Talk:Origin of language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally, this article was called "glottogony" and began with a definition and etymology of the term. 'Glottogony' doesn't appear in the OED or anywhere near the top of a google search except for mirrors of Wikipedia content. I conclude that it is, at best, too rare a term to justify inclusion.

Mark Foskey 18:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are 285 google hits, and 182 for "glottogonic". It's not the term's fault that the top 20 happen to be WP mirrors or spam. It's a specialist term, yes, but that's all the more reason to explain it. I was going to write a glottogony article, but then it was merged with this stuff. I am uncomfortable with this whole "tata, dingdong" business anyway, so I guess I'll just leave this article alone now. dab 19:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Should this go in Feral child or Origin of language ? 2 Biblical account 3 Copyvio? 4 "The psychedelic glossolalia hypothesis" 5 they are really called that 6 pseudoscience 7 From RFD 8 Memes and language 9 Invented? 10 Some major work 11 Misquoting sources? 12 Non-christian "origin" myths 13 Ta ta 14 Psychadelic Glossalia (still) 14.1 Psychedelic Glossolalia Hypothesis 15 Origin hypotheses 16 Speciesist arrogance 17 Contemporary communication

[edit] Should this go in Feral child or Origin of language ?

"Deaf children invent a new sign language" http://www.mirabilis.ca/archives/002177.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/17/wdeaf17.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/17/ixportal.html

According to the article, these kids made up a new language from scratch.

This concerns deaf, not feral children. Garik 18:00, 7 May 2006 (BST)

"In Click Languages, an Echo of the Tongues of the Ancients." http://www.mirabilis.ca/archives/000594.html "Do some of today's languages still hold a whisper of the ancient mother tongue spoken by the first modern humans?"

[edit] Biblical account

The Biblical account cited (the Tower of Babel story) is not an account of the origin of language. It's an account of the origin of langauges -- the story starts saying everyone had the same language (and, indeed, the Bible has many instances before that story wherein people used words). So this doesn't belong here on this page.

The only thing from Genesis that I can think of as belonging here is the part (chapter 2?) where Adam names all the animals and Eve. That's not quite on point either, but is more so than the Tower of Babel story is. —msh210]] 20:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, can someone tell me why does the biblical account contain bold text? It seems to me that highlighting this paragraph is a POV on the biblical (mythic) explanation. Nova77 17:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Babel story should not really be here IMO. At most it should take up a sentence or two. As Msh210 says it is not an account of the origin of language. I've already added a passage to that effect. But really, if we are to have it is should be part of a section on legendary accounts of the origin of language. There's no good reason to give priority to the Biblical one - apart from the presence of Creationist contributors of course. Paul B 08:38 10 June 2005 (UTC)

but the "myth" also offers an expenation of to why all the langueges stream from an orginal language (see language trees), and rembemer myths usally start form an event that did happen and go from a molehill to a mountain as it's retold, but it simply tells how langwage was devided.

[edit] Copyvio?

How much of the structure of this article is taken from this page, or is it vice versa?

None of it looks like en masse verbatim quoting. I started this page, and made it mostly by rephrasing stuff from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Languae (about the different named hypotheses), supplementing it from memory. I suspect that this web site used a similar reference. Only verbatim quotes can be copyvios. Smerdis of Tlön 16:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "The psychedelic glossolalia hypothesis"

Has this ever been seriously advanced? If so could we have some references, as it seem implausible in the extreme, and if not, can we remove it. It does not seem in the least encyclopediac. --cfp 23:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting. Foant 11:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Google search for "psychedelic glossolalia" turns up 3 results, two of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Searching for it without the quotes turns up a ridiculous quantity of psycho-babble. The principal source for the theory seems to be this interview in high time's magazine. This should not be in an encyclcopedia and so I am deleting it. I hope you do not think this is unfair. Find me just one paper from a reputable journal on this and I'll glady reinstate it. --cfp 16:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK I'm feeling guilty about deleting without first getting consensus, so for now I'm moving it to the Non-Naturalistic section. (This is not to say I still don't think it should be deleted.) --cfp 16:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even if phychedelic induced glossolalia is not the 'source' of language, it should be mentioned in the article, since it is a relevant, existing and well documented phenomenon.

   Absence of evidence on Google is not evidence of absence. The hypothesis has made its appearance in print many times. Look for The Archaic Revival or Food of the Gods by Terence McKenna, and Pharmacophilia by Jonathan Ott.

   Moving it to the Non-Naturalistic section (when it's actually an ethnobotanical hypothesis, and thus about as naturalistic as these hypotheses come) and then creating a single, pejorative sub-category just for it, is totally POV, from any perspective.

  I'm moving it back. Among other things, you can't justify a sub-subheading for only one item. — Clarknova 01:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   P.S. As further evidence of bias, cfp tacked on the qualifying statement "How humans could have made the transition from random vocalization to symbolic language is not entirely clear", which could adorn any of the sing-song-grunt-grunt hypotheses on this list. It adds no new information, merely indicates the writer is casting a dubious eye.

I didn't add that qualifying statement, though I entirely agree with it. Look at the history if you don't believe me. As for POV there's a big difference between refusing to give pseudo science a platform and being POV. If someone's looking for a scientific article they don't expect to find this stuff. I'm gonna request comment on this because I really don't think its acceptable to even be on the page. Sorry. --cfp 12:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the discussion of pseudoscience in the NPOV article. This suggests that though the "psychadelic glossalia" hypothesis should appear somewhere in Wikipedia, it should be clearly marked off as pseudoscience. Can we agree on this? --cfp 12:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On what grounds should it be marked off? Because it is repugnant to you personally, or because it's repugnant to the scientific community? You're right, you didn't add that qualifying statement, but whether you agree with it is irrelevant. If sources need to be cited for its existence as a hypothesis, then sources disparaging it as pseudoscience should also be cited.

Quoting from the NOPV article: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". There are many hypothesis on this subject and none could be said to corner a majority. The NPOV goes on to state "moreover, [the task is] to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories.". Unless you're declaring yourself and the other wiki editor the scientific community, you haven't done this.

Personally speaking, I don't like the theory either. I think all of these are too reductionist. But what I feel is irrelevant in this context. This one is published, and sadly it's as good as any other. — Clarknova 18:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes its published but have you seen where? Being published counts for nothing unless its a reputable scientific journal, with an area or expertise that covers the central thesis of the paper. So that an article on language was published in journals on "shamanism" or psychadelics is rather meaningless. I challenge you to find a serious anthropologist/socio-linguist etc. who would not ridicule such a theory. --cfp 19:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

my gripe precisely, see below. The theories are at present presented not as they are seriously forwarded, but as they are presented in order to expose them as simplistic/reductionist. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] they are really called that

you mean, they have been called that, by someone, at some point. No reason for us to follow suit. I have been grumbling at these incomprehensible titles ever since my attempt at glottogony was merged here. By all means, mention their names. But not in the section titles, it really messes up the ToC. I get all confused with all the hum-pah and ta ta, and would really appreciate a more accessible approach. dab (ᛏ) 19:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

oh, and how shall we incorporate other theories into the comic framework of your dictionary? For example the one you removed,

Frits Staal in Rules without meaning suggested that mantras predate language, and that semantics were applied retro-actively to existing complex grammars of ritual utterances.

should I just make up another silly name for it? the "om shanti" hypothesis? I would really like to put it back into the article, thank you. dab (ᛏ) 19:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These names, goofy as they are, are found in the academic literature. Here they are in a class handout for a linguistics class. (The handout seems to owe a great deal to the Wikipedia article, to be sure.) Otto Jespersen coined most of them, and he's a well known figure in linguistics. Not sure that there's a great deal that can be done to replace them at this time. Perhaps more solemn titles should be found; but they would be original research if we were to propose them ourselves, and moreover, substituting new names for the hypothesis is going to require a bigger edit than simply renaming the sections, since the intro text mentions the names that Jespersen coined. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok, I'll think about it. I'm not objecting to the names per se, mind you, I'm objecting to their appearence in the ToC. The present ToC seems to paralyze the article, since reorganization or addition of hypotheses are impossible without breaking its structure. I think it will be best to remove the subheaders for now, and list them all under "hypotheses". At the moment, I just want to get the Frits Staal reference back in, since I intend to start an article about him. In any case, we should say the names were coined by Jespersen, not just, "here are the hypotheses: tee-taa-huff-puff-watchthebirdie." dab (ᛏ) 20:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok, sorry, I hadn't read the entire thing (I have now). Imho, the article's structure shouldn't be dictated by 19 century ideas, or by Jespersen (who was apparently making fun of the theories?). Most of these are very similar anyway, and there is no need to stash them away in different sections. Let's make a "19th century" section giving these names, after putting them in context. dab (ᛏ) 20:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pseudoscience

btw, the "pseudoscientific" section seems a bit unfair. First of all, there is no reference as to how it is "pop-cultural", i.e. who came up with the idea? Then, it is certainly possible to posit in earnest that psychedelic substances played a role in glottogony, but the present section of course ridicules the idea. glossolalia would be impossible before a "language instinct" had already evolved, of course, but it is entirely possible that its evolution was interfering with use psychedelic substances. I don't have any references about this myself, though. dab (ᛏ) 20:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From RFD

The Linguistic Society of Paris was very wise in banning that topic. While I agree that the psychedelic glossolalia hypothesis is self-contradictory and more of a joke, the other ideas are also to varying extents. They are all more or less crude pseudoscientific hypotheses because they cannot be tested or confirmed. Just put them all under "Funny ideas". I'm sure there are more serious ideas in linguistics!? Cacycle 22:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memes and language

Maybe somebody can add this hypothesis to the article: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/SciAm00.html It is a hypotheses developed by Susan Blackmore in her book The meme machine as part of the meme theory and made some sense to me when I read that book.

Another somehow related hypotheses can be found here: Singing hypotheses. Maybe we could call it the "la la la hypothesis" ;-) Cacycle 22:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invented?

I have a problem with the sentence "How did humans invent this tool?" in the introduction, as it is not clear that it was invented, as such. In fact, Pinker's 'The Language Instinct' is listed as a reference for the article, and those of you who have read this or other works of Pinker/Chomsky will recall that they disagree with the idea of language genesis in the form of an ancient unsung genius who decided to create language. As evidence they point to, among other things, the famous sign language debaucles (I think this was mentioned earlier on this Talk page). Without going into too much detail (I encourage anyone interested to read Pinker's book on the subject, as it's a really fun read), the "invented" and "superior" sign language designed by well-meaning but misguided caregivers and linguists was promptly abandoned by students in favor of a spontaneously generated pidgin (anecdotally, developed on the bus ride home) that was much more useful and expressive than the artificial system, and developed into a fully formed language in the subsequent generation (as pidgins do).

So, can we lose the line?--demonburrito 12:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

the article needs an extensive rewrite. I consider the present organization unsuitable, see above. So, feel free to give it a good overhaul. dab (ᛏ) 12:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some major work

It seems as if the consensus here is that this article needs some work, if it is not completely useless as another has suggested. So, to everyone who has this one watched, I'd like to start the ball rolling on a low level overhaul. Starting from the beginning: Opening section okay, but I think we should consider completely getting rid of the 'Hypothesis' structure and compressing these down into a single level 3 heading in the interest of clarity. The la-la bow-wow stuff is unpleasant and is a too large near the beginning.--demonburrito 14:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Also... has anyone noticed how many articles link here? I think this articles deserves some attention.

the whole organization by "bru-wha-ha-whatever hypothesis" is flawed. These terms should be in a simple list under a "terminology" heading, and not affect article structure. this is a fair enough resource, but its structure should not be imposed here. also, we need a decent "History" section, tracing the concept of the confusion of tongues through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. dab (ᛏ) 14:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, step one complete. The entire 'hypotheses' structure has been collapsed into a simple list (and prettied up a bit). It's ready to be moved elsewhere.--demonburrito 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

After researching this one for a while, I'm coming to the conclusion that the focus of this article is a little pointless. There is no encyclopedic explanation on this one - there were no recordings, of course. I don't think that the idea of a spoken language 'invention' is still viable. I'm wondering if Dbachmann has hit on something with the confusion of tongues emphasis: Perhaps this article should have an historical focus. A section of mythological explanations (can we write 'mythological' and be npov? ;) ), and a section about the preoccupation with this holy grail by 19th century thinkers and modern fringe theorists. Perhaps things like 'theoretical linguistics' and 'Chomsky' could have a short section at the end with links to articles more appropriate to concepts like 'LAD' and 'universal grammar', being a more fruitful line of inquiry - they're not concerned with reconstructing a 'first language'. Also, it should be made clear that this article is about a spoken mother language, and not a written one: The latter does seem like an active area in linguistics.--demonburrito 17:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is interesting and valuable, but at the same time I think it is deeply confused and definitely needs a major overhaul (as suggested above).

1. The bow-wow etc. stories are largely irrelevant. They lack explanatory power and cannot be called theories or even hypotheses in the scientific sense of those terms. I think this passage is very informative, but should constitute a separate article entry (e.g. Early views on the origins of language). 2. 'Monogenesis' is somewhat confused. It should be made clear that the protolanguage referred to here is something totally different from Bickerton's protolanguage mentioned earlier. Then, the time scope for historical linguistic research is up to ca 1000years, a few thousands at most for very bold and very dubious methods. This is nowhere near the time of origins of language. The 40.000y views are not generally accepted. This is partly because they would appeal to a catastrophic change (some macromutation that would suddenly enable language), which is unrealistic, and partly because the idea of '40k revolution' is being exposed as a myth, due to recent archaeological discoveries dating back to well before that time. The idea that Neanderthals were incapable of producing a reasonable spectrum of vowels comes from old work of Phil Lieberman, but has long been discredited. 3. There is not adequate coverage of gestural hypotheses in their various forms. Some gestural stage in the emergence of language is now hypothesised by most researchers in the field. Similarly, the question of within-society selective pressures on greater cognitive and communicative skills should be developed, with quotes of the work by Dunbar (grooming & gossip) and Byrne/Whiten (Machiavelian intelligence). This leads straight into the question of Theory of Mind (ToM), whose importance should not be neglected. Then, there are possible links to tool use, both in the sense that effective tool use and toolmaking is a cognitive advance in itself and possible exerts some further selective pressures, and in the sense of the common neural substrates for speech and sequential hand movements. I will try to write some draft sections addressing some of those points when I have some time. Regards, Ariosto 12:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. If you have citations for those assertions go ahead and make the changes. It sounds like you know what you're talking about anyway. --cfp 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misquoting sources?

The child isolation paragraph in History notes two sources [1] and [2]. The first of these says "Egyptian king Psamtik I" while this article has Psamtik II. The second says "King James V of Scotland" while this article has James IV of Scotland. Either we should believe the sources, or we should consider not providing them to others (though the first does seem to have other elements which are in the article -so perhaps it should be at the end). --Henrygb 08:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that James V is the correct Scot. The Psamtik story is less clear, since Herodotus's account is characteristically garbled, and he does not specify which "Psamtik" he means. However the context seems to imply Psamtik I. Paul B 12:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-christian "origin" myths

I've collected some here, will add either to this article or to a sub-article if I get time, otherwise please feel free to do so. - FrancisTyers 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ta ta

Concerning the Ta-ta hypothesis, whether or not it begs the question by presupposing sign language etc is in my view not a "difficulty" unless we overuse Occam's Razor.Rich 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychadelic Glossalia (still)

I was just cleaning up my watch list and I rediscovered this page.

I'm still really not happy with the psychadelic glossalia hypothesis being in no way differentiated from the others.

I don't want to start another edit war, so I've not changed it, however, I have tagged the page as needing more references and expert attention.

Someone said before that they had a reference for the psychadelic glossalia hypothesis in a scholarly journal, if it exists, it should be there. I don't think you're going to find a reference saying why it shouldn't be there, because I assume at least that it would strike a linguistics expert as laughable.

However, this is just an assumption, so lets get some linguistics experts (or at least someone with a degree in it) to give their opinion on whether it deserves to be presented as as likely a theory as any of the others.

I perhaps went about things the wrong way before, and for that I am sorry.

Having vigorously defended Wikipedia to people, there is a rather high degree of personal embarassment about finding things like this, so perhaps my judgement was a little clouded by my seething rage... (Joking)

I'm sure there is a compromise solution we can all agree on, so lets find it.

--cfp 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Still no reply to this. If I don't hear by the 25th (a week after my original post) I will edit the article. In the meantime I urge people to reread: WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

I've gone ahead and marked the whole section as needing to cite sources. Very unencylopedic IMO. JPotter 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The psychedelic glossolalia hypothesis strikes me as rather speculative and likely OR. We've had evenings like that, but we didn't remember what we had said the morning after. I agree with its removal. Smerdis of Tlön 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Roight, there have been no objections so I'm cutting it. If a reason is needed, see: WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --cfp 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut section to facilitate its restoration should someone have a good reason for objecting:

[edit] Psychedelic Glossolalia Hypothesis

This theory states that speech was inspired by psychoactive fungi. The line of reasoning is thus: A common symptom of tryptamine intoxication is glossolalia, more commonly known as “speaking in tongues”. As the continent of Africa began to dry, grassland savannas opened, forcing humans out of the forests and into the plains where the dung of large herbivores was ubiquitous. Species of tryptamine-bearing fungi like Psilocybe, which live on animal dung, would have grown in large quantities and been very attractive to human populations seeking a new food source. Regular ingestion of the fungi could, over a long time, have stimulated complex vocalizations that eventually led to communicative speech. ^{[citation needed]}

I did think about replacing it with the following as an alternative to cutting it, but even including this much about it would be violating WP:NPOV#Undue weight), though at least the below makes it perfectly clear that this is not a tenable hypothesis.

This theory states that speech was developed as a result of the regular ingestion of psychoactive fungi some of which induce glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”).^{[citation needed]} However, there would have been strong evolutionary pressure against the consumption of psychoactive substances.^{[citation needed]} Furthermore, neurological research indicates tryptamine activates pre-existing pathways, suggesting speech is a precondition for tryptamine-induced glossolalia. This is backed up by linguistic research that suggests glossolalia is a learned behaviour.^[1] Linguistic research has also shown that glossolalia lack the basic elements of language,^[2]. Indeed, Samarin ^[3] states it is not even related to language.

1. ^ Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia by Felecitas D. Goodman, University of Chicago Press, 1972
2. ^ (Nida: 196?) and (Wolfram:1966) mentioned in: http://www.meta-religion.com/Linguistics/Glossolalia/contemporary_linguistic_study.htm
3. ^ (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130)

--cfp 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin hypotheses

The only evidence I can see for the pooh-pooh stuff is a class outline that may have even used this article as a source. Can the author show some documentation that these are valid terms used by researchers in the field? This section will need to be reworked otherwise. Thanks. JPotter 00:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If the complaint is with the several names, they are now for better or for worse traditional. The article itself credits them to Otto Jespersen, who coined them to mock the theories. They appear in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, and here is another web page, independent of Wikipedia, that discusses them. This online source is unlikely to be deeply indebted to English Wikipedia, though it is gratifying to see the words théorie « ouah-ouah » up there. They do seem to be persistently and actively disliked by some, but the names are indeed what these theories are called. Smerdis of Tlön 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, no worries then. Maybe an expand of the anthro section could make the complaints go away. JPotter 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speciesist arrogance

When we say that: "Homo sapiens clearly have an inherent capability for language that is not present in any other species known today" and "The use of language is one of the most conspicuous and diagnostic traits that distinguish H. sapiens from other animals.", are we are using circular logic, ie that language is defined as human communication, so of course its human!, or are we ignoring the fact that humans are just one more animal that communicates in our focus on speech? Alexander Gross has this to sayHow tenable is the hypothesis that language (to a certain degree of grammatical sophistication) is specific to humans? Well, one can certainly say that nobody encounters a bird writing a poem, nor a monkey lecturing to fur-covered fellows, nor are there frequent meetings of the Whale Philosophical Society. It is important to notice, however, that there exists a common confusion between language and external symbolic storage (like words on paper)...One can have language without symbolic storage. Do we understand what dolphins are doing when they engage in those strange noisy exchanges? Their behaviors often suggest that they ought to be talking with each other, because one frequently catches them in some exquisite collaborative activities. These activities are typical of cooperation in communities of linguistically-oriented intelligent agents, and there are quite a number of computer models of spontaneous language emergence in such environments (see for instance Simon Kirby and Luc Steels).

Instead of patting ourselves on the back, we would do well to realise that communication goes far beyond what we as humans tend to focus on, that part of language devoted to "verbal meaning." The other common functions of language, which are all present to varying degrees in animal communication, are demonstrating status, venting emotions, establishing non-hostile intent, passing time, telling jokes and lying. As Gross puts it, The goals of both scent marking and spoken language have much in common: the defense of turf, the assertion of status, and both attracting and clearly identifying a mate.Brallan 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, it is circular to a degree, because language, unlike e.g. the elephant's trunk, is not a kind of palpable object/organ, but needs to be defined. And human communication is so qualitatively different from anything we can see in the animal world that it deserves a different name (i.e. language). I'm sure Kirby and Steels would agree, since they belong to the "evolution of lanugage" circles, and these are largely agreed on this issue. Ariosto 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

how is this "arrogance"? you can focus on what language has in common with other means of communication in the animal kingdom, and you can focus on what makes it unique. You can also focus on what makes other things unique, but this is the article to focus on what makes language unique. That's an entirely level-headed and neutral enterprise. dab (𒁳) 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary communication

Removed "An interesting way of looking at the development of language is to observe how two people, who each do not understand the others language, communicate. Usually this is done very similar to the early protolanguage, and this is why it is considered the pre-cursor to modern day language."

There is no reason to believe that two contemporary persons of different languages would use the same way of communicating as was used during an early "proto-language". If there is research that claims there is, a reference to it can be included however. Mlewan 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Contemporary communication

I did not state that contemporary persons would communicate in the same way as was used during the early "proto-language" but rather that their communication style would be similar.

I will try and find more evidence that supports this idea. Feroze17 20:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When you are looking for the evidence, do not forget to check that whatever research you find can be considered valid. Let's say that someone notices that Finns and Englishmen who do not speak each other's languages use a lot of arm gestures, speak very loud and nod and shake their heads a lot. The researcher then ideally is able to motivate why for example arm gestures were likely parts of proto-language but nodding one's head was not. If that is what he thinks. Mlewan 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)