PIE vs. Proto-Language)

[Ralf-Stefan Georg]

With my apologies for this very late reaction within a thread long put to
rest, but since it was directed at me I should have a chance to add a few
words; the contributor I'm arguing with is, of course, Pat Ryan.

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

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

>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.

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.

St.G.

Stefan Georg
Heerstrasse 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
+49-228-69-13-32