The standard reference texts make this a far more complex topic than it is. Scientists are scurrying around
Africa for Paleolithic evidence of which knuckle-walking hominids of millions of
years ago were evolving grunts and gestures into what would become words.
But this is all NOT ABOUT WORDS. Sure, bees and dolphins have “language,” a means of communication.
But WORDS only emerge from homo sapiens when they, somehow, get a floating bone in the throat, called
the hyoid bone. And, somehow, the modern homo sapiens (thinker) gets their brain way enlarged to be
able to process this unexplainable new language ability.
The blown-out brain cavity is suspiciously like the Genesis record of a Creator “blowing into the nostrils” of a man.
This man is a newly sentient creature, but he is fashioned “from the earth,” that is, from
pre-existent form (such as the hominids above).
The Genesis Eden scenario of an original homeland for this new thinking, speaking human is located fairly
near the Northeast African homeland for humans favored by scientists.
In fact, the oldest hyoid bone for speech even found was unearthed in the Carmel Caves near present-day
Archeologists have established that the oldest human attempts at agriculture and literacy are also there, in the Fertile Crescent.
So it is fine to agree that some simian hominids came “out of Africa.” But all the evidence suggests that modern, speaking man emerges
in the Late Stone Age in a what might be called a Proto-Semitic region.
Only in recent decades have geneticists and other scientists been able to prove that all living humans share the mitochondrial DNA of a single woman.
Studies of the male Y chromosome also prove that the human population on Earth was once very small.
There were decades of academic hostility to the idea of monogenesis of language, that our current 6000 dialects devolved from a single common
By the 21st Century the evidence was so persuasive, that now those who oppose monogenesis are marginalized.
Should not that Proto-Earth language be closest to Semitic?
Yes, but logic and evidence still must contend with cultural bias.
The Edenics project has begun to show that the Eden scenario above is the key to The Origin of Language.
Languages constantly and naturally devolve into dialects that become “languages,” but Edenics
follows the Genesis record (Chapter 11) that there was a traumatic neuro-linguistic event (“The Tower of Babel”) which was
the Big Bang of language diversity.
You are to be congratulated for having your search for The Origin of Language take you this far.
You might now want to play web games, watch videos, or investigate a favorite language
so as I was learning a new Bible verse in Hebrew last week, I came across the word "vakar" (cow). and of course cow is "vache" in French and "vaca" in Spanish. my Hebrew teacher couldn't explain it but this theory does!
Studying Hebrew as the 'DNA' of language!
This is exciting! This is the most exciting subject I have stumbled across in a long time. I have been pondering for years on the subject of the earliest/origin of language/speech.
I had come to believe that all words originated from imitations of the sounds commonly heard. (to SHOOT (an arrow). I may hold on to this belief for a while. I have no formal language education worth mentioning. I was born John Whiston, but as far as I know am not related to William Whiston, but share a fascination with theories, and wish I was related!
So what you are saying is that, Assyrian, Akkadian, Aramaic, Ugarit, Chaldean, are all post Hebraic Languages that people then assumed were the forerunners of Hebrew speech?
Dear Rabbi Mozeson,
You and those interested in your fine work might find the following article of sone interest: www.examiner.com/article/beyond-beginning-biblical-hebrew.
Monogenesis is neither obviously right nor obviously wrong: it may well be right, but there isn't sufficient high-quality evidence for it.
I believe origin of language is hidden to keep the fact that common words are a type of curse upon all human spirits...the dialogue of the devils if u will...english tongue may be the devils tongue itself...read " infernal conference"....it has some interesting info about the last supper and so on...
Edenics provides a wealth of evidence and factual information on this and other websites and in published books.
Capitali provides no evidence that contradicts the facts of Edenics and monogenesis. Capitali merely denigrates, which is the mark of fear and resistance to factual information that contradicts an entrenched view.
Mere "decades of academic hostility to the idea of monogenesis" proves nothing other than the establishment can be hostile to ideas they don't like. Their careers depend on towing the establishment line.
The actual bias here is modern prejudice which holds that "Religion" and Science are mutually exclusive therefore any reference to Hebrew or Biblical sources is rejected.
Fot this same reason, Evolutionary theory is presented as Dogma and any reference to design or intelligence in biology or language is rejected offhand.
Semitic languages are based on the same Edenic roots as Hebrew. The first written language, is Cuneiform Akkadian, visible archeological proof of Edenic roots.
Hebrew and Semitic languages are the first variations from Edenic and used to be quoted as etymological sources. The modern linguistic establishment, in their Politically Correct, Atheistic bias, have purged these references and stop at Latin or Greek.
The scorn of today's "intellectuals" is as much proof against Edenics as the Dark age Church's scorn being proof against the Earth being round.
"There were decades of academic hostility to the idea of monogenesis of language, that our current 6000 dialects devolved from a single common Proto-Earth language. By the 21st Century the evidence was so persuasive, that now those who oppose monogenesis are marginalized."
It's funny how you make such a completely false statement, you must assume that your readers are unable to use the internet to do fact checking ... Monogenesis of language is basically a laughed at branch of linguistics that has never even reached the stage of being marginalized... it's just obviously wrong ....
please readers do your self a favor and research everything you find here on this blog against the real science journals -- there is a slant to this blog, it is not in favor of reality.
The search for global etymologies is at best a hopeless waste of time, at worst an embarrassment to linguistics as a discipline.
I am not the first to state this.
This is a test for error resolution.
You seem to avoid the name of God, and keep Him in low profile.
© copyright 2009-2010 Edenics.net
For then I will change the nations [to speak] a pure language, so that they will proclaim the name of G-d,
to worship Him with a united resolve. (Zephaniah 3:9)