> But even so, I just don't think whistling leaves room for enough nuances to carry on a normal conversation. > But even so, I just don't think rapidly moving

> But even so, I just don't think whistling leaves room for enough nuances to carry on a normal conversation. > But even so, I just don't think rapidly moving air over skin to induce vibration leaves room for enough nuances to carry on a normal conversation. Ultimately, whistling is just the emission of sound. Given that we get by with throat-sounds, I'd bet that whistling language could be sufficiently developed to be capable of expressing complex thought. Both speech and whistling are just moving air.