The first language that all others evolved from...

Status
Not open for further replies.

COF

Member
English - English
I'm told that there was a language spoken in the Middle East that all other languages essentially came from.

Is this true, and if so, what is it

EDIT: Typo, "overs" was meant to be "others".

EDIT 2: Typo corrected.;)
zebedee
 
  • Talant

    Senior Member
    Hi COF,

    I very much doubt it, unless you mean the one the australopytecus used (or someone a little younger). I do believe that there is a handful of languages who are the roots of all the other ones. The Indoeuropean (?) (In Spanish, "Indoeuropeo") is one of the biggest. It has produced most European languages and some Asiatic ones. But there are others. For instance, Vasque or Euskara has nothing to do with Indoeuropean.

    Bye
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    1. If there ever was a language which was spoken by all human beings, you can be sure that it has long become extinct.

    2. There are many theories about such a primordial language, some of them serious, most just ignorant, but none has come up with enough evidence to convince linguists that it's true.

    Read more here.
     

    Thomas F. O'Gara

    Senior Member
    English USA
    There are no shortage of theories on this area, and not just crackpot ideas concocted by amateur enthusiasts (although there are a lot of those too); you may want to start by checking out Wikipedia's article on Joseph Greenberg, who was one of the major academics proposing the existence of linguistic "supergroups." Several of his findings, like the existence of the Afro-Asiatic group, have been accepted theory for some time, while others are still highly controversial, and may always be, since there is no methodology that can provide anything resembling an accurate analysis for what he postulated.

    Russian academics have in particular spent a lot of time and effort on this field. You may want to research what you can locate about Nikita Krugly's findings as well. Such as they are, whether the theorist assumes the source as "Proto-Nostratic", "Boreal" or from the continent of Mu, I don't know of anybody strongly propounding a Middle Eastern source any more.
     

    Frank06

    Senior Member
    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    Hi,
    I'm told that there was a language spoken in the Middle East that all other languages essentially came from. Is this true, and if so, what is it
    In short, it's not true. BTW, one language from which all others are derived, no matter how attractive a view, isn't (and cannot be) proven at all.
    The only people I know who locate the 'first language' in the Middle East are biblical literalists and certain jewish orthodox groups. Needless to say that in their view that language is (some kind of ancient) Hebrew.

    COF, I am very much interested in crackpot theories, could you give more details what you were told?

    Groetjes,

    Frank
     

    übermönch

    Senior Member
    World - 1.German, 2.Russian, 3.English
    Well, though it certainly wasn't spoken in middle east, a first language thing seems quite plausible to me. There is no reason to invent a completely new language if someone in the community already has one, that is why all languages we know (aside from very few isolates like Basque) can be traced back to several common ancenstors - just because we lack enough knowledge of long-dead languages doesn't mean they appeared differently to those we studied enough. The language Superfamily theorists have some reason - there are obvious similarities in grammar and sometimes simple voc. between old World language groups (drawidian, uralic, altaic, indoeuropean, kartvelian, afroasiatic) which differs them from KhoiSan, Bantu, Chinese and New World languages.
    I've seen a site which compared words in several language groups, I hope I can find it.
     

    mytwolangs

    Senior Member
    English United States
    COF, I am very much interested in crackpot theories, could you give more details what you were told?

    Groetjes,

    Frank
    One theory said this -
    At some time, they were building a tower up to heaven. They got so high, could not believe what they saw, and all of them spoke a different language. They could not understand each other and no one else could. The Tower of babble? Something they were building in Babylon.
    This is one story I heard years ago before the Web.

    It makes for a good story, but who knows. Sounds silly to me.
     

    whattheflock

    Banned
    Inglesito, US of A
    I like the idea that there were several hominid groups even as recently as a hundred and fifty thousand years ago. But then, little by little, they were gone. So about sixty thousand years ago, give or take a week, several groups of humans began a long, never to return, migration all over the world, and pretty much one single group of humans managed to spread out from the heart of Africa to all over the world (even America!).
    So, if there were ever a "universal language", it's probably the one spoken originally by the group(s) of people that launched this global re-population.

    I suppose this is a latter-day Babel Tower version, no?
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Just one note: the "never to return" scenario you speak of is not completely accurate. Recent genetic research has shown that human populations sometimes went back to Africa (for example) after they'd left it for the first time.
     

    whattheflock

    Banned
    Inglesito, US of A
    Cool, but how long after was the return? Because maybe by then they were so changed from their ancestors that it might as well be the migration of different people. Certainly with different languages. I mean, look at the changes we all have gone through in the last five thousand years. Just imagine if the original wave of immigration returned, let's guess, ten thousand years later.
    Good observation, though. Good food for thought.
    Hmmmmm.... (*meditating*)
     

    übermönch

    Senior Member
    World - 1.German, 2.Russian, 3.English
    He talks about spontaneous mutation, which indeed is hard to believe. Couldn't those vocal cords have gradually developed in the hominid branch through natural selection? Humans are not the only animals which have the ability to emmit different sounds in different situations, there are even ones which aren't worse at it than humans - called "anthropoglot"s.
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    I'm not sure I understand your objection. Natural selection and spontaneous mutation are two sides of the same coin, evolution.
     

    Frank06

    Senior Member
    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    Hi,
    Oh, COF, do you mean Sumerian? Check this out: Sun Language Theory
    I don't know if this theory is widely known in other countries, actually.
    Oh, my favourite internet fringe linguist and pan-turkist Polat Kaya does his best to spread the (Sun) Word. Quite hilarious chap...
    Which makes me wonder: is there somebody outside (and, erm, well, inside) Turkey who takes this theory seriously?

    Groetjes,

    Frank
     

    mplsray

    Senior Member
    I'm told that there was a language spoken in the Middle East that all other languages essentially came from.

    Is this true, and if so, what is it

    EDIT: Typo, "overs" was meant to be "others".

    EDIT 2: Typo corrected.;)
    zebedee
    I have read that Noah Webster believed that all languages were descended from Chaldean. But etymology was Webster's weakest point, and the very concept of one first language from which all subsequent languages descended is a controversial one.
     

    Aprinsă

    Member
    English - United States
    Perhaps you are talking about Indo-European, which theoretically spread generation by generation as the population in the Fertile Crescent grew too large?

    Rosenfelder's article is indeed very interesting, suggesting that most of human intelligence was developed before language. Cool! I guess that has nothing to do with this topic, but I really have to depart now (homework!).
     

    Frank06

    Senior Member
    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    hi,
    Perhaps you are talking about Indo-European, which theoretically spread generation by generation as the population in the Fertile Crescent grew too large?
    I fail to see the connection between Indo-European and the Fertile Crescent...

    Groetjes,

    Frank
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Well, what Mark Rosenfelden offers, is a theory that there was a huge leap through mutation creating fully functional vocal chords among Homo Sapiens and related species not that long ago.

    [Bolded mine.]
    No, that's an idea he criticizes. ;)
     

    modus.irrealis

    Senior Member
    English, Canada
    1. If there ever was a language which was spoken by all human beings, you can be sure that it has long become extinct.
    Depends on how you define extinct -- if Proto-World did exist, you could say there are now 6 billion speakers of the various dialects of Modern Proto-World :)
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Is Latin still spoken, or would you say it's a dead language? I think most people would agree that it's a dead language, because it's not used natively anymore, and has been replaced with its daughter languages. In the same sense, I would reckon that Proto-World, if it ever existed, is now extinct, having been replaced with its many descendants.
     

    modus.irrealis

    Senior Member
    English, Canada
    I would say people call Latin a dead language but that that's just an arbitrary decision -- they could just as easily speak of the Modern Latin dialects. The relation of French to Latin is the same as Modern Greek to Ancient Greek -- I don't see why one language died but the other didn't.
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Because ancient Greek "gave birth" to only one modern language, whereas Latin split into several.
     

    modus.irrealis

    Senior Member
    English, Canada
    But again, whether you have one language or many is an arbitrary decision. There are dialects of Greek (Tsakonian e.g.) which could be seen as separate languages instead of dialects. Is Chinese one language or many? Even with English, many consider Scots a separate language, but we still have Old and Modern English. If the Romance langauges were considered to be dialects of a single language, would Latin then be alive?

    I think the family tree metaphor for languages can only go so far.
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Yes, of course, there is always some subjectivity when we attempt to count languages, or to differentiate between them. But that means that the Big Question "Is the Original Language of Mankind still around?" can only have a qualified answer. :)
     

    modus.irrealis

    Senior Member
    English, Canada
    Alright -- I was just trying to make a silly comment.

    As for crackpot theories, I suddenly recalled this one, which involves Basque and Benedictine monks of all thing. I can only hope it's not meant seriously.
     

    mplsray

    Senior Member
    But again, whether you have one language or many is an arbitrary decision. There are dialects of Greek (Tsakonian e.g.) which could be seen as separate languages instead of dialects. Is Chinese one language or many? Even with English, many consider Scots a separate language, but we still have Old and Modern English. If the Romance langauges were considered to be dialects of a single language, would Latin then be alive?

    I think the family tree metaphor for languages can only go so far.
    Linguist John McWhorter has said that there are no languages, only dialects.

    That doesn't stop him from using English or French or Russian as if he were speaking of a language, however.

    Seeing French as a "dialect" of Latin, in anything but a historical sense--that is, in the minority sense of dialect meaning a daughter language, a sense little know outside of linguistics and not used that often even there, as "French and Catalan are dialects of Latin"--seems pointless to me. What makes Latin a dead language is that there is no way of making new, fresh expressions: Clumsy circumlocutions tend to be used instead, with none of the sort of adaptations, changes made by its speakers themselves, which occur naturally in modern languages, including Modern Greek and Modern Hebrew.

    The original language or languages have to be considered even deader than Latin, since not only are we able to give new items fresh new names, we can't even say a single word in these languages!
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Yikes! :eek:

    [URL=http://www.islandnet.com/~nyland/benedict.htm]The website[/URL] said:
    The task assigned to Benedict was to train monks to go out into western Europe and create a Roman Catholic Christian presence in areas where many Gnostic Christian missionaries from Ireland had long been active.
    Gnostics in Ireland? I think I'll stop reading right here. :rolleyes:
     

    modus.irrealis

    Senior Member
    English, Canada
    What makes Latin a dead language is that there is no way of making new, fresh expressions: Clumsy circumlocutions tend to be used instead, with none of the sort of adaptations, changes made by its speakers themselves, which occur naturally in modern languages, including Modern Greek and Modern Hebrew.
    Leaving aside the fact that new Latin expressions have been constantly created since Cicero, I don't see how a new French expression is not a new Latin expression, but a new Modern Greek expression is a new Greek expression, except in a very arbitrary sense. I'm not saying we should change the common way of thinking -- I'm just trying to point out it's arbitrary.

    Personally, I would like the "dead" metaphor to apply to languages which at some point in time stopped being passed on to a new generation through first language acquistion and this never occured to Latin. Unfortunately for me, I have no power over how words are used. You brought up Hebrew, though, which fascinates me because it was a dead language (even in my sense) that has been revived.
     

    Chazzwozzer

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    Hi,


    Oh, my favourite internet fringe linguist and pan-turkist Polat Kaya does his best to spread the (Sun) Word. Quite hilarious chap...
    Which makes me wonder: is there somebody outside (and, erm, well, inside) Turkey who takes this theory seriously?

    Groetjes,

    Frank
    All the people I know here, including my linguist teacher, find this theory too weird and unreal. It's not taken seriously by Turks either.
     

    Frank06

    Senior Member
    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    Hi,
    All the people I know here, including my linguist teacher, find this theory too weird and unreal. What makes you say it is taken seriously by Turks?
    I don't get it. I never said anything like that.
    I only happen to know a few Turks who take it very seriously. I simply wondered how widespread the belief in that Sun Language Theory is in Turkey (also among non-linguists).

    P.S: Who's Polat Kaya?
    PK is one of the many internet pseudo-linguistists with a very ideosyncratic adaptation of the Sun Language Theory. He runs a few e-groups devoted to his theories and writes quite a lot of stuff. He seems to have his band of supporters...
    In short, his starting pointis that Turkish (not even a Turkic language!) is thee First Language from which all other languages are derived via a process he calls -- and I am not making this up -- anagrammatisation. His theories are, besides ludicrous, also anachronistic since he claims that Sumerian expressions are to be considered as annagrams of (modern) Turkish words (and expressions).

    Groetjes,

    Frank
     

    Chazzwozzer

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    Sorry, got it but I was too late to edit my post and you had already quoted the message.

    Anyway, I still wonder if Sun Language Theory was what CFO heard and where he heard about it.
     

    Aprinsă

    Member
    English - United States
    "I fail to see the connection between Indo-European and the Fertile Crescent..."

    Wouldn't it make sense for Indo --- European to be somewhere between India and Europe?

    Well, in my English class, we talked about theories as to the origin of Indo-European. The theory that my English teacher finds the most convincing, and that I have no objections to at the moment, involves the Fertile Crescent. The Indo-Europeans would have been farmers in the Fertile Crescent. As their land became overpopulated, they would have moved about ten miles in either direction (toward Europe and toward India) per generation. Eventually, they would have gotten so far that they would have communicated with hunter-gatherers they had run into. The hunter-gatherers said, "Hey, these guys have a larger population than us, they're bigger and stronger than us, and they have tons of food. Let's ask them how they do it." This is supposed to explain agrarian words both in European languages and Sanskrit that have a common ancestor.

    And so on.
     

    Frank06

    Senior Member
    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    Hi,
    Wouldn't it make sense for Indo --- European to be somewhere between India and Europe?
    Well, in my English class, we talked about theories as to the origin of Indo-European. The theory that my English teacher finds the most convincing, and that I have no objections to at the moment, involves the Fertile Crescent. The Indo-Europeans would have been farmers in the Fertile Crescent. As their land became overpopulated, they would have moved about ten miles in either direction (toward Europe and toward India) per generation. Eventually, they would have gotten so far that they would have communicated with hunter-gatherers they had run into. The hunter-gatherers said, "Hey, these guys have a larger population than us, they're bigger and stronger than us, and they have tons of food. Let's ask them how they do it." This is supposed to explain agrarian words both in European languages and Sanskrit that have a common ancestor.
    Where to start ...
    "This is supposed to explain agrarian words both in European languages and Sanskrit that have a common ancestor."
    Well, Sanskrit is one of the many IE languages, meaning that it also goes back to Proto-IE (just as English and Latvian e.a.), so it does have words in common with the other IE languages, even outside the, erm, field of farming and agriculture.

    Do you have more information about what your teacher told you?

    I have read a lot of theories about the homeland of the PIE speakers. Actually every square mile between Skandinavia and India has been suggested through the decades. But all of them located the alleged homeland north (or far north) [edit: and east, viz. India] of the Fertile Crescent. I don't know any theory which locates the PIE homeland within the FC.
    A few words suggest a (kind of) contact with Semitic languages (like *septm, seven), but even that is not for sure.
    Collin Renfrew, the famous archaeologist, comes quite close to the FC with his theory about Anatolia as the PIE homeland (by and large modern Turkey), but that theory hardly got accepted by historical linguists. Most critiques on that Out of Anatolia theory I am aware of are quite devastating.

    Groetjes,

    Frank
     

    Aprinsă

    Member
    English - United States
    Frank,

    Sorry, I said all that based on my horrible memory. May have even gotten two theories mixed up. **checks her notes**

    This is a new theory, by the way, so it would make sense that you haven't heard of it before.

    Okay, here's some info from a page my teacher found. "A number of common I-E terms show that cattle breeding was the most important of occupations among Proto-Indo-European, who used horses, cattle, swine, goats. Terms connected with cultivation of land also make a rather large number. T.Gamkrelidze and V.Ivanov in their fundamental book suppose that the terrain of the homeland must have been mountainous, for all Indo-European tongues produce quite a lot of common words meaning mountains and hills. Among the names of plants, trees and animals one can meet both those which are found in Europe and those which are found only in the Middle East (trees: birch, oak, beech, hornbeam; animals: lion, bear, wolf, jackal, fox, elk, snake, mouse, beaver; birds: eagle, goose, crane). Proto-Indo-Europeans according to language data were aware of the existence of the sea, and used ships to sail over it."

    Yeah, I guess it wasn't Sanskrit, but Semitic languages. :p I'd post the link, but I can't yet. I know there's more to it, but I don't think I took notes on that.
     

    Frank06

    Senior Member
    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    Hi Aprinsă, all,
    Okay, here's some info from a page my teacher found. "A number of common I-E terms show that cattle breeding was the most important of occupations among Proto-Indo-European, who used horses, cattle, swine, goats. Terms connected with cultivation of land also make a rather large number. T.Gamkrelidze and V.Ivanov in their fundamental book suppose that the terrain of the homeland must have been mountainous, for all Indo-European tongues produce quite a lot of common words meaning mountains and hills. Among the names of plants, trees and animals one can meet both those which are found in Europe and those which are found only in the Middle East (trees: birch, oak, beech, hornbeam; animals: lion, bear, wolf, jackal, fox, elk, snake, mouse, beaver; birds: eagle, goose, crane). Proto-Indo-Europeans according to language data were aware of the existence of the sea, and used ships to sail over it."
    Similar theories and methods have been used for a long time. But there a few things in this explanation that make the Middle East quite a bad candidate. The languages spoken in the Fertile Crescent don't show any trace of (P)IE, apart maybe from the Hittite Empire (which came to rise elatively late). Though a lot depends on how you wish to define the Middle East. Apart from problems with words as 'birch' and 'sea', similar comparisons have resulted in putting the alleged PIE homeland north of the Black Sea. I'll spare you the details, but here you can read more. The text by Watkins is quite interesting, for the conclusion scroll down.

    Groetjes,

    Frank
     

    maxiogee

    Banned
    imithe
    T.Gamkrelidze and V.Ivanov in their fundamental book suppose that the terrain of the homeland must have been mountainous, for all Indo-European tongues produce quite a lot of common words meaning mountains and hills.
    But would not the lands they settled into, being mountainous — as most of Europe is, require words for mountains and hills?

    Ireland isn't exactly renowned for towering heights and yet we have cnoc (hill), sliabh (mountain), binn (peak) and they all have diminutives. The Celts surely used these words because they felt the need of them, not because they just happened to bring them with them from ancestral homelands. The binn is akin to the Scots word 'ben' as in Ben Nevis.
    I don't think these words relate to any European equivalents - many of which seem to be related to each - as in mountain/montagne/montagna/montaña/montanha.
     

    PocketWatch

    Member
    USA English
    Indo-European migrations during ancient times is what caused the spread of European languages. They started on the steppes of Asia I believe, but other languages such as Yucatan (meso-American ancient language) formed in the American area.
     

    alexacohen

    Banned
    Spanish. Spain
    Hi all:
    Diachronic linguistics can be used either seriously, or idiotically.
    There is no way to prove all languages come from an unique first language, the same as there is no way to prove that Lucy was our one and only great-great-great-great-grandmother.
    It makes a good topic for discussion, though.
    Alexa
     

    Frank06

    Senior Member
    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    Hi,
    Diachronic linguistics can be used either seriously, or idiotically. There is no way to prove all languages come from an unique first language, the same as there is no way to prove that Lucy was our one and only great-great-great-great-grandmother. It makes a good topic for discussion, though.
    :)
    The major problem is that quite a lot linguists and other scientists accept the idea that "the full language capacity had evolved by 100,000 BC." (e.g. see here)
    The first attestations (written language) are roughly 4/5000 years old. Some claim to have found older attestations. Anyway, that leaves us with 94.000+ years to speculate about, disregarding the sound idea that language probably started to emerge before 100.000 BC, and disregarding the possibility indeed that the monogenesis of language is not (and cannot be) proven in the first place.
    All the atempts to reconstruct 'Proto-World-Language' c.s. is the same as reconstructing a machine on the basis of a few screws and a few bolts, without having an idea whether you're reconstructing a car, a printing press, an airplane or a meccano toy, and without being sure that those screws belong to the same object.

    Groetjes,

    Frank
     

    alexacohen

    Banned
    Spanish. Spain
    All the atempts to reconstruct 'Proto-World-Language' c.s. is the same as reconstructing a machine on the basis of a few screws and a few bolts, without having an idea whether you're reconstructing a car, a printing press, an airplane or a meccano toy, and without being sure that those screws belong to the same object.
    Yes, that's it, excatly :thumbsup:
    Alexa
     

    tvdxer

    Senior Member
    Minnesota, U.S.A. - English
    I'm told that there was a language spoken in the Middle East that all other languages essentially came from.

    Is this true, and if so, what is it

    EDIT: Typo, "overs" was meant to be "others".

    EDIT 2: Typo corrected.;)
    zebedee
    English, French, Hindi, Persian, Greek, Armenian, Russian, and several other languages spoken by about half the world's population evolved from the reconstructed hypothetical language Proto-Indo-European (PIE), which appears to have been spoken 6,000 - 8,000 years ago somewhere between southeastern Europe and the Black or Caspian sea region. They say the PIE people had rather advanced technology for the time and were good with their horses, therefore able to spread out (over many generations, of course) as far as England and Bangladesh, supplanting native languages. Note that although they probably contributed to the gene pool, they did not supplant native residents of the lands they entered.

    Other languages evolved from different families that we have been able to detect or reconstruct to some extent, usually prefixed with "proto-", as they left no written records and must be re-constructed through careful, methodical comparison of modern or extinct written languages. Finnish, Hungarian, and a number of smaller languages in Russia descend from Proto-Uralic. A broad swath of languages, from Hawaiian to Tagalog to Maori to Malagasy are descendants of Proto-Austronesian, probably spoken in Taiwan. Arabic, Amharic, and Hebrew are ancestors of Proto-Semitic, which itself developed from Proto-Afro-Asiatic, a family that also includes Egyptian, Hausa, Berber, and other African languages. One of the shakier hypotheses is the Altaic family, which some linguists believe to include Korean, Japanese, Turkish and Turkic languages, and Mongol.

    Going beyond these families is difficult, as it involves progressing (or rather, regressing) into even deeper pre-history. One very controversial "mega-family" is Nostratic, which encompasses the above Indo-European family, as Uralic, Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, and Dravidian (Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, etc.). Similar proposals have also been made, and one linguist (Joseph Greenberg, now dead) attracted a lot of criticism by trying to re-construct using "mass lexical comparison" a Proto-World language that all others were descended from.
     

    jonquiliser

    Senior Member
    Svediż tal-Finlandja
    Is it really sensible to ask for a "original language"?? I mean, it's hardly like people one day got into their heads to "invent" language! Isn't it more likely that languages themselves developed gradually, perhaps from more "primitive" expressions like "oh", "uh", "hah" and so on, to later on constitute a more extensive part of the interaction between people? And obviously, there wouldn't be a point of a "fully developed" language, that would then get split and continue to evolve into different tongues - there would be plenty of splits and re-encounters.. I'm not a linguist nor a historian, and this is quite banal stuff I'm saying. But the whole question about an "original language" just seems so counter-intuitive and counter-sensible that I wanted to say something...
     

    Frank06

    Senior Member
    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    Hi,
    Is it really sensible to ask for a "original language"??
    Well, the question has been asked for a few 1000s of years, and oddly enough, also been 'answered' in the course of time.
    - Countless mythical stories about the origins of language worldwide,
    - Herodotos about the Egyptian Pharao (Phrygian),
    - the story about James V of Scotland (Hebrew),
    - Goropius Becanus (Dutch)
    - ...
    Even these days, very diverse people do come up with 'answers', Greenberg (has been mentioned here already) and his acolite Ruhlen; Mozeson (Edenics, read Hebrew), Polat Kaya (Turkish), Edo Nyland (Saharan), countless jewish and christian sites (Hebrew), and many, many others...

    Here you can find a fine critique on PWL.
     

    alexacohen

    Banned
    Spanish. Spain
    .. I'm not a linguist nor a historian, and this is quite banal stuff I'm saying. But the whole question about an "original language" just seems so counter-intuitive and counter-sensible that I wanted to say something...
    Nor am I, Jonquiliser, but I don't think that what you're saying is banal stuff.
    From my point of view, the day the scientists prove that Lucy was really the only and one great-great-etc-grandmother of all humanity, they will have proved beyond a doubt that her language, whatever it was, was the original language of all humanity as well ;) ...
    Alexa
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    < Previous | Next >
    Top