
Recursive Language Revolution 70k Years Ago the Romulus and Remus Hypotheses - garyclarke27
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/166520v9.full
======
ajuc
It's interesting, but I'm very suspicious of statements like

"Without PFS, Neanderthals must have been simply wrapping the hides around
their bodies like a poncho" or "As discussed above, building an animal trap is
impossible without PFS"

Spiders can build traps without any language. Birds can build quite
complicated nests without PFS. Yet we couldn't because we lack a particular
language construct?

I'm pretty sure some things my dog does would be described as impossible
without PFS by these authors :) Like burying a bone in one place when other
dogs see it, then reburying it in another place when the other dog is in house
:)

------
d0mine
> as many as 18% of modern individuals exhibit PFS disability

wow, almost fifth can't combine even two objects in a novel way (and they
can't learn to do it).

It sounds unbelievable

~~~
ajuc
Yup. And according to the paper it means 18% of modern population couldn't sew
a cloth or prepare a simple animal trap.

Sounds like bullshit TBH.

------
throwaway3999
Several things:

-No genetic explanation at any point during the paper. It's all and well theorizing about evolution this genetics that, but if you don't have a mechanism, or even a putative explanation with actual genes involved and the evolutionary pressure behind them, don't expect to be taken seriously bt evolutionary biologists.

-The paper makes the assumption that a gap exists between the apparition of language and that of elaborate constructions, as opposed to us just not knowing more about it. It is entirely possible that humans from 300000 years ago were able to make figurines but we couldn't find any.

-What the hell is this doing on biorxiv?

-What the hell is RIO? I've never heard of this journal, and I don't think many people have (IF=0.8).

Overall this reads much more like a blog post than an actual article.

------
specialist
Among other notions, Lingua ex Machina [1] discussed possible evolutionary
pathways which allowed complex language (nestable subject verb object clauses)
to arise from simple language (just verb object statements).

I found that book on a lark and barely understood the content. I was tinkering
with knowledge representation and semantic web stuff at the time. The utility
of subject verb object clauses stuck with me and seems to come up frequently.

I'd love some ELI5's for how this paper advances our understanding.

[1] Lingua Ex Machina: Reconciling Darwin and Chomsky with the Human Brain
[2001]
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/252045.Lingua_Ex_Machina](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/252045.Lingua_Ex_Machina)

------
jajag
I'm only half way through the paper, but it's a very interesting read. One
thing I don't get though; I'd have thought that the dative case would be very
useful, if not essential, to humans living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but
the paper seems to suggest that the necessary neural machinery to support the
grammatical case only came into existence 70k years ago. What am I
misunderstanding here?

~~~
garyclarke27
The paper says that Hunter Gatherers existed well before 70,000 years ago, but
this genetic mutation enabled the invention of recursive language,
particularly spatial preposition. This enabled more abstract communication and
planning, so for instance, Romulus and Remus on their first Buffalo hunt, dug
a pit and covered it with branches in a location where the buffalo would
naturally run to, when chased. They trapped far more buffalo than the typical
zero or at most one - of traditional chase and spear method - ie they were far
more successful than anyone before them. The benefit of this enhanced
collaboration far outweighed the cost of slower brain development in children,
so the mutation rapidly spread and dominated.

------
giardini
Previously posted

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22324236](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22324236)

------
kizer
Really interesting but poorly written (for a scientific publication). Had a
few sentences that were like “big leaps” logically. I’m no scientist but this
read differently from most papers I’ve come across.

