>> So the actual anatomical evidence as it stands now is that
>> Neanderthals did NOT possess the speech capacities of modern man. We
>> moderns are a different breed, as it were, as seen in so many
>> ways. Without the naturalistic capacity to explain our appearance, I
>> opt to keep the supernaturalistic option open.
Let me aim for the middle ground here. Broca's region is indicative
that early hominids had some form of speech, but it certainly doesn't
prove it, or give us much idea of how good their speech was. Similarly,
the studies showing that Neandertals may have been able to make a
limited range of sounds are controversial, and should not be accepted as
a done deal. Even if they are correct, a more limited range of sound
production does not necessarily equate to a limited language capability.
(does Hawaiian use less sounds than most other languages?) Or their
speech may have been equally complex, but slower. There are many
options.
Given the large brain size of Neandertals and their many modern
behaviours, it seems almost certain (to me at least) that their speech
capability must have been *far* closer to ours than to any ape. We just
don't have the evidence to state dogmatically whether they spoke as well
as us, or less well; both options are plausible. Similarly, although I
tend to agree with Glenn that early hominids (habilis, erectus) probably
had some speech capability, it's impossible to do more than guess how
much exactly.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765