The classic example which I think you’re referring to is Nicaraguan Sign Language, which developed organically in Nicaraguan schools for deaf children where neither the children nor the teachers knew any other form of sign language. It’s a fascinating story, a complex fully developed language created by children. Seems to indicate that this is indeed a very inate capability among humans in larger groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

Yeah because all the other things are innate; visual/spatial awareness, touch, smell, vocalization…

Humanoids went millions of years literally learning to navigate 3D space and sense “enough heat, food, water” etc

Nomadic tribes had built shared resource depots millennia before language.

I can see the color gradients of the trees and feel muscles relax without words.

Human language beyond some utilitarian labels just instills mind viruses that bloom into delusions of grandeur.

90% of human communication is unspoken. Neuroscience shows our brains sync behavior patterns with touch and just being in a room.

Reality is full of unseen state change every moment that we have no colloquial language for; human language is hardly the source of truth and the “North star” of human society in reality.

> 90% of human communication is unspoken.

This is as scientific as the idea of humans just using 10% of our brains.

Of course it is; it’s just a comment on a social media forum.

There’s just as little science language motivates me to work. Most of the language society relies on is hallucinations; fiat currency, nation states, constructs like “Senate” and Congress, corporatism, brands, copy-paste of historical terminology, not evidence they’re immutable features of reality.

What we recite has nothing to do with what we are. I find the appeals to non-existent political truisms primate gibberish.

It seems perfectly clear to me many facts of society are just memorized and recited prompt hacks. Language is the goto tool for propagandists, to obscure sensory connection to reality.

There is over 100 years of propaganda research available, too much for me to sort through, but scientific measure of such is not new; new to anyone unaware of it but not to humanity.

Are you a large language model?

Nonetheless, it's the primary reason people are called to back to office, the in person face time is valued much more than remote chat/email. It's not a coincidence all leaders favor face time, hiring is done via the process of "interview", literally asking the "view". Need more proof?

Yeah, definitely needs more proof.

Just because it intuitively makes sense doesn’t make it correct or the 90% figure accurate.

The best example I'm aware of is Nicaraguan Sign Language [1].

> Steven Pinker, author of The Language Instinct, claims that "The Nicaraguan case is absolutely unique in history ... We've been able to see how it is that children—not adults—generate language, and we have been able to record it happening in great scientific detail. And it's the only time that we've actually seen a language being created out of thin air."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

For obvious ethical reasons, we have never perfectly conducted this experiment, but Nicaraguan Sign Language comes close. The government created a school for deaf children who did not have a common language. Many of the children did not know any language prior to attending. Although, they did have "home sign" systems, which are basic signing systems spontaneously developed between deaf children and their speaking care takers.

We can also look at creole languages. When distinct linguistic groups come into contact without a common language they will, in some cases, develop "pidgin" languages to communicate. These languages are created by the adults who are already fluent speakers of their native language. What is interesting is what happens with children born into such communities. They grow up hearing the pidgin language, but they do not learn the pidgin. Instead, the language they learn is a creole. It is based on the pidgin, but more complete and consistent with the way human language works in general. In effect, like all children, they are relying on their innate knowledge of language. The pidgin fills in the language specific parameters, but when the pidgin contradicts an aspect of innate language the children (for the most part), just don't aquire that portion of the language.

The common thread in both cases is (as you say) children: in both creoles and NSL, the early versions of the language are somewhat primitive (being developed by older children and adults), but when children are exposed to it from an early age, the languages acquire much more complexity and sophistication, becoming every bit as rich as "regular" languages. It fits well with the hypothesis that the early years of life are crucial for language development, and that there is indeed something innate in most humans for deep structural understanding of language. It's not just statistical pattern recognition.

There's really no good data to support this claim.

>There's really no good data to support this claim.

Fine.

We know that languages did not exist at some point. We made them exist.

Yes, I acknowledge that we have evidence that groups of tribal humans will evolve language constructs over tens of thousands of years.

Whether that happens in 1 generation or 10,000 generations is completely unknown.

As others have mentioned in this thread, the Nicaraguan Sign Language shows it can happen in years, not even generations.