how did our language derive from nothing?

thanks Except that if there is a {feral group} of children they develop their own language (NSL). It seems to me that one contradicts the other, and this leads me to think that the {single feral} children do develop language, just language that is too foreign for us to understand or even conceive because it is "tied up with social interactions" they have with their {feral adoptive} {parents\species}.It is interesting that the wikipedia article listed a number of different species: cows, sheep, dogs, wolves, bears, chickens (though that one is due to abusive neglect), and we humans have not found a level of communication with these species (the way we have with apes for instance). There could be nuances of communication that we are just {deaf\dumb\blind} to seeing in the feral children, being too ready to dismiss them as animalistic grunts and growls and brutish movements. These also have the benefits of some references between the different languages and cultures eh?Thanks, I will. Perhaps it is because the "new culture and language" is even more different for the feral child? Time to google off into the ethernet ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I agree with that. That's how I see it.

thanksfound
LANGUAGE EVOLUTION: A BRIEF GUIDE FOR LINGUISTS
and
Coconuts (no, not marx brothers. makes me think of spooner)busy reading

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'm surprised no one mentioned this. Your infromation is far, far off. Chimps are apes, and chimps are much closer to Humans. The brain thing doesn't make sense. I beleive humans and chimps are 4 million years from each other, but I could be wrong (I read The Third Chimpanzee a few years back). A little while after we split one gene that controlled making the jaw bone extend turned off. This allowed our brain to grow simply, because there is more room. With a larger brain you can store more infromation, and about half our brain is for language, and that can easily evolve in four million years.

welcome, new person7, to the fray. If you use the {reply} button at the end of the (there's one on each) message, then your reply is linked to that message and we know who's "your" you're referring to. My recollection is 4 to 7, and closer to 7 from some sources. Selection for improved ability from a base of natural variation, yes. This is discussed on another thread as well (see bones of contention) Any idea what caused this? It seems a little simplified as an explanation to me. Sexual selection for neoteny (youthful looking mates) would have the same result don't you think?The original post also said 2x when the surface area of the human brain is 3x to 4x that of the chimps.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Incidentally, a recent article in Nature showed that macaque monkeys have a homologue to our Broca's area. Abstract.

It was the turning off of a single gene. Intresting that we only have thirty thousand genes. According to Jared Daimond in the third chimpanzee we are only 4 million years off chimpanzees, the gene turning off happened after the split, because chimpanzees do not have that gene (well I should say they do have it because its us who doesn't have it).

please use the {reply} button included in the message window and not the {general reply} button, as this links your reply to the message that you are replying to, and an e-mail is sent to the person. It also makes your post less cryptic (as in trying to figure out why your are posting it).I presume "It was the turning off of a single gene." is in response to But does not really answer the question? The question is not just that a {mutation\copy-error\etc} occured but why was it selected for?ps -- if you want to see how some of the "trick" formating is done you can choose the {peek} button beside the {reply} button or hit {peek mode} at the top of the message being replied to (assuming you use the {reply} message)Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

shankypanky247, you ask how we could develop a written language from grunts without a higher power. I think a key part of that is verbal communication, and coming to agreement about the meaning of words without having a language to describe them.I saw a BBC documentary in 2004 about Synaesthesia.
It was very good, covering all types of this experience (qualia?). Case-studies with living synaesthetes covered a man who tastes words. When he hears or reads a word he experiences its taste. When he cooks he has to do it alone because talking ruins his meal. Also covered was a woman who sees what she hears as a colour coded scrolling ticker tape across the top of her vision.Apparently this is not a very rare phenomenon, with estimates ranging from 1 in 2000 to 1 in 100 of the population being affected to some degree. The last section of the program introduced the idea of synaesthesia being involved in stimulating verbal language. A simple experiment was performed with two cardboard shapes ~50cm in diameter. One was a curvy amoeboid shape, the other irregular and spiky. The experimenter asked a number of people to name the shapes "Booba" and "Kiki". 99% named the amoeboid shape "Booba". The theory being that this is essentially a very mild synaesthia in all of us that may trigger the initial agreements required for verbal language. The program continued to give examples of other words and classes of words that sound like what they represent. I expect many words that do this do so for cultural or other reasons, but as a theory for helping to explain how started to speak it is attractive. I think that like most things there is no single reason for why we started to speak, other than that conditions were right.I'm not a linguist, and I don't know much about this. But google does :Transcript of the BBC documentary
BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon says(1 in 100)Article by a Neurologist
Page not found - Eyebeam (says 1 in 2000)(first post, be gentle)cheers,
Sour

And how did WE evolve from nothing? Nevertheless we exist. When you take God out of the picture, then there is no human reasoning to explain our creation that is not contradictory. Yet scientists try to use human reasoning to explain the billions of neurons in our brain that have to function in ONE way in order for us to even function and say there is no design! Scientists rely on the very design they say doesn't exist in order to form their theories! God's laws, which scientists call "natural" laws only work in a certain way and scientists use those very properties to utilze nuclear enery, electricity, etc. Their contradictions are endless.

And, yet, creationists like yourself rely on medical science that wouldn't be possible if evolution weren't fundamentally accurate. Contradictions, indeed!

Carico, we do make allowances for new users and also for Creationists to give them time to learn the ropes of reasoned debate. We try to be extra lenient, but your posts are not showing any improvement.Try to present things that have something to do with the topic. This last post has nothing to do with the subject and is simply a collection of unfounded assertions.See if you can try to stick to the subject. Bring up points, but be prepared to support them if challenged.Check out the links at the end of this message. They will point you to some areas that might help make your stay here more enjoyable.

---

And what does evolution have to do medicine? Do you really think that man would not be able to think if it weren't for apes who can't think?

Why don't you ask a doctor? It's because we can think that we recognize the fundamental accuracy of evolution; it's because we can model evolution that we can develop countermeasures to populations of pathogens.

I encountered this bit from an anthropological linguistics course, but I think it has held up...Generally, the ability to learn a second language with native fluency ends with puberty; once past that maturation point, one can be spotted by a native speaker as an "outsider".One fascinating question raised by this is what role language acquisition may have played in reproductively isolating linguistic groups, i.e., language as an evolutionary accelerant.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-08-2005 03:09 PM

---

Just because as we dig a little deeper, our notions change does not mean the discoveries are not useful.--randman