Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA28519 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 30 May 2000 03:13:19 +0100 Message-ID: <3932DCFE.AA3B11FB@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:11:26 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Jabbering ! References: <000c01bfc886$d8215820$8301bed4@default> <a04310104b556ee1fe2f2@[207.17.188.51]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7115547135DCAB909E323DC9" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If you want to know what is currently considered one of the most
credible theories on this, read Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct".
It is not anywhere near useful to refer to "one primeval language".
"Mark M. Mills" wrote:
>> This brings the scientists closer to the theory that all languages
>> originate
>
>> out of one primeval language. >>
>
> Kenneth, I'm not sure I see why this work suggests the 'all language
> originates out of one primeval language.' Where would the 'primeval
> language' originate? It seems more sensible to consider the jabbering
> to be similar to arm and leg flexing, another popular activity for
> babies. In the evolutionary context, practicing 'na-na' or 'ta-ta'
> seems equally useful for alarm screams as saying 'ma-ma'. Any idea why
> a 'primeval language' should be involved? Maybe I misunderstand your
> use of the term. Mark
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 30 2000 - 03:13:51 BST