Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
>
> Since I disagree with a late appearance of language,
For me, the sticking point in any theory of early emergence is the question of why in the hell it took so long for fully 'equipped' humans to make the huge jumps (visible in the archaeological record) that began only after about 40,000 BP. The late emergence of language offers a pat explanation for that explosion. But if language emerged 10s of thousands of years earlier, there is a real mystery.
Also, how explain that _capacity_ for language should have any necessary connection whatever with the _beginning_ of language?
Carrol