lpetrich

As to the domestic-animal argument, this uses the meanings of words reconstructed for ancestral Indo-European to determine what its speakers had been familiar with. As is typical of comparative linguistics, many of the reconstructible words are for commonplace items and concepts; the easiest words are often the dullest. Words like those for "night", "Sun", "star", "to be", "to sit", "that", "who", "fire", "water", "heart", "foot", "eye", "nose", "navel", "father", "mother", etc.

However, it can be shown that the ancestral IE speakers had been familiar with dogs, cows, pigs, sheep, goats, and horses, though not cats. They also knew about mice and lice and fleas. Dogs have been domesticated since the last Ice Age, while most of the others since the beginning of agriculture ~10,000 years ago. There is an exception: the horse, recorded as *ek'wos generically (Latin equus, Greek hippos, etc.) and *polos for a foal (baby horse). However, those this word always refers to true horses and not to donkeys, there is no sign of a distinction between domestic and wild horses.

The interesting thing here is that wild horses had lived in the grasslands of eastern Europe and Asia -- and not in western Europe and the Middle East, and that domestic horses were introduced there only some millennia after the the introduction of agriculture to these parts.

This suggests an identification of the first IE speakers with the first horse domesticators; for more, see J.P. Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans.

lugotorix

I think you're right. From what I've read, H. erectus is believed to have had some ability for a primitive language. So basically, some sort of language has been around longer than modern humans. The chances that a word from any original language has survived until now is microscopic.

Last summer I read an article about a genetic mutation that the researchers believed to be the one responsible for complex speech. They believed it to have occurred about 200,000 years ago, and that it had entirely replaced earlier gene sequences in the human population within 20,000 years. In other words, complex languages have been around for nearly 180,000 years. IIRC, the farthest back modern linguistics can reconstruct earlier word forms is roughly 10,000 years ago, which makes finding the ancestral modern human language virtually impossible.

lugotorix

Stephen T-B

Somewhat off top[c, but here's a link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2645183.stm
to a BBC site which suggests things may not be quite as had been expected in terms of our african origins.

karthik

http://www.blonnet.com/2002/11/19/st...1900480600.htm

A link about proving out of africa theory using gene markings and mutation.

RufusAtticus

No, Human FOXP2 is considered to be a language gene, but not the language gene.

Rousseau_CHN

Well, I knew this would be the objection to the topic started.

Vater, Father, Fati---all means Father in several European languanges. You could easily discern them, can't you? You could easily the similarities. I'm not asking for the exact word, letter per letter, that is not possible. I am only asking for similarities, no matter how minute.

Now some say that old english is discernible to the modern people. Some words are not discernible, but there are few that remain unchanged with the passage of time.

Supposing a group of Americans is sent to the ends of the world. Let' s say that after thousand of years (let's just suppose it was able to break Einstein law of relativity), would their english have no trace of the original english.

Too speculative, though.

I guess there is no one word because there was no language when men start trooping out of Africa. Maybe all we have are grunts and snarl, which would explain why 'ahhhh' means the same the world over, which is a cry for surprise. It is not something inherent, the 'ahhh', it is something learned, as psychologist would tell you.

To sum it up, I guess looking for the one word is like looking for the blue novalis.

Rousseau_CHN

I am not doubting about our origin. What I am asking is whether language existed the time we started out of Africa. If it is so, then all languages, despite the passage of time, would include some words, though not exactly alike, are amazingly alike.

That is what I'm getting at.

Rousseau_CHN

Seanie posted an old english essay. I believe that a English schoolboy could read that text.

In the same way that a chinese schoolboy could read text written in the oracle bone of the Shang Dynasty.

The changes are minimal, you could read and understand most of the words in Seanie's post.

Rousseau_CHN

Another point I would like to add is that should there be a common word, it would be easy to prove the Out of Africa Theory. We wouldn't have to resort to DNA testing or the likes.

seanie

You're not addressing a basic objection to your premise. And there's no need to speculate about Americans seperated for a thousand years.

I've already posted some Old English for you along with a more modern translation. There's a big difference between them but clearly some words are still distinguishable. But that's only after 1000 years. Modern humans are thought to have emerged from Africa something like 50,000 to 150,000 years ago (can someone more knowledgeble help with more exact figures?).

Given that much longer length of time, and no reason for the language to stop changing, you're not really entitled to expect a particular word or words to remain commonly distinguishable in all languages.

So the fact there aren't any is evidence of bugger all.