What a fascinating lecture. I’m not in academia, but was a professional cryptologist linguist for around a decade and have been a lifelong student of language and culture and really have appreciated you sharing this das information with us.
Everett has some solid ideas and I'm glad to see him skewer archeologists who have clung to a belief of recent language emergence. It took many thousands of generations for the human vocal tract to have evolved, so its emergence during the time frame of H. Erectus makes most sense. I did my graduate work in Linguistics on this subject, namely the biological origins of language and language evolution. One thing I uncovered is the critical role the female played. It's amazing how chauvinistic paleoanthropologists and archeologists are when they discuss the evolution of human behavior. They always talk about the production of weapons -- axes, spears, arrows, etc. Even throwing stones. But they never mention what the females of the species were doing. Which to me is foolish. The males were the hunters, but the females were the gatherers. Ask yourself this: which requires the greater use of language, hunting or gathering? Successful hunters don't talk much. They must be very quiet when they stalk their game, and they don't typically talk until they they've killed their prey, at which point they can celebrate. So the males are part-time users of language. But the females can chatter to their hearts' content, sharing information about which berries are edible, for example, and which aren't. Or which areas have more berries than others. I'm sure they foraged in groups and that these groups were often out of sight from each other, but they stayed in touch using language. So it was my assertion (and continues to be) that the females of the species were the prime movers of language and language emergence. There's even lots of scientific evidence gathered from modern humans to back up this theory of mine, which indicates a residual level of these same differences that likely first emerged with H. Erectus.
Love how this talk was rather compressed (compared to some I've watched/listened to by Professor Everett). As it was only one-half of the lecture's entire timespan, I appreciate that equal opportunity was given to Q&A. Engagement is key. Some presenters--to this day--are still figuring this out. Any future discussions accepted in tandem with an additional speaker, I would hope the absence of a moderator (the current working model) would be utilized as well. Sort of odd how the use of a moderater was ever necessary, outside of an actual debate setting. Civilized adults are without need of a conversational "chaperone." This discussion was informative, well paced, and enlightening. Presently, having read this comment "pre-post-pandemic"... hoping for a speaking tour from Dr. Everett in the U.S.... sooner than later. ;)
A tiny wild bird began roosting in my roof-mounted heater box on top of my house. It introduced itself with a loud tweet, which was it normal tweet, only loud. It sounded exactly like a human would say the word "tweet", except in a higher tone. I responded to the bird's tweet with, "Hi little birdie." We developed a relationship. Imagine that you could only say "tweet". You would find ways of expressing yourself. You could say it with an inquisitive tone. You could be scolding. You could express excitement. You would also be able to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction, all of which that bird did during the 7 months it roosted up there. The heater ducts connect to each room, and the bird would listen to me as I went from room to room. The kitchen is the furthest room from the heater box, and the bird would tweet the loudest when I went into the kitchen. There is much more to this story, including how it figured out my billiards practice, and how it listened to, and responded to music. How it would prompt me to play music. How it would greet me in the morning, and "tuck" me into bed at night. Only after I stopped making noise while getting into sleeping position, would it go out hunting for food. It was a music junky, and pretty damn smart about it. So much so, that I was convinced I had gone nuts. I bought a recorder and recorded some of it's tweets before it flew away. I also got an "ear" witness, which was very important to me since I was worried I was hallucinating the entire experience. Of course, human projection was my concern throughout the 7 months, but living with an animal, you learn things and communications happens. And my point is that you don't need a large vocabulary to express yourself.
Lucky you. I had a smilar experiece with an english blackbird after I rescued it as a terrified fledglimg and fed it using a glass dropper and tweezers. Ir used to come to the kitchen of an evening and perch on top the kitchen door and sing its songs of a thousand notes. Unique and unimaginable. One day I returned home to find it sat in a frying pan covered in oil, so I washed it in washing up liquid and dried it using a fan heater. Autumn (fall) came and it flew away but the folllwing year it returned making a frightful din in the garden so I went out, whistled, and it flew down to my hands. And so began another summer of adventures. Thank you little bird for coming into my life.
@@vivthespiv1 Blackbirds and all of their relatives in the Corvid family are known to be very smart. Ravens, crows, and magpies. Magpies can be EXTREMELY aggresive. I never saw them where I'm from, but they have them here. They used to terrorize our cats! So I dislike them a lot! But there are many videos of people befriending all of the corvids. And I saw a tv show where they tested blackbirds or crows to see if they can use or make tools. It showed they can even use a 2 step process to create a tool to reach some food. I don't know if they moved on to testing for 3 steps.
A population group with sea faring technology immigrating to Crete surely must have had a fantastic communication technology to manage such a feat. It must have required a quite advanced social organisation that we were willing untill recent times to deny even to the Neanderthals. I think there is still a lot to discover about Erectus.
The question about the source of language was not answered. Do we know if there was a single source or were languages developed in different places independently?
I got curious about this subject during my research intro course and picked it for my topic of study. The depth and explanations of evidence seems seminal. Totally fascinating. Pierce and Everett are going in my study on paleolinguistics. Thanks for posting!! Exciting work.
@@mrloop1530 That's great! In Canada there is only French taught as a 2nd language in 9 provinces. I don't know what is taught in Quebec, Nunavut, or in the NW Territories up north. I think more and more schools are using aboriginal languages as their first language, which is a great thing! I hope it continues to grow. But I suspect that in every part of Canada there is only 1 other language taught, even in most high schools. If any high schools teach more than 1 other language it would be very unusual. I imagine only the expensive private schools do that. I like the idea of giving students choices, as long as they are not made to pay more. But everything in Canada is more and more affected by the warped ideas of the Americans. And Conservative politicians are determined to destroy both our education system and health care, so that they can break it all up, sell it all off cheap to their buddies, in exchange for huge bribes. And then their buddies, almost all of them Americans, will come in and get rich off selling education to us, on the basis that you get what you pay for. We can see very clearly what kind of people the American system produces. I'm sure from Europe you can't see it as well as we do here, but it must still be pretty obvious that the majority of them feel unsafe and unhappy. And rightly so, in a country full of gun nuts, where people have huge arsenals of war weapons that are not allowed in any other country, including Canada. (But somehow they bleed across our border into Canada too.) Those gun nuts go crazy very often. There are mass shootings (4 or more victims) at the rate of 2.5 a week. You can Google that. So frequently that they are not even reported on national news, because no-one even cares anymore, unless it's in a school. Those gun nuts are the same people who are supporters of Trump. They believe all of his craziness, and every other crazy idea that they see or hear. America and it's education system are both total disasters, yet the Tories are trying to make Canada into the same thing. And to a large extent they are succeeding. This country has become unrecognizable! I'm not some old fogey who always longs for the good old days, but the Conservatives in North America need to be stopped. They have already given away all of our oil industry and the entire retail industry. Every aspect of both are entirely American now, and we have no control over them in any way. Huge American corporations control almost every aspect of Canada as it is. We really need the gods to help us protect those last 2 remaining things. The US doesn't even need to invade us. The country has already been given away by Conservative politicians. (Justin Trudeau and his father Pierre who was also once the Prime Minister are not Conservatives. They are Liberals.)
In terms of physical actions, even the simplest actions can involve a precise sequence of muscle movements. More complex actions are built from these simpler ones. So the ability to handle recursion must already exist in the brain regardless of the use of language. So when a rudimentary language ability comes along, due to having some apparatus to produce sounds, and social demands that make its use imperative, the only things that will stop the use of recursion are (a) the initial lack of complexity in the language as its usage starts up from ground zero and (b) the actual need for complexity that would only come about in larger more complex social groups with more individuals and more specialised tasks going on.
Excellent point. It was my Historical Linguistics professor who first introduced me to the notion of the grammar of physical movement. And she mentioned it in the same context that you do. A necessary predecessor to language itself.
Language doesn't have to be vocal. (Sign language). Also, for hunters, sign language is more advantageous than vocal language in some crucial situation
Africans been reading...writing...and building Prymaids..The greatest invention of all time is the PAPER AND THE PEN..AND Africans been doing it for 100thousand yrs ago..
@@marcossealey8612 The Sumerians were writing on clay tablets, in Asia, four enturies before Africans invented papyrus. SO the Africans didn't really invent writing they merely improved it. The Indus valley's civilization may have developed writing even earlier, but there's some debate over that. Now if you want to claim that you Nile valley writing is more beautiful than other ancient scripts I will not argue that point.
@@dewayneweaver5782 There was NO ASIA IN ANCIENT TIMES 👍 Now If U want to BASE UR THEORY in CLAY COOKIES GO AHEAD...U START WHERE U WERE CREATED AFRICA
@@marcossealey8612 have you looked at a map recently. Are you suggesting that the Chinese and Koreans were African too. I'm thinking you have been smoking to much of the Devil's Cabbage.
Interesting distinction between language (which Erectus probably had) and speech (which they did not). I wonder if Erectus could have communicated with a form of sign language. ??
It seems likely that to some extent they did, and by vocalizations that are just considerred sounds, but not language, since all mammals do both those things.
Of course there is universal grammar, but it is more related to the fact that our brain can process complicated things and we needed tools of expression to communicate ideas with each other, of course animals don`t have language, they simply cannot comprehend things like past, future or some string of events. SO they don`t need it. Power of our brain and complexity of human language go hand in hand and I believe they drove each other forward in evolution.
I have heard and read that Noam Chomsky's theory of a Universal Grammer is a very complex and specific thing, but I haven't actually read the theory yet. It's still under copyright and I'm very poor. All other books refering to it are also still under copyright. If anyone can suggest something I can read online for free, that will teach me at least the most basic aspects if it, I'd really appreciate knowing where to find it. Or failing in finding it for free, is there someplace I can find that info for cheap? Is there a UA-cam video explaining it? Thank you so much to anyone with any advice!
Outstanding lecture and interesting guy. But chat GPT destroyed his theory that language is special and that no machine will be able to create it. I would love to hear his latest thinking.
It can mimic (copy/paste) and categorize (literally index) but still does not understand meaning. AI and machine learning are amazing at speedily presenting potential associations and reciting definitions and brainstorming examples from categories of similar items. They don’t memorize anything though because they literally just look it up every time. Humans have shite for memory but do create meaning and evolve it, and they use flawed senses to arrive at perception. AI has no perceptual inlet whatsoever, other than human sourced lists of relational categories that ML data feeds into it. Without human involvement there would be no AI. Technology is one of the most obvious evidences for biology because it is proof of life. It is what Dr. Everett would call an index.
13:55 I don't get it (and I'm german ;p ), at the beginning he said, he doesn't understand what 98% means in the correlation of human and ape genomes, his reasoning was great, comparing it with letters and language now he is saying so and so much % ancestries from this or that nation or even neanderthals - what does it mean?
8:00 - It's not hard to understand. In your language, all life shares the same genetic "letters." What that statement means is that we share 98% or whatever of our genetic WORDS with chimps and bonobos. 98% of our genes, which have the same biochemical effect (same proteins, etc.) in all of the related organisms. All it really means is that the remaining 2% is clearly *very important*, because look at the difference it makes. To underscore the importance of your work, I suspect that contained within that 2% are things like the effectiveness of vocal apparatus for enunciating sounds useful for language. It may well be that a large part of our "escalation of success" over those other animals arises from our ability to communicate via language, and the ensuing cultural cooperation that promotes. My guess is that there are other key differences to, related to other cognitive abilities, but I bet language potential is a big part of it.
I am missing aspects of the future for the present living species, Homo sapiens and the apes. Can apes develop above their present capacities ? I heard that in Japan apes never jumped into water, but one day they observed how humans did and after some time they did also. Homo sapiens has had its phase of existence like homo erectus and will be replaced or is already replaced by the being with the supramental consciousnesses as somehow felt or suspected by Nietzsche and developed by Sri Aurobindo who will have replaced intelligence by the higher capacity intuition.
@@DanielRetureau I agree. The OP is full of hot air. Or wishful thinking. We are rapidly destroying all other species, and we are still expanding at an ever accelerating rate. I think all intelligent life, including all mammals, birds, and fish, will become extinct. Only then will another species be able to slowly evolve again, over millions of years, IF THE CONDITIONS ALLOW IT. If they do allow it, the new species will likely be somewhat like the lifeforms that exist now, since similar conditions always produce similar life forms.
He's sure smart isn't he. Language as symbols is a cool concept. It accured to me that from an anthropological view point it was fire and the benefits it brought that spawned language, boredom plain and simple.
I think humans and erectus were likely preserving foods with salt, honey, animal fat, and fermenting stuff (vinegar), before having fire. I heard neanderthaals would throw a mammoth in a cold lake, and it would slowly ferment like cheese, to be eaten all winter. Transforming food and preserving it and storing it helped us become human, and fire was a piece of that.
@@Eriugena8 That sounds... awful. I don't what you said, I mean the idea of eating fermented cold mammoth meat. Thanks for sharing, I had not heard of that until now.
Everett gave many ideas, many contradictory or deprecating to other broadly accepted theories. I was convinced @24:30 of his level, when he said "we don't find regular systematic colonization by humans [sic!] waiting to ride tsunamis." This he said to debunk theories that hominins reached far-away isolated land masses accidentally (e.g. by tsunami). The problem is, just before @24:28 he said the opposite: "it is true that a few animals have made it [accidentally via tsunamis, to far-away lands]," which debunked his debunking. He disproved his own claim that H. erectus could not have reached other land masses accidentally (i.e. tsunamis). This (and other claims when I re-watched the video) soured me to his weak intellectual rigor.
Other problems in his "logic"... He made persistent claims that Homo erectus was seafaring - meaning they could travel on large boats (capable of holding provisions for a multi-day trip) which they built and tested, they understood buoyancy in open seas (i.e. they could test their boat designs in open seas and could return safely to land if an unproven boat design failed), they understood celestial navigation and directionality (since in open seas there are no navigation markers other than the stars), and could return back home from being on the open seas for days/weeks/months -- which are all required skills for any seafaring people. He seems to exalt Homo erectus, on a pillar, and gives them abilities that seem absurd given their early hominin status. I went back and re-watched the earlier parts, and realized Everett seems to be mostly speculating, based on mostly his own thin arguments. He claimed that H. erectus created symbols (the phallic one he showed). This claim seems stretched, since the shown phallus is not a Symbol but merely an Icon -- I'm applying his definitions. It was a duplicate (of a real phallus) in form and meaning and non-arbitrary -- which is his definition of Icon. The stone phallus was not arbitrary; it is an entirely copied (non-arbitrary) form of a real phallus. His style of speaking, of being emphatic, at first made him appear knowledgeable. I soon realized this was my assumption (and likely made by many others). Emphatic condident speech does not prove the speaker has knowledge. His arguments often don't hold up, logically. Though, it's possible he may be correct on some ideas he has posited, but I found too many where he is merely speculating. He seems to be more in the fringes, with very little firm evidence to support his claims. I realized other items he postulated on were also unsupported or had flimsy support (a "tsunami method of logic"). He seems to be enamored by things and clings to them wholeheartedly, resisting any evidence that disproves his emotional belief. These are not traits of reputable trustworthy scientists.
@@DanielRetureau I agree. Smaller animals have obviously travelled from one land mass to another on floating trees and debris, but people have not, as far as we know. At least not enough of them to establish a viable population anywhere else. That requires boats. The 2 comments above are made by the same person, and that person has an enormous ego, but no knowledge what so ever of linguistics, that I can see, or even of anthropology. They just don't like his manor. I think it's uncool to attack someone with a PHD who is an acknowledged expert, just because one doesn't like their manor, or looks, or whatever it is that causes them to feel that way. Their intellectual rigor is faultier than his is.
All animals have language otherwise they would be silent. If a duck quacks in a certain way another duck understands. Personally, I think that most cetaceans have more complex languages.
Well you cannot move or eat being completely silent. Also some animals communicate visually, changing colors or displaying feathers, or moving a certain way. That being said I also think all forms of life and especially animals communicate even if just very simple distress or mating calls they absolutely do communicate
I’m not really convinced our intellectual advantage is a good thing. We’ve managed to wreak total havoc on our environment. I think we could use a little dumbing down…
Linguistics has devolved within a hundred years from Saussure, crossing from philology to linguistics, to blokes, like this, who've read nothing of the literature that their study is supposed to clarify but, nevertheless, are full of trendy speculations, which use popular terms to please the speakers' ignorant colleagues.
Sorry but anyone with a PHD has at least a minimal level of knowledge, and this audience likely are all at least grad students, if not fellow professors. People like you just love to criticise others, when you know even less, and couldn't present a lecture if your life depended on it. It is a fact that he discoverred that the language of the tribe he had been living with for a long time in the deep Amazon was unique, and that their language contradicted something that had been held as gospel by the whole linguistic community world wide. He spent years after that in getting his PHD, and getting proof of the structure of the language. That proof, something about recursion or the lack of it, somehow contradicted Chomsky's crazy idea about a Universal Grammer, so Chomsky was enraged, and because of him Everett was blacklisted for years. But Everett couldn't deny what he knew was true. Time has proven Everett right. And I admire him. Now many other linguists, including Stephen Pinker, have disavowed Chomsky's nutty theory. Chomsky is a smart guy who I would admire too, if he hadn't tried his best to destroy Everett. Everett never even said that Chomsky was wrong. He just said what he saw. I think he's a hero!
Even without a larynx at the homo sapiens level in the throat there are many sounds sounds Neanderthals could make. Only thing they would have difficulty are with vowels. The rest is done with tongue and lips. Try it yourself. Keep the same vowel sound and you can make words. Perfect example of Aristotelian logic in anthropology (logic without experimentation). Their vocal language would have been more concise but it certainly did existed.
@@morvil73 Now you are just plain factually wrong. The location of larynx in the throat Neanderthal made all the difference in what sounds could be made. The range of sounds Neanderthal could make was much more limited than in humans.
@@pinquisitor9552 OR, vowels were a specific secret superweapon meant to be kep[t from outsiders... Hebrew's hidden vowels follow the same secrecy as PHOENICIAN & KEMETIC vowels... African cultures consider vowels HOLY... The true name of God is alleged to be "AEIOU"...
Many Chinese dialects do not have a written version. For the written version, they use the Chinese language. That is actually not the same language. Hakka, for instance, has a different vocabulary, grammar, from the written Chinese language. In other words, you can't write down a Hakka conversation with the Chinese language.
I am amazed about the infrastructure of languages. Why can‘t the English bind two substantives together creating a new meaning as „ Weltschmerz“ or Lackaffe, Drahtesel or Stahlross- both for a specific kind of a bicycle. Can anybody give a translation to „ die Skandalnudel hat doch tatsächlich den Lackaffen angelacht, der vom anderen Ufer stammt; jetzt geht sie für ihn anschaffen und ist ihm spinnefeind.“ . Another mysterious fact form the gender of words. Why are the more important words in the German language all female as Sonne (sun), Welt (world), Erde (earth), Wissenschaft (science), Kunst (art), Musik (music), Schrift (writing), Kraft (force), Gewalt (violence), Macht (power), Majestät ( majesty) ? To my opinion languages have got a frame. The Sanskrit frame is different from the English. Some languages have got a sponge quality integrating foreign words. The English language is certainly good for deals but with its hidden arrogance ( WE ARE B R I T I S H) it is unable to unfold or correct its chaotic spelling.
I can't speak about most of your comment, but I certainly agree most strongly about English spelling being chaotic. I think the grammer is as well, in many ways. It must be very hard to learn as a 2nd or subsequent language.
If some human precursors had language makes sense as hard to pass along technical tool building steps without it. But written language, one should assume the ability to archive would also be important, but then I don't know of any cave paintings with graffiti. I always thought recursive was events that led one to cuss when remembered.
The illustration, favoured by Everett, is of an Erectus male, who appears to be clean shaven. Do researchers really believe that early humans had no facial hair?
Culture is changing, is it not ? We had Leonardo, the David of Michelangelo and the Magic Flute by Amadeus Mozart. L. Bernstein taught us the constant development of music since Johann Sebastian Bach up to Gustav Mahler and Schönberg. So, you see a brilliance of culture works and a change missing it. Language did not have this change. Just experience the English used by Sri Aurobindo in his book „ Savitri „.
tech inventions are collective including the past inventors who figured things out as Turing and others figured out computing. Individuals invent systems and things all the time even if they are on inventing off of a previous invention.
...having imitated other species may well be true, what i think may also be is that sapiens' comunicated just as other animals did and do even now. One of the biggest differences being the evolving complexity of sapiens' environment .
After his asinine remark on the similarity (or lack thereof) of the genome of homo and pan (as a linguist, no less, you'd assume he has an idea what ordering and structure of letters does to an alphabet soup) I had a hard time taking him seriously.
"what does [tool making] correction require? Language." gosh what a mistake. You can teach football techniques without language, correct other's foot position, show slowly.
But you still need language to even get to the football training ... and that foot youv been talking about must be in shoe... and you cant get or make a shoes without language...
To start with the example of the letters being the same in different languages.... that is bad science. We would then be equally similar to a pine tres as we are ro chips. Not very promissing conference based on that but I will wait.
His thesis is fundamentally flawed. It is not about the invention of figurative etching - it's about the invention of PHENOME-PAIRS in relation to VISION - THIS ARE THE KEY BEHAVIORAL TRAITS THAT ARE DEVELOPED AND PASSED ON. Figurative etching on surfaces is WAY LATER. The pairing of speech to drawing = WAY LATER.
That makes no sense at all! I'm sorry. Maybe English is not your first language. It might be better to write it in your own language. Then UA-cam will translate it for us.
"No one person ever invents anything." Interesting perspective. So far I am not a fan, but I'm going to keep listening in hopes that his area of expertise makes an appearance soon...
@@deathwrenchcustom I wouldn't expect a GP to understand DNA, nevermind a linguist. And the thing you criticised in your first post is actually 100% correct. By the way, posting a criticism of somebody you don't like is fine, but then replying to yourself to post another one, in order to make it look like 2 different people didn't like him is dirty. And even worse, the fact that you just did exactly the same thing above, under a different name, to try to make yourself look like FOUR DIFFERENT PEOPLE is lower than low. How stupid do you think we are?! Answering yourself with "Yeah" just to make sure it looks like a different person replying. That is a real dirtbag move. I can't force people to do anything, but in future I would suggest you edit your first comment, instead of posing as 2 different people. Stretching 2 invalid points out to look like 2 different people is quite an act. And when I see this done a second time just a short bit below where another person did exactly the same thing, it makes me 99% sure that you are also the person who posted as Keep-Ukraine-Free. That is beyond low! It's harrassment. I sure hope I don't see any more of that abusive behavior here.
Then by your definition of invented symbols as to language, Bees , wasps, bumblebees, Dance out the precision location of where the "goods" are for their highly organized colony life structure,,, And to the understanding of the bees,, barbaric creatures disrupt their home to harvest the fruit of their labors,,,,
![Daniel Everett, How Language Began: The History of Humanity’s Greatest Invention [reupload]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ALWRbmAwzY/mqdefault.jpg)
What a fascinating lecture. I’m not in academia, but was a professional cryptologist linguist for around a decade and have been a lifelong student of language and culture and really have appreciated you sharing this das information with us.
My wife and I communicate via the thermostat all the time.
you're the ones communicating not the thermostat, moron
Wonderful talk.
Everett has some solid ideas and I'm glad to see him skewer archeologists who have clung to a belief of recent language emergence. It took many thousands of generations for the human vocal tract to have evolved, so its emergence during the time frame of H. Erectus makes most sense.
I did my graduate work in Linguistics on this subject, namely the biological origins of language and language evolution. One thing I uncovered is the critical role the female played. It's amazing how chauvinistic paleoanthropologists and archeologists are when they discuss the evolution of human behavior. They always talk about the production of weapons -- axes, spears, arrows, etc. Even throwing stones. But they never mention what the females of the species were doing. Which to me is foolish. The males were the hunters, but the females were the gatherers. Ask yourself this: which requires the greater use of language, hunting or gathering? Successful hunters don't talk much. They must be very quiet when they stalk their game, and they don't typically talk until they they've killed their prey, at which point they can celebrate. So the males are part-time users of language. But the females can chatter to their hearts' content, sharing information about which berries are edible, for example, and which aren't. Or which areas have more berries than others. I'm sure they foraged in groups and that these groups were often out of sight from each other, but they stayed in touch using language. So it was my assertion (and continues to be) that the females of the species were the prime movers of language and language emergence. There's even lots of scientific evidence gathered from modern humans to back up this theory of mine, which indicates a residual level of these same differences that likely first emerged with H. Erectus.
What a great comment 😊
Excellent point
There can be no archeological evidence of speaking.
Listen, when i ask my cat if she's hungry, she knows what I'm asking.
Dude! Are you women talk too much? LOL
Just love how oblivious the guy is standing in the way of the camera. Thanks for the upload, I found it very interesting.
Daniel Everette is great. Thanks for posting!
Po
Love how this talk was rather compressed (compared to some I've watched/listened to by Professor Everett). As it was only one-half of the lecture's entire timespan, I appreciate that equal opportunity was given to Q&A. Engagement is key. Some presenters--to this day--are still figuring this out. Any future discussions accepted in tandem with an additional speaker, I would hope the absence of a moderator (the current working model) would be utilized as well. Sort of odd how the use of a moderater was ever necessary, outside of an actual debate setting. Civilized adults are without need of a conversational "chaperone." This discussion was informative, well paced, and enlightening. Presently, having read this comment "pre-post-pandemic"... hoping for a speaking tour from Dr. Everett in the U.S.... sooner than later. ;)
Not all adults are civilized.
@@PadraigTomas In post graduate university settings like this. Nearly 100% are.
7
A tiny wild bird began roosting in my roof-mounted heater box on top of my house. It introduced itself with a loud tweet,
which was it normal tweet, only loud. It sounded exactly like a human would say the word "tweet", except in a higher tone.
I responded to the bird's tweet with, "Hi little birdie." We developed a relationship. Imagine that you could only say "tweet".
You would find ways of expressing yourself. You could say it with an inquisitive tone. You could be scolding. You could
express excitement. You would also be able to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction, all of which that bird did during the
7 months it roosted up there. The heater ducts connect to each room, and the bird would listen to me as I went from room to room.
The kitchen is the furthest room from the heater box, and the bird would tweet the loudest when I went into the kitchen. There is
much more to this story, including how it figured out my billiards practice, and how it listened to, and responded to music.
How it would prompt me to play music. How it would greet me in the morning, and "tuck" me into bed at night. Only after I
stopped making noise while getting into sleeping position, would it go out hunting for food. It was a music junky, and pretty
damn smart about it. So much so, that I was convinced I had gone nuts. I bought a recorder and recorded some of it's tweets
before it flew away. I also got an "ear" witness, which was very important to me since I was worried I was hallucinating the
entire experience. Of course, human projection was my concern throughout the 7 months, but living with an animal, you learn things
and communications happens. And my point is that you don't need a large vocabulary to express yourself.
Lucky you.
I had a smilar experiece with an english blackbird after I rescued it as a terrified fledglimg and fed it using a glass dropper and tweezers.
Ir used to come to the kitchen of an evening and perch on top the kitchen door and sing its songs of a thousand notes.
Unique and unimaginable.
One day I returned home to find it sat in a frying pan covered in oil, so I washed it in washing up liquid and dried it using a fan heater.
Autumn (fall) came and it flew away but the folllwing year it returned making a frightful din in the garden so I went out, whistled, and it flew down to my hands.
And so began another summer of adventures.
Thank you little bird for coming into my life.
Nu99ins & Viv TheSpiv: Nice stories! I loved them both.
@@vivthespiv1 Amazing story! God js good and these stories are perfect gifts from above!!!
Nice! Imagine the paradise of God describing in Genesis, unspeakable...!
@@vivthespiv1 Blackbirds and all of their relatives in the Corvid family are known to be very smart. Ravens, crows, and magpies. Magpies can be EXTREMELY aggresive. I never saw them where I'm from, but they have them here. They used to terrorize our cats! So I dislike them a lot! But there are many videos of people befriending all of the corvids. And I saw a tv show where they tested blackbirds or crows to see if they can use or make tools. It showed they can even use a 2 step process to create a tool to reach some food. I don't know if they moved on to testing for 3 steps.
A population group with sea faring technology immigrating to Crete surely must have had a fantastic communication technology to manage such a feat. It must have required a quite advanced social organisation that we were willing untill recent times to deny even to the Neanderthals. I think there is still a lot to discover about Erectus.
The question about the source of language was not answered. Do we know if there was a single source or were languages developed in different places independently?
I got curious about this subject during my research intro course and picked it for my topic of study. The depth and explanations of evidence seems seminal. Totally fascinating. Pierce and Everett are going in my study on paleolinguistics. Thanks for posting!! Exciting work.
Bless these German people for reaching across the language gap here.
💙
And bless Danes like me, who have both English and German in elementary/middle school 😇
@@mrloop1530 That's great! In Canada there is only French taught as a 2nd language in 9 provinces. I don't know what is taught in Quebec, Nunavut, or in the NW Territories up north. I think more and more schools are using aboriginal languages as their first language, which is a great thing! I hope it continues to grow.
But I suspect that in every part of Canada there is only 1 other language taught, even in most high schools. If any high schools teach more than 1 other language it would be very unusual. I imagine only the expensive private schools do that. I like the idea of giving students choices, as long as they are not made to pay more.
But everything in Canada is more and more affected by the warped ideas of the Americans. And Conservative politicians are determined to destroy both our education system and health care, so that they can break it all up, sell it all off cheap to their buddies, in exchange for huge bribes. And then their buddies, almost all of them Americans, will come in and get rich off selling education to us, on the basis that you get what you pay for.
We can see very clearly what kind of people the American system produces. I'm sure from Europe you can't see it as well as we do here, but it must still be pretty obvious that the majority of them feel unsafe and unhappy.
And rightly so, in a country full of gun nuts, where people have huge arsenals of war weapons that are not allowed in any other country, including Canada. (But somehow they bleed across our border into Canada too.)
Those gun nuts go crazy very often. There are mass shootings (4 or more victims) at the rate of 2.5 a week. You can Google that. So frequently that they are not even reported on national news, because no-one even cares anymore, unless it's in a school.
Those gun nuts are the same people who are supporters of Trump. They believe all of his craziness, and every other crazy idea that they see or hear.
America and it's education system are both total disasters, yet the Tories are trying to make Canada into the same thing. And to a large extent they are succeeding. This country has become unrecognizable! I'm not some old fogey who always longs for the good old days, but the Conservatives in North America need to be stopped.
They have already given away all of our oil industry and the entire retail industry. Every aspect of both are entirely American now, and we have no control over them in any way. Huge American corporations control almost every aspect of Canada as it is. We really need the gods to help us protect those last 2 remaining things. The US doesn't even need to invade us. The country has already been given away by Conservative politicians.
(Justin Trudeau and his father Pierre who was also once the Prime Minister are not Conservatives. They are Liberals.)
In terms of physical actions, even the simplest actions can involve a precise sequence of muscle movements. More complex actions are built from these simpler ones. So the ability to handle recursion must already exist in the brain regardless of the use of language. So when a rudimentary language ability comes along, due to having some apparatus to produce sounds, and social demands that make its use imperative, the only things that will stop the use of recursion are (a) the initial lack of complexity in the language as its usage starts up from ground zero and (b) the actual need for complexity that would only come about in larger more complex social groups with more individuals and more specialised tasks going on.
Excellent point. It was my Historical Linguistics professor who first introduced me to the notion of the grammar of physical movement. And she mentioned it in the same context that you do. A necessary predecessor to language itself.
Language doesn't have to be vocal. (Sign language). Also, for hunters, sign language is more advantageous than vocal language in some crucial situation
Thank you all. Excellent points!
Learning preceeds teaching and crosses species boundaries. The best teachers follow the student.
Lovely, promising work!
Awesome presentation, as a layperson this is fabulous, ty!
Gayle Cheung u should read his book - it’s great.
What’s it called again, ty
Gayle Cheung www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-Invention/dp/0871407957
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
Africans been reading...writing...and building Prymaids..The greatest invention of all time is the PAPER AND THE PEN..AND Africans been doing it for 100thousand yrs ago..
@@marcossealey8612 The Sumerians were writing on clay tablets, in Asia, four enturies before Africans invented papyrus. SO the Africans didn't really invent writing they merely improved it. The Indus valley's civilization may have developed writing even earlier, but there's some debate over that. Now if you want to claim that you Nile valley writing is more beautiful than other ancient scripts I will not argue that point.
@@dewayneweaver5782 There was NO ASIA IN ANCIENT TIMES 👍 Now If U want to BASE UR THEORY in CLAY COOKIES GO AHEAD...U START WHERE U WERE CREATED AFRICA
@@dewayneweaver5782 P.S. The Sumerians we're also AFRICAN 😳
@@marcossealey8612 have you looked at a map recently. Are you suggesting that the Chinese and Koreans were African too. I'm thinking you have been smoking to much of the Devil's Cabbage.
“He traveled thousands of miles up the Amazon alone in a canoe over a hundred years ago.” Okay. You got me.
Yeah! I gotta go read about him. I plan to rewatch the first 10 minutes so I can write down those names properly.
Interesting distinction between language (which Erectus probably had) and speech (which they did not). I wonder if Erectus could have communicated with a form of sign language. ??
It seems likely that to some extent they did, and by vocalizations that are just considerred sounds, but not language, since all mammals do both those things.
Is the ability to predict and vocalize those predictions leading to progeny a normal thing or just a far flung hypothesis ?
big brain and language must be connected!
Is it possible to make a sentence that only consists of verbs? Yes, Persian
How many verbs in one sentence? The record is 19 verbs
Wow! I have only heard Persian spoken once, but it had a beautiful sound. A really lovely flow.
Was the topic really answered? How did language started ?
Of course there is universal grammar, but it is more related to the fact that our brain can process complicated things and we needed tools of expression to communicate ideas with each other, of course animals don`t have language, they simply cannot comprehend things like past, future or some string of events. SO they don`t need it. Power of our brain and complexity of human language go hand in hand and I believe they drove each other forward in evolution.
I have heard and read that Noam Chomsky's theory of a Universal Grammer is a very complex and specific thing, but I haven't actually read the theory yet. It's still under copyright and I'm very poor. All other books refering to it are also still under copyright.
If anyone can suggest something I can read online for free, that will teach me at least the most basic aspects if it, I'd really appreciate knowing where to find it.
Or failing in finding it for free, is there someplace I can find that info for cheap?
Is there a UA-cam video explaining it?
Thank you so much to anyone with any advice!
Outstanding lecture and interesting guy. But chat GPT destroyed his theory that language is special and that no machine will be able to create it. I would love to hear his latest thinking.
It can mimic (copy/paste) and categorize (literally index) but still does not understand meaning. AI and machine learning are amazing at speedily presenting potential associations and reciting definitions and brainstorming examples from categories of similar items. They don’t memorize anything though because they literally just look it up every time.
Humans have shite for memory but do create meaning and evolve it, and they use flawed senses to arrive at perception. AI has no perceptual inlet whatsoever, other than human sourced lists of relational categories that ML data feeds into it. Without human involvement there would be no AI. Technology is one of the most obvious evidences for biology because it is proof of life. It is what Dr. Everett would call an index.
13:55 I don't get it (and I'm german ;p ), at the beginning he said, he doesn't understand what 98% means in the correlation of human and ape genomes, his reasoning was great, comparing it with letters and language
now he is saying so and so much % ancestries from this or that nation or even neanderthals - what does it mean?
Culture is the state of an individual mind that grows into society.
Isnt there english subtitle ?
But. The language symbology was in the head prior to the development of formal language
The combination of concepts forces the growth of language.
The first Ancient man that killed a mastodon invented language,
so he could sit by the fire & talk about it for the rest of his life.
And now we have found a H. erectus hyoid bone, so that objection is sunk.
Really? Great ! Do you have more precisions, please? TY
8:00 - It's not hard to understand. In your language, all life shares the same genetic "letters." What that statement means is that we share 98% or whatever of our genetic WORDS with chimps and bonobos. 98% of our genes, which have the same biochemical effect (same proteins, etc.) in all of the related organisms. All it really means is that the remaining 2% is clearly *very important*, because look at the difference it makes.
To underscore the importance of your work, I suspect that contained within that 2% are things like the effectiveness of vocal apparatus for enunciating sounds useful for language. It may well be that a large part of our "escalation of success" over those other animals arises from our ability to communicate via language, and the ensuing cultural cooperation that promotes. My guess is that there are other key differences to, related to other cognitive abilities, but I bet language potential is a big part of it.
Kudos to the sound guy.
I am missing aspects of the future for the present living species, Homo sapiens and the apes. Can apes develop above their present capacities ? I heard that in Japan apes never jumped into water, but one day they observed how humans did and after some time they did also. Homo sapiens has had its phase of existence like homo erectus and will be replaced or is already replaced by the being with the supramental consciousnesses as somehow felt or suspected by Nietzsche and developed by Sri Aurobindo who will have replaced intelligence by the higher capacity intuition.
For apes to evolve, we must give them a chance. It is not the case right now
@@DanielRetureau I agree. The OP is full of hot air. Or wishful thinking. We are rapidly destroying all other species, and we are still expanding at an ever accelerating rate. I think all intelligent life, including all mammals, birds, and fish, will become extinct. Only then will another species be able to slowly evolve again, over millions of years, IF THE CONDITIONS ALLOW IT.
If they do allow it, the new species will likely be somewhat like the lifeforms that exist now, since similar conditions always produce similar life forms.
He's sure smart isn't he.
Language as symbols is a cool concept. It accured to me that from an anthropological view point it was fire and the benefits it brought that spawned language, boredom plain and simple.
I think humans and erectus were likely preserving foods with salt, honey, animal fat, and fermenting stuff (vinegar), before having fire. I heard neanderthaals would throw a mammoth in a cold lake, and it would slowly ferment like cheese, to be eaten all winter. Transforming food and preserving it and storing it helped us become human, and fire was a piece of that.
@@Eriugena8
That sounds... awful. I don't what you said, I mean the idea of eating fermented cold mammoth meat. Thanks for sharing, I had not heard of that until now.
which human spicis got throat at first?
Everett gave many ideas, many contradictory or deprecating to other broadly accepted theories. I was convinced @24:30 of his level, when he said "we don't find regular systematic colonization by humans [sic!] waiting to ride tsunamis." This he said to debunk theories that hominins reached far-away isolated land masses accidentally (e.g. by tsunami). The problem is, just before @24:28 he said the opposite: "it is true that a few animals have made it [accidentally via tsunamis, to far-away lands]," which debunked his debunking. He disproved his own claim that H. erectus could not have reached other land masses accidentally (i.e. tsunamis).
This (and other claims when I re-watched the video) soured me to his weak intellectual rigor.
Other problems in his "logic"...
He made persistent claims that Homo erectus was seafaring - meaning they could travel on large boats (capable of holding provisions for a multi-day trip) which they built and tested, they understood buoyancy in open seas (i.e. they could test their boat designs in open seas and could return safely to land if an unproven boat design failed), they understood celestial navigation and directionality (since in open seas there are no navigation markers other than the stars), and could return back home from being on the open seas for days/weeks/months -- which are all required skills for any seafaring people.
He seems to exalt Homo erectus, on a pillar, and gives them abilities that seem absurd given their early hominin status.
I went back and re-watched the earlier parts, and realized Everett seems to be mostly speculating, based on mostly his own thin arguments. He claimed that H. erectus created symbols (the phallic one he showed). This claim seems stretched, since the shown phallus is not a Symbol but merely an Icon -- I'm applying his definitions. It was a duplicate (of a real phallus) in form and meaning and non-arbitrary -- which is his definition of Icon. The stone phallus was not arbitrary; it is an entirely copied (non-arbitrary) form of a real phallus.
His style of speaking, of being emphatic, at first made him appear knowledgeable. I soon realized this was my assumption (and likely made by many others). Emphatic condident speech does not prove the speaker has knowledge. His arguments often don't hold up, logically. Though, it's possible he may be correct on some ideas he has posited, but I found too many where he is merely speculating. He seems to be more in the fringes, with very little firm evidence to support his claims.
I realized other items he postulated on were also unsupported or had flimsy support (a "tsunami method of logic"). He seems to be enamored by things and clings to them wholeheartedly, resisting any evidence that disproves his emotional belief. These are not traits of reputable trustworthy scientists.
What is possible fir seeds, insects, even birds or very small things might be more difficult for big animals. Islands without any vegetation are rare.
@@DanielRetureau I agree. Smaller animals have obviously travelled from one land mass to another on floating trees and debris, but people have not, as far as we know. At least not enough of them to establish a viable population anywhere else. That requires boats.
The 2 comments above are made by the same person, and that person has an enormous ego, but no knowledge what so ever of linguistics, that I can see, or even of anthropology. They just don't like his manor.
I think it's uncool to attack someone with a PHD who is an acknowledged expert, just because one doesn't like their manor, or looks, or whatever it is that causes them to feel that way. Their intellectual rigor is faultier than his is.
Where does he mention the "human universals"? I cannot find that part.
Excelente exposición great information 👍
How. About the hyoid.?
Are sapiens the first to surrender muscle energy for the brain?
All animals have language otherwise they would be silent. If a duck quacks in a certain way another duck understands. Personally, I think that most cetaceans have more complex languages.
Well you cannot move or eat being completely silent.
Also some animals communicate visually, changing colors or displaying feathers, or moving a certain way.
That being said I also think all forms of life and especially animals communicate even if just very simple distress or mating calls they absolutely do communicate
Quack 😁
Then clocks have language too.
Try listening to the lecture before commenting.
No. They communicate. He clearly explained the difference between language and communication close to the beginning of the lecture
Gesticulating and vocalization is primary
I’m not really convinced our intellectual advantage is a good thing. We’ve managed to wreak total havoc on our environment. I think we could use a little dumbing down…
Linguistics has devolved within a hundred years from Saussure, crossing from philology to linguistics, to blokes, like this, who've read nothing of the literature that their study is supposed to clarify but, nevertheless, are full of trendy speculations, which use popular terms to please the speakers' ignorant colleagues.
Sorry but anyone with a PHD has at least a minimal level of knowledge, and this audience likely are all at least grad students, if not fellow professors. People like you just love to criticise others, when you know even less, and couldn't present a lecture if your life depended on it.
It is a fact that he discoverred that the language of the tribe he had been living with for a long time in the deep Amazon was unique, and that their language contradicted something that had been held as gospel by the whole linguistic community world wide. He spent years after that in getting his PHD, and getting proof of the structure of the language.
That proof, something about recursion or the lack of it, somehow contradicted Chomsky's crazy idea about a Universal Grammer, so Chomsky was enraged, and because of him Everett was blacklisted for years. But Everett couldn't deny what he knew was true.
Time has proven Everett right. And I admire him. Now many other linguists, including Stephen Pinker, have disavowed Chomsky's nutty theory. Chomsky is a smart guy who I would admire too, if he hadn't tried his best to destroy Everett. Everett never even said that Chomsky was wrong. He just said what he saw. I think he's a hero!
"speaker's"
Watched all of it, 1:25:40
Even without a larynx at the homo sapiens level in the throat there are many sounds sounds Neanderthals could make. Only thing they would have difficulty are with vowels. The rest is done with tongue and lips. Try it yourself. Keep the same vowel sound and you can make words. Perfect example of Aristotelian logic in anthropology (logic without experimentation). Their vocal language would have been more concise but it certainly did existed.
The Neanderthal larynx is not very different from modern humans’.
@@morvil73 Now you are just plain factually wrong. The location of larynx in the throat Neanderthal made all the difference in what sounds could be made. The range of sounds Neanderthal could make was much more limited than in humans.
Funny that old cultures, a few 100k years later, didn’t write down vowels, as if not important.
@@pinquisitor9552 It could have been understood that certain vowel sounds followed specific consonants.
@@pinquisitor9552 OR, vowels were a specific secret superweapon meant to be kep[t from outsiders...
Hebrew's hidden vowels follow the same secrecy as PHOENICIAN & KEMETIC vowels...
African cultures consider vowels HOLY...
The true name of God is alleged to be "AEIOU"...
Many Chinese dialects do not have a written version. For the written version, they use the Chinese language. That is actually not the same language. Hakka, for instance, has a different vocabulary, grammar, from the written Chinese language. In other words, you can't write down a Hakka conversation with the Chinese language.
Verbs are primary . Subjects and objects are implied
Speech origins: google our paper "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech":
-voluntary breathing
-hyoidal descent
-gibbonlike song
-brain enlargement
-...
And Helmholtz?
I am amazed about the infrastructure of languages. Why can‘t the English bind two substantives together creating a new meaning as „ Weltschmerz“ or Lackaffe, Drahtesel or Stahlross- both for a specific kind of a bicycle. Can anybody give a translation to „ die Skandalnudel hat doch tatsächlich den Lackaffen angelacht, der vom anderen Ufer stammt; jetzt geht sie für ihn anschaffen und ist ihm spinnefeind.“ .
Another mysterious fact form the gender of words. Why are the more important words in the German language all female as Sonne (sun), Welt (world), Erde (earth), Wissenschaft (science), Kunst (art), Musik (music), Schrift (writing), Kraft (force), Gewalt (violence), Macht (power), Majestät ( majesty) ?
To my opinion languages have got a frame. The Sanskrit frame is different from the English. Some languages have got a sponge quality integrating foreign words. The English language is certainly good for deals but with its hidden arrogance ( WE ARE B R I T I S H) it is unable to unfold or correct its chaotic spelling.
I can't speak about most of your comment, but I certainly agree most strongly about English spelling being chaotic. I think the grammer is as well, in many ways. It must be very hard to learn as a 2nd or subsequent language.
English : jorts (jeans shorts), cronut (croissant donut), day plus care is daycare, hare and brain is harebrained...
Did he do any scientific research to substantiate his many many claims ?
If some human precursors had language makes sense as hard to pass along technical tool building steps without it. But written language, one should assume the ability to archive would also be important, but then I don't know of any cave paintings with graffiti.
I always thought recursive was events that led one to cuss when remembered.
I learned a ton w this
12:55 Funny what 5 years and a massive increase in compute scale can do.
Couldn't Socotra have been connected to the land mass?
The illustration, favoured by Everett, is of an Erectus male, who appears to be clean shaven. Do researchers really believe that early humans had no facial hair?
If you really (biologically) want to know how human language began, google "Seafood, diving, song and speech".
Language is an expression of conception. Ability to speak doesn't reflect intellect level.
Actually it does. Very much so. And differences in ability to speak are also highly indicative of differences in intelligence. Get over it.
The telos is secondary to the how. The how becomes the why
He didn't read Chomsky 😅
He is an expert on Chomsky. Far more so than most linguists are.
To build ocean going vessels 60,000 years ago to colonise Australia, the aborigines had to have had advanced language skills, simple.
Culture is changing, is it not ? We had Leonardo, the David of Michelangelo and the Magic Flute by Amadeus Mozart. L. Bernstein taught us the constant development of music since Johann Sebastian Bach up to Gustav Mahler and Schönberg. So, you see a brilliance of culture works and a change missing it. Language did not have this change. Just experience the English used by Sri Aurobindo in his book
„ Savitri „.
Good lecture.
I find the lecturer I bit too self centered...
Giving a lecture sin number one; way too much writing on the power points
trying to pretend Chomsky never existed LOL
tech inventions are collective including the past inventors who figured things out as Turing and others figured out computing. Individuals invent systems and things all the time even if they are on inventing off of a previous invention.
Everett said the same thing, but in a different way.
I read the ancient greeks
They dont even mention ape people
Humans always spoke
As if ancient Greeks would know. This person doesn't even know enough to use capitol letters and punctuation.
Pet Dogs & cats understand owner's language. But parrots and some other birds can talk your language
He's right...as a linguist he should know enough German to get through this presentation. But of course English must do.
I like him. And he does know several languages. He did kind of apologize too. I assume they knew that when they invited him.
People learned how to make a large variety of sounds by imitating animals. Making animal calls is an ancient art developed for hunting purposes.
...having imitated other species may well be true, what i think may also be is that sapiens' comunicated just as other animals did and do even now. One of the biggest differences being the evolving complexity of sapiens' environment .
Can we get daniel Everett and Richard Dawkins in a debate about meems?
📍1:13:27
After his asinine remark on the similarity (or lack thereof) of the genome of homo and pan (as a linguist, no less, you'd assume he has an idea what ordering and structure of letters does to an alphabet soup) I had a hard time taking him seriously.
Great lecture but the random paper rustling that sounds like a bomb going off is incredibly unprofessional for a video like this.
"what does [tool making] correction require? Language." gosh what a mistake. You can teach football techniques without language, correct other's foot position, show slowly.
But you still need language to even get to the football training ... and that foot youv been talking about must be in shoe... and you cant get or make a shoes without language...
String cheese being opened is a symbol for my German Shepherd 😂
mya... no, Mega is with capital M...
3:00😁
The germans with a language of the 16 century this era
They speak many languages there
very impressed
Person woman man camera tv..... and primitive language was invented 2 million years ago
Everything is completely empty, void of any inherent meaning. Language distorts reality. It's really mind blowing lol
"Eat. Drink. Man. Woman. Well, I don't know what that means. Apparently she never saw the movie." LMAO
To start with the example of the letters being the same in different languages.... that is bad science. We would then be equally similar to a pine tres as we are ro chips. Not very promissing conference based on that but I will wait.
His thesis is fundamentally flawed. It is not about the invention of figurative etching - it's about the invention of PHENOME-PAIRS in relation to VISION - THIS ARE THE KEY BEHAVIORAL TRAITS THAT ARE DEVELOPED AND PASSED ON. Figurative etching on surfaces is WAY LATER. The pairing of speech to drawing = WAY LATER.
Dogs tagged along wherever we went.
Complex language doesn't work well. Canines have no problem interpreting the simple sounds they emit
The central question arises from itself,
How did distinton arises.
These & so many other answers be subject to the scrutiny of their artifact.
That makes no sense at all! I'm sorry. Maybe English is not your first language. It might be better to write it in your own language. Then UA-cam will translate it for us.
"No one person ever invents anything." Interesting perspective. So far I am not a fan, but I'm going to keep listening in hopes that his area of expertise makes an appearance soon...
Yeah. A couple minutes later he says that he doesn't know what DNA is. I think we're done here.
@@deathwrenchcustom I wouldn't expect a GP to understand DNA, nevermind a linguist.
And the thing you criticised in your first post is actually 100% correct.
By the way, posting a criticism of somebody you don't like is fine, but then replying to yourself to post another one, in order to make it look like 2 different people didn't like him is dirty.
And even worse, the fact that you just did exactly the same thing above, under a different name, to try to make yourself look like FOUR DIFFERENT PEOPLE is lower than low. How stupid do you think we are?!
Answering yourself with "Yeah" just to make sure it looks like a different person replying. That is a real dirtbag move. I can't force people to do anything, but in future I would suggest you edit your first comment, instead of posing as 2 different people.
Stretching 2 invalid points out to look like 2 different people is quite an act. And when I see this done a second time just a short bit below where another person did exactly the same thing, it makes me 99% sure that you are also the person who posted as Keep-Ukraine-Free.
That is beyond low! It's harrassment. I sure hope I don't see any more of that abusive behavior here.
@@cattymajiv Uh... I have never made any comments under any account other than this one. I'm not sure that you understand how UA-cam works. 🤦🏾♂️
@@deathwrenchcustom I know full well that anyone can have multiple accounts, and switch between them at will.
@@cattymajiv Does your psychiatrist know that you're this paranoid?
An unbelievably rich presentation. ;) 3>
Nah, he travelled thousands of kilómetres, miles were never a thing in the Amazon
chat gpt learned languge so.......
Then by your definition of invented symbols as to language,
Bees , wasps, bumblebees,
Dance out the precision location of where the "goods" are for their highly organized colony life structure,,,
And to the understanding of the bees,, barbaric creatures disrupt their home to harvest the fruit of their labors,,,,
Ah, Professor Chomsky, so right about the world, so wrong about language.
My thoughts exactly. How could such a bright person be so wrong about such a ridiculous idea as Universal Grammer. It's just absurd!
Most successful animals are insects especially beetles
Hernandez Scott Williams Mark Perez Michelle
Sorry to be disagreeable but this presenter is lost. Language is a function of thought. Thought has a grammar.