Language is one of the
things of this world created by men to get sex. Since
women use sex to get the things of this world, what
can they be getting because of the existence of words?
Promises, for one thing. Contracts. Deals about
the future.
Trading the tangible (sex) for other tangibles
male-created things of this world. Then gradually that
involves into the sophistication of trading for
intangibles. As Popeye's friend Wimply would say: "I
will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger
today."
But before going into that, let's explore gestures of
exchange.
In that time before language, what was the most
likely stimulus for creating verbal language?
Assume that the sexual drive is the
strongest--or at least extremely strong.
Imagine a time when, since there was no period
of heat, women just gave sex to men upon demand, like
bonobo chimps. Since it took a few minutes, there was
no reason to hold it back.
Assume that if that's true now, it was at least
as true in that time before language, perhaps more so,
because not inhibited by the rules of 'civilization,'
the hidden matriarchy.
Assume that coercion was a regular if not
constant feature of sex. ('I want it now')
Assume it really is true that men have a
sexual/arousal thought every few minutes.
Assume it really is true that men are more
visual (gestural?) and women are more verbal.
Assume that there was a gestural language before
the verbal language.
Assume that the first gesture was
natural/biological: the erection, signalling
intercourse with--either a specific female or whatever
females were around. But what about those cases when
the erection does not precede? How to replace and
imitate the absent erection gesture?
Imagine that, as now, the key gap that language
was created to fill also involved desire for sex, but
desire lacking the gesturing erection. How to
communicate desire for intercourse if the signalling
erection is not yet present?
Imagine the standard 'come here' gestures are
sexual in origin, in fact imitations of the rising
erection. The rising rising finger gesture (either the
beckoning 'come here' index finger, or the rising
middle finger. Or, for use over greater distances, or
to emphasize the point, the 'come here' crooked
arm?
What if the first verbal language was based on
gestures which consisted of the equivalent of 'yes'
and 'no'--as in 'yes you will' and 'no I won't' and
'yes I will'
From that gradually evolved shadings on 'yes'
and 'no'--along the lines of 'if you will...'no, not
now' and 'OK, but...'
The second gesture would have been signalling an
offer of some tangible item in exchange for sex, which
developed into the same gestures in exchange for other
tangible items.
Beyond that, imagine expanding the new language
not with nouns or abjectives but with a wide range of
verbs. Nouns for naming only need to be used when the
objects being named are absent. Otherwise, the
pointing gesture gets the job done.
Present objects did not need to be named because
they can be pointed to, and then elaborated with a
limited vocabulary of gestures.Verbal language evolves
to supplement these gestures with words that signify
actions: verbs. Words of doing, not being.
In the exchange of sex for some thing, comes
gestural exchange, followed in time by verbal
exchange.
In the exchange of sex for the things of this
world, the first level of exchange would involve words
representing objects. Signifying, 'I'll give you
a___for sex.' Later, would evolve, along with verbs,
into a level of exchange where the tangible (sex)
would be traded for the intangible, a promise of
action in the future, perhaps after the sex act,
perhaps before, as a pre-condition for sex.
In the end, since females appear to be more
word-sensitive than males (at least now), an
ever-evolving complement of verbs get used to
communicate--first--what the males wants from the
female and--second--what the female wants from the
male.