I probably went off on a bit of a tangent in Onimisi's current thread, so I hope our mods won't mind if I raise this new one here as a separate issue to question the evolution and possible origins of the spoken word.

I've often wondered if a direct relation of today's Khoisan 'click' languages could be one of the earliest methods of speech known to man.

As far as I'm aware nothing has been conclusively proven as to the origins of language, but I'd be very interested to find out about the latest areas of research.

It has been suggested, if not firmly established, that early Cro-Magnon almost certainly had spoken language skills, whereas the Neanderthals living in the same era probably only used a fairly sophisticated form of sign language. Brain size clearly had a great deal to do with that capability, but I'd like to know if, in theory, they or our earlier ancestors even had the physical, anatomical and skeletal make up, jaw lines, mouth formation and voice box to enable them communicate in an advanced vocal form? Not speech as such, well not in the form of spoken language as we know it, but basic communication perhaps using a variety of 'click' formations for different usage and having them recognized and understood by others.

With so many knowledgeable bods out there using this site I'm confident that some of you will be able to satisfy my curiosity.

I'd just like to add that I hope I haven't given anyone the impression that I believe Khoisan language to be in any way 'primitive'. On the contrary, as mentioned in the previous thread, in my opinion some 'click' languages are amongst the most complex and highly sophisticated of all known human languages.

I suppose I really shouldn't dampen enthusiasm, but as far as I'm aware all suggestions about the origins of human language are pure guesswork. The previous post mentions 'research', but I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence to investigate. Some people are intrigued by 'clicks' ... Once I came across a book that argued, at great length, that all the world's languages are derived from the single root 'ag-' (as in Latin 'ago', 'agere', etc.). It's possible that things have advanced just a little since then!

I know what you mean. I don't have too much spare time to spend on research, but I've spent a good few hours poring over dozens of papers on the subject. The problem is that there are just so many speculative theories out there to wade through. That's hardly surprising though given that there are still so many gaps to be filled in the fossil records, and so much hard evidence quite literally waiting to be unearthed.

Even on those aspects where precise technical information is available through scientific evidence, everyone understandably puts their own slant on the interpretation of the facts. That's exactly what makes it so difficult for the interested but ignorant layperson like myself to sort the wheat from the chaff in such a widespread plethora of conflicting information.

Quote:

---

given that there are still so many gaps to be filled in the fossil records, and so much hard evidence quite literally waiting to be unearthed.

---

I really wonder if such evidence is of any possible value at all for studying the origins of language. How can fossils tell us anything at all about when language acquired the key charcteristics that make it distinctively human? I have in mind in particular the fact #1 that it consists *not* of a fixed set of signs ('words') but of syntax and semantics, and that by 'feeding' approriate words from the lexicon into the syntactic rule-system it is possible to create new sentences to cover all, or practially all meanings needed in communication (and others, besides). #2 That the syntax itself can create ambiguity, but that all normal human beings have the ability to disambiguate such sentences in context.

Please bear in mind that the very earliest writing systems are no older that 3300BC, by which time these characteristics were well established.

My own view is that anyone looking into the origins of human language is on a one-way ticket to nowhere. This is not the kind of thing I say lightly.

Thanks. From what you say, it seems that your real interest is in the origin of the sounds found in human language, not in the origin of language itself or in what makes human language distinctive - in what makes it different from other forms of communication among animals and insects, or have I misundestood you?

On the subject of human language my interests are many and varied, but to begin with this thread was essentially as the result of an offshoot from thoughts and conversations in the "Why?" forum.

As you quite rightly say, there is little or no chance of ever knowing exactly how or when human language initially developed.

My thread title might have been a little misleading, but I didn't want to be too restrictive in the hope that replies might eventually branch off into other areas of research on the broader subject as well.

I heard about this interesting study while driving to work one day on National Public Radio in the States. As I've been working with large groups of Korean students and also been fascinated with watching babies learn language in the past, I thought it would be worth checking out.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/07.22/21-think.html

See what you think.
I know I have a few tapes of my first child when she was very young indicating in no uncertain terms things that she wanted or didn't want. But this study was really interesting in that only babies and or adult Korean speakers could understand this one concept.

As to the click languages, I think the film 'The Gods Must Be Crazy' brought the language to light for many as where else would we have heard it?
I often observed in my own babies that they could make sounds that we couldn't make and yet, those sounds would probably go the way of the dodos when they began speaking.
As our languages in the household didn't include any clicking, I suppose it extinguished the urge to use that sound.
The silly water gun sound that my son made held on for a while though, it's almost impossible for an adult to make well.

My theory about the click languages is that, they would be harder to transcribe into written language therefore, wouldn't 'take' as well. Isn't any spoken language that's very hard to transcribe because of tones, or clicks, going to be harder to perpetuate? If this language doesn't 'travel well', won't it be harder to live on? If the Khosian language is specific to conditions in which it was born, then isn't it harder for it to travel further than certain boundaries?

The old joke about the Inuit natives comes to mind. A man wanted to learn their language as he was up in Alaska. It fascinated him and he finally persuaded an elder to teach him the language. He studied very hard and then one day after leaving Alaska, he saw a fishing boat from Anchorage moored near the harbor. He called out to the person in the language he'd been taught.
They broke into laughter.
He didn't understand why. One day he went back up to Alaska and questioned the leader.
'Well, you insisted on this, so we taught you our language, but the language of our babies. You couldn't possibly speak like we do.'