it should be much rarer for two distinct words to sound alike enough to be confusing even with different accents.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Lamp.
They could just play some recordings of Canadians.
Isn't it nice to have a Neanderthal that will talk to you? Mongo is HUNGRYYYYY!!! ARRRRR!!!
Sam, move over. Here comes Neanderthal. We'll call him 'Nean' for short!
A few things I'd like to say. Firstly Neanderthals have suffered a lot of bad press over the years. The word itself is often used to describe "Homer Simpson" type people, i.e. stupid.
What most people aren't aware of is that when compared by cc Neanderthal brains were, in fact, larger than those of modern humans. You and I have a mass of around 1400cc, a Neanderthal 1500cc. (a rough guess, anthropology classes were a long time ago) How much of this is extra mass is related to them having more musculature thus greater need for control, we don't really know.
Still, they were certainly smart. As far as culture goes, Neanderthals had rudimentary technology and more importantly they had ritual. Graves show that they buried their dead with flowers and other trinkets. This suggests some concept of "remorse" or even the afterlife. These are clearly human traits, so they were obviously closer to us in thinking than other apes.
On the main subject of Neanderthal language. Well, there's a theory that it is not, in fact, an extinct language at all. In northern Spain and southern France there's a strange "language islote" called Basque. As far as modern linguists are concerned this language exists in a little language family of its own, totally unrelated to any other in the global family. It certainly pre-dates the Indo-European languages that are prevalent in most of Europe. This raises another question is: What is the Origin of the Basques? Who knows?
However, it may JUST be coincidence that the last (as far as archaeologists can tell) Neanderthals lived in Iberia. So is Basque is the linguistic cockroach - staying alive when all around it dies? Who knows. There is some strange evidence. Basque people have a 55% O blood group - the highest percentage in the world, which suggests some genetic differentiation from the rest of us. In a nut shell, though, we really don't have a clue.
I swear, half my friends sound like Neanderthals after their 10th or so drink. Heck, get my friend's mobiles and listen to any of the messages I left on their phone at 3am. "He says the ancient human's speech lacked the 'quantal vowel'" .. yep sounds about right.
Do they really need computers to do this... I mean, it was easy enough so that even a caveman could do it.
First thought: computers emulate Slashdot editors, but science, as always is ahead of my imagination.
Donde Ser Geek No Duele
Of course their speech was less sophisticated. All they ever talked about was car insurance.
Thanks to this simulation, we finally hear what early man's first sentences were: "wheeze the j-uice"
They produced a model to analyze *vocalization* not speech.
Saying that a gorilla, dog, or Neanderthal speaks implies connotes certain things.
Were that I say, pancakes?
All the model needs is a tuke, eh?
The majority of google hits for the phrase are in reference to this paper.
Of the remaining hundred or so, most use the term in quotes without actually
iving a definition... All I've been able to determine is that y is qunatal &
e is not. Spectacular!
Were that I say, pancakes?
Are you telling me they did not speak perfect American English?
After all everyone speaks English and only English!
~Ducks~
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
and what we don't know from the fossil record.
We know that Neanderthals had a hyoid bone which indicates that they had the 'capacity' to make sounds.
In lay terms, they had vocal chords which means they could have produced sounds from their throats.
What we don't have are all the 'fleshy bits', the throat tissues and musculature, the palette and mouth tissues
the tongue, the nasal tissues, the lips and facial muscles, and most importantly, a Neanderthal brain.
Yes, we can make a conjecture as to what those bits make have 'looked' like based on the fossils that we have,
but without those details, all of this is unsupported conjecture.
Look for a 'Talking with Neanderthals'©®(TM) on television sometime in the near future.
Sig this!
"quantal vowel"
Vote Republican.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Strine is English as spoken in Australia.
Excellent example: the shark in 'Finding Nemo'
Strine is noted for converting a short 'i' into an 'ee'.
From the article.
>the Neanderthal version doesn't have a quantal hallmark, which helps a listener distinguish the word "beat" from "bit," for instance.
An Aussie would say:
"He ees a beet stupeed" ( More likely "He's bloodee stupeed, theek as a breek, mate.")
So on the basis of this research (from Floreeda),
Neanderthals could build the Seednee Harbour Breedge, but not speak in the House of Lords.
Feer eenough mate. Wouldeent want to. Don't want a quantal hallmark stamped on me bum either.
Ugh... debelopuhs... debelopuhs... debelopuhs... ugh... chair... me throw...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It kinda makes me wonder about a few things, though.
First of all, sure, we can collect the phonemes that humans can do, and which the Neanderthals couldn't possibly pronounce, but I wonder if there are examples of the opposite. You know, phonemes which came naturally to the Neanderthals, but which modern humans have a problem with.
Second, to which extent thing can be done differently. E.g., a cat's mouth can't do a "R" the way humans create that sound, but their larynx can purr, and that's good enough. They actually use it basically as a "R" in their simple "language." E.g., "mrrk" (sometimes transliterated as "mrrh"), which as far as anyone figured out, means "food", or more like "come to dinner". That's the "word", well, vocalization, they use when they caugh some mouse and are calling their kittens to dinner. Or when they bring you some dying bird.
(To get a bit off topic, most cats will not try to give you back the food you gave them, so if you have only one and/or it can't go hunt outside, you're likely to never hear it. On the other hand, if you spend enough time on a farm with cats, that's one of the first vocalizations you might learn.)
Second, again I'll use cats as an example, sometimes they use non-vocal signs. E.g., blinking slowly with both eyes is, as far as anyone can figure it out, a kind of "hello" or "I come in peace". You can try it too, on a stray cat or someone else's cat.
They also seem to have different ways to meow, sorta like an accent of sorts, so although the basic phoneme is the same, it seems to mean different things.
You know, just as an example of a simple creature with a very simple larynx, and it can still do more than you'd expect with it. Sure, it can't speak English, and it's not evolved enough to have a very complex language. But it can communicate what it needs to.
Neanderthals were pretty evolved critters, by comparison. They were a parallel branch to Homo Sapiens from the same ancestor, and they actually had a slightly larger brain. I'm guessing that that larynx couldn't have been that hideously huge a problem. They'd figure something out.
Even _if_ they had too few sounds, a language can get rid of, for example, inflexion and be left with plenty to have names for everything around them. They'd probably need more words instead, but even that isn't too huge a problem. Even if, to use the GP's example, they had to go "This is apple. Apple is red." that should be enough for what they needed.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There is the old joke that a microgram of data outweighs a megagram of speculation ; so that would make searching for a mummified Neanderthal quite high priority, so that some hard numbers can be put to the profile of the soft tissues in the Neanderthal larynx. I'm quite sure that the archaeologists and anthropologists are doing just that, as much as they can. Unfortunately, most of the known range of the Neanderthals (Western Europe) is climatically unsuitable for classic mummification by dessication. Where the climate is more suitable - Israel, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, maybe extending to Georgia and Azerbaijan - there are political problems with most fieldwork.
Bog bodies might be a way out, but over 30-odd thousand years the climate changes probably mean that nowhere has maintained a suitable bog for the whole period.
I can't think of any other plausible routes for such preservation, unless one gets to do work in the high Arctic.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Interestingly enough, a prominent news source in New Zealand has picked up on this and claimed that Neanderthals spoke a bit like New Zealanders.
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
Now that's what I CALL a slow news day.
I am guessing he is not currently understanding the subtly of carrying a heavy stick. Maybe they simply did not need a lot of vowels to be well understood.
Besides, I will believe it when the same technology can be used to figure out what Ozzie is saying. I bet the results are nearly identical.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Why Og no subtle? Og be subtle when Og want be subtle. Og handle Mrs. Og question about weight with much subtle. Mrs. Og no use club on Og, and Og and Mrs. Og have happy that night.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist205/index_files/Handout%208%20-%20QT%20&%20Adaptive%20Dispersion.pdf
Him good.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Just published. It reviews the various hypotheses behind the origin of human language.
One interesting factoid is that there was virtually no funding for studies of language evolution for most of the 20th century because several professional societies and Noam Chomsky thought it was a bogus endeaver. That changed about 20 years ago, but its still a very immature science.
One of the more novel ideas I read was the tie of language ability to the health of the cerebellum which controls movement. People with late-stage Parkinson's start forgeting grammar, start making errors in verb tenses, etc. This suggests that complex syntax co-evolved with the abilities to make precise hand movements for tools and mouth movements for speech. Or one evolved first and bootstrapped into the other abilities.
Now we don't have to buy an Amy Winehouse album to know what she sounds like.
I am convinced these guys just sit around making this garbage up. What a wast of time! Their is no way these guys could possibly know any of this from fossil records.
What really amazes me about their claims is that they assume that the lack of quantal vowels form the end-all basis of subtlety in speech (the difference between "beat" and "bit"). Yet, human language contains many examples of languages in which quantal vowels are not necessary, such as Japanese and Spanish. Having a smaller set of vowels does not indicate a lack of sophistication or communicability.
>"His team concluded that Neanderthal speech did not have the subtlety of modern human speech.'"
Duh! Du'oh!
The MOST evolved speech in the modern world is afrikaans.
I'd forgotten the name. The link has an extra slash at the end, though. Try: this link instead. There were one or two replies skeptical of my claim, which is very understandable given the apparent absurdity of it, so I'm extremely glad you found the reference. It's greatly appreciated.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
But could they vocalize? Perhaps pitch was more important for their communication.
I've been to Hollywood, I've been to Redwood
I crossed the ocean for a heart of gold
I've been in my mind, it's such a fine line,
That keeps me searching for a heart of gold
And I'm getting old
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
"we must protect the homeland from TERRISTS."
P.S.: Fuck Bush
A few things I'd like to say. Firstly Neanderthals have suffered a lot of bad press over the years. The word itself is often used to describe "Homer Simpson" type people, i.e. stupid.
Stupid? That guy Homer has been a NASA Astronaut, a teacher, and the Vice President of a nuclear reactor, and other jobs. You don't get offered jobs like that if you are stupid, you know.
Duh.