Do you have anything of value to add? Any information or even concrete rebuttal? No? Since all you offer in general mean-spirited criticism, that would make you the troll.

...says the person who is citing MONTY PYTHON's HOLY GRAIL as primary evidence for their claims about the origin of language. C'mon, you can drop the act now; you've tipped your hand decisively.

(Installs a shrubbery and walks away.)

Dan thinks the Knights say NEE so that they will not be confused by those Knights that say PEE. He thinks the catalyst for Heraldry was a inherent need to organize. Dan thinks the human need for orderliness created the language associated with Heraldry (Heraldry built language - language did not build Heraldry). But I would have to disagree. Heraldry was just another economic strategy using the same motivations for a belief in a higher power. The Knights did not say NEE to be different from those that said PEE. The Knights said NEE because their mind had already evolved (in collusion with language skills) to serve Lord NEE. Their differentiation and subsequent organization from the Knights that said PEE was a BY-PRODUCT. Of course, the unintended consequences of paying homage to Lord NEE was superior survival skills. Superior survival skills selected the culture of Lord Nee (and probably Lord PEE) over those clans without this organizational expertise. Heraldry was just another economic strategy overlayed on the brain function already evolved by the ancients. This function used language and the God delusion to motivate the human organism into survival. In the words of the Great Sage Carville; It's the economy stupid! It always has been and it always will be.

(Walks back from offstage to explain where Falasha missed his point.)

My point about heraldry was to provide a counterexample to Falasha's conjecture regarding the source of emblems. It had nothing to do with language per se, other than, perhaps, to allow some Norman French vocabulary to survive in English.

The Knights who say Ni were a joke. They never existed. Neither did Brave Sir Robin, the Castle Anthrax, nor the giant wooden rabbit.

Linguists aren't in agreement as to how language originated. I'd be surprised, however, if any credible linguist thinks theistic religion was the source.

(Hits Dan over head with rolled newspaper)
If Heraldry had nothing to do with language creation then why did you bring it up? I don’t think you have a point. The spoken language was created by common cultural symbols combined in a system with rules created in antiquity. Common cultural symbols are shortcuts to meaning and when these symbols are expressed (through spoken word but also emblems) understanding is greatly enhanced. Shortcuts to understanding makes communication quicker and richer. Symbols are created through culture and religion is the creator of culture. When religious observance creates ritual out of economic enterprise, the resulting culture is superior to all others. So superior that no other culture using strategies that create fewer symbols were able to compete. The culture that created most shortcuts was able to obtain and maintain much more information useful to survival. Those clans that used an Economic Superbeing to create culture were the most successful and supplanted all others.

So if there was a point to be made, it would be that the Knights that say NEE were vastly superior to the Knights that said Ni but were defeated and exterminated by the Knights that said NEEnrolup.

I'm not a linguist, I'm just a translator, but I do know that religion is not the creator of culture, but culture the creator of religion, and culture is just an evolution tool of humans to create a society in which life is "easier", that is, if you follow the culture of your society, you are probably accepted by the other people, and then you can enjoy the benefits of society. Besides, culture obviously affects languages, but languages are another tool of humans, and there are examples of languages appearing in isolated groups (such as savage children) not necessarily related to a culture (and of course not related to biblical symbology). On the other hand, economy is not the only aspect which may make a group of people become dominant, but also the strength and the number of components.

I'm not a linguist either but that is our only similarity. One difference is that I have given examples not one or two but three times. The other posters on this thread (including you) have made a definitive statement but never have they EVER backed it up. The one example that I was given was actually evidence that I happen to be right. You say religion is not the creator of culture but you give no evidence or examples. You merely think that since you happen to be YOU I am supposed to suddenly switch my heart felt passion without any evidence at all. Will you give me some time to think about it?

You have backed your theories up with other theories of yours, so I don't think it's a good evidence. I guess you happen to believe that religion is the creator of culture because you really believe religion was revealed by God to humans so it's the first stimulus and then the culture was created after that, but I believe religion is just a way to explain a world impossible to understand by humans with such primitive science, and then this explanation of their world depends on their culture. Anyway, the basis of your evidences is faith, and I can't think of a worse evidence.

Oh brother, what a blatant strawman.

Is there anyone, anywhere that has evidence of culture without religion? Anyone?