it would appear by the archeological record that written language began 5,000 years ago. they have not to this day, unearthed anything older...so my view is that it is as old as the 5,000 odd years that they say it is.
In your mind, how long has written language been here?
And, what do you do with the fossilized remains of creatures anatomically identical to modern humans that predate written language? Do you dispute that such fossils exist?
Furthermore, why is written language the marker of choice?
what sort of 'creatures anatomically identical' to modern humans do you mean??? Are you talking about Apes? Homo habilis? Homo erectus? Homo rhodensiensis? Neanderthal???
i dont dispute that the fossils of any of these exist at all.
The written language is the marker for the modern humans that we are today...with the intellect that we have.
Do you believe that intellect suddenly spiked with the advent of written language, and that this spike marks the beginning of what you would call "modern man"?
not really. i believe we were created with it. so for me, 'modern man' would equate to the creation of Adam & Eve.
There are fossils of humans (i.e., Homo sapiens) that predate the advent of written language. The only difference between those humans and the humans of 5000 years ago is written language. . Would you argue that those Amazon tribes and African tribes that still have not invented written language are not "modern man"?
I do acknowledge that the species that came before us were real...however, i also believe that they, like all other animals, were created for a purpose and when their purpose was realized, they were permitted to become extinct....like the dinosaurs for instance.
I wouldnt say that any groups of people who do not have a written language are not modern... they would certainly have the capacity for it, if they have the capcity for language, then they would have to have the capacity for writing...but i have no idea why they dont, perhaps their culture may not require written language???.
Would you argue that written language is enough of a distinction between two groups of hominids to call them different species?
i certainly think that written language is unique to todays humans...i've never been presented with anything different...and as i've already stated, written language has only been around for the last 5,000 odd years... unless you can present anything different on this???
Re: Communication is communicaiton, it isn't limited to morse code, _ _ _ ... ,
We will now see you equivocate on what "written language" consists of
i see where you are going with this...i was referring to language in terms of, the written word. Yes, paintings are a form of communication too, but these paintings are quite young really...if the carbon 14 dating method that they used to date them is accurate
which is debatable.
Stone tools are the result of communication of technology from one person to another.
im not sure i would equate the use of tools as something that determines modern man for the reason that we can watch animals today use things as tools. the zoo in melbourne has a particular low land gorilla that pulls sticks off bush's to hit other gorillas with and to dig holes in the ground.
the common theory is that languages started long ago as grunts, groans and barks. But what do some linguists say??? Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. I, No. 1, January 1956, p. 11 have a list of quotes from the following people....
Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics G. L. Trager says: â€œHistorical knowledge about existing languages goes back only a few thousand years.â€
An article in Science Illustrated of July 1948 stated: â€œOlder forms of the languages known today were far more difficult than their modern descendants .Â .Â . man appears not to have begun with a simple speech, and gradually made it more complex, but rather to have gotten hold of a tremendously knotty speech somewhere in the unrecorded past, and gradually simplified it to the modern form.â€
Linguist Dr. Mason â€œthe idea that â€˜savagesâ€™ speak in a series of grunts, and are unable to express many â€˜civilizedâ€™ concepts, is very wrong.â€ He adds that â€œmany of the languages of non-literate peoples are far more complex than modern European ones.â€â€”Science News Letter, September 3, 1955.
Linguists say that about 50Â percent of earthâ€™s inhabitants speak languages belonging to the Indo-European language family. That puts them all originally in the same area,hence explaining their similarities
Of the 1,000-odd languages spoken in Africa, some three hundred have a remarkable similarity in their unusual grammatical structure. Known as the Bantu language family, they are spoken in most regions south of the equator. â€œBantu,â€ meaning â€œpeople,â€ is a word common to these languages, hence the name â€œBantu family.â€ Linguists believe that the Bantu family descended from a parent language spoken in central West Africa more than two thousand years ago....Again, showing the same origin.
so languages can be traced back to an original source ...this is evidence of a single language being spoken at a particular time in the past... and if you want to believe in the babel story or not, you simply cannot deny the possiblity of it