shall not have learned

[keannu]

1. Does the first sentence say "our ability for breast stroke" doesn't imply frog's swimming ability? The two seem to match, so I can't get what it means.
2. Does this "still" mean "emphatic" like "much, even, far, a lot" or "yet"?
3. This writing seems to argue that langauge is only human beings' property. doesn't it?

ex)If we discover that animals do talk, then we shall not have learned anything useful, just as the fact that we can do the breast stroke does not tell us anything about a frog's innate swimming ability. If, on the other hand, we find that animals do not talk, this will provide some support for the claim that language is restricted to the human race. We are not merely indulging in a neurotic desire to verify that humans are still superior to other species, as has sometimes been suggested. Some animals, such as dolphins and chimpanzees, have a high level of intelligence. If, in spite of this, we find that language is beyond their capability, then we may have found some indication that language is a genetically programmed activity which is a largely separate from general intelligence.

 

[5jj]

1. Does this "shall not have learned" refer to future presumption of past one?.

The first sentence is simply a predictive or 'first' conditional.

 

[Gillnetter]

1. Does the first sentence say "our ability for breast stroke" doesn't imply frog's swimming ability? The two seem to match, so I can't get what it means.
2. Does this "still" mean "emphatic" like "much, even, far, a lot" or "yet"?
3. This writing seems to argue that langauge is only human beings' property. doesn't it?

ex)If we discover that animals do talk, then we shall not have learned anything useful, just as the fact that we can do the breast stroke does not tell us anything about a frog's innate swimming ability. If, on the other hand, we find that animals do not talk, this will provide some support for the claim that language is restricted to the human race. We are not merely indulging in a neurotic desire to verify that humans are still superior to other species, as has sometimes been suggested. Some animals, such as dolphins and chimpanzees, have a high level of intelligence. If, in spite of this, we find that language is beyond their capability, then we may have found some indication that language is a genetically programmed activity which is a largely separate from general intelligence.

1. No. To imply is roughly the same as to indicate. Just because a human can learn to swim gives us little information about why a frog has the natural ability to swim.
2. Yet
3. No. The text is pointed to the fact that speech and intelligence are separate; an organism may have intelligence and lack the ability to speak.

 

[keannu]

I can't get how these two can make analogy. Why can't the fact be useful that animals do talk we found ? If we find parrots or monkeys speak their language, that can be evidence to back up their language ability. And how is this related to breast-stroke to frog relationship in terms of analogy? I might seem stupid in asking this, but I can't get it.

1. No. To imply is roughly the same as to indicate. Just because a human can learn to swim gives us little information about why a frog has the natural ability to swim.
If we discover that animals do talk, then we shall not have learned anything useful, just as the fact that we can do the breast stroke does not tell us anything about a frog's innate swimming ability.

 

[Gillnetter]

I can't get how these two can make analogy. Why can't the fact be useful that animals do talk we found ? If we find parrots or monkeys speak their language, that can be evidence to back up their language ability. And how is this related to breast-stroke to frog relationship in terms of analogy? I might seem stupid in asking this, but I can't get it.

1. No. To imply is roughly the same as to indicate. Just because a human can learn to swim gives us little information about why a frog has the natural ability to swim.
If we discover that animals do talk, then we shall not have learned anything useful, just as the fact that we can do the breast stroke does not tell us anything about a frog's innate swimming ability.

When you analyze this sort of material you have to divorce what you think is true from what the text actually states. You can learn to swim. Swimming, for a human may or may not be a natural activity. Swimming for a frog is not a learned activity. Frogs, or more correctly tadpoles, are born with the ability to swim. Frogs swim at birth because this ability is part of their genetic background. It is, we would say, in their DNA. By learning to swim you have learned nothing of the reasons why a frog swims.

To discover that monkeys speak would not tell us anything about how, or why, they speak. This is similar to a person seeing a train moving rapidly on a track. While this person may see, and even understand that the train is moving, the person would, from the mere sight of the moving train, be unable to say why the train was moving. For this person to understand why the train moves, it would be required that the person have a basic grasp of the functions of an engine and how power is delivered to the wheels.

 

[emsr2d2]

I can't get how these two can make analogy. Why can't the fact be useful that animals do talk we found ? If we find parrots or monkeys speak their language, that can be evidence to back up their language ability.

How is it useful for us to find any evidence of parrots' or monkeys' language ability?

And how is this related to breast-stroke to frog relationship in terms of analogy? I might seem stupid in asking this, but I can't get it.

It's only related to the frog statement in that both discoveries are equally useless.

1. No. To imply is roughly the same as to indicate. Just because a human can learn to swim gives us little information about why a frog has the natural ability to swim.
If we discover that animals do talk, then we shall not have learned anything useful, just as the fact that we can do the breast stroke does not tell us anything about a frog's innate swimming ability.

The fact that people can swim the breaststroke (which looks like a frog swimming) doesn't tell us why/how frogs can swim.
The fact (if it's true) that animals speak their own language to each other, doesn't tell us anything new about language ability.