Re: [Fwd: Look who was talking]

--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...> wrote:

>
>
> Look who was talking
>
> We began talking as early as 2.5m years ago, writes Stephen

Oppenheimer. Is

> that what drove the growth of our brains?

Aœci. Yes.
The egalitarian corectness looking now for deeper roots 2.5 m ago.
Why not big bang? Anyway evrything has the same ancestry level. Some
ways get just hardly more laky.

litle irony:
There is word "toki" hunters use it for birds reproductive assembly.
The male*1 are so excited off its tok that completly lose hearing
ability.
end of irony

As we talk about talk it is important to establish definition what
about we talk.

I proposed semidiscrete stages to be introduced to linguistic sience.

A sounding, signaling BO this
AB desriptive BA-BO ?-this this-?
ABC abstract, reasening *BO-ZE this- (ze=condition),languge
development by negotiation whot what mean. I also lay hipotesis what
may help achiva this stage. *=include previous=BA-BO-BO-ZE
ABCD writing
A_E experimental stage, to verify belives.To lay groundwork for
language and to establish precize reasoning language.

I think abc:A-E stage are related and apear in history synchronusly.
I think words are not required to think. Othervise how to think about
the first word. Words help increase complexity of thinking.


greatings.

_.._ _o_ _i_


1) latin name: tetrao urogalus

> Thursday August 7, 2003
> The Guardian
>
> When did we start talking to each other and how long did it take us

to become

> so good at it? In the absence of palaeo-cassette recorders or a time
> machine the problem might seem insoluble, but analysis of recent

evidence

> suggests we may have started talking as early as 2.5m years ago.
>
> There is a polar divide on the issues of dating and linking

thought, language

> and material culture. One view of language development, held by

linguists such

> as Noam Chomsky and anthropologists such as Richard Klein, is that

language,

> specifically the spoken word, appeared suddenly among modern humans

between

> 35,000 and 50,000 years ago and that the ability to speak words and

use syntax

> was recently genetically hard-wired into our brains in a kind of

language

> organ.

The gens in terms of population shoul be treated as wery elastic
substrate. (aperance of some mutation of course is a factor) Only the
interraction betwen gens and enviroment can prefer some or others.
This is very delicate mather and i think is very bad athmosphere for
scientific debate, but whithout it - dark ages on horizont. I have no
idea how somebody can research, accept and discus for him not the
most ok truth. I belive that the A-E stage culture was very
inclusive and only the intelect was a valued. The A-E people travel a
lot to exchange ideas in pecacefull and willcomen way. (The next
generations obstruct it more) Why i belive? For me is natural that
higher inteligency is more sensitive and has naturaly beter hart.

> This view of language is associated with the old idea that logical

thought is

> dependent on words, a concept originating with Plato and much in

vogue in the

> 19th century: animals do not speak because they do not think. The

advances in

> communication and abstract thought demonstrated by chimps and

bonobos such as

> the famous Kanzi put this theory in doubt.
>
> The notion of a great leap forward in the quality of human thinking

is further

> reflected in a common interpretation of the flowering of Upper

Palaeolithic art

> in Europe. European cave paintings in Lascaux and Chauvet in France

and carved

> figurines that have been dated to over 30,000 years ago are seen,

according to

> this perspective, as the first stirrings of symbolic and abstract

thought and

> also of language.
>
> The problem with using art as prehistoric evidence for the first

human that

> could speak is that, quite apart from its validity, the further

back one looks

> the more chance the evidence for art itself would have perished.
>
> Full text
>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1013222,00.html

>
>
>
> --
> Mark Hubey
> hubeyh@...
> http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey