Re: ProtoWorld

----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Gordon

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 9:31 AM

Subject: [cybalist] ProtoWorld

One's reasoning when evaluating a theory has to be based on some sort of knowledge of the subject plus the ability to think realistically in terms of likeliest probability (since we are dealing with a theoretical subject here and there are often no absolutes). To think realistically about probability one has to understand Occhim's Rasor. It basically says not to multiply hypotheses and to not give in to wild assumption that ignores the greatest probability. For instance, here's Occhim's Rasor at work: It's most logical that there was no first human language since it cannot arise out of the blue amongst a mute population without the meanings of its words being conveyed first but this cannot be done without language - a chicken-and-the-egg paradox (or so it seems). The most rational solution is that it must have evolved slowly from a less abstract form - gestural language. Therefore, vocal language has bubbled forth in different populations in different areas independantly, giving rise to many Proto-Worlds over a vast period of time amongst a vocal but predominantly signing population. In this muddle, it would be quite impossible with comparative linguistics to work back to any early sign language form, nor to pick apart the intermediary but partially sign-dependant forms of vocal language from the gestural signs themselves. However, despite the certainty of polygenesis, we cannot pretend to know in our present knowledge whether the languages that have survived to the present day are or are not derived from some common ancestor (even though this is assuredly not THE Proto-World). Thus, it is still quite possible for a monogenetic origin of modern languages (a kind of "Eve hypothesis" in linguistic terms) but it is not possible for vocal language to have been anything other than polygenic. Soon everyone will be assimilated into Glen's World Order of Linguistic Theory.... HAHAHAHAHA!!!! - gLeN Dear Glen,   I agree completely with your assessment of the PW question. The reason why I'm agnostic about language polygenesis is precisely (and solely) because I cannot exclude the possibility that the scenario you mention, with only one SURVIVING lineage at some point, might be real. I'm pretty sure for a variety of reasons that the evolution of language was a slow and cumulative process which led to the parallel (as opposed to SIMULTANEOUS, Gerry) development of a rather large number of "proto-dialects" (this was the cultural aspect of the process) alongside the biological facilities allowing any human to acquire any of those culture-specific and culturally transmitted codes. People often argue in favour of monogenesis pointing out that the human language faculty seems to work in the same way across the species, and that there exist linguistic universals restricting the range of permissible grammars. This is absurd. "Universal Grammar" is not fossilised "Proto-Grammar"; its just a set of constraints which define what is learnable for a human child, and which are compatible with ANY number of languages now, just as they were in the remote past.   My only quibble, Glen, concerns the way you spell the name of the man with the razor (unless I'm missing a pun).   Piotr