Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject

--- Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:

> Quoting R A Brown <ray@...>:
>
> > I would, however, question whether there was ever
> a time when _hominids_
> > did not have language.
>
> Unfortunately, the term "hominid" does not have a
> single, agreed-on definition.
My only argument is this: (And it does not depend on
the definition of "hominid" or any other term);

1. There was a time in the distant past when no living
creature had sophisticated language.

2. At the present time at least one living creature,
man, has sophisticated language.

3. That did not happen overnight, but came about as
the result of a period of increasing sophistication in
the manner and content of communication. Therefore, it
follows, seemingly incontrovertably, that there was,
during that period of emergence, a time when
communication was still at a primative level.  To
argue that no such period of primative communication
existed seems to me to be arguing that language popped
into existance overnight by some miraculous event.
That does not seem like a very sensible thesis.

There doesn't seem to be a third alternative here.
Either language popped into existence instantly or it
developed gradually. And even if "gradually" means
over a period of two and a half weeks, that still
means that on Wednesday of the first week language was
at a very primative stage analgous to (but not
necessarily identical with) "me see tiger." To say
that such a stage never existed is to say that
language popped into existance instantaneously. There
is no third alternative. That's all I'm trying to
point out.

If someone can point out a third alternative to
gradual vs instantaneous then I will gladly admit that
I am wrong about this.

--gary

Reply