>Glen (ME) wrote:
>>>Hi, Glen here. Hate to set the conversation back a few notches but I just
got here and I have to ask: What's AAT exactly?
>Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>Humans developed a lot of features that are different from the apes: no
fur, a lot of subcutaneous fat, a big brain, an external nose, extremely
long legs, bipedalism etc. [...] Humans are excellent (though slow)
divers, as opposed to all other primates. Diving was probably the reason why
we can voluntarily control our breathing, which eventually led to voluntary
speech.
>Aaaaahhhh! (Flash of immediate understanding) Thank you Marc. I was
expecting something weirder than that. Actually, that helps me understand
the riddle within my own views on language origins: why it is that we as
humans would shift our focus from a sign language to a vocal one (since I
don't see an immediate survival advantage over the silent sign language that
would remain excellent for hunting over vocal communication). This theory
provides an interesting explanation for the gradual evolution of vocal
language without getting contrived. Hmm, I don't find that idea too strange
at all. I will adapt that to my ideas and I'll try to look into that some
more. So essentially this is an aquatic, Out-Of-Indian hypothesis on
human origins. Nifty. What are the cons to the idea? Any Piaget people in
the house?
I wouldn't call it "aquatic": too much opposition from paleoanthropologists
(they're right the term "aquatic" is not the best one). Just "semiaquatic"
or "amphibious" or perhaps "coastal". But I like "Out-of-Indian hypothesis".
After all, early Homo fossils (perhaps even the first ones) have been found
on Java.
Marc