Re: The Tally-Ho! Theory of Language Origins

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > rogerprince@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you explain a little more clearly what would make you entertain the
> > > > fantastical notion that writing preceded spoken language? Or perhaps you
> > > > do not actually mean what those words appear to mean?
> > >
> > > I didn't say "Writing preceded spoken language." I said "Perhaps
> > > writing, ***in a sense***, preceded spoken language." My sense is:
> > > Marks on the ground "symbolizing" the animals that made them. The
> > > better humans got at interpreting and following those marks, the better
> > > they may have adapted themselves for spoken language.
> >
> > Actually, my remarks were addressed to Dr Jamshid Ibrahim, who
> > elaborated on your one line. But I suspected that your "in a sense"
> > might conceal an escape hatch. So, like Derrida, you say "Writing
> > precedes speech", which looks startling and original, but turns out to
> > be based on using the term "writing" in a sense that nobody else uses
> > it. In your case "writing" = "animal tracks". What's the point?
>
> I thought he was saying that the pre-humans would make marks on the
> ground in imitation of the tracks of their prey, so as to teach their
> fellows what to look for.
>
> That would be vaguely writing-like, but still not a useful extension of
> the term.

And would this teaching be done without speech?

Ross Clark
.