Andrew Winkler's Response and Debate

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Tomasello Not Answering · New blog on the kid: How did human language "evolve from non-human"? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Adam Reisman's Response, Mr. Flibble's Debate · Andrew Winkler's Response and Debate · Creation vs. Evolution: Odd Perfect Numbers? Less Impossible than Abiogenesis or Evolutionary Origin of Human Language!

Q

How was the creator of the first language able to explain this concept and be understood and make others come to a consensus?
https://www.quora.com/How-was-the-creator-of-the-first-language-able-to-explain-this-concept-and-be-understood-and-make-others-come-to-a-consensus/answer/Andrew-Winkler-15

Andrew Winkler

Former Professor at Columbia University (1989–1993)

Thu, 23.XI.2023

Language is closely tied to gesture. Humans by the age of two understand pointing. And everyone can teach their language by pointing and articulating a word. I would assume that any ur language would be isolating, with no inflection and each word having a distinct atomic meaning.

A key piece of the puzzle is the fact that humans differ from all other apes in having a birth defect. This defect had the impact of improving articulation; it could have been a very sudden change. All apes have a rudimentary collection of calls that differentiate between, say, snakes and leopards. It’s possible that in a single generation the word stock expanded to thousands.

Day of St. Catherine

25.XI.2023

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How did human language "evolve from non-human"?

Andrew Winkler

We can only guess. But we do have these facts: apes generally use distinct calls to warn of specific dangers. Humans at some point diverged from other apes by losing a feature of the vocal tract that make precise articulation possible. Some words are self describing, a phenomenon called onomatopoeia. Consider the English word snake. It’s not accidental that it starts with an s sound: it echoes the hissing sound that snakes make. So I would guess that the first use of this vastly expanded articulation range first coined many onomatopoetic words, and then variations on those words, compounds of those words, kennings, and so on. There are lots of known ways that languages coin new words. Referencing the past and future are as simple as having words for morning, and night, and applying spatial sequence words like last and next to time. I very much doubt it took a long time to unfold. But it’s pretty clear that we’ll never know.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“But we do have these facts: apes generally use distinct calls to warn of specific dangers.”

Insofar as they elicit different responses.

“Humans at some point diverged from other apes by losing a feature of the vocal tract that make precise articulation possible.”

There are lots more than just the loss of hooks and air bags. That’s about articulation of vowels. When it comes to consonants, they are usually inaudible to ape ears, so, while the apes could pronounce a T, it would be pointless, because no ape could hear a T. So, the ears (at basically all points) and the hyoid (where apes have hooks for air bags and men haven’t) need to be different, but you also need a human FOXP-2, a Wernicke’s area and a Broca’s area.

Even more intriguing, some of these can be tested in old skeleta, and for those, we either find skeleta with entirely human configurations or with entirely inhuman ones.

“Some words are self describing, a phenomenon called onomatopoeia.”

Too limited to explain the origin even of a repertoir of morphemes.

“Consider the English word snake. It’s not accidental that it starts with an s sound: it echoes the hissing sound that snakes make.”

The rest of the word is not onomatopoetic.

“So I would guess that the first use of this vastly expanded articulation range first coined many onomatopoetic words, and then variations on those words, compounds of those words, kennings, and so on.”

You are forgetting general structure of the language.

• The onomatopoetic words would be too few to push the change in structure.
• In ape communications, onomatopoeia would be pointless, they have no nouns (the different danger signals don’t describe snakes and leopards as such, only what apes should do about them).
• If a human mind (on your view evolving from apes) came up with the idea of making an onomatopoetic utterance, it would arguably be a one sound vocalisation, like the vocalisations apes make.

“There are lots of known ways that languages coin new words.”

Indeed, but all of these are only observed once the general structure of a human language is already in place.

“Referencing the past and future are as simple as having words for morning, and night, and applying spatial sequence words like last and next to time.”

Before you can do that, you would need to be able to have conversations for curiosity, as distinct from communicating moods and orders.

“I very much doubt it took a long time to unfold.”

I’d agree, on the hypothesis that language evolved.

But in fact, I find it equally incredible to believe men evolved it in a short timespan and in a long one.

“But it’s pretty clear that we’ll never know.”

Unless you accept God did it as knowledge, which I do.

Andrew Winkler

That word “know”: it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

26.XI.2023

Last Lord's Day after Pentecost

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Meme complete with Captain Montoya from Princess Bride, right? How about this being the definition and meaning of “know”:

1. Believe
2. rightly
3. with a good reason
4. which leaves no room for reasonable doubt.

Which one is on your view lacking?

Andrew Winkler

You clearly believe. That is all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, for lacking “rightly” we’d need language to have evolved, right?

How is it that no one gave an even moderately good scenario, including you?

AND Tomasello refused to answer me on what would appear to be an open question, and it was probably seen as rhetorical, because he knew as well as you and I, there is no answer for how THATworks …

Tomasello Not Answering

On that issue, I think I return the compliment : you believe, that’s all.

Now head on to:
Creation vs. Evolution: Odd Perfect Numbers? Less Impossible than Abiogenesis or Evolutionary Origin of Human Language!