PIE vs. Proto-Language

Patrick C. Ryan proto-language at email.msn.com
Sun Oct 3 11:53:19 UTC 1999


[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Ralf-Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Ralf-Stefan Georg <Georg at home.ivm.de>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 3:13 PM

<snip>

> St.G. (on Pat's assumption that "most linguists" favor monogenesis of
> language):

[R-S]
>>> I'm flabbergasted. I would like to know *one* of those, who did/does what
>>> you claim "most linguists" do.

[PR previously]
>> Of course, I have no real way of knowing but I presume this writer might:

>> "The hypothesis of the monogenesis of language is one that most linguists
>> believe to be plausible. Indeed, the appearance of language may define
>> modern <em>Homo sapiens</em>." Philip E. Ross (Staff writer) in "Hard
>> Words", pp. 138-147, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, April 1991.

{R-S]
> Not knowing the staff writer of ScAm, nor his credentials in the field of
> lx., I won't comment on this part. But there is a non sequitur here.
> Indeed, it might be right to "define modern homo sapiens" inter alia by the
> capability of speech. This has, however, nothing to do with the question
> whether the actual *systems* (languages) people have been using for all
> those millennia derive from one and only common ancestor. Humans are
> endowed with the capacity of learning, processing and handling linguistic
> systems, but nothing tells us that this capacity should have led to its
> actual exploitation once and only once in the history of humankind. The
> statement as above once more confuses language (as a cultural artefact)
> with the biological makeup of modern man. The fact that certain primates
> have the ability to use certain tools for simple operations does not mean
> that every observable instance of tool use in certain primate groups is due
> to transmission from an original "invention of tool use" (though I hasten
> to add that *some* very intricate patterns of tool use among primates are
> known to be transmitted by teaching-and-learning-processes, often viewed as
> emergent culture among primates).
> Again: homo sapiens is a biological species endowed with certain
> intellectual abilities, among which the ability to develop, learn and
> handle such a complicated thing as language is possibly the most remarkable
> one. The next step, from homo sapiens to, say, homo loquens is not I
> biological one, but a cultural one. Nothing prevents us from assuming that
> it could have happened more than once, maybe even often, or, in short:
> language is a tool.

[PR]
I am afraid that we will not be able to settle this question to the
satisfaction of either of us.

So much hinges on at what point we begin to regard the noises that early man
was making as 'language'. As another thread on this list attests, that does
not seem to be a question that all can answer with consensus.

I am convinced by the genetic evidence that modern humans are, at least,
principally descended from a single ancient (pre-)human stock, whether out
of Africa, which I think likeliest, or from another place.

Was this ancient group capable of 'language'? I think so but I would not
unequivocally assert it. It justs seems to be the simplest scenario, hence,
possibly, the most probable.

If you believe that a scenario of 'language' developing in separated human
groups (hence unrelated except indirectly by the biological potential to
develop it) is preferable,  then tell me, if the original stock (presuming
you buy the genetic argument) was capable potentially of language, what
prevented that potential from being realized? Would you go so far as to
assert that 100(-150) ya there was *NO* language?

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/index.html and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)



More information about the Indo-european mailing list