I’m not sure it’s meaningful to talk about “oldest populations”. They had ancestors in Africa 100,000 years ago - so did I and so did everyone else. Sure, their ancestors stayed in Africa and mine moved out, but that’s just geography.
If clicks were a feature of an early ancestral language, I see no reason why they would be more likely to be retained in Africa than in any other location.
An interesting experiment would be to present test subjects with pairs of words meaning “little” and “large” from a variety of unfamiliar languages (for example “iti/nui”;“beag/mór”; “pieni/iso”), and ask them to guess which is which. If their ability to identify the meanings correctly was significantly better than chance, it would weigh in favour of this theory.
Already been done. Theory proven. Can find link if you like.
This OP has developed into been a fascinating discussion.
Has anyone done research on our ancestors about the development of basic human vocal variations regarding typical daily life?
Just as mirth point - I would think “Ouch” “Oww. Damminitthathurt. etc” would be a starting point.
Why not? It’s well established that languages are far more likely to change when their speakers expand and meet with speakers of other languages, or when new events appear that require new vocabularies. Central African tribes tend to more closely related to one another than most other peoples, indicating that they are descended from the people who stayed behind and did not populate the rest of the world. That makes it far more likely that their languages would similarly not feel the effects of newness and change.
Not an academic - but even today, gestures accompanied with a unknown language helps the us humans (even to this day) to communicate with each other.
I think the combination of both helps rely the intended message and has always been this way between disparate cultures.
Anyone care to expound?
That word is either a deadly disease or a tasty dish. 
People who know one sign language can learn any other much more easily than speakers of one random spoken language can learn another spoken language. This points out the relative universality of gesture versus speech. I can link if need be.
Yes I agree. When sitting with one of another with different linguistics we can comprehend through verbal and gestures to communicate.
I didn’t mean to hijack the OP original question, which I am still interested in.
Besides, how do you order a Supreme Pizza by caveman phone anyway? :eek:
Just to get our OP back on track, research only goes back about 15 miles in human history.
I am sure more qualified folks will show up after breakfast and tea, but to my understanding there are only 3 major branches of human speech.
Not to pick on you personally, but there is more misinformation in this thread than one can shake a stick at.
Where did you get the idea that were “only 3 major branches of human speech”? There are more than that in some tiny areas of Papua New Guinea.
Most linguists will say that all languages ultimately trace back to one, ancient ancestral language but we have no idea how the myriad language families that we see today all fit together.
Yes, it does, but that’s a topic for another thread. Or rather, a topic that has been discussed in other threads related to human origins.
Although it’s not a firm rule, one often sees that the emigrant populations are the ones whose language preserves the older forms-- eg, Icelandic is much, much closer to Old Norse than any of the native Scandinavian languages.
My dictionary says that ‘verbal’ still means ‘spoken’. What’s the problem?
Yes, we are going to need citations for all of the following statements:
hibernicus: “An interesting experiment would be to present test subjects with pairs of words meaning “little” and “large” from a variety of unfamiliar languages (for example “iti/nui”;“beag/mór”; “pieni/iso”), and ask them to guess which is which. If their ability to identify the meanings correctly was significantly better than chance, it would weigh in favour of this theory.”
get lives: “Already been done. Theory proven. Can find link if you like.”
This sounds like certain sorts of psycholinguistic experiments. I’d like to know precisely which ones. A citation of the journal articles in which this was first established would be useful, but even better would be the section of a textbook on the subject in which this issue is discussed.
get lives: “People who know one sign language can learn any other much more easily than speakers of one random spoken language can learn another spoken language. This points out the relative universality of gesture versus speech. I can link if need be.”
Cabin Fever: “Yes I agree. When sitting with one of another with different linguistics we can comprehend through verbal and gestures to communicate.”
Again, a citation of the journal articles in which this is established would be useful, but it would be even better to cite the section of some textbook in which this issue is discussed. I can’t even figure out what Cabin Fever is saying. What does it mean that someone else has “different linguistics”? What is he talking about?
Cabin Fever: “I am sure more qualified folks will show up after breakfast and tea, but to my understanding there are only 3 major branches of human speech.”
What does this even mean? What is a “major branch”? Are you talking about families of languages? Where did you get this idea? There are generally considered to be something like 150 different language families. We don’t just need citations here, we need you to translate your terms in the ordinary English words for them.
Also, the word “verbal” is used in some cases both to mean “using words” and “using spoken words”. Using the term when trying to distinguish sign languages from spoken ones isn’t a good idea though. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s avoid use of this term. Let’s say that spoken languages are aural ones and sign languages are non-aural ones.
OP here. This is very interesting. I am learning a lot!
So, if I’m understanding the answers to my original question, some of the tools discussed include mouthfeel and onomatopoeia–with limited impact. And there is no provable unifying theory that unites all the languages. Just random words happened and people agreed on them within their communities. Is this correct?
So when two people of two different communities met, and their words for, say, “house” were different, did they pick one and drop the other? Combine them? In general, what processes occurred when languages mixed?
I’d assume that in conquering or subjugating peoples the language would unify in some way?
Dave
Various things could happen when two groups meet. One possibility is a pidgin language. If the contact continues, eventually this might evolve into a creole language:
Probably, but that happened at a time we have no records of. All we can do is extrapolate off of modern experiences when mutually incomprehensible languages meet.
All sorts of things happened, because this happened in all sorts of circumstances. This is a very large and very varied question that doesn’t have a general answer.
Sorting through history, a few large patterns emerge.
Conquering people imposed their language on subjugated people. Arabic (but it swept in large chunks of subjugated languages, down to individual letters)
Conquerors came and went but the underlying language of the people never changed. Hebrew, Greek
Two or more languages met and merged to form a new language with aspects of both. English
A slew of historical languages were kept and became official. Switzerland, India
Languages were created out of bits and pieces of the various speakers but never coalesced into dominant speechways. Spanglish
Trade languages formed solely for communication but not home use. Creoles and pidgins
This is wildly oversimplified. Just take it as showing the range of possibilities. On a smaller scale, languages borrow from one another all the time, especially when a new concept comes up in one that has no equivalent in the other. These are called loanwords. English is notorious for the number of different languages it’s stolen from, but now that English is the world’s default language the process is heavily in the other direction. French and Japanese are littered with modernisms that are English words adapted into the native language. Speakers of modern Hebrew will suddenly break out into perfect English, having taken the words with no change in form or pronunciation.
You can’t begin to get this vast history online. I’d strongly suggest reading a book or several. David Crystal is one of the best authors on language. Of his million books, How Language Works probably addresses more of your questions more directly than any other. I’m also a big fan of Guy Deutscher’s The Unfolding of Language, but it’s slightly more advanced and might be better read after Crystal or another introduction.
Usually one of the two groups will adopt the others’ language, with some level of borrowing from the non-dominant language. Thomason and Kaufman go into detail, describing 5 levels of borrowing intensity. Actual hybridization, rather than borrowing, can occur only when the languages were already very similar.
I think pidgins (and creoles?) arise only in situations like slavery or colonial exploitation where the prestige speakers are vastly outnumbered (or segregated), or when lack of common language was caused deliberately, as some slave-traders did. Are there any examples of languages before the colonial era widely believed to have started as creoles?
The examples I’ve heard of are all concerned with trade or slavery. I don’t know if that’s universally true. In the case of Mediterranean Lingua Franca, who were the slaves and who was the exploited party?:
Thanks for the interesting example!
More interesting would be a pre-modern pidgin that developed into a first language (creole).