Talk:Origin of language

message: Gondi wanna; Gond’wanna; Ancient Languages of Afroasiatic (ALAA.1) and Gondwanna in ALAA..2) “ Gondiwanna/Gondwana means, “main trunk “ . Gondi/Gond/Gnd/ means trunk while wanna means main. In this case, the Adjective  wanna can come  before the Noun trunk. Hence, wanna Gondi/gond or Gondi/Gond/gnd wanna would mean the same (as in main trunk or that trunk is the main one; both describe the importance of the trunk, (ref encyclopedias and others). For example, the stretch of the ice covered mass from South Pole to the North Pole, some some 495 m.years ago, before the formations or the break up of the earth into various continents is referred to as Gondi wanna (though it could also be said wanna Gondi.(Perhaps, in describing the importance or centrality of the continuous imaginary trunk of the earth holding ice, together may have triggered the name for it. A few million years later, a red snapper like creature is mentioned by “name” though the word translates to ‘it stretches all the way to the end of its limbs,”, though not visibly formed as if someone/s were examining the almost single line that stretched from the head/neck area towards its tail or limbs. Clearly, if homo sapients came later, the researchers may have named it much later though the creature may have existed  for millions of years before coming to the surface.  Whatever the situation may have been, Gondi wanna means main trunk. It is also used when referring to a “Family Tree withe the main several generations back, 7+ of an India/enda, meaning homestead and belonging to one familial line by which it is referenced.” As an example, an Inda/enda, branching off from the same family tree, would refer to “Gondi wanna,” or wanna Gondinna, “our main family tlline is…that is the main trunk of the lineage. The origin of languages just like the origin of man is a challenging study. (Alphalang). Alphalang (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation of Ancient words and possible meanings 

message: Hi, I found this statement in the article:
> The results suggest that language first evolved around 50,000–150,000 years ago, which is around the time when modern Homo sapiens evolved.
The citation leads to this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338724/ which states:
> Our analysis suggests that language appears early in the history of our species. It does not support the idea that language is a recent adaptation that could have sparked the colonization of the globe by our species about 50 kya [1], [91]. Rather, our result is consistent with the archaeological evidence suggesting that human behavior became increasingly complex during the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa, sometime between 350–150 kya [92]–[100].
That line is somewhat confusing because its saying that the 50 kya migration event was not when humans arose, which it later says was between 300–250 kya with a bottleneck and possible speciation event 200–100 kya. Regardless, the authors do *not* date the emergence of language at 50 - 150 kya, but to a minimum of 150 kya, up to nearly 250 kya depending on the assumptions of the model.
I suggest changing the accompanied text to say "during the Middle Stone Age in Africa," since that is the hypothesis the paper supports (instead of the hypothesis that language evolved 50 kya causing a migration event) and because the authors give multiple date ranges depending on how which assumptions you make. Cereal box conspiracy (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Does Not Support Statement in Article 

message: Hello, the number 4 image on the "from where to what" diagram on this page has flipped text, it should probably be mirrored to be corrected. 136.32.115.242 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "From where to what" image has flipped text 

message: Given that speech often involves the same muscular and neuroanatomy as chewing, swallowing, and breathing, I propose that its origin necessitated exaptation (repurposing, utilizing existing infrastructure). Crosslinguistic studies (which I don't at present have access to for referencing purposes) have shown a link between the surface and/or volume texture of food morsels processed at different points in the mouth associated with the four tooth types- incisors, canines, bicuspids, and molars. Food morsels of different physical textures require different forces, applied at different angles and for different amounts of time to process for swallowing. Incisors are nippers, canines piercers, bicuspids shears, and molars crushers/grinders (aided in their function by being closest to the jaw joint and thus having the greatest 'lever arm'). Yet molars also have the least ability to control to fine degree, and this control seems to increase as one moves towards the incisors. A tradeoff between precision and brawn, a functional/anatomical divide one sees with other anatomy as well, such as the arms/hands, for example. 'Hard' phonemes such as /k/ associate with mechanically 'elastic' materials (note: NOT the lay sense of the term), while 'soft' ones such as /m/ associate with mechanically 'viscous' materials. Indeed, even the organization of the taste buds on the tongue appear to align with all this- with sweet concentrated at the tongue tip and bitter at the back, near the molars which help process harder, more refractory materials which don't give up their nutrients without a fight. 24.190.155.5 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exaptation from masticatory, deglutitional, and respiratory processes 

message: From paragraph 2: "In March 2024, researchers reported that the beginnings of human language began about 1.6 million years ago. [7]"
The source is reporting that new research suggests the above claim, but this source does not show the research or any substantial evidence. This clearly is not an acceptable source. 
This figure of 1.6 million years placed at the top of the article (rather than in the same section as other theories) implies that this is more or less a proven fact or unanimous opinion among researchers, but the evidence presented here is not even close to sufficient to make this conclusion. 2601:547:1903:2200:E4FE:3617:8BCB:EF40 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd remove it from the lede, yes. Remsense诉 19:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quality source