And the Whole Earth Was of One Language

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by juantoo3
IIrc, are you not a student of language? Perhaps you might have some directions to point us in to better our understanding of the development of primitive human language? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

No, I'm not a linguistics student, but I have taken a few classes in a few different languages. I also have had a few informal discussions (besides taking a couple of classes in the anthropology department) with a couple of the professors in both the antropology and the linguistics departments. This topic falls under the auspices of guttochronology (sp?), which is school of higher cultural anthropology/linguistics. I'm just a lowly follower of the Feline Path (I follow where my curiosity leads me.)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Took a little time to look, most of what I found was useless to us, but I did find these:

“Prehistoric Cultural Development

“Findings from recent research indicate that during the late stone age, languages, most likely to be precursors to the Afroasiatic Superfamily, existed in modern-day Eritrea and Sudan. While not definite, these languages first began to take their "separate" forms by 13,000 BCE, which is probably when the Omotic precurser-language began its slow migration southward in the Ethiopian region. Today, Omotic speakers live in the west and southwest part of the country.
Not too long afterward, the Cushitic language-precursor group were also in formation. The speakers of this language originally inhabited what is today northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, and slowly migrated westwards into the Sudan, further eastwards into eastern Ethiopia and northern Somalia, and southward into north-central Ethiopia (Gondar, Gojjam and Wallo).

“The Semitic family can also trace their origins from this area in north-eastern Africa. Most modern experts hold the theory that the Semitic precursor-language must have at first existed in a cluster with ancient Egyptian and Berber, before exiting into its unique form. However the timing for these events is quite difficult to discern. The Semitic language-precursor being, for our purposes, the "last" language in formation, was somehow transported into Arabia and further east into central and northern Asia.

“The early inhabitants of Ethiopia during the Chalcolithic Age (6200-3000 BCE) were in the beginning stages of domesticating grains such as teff and ansete (locally known as the false banana). Plough-based agriculture was also in the process of evolving, which could imply the domestication of cattle. Certainly by the Early Bronze Age (3000 BCE), the domestication of animals, including cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys was taking place.



Pre-Aksum
4500 BCE - 300 BCE

“As early as 4500 BCE, wheat and barley could have entered northern Ethiopia from the northern Sudan/southern Egypt region. Some other seeds such as Teff (Eragrostis tef) and Enset (Ensete edulis, Ensete ventricosum), which are today still very important today in Ethiopia, originated in Ethiopia. The Pre-Aksumites probably started herding cattle "around the beginning of the second millennium BCE." Horses entered Ethiopia from the Nile Valley, camels from the Middle East, and sheep and goats entered Ethiopia from the Nile and the Middle East. (Henze 11-14)

“The earliest black inhabitants of the Ethiopian region have very few of their descent exist today. These indigene were joined by immigrants from Egypt and the later from south Arabia (Doresse 20). However, the arrival of the immigrants does not mark the beginning of civilization. For much time before, 'peoples had been interacting through population movement, warfare, trade, and intermarriage in the Ethiopian region, resulting in a predominance of peoples speaking languages of the Afro-Asiatic family. The main branches represented were the Cushitic and the Semitic.' (Munro-Hay 62)

“By mid first millennium BCE, clear evidence of close contact between the Ethiopians and the south Arabians has been found. The immigrants, though probably not entirely, mostly came from a region of western Yemen associated with Sabean culture. It has become a rather difficult task in assessing why the Arabians originally left their homes to an entirely new culture, which had very little connection to their own. Perhaps, conditions were extremely harsh in their homelands such that the only means of escape is a direct route across the Red Sea into Eritrea. Over time, as their social and perhaps economical connections in the Ethiopian region became vast, it was safe to assume that migrating from the harsh desert would only be in their best interest. When the south Arabians crossed the Red Sea, they found the tribes of the Beja, Agaw, and Sidama, to name a few of the major groups (Tamrat 5-6). The south Arabians brought with them a writing system, from which Ge’ez takes its origin.

“As early as the third millennium BCE, the pre-Aksumites had begun trading along the Red Sea. They mainly traded with Egypt. Earlier trade expeditions were taken by foot along the Nile Valley. The Egyptians main object in the trade from the Ethiopian region (which they may have called Punt) was the acquire myrrh, which the Ethiopian region had much of.”

http://www.ethiopianhistory.com/lucy/cultural.html

Taken with Alexa’s first contributions to this thread, I can see why a noted professor would say this:

Interview with Professor Colin Renfrew Balzan Prize 2004 for Prehistoric Archaeology:

“One problem which continues to fascinate me relates to the prehistory of languages. It is well established that many of the languages of the world belong together in language ‘families’, each of which may be descended from a proto-language, which was spoken long before any of the known languages in the family was first written down. The location of the homelands of these proto-languages (and the determination of the relevant dates) is a difficult problem, which must certainly involve prehistoric archaeology, and also perhaps molecular genetics, as well as historical linguistics. These researches are already well underway, for instance for the Indo-European languages, but they have not reached altogether convincing conclusions. This is another theme which I hope to support through my Balzan Prize.

“I think that the whole new field of archaeogenetics – the application of molecular genetics to the study of human prehistory and history – is of exceptional interest. It is already showing that our ancestors of 40, 000 years ago were physically and genetically very little different from ourselves. The massive differences in our ways of life come in the long trajectories of learned experience which we inherit, over the generations, not only from our parents and relatives but from the communities in which we grow up. The genetic researches are showing that it is not the genetic differences so much as the cultural ones which account for the diversities in human societies. That realization opens up vast new perspectives.”

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...ng uage&hl=en

So gang, we really have stumbled into a quagmire once again!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am of the mind that even trees communicate, just not in ways humans are conditioned to understand communication.

Trees and other plants do indeed communicate, although I wouldn't say it qualifies as language. A plant attacked by a pathogen will give off volatile chemicals that can trigger a protective response in nearby plants.

If you count biochemicals you could say that all living organisms are in communication with each other all the time and we are very much connected.

Just a tid bit. Carry on.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards once again!

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

No, I'm not a linguistics student, but I have taken a few classes in a few different languages. I also have had a few informal discussions (besides taking a couple of classes in the anthropology department) with a couple of the professors in both the antropology and the linguistics departments. This topic falls under the auspices of guttochronology (sp?), which is school of higher cultural anthropology/linguistics. I'm just a lowly follower of the Feline Path (I follow where my curiosity leads me.)

My apologies for my misunderstanding. Thanks for the tip (guttochronology?).

I can relate to the curiousity factor, good thing satisfaction brings 'em back, eh?

Please don't hesitate if you happen upon something of interest to add!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, lunamoth!

Thank you for your post.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Trees and other plants do indeed communicate, although I wouldn't say it qualifies as language. A plant attacked by a pathogen will give off volatile chemicals that can trigger a protective response in nearby plants.

If you count biochemicals you could say that all living organisms are in communication with each other all the time and we are very much connected.

Just a tid bit. Carry on.

Indeed, this is what I was referring to, although I am not deeply versed.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

I'm sorry that I haven't participated in your dialogue here, but I'm trying to wrap my poor abused brain around so many different things that I'm a bit overwhelmed. Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Hello Phyllis ,

Thank you very much for joining us. You made my day !

I would like to know if in your study of Japonese and Swedish you have read history or evolution books of the language as a MUST litterature. I don't know if I am clear in my formulation. I mean, do you know what language the ancient Japon used to speak ? In my search, I have found information about sanskrit only. Or sanskrit is the official language in India and there are a lot other countries in south Asia. Same question for Swedish. As this is one of the north European languages, maybe you know something about the evolution of the language from your classes.

Believe me I abuse my poor brain evey day as the company I work in is a transitory status (bought another plant and keeps growing) and this transition brought a huge open eye from Health C. on our activities. Juantoo3 has his part of abused brain. So, please feel free to join us whenever your curiosity leads you in. With the study if Japonese and Swedish in the same time, you have a huge advantage on us, the amateurs.

I hope to see you soon.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Trees and other plants do indeed communicate, although I wouldn't say it qualifies as language.

Hello lunamoth,

Thank you very much for joining us. I missed your presence. As you can see, we are once again caught in a long term debate.

I hope, you'll continue to "travel" with us until we are able to find a satifactory answer and then "embark" into another saga.

Best regards,

Alexa

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So gang, we really have stumbled into a quagmire once again!

Hello Juantoo3,

Well, it seems this is one of our specialities to find quagmires and "swim in". The good news is we are not the only one into the search of the first language. Some linguists did the same work and could'nt find a satisfacory answer. Maybe we'll have the luck of the beginners and stole thier celebrity.

What you have found recently is not useless to us. It goes with my recent discoveries about proto-languages.

I have tried to find out what language Cro-Magnon may have used. Nobody knows or dares to assume an answer.

Some linguists agreed on an hypotetical ancestor of all the world's languages and called it Proto-World Language. It is supposed to have been spoken 200,000 years ago, the time suggested by archaeogenetics for the phylogenetic separation of the ancestorsof all humas alive today. They do not consider it as the first spoken language, but the latest common ancestor of all languages known today. Most historical linguists doubt of the existance of the Proto-World Language. Something about the glottogonic issues. Sorry, I didn't look into this deeper.

Vitaly Shevoroshkin is one of the leaders of a a controversial group of linguists who believe in the Nostratic theory.

[QUOTE Peter Thomas Nova Channel] This theory claims to identify an ancient super family of languages from which many of today's language families have descended. It wasn't until the 1960s in Russia that the Nostratic theory was approached with modern linguistic techniques by Vladislav Illytch Svitch. He believed he could work back in time from several reconstructed languages six thousand years old to find a more remote common ancestor, a language he called Proto-Nostratic. Today, Vitaly Shevoroshkin, an original member of this Russian group, is convinced of the importance of his mentor's work.

VITALY SHEVOROSHKIN: He could see and find in the chaos exactly things which fit, and that is the most important thing in linguistics, because there are so many data. And, he managed to establish precise sound correspondences between these Nostratic words in different languages and make other things like reconstruct grammar and semantics and lexics and so on. So, it was something which was done in a very precise way, and that's why it is so great, I think.[/quote]

And here you have the end of transcriptions from a Nova TV emission in 1997. The subject was "In the search of the first language"

DON RINGE, JR.: It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that all human languages derive from some common source. I think most linguists would agree with that. I think we would all be shocked if anyone ever came up with hard evidence that all human languages don't derive from some common source. But, unfortunately, that's not the issue. The issue is whether we can offer objective proof that all human languages derive from a common source, or whether we have to be content to believe it.

JAMES MATISOFF: Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the Nostratic theory, and say that the time depth is fifteen thousand years, fifteen thousand is not forty thousand, and it's not two hundred thousand. You just cannot go back. There were glaciations in between there, too, by the way, and all kinds of catastrophes on the global scale between two hundred thousand years ago and now. How could anything have been left of that presumed original linguistic unity, even if it did exist? Still, it's nice to think about. It's very nice to think about the days before Babel, when everybody spoke exactly the same way. But, it's a dream. It's a belief. It's not scientifically testable, one way or the other.

PETER THOMAS: Gazing upon these silently evocative images from the past, it's only natural to want to know more about these artists and their message. It's easy to imagine that a people who could visually symbolize their world could also speak a complex language. New clues to the past continually emerge as we compare the world's languages and trace their relationships back in time. Language is the mirror of our humanity, and only by studying its many reflections will we ever fully know ourselves.

"Language is the mirror of our humanity". Nice, isn't it ?

See you soon,

Alexa

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

Hello lunamoth,

Thank you very much for joining us. I missed your presence. As you can see, we are once again caught in a long term debate.

I hope, you'll continue to "travel" with us until we are able to find a satifactory answer and then "embark" into another saga.

Best regards,

Alexa

Hi Alexa,

I've missed our interactions as well . Sorry to hear that you are experiencing growing pains in your work--hope it evens out for you soon.

This conversation is very much out of my league so I will just sit back and enjoy.

Peace,
lunamoth

[alexa]

Hi lunamoth.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Sorry to hear that you are experiencing growing pains in your work--hope it evens out for you soon.

Thanks. It will take at leat 6 months of transition. I must admit I don't know what a regular job asks for anymore. More I give of myself at work, more I realize they want much more and it's never enough.

This conversation is very much out of my league so I will just sit back and enjoy.

I was hoping you could help us with the glottogonic issues. I read about it, but I'm not sure I completly understand it.

Thanks,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards,alexa!

Thank you for the wonderful post!

I am sorry to hear of your troubles at work, but I hope it is for the better in the end.

Originally Posted by alexa

Well, it seems this is one of our specialities to find quagmires and "swim in". The good news is we are not the only one into the search of the first language. Some linguists did the same work and could'nt find a satisfacory answer. Maybe we'll have the luck of the beginners and stole thier celebrity.

I guess I'm pretty good at stepping in "quagmires," I just gotta remember to wipe my feet before I come back into the house! *mumbles- darn qauggas, why can't they clean up after themselves?* We can certainly hope for beginner's luck.

What you have found recently is not useless to us. It goes with my recent discoveries about proto-languages.

Oh yes, I agree. My original comment had to do with the search parameters I put in the search engine. I got a lot of book advertisements and college course descriptions, but not a lot to study. That is what I had meant.

I have tried to find out what language Cro-Magnon may have used. Nobody knows or dares to assume an answer.

Oh my! How does one guess what language a people speaks when there are no writings left to study?

Some linguists agreed on an hypotetical ancestor of all the world's languages and called it Proto-World Language. It is supposed to have been spoken 200,000 years ago, the time suggested by archaeogenetics for the phylogenetic separation of the ancestorsof all humas alive today. They do not consider it as the first spoken language, but the latest common ancestor of all languages known today. Most historical linguists doubt of the existance of the Proto-World Language. Something about the glottogonic issues. Sorry, I didn't look into this deeper.

I took a minute at work to print out some stuff, but my notes aren't handy. Since math isn't my strong point, I will have to defer an in-depth assessment, but it seems to me, gauging by the Calculus formula attached to the term, that it is a mathematical formula to attempt to bring language back to a common source. I also found a great deal of controversy among researchers about using this system, as they could not agree on the constants to use. That is, how to determine constant values within language, when too much is variable. Perhaps I misunderstood, but that is my understanding of what I read.

Nostratic theory. This theory claims to identify an ancient super family of languages from which many of today's language families have descended.

I did stumble on a couple of these theories, and it seems interesting to me that depending on where the researchers are coming from, as to where they believe things began. Could be I am just seeing things.

"Language is the mirror of our humanity". Nice, isn't it ?

Yes, that is a nice picture.

So, OK, it seems to me that the existing researchers may be reaching for a preset conclusion. I mean, 200 thousand years, isn't that a bit far back? That predates rational thought in humans, it predates tools and weapons and all of the artifacts we hold. And even the most generous researches I have seen only credit the use of fire to 100 thousand years, or half of what is being suggested. Are these guys trying to say that proto-sapiens spoke a language before they obtained fire and all manner of tools, rational thought and religion?

With humble respect, I think they may be barking up the wrong tree. It sounds to me rather like the distinction luna made between language and communication. At 200 thousand years ago, no doubt there was communication, but I do not think we can actually call it language. I mean, it seems to me rational thought is an absolutely necessary precursor to language as distinct from communication. Communication can be conducted with grunts and groans, tonality and volume. Look at how a mother dog snaps at her pups to leave her alone. Shared language implies more or less specific understanding of what a sound or group of sounds means. Shared language is crucial to conveying a thought, as in teaching or instructing. I would think the best teaching is by example, but what of after the hunt, when the tribe is sitting around the campfire cooking supper and the hunters wish to convey what it is they did (right and wrong) to the other hunters and "would-be" hunters? If there is some kind of common communication between them that transcends grunts and volume, then the teaching can be conducted. (some of this communication may have even been visual, sort of sign language, and the ancestor to modern tribal dance) Otherwise, I am not seeing just now how the conveyance of thought can take place, short of actual example.

Ah, Vaj! When did humanity begin to practice and pass on memes?

Just my thoughts for the day...

[juantoo3]

What a stoke of fortune, I found my notes!

http://cs.engr.uky.edu/~gstump/519/outline10.html

This gives the formula for glottochronology, which implies 81% of a base core of vocabulary will be preserved after one thousand years.

Criticisms that affect the retention rate include: borrowing, taboo, strong literary retention rate and ethnic/national pride, and devising a universally valid list of basic vocabulary.

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment....ottochronology

This gives the definition of glottochronology: the determination of how long ago different languages evolved from a common source language.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Foru...-TimeDepth.htm

This is a portion of a discussion concerning the development of Indo-European language.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Foru...chronology.htm

A discussion from R. L. Trask, lecturer in linguistics at the University of Sussex concerning glottochronology:

"Glottochronology and its relative lexicostatistics do not "rule out" anything. The whole point of these two techniques is that they can *only* be applied to languages whose genetic relationships is already established, and between which cognates have already been identified." (emphasis in the original)

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../histlang.html

Introduction to Historical Linguistics

"There were lots of people looking at languages in the middle ages. However, most of them were trying to show Hebrew giving rise to all of the world's languages, specifically European languages. This never really worked, since Hebrew is not directly related to Indo-European languages."

http://www.mavicanet.com/directory/eng/5622.html

This looks like it may be a good resource to search through, but I didn't have time to look yet.

Regards!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

I took a free minute yesterday and looked into "glottogonic", having realised I confused it with "glottochronology."

Once again, I have mislaid my notes. (*mumbles-got to do something about that!*) I didn't get far into the material, but it seems to be very similar to the sign language concept I mentioned. This professor was putting forth the idea that the proto-humans 200 thousand years ago initially "talked" with gestures. I want to go through the material, it sounds interesting.

[alexa]

No problem, juantoo3. I was a little confused about glottochronology, but I found in the last link some interesting links. I still have to find the time to look into them better than a rush glimpse. Unfortunately, I have to work tomorrow for a special project. For the rest, you know how fast a week-end goes and another week begins.

Do you consider sumerian or sanskrit for the first position as the first written language ? If I have to choose, I'll go for sumerian, but sankrit is a serious candidate.

But, if the earth really was one time, long ago of one language, that language was not a written one.

Human language is a conventionalized system of body movements that can represent and convey complex propositional messages .
The grammar of a language expresses the relationship between all possible language movements (utterances) and messages in that language.

The level-element model of grammar includes levels of phonology, morphology (lexicon), syntax, semantics, and pragmatics including reference.

Human language works by recombining elements at the various levels: morphemes into words; words into phrases and clauses.

This combinatorial or recursive aspect of language underlies our ability to create and understand novel utterances--including complex sentences with >1 clause. See Limber (1977) on the creative/projective aspect of human language.

The meaning of an utterance is built up out of the meaning of its morphemes in their syntactic (phrase) context as well as context of use. Linguists talk about the sense of an expression as well as the referent of an expression. For example the expressions "instructor in 512", "writer of these notes" and "John Limber" all refer in this context to me (John Limber) but all three expressions have a different sense based on our conventional meanings for the morphemes in those expressions. Note that "John Limber" does not have a sense in the same way that "instructor in 512" does. Proper names may only have a referent.

All human languages follow these same patterns; linguists think of all 5000 or so languages as dialects of a universal human language that evolved anywhere from 20,000 to 2,000,000 years ago. I would guess between 50,000 to 200,000 years ago for the first human language comparable to existing ones today. As discussed in class, however, I expect that hominids (habilis, erectus) had some form of referential language --unlike current ape communication systems -- based on the existence of tools dating from 2 million years ago. At this point, this is shear speculation based on the impoverished "teaching" methods observed in contemporary chimps' use of tools.

Source : http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/video/langvid.html

What do you think about this ?

Best regards,
Alexa

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

I haven't seen any books about proto-Japanese, but I had to skip taking both Japanese and Swedish this past semester (Japanese due to missing so many classes during the fall semester, Swedish because it was cancelled [not enough students signed up]) but I'm signed up for Russian and Japanese during the next fall semester (I know - masochist. ) Anyhow, I'm planning on speaking with the sensei about where I can start looking for something concerning proto-Japanese (perhaps as a project for the fourth semester class *shrug*) Perhaps I could ask my Russian professor if s/he could steer me owards Old Russian texts to see how the language was influenced by the Rus vikings original language (which might have been Old Norse or Old Swedish.) That is, if anybody's still interested in this thread.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine