PIE vs. Proto-Language)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/03/1999 2:30:03 AM, Georg at home.ivm.de writes:

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

<<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)....>>

Yeah.  And this multi-meaning of the word "language" can be a real problem in
the discussion of broader language issues among list members here.  In
correspondence with certain linguists, I've noticed a laudatory habit of
being precise about the way the word is being used - the physiological event,
the act of communication, speech versus the written word, and (once again)
the Saussurian distinction between the act of speaking and as a specific
"system of language" maintained by members of an identifiable speech
community.  As I've pointed out before, "language" among biologists can refer
to any behavior that has a communicative effect without regard to species.
My impression is that the quote re monogenesis above refers to the
distinction often made by paleobiologists - language as the emergence in
humans of speech capabilities that other primates were/are not
physiologically capable of.   The current issue in this area circles around
what evidence in fossil finds suggests the emergence of physiological
features that would make human speech complexity possible.

Regards,
Steve Long