LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.16 (01) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

=====================================================
*L O W L A N D S - L - 16 August 2010 - Volume 01
*lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================



From: heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk <heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk>

Subject: LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.15 (09) [EN]



from Heather Rendall heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk

re evolution of language



I was struck when the Fox P2 gene was discovered and its importance and
relevance to language described, by the fact that the original use of the
gene had been the fine movement control of the fingers; it then also
developed / adapted to control the fine movements of muscles round the
mouth, let alone the sequencing of words within a language.



What struck me was the possible connnection between the sequencing of using
tools for which fine finger control would be required and the development of
language into sequential thought. Animals have communication and some are
even considered to have the ability to re-sequence common sounds to vary
effect or meaning but they do it within a very limited range of fixed
sounds.



If the difference between communication and language is that the latter
offers infinite variety of expression through the algorithms of its
grammatical sequencing and the former has a fixed number of sounds and
possible combinations to effect a limited number of responses ( for example
chimpanzees clearly 'talk' to one another but they don't appear to be able
to discuss the possible close connection between terrorism and freedom
fighting or whether one fruit tastes better when slow roasted over
charcoal), then why cannot it be possible that, as humans evolved, they
first learnt to communicate and that this sufficed for millennia for their
needs. As they learnt to make and use tools, the sequence of thought needed
to describe what they were doing and how to achieve it, may have developed
patterns of communication that became ever more varied, until regular
patterns/sequences of thought were established. And as both the creation of
tools and their use became more and more complicated, this ability to
transfer using recognised sounds a complex thought from one human to another
encouraged the development of ever increasing flexibility and breadth and
depth within the algorithms.



The other 'point in time' that has fascinated ever since I read Golding's
"The Inheritors" is when did humans start looking beyond reality to an
invisible dimension. When did abstract thought begin? Why did the family and
friends of a neanderthal boy in Turkey line his  grave with blue flowers?
How long had they been thinking or believing in something beyond the merely
practical?



I hope this thread though not exactly Lowlandish, is permitted because I for
one find it fascinating.



Heather

Worcester UK



----------



From: Anja Meyfarth <aurinel at spray.se>

Subject: LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.15 (09) [EN]



Hello all,

Sandy wrote:

One thing I would suggest from observation (even although it's a highly
unsatisfactory thought) is that technology is mainly inspired by war. If the
population rises and people start to get territorial, eventually there's a
pressing need for a three-man chariot, and the handcart comes along later as
a spin-off, maybe supplied by out-of-work chariot-makers.

Well, I think, geography and fauna are important, too. So wheels were not
invented in South America even if the Inka civilization was fighting wars.
But wheels are not useful in that area although lamas might be able to pull
a chariot. In Northern America were no animals that could do that job.
Horses were brought to the plains by the whites. What is very interesting is
that the Egyptians didn't invent wheels although they were mighty warriors.
They got this inventions from the Hethits. (That's at least what I learned.)
As for language use: No one knows for sure if the great apes does not use a
(primitive? proto?) language. Chimpanzees go hunting together which is not
easy in a tight forest so they have to communicate. Maybe what makes mankind
to mankind is not language or the use of tools but art and the feeling for
transcendence. But even that might be hard to tell.

Greetings,

Anja



=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498<http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#%21/group.php?gid=118916521473498>
=========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20100816/d66b83c2/attachment.htm>