Regular price: $26.59
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $26.59
What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?
This book gives linguistics a bad name.
It propagates bad science and worse understandings of human language. Obviously I didn't expect a pop-science book about language to get everything right, but the ideas this book spreads are not only wrong but reprehensible in the deepest way.
I only made it 15 minutes in before I couldn't listen to it anymore, BUT in those 15 minutes I heard: poor understandings of language in general, a complete disregard for the existence of language before 6000 BCE, terrible etymologies everywhere, and *ACTUAL F***ING NAZI PROPAGANDA*
That isn't in anyway hyperbole.
Let's quickly debunk the entire first 15 minutes of this book.
The first thing the author claims in that the first words acted out their meaning, that they were all onomatopoeia, that 'Poop,' the word, acts out our reaction to poop. This isn't backed up by science, but it's possible, that is until he implies that this was the case for our ancestors less than 10,000 years ago. If he was saying this was how our ape-like ancestors, hundreds of thousands of years ago, spoke then it'd be plausible, but he didn't so it isn't. This is absurd notion appeals to the idea that 'primitive people' speak 'primitive languages' which has been thoroughly debunked and is a bit racist.
After, some terrible etymologies and mistakes that a simple google search would reveal (No it is not the sometimes called 'proto-indo-european' it's always called 'proto-indo-european') He goes into the history of the study of the proto-indo-european culture. He actually does a fairly good job about this.
Bafflingly though, he fails to explain, why the word 'Aryan' fell out of use before being replaced by the term proto-indo-european. Simply saying "it took on a sinister tone in the 1930s," without explaining why it took on that sinister tone.
However right before I stopped listening it became very clear why he didn't explain it.
I'm sure you all can guess, but the word 'Aryan' fell out of use because the Nazis that the Aryan people were the 'ubermensch' and that all other types of people needed to be exterminated. This was partly based on the idea that the Aryan (proto-indo-european) languages were fundamentally superior and that they were superior because their speakers superior. This is why they killed Jews, or how they justified it, Jews were semitic people, not proto-indo-european their languages were inferior and their people were inferior.
Christopher Stevens didn't go that far (at least in the first 15 minutes) but immediately after glossing over the 'sinister tone' of the word 'Aryan.' He disparages the click languages of Africa and the Native languages of Paraguay saying that proto-indo-european languages were 'infinitely simple and more flexible.' He says that this is why PIE cultures have dominated the world, because our language is better. This has been thoroughly debunked by linguists. every language is equally capable of expression and understanding, the idea of 'a superior language' is not only bad science, but dangerous. This idea was used in the 19th century to justify the destruction of the American Indian. It was was used to justify Imperialism, it was used to justify the holocaust.
It is wrong, even at the time, and disgusting and most of all it's *sinister.*
Also I didn't like the narrator.
What do you think your next listen will be?
Lingo, Lingo, Lingo
Did Michael Healy do a good job differentiating all the characters? How?
What character would you cut from Written in Stone?
Every character in the book. As in every character that makes up the text.. like A though Z.
Any additional comments?
19 of 34 people found this review helpful
If this book wasn’t for you, who do you think might enjoy it more?
I thought I would enjoy this book, as I'm very interested in the subject matter. But the book is a very short introduction of the development of the theory of a proto-Indo European language, followed by chapter after chapter exploring examples of words in English ( and to a lesser extent other languages ) that the writer claims come from those simple original words. This is mildly interesting for a few goes but soon becomes tedious, especially as there seems to be quite a lot of cherry-picking for words that suit. He doesn't at all explore the interesting part of the theory: how on earth do they *know* what our pre-historic ancestors spoke like? I'd hesitate to recommend this book to anyone.
What will your next listen be?
Possibly something by David Crystal.
Which character – as performed by Michael Healy – was your favourite?
You didn’t love this book--but did it have any redeeming qualities?
The introduction isn't bad.
1 of 1 people found this review helpful
What made the experience of listening to Written in Stone the most enjoyable?
I think this book is good for someone with no prior knowledge of the subject as it is organised logically and does not use many technical terms. The author also uses examples from everyday language to make points and even attemps a joke occasionally. The book does a surprisingly good job of giving an overview of the Stone Age roots of language considering its medium length.
Who was your favorite character and why?
Which scene did you most enjoy?
Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?
Any additional comments?
I found the narration alright but I think some people might find it flat.