For YOU Crypto Types

[Ninurta]

'...This "Bigfoot" is likely human, and the Sierra Sounds a combination of hoax and misidentification, like all of
the other evidence for Bigfoot. Self -proclaimed "Bigfoot language expert" R. Scott Nelson has taken the Bigfoot
language claims one-step further.

As though it is the Linear B of Bigfoot language to be deciphered, Nelson has created a transcription of the Sierra
Sound Recordings. He is a retired U.S. Navy Cryptologic Technician Interpreter who speaks Russian, Spanish and
Persian...'

So he's a cryptologist? One of those people who are trained to find patterns of communication in what otherwise is gibberish?

'...He also believes he can speak "Bigfoot". Nelson claims he has identified not only vocalizations such as whistles,
grunts, and snarls, but also individual phonemes, i.e., the sounds that combine to create words. Nelson has created
a pronunciation key for these phonemes, and he uses the Latin alphabet, diacritics and various other symbols to
represent these sounds.

He calls this the Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA), or the Unclassified Hominid Phonetic Alphabet (UHPA).
It is unclear why he doesn't use the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), the standardized representation of the sounds
of spoken language. Bilingualism (speaking two or more languages) and working as a translator doesn't qualify someone
to identify or describe undocumented languages.

Ooh! Ooh! I can answer that one! Pick me!

He probably doesn't use the IPA because it's friggin' ridiculous, and doesn't reproduce sounds very well on vocal chords used to speaking English - or any other human language, for that matter. Just TRY to make sense of it - you can find it in any Wikipedia entry. Use those symbols to try reproducing a sound - go on, just TRY it! Unlike the Guohuas, I cannot read Chinese script. Nor can I read Sanskrit or whatever that script is that Cambodian is written in. I CAN read English, Greek, Arabic, and Cyrillic scripts, but IPA is so unintelligible that it may as well be written in scratches on rock. I wouldn't use it, either. When I learned Shawnee, the script used was English with diacritics so that we could pronounce it properly. When I learned Arabic, the script used was Arabic - again, so we could pronounce it properly. IPA is not a script, it gibberish, unfit for use in reproducing actual sounds, much less languages.

One might be forgiven for thinking, however, that a background in recognizing intelligible patterns might qualify one for recognizing... intelligible patterns, such as phonemes...

 

'...As Nelson argues, "The existence of the Sasquatch Being is hereby assumed, since any creature must exist before
his language." However, there are still prior questions. Does Bigfoot exist, and if so, could Bigfoot speak?...'

Here's where the canny word-use comes into play. It gives a little, slyly invites you out into the weeds and then mentally
sodomises any proposition that Bigfoot-only, can exist.

You said that quote comes from Scientific American? As science goes, it's not very science-y. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that the statement Nelson makes answers BOTH of the "prior" questions the article postulates. As a matter of fact, it seems designed to answer them both... is logic entirely dead in the modern world?

'...For arguments sake, if Bigfoot did exist, the species would likely have developed its own system of communication,
like chimpanzees and Vervet monkeys. Similar to the claims of the (so far mythical) Orang-Pendek, Bigfoot would
probably communicate using vocalizations.

However, non-human primates don't have the physiology to produce a wide variety of speech sounds, so it is unlikely that
Bigfoot would have developed language, or would be able to speak existing human languages.

At any rate, this is all starting off on the wrong (Big)foot. There is no solid physical evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot.
Before we establish the existence of Bigfoot language, we would need to establish the existence of Bigfoot...'

SOURCE:

ALL animals that I have so far encountered have a "language". ALL of them, not just primates. Since such language does not, however, use human phonemes for the most part, does that really bar it from classification as a language? Even crows, with brains the size of a pea, use language. They have, more than once, told me when there is another human around, and even whether or not that human has a gun. Yes, they recognize that, and have a different vocalization for it. They know, and can communicate, the differences between a bear, a bobcat, a dog/ coyote, a hawk, a snake, a human, and a human with a gun. Now to be fair, they were not specifically talking to ME, but they let each other know, for half a mile around, and I pick up on it. If even a crow can do that, where does Scientific American place the bar for "language"?

The article appears to be based upon faulty logic, faulty science, and shoddy workmanship... and closed minds (never a good attribute in someone claiming to be searching for "truth").

As an aside, regarding the "so-called Orang Pendek", is it just me, or has anyone else ever pondered a potential relationship between the Flores Hobbits and the "so-called Orang Pendek"? Might that be not just a passing resemblance?

.