>kelley wrote:
>>
>> ritual is bound up with language and is
>
>There you go again. My point is that ritual _preceded_ language,
>probably by several hundred thousand years.
At this point, and for our purposes - so what? What's with this obsession with the ur-origins of language, or the early evolution of fertilized human eggs? It's not really relevant to analyzing politics or society or parties or movements or anything of immediate interest. Why this obsession with Science Times-y kinds of issues?
Doug