Re: Pat's Proto-World Playland

Glen writes -
"I feel so welcomed... that's why I'm frightened. <:S"

Hmm... you just might be on to something here, Glen, but still, let me say it's good to hear from you again!

Ryan is back as well.... The only reason we are able to reconstruct IE is that we happen to belong to a language family wích developed (phonetical) writing early. Imagine for a moment that we were a bunch of linguistically interested Australian Aboriginals or Eskimos (I don't think there is a written record of the Inuit language that is older than the 17th century). There is no written record of any language before 3000 BC, but Ryan says he is able to reconstruct a language that was spoken 100,000 years ago, which is ---- but I don't have to complete this sentence, do I?

longgren -
"Joshua Greenberg thinks that there was a small group of humans who came
out of northeast Africa around 50,000 BC, populated the whole world and
wiped out all traces of all other hominids such as Neanderthal."

I don't think that the idea of the Sapiens exterminating all other hominids squares with current archaeological data. I've heard (I'm sorry I don't remember the source for this) that the Sapiens and Neanderthals coexisted for several thousands of years, at least in some parts of Europe. During this time, probably all kinds of contacts took place: hostility, trade, mutual indifference, perhaps (my speculations), if the Neanderthals also had a spoken language, the Sapiens and Neanderthal tribes even borrowed words and myths from each other.

Glen -
"Are you speaking of the genetic language mutation? Yes, it's absolutely
crazy. As I say, even my dog Spot understands the concept of language
because if he didn't, he would not come to me when I say "come". Language
performed by elephants is now gaining interest by scientists and being
zealously looked into. It might be argued that although our primate
relatives lack firm "grammar" when communicating through sign or symbolic
representations, they still exhibit some idiosyncratic grammatical
preferences which challenges the belief that only humans are capable of
"grammar". It is not meant to be poetic when I say that language is as old
as life itself. The development of our "uniquely human" speaking
capabilities could only have been very gradual. No need for desperate
grasping towards ad hoc hypotheses to answer these simple questions about
the origin of human language."

I've got a suggestion - if it's a stupid one, just hit me. Perhaps, when discussing this, we should separate "communication" from "language"? Animals, even very simple animals, communicate. They call or threaten each other. The cells in our body communicate, exchanging chemical signals that control metabolism, body temperature and other vital functions. This kind of communication is, as Glen writes, as old as life itself. But to me, language is something more than this - language means the ability to talk about the past, the future; the ability to use an existing vocabulary to create new concepts and ideas, to talk about hypothetical and imagined situations. Only the human species has this ability.
I agree about the gradual development of language, though. Ryan's proposed Proto-World could not have been the first stage of human language, it is already a fully working language.

Hakan