The one and only Gerry:

>Aw come on Glennie. Sesquipedalian strands -- where did you
>dig that one up?

I didn't have to dig up anything... I used my brain - It's a novel
tool, you know.

>Look up Haeckel, McClean and Wilder Penfield in your favorite brower (I use
>Google) and see what happens?

I'm sure you mean a "browser". At any rate, I fail to see the
relevance these people have to Nostratic linguistics (the true topic
of this list, in case you didn't know). As to a general discussion
of the origin of human language which is somewhat OT here but still
tolerable, their work is again of minor importance since they deal
with specific facts that cannot serve to answer your very general
questions.

>Yes, a slow evolution is a good explanation. But when does it begin for
>human language?

Apparently, you fail to understand the meaning of "slow" to ask
the latter question. "Slow" is the opposite of "fast" and hence,
there is no real "beginning" because a "beginning" would suggest
something sudden and "fast". N'est-ce pas?

Perhaps you weren't aware that even a dog has language capability
(at the very least, he is able to interpret your commands). Dogs
are also capable of working in packs, something they inheirited
from their wolf ancestors, which also requires communication
(in the form of body language and sounds). Ants obviously have
the ability to communicate with each other through the use of
chemical signals.

So, it would seem that communication in general, the ancestor
of human language as we now know it, is inheirant to life itself.
This would date language to billions of years old.

However, perhaps when you say "human language", you mean in the
sense of using one's vocal chords? ... Or do you mean sign language?
Does that count as language in your books? What EXACTLY are you
refering to, when you use the term "language"?? There are so many
definitions to that word and it would almost seem that even you
yourself are unsure of which meaning you are refering to.

>Why not begin the "origin" of human language with a small group
>(theoretical of course). The question that still remains foremost
>is when did the first group begin speaking?

This is all fine and dandy but... Having read my input above,
please define what you mean by "language"? If one small group uses
sign language and the other vocal language, are they both "speaking",
or just one group? Are they both using "human language"? I,
personally, consider sign language as "human language" as well,
and I think it's very important to the development of modern
human vocal language.

Finally, for desert:

>If it's practical you're after, why not open a can?

Quite simple: It takes less physical effort to tear open a package
than to use a can opener. Therefore, instant onion soup is a much
more Occam-compliant solution.

-------------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
Webdeveloper

home: http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email: glengordon01@...
ph: (604)904.0320
-------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp