Proper methodology (was: RE: [tied] Re: Mother of all IE languages)

>
> >or are
> >they a continuation of the original state of pronounless affairs?
>
> There's no such "original state".
>

Sez you.

> >> *Language* requires a certain amount of self-reflection. There

is

> >always a
> >> speaker (1st person), a spoken-to (2nd. person) and a spoken-

about

> >(3rd.
> >> person), whether overtly grammaticalized or not.
> >>
> >
> >Non sequitur. The fact that that situation exists in all speech

acts

> >does not entail that the speakers of the language have reflected

on

> >that fact, or further that they have formed the corresponding
> >concepts in their minds, or further that they have come up with

words

> >for those concepts.
>
> The fact is that we *have* come up with words for those concepts.

Since no

> change has occurred in the way our brains are wired, we came up

with those

> words at least 150,000 years ago. I can't prove that for the Proto-

World

> of 150,000 years ago, but I can prove it for all new languages that

we know

> have arisen within the historical record (all creoles, Nicaraguan

Sign

> Language, etc.).
>

Along the same line, I could prove that we 'came up with' steam
trains 150.000 years ago, since no change has occurred in the way our
brains are wired. Non sequitur. And according to the latest
neurological research, brains aren't hardwired or soldered. There's a
lot of software involved.

Torsten