You speculate that “early hominids had proto-language and [proto] skills”. What on earth is an ‘original’ language? What and where is the supposed ‘origin’ of language? There are several different San Bushman languages, each with several forebears. We should drop the ‘proto’ fiction (as in ‘Proto’ ‘Indo-European’) and the ‘origin’ fiction. There is no ‘original’ myth (I have criticised Witzel and his laughable premises and conclusions elsewhere), no ‘original’ ritual, calendar, art, culture, language, or civilisation. Each medium, and each work, is perpetually original, convergent to the bio environment, with correspondences mistaken as ‘diffusion’.
Culture measured by behaviour did not change, and never will. Culture measured by artefacts change only in technology (forging new words from the same old meanings and sounds).
Steam and electricity did not change culture. People BC 20 000 could build machines, but did not have the numbers, the specialisation, or the need to do so.
Bushmen, the oldest extant polity and genes, are as intelligent, skilled, spiritual, symbolic, mythic, ritualised, verbal, and cultured as anyone.
Civilisation (villages, organisations, writing) does not change the media or core content of culture. I offer evidence of the archetypal structure in cultural media, from art in Mindprint 2014, evidence from built sites in Stoneprint 2016, evidence from iconography in Blueprint 2019, evidence from rock art in several articles in the anthropology journal Expression, evidence from myth cycles and ritual sites in Stoneprint Journal 7: Hercules, Arcadia, and Greece myth maps, here is a link: [stoneprintjournal.wordpress.com]
Technology always had the benefit of language, but geniuses are born at a predictable rate and re-invent applications (for example clocks), some after their maturity curve time, some on time, some before their time. Language and culture did not change, and are indeed complete.
Language is a given medium thanks to natural differences between sounds, and natural differences between meanings, and natural senses and perception. We did not invent Language. Languages change only in style, which is a meaningless layer. Language was never less or more than its own limited capacity. Language remains less than the capacity of our layers of consciousness, serving as a limited tool of conscious logic, and a limited medium for semi-conscious symbolism.
Writing formats developed, not evolved. Eastern languages use more inflections instead of phonemes. This is a styling option enabled by Language. Wanting to sound different from the next polity and class, is standard behaviour. Digital writing is merely an application. Writing does not change language much.
Most Far Eastern writing happily remain pictorial abstracts, non-digital. Yet entirely translatable.
Civilisation does not change language.
Your “clue to the origin[?] of language” is based on the false logic of “it’s what you would logically expect.” This is not science. Where is the evidence that language “shift from analog sounds to digital combinations”?
Languages are conservative, but not due to “elders to scold them.”
You speculate that “language overcomes fear of fire”, but why not fear of animals or death?
You speculate that “experience of cooked food is more tasty”, but how did cooking, or sugar, change language? Not even Levi-Strauss proposed pre-cooked or post-cooked language.
Your comments confirm that human sciences rely on inadequately theorised anthropology. I admire your initiative to use statistical data to develop linguistics, but trans-disciplinary (tD) studies should beware of the immature state of anthropology.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09-Sep-21 10:42 by Edmond.