Hallo conlangers!

On Saturday 12 January 2013 22:59:27 George Corley wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM, JŲrg Rhiemeier 
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> > Hallo conlangers!
> > [...]
> > I never understood this discrepancy, either.  I think it is simply
> > that many linguists are not up to date what regards human evolution,
> > and still work with older timelines of human evolution that are now
> > known to be too shallow.
> I have never heard the 30,000 year figure.  Any time I have heard a
> linguist say it they have said it could it the origin of language was
> between 100,000 years ago and a million years ago -- not picking one or
> proposing another date, but actually saying that that is the range.
>  Unfortunately, I haven't read the actual literature that this comes from.

Sometimes two concepts get confused: the first full-fledged human
language, and the latest common ancestor of all extant languages.
Assuming that the latter existed at all, the former was most likely
earlier than the latter.  Maybe the former was around 200,000 years
ago if not even earlier, and the latter around 75,000 years ago when
our species went through a genetic bottleneck due to the eruption of
the Toba supervolcano (which is in itself controversial).

The 30,000 year figure is certainly utterly out of date by now.
That was an early dating of the arrival of the "Cro Magnon" people
in Europe, but this is 1) now dated earlier (to about 45,000 years
ago) and 2) much, much later than the first appearance of _Homo
sapiens_ in other parts of the world.

Also, where is the threshold of a "full-fledged human language"? 
Language evolution certainly was a long, gradual process.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
"BÍsel asa …am, a …am atha cvanthal a cvanth atha …amal." - SiM 1:1