She deliberately misspelled the words because she’s riffing on the meme. She misspelled them in the same way as the words in the meme are misspelled.
Unless you are whooshing me by pretending you didn’t understand my explanation.
Eutychus and tapu got the reference.
OK. I think some of us were also surprised that she’d be asking that question on this MB since she probably knows as much or more about the subject than anyone posting here.
When was the last time you posted a question about bird biology in GQ? 
It was on the Dope this mroing, a poster in GQ who had confuse her two repply. I am truley sorry for your lots.
She knows linguistics but perhaps is not current on recent theories on the origin of language.
Actually, I could see posting a thread to see if people like Darwin’s Finch or Tamerlane have come across anything interesting about the origin of birds. I don’t necessarily see all the literature.
If someone hacked someone else’s account, it seems more likely that they would do something more mischievous than just asking a question like that in the OP.
Are you afraid she might have gone instain?
Yeah, because linguists themselves try not to show too much interest in the subject lest they be accused of going all woo woo and soft in the head. Wasn’t there an international professional linguistics association many years ago that banned all discussion of language origin theories because they got tired of too much woo and too little data?
Which is why I haven’t kept up with it, because the speculations take place more in the realms of anthropology, psychology, and philosophy, while linguists concentrate on known languages. So I thought maybe there’s a chance there’s something new and interesting on the question. Lots of scientific puzzles that were unanswerable in the past have now been solved, like continental drift or Fermat’s last theorem.
But when I was growing up, language origin theories didn’t get much respect. Linguistic satirists made up funny names for them like “pooh pooh,” “bow wow,” “ding dong.”
I doubt this will be any news to Johanna, but there is a school of thought that so-called “fully articulate” speech did not evolve until ~ 60K years ago. They correlate that to what seems to be a creative explosion around that time after a long period of relatively stagnant technologic progress. The tools that our H. sapiens ancestors used 100K year ago weren’t much different from what had been used for hundreds of thousands of years. Our tool kit was pretty much the same as that used by Neanderthals. And we don’t see evidence of symbolic thinking (usually manifest as art) until about 60K years ago. It’s in this context that you see the distinction between “anatomically modern humans” and “full modern humans”, because there isn’t anything in our bones that shows any significant change.
However, it seems that archeological finds keep pushing the dates of art and expanded tools kits further in time.
This is, alas, something we probably won’t know for sure for a very, very long time, if ever.
So… Johanna, were you having a babby or somting hystorical like that?
“Hystorical” is indeed closer to the point if by that you mean pertaining to historical linguistics. 
I’ve read and pondered on the matter of PIE Homeland and believe the evidence and argument favoring a Gimbutas “Kurgan” Theory is overwhelming. I’ve thought this might be a fun debate for the GD forum.
Gray-Atkinson rely heavily on calibrating the rate of language change from historical data. I think language changed faster in prehistoric times. I even posed this as a linguistics question here a year ago or so; unfortunately that thread got sidetracked into irrelevancy.
We’d need a major thread to do the PIE Homeland debate justice. For now I’ll just note that the map of Gray, Atkinson et al shows Indo-Iranian migrating to India via a southerly route – I think even Renfrew now agrees Indo-Aryan came from the steppes, e.g. via Andronovo. (The relative closeness of Baltic and Sanskrit languages are another of many many details which “make sense” in Gimbutas’ theory, but inexplicable in Gray’s model.)
I don’t know how to take this thread. If a professional linguist asks a question about her own field and then misspells some of the words, that is a mystery. But I will take the opportunity to mention one origin theory whose author makes a fascinating case.
“From Hand to Mouth” by Michael Corballis hypothesizes, as it title suggests, that some kind of gestural language preceded spoken language. I cannot do justice to the theory in a few lines, but he points out that manual dexterity evolved much earlier than buccal dexterity (and remember, no other mammal can make the sounds we do). So he assumes that under the evolutionary pressure to maximize cooperation, our brain structures grew to accommodate all the complex sentence structure that we are capable (and that is still expressed in sign). Then we began to vocalize (perhaps because it carried over distance, around corners, didn’t take your eyes away from something else) and eventually, the mouth structures evolved to accommodate speech.
Other evidence: People without a common language attempt communication through gestures. Apparently, infants can learn a primitive sign earlier than speech. And we all accompany our speech with gestures (my mother-in-law used to joke that the way to render my wife speechless was to tie down her hands) including gestures with the mouth.
I know it as the distinction between anatomically and behaviourally modern humans, FWIW.
Yeah, that’s probably a better descriptor.
Speaking of MrDibble, there is a hypothesis that so-called “click” languages are at the root of the language tree and that all living languages derive from a “click” language, but most have lost that feature.
And this, too. (If it hasn’t already been noted in this thread.)
Well, the genetics of the Hadza and San peoples are today’s closest match to the genetic rootstock of all humanity. Those peoples are closest to the top of the human family tree. They happen to speak click languages. That the earliest language clicked is one possible logical conclusion that can be drawn from the data we have.
So glad I wasn’t the only one, even though I’m late.
I’m pretty sure most lang gauges are are formed as cast aluminum. Some for specialty applications may be another alloy to better suit that specific application.
Yes, but the original claims was made by analyzing the number of phonemes in various languages around the world. It was found that, generally, the farther the language speakers were from Africa, the fewer phonemes the languages had. And the click languages had the most phonemes of all. The idea is that phonemes tend to be lost as new populations split off from older ones.
Of course it was noted that this ties in with the genetic data you pointed out.
It sis important to note that this doesn’t mean language started at some place with the ancestors of those particular people, but that all the extant languages derive from that place. Earlier languages might have died out with the populations which spoke them.
Well obviously you can’t have PIE before you have wheat. How else would you make the pastry?
Mmmmmm, pie…
Seriously, though the question of the origin of the Proto-Indo-European language has virtually nothing to do with the question of the origin of language itself, which undoubtedly happened very much earlier.
Or maybe she was dictating!