No I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I am suggesting that if language was as naturally occurring as sneezing or walking it would develop universally. (We kind of know languages are created because individuals have coined words, and languages change across region and time, so if someone invents a new word—or the meaning of a word changes due to societal changes and is defined by a dictionary, those things are called inventions.) No society developed walking sideways like a crab (for obvious reasons- physiology), and people tend to sneeze in exactly the same manner in all parts of the world- and as far as I know through all human history. If verbal communication was as natural as those traits, everyone would do them in the same manner. I believe that the urge to communicate, and the tendency to use the sounds we make to do so is innate, natural, and possibly subconscious. But I think to ascribe a specific meaning to a specific sound or grunt is the act of invention. I am certain that combining complex concepts and using a single word to describe it is invention. In my view creating compound words is invention too, but it could be argued otherwise if basic root words are as natural as sneezing.
And I am not suggesting any group migrated then just decided to change their language (*although see below) and I think it is disingenuous for you to suggest that is what I meant. What I meant was that groups in diverse parts of the globe who developed their language at similar times would have developed similar words for similar phenomenon if language was not an invention but rather “as natural as walking”. I AM suggesting that language affects culture and culture affects language and if language was as naturally occurring as is suggested in the post I responded to, they would be far more similar than they are, if for no other reason than onomatopoeia. If language was natural occurring and not an invention, there would be no such thing as lingo; every normally developed person would understand all words about the same and we don’t because language is invented even if the desire to communicate is not which hasn’t been established- but I will concede that point. (*And there are examples of groups just creating a unique language; carnival workers created a language to allow them to pass information about potential customers right in front of them, and inner city youth created their own language to make their communication unintelligible to authority figures and outsiders.)
Lastly, this is the end of what I am going to say on this specific subject in this specific thread (with clarification below) and if you want to discuss if language is a natural occurring capacity, or an invention please start a separate thread on the matter. To clarify, I will not respond to any question or comment that is phrased in such an accusatory fashion. I will not respond to any comment unless it is presented in a manner that indicates it is meant to expand understanding and knowledge, or to further debate in a polite and reasonable manner. And I used confusing language in the post being quoted above— I will correct that in a separate post as soon as possible
I used the same term to describe two completely different things in the bolded sentence above, very sorry. That should read: “… could be argued that communication or verbal communicationis inevitable and would occur naturally in humans, but languages are …”
Many or most linguists do think all human languages descend from a single ancient language! Even if multiple languages developed independently when homininans first started speaking, all but one group died out due to conquests (much as only Indo-European survives today in West-Central Europe).
A very wide variety of languages around the world all have words for water that are similar to Latin’s ‘aqua.’ Even the Khoisan click languages, the group most dissimilar to other human languages, have examples, e.g. /k’'wᾱ/ meaning ‘drink’ in the old Bushman language !Ke.
The pronunciations of words mutate. For example, ‘five’ and ‘cinco’ are cognates! — both derive from the PIE word ‘penkwe’ 5000 years ago. Meanings also mutate: an ancient word /tik/ meaning ‘finger’ survives in many hundreds of languages, but mutated to mean variously ‘hand’, ‘one’, ‘five’, 'ten, ‘point.’ The English words ‘digit’, ‘decimal’, ‘ten’, ‘indicate’ may all derive from that single ancient word.
Many linguists regard speculations like an ancient /tik/ word to be excessive, but UIAM even they agree languages have a single common ancestor — they just think the mutations over tens of thousands of years make it impossible to attempt any reconstruction of such ancient words.
Linguists would love to stumble upon an island where there was nobody but babies and deaf-mute care-givers, to see what language the babies would construct. However AFAIK no such deliberate experiment has been pursued. :eek:
You’re reaching, here. Other Khoisan languages have a word for “to drink” that sounds like “tea”, doesn’t make them Chinese. And the actual word for water varies from !qha~a, through* g!u⁄* to //gam-i across various group languages.
I’ve stipulated that not all linguists accept very ancient reconstructions like /aq’wa/ or /tik/. If there really are words common to Khoisan and Latin the common ancestor might be fifty thousand years in the past or more.
The Amerindian languages, like Aztec and Carib, would have a common ancestor only 12,000 years ago or so. One would expect much more evidence for alleged cognates between these languages rather than linking them to Khoisan! Yet the same linguists who dispute ancient words like /aq’wa/ and /tik/ also regard the evidence for genetic connections among Amerindian languages as crackpottery. There are several linguists at SDMB and it might be good to start a GD thread on the validity of such prehistorical linguistics. But since “mainstream” linguists regard the Amerindian hypothesis as just as crackpotty as the “proto-sapiens hypothesis”, it would seem to be an easier topic for debate.
Here’s a list I found just now on the 'Net of over 200 languages from many different language families that all appear to have cognates of /aq’wa/ ‘water’; I don’t think this list is exhaustive. Are some of the alleged cognates just “false friends”? Sure. At some point it becomes more a problem in combinatorial math than linguistics to guess whether “coincidence” explains such results. As an interested laymen I’ve read some of the debate, and found some of the combinatorial analyses ridiculous.
(I’ve “spoiled” the list of /aq’wa/ cognates to make the post less cluttered.)
Afro-Asiatic family
language sound meaning
Janjero akka water
Kaffa aco water
Mocha ac’o water
Gofa hacca water
Shinasha ac’c’o water
Badditu wat’e water
Agaw aq water
biln ?aq water
Xamir aq(w) a drops of water
Quara axu water
Avia axu water
Damot ago water
Hadiyya wo?o water
Tamboaro waha water
Sidamo waho water
Iraqw aha drink
Khoisan family of southern Africa
!O !Kung kau rain
!Kung k’‘a drink
!Kung kau rain
!Naron k’‘a drink
|Kam-ka !ke k’‘wa drink
|Kam-ka !ke kau rain
||Ng!Ke k’‘a drink
||Ng!Ke kau to rain
Batwa k’‘a drink
|Auni k’‘a drink
Masarwa k’‘a drink
|Nu||en k’‘a drink
Nilo-Saharan Family
Fur k)I rain
Nyimang kwe water
So kwe? Water
Ik cue water
Mangbetu equo water
Berta k)I rain, cloud
Kwama uuku water
Anej agu-d cloud
Indo European
Latin ak(w)a water
Hittite eku water
Luwian aku water
Palaic ahu drink
Italian akkwa drink
Provencal aiga water
Catalan aigwa water
Spanish agwa water
Portuguese aqwa water
Rumanian ape water
Sardinian abba water
Germanic ahwa river earliest Germanic manuscripts-root lost in modern
German
Tocharian yok drink
Eurasiatic
Ainu Wakka water
Ainu ku drink
Japanese aka bilge water
Dene-Caucasian
Chechen aq suckle
Burushaski hagum wet
Newari kwo river
Khaling ku water
Kachin k(h)u water
Indo Pacific family
Awyu okho water/river
syiagha okho water
Yareba ogo water
Yonggom oq water
Ninggirum ok water
Amerind–native American
Yurok -‘k(w) suffix indicating movement on water
Quileute kwaya water
Kwakwala yax thin liquid
Bella Bella yug(w)a rain
Snohomish q(w)a? water
Squamish q(w)u water
Squamish q(rw)et wet
Nbisqualli ko water
Nbisqualli okokwa drink
Lkungen kwa water
Lkungen q(w)aq(w)a? water
Twana q)? water
Twana yeq(rw) wash
Shuswap kwo water
Caddo koko water
Caddo yoyakka drink
Wichita kik’a drink
Penutian branch
Nass ak(j)-s water
Twsimshian aks drink
Tsimshian yaks wash
Takema ug(w) drink
Siuslaw inq’aa river
Nez Perce k’u drink
Molale ?uquns water
Klamath joq’ wash
N. Sahaptin -tkwa go in water
Wintun wak’ai creek
Wintun yuqa? Wash
Rumsien uk drink
Yokuts ?ukun drink
Lake Miwok kiik water
Saclan kiko water
Miwok kiky water
Zuni k’a water
Zuni k’I become wet
Yuki uk’ water
Chitmacha ?ak- water
Atakapa ak water
Chickasaw oka? Water
Hitchiti uki water
Tetontepec uu?k drink
Zoque ?uhk drink
Yucatec uk’ be thirsty
Yucatec yok-ha river
Kekchi u?ka drink
Hokan branch
Chimariko aqa water
Kashaya ?ahq(h)a water
Kashaya q’o drink
North Pomo ?ahk(h)a water
North Pomo k’o drink
SE Pomo xa water
S. Pomo ?ahk(h)a water
East Pomo xak(h) wet
Shasta ?atta water
Washo asa water
Karok ?as water
Esselen asa(-nax) water
Chumash aho water
Seri ?ax water
Seri Kiihk wet
Yuma axa? Water
Mohave aha water
Yavapai ?aha? water
Diegueno ?axa water
Quinigua kwa water
Tonkawa ?ax water
Comecrudo ax water
Tequistlatec l-axa? Water
Central Amerind branch
Otomi nk’a wet
Cuicatec ku?u drinkl
Tewa pokwin lake
Tewa kwan rain
South America Amerind
Chibchan-Paezan branch
Shiriana koa drink
Chimila uk drink
Binticua agan drink
Allentiac aka water
Andean branc Amerind
Iquito aqua water
Quechua yaku water
Quechua hoq’o get wet
Aymara oqo swallow
Mapudungu ko water
Genneken iagup water
Yamana aku lake
Macro-Tucanoan brach
Cubeo oko water
Bahukiwa oko water
Bahukiwa uku-mi he is drinking
Bahukiwa okobo rain
Tucano axko water
Erulia oxko water rain
Barasano oko water
Wanana ko water
Yahuna okoa rain
Auake okoa water river
Equatorial branch
Esmeralda kebi-axa let’s drink
Ayore oxi? Drink
Kabishana aku water
Amniape aku water
Wayoro uru water
Mekens iki water
Guarani aki wet
Guarani I?u drink
Kamayura ?akim wet
Kamayura I?u drink
Quitemo ako water
Uaraicu waka wash
Terena oko rain
Chipaya ax wash
Guana uko rain
Apurina iaka wet
Amarakaeri iyako lake
Macro-Carib branch
Witoto hoko wash
Yagua Xa water
Taulipang ai?ku wet
Macusi u-wuku my drink
Macusi Aiku wet
Waiwai woku drink
Macro-Panoan branch
Lule uk drink
Guachi euak water
Caduveo yakip(a) drink
Suhin I-yoke drink
Mayoruna waka water
Mayoruna oakanu drink
Culino Yaku water
Culino waka river
Amahuaco wakum water
Amahuaco aiyaki drink
Nocoman wakoja river
Huarayo hakua wash
Cavinena igi drink
Macro-Ge branch
Bororo ku drink
Koraveka ako drink
Fulnio waka lake
Caraja axu lake
Kamakan kwa drink
Palmas goi water
Apucarana (n)goyo water
Delbergia ng)yo water
Apinage inko water river
Crengez ko water
Cayapo ngo water
Cayapo ikon drink
Chavante ko water
Cherente ko water
Chicriaba ku water
Aponegicran waiko drink
Suya ikone drink
There have been examples of abused children who developed without hearing language and naturally developed a spoken language that the children used to speak to each other. So yes language comes naturally to humans.
NETA: I’ve witnessed similar debates at SDMB before. A typical response will be:
“At least 51% of academic linguists reject the Amerindian Hypothesis. Case closed.”
If such a majority vote is considered dispositive, then there’s no reason to proceed further. I wouldn’t know how to Google for it, but I’ll stipulate the “At least 51%” if that helps.
First, I am very excited this is still being discussed, I was afraid I had killed off the thread, thanks to all whom have contributed. I find this all interesting, but a bit off the strictest definition of the topic being discussed. (I realize it is odd for me of all people to adhere so diligently to the principle of staying on topic given my penchant for incorporating only tangentially involved subjects into threads.) But the original question is about significant inventions contributing to humankind - - and this particular aspect was started as a debate on if spoken language is an invention at all. I would kind of like to find some resolution or consensus on that question before we debate the evolution of language.
I think we can all agree the typewriter is an invention, do we have consensus on that at least? If so, the printing press, and again if so (and going back through many steps we may find) perhaps any written language could be called an invention. Or is it not an invention, but a naturally occurring method of recording the naturally occurring phenomenon of spoken language? Is there any way to know if compound words predate written language? Seems it could happen; you already have a word that means ‘out’, you already have a word that means ‘side’ - - you have a condition wherein you want to indicate something happened ‘not in the cave’ . . . outside seems like it doesn’t require written symbols to arrive on the scene. Without regard to whether it was written or spoken, are compound words inventions?
How about words that represent things one cannot point to? Ancient man with no language written or spoken can pound his own chest and say: “Name”. He can then point to a member of the group and say: “Mate” and be understood. He could coin a word for male, and female, and baby, and child, and water, and tree. He can eventually distinguish and have words for running water like a stream or river, and standing water like a lake or pond. Do those distinctions rise to the level of an invention? I contend that once you are coining words and phrases it is no longer (if it ever was) an extension of communicating using warning grunts and other sounds that I have already agreed is naturally occurring in post #122. (Stay with it, I will get back to my point within a few paragraphs at most.)
I do believe the desire to communicate, even more specifically- to understand the meaning of what your parent or the community elder is trying to communicate is 100% natural and involuntary. I believe wanting to be understood (especially when a dangerous situation like a stalking predator is about to pounce into the group and you are the only one who realizes it, but also) when you just want the attention of your mother or brother is likewise natural, and unavoidable. I do believe using our innate verbal ability is simply the logical solution and not an invention. However, when you have a group of words or sounds that have to be taught, when the entire group uses the same sound to mean the same thing or event—that must by definition be an invention. I can easily see the need of the patriarch of a clan, or the leader of a tribe to use (or at least want) a word that means “bring those spears up here now!”, as well as a word that means “Retreat! Turn and run like hell!” Those are words that describe a concept, you cannot define it the way you would a tree by pulling up a sapling and saying: “Root, stalk (or trunk), branch, leaf”. You could however through mime and use of more basic words teach your group that ‘Bwaklinghooy’ means advance the guard and prepare to hunt or repel invaders, while ‘Lingenhooybwak’ means run for your life- someone is going to get eaten momentarily and I don’t want it to be me! At that point, for me that is an invention and it happens way, way before written language in my opinion.
Now, my opinion may be wrong, I realize that, so please, if you believe all spoken language (or all primitive spoken language) is innate and not an invention—please make a case for that concept. Some of you have and I will address those separately.
I will concede that it is natural and almost inevitable for humans to want to understand and be understood, and to do so using verbal sounds. The question for me (and the point of this thread) is when does that natural desire to communicate become an invention? If there were several groups of abused children that developed their own language with no outside linguistic influences - - - and they were all very similar, that would be (amazing first of all! But more significantly) evidence that spoken language is as universal as walking or sneezing. First, I hope for fewer, not more groups of abused children, but I would be surprised if there were groups that independently created identical languages. (More below or possibly in following posts.)
Just because many have done it, doesn’t mean creating a language is not an invention. Did these poor children also use primitive tools to accomplish simple tasks like sweeping debris out of the way to sleep more comfortably? Did they use pointed sticks to kill vermin? Did they pile up items to help them slide heavy objects up a bit of a ramp? Did they pee in a specific corner of their cell/cage/dungeon so it would run out rather than where they slept and ate? Did they collect soft items to sleep upon? Did they take hollow stalks that grew around them; place explosive minerals in the closed end, then put a dense projectile of rock into the hollow end and use friction to spark the explosive minerals through a hole in the closed end to form a crude weapon similar to a cannon? Probably not the last one, it is a long shot unless they were in space, boldly investigating strange new worlds. But aside from the absurdity of that suggestion, it is possible that ‘feral’ kids could invent a broom, a spear, an incline plane, primitive sewage, and a mattress. Why couldn’t their spoken language also be an invention?
What about languages we know are created to LIMIT understanding like the carny language Ciazarn? What about terms that are coined for specific situations? At what point does the natural desire to communicate verbally become an invention? I am almost ready to say anything that is not caused naturally and involuntarily. To scream when scared or hurt, to gasp when startled, to gulp when uneasy, to sigh when contented — these are all natural and universal I would guess (watch 80,000 thousand studies contradict me). But when you sit down and decide that any sound has a specific meaning – I contend that is an act of invention. I do not imagine any human ancestors used the word ‘bitcoin’ in antiquity, but someone invented that word when the time came, and whatever word was used for money or currency in antiquity is just as much of an invention.
I’ve stipulated that not all linguists accept very ancient reconstructions like /aq’wa/ or /tik/. If there really are words common to Khoisan and Latin the common ancestor might be fifty thousand years in the past or more.
The Amerindian languages, like Aztec and Carib, would have a common ancestor only 12,000 years ago or so. One would expect much more evidence for alleged cognates between these languages rather than linking them to Khoisan! Yet the same linguists who dispute ancient words like /aq’wa/ and /tik/ also regard the evidence for genetic connections among Amerindian languages as crackpottery. There are several linguists at SDMB and it might be good to start a GD thread on the validity of such prehistorical linguistics. But since “mainstream” linguists regard the Amerindian hypothesis as just as crackpotty as the “proto-sapiens hypothesis”, it would seem to be an easier topic for debate.
Here’s a list I found just now on the 'Net of over 200 languages from many different language families that all appear to have cognates of /aq’wa/ ‘water’; I don’t think this list is exhaustive. Are some of the alleged cognates just “false friends”? Sure. At some point it becomes more a problem in combinatorial math than linguistics to guess whether “coincidence” explains such results. As an interested laymen I’ve read some of the debate, and found some of the combinatorial analyses ridiculous.
(I’ve “spoiled” the list of /aq’wa/ cognates to make the post less cluttered.)
[QUOTE]
If all languages came from a single source due to conquest and the elimination of other languages, that is not a strong argument for “all languages are similar and therefore innate”. Your premise seems to suggest there were other languages, but they were killed off with the practitioners of said languages when they came up against the practitioners of the surviving language. You do seem to be supporting the idea that the single origin of many spoken languages indicates that spoken languages are more of a human trait and less of an invention of humankind (but I admit I may not be understanding your meaning). Again, I believe the desire to communicate verbally- to both understand and be understood is innate, universal and involuntary. I just believe once the desire to communicate becomes a list of sounds that have a specific meaning, it is an invention by then. I am not saying once the first word is defined, or the tenth word. It is not the number of words which have specific meanings, I believe it is very likely in the early formation of languages that some words are universally understood without any explanation (like say a scream of fright or a yell of rage), but that other words do require some explanation (like say conflicted, melancholy, milieu, or contemplative). I can also believe (based upon observation of some varsity athlete alphas in some schools) that it might be difficult to distinguish the yell of rage for battle from the yell of lust for sexual conquest.
I am far from qualified from discussing the points you raise, but I will include this quote from the Wikipedia page for Onomatopoeia (Onomatopoeia - Wikipedia
I am not sure what that means for us in this debate, it is natural to copy the sounds we hear as we acquire language, but at some point that language becomes the result of invention; do you agree? Does language have to be written to be an invention? (Is even written language an invention or just a continuation of the naturally occurring spoken language?) Is coining a term invention? If so when did language (both written and spoken) become an invention and stop being a human trait like walking and sneezing?
One last word, I found this while I was looking for something else (apparently my understanding of Ebonics is not in line with historical accuracy—I had believed it was a counter culture move dating from the 1960’s or 70’ to make it hard for police to understand the communication of inner city youth similar to ‘Jive’ which we all learned by watching the movie Airplane! Most sources however say it is a dialect which dates back to the days of slavery and is related to Creole.) Here is a guy I have never heard of who seems to be stating my exact point of view. I have not researched him at all (and will no doubt be embarrassed when it is revealed he also believed he was abducted by aliens, misused children, and thought the number system should have no value for zero – Please, please don’t be a crackpot!)
Source: Constructed language - Wikipedia
I realize that Wikipedia is not the most authoritative source one can cite, but it doesn’t make my computer’s virus protection software go bonkers, and it loads fast.
I will run this up the flagpole for consideration for saluting.
In 2000, I remember that some publication (I think it was the late, lamented American Heritage Invention & Technology, an excellent quarterly covering the history of technology) polled several hundred credentialed historians of technology to select the “invention of the past millennium having the greatest impact on human civilization.” As I recall, some caveats were issued–discoveries did not count (say, penicillin), but utilization did (antibiotics). And, yes, it all comes down to the exact question asked. They said “past millennium.”
The most popular answer, edging out moveable type/printing, was “civil sanitation engineering.”
Think hard about this. Not having to go fetch water from a questionable source. Sanitization of water delivered to remove potential pathogens. Disposal of human waste. No more chucking chamber-pots into the street gutters. Being able to breathe while walking down an otherwise malodorous street. Disease and disease-spreaders being kept in check. We’re not just talking about increased life spans, but COMFORT.
I believe the debate over language as an “invention” or “development” seen above was also mirrored somewhat there. Ditto whether “agriculture” was indeed an “invention” even though it predated the millennium in question.
On the other hand, it’s reported elsewhere online that Time Magazine tried to address the issue in 1997 and came up with Gutenberg and moveable type/printing. (Never mind that the Chinese have a claim to have invented type ca. 1050 AD.)
How many people created, or could have created the “invention”? As drewder shows in #127, an arbitrary group of babies will “invent” a spoken language. Thus, human speech isn’t an invention — it’s instinct.
Instincts can be remarkably complex. Consider this large ant hill, with ventilation shafts, rubbish bins, etc. With less than a million neurons each, no single genius ant had a brain smart enough to conceive of such a system. The details of such ant hills will vary among themselves—as would the details of human language that isolated babies would develop—but it’s still instinct.
This is in sharp contrast to the inventions of Johannes Gutenberg and James Watt; without those specific inventors well-designed printing press and steam engine might have been delayed for years or decades.
It’s advances like agriculture where the definition of “invention” needs to be refined to address OP’s question. Agriculture isn’t instinct, but there was probably no single human of key importance either. BTW, sanitation is also very old: the Harappan civilization had sewer networks and flush toilets.
Well, I am saluting. I will take sanitation over everything in my own personal existence, with air conditioning second except for perhaps a reliable food source depending upon the fate of agriculture. I am really pulling for old communication and agriculture to pull out a win in this madcap, no holds barred, fight to the finish, winner take all, do or die battle to be recognized as inventions. (I wonder where the Board of Directors for Archer Daniels Midland stands on agriculture’s contribution to humanity. No, wait—I do not wonder at all.)
Do the two of you (and other Dopers who believe as you do but have not yet stated an opinion) believe language EVER becomes an invention? Is written language an invention? Is the alphabet that comprises written language an invention? How about a sonnet that inspires great romance? The words to the song you danced with your wife for the first time, or the words of the song they played at the funeral of a loved one? Is there ever a time language of any sort rises to the level of an invention?
I am asking you to please stick a pin in the timeline of all human communication written and verbal where you believe ‘language’ became an invention. Or to state flat out that all human communication is natural instinct and it has never become an invention. Is coining a brand new term that has ever been used, but that fills a need and is immediately adopted an invention?
It’s definitely electrical wiring. I don’t see how it could be anything other than that. The world is NEVER going to be the same after the internet and computers and the instant transfer of information, and none of that is possible without electricity.
None of it. I guess in some alternate timeline where electricity never existed and hence the transmission of binary data through wires never existed, humans might have reverse-engineered some form of the same through hydrostatic methods. With enough engineering, you can control the flow of water, and with enough further engineering of that you can transmit binary numbers or some form of numbers, at any rate, using the measurement of the time between some established intervals - say, an increase in the water displacement in a vessel. Without electricity, humans probably could have harnessed water into a data transmission method, and this data transmission could possibly someday serve as some analog (ha!) to the system that we use now.
Light can also, potentially, be used for the same purposes, again with similarly superlative engineering and a long enough timeline to figure it all out.
Since electricity was discovered and the means to harness it invented, we never had to go down that road. But as it stands today, in our current reality, electricity is THE single most important invention by far. OK, you could call it “discovery”, not “invention”, as per the stipulations of the OP. OK, then the most important invention is…electrical wiring, I guess.
Have you ever read Lucifer’s Hammer? I am thinking you may find it a satisfying read based upon this answer. (If you are old enough to remember the seventies and Johnnie Carson’s version of The Tonight Show—even moreso.)
Of course writing is an invention; that’s obvious. But writing is a representation of language, not language itself. And when people started writing, that did not turn language into writing, though many people think it is. Obviously people devise communicative tools (slang, etc) involving language, and writing, as a representation of language, takes on tangential dimensions that are clearly inventive, and apart from speech, but—and this is the real point here–those not are the fundamental characteristics of language that have caused people to mention language in this thread.
People have to be taught how to write, but not how to speak. (Illiterate people can communicate perfectly well in speech). You have to be explicitly taught how to use a typewriter, but not how to use complex language in speech. That’s the aspect of language which people are referring to here, and it’s not something that’s invented. It’s like hair. People invent all kinds of ways to tie up and style their hair, and they grow mustaches, etc., but that doesn’t mean hair is an invention. Hair will grow no matter what you do with it. (Before you take the analogy to an extreme, I realize that children must be raised among speaking adults to learn to speak. They still don’t have to be taught to speak, though.)
I recognize the appeal of a kind of positivist sentiment that, because language is what “separates us from the beasts,” that it must surely be the result of a purely deliberative and designed effort. However, while some tangential aspects of language are this way, all the research into the human brain, its development, and neuro-linguistics, increasingly is showing otherwise.
In a way, this seems to say that the greatest invention in history is the invention OF history. I kind of like that. I don’t know if it’s right, but I like it anyway.
Writing, and the various kinds of characters for writing with, are clearly inventions, though language itself isn’t. You could sit down and invent a new writing system this afternoon if you wanted to. You could invent a new language too, while you’re at it - inventing A language is not the same thing as inventing language itself. In the same way, you can invent a weight lifting routine but can’t invent moving your arms.