> According to Chomsky, language is genetic--it's
I would go a few steps further and say that language is innate to life. More accurately consciousness is innate and all life has at least rudimentary language (even if it's just the ability to transmit and receive a "1" and a "0").
> Studies of speech development all over
> the word suggest universal progression in spoken
> language, with basic competency established by the
> fifth year.
I know a one year old who can communicate complex ideas. Her mother could communicate even younger.
I believe that animals communicate (simple ideas) from birth.
> It's also possible to communicate by
> expression, touch, and gesture--using abstract
> symbols as needed. That's not nearly as
Indeed! There is even chemical reproductive communication. Many animals have strange organs that receive and transmit light, sound, electric, etc. We've barely scratched the surface of the means and nature of communication. Even humans use body language, inflection, or a look in the eye to modify or make statements. Since we all think differently we also all use different means and modes of communication.
Animals never appear to use abstractions and this apparently applies to the first human languages as well.
> IMO, whenever a large enough group of people lived
> together, an alphabet developed, became
> standardized, and was taught. For smaller
> groupings of people, or when a culture crashed, it
> was unnecessary.
As Chomsky said, though, language is genetic. Why wouldn't all humans share almost the exact same language back when humans could communicate from birth? Why should we assume that language has always been this way and humans just naturally are the only species to use abstractions and symbols?
You're suggesting that many languages arose in far flung and disparate cultures but no such evidence exists before 2000 BC or at least before the invention of writing. I could agree that writing could have been more widespread and earlier than 3200 BC.