Caveman names

[Lemur866]

@Monty

My personal favorite cycle is the Cycle of Negation.

No it isn’t.

[John_Mace]

@Priceguy

Lots of interesting information here, thanks everybody.

Having been isolated for 40.000 years doesn’t necessarily mean that language hasn’t evolved for 40.000 years, does it? That those people don’t grunt now doesn’t mean they didn’t grunt 40.000 years ago.

Generally we assume that if two isolated populations share a characteristic, then that characteristic was present in the ancestral population. Australian languages are every bit as complex as other languages around the globe, so we assume that the folks who arrived in Australia 40k years ago were capable of fully articulate and complex speach.

Now, having said that, let me offer 2 caveats:

1. While Australia has been largely isolated for the last 40,000 years, it would be incorrect to say that it was completely isolated after the first people arrived up until the Europeans first landed.

2. One must be careful about drawing these types of conlcusions about human behaviors. Farming, for instance occurs in Eurasia and the Americas, but that doesn’t mean that the common ancestors of Amerinds and Eurasias were farmers. Language, however, appears to be more than just a learned behavior, and is rather a deep seated innate capability in the human brain.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Excalibre

Oh, wow. Um, what in the world do you base this guess on? And what common features do you see there being between those (rather large) groups that could possibly be similar to the speech of “cavemen”?

Perhaps Stentor was trying to say that the names they chose would have been similar to those of modern aboriginal cultures in that they would have been evocative of some trait or behaviour–like “Dances with Wolves” or an animal or other feature of the country they lived in, like “Black Hawk”.

It strikes me that any guess about how Neanderthals talked at all - let alone how they named each other - is based on very little. Most of the articulatory organs are composed of soft tissues that don’t fossilize well; any guess at all about what sounds the Neanderthals made, or if they had any capacity for speech at all (since it requires brain adaptations as well as adaptations in the articulators) strikes me as rather imprudent.

I read once, years ago, that if Neanderthals could talk, the physiology of their mouth and laryinx would not have enabled them to do so as articulately as we can. Much articulation in modern language occurs in the very back of the mouth, where the tongue takes a sharp right angle downwards toward the throat. the shape of Neantderthals’ mouths and throats required the tongue to be mostly foreward in the mouth, much like an infant today.

[John_Mace]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

I read once, years ago, that if Neanderthals could talk, the physiology of their mouth and laryinx would not have enabled them to do so as articulately as we can. Much articulation in modern language occurs in the very back of the mouth, where the tongue takes a sharp right angle downwards toward the throat. the shape of Neantderthals’ mouths and throats required the tongue to be mostly foreward in the mouth, much like an infant today.

Their repertoire of sounds would certainly be different from ours, perhaps even smaller, but no human language uses the full repertoire anyway. It has recently been learned that the Neanderthal hyoid bone are vertually indestinguishable from those of modern humans. That bone is part of the speach apparatus for modern humans and is a good indicator that some form of speech was present. What the speech was like and how complex it was is anyone’s guess.

[daffyduck]

No need to guess; watch the movie. My favorite line from Quest for Fire… Agh!!!

[Excalibre]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

Perhaps Stentor was trying to say that the names they chose would have been similar to those of modern aboriginal cultures in that they would have been evocative of some trait or behaviour–like “Dances with Wolves” or an animal or other feature of the country they lived in, like “Black Hawk”.

I’m not an anthropologist. Can anyone even come up with evidence that this is true in every hunter-gatherer culture on Earth now? I know that it’s a stereotype for North American Indians, and I’m sure it’s based on fact, but we’re talking about thousands of different cultures and it’s not obvious to me that they all have the same naming practices. Like I said, I’m not an anthropologist. I’d love it if someone could find some evidence either way on this.

[John_Mace]

Is there any culture that just makes up random syllables for given names? My name, John, doesn’t mean anything in English, but it derives from some name that does mean something like “Yahweh is merficful” in Hebrew. I think it’s safe to assume that most names at some point followed a pattern of reference to something in the physical or spiritual world.

[Excalibre]

@John Mace

Is there any culture that just makes up random syllables for given names? My name, John, doesn’t mean anything in English, but it derives from some name that does mean something like “Yahweh is merficful” in Hebrew. I think it’s safe to assume that most names at some point followed a pattern of reference to something in the physical or spiritual world.

Many modern African-American names are constructed in such a way. (Albeit with certain constraints; not just any combination of syllables is liable to be used.) Of course, variations on more “normal” names, Islamic names, and the use of other words as names are all fairly common as well amongst African-Americans.

[Larry_Borgia]

“But why do you ask, Two-dogs-fucking?”

[susan]

Heh.

John <-- Jonathan <-- Yah Natan, “God gives” in contemporary Hebrew, Usually rendered as “God has given” or “God’s gift” in baby name books.

[susan]

Heh.

John <-- Jonathan <-- Yah Natan, “God gives” in contemporary Hebrew, Usually rendered as “God has given” or “God’s gift” in baby name books.

[shijinn]

“oi”

maybe they don’t have names. names have got to be invented right? isn’t it reasonable to assume that simple grunts were used until the community/vocabulary grew beyond the size of 10?

[Dunderman]

@shijinn

maybe they don’t have names. names have got to be invented right? isn’t it reasonable to assume that simple grunts were used until the community/vocabulary grew beyond the size of 10?

The vocabulary is widely accepted to have been larger than ten among Cro-Magnon.

[Frylock]

@Monty

No, it doesn’t mean the language evolved. It means the langauge changed. All the evidence we have so far indicates that languages aren’t evolving. There are things in language change called cycles. My personal favorite cycle is the Cycle of Negation.

I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between evolving and changing.

My own concept of evolution allows for the possibility of cyclic evolution.

But should I amend my concept?

-Kris

[Frylock]

@Monty

No, it doesn’t mean the language evolved. It means the langauge changed. All the evidence we have so far indicates that languages aren’t evolving. There are things in language change called cycles. My personal favorite cycle is the Cycle of Negation.

Also, a couple of google searches didn’t reveal any information to me about a cycle of negation. Could you help me out?

-Kris

[John_Mace]

@Shoshana

Heh.

John ← Jonathan ← Yah Natan, “God gives” in contemporary Hebrew, Usually rendered as “God has given” or “God’s gift” in baby name books.

I don’t think John derives from Jonathan.

Excalibre: Not really. Those names are generally variations on current names, rather than completely made up syllables. And to the extent that some might be completely made up, I think those are exceptions.

[Monty]

Cyclic evolution? I wouldn’t understand that term as applied to either a linguisitic or a biologic issue.

My semantics prof referred to Otto Jesperson’s Negative Cycle as Cycle of Negation. Obviously, I picked up the prof’s terminology.

[Here’s a short description of the Cycle. As should be evident from the word cycle, the phenomenon does not simply stop at the third stage. The Cycle repeats. (Note: I do not agree completely with the Evaluation section of that page; the evaluation is for the book, not the Cycle, so it shouldn’t matter if I agree or not.)

Here are two links for you, John Mace:

url=http://www.babynames.com/Names/name_display.php?n=JOHN
Jonathan

[Monty]

Hmm. Well that coding rotted. Guess that’s what I get for trying to use the quick reply window. Let’s try it this way.

Cyclic evolution? I wouldn’t understand that term as applied to either a linguisitic or a biologic issue.

My semantics prof referred to Otto Jesperson’s Negative Cycle as Cycle of Negation. Obviously, I picked up the prof’s terminology.

Here’s a short description of the Cycle. As should be evident from the word cycle, the phenomenon does not simply stop at the third stage. The Cycle repeats. (Note: I do not agree completely with the Evaluation section of that page; the evaluation is for the book, not the Cycle, so it shouldn’t matter if I agree or not.)

Here are two links for you, John Mace:

John
Jonathan

[John_Mace]

@Monty

Here are two links for you, John Mace:

John
Jonathan

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing. The defintions are different, but similar. John derives from YHWH + the semetic root 'nn and Jonathan from YHWH + ntn

[Monty]

I’m agreeing with you. The names are similar, but one is not derived from the other.