Proto baby talk?

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

These, for our amazingly silent palaeolinguists:

Perhaps they are silent because there's not much in this story.  I  know diddley-squat about languages, but this story was given short-shrift,  with a dose of humor, over at the flamethrowers, convention (Google's sci.anthropology.paleo list). The thread begins with the New Scientist story URL ( the same as below):

Family words came first for early humans
Anna Gosline
NewScientist.com - 19:00 21 July 04

One of a Neanderthal baby's first words was.....

Snipped so that the first responder posted:

> > > > One of a Neanderthal baby's first words was

> > > Hogwash.

Simply put and nothing more.  To which the second response was:

> > Now, that is a very interesting first word!  Yours ? [name omitted]

There was a reply to  this (later):

...My first word was a grunt. ..Have you seen my baby picture?

CLICK HERE FOR BABY PICTURE

....I evolved at a more rapid pace during childhood.....

Getting back to the second response, which elicited a third, apparently by a speaker of the Lakota Native American language [but I wouldn't know]:

> LOL Actually, for once I agree with Phil. Papa and mama
> make sense for Romance and Germanic speakers, but once
> you get out of the Indo-European family, it tends to
> fall apart. I mean, according to this, Lakota can't be
> descended from early modern humans because the word for
> father is ate and the word for mother is ina.

And a fourth response from Oz:

....Add the austral languages and same thing happens: voila!....Papa in Pitjantjantjarra is : a Dog!
LOL.....

(back to the finish of the 3rd)
>  And then
> there's generational and bifurcate merging patterns
> versus descriptive and lineal patterns; in the former,
> the concept of "mother" isn't limited to the woman who
> gave birth to you and the concept of "father" isn't
> limited to the man married to said woman.

And to finish the thread, a final poster (bringing the total here to four responders, but  I've omitted some others):

>{quote from the news story] One of a Neanderthal baby's first words was probably "papa", concludes one
> of the most comprehensive attempts to date to make out what the first human
> language was like.
....One word: coalescence. Just as mtEve was not the first ancestor of the human species, the common ancestor of all surviving languages is not the common ancestor of all human languages........
........This press release is hopelessly confused........

To this last,  I will add no more confusion.   However, if half of what I read here is true, it's not surprising that our amazingly silent  paleolinguists rolled over and went back to sleep.

Sorry but it has been a slow news week.  
Dar

[Daryl Habel]

Sorry on me to all, especially Jacques.  While composing what I was attempting as a reply to Jacques' original post which started this thread with the comment about our amazingly silent palaeolinguists,  apparently I clicked the "Modify" icon rather than the "Quote" icon , and then (with my moderator ability)  omitted most of Jacques message before fooling around with the "Save" icon which reposted the "modified" message,  making  it appear like Jacques posted all that nonsense instead of the real guilty party....me.  I don't know how to fix this, so all I can do is apologize for my mis-behavior.

Oh well, all they can do is fire me :)

Dar

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Sorry on me to all, especially Jacques.  While composing what I was attempting as a reply to Jacques' original post which started this thread with the comment about our amazingly silent palaeolinguists,  apparently I clicked the "Modify" icon rather than the "Quote" icon , and then (with my moderator ability)  omitted most of Jacques message before fooling around with the "Save" icon which reposted the "modified" message,  making  it appear like Jacques posted all that nonsense instead of the real guilty party....me.  I don't know how to fix this, so all I can do is apologize for my mis-behavior.

Oh well, all they can do is fire me :)

Dar

Dar,

You should worry (!) and, in the meantime, here are a few thoughts about the way this particular story was presented by the media.

First, here are, below, the titles of the papers presented at the 'Origins of Language and Psychosis conference and that dealt with palaeo-issues. I wonder what made the media choose Bancel’s presentation out of other equally (?) or potentially interesting topics.

Secondly –- on a light note, you will see that the media’s rendition of Bancel’s topic (in Red) has definitely missed a key proto- or foundation-word. This time, I wonder if it is a case of self-censorhip driven by media prudishness. If it is the case, it is too bad, because I am sure that the mention of Bancel’s speculations about palaeo-(k)aka would have attracted the attention of many more readers.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

Neural Origins of Language.
Chair: Sean Spence

John Marshall - Historical development of views on the cerebral substrate of language.

David Steinberg - Neurology, mental evolution and the origin of language.

Paloma Garcia-Bellido - On Linguistic Mappings.


Evolutionary Origins of Language.
Chair: Dominique Nouveau

Jim Hurford - Recent developments in the evolution of language.

Marco Haverkort - Chomsky vs Pinker - a Neurolinguistic Perspective on the Adaptation-Exaptation Debate.

Pierre Bancel - (P)apa, (m)ama, (k)aka and the origins of the lexicon.

GJ Dalenoort - The reductionist approach.

[Daryl Habel]

Dar,

You should worry (!) and, in the meantime, here are a few thoughts about the way this particular story was presented by the media.

First, here are, below, the titles of the papers presented at the 'Origins of Language and Psychosis conference and that dealt with palaeo-issues. I wonder what made the media choose Bancel’s presentation out of other equally (?) or potentially interesting topics.

Secondly –- on a light note, you will see that the media’s rendition of Bancel’s topic (in Red) has definitely missed a key proto- or foundation-word. This time, I wonder if it is a case of self-censorhip driven by media prudishness. If it is the case, it is too bad, because I am sure that the mention of Bancel’s speculations about palaeo-(k)aka would have attracted the attention of many more readers.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

Dear Jacques,

Verily, I am shaking in my boots.  Well, the least I can do is repost the URL for the New Scientist story: CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY which does seem to confuse Neanderthals with the beginning of the Indo-European language family.  

It is interesting, your note that the media renditions failed to mention that third word (ka-ka) in Bancel's presentation.  I don't know what the standard interpretation would be, but my imagination takes me into some pretty messy territory.  All I can say is that I had an aunt who fell victim during infancy to rheumatic fever, and remained mentally at about age 4 for the rest of her life.  Ca-ca (that's the way we always "spelled' it, but of course for her it was a phonetic ka-ka) was "ice cream" in her language.

I see we haven't yet aroused the interest of any linguists, so I suppose my mis-directed reply hasn't caused too much damage.

Dar  

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Dear Jacques,

<snip>

I see we haven't yet aroused the interest of any linguists, so I suppose my mis-directed reply hasn't caused too much damage.

Dar 

Dear Dar,

Thanks for your effort in damage control. As for the apparent lack of interest on the part of palaeolinguists, it should not be too surprising given that there appears to be a general lack of participatory interest in the Forum, across (most of) the ‘Boards’. I suppose that there is a silent message somewhere in there, but, understandably, I have some difficulties understanding its full significance. But there is no doubt that, as it becomes clearer, appropriate measures will be taken with regards to the nature/purpose of the Forum and of its relationship to the Journal – whose entire reprogramming is now moving along nicely. Finally, it goes without saying that all this will be done in consultation with and with the collaboration of a few necessary individuals. Cryptic enough?

Jacques

[skwirl42]

Well, I just joined, so I apologize for my tardiness. :)

I'm planning to do an MA in archaeology, and I have a bachelors' which includes a minor in linguistics. As a linguist, of any sort, I have to say that that New Scientist article is, in fact, kaka. :) and the research that prompted the article.

In fact, I think I've come to agree a lot with a professor of mine, Dr. Andre Costopoulos, that it's entirely possible that the only reason we have language groups is simply because of geographic proximity and the effect of loan words.

Babies make all sorts of sounds when they're little, in fact, they make just about every sound that can be linguistically relevant in any language. It's invariably going to include "mama", "papa" and "kaka", simply because those sounds CAN be made. They're also going to make sounds using bilabial trills (essentially, giving someone the raspberry) which are phonemes in some African languages. "a" just happens to be a very easy sound to make.

skwirl42

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Well, I just joined, so I apologize for my tardiness. :)

I'm planning to do an MA in archaeology, and I have a bachelors' which includes a minor in linguistics. As a linguist, of any sort, I have to say that that New Scientist article is, in fact, kaka. :) and the research that prompted the article.

In fact, I think I've come to agree a lot with a professor of mine, Dr. Andre Costopoulos, that it's entirely possible that the only reason we have language groups is simply because of geographic proximity and the effect of loan words.

Babies make all sorts of sounds when they're little, in fact, they make just about every sound that can be linguistically relevant in any language. It's invariably going to include "mama", "papa" and "kaka", simply because those sounds CAN be made. They're also going to make sounds using bilabial trills (essentially, giving someone the raspberry) which are phonemes in some African languages. "a" just happens to be a very easy sound to make.

Welcome to the Palanth Forum and thanks for your contribution. It essentially adds to what appears to be some sort of general consensus regarding Bancel’s report and, I might add, in this case, the New Scientist’s scientific discernment. The next step in this story will be to find out whether or not it is being (or has been) published in a serious, peer-reviewed journal.

Jacques Cinq-Mars