language origins

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Larry and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 4:45 PM

<snip>

[LT]

> I think we learn a first language because our ancestors, at some point,
> evolved a very specific biological proclivity to learn and use language.  I
> don't believe we have a specific and dedicated calculus faculty, or
> ice-skating faculty, but I do believe we possess a dedicated language
> faculty.  And I believe language is a biological part of us in a way that
> calculus and ice skating are not.  We didn't "invent"language in the way that
> we invented my other examples: we evolved it.  It's just something that
> happened to us.

[PR]
I say sincerely that it gives me great pleasure to agree with Larry when our
agreement is normally such a rare occurrence.

I think the idea of 'inventing language' is dubious for another reason. It
implies that, at some point, language was consciously conceptualized and
implemented. Though we may never learn his name (if he had one), should we
postulate an Edison of language who explained to his speechless fellows (how
would he explain it?) that, from then on, /iiiii/ would not be merely a
squeal (of delight?) but would mean 'mastodon marrow'?

And /uggggg/ would mean 'mastodon . . .', well, you know.

I think it greatly more likely that a constant association of something like
/iiiii/, a purely instinctual sound associated with delight, acquired for a
substantial portion of the group, an association with something in which the
group generally delighted, and that a pars pro toto type of development
occurred, in which some slight phonological modification of /iiiii/ made it
specific to 'mastodon marrow', or 'hive honey', or 'accidentally fermented
grapes'.

This, I believe, could well have occurred before ancestral human beings
parted ways, so that the question then becomes really how far had this
process proceeded before our wandering ancestors wandered into Neandertalia?

I think that I am familiar with Larry's ideas that, though a proto-language
*might* have existed at this early date, through temporal processes, it has
become unrecoverable. I apologize in advance if I have unwittingly
misrepresented Larry's previously expressed sentiments on this subject.
That, of course, has no bearing on the general proposition of whether
monogenesis or polygenesis is likelier on general principles (lacking
agreeable data).

But, I still believe strongly that this is the likeliest scenario.

Opposing it, we have a group squealing but with no 'words', which splits up;
and mirabile dictu, all at the same time (approximately) in different
places, under different environmental challenges, presuming also
substantially similar genetic modifications, former members of the group
'invent' languages that all have so many common traits that we have no
problem comparing them structurally and functionally. We might call this the
'multiple Edison' theory; or just assume that God set up Gardens of Eden in
many now lost locations.

I think this scenario, which is possible, is so unlikely compared to the
first scenario that unless strong evidence compels it, it should be shelved.

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/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/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)