[bkadoctaj]

So, I smoked two bowls and I've been doing some thinking. Language is clearly essential to all of humanity's achievements... without it, human individuals would be unable to communicate clearly and effectively to more than a small group of associates. So, where did language begin?

When we think of a language, we rarely consider the steps it must have gone through in order to develop into a full-fledged, abstract mode of communication. It's not a matter of what concepts the language covers... but rather, how the language evolved from thought. Some say that thought only occurs with languages to think in, but it is unlikely that the words formed themselves, so they must have reflected thoughts to begin with.

It might be natural to think that a language would have first formed when people pointed to objects and made a sound. This sound would have been repeated by other human beings, remembered by these human individuals, and used in sight of the object being named. It's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion, to presume that these human beings would be able to communicate any sort of abstract (as in not apparently real/plausible) idea with these "naming" words. These naming words, of course, would be nouns. These nouns would consist of people [possibly, but unlikely], places, and objects. Abstract and subjectivized nouns would not be found at the origins of language.

But are a collection of "nouns" (of course not grouped together as such during the formation of the language, as that would be an abstract concept) a language? No, they communicate what a person is focusing on. In other words, it's a temporary bridge created between two human brains. A suitable metaphor for this might be found within the brain itself: neurotransmitters. Words become the neurotransmitters traveling across the synapses of air (in other words, a suitable medium for audio-frequency wave transmission) between human beings and created within an organ inside the human-cell body (it is like a brain cell because its organs, like organelles, are systemically specialized). So, what am I getting at here? Cells communicate through neurotransmitters in order to cooperate. Likewise, humans communicate through words (strings of them to form languages and communicate complex, abstract thought) in order to cooperate. Why not to compete? The people you are close to, you probably want on your side, right? Especially before your neighbor is restrained by governmental laws and organized religion... wouldn't you want to get along? The people you are distant from, you need not communicate with, and if, by chance, you were to run into them, you wouldn't want to tell them you are going to kill them for trespassing anyway. (Better to get a free meal? Okay... a sick joke.)

So, from this idea that language was initially used to unite the wills of individuals in order to benefit the group, it seems clear to me that the groups that were best able to find and relate similarities between objects through early language would have been more effectively developed, and consequently quicker to discover the usefulness of separation/difference/distinction/specialization. So, first you'd have people looking at various stones on the ground, and after realizing that it would be best to come up with a single word to refer to each of the small chunks of petrified earth for communication's sake, forming their first ideal. The ideal in this case is that of a "rock". The ideal rock is that which best represents the multitude of rocks in existence - in other words, the ideal rock is the single rock least different from every other rock. But understanding that a multitude of similar objects may be labeled with one single word would also lead one to the conclusion (inevitably) that there is a perceivable difference between a rock and any non-rock.

Here's where things sort of balloon out, in my mind. So now you have people understanding that difference exists, but realizing they have no way to explain the differences nor to associate two totally different items beyond placing the two nouns together. That method would have left many questions for the listener. So what would have been necessary were "difference-explaining" words [or adjectives/ specialized nouns (once again, this is conceptual)]. In other words, these people needed a way to talk about parts/pieces of objects in order to say specifically which of their aspects are different. In order to form adjectives, a person would have to juxtapose two different objects with, say, a certain similarity. In order to further emphasize that the word being developed referred to the quality of the objects, a third item with the same characteristic might be shown, then a fourth, then...

What would come next? When would a counting system be formed, and how? How would verbs come about? How would one develop an understanding of absence, or that which is not there? How would humans move from simple objective description to complex abstract explanation? I think it's important to consider the needs that would develop as groups of people either settled down, grew larger, migrated and came into contact with others, or found a need for specialization.

EDIT: I think it's extremely important to note as well that abstract thought must have occurred well before any attempt to communicate it in a standard manner existed. Just the having the idea of speaking a language for a purpose is abstract in its essence. Seeing the effect of language (and the knowledge and/or lack of it) on others would likewise be abstract understanding. Perceiving and explaining time would certainly be abstract thought, and explaining the number of moons that have passed would require the abstraction of counting.