Basic HTML Version
August-September 1970
idea in his book,
The Origins and Pre–
history of Language:
"Though I regard
the g11lf thal separa/es human Jpeech
f1'om animal comtmmiration as
!fll·
bridgeable,
1 do not see any sufficíent
reason for abandoning the idea of a
more or less continuous biological
evolution" (p. 3).
Did you grasp that? Although Dr.
Révész belicves the communications gap
between animals and humans to be
unbridgeable, he still believes man
evolved!
He m11st accept
011
blind faith
what his rettson tells him is impossible!
He goes on further in his book to
show how absurd or unsuitable all
human theories on the subject are. Of
course, he then proceeds to propound
his own.
Evolution Left Without
a Word!
Although professional Jinguists admit
their ignorance regarding where lan–
guages have come from, evolutionists
and others cling to the belief that
human speech has
evolved
over eons of
time from grunts emitted by a once–
speechless creature. Is this belief logical?
Can it be proved?
Logically, the most primitive peoples
would have thc simplest languages; the
most civilized, tbe most complicated.
This would be true, assuming that the
ability to talk had evolved.
But this is not the case:
"Human cul–
ture necessarily demands the ability to
speak. . . . All languages of today are
equally complex and equaJly adequate
to express all the facts of the speaker's
culture, and all can be expanded and
modified as needed. There are no
'primitive' languages, but all languages
seem equally old and equally well
developed. There are also, as has been
said, no human beings without lan–
guage"
(EncJdopaedia Britamúctt,
1960
edition, vol.
13,
p.
698).
In the same context this world–
famous encydopedia states that "human
culture nccessarily demands the
ability to speak." This presents a fur–
ther problem. It is believed that lan–
guage developed as a result of culture.
Yet how could culture have developed
until the language was already adequate
for its needs?
The
PLAIN TRUTH
What Do You Mean
"Prirnitive"?
Let's take a look at the "primitive"
languages of primitive peoples.
L.
Homburger, director of African
Linguistic Studies at the Sorbonne, in
discussing the vocabulary and syntax of
the Negro African languages, made
this comment: " ... the modcrn Negro
African languages represent a
lang11age
tt•hirh is not primitive,
but has
abstract words, nominal and verbal
forms"
(The Negro-Africttn Languages,
p.
78).
A Jook at the Bantu languages, as an
example, illustrates Dr. Homburger's
remarks. These languages tcnd to das–
sify nouns into different categories, such
as inaoimate, anímate, abstract, etc.
There are 8 noun classes in Swahili.
Just as every noun in Latín or German
is masculine, feminine or neuter, so
every noun in Swahili is in one of these
8 categories. But Swahili has the sim–
plest noun forms of the Bantu lan–
guages. Sorne have 26 noun classes!
!odian Languages
The American Indiaos, north of Mex–
ico, were culturally limited when Colum–
bus stepped ashore at San Salvador. But
their speech was something else again.
"Contrary to the prevalent notion,
the vocabularics are rich and their
grammatical structure is systematic and
intricate. Owing to the wealth of
derivatives, it is difficult to estímate the
number of words in any American lan–
guage; but it is certain that in every one
there are a couple of thousand of stem
words and many thousand words, as
that term is defined in English dictio–
naries. . . . The complexity of grammar
is often great"
(Handbook of American
Indians North of Mexico,
edited by F.
W. Hodge, Part 1, p. 757).
There are numerous accounts in
American archives telling of the spell–
binding elogucnce of Indian orators.
The famous authority on American
Indian linguistics Franz Boas points out
that, in the I:J.nguages of the North
Pacific Coast tribes, demonstrative pro–
nouns are often very elaborate. They not
only disinguish between the person near
the speaker, near the person addressed,
and near the person spoken of, but