3 ms·

Both of those things can be true. Just because they didn't have language, doesn't mean they couldn't communicate, it just means they could likely only communica

by cdrini 1y ago

Both of those things can be true. Just because they didn't have language, doesn't mean they couldn't communicate, it just means they could likely only communicate primarily by showing instead of telling. And it's also clear why being able to communicate with language would indeed offer quite the competitive edge over that system.

b112 1y ago
During a period of high trust, I've watched crows training their young via showing. While crows have "crafty" intelligence, neanderthals would be more apt at this. But really, the logical first language would be gesture, an extension of already existing body language. And such language is employed by humans when hunting, at war, whenever quiet is preferred. Even a gesture language of a few dozen concepts is almost automatic, pointing, waving, directional motions, hushing motions, pointing at your head, clapping, etc. This being extended as full language in beings incapable of complex sound, seems viable.
- cdrini 1y ago
  Very cool anecdote! And agreed, I think we're being a bit "handwavy" about what we mean when we say "language"; it seems like more of a spectrum. I'm not sure where we draw the line between, say, language that animals use which, to the best of our knowledge, do not show complex/abstract communication, and human languages. And who knows where Neanderthal language/communication would fall on that spectrum!
  - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
    there are plenty of imaginable levels of language. there's everything from ability to communicate danger (which even trees seem to have), having simple constructs like names/ a handful of nouns for specific types of danger (e.g. Bear!) which is roughly where we think dolphins and some apes are. above that likely we get some verbs for coordinating hunting. at some point in this process you start getting syntax, tense, declension, adjectives etc. If I had to guess basic sentence structure probably goes back to the beginning of homo. The differences between Sapiens and others is likely much more subtle. e.g. symbolism, myth making, abstraction or something like that.

by cdrini 1y ago

b112 1y ago

During a period of high trust, I've watched crows training their young via showing. While crows have "crafty" intelligence, neanderthals would be more apt at this. But really, the logical first language would be gesture, an extension of already existing body language. And such language is employed by humans when hunting, at war, whenever quiet is preferred. Even a gesture language of a few dozen concepts is almost automatic, pointing, waving, directional motions, hushing motions, pointing at your head, clapping, etc. This being extended as full language in beings incapable of complex sound, seems viable.

cdrini 1y ago
Very cool anecdote! And agreed, I think we're being a bit "handwavy" about what we mean when we say "language"; it seems like more of a spectrum. I'm not sure where we draw the line between, say, language that animals use which, to the best of our knowledge, do not show complex/abstract communication, and human languages. And who knows where Neanderthal language/communication would fall on that spectrum!
- adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
  there are plenty of imaginable levels of language. there's everything from ability to communicate danger (which even trees seem to have), having simple constructs like names/ a handful of nouns for specific types of danger (e.g. Bear!) which is roughly where we think dolphins and some apes are. above that likely we get some verbs for coordinating hunting. at some point in this process you start getting syntax, tense, declension, adjectives etc. If I had to guess basic sentence structure probably goes back to the beginning of homo. The differences between Sapiens and others is likely much more subtle. e.g. symbolism, myth making, abstraction or something like that.