LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.16 (02) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

=====================================================
*L O W L A N D S - L - 16 August 2010 - Volume 02
*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: Sandy Fleming <sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk>

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



> From: heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk <heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk>
>
> Subject: LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.15 (09) [EN]

> 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.

Something completely different strikes me: the development of fine
finger control could be to make signs used for communication more
sophisticated, and since sign languages use a fair bit of lip-patterning
and facial expression to support the manual signs, the use of sign
language might be a factor in fine control spreading to the mouth and
other parts of the face.


> 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?

As soon as metaphor arose, I should imagine! And that pretty much comes
along with language.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/



----------



From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk>

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



> From: Anja Meyfarth <aurinel at spray.se>
>
> Subject: LL-L "Evolution" 2010.08.15 (09) [EN]
>

> 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.)

I believe that in the ultimate battle between Egypt and the Hittites the
Egyptians used chariots but the Hittites used _better_ chariots: the
axle was placed so that it could support loads better and could carry
more "spears", meaning soldiers. This isn't to say that the Hittites
didn't give the Egyptians the wheel earlier, of course, I just don't
know, so I'll take your word for it!

I think with Egypt we're not so much talking about progress as
stability. This is the civilisation that existed for thousands of years
and barely changed its rather laborous writing system throughout that
time (oversimplifying a bit!). In general I'd say a long-lasting empire
means a tradition of kings or civil servants that ensure standards are
maintained, and this can block progress.

The Chinese dynasties seem analogous: they invented stuff, but the
government was interested only as far as they could be used to maintain
the status quo rather than change it.

So another reason for lack of innovation may be stable empires with
strong government.


> 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.



Apes are rather good at picking up signs from Deaf people, and seem to
understand them sometimes. Deaf friends who go to zoos (I don't!) inform
me that every ape's favourite sign is "wanker". Or is that just the
males? Or is it just what human males like to say to them? We need more
science! But I don't know of any reason to believe that grammar is used.


Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/



=========================================================
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/20100816/8f9c397e/attachment.htm>