seanie

I've found something here that may be of interest.

Besides mentioning the significant differences between Old and modern English, not only in words but also grammatical structure, it also offers an explanation of why English changed so dramatically in comparision to some other languages.

Old Icelandic for example, similar to Old English, is apparently still reasonably accessible to modern Icelandic speakers. The relative isolation of Iceland coupled with a written heritage may have helped preserve many of the features of the ancestral language. However English was not only influenced by other languages but for a long period it barely existed as a written language;

Which corresponds to my point. In a purely oral tradition language has more freedom to change and change rapidly.

Rousseau_CHN

Silly? Maybe.

Of course, I understand what you are all trying to say. Change over time is the reason why there is no universal "word."

And yet there is still doubt that exists in me.

(Of course, it may not be doubt but hope. Hope that there is that one big thread that connects one to another, in this place or that, in this time or that.)

Doubting Didymus

Um... What about common ancestry, my distant cousin?

zwi

There is a word in common use all over this wide world

Most every one knows it

But if you cant think of it, that's OK

Zwi

Doubting Didymus

Is this some kind of riddle? What have I got in my pocket?

zwi

Doubting Thomas

Thanks so much for falling for my silly litle joke so quickly

The universal word given to the world by the good old USA is

OK

Zwi:notworthy

Rousseau_CHN

Cultural...I was looking more for the cultural connection (the cultural thread).

seanie

I hesitate to mention Steven Pinker in case pz is watching..

... but I remember reading in one of his books a list of cultural traits that were claimed to be universal to all human cultures. I think there were a few hundred.

Rousseau_CHN

Now I understand how change in language occur. Somehow a calamity struck this earth and people started having speech problem. Tower of Babel?

People don't need language to wander off to distant places. Lions and Gorilla have been leaving the group to start their own group, without the benefit of language. It is safe to assume that men too started trooping out of Africa without much of a culture.

Language is not natural--we were not born with it. That is why there is no common word. Each culture, after they have settled, started creating sounds which later evolve into language.

Change? bah, humbug. You are giving too much credit to it.

seanie

We're not born with language. But we're born with an innate ability to acquire language. That's part of being human. Language is universal to humans.

Since you've ignored my previous point I'll post it again;

Your claim that when humans emerged from Africa they didn't possess language therefore means one of two things.

Either we had already evolved the capacity for language but simply didn't use it. It was only subsequent to the Out of Africa migration that people, including those still back in Africa, seperately developed language cultures, which they all just happened to do do to a highly complex degree.

Alternatively they hadn't already evolved the capacity for language. In which case, subsequent to the Out of Africa migration, in a short time from an evolutionary perspective, everyone, including those still in Africa, though geographically and genetically isolated from one another, coincidentally evolved a highly complex language capacity.

Well which is it?

Either we evolved a capacitiy for complex communication without communicating until after people left Africa.

Or we collectively evolved a capacity for complex communication after leaving Africa despite being genetically isolated. Seperate groups of humans just happened to evolve the same highly skilled ability by chance.