Is human language a product of culture, or did language give rise to culture?

i would argue the egg is culture, cause culture comes before language and i have soundly argued before that the egg comes before the chicken

culture definitely comes before language. some people say there's no answer to the chicken and egg thing, and if they are correct then it's not directly analogous to culture and language since culture comes first. but with that said, i think it's clearly the egg coming first before the chicken.

i have soundly argued before that the egg comes before the chicken

But, there is no egg before a chicken. And, a chicken egg is capable of being laid and hatched without being fertilized. The process is called parthenogensis [also called, coincidentally, 'virgin birth"] i.e. a chicken embryo can develop from an ovum without being fertilized by a rooster. It will always be a female chick, and, as a mature chicken, can have eggs fertilized by a rooster. This is true of seversl animals, particularly those whose species are otherwise endangered to live without reasonable access to males of the species, but it cannot happen to mammals. Therefore, the idea of Mary's "virgin birth" is impossible, since no mammal is capable to reproduce by parthenogenesis. Mary was impregnated by fertilization of her ovum, period.

Thoughts.

Culture is culture and eggs is eggs.

Culture is anything and everything, that is or becomes an established social methodology.

Whereas language is a evolved system of communication and data recording, derived from an ability to memorise, repeat and reconstruct. sensory sounds and symbolism.

Language is an evolved aspect of an evolved/evolving intellectually gifted culture.

So, I'm guessing that before Ug pointed at the sky and uttered sky and then Og did the same, they had some other cultural habits.

But only in so much as language as a derived intellectual ability relative to evolved hominids, and not overlooking other possible systems of instinctive communication....Which nonetheless would not necessarily communicate a contrived thought.

For example, I would suggest that Bees have and established culture, including a communication system.

Not sure that it needs to be a chicken and egg conundrum.

Language plays a crucial role in the development and transmission of culture. It acts as a fundamental tool for communication, enabling the sharing of knowledge, beliefs, values, and traditions within a society. Through language, cultural practices, social norms, and historical narratives are passed down through generations, shaping individual and collective identities

No, language, particularly written language, did not begone by memorization, but memorialization. Not for merely repetition, but broadcast. And not just re-construct, but original architecture [i.e. lexicon and syntax] because we area, at a beginning, creative and curious.

And the sentient human brain, beginning with Homo sapiens 300,000 years ago, gifted prior to civilized man, already had communication, and necessarily rudimentary culture, and, at best, rudimentary language, even though not yet civilized, because that aspect of human development did not begin until about 4000 BCE [by which time they had achieve language], and we obviously were linguists before then. But, no, you claim language and communication to be synonymous, and they are not. Communication as very generalized, utterly lacking in detail. You claim "sky," but that does not communicate detail at all. What kind of sky? In what season? And expressing what effects? Ug and Og were not sophisticated linguists. Yes, bees "communicate," but it is not language. As for dolphins, more to the point, we're not sure.

Hey, you were talking to me through Debby.

Cool.

So I was just suggesting that Ug and Og utilised their inherited abilities and evolved...Or evolved and utilised their inherited abilities.

Ug and Og being metaphors for an evolving species, whose culture evolved simultaneously.

You cannot communicate your culture without a common language.

Of course not, since language is the creation of culture, but dissimilar cultures will develop dissimilar languages, which then must translate to one another, only that is only successful, and almost never is, because those languages do not share a word-for-word lexicon [word list] nor syntax [grammar]. Translation is fraught with error, even under ideal circumstances. Dictionary-to-dictionary translation is almost useless for true understanding. one midst thoroughly understand another's culture before true understanding of one another can be at all successful. That's the problem the Nicean Council had in the early 4th century C.E. with translation of biblical texts, none of which were even original texts. Oops.

Ooops indeed Faux.

But don't let SergeantLynch know that you said that.

So "culture" in it's base form means to grow or cultivate plants, and the word has been variously altered an utilised, to represent the development and composition of all sorts, including human society and it's shared and various habits and traditions. So as, such language is a part of human cultural development, rather than the basis of it.

Communication is the basis of human culture and language makes it possible.

I often wonder how humans would develop from feral group starts.

The development of humans from a feral, non-socialized group start would likely mirror early hominid evolution, focusing on rapid re-adaptation, the development of new communication methods, and a focus on survival-based intelligence over the first few generations

. While individual feral children struggle to reintegrate due to missing critical development windows for language, a group of humans would likely re-develop basic social structures, tool usage, and eventually language out of necessity for survival.

Initial Stages: Survival and Instinct (Generations 1-2)

1. Physical Adaptation: Within 100 years, there would be minimal genetic difference, but physical changes would include calluses on palms, elbows, and knees, matted hair, and potentially sharpened teeth from eating raw meat.
2. Behavior: Groups would likely operate based on raw emotion, instinct, and immediate needs (food, safety) rather than logical thought.
3. Communication: Without exposure to formal language, the group would develop their own rudimentary communication system, likely involving sounds, body language, and gestures.
4. Survival Skills: Immediate focus would be on hunting, foraging, and using basic tools (like walking sticks).

Mid-Term Development: Socialization and Structure (Generations 3-5)

1. Re-socialization: As groups grow, the inherent human tendency toward social bonding would likely re-emerge.
2. Tool Complexity: Simple tools would evolve into more complex ones, similar to the progression from Homo habilis to Homo erectus.
3. Use of Fire: The mastery of fire would be a critical milestone for protection, warmth, and cooking, further driving brain development.

Long-Term Evolution: Culture and Re-civilization (Generations 5+)

1. Language Acquisition: Spontaneous language development would occur as the group's need for complex communication increases.
2. Cultural Knowledge: Without passed-down knowledge, the group would likely begin to develop their own rituals, myths, and social norms, similar to early hunter-gatherer societies.
3. Intelligence and Adaptation: Survival would rely on the high-level cognitive abilities inherent to humans, allowing them to adapt to their environment.

In summary, a feral group would not remain non-sentient for long; the fundamental human capacity for intelligence and social cooperation would drive them to re-develop language and culture within a relatively short evolutionary timeframe.