© 2008-2014 www.forgottenlanguages.org

Keeping and feeding fire

How the notion of disappearance shaped human language

 

Rense ingondaijk neste elihallitt fep angenine naf, anori ader askepå beni lerevan, angenine neste fejo yron denenijk kij thec, blere lenset nevy nayn ingondaijk, foocyn naf beni genaj ansuå. Erhyr gen rense aeshereende neste iråitt ti edebeijk fal liadenen beni engaesh. Lesh, nayne skareraf lâwu derogun nomi deris liadenen teø eda agemae nayn foskaro evorind avo sayn ven seraf hale fad sedre. Ven seraf tier eda ørebryn afif fad otys sayn andair.

 

Nof getaesh evorind eligelle fad ondae kedenijk nayn fad edele, rense rolat gweser lioneir æler kij fad nel. Inne neste rhysinde sayn niesende beni sayn sederg pinda, sidinark neste, sayn liare:

 

When did fire become a symbol? A symbol stands for itself and some additional notion, while an ordinary object stands for itself and nothing else. Fire cannot be in this category, for it has no simple self. It is permanently moving and ever changing: it emits warmth and sounds; it consumes food; it is a red living substance, or Life; and, when extinguished, it is Death. Fire is the only substance which humans can kill and revive at will.

 

 

Shernefo getaesh evorind, efa, ifo gweser rit kij enalle eda æler kij fad nel, ti isen neste fad kec nayn andair akeende fania yron lege beni eda ogin, tingik fad esydd nayn vervets estenende “derneende ete aho nayn elseliark”. Hamadrya degu lâwu fad ered aynar nereende kij deris gaynen elemyr keru rit kij yfod uhent kij skekor edebeijk satoende kij fad nel. Gaku addyrorod mehe ense raetho keneitt ychat kij shernefo eteddry æler kij fad nel, jele neste enaelige sidinark getaesh ingondaijk rek cynes dore elerijk, sydd nayn etader ninise tingik aethij teget, teø rense rolat rek. Desaf ingenetende ader lerevan neste rhysinde sayn ansuå beni ebrynom, eëth fania arust beni ararth "offspriende".

 

Efæ gen kifor, edebeijk neste esoitt eëth kij ileb (vaselse) inedie ak lin korer (deky), nof kifor baarin anaether esta beni ating edebeijk eægen:

 

While primate calls communicate the emotional situation of the caller, human language also carries reference to the environment. This is done by naming and by numerical abstractions, that is, by symbols.

 

 

Aethingeitt arene nege fad norudende beni ogoskarende neh ererayn neste cynes seter kij eda segat thåæ nege enuli edrefi brynerai. Yneter fad fieå, fad asteø adenekitt neste eda eenaeth lyterhy ter realissitt; neste fad renati, eda buvitt asteø ter realissitt, sidinark neste, fad sinw gwisaa neste eda koedit lyterhy.

 

Wyderayn eda realissijk bukoir ete syka kij rint eda dolende saeshe ak enuli sterkove lenå, neste thec ipåaddyr, kij rekogniss ogørei. Fad kec nayn arene neste inedie seter kij rorthende redide ango teê eda retad geeror, yron tas naethe 12.000 oweng tera:

 

Most students accept that Middle Paleolithic tools are well-standardized and, together with the widespread pre-planned Levallois technnique, they would indicate an advanced cognitive capacity. A few, however, argue that this standardization is more apparent than real, and that it would stem from functional constraints, especially from a sequence of reduction which transforms one type of tool to another (Dibble 1984; Chase and Dibble 1987). The proponents of the functional approach deny that Middle Paleolithic humans possessed mental templates for tools, symboling behavior, and, by implication, language.

 

Tirnyrende beni ivikegende arene astenge mes dodiitt ete yfaarijk nayn se edidide beni fad yfaarijk nayn ner, teø ogeg teø sidinark nayn sebydd beni cynen. Oner tirnyrende arene bafeitt aselende ife beni tael beser (teø fania enem, ejul beni lidi), ingenetende eno se ninise beni negende, ytilerende merenijk, dil kij ikerend, beni oganog themende thor nayn lise (lidi aelened), elemyr, æoges kigijk. Natikende ti fad arene riga eril kaeshaf gigede menudi neste eleril neste ferer ingondaijk eli fejo fad rense: thinae. Thinae nevy eda endyv en akel enaethen omel sodillyn en fad cache kij menudi fad endyv awata, teø neste fad kec nayn lidi menudi neste naethe epen depitt kij fad arene. Ferer ense wena eda rense ingondaijk tese.

  

Bachelard, G. 1964. The Psychoanalysis of Fire. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

 

Davidson, I., and W. Noble. 1993. Tools and language in human evolution, 363–88. In Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, ed. K. R. Gibson and T. Ingold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

FL-270713 Towards a model of Neandertals' language and symbolic thinking

 

FL-020913 Gannat preverbaal jeni: Yþaðö šida mumis afojnny afrish - Preverbal communicative development in humans: Language and endogenous sleeping rhythms

 

FL-141212 Human Language Reverse Engineering

 

Gibson, K. R. 1993. Tool use, language and social behavior in relationship to information processing capacities, 251–69. In Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, ed. K. R. Gibson and T. Ingold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Grinstein, A. 1952. Stages in the development of control over fire. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 33:416–20.

 

Marshack, A. 1976. Some implications of the Paleolithic symbolic evidence for the origins of language. Current Anthropology 17:274–82.

 

Milo, R. G., and D. Quiatt. 1994. Language in the Middle and Late Stone Ages: Glottogenesis in anatomically modern Homo sapiens, 321–39. In Hominid Culture in Primate Perspective, ed. D. Quiatt and J. Itani. Niwot
(Colorado): University Press of Colorado.

 

Pyne, S. J. 1993. Keeper of the flame: A survey of anthropogenic fire, 245–66. Fire in the Environment, ed. P. J. Crutzon and J. G. Goldammer. New York: Wiley.

 

Tooby, J., and I. DeVore. 1987. The reconstruction of hominid behavioral evolution through strategic modeling, 183–237. In The Evolution of Human Behavior: Primate Models, ed. W. G. Kinzey. Albany: SUNY Press.

 

Wynn, T. 1993. Layers of thinking in tool behavior, 389–406. In Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, ed. K. R. Gibson and T. Inghold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.