|
|
Re: [PALEO,LING] ] Re: Language, gesture, etc.
Ania Lian (ania@LINGUA.CLTR.UQ.OZ.AU)
Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:06:41 +1000
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Ralph L Holloway wrote:
> that stone tool making is one of the few windows to hominid cognition, as
> I tried to argue back in 1969.
Whose argument is this originally? I think it is an ingenious way of
thinking.
> .. primitive language was necessary to accomplish that and have it so wide
> spread ithroughout so much of Africa, and of course, later, elsewhere.
It sure does not look primitive to me for such an achievement. These
notions of "protolangauge" (which had to be a language) and
primitive language make me think that we seem to be still playing the old
game what was first, an egg or a chicken. As others say, we are good at
what we are, and therefore so are our means of communication.
> When you get to Levallois flakes, I regard the "grammar" as very
> sophisticated and "advanced". I'll bet my eye teeth that those hominids
> had language and would get flamed on any newsgroup.
I read that so had the Neanderthal had a langauge, and why shouldn't he?
in spite of his primitivness:-)
a
|