From: aquila_grande
Message: 39692
Date: 2005-08-22
> Lars:
> > Though: what is special about humans are the vocal
> > chords.
>
> Yes, but if your question is "When did vocal
> language as we speak it today begin?" then logically,
> we must search for the first instance of modern
> human vocal chords... That's looking to be
> potentially 300,000 yrs if I'm not mistaken. That in
> itself suggests that "language" is as old as the
> hills.
>
> If you're searching for the origin of "grammar",
> that's a different question. It's known that chimps
> or gorillas aren't as adept at structured grammar
> as we are. I figure that if early humans learned first
> to communicate through rudimentary hand gestures, then
> it stands to follow that the development of complex
> grammar stems from those millions of years in the
> open grasslands doing hand signals.
>
> I think we both agree that vocal chords then have
> really very little to do with the question "When did
> language begin?".
>
>
> > On my own priority list I would place the forehead
> > and facial expressions, next hands and different
> > grunts.
>
> Right. Even animals use body signals. That is also
> communication even though we don't respect it as
> such. We still use these body signals in our daily
> lives without realizing it, which is why some people
> are good at spotting the fibbers. Some choose to
> mythologize this complex gift as 'intuition'
> or 'psychic powers'.
>
>
> > For those able to hear the grunts in certain
> > combinations, however, it meant a practical means
> > of communication independent of daylight and direct
> > attention and quickened development considerably.
>
> The switch from sign to speech is really just a
> trade-off.
>
> I think it would be a mistake to think that just
> because speech may have evolved out of sign, that
> somehow sign is a 'less developed' or 'less
> advantageous' form of communication. The two forms
> of communication have their own unique advantages.
>
> A sign language could be great for hunting, I think.
> Sign is very stealth and won't necessarily chase the
> animals away (as long as you don't move too much!).
> It can also be seen over long distances, another great
> advantage.
>
> I think that a switch from sign to speech is really
> simply more of an evolution towards greater symbolism
> or abstractification. I'm not even sure what advantage
> abstractification gives us, but we can see that
> while sign language directly paints visual pictures
> in thin air, vocal communication (aside from
> onomatopeia) is largely very removed from the
> qualities
> of the object being discussed.
>
> When we say "bull", there is really nothing about the
> sounds /b/, /U/ or /l/ which paint the picture of
> a 'bull' in our brains. Rather, 'bull' has become a
> highly abstract symbol of the object in question, one
> not inherently obvious to those outside the circle.
> Yet, if you sign with your two index fingers bent
> outward against the two sides of your head, suddenly
> the symbolic human brain can see the speaker
> anthropomorphized into the bull being discussed.
>
> The issue here is about increasingly complex
> symbolism.
>
> More food for thought. Bon apetit.
>
>
> = gLeN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs