On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:40 AM, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 11/01/2013 11:24, BPJ wrote:
>> On 2013-01-10 19:50, And Rosta wrote:
>>> My own view is that pre-h,-sapiens-sapiens had
>>> something similar to human language that wasn't
>>> actually language, something tantamount to a lexicon
>>> without syntax (or morphology).

>  I also believe that denying H.N. to be called human is a
>> form of racism. But it's all my opinions and belief.
> ... which I also share.

Well, at worst it's speciesism, but I'm not sure it's even that.  After
all, if I say a dog isn't human, or that a chimp isn't human, I'm merely
being accurate.  I'm not suggesting that H. neandertalis was less valuable
than H. sapiens, just that they *weren't* H. sapiens.

I suppose one could argue that the entire genus Homo should be called
"human," which is fine and merely a matter of definition as far as I'm
concerned.  I tend to reserve the label for H. sapiens.

(and in light of recent evidence of interbreeding with H. neandertalis, we
might need to revise our taxonomy, which might very well make H.
neandertalis a kind of H. sapiens or vice versa)

>  I can plea and argue for others to share them, but not
>> convince, lacking any real evidence other than what
>> paleontology and archeology can provide.
> Yep.
> I seem to recall that this topic has been debated on this
> list more than one before.  We obviously have a fascination
> for Neanderthals   ;)

Sure we do!  They're a conlanger's dream.  Human-like (or human, if you
like) and capable of thought, society, language -- all that stuff we like
to play with as conlangers.