Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!btnet-feed2!news.compulink.co.uk!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet
From: jedhudson@cix.compulink.co.uk ("John Hudson")
Subject: Re: Invention of Language (Halloran)
Message-ID: <E1qz6J.92L@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange
References: <petrichE15GJr.5nI@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:25:31 GMT
X-News-Software: Ameol for Liberal Democrats
Lines: 22

Loren Petrich wrote:
>       Stephen Jay Gould in _The Mismeasure of Man_ noted that the 
> 19th-cy. French scientist Broca was *very* interested in this 
> head-shape question; however, he concludes that Broca got non-results. 
> It might be an interesting experiment to try on the people you know, 
> however :-) My personal experience, however, suggests no noticeable 
> difference.

I have missed the start of this thread but don't understand the interest 
in head shape which must be totally and utterly irrelevant to speech (but 
might be of some interest to archeological phenologists).

Is it not the case that physical vocal chord design is really what 
determines speech ability.  The human vocal system is peculiar to us and 
the specialised human vocal apparatus is reflected in the shape of the 
orifice for wind pipe and throat at the base of the skull which can be 
easily be identified by those skilled in the science.

Any prehistoric human remains with the appropriate skull shape must 
belong to people who were capable of speech and vice-versa.

John
