01- Generative Semantics:The Background of Cognitive Linguistics, George Lakoff (2004) 

Yet it doesn't, it only promotes unreality.

Language has its significance in the production of tyranny and rebellion to God. Language melts (!) in the experience of the meta-linguistical One.

@@roxynoz8245reality doesn’t exist

@@gesudinazaret9259 Are yousaying something about reality?

@@roxynoz8245 no Im not ,you can’t talk about reality ,plus talking about something doesn’t imply its existence

Start by assimilating the fact that you do not speak a portuguese from centuries ago. Good luck

@@michaelschumacher1822 as much as it may be true that communication, say on a hunt, definitely benefitted from language, i dont think we need to force one "original function" above another here. i think that language, as with other faculties that rely on imagination, is a tool for conceptualising, that bleeds into other senses. Linguistically, concepts can be played with creatively and then get codified through use and acceptance. That said, they also derive from lived experience and they way we conceptualise them prior to communication. I dont think you need an external person to use the word "you" for you to have a conception of yourself as a separate entity from others. looking at a reflection in a river and seeing myself touch my nose is enough for that (as one example), whether you have the words for it or not. the words may come along later and sometimes you experience a "god, i knew there should have been a word for that all along" or "why isnt there a word for XYZ" moments. feral children still have concepts of self, concepts of the passing of time, of spatial awareness etc and these provide the background for things like pronouns, tenses and prepositions, respectively. there are many ways to conceptualise information. for examples, dogs dream, but dont use the same complex symbolic language as us, maybe occasionally they dream visually of their rival from across the street, and in this dream they are continually arriving at different lampposts, only in time to see their rival finishing their pee and waddling off. bark bark bark. my god! what a nightmare! we dont suppose that any language is necessary for this dream, beyond maybe a compulsion to bark in anger, but still a whole story is conveyed, a whole complex of information conceptualised visually. we also have the same cognitive structures that allow a dog to dream visually and we may have those sorts of dreams too. where we differ is in the additional ability to codify information also in language, whether written, internally, signed or vocalised. language sits on those other cognitive capacities and feeds into that system of abstract symbolic expression. the currency for that abstract symbolic expression is then held within the agreed upon assumptions about the sounds and their meaning/representation, such that they can be exchanged for social benefit. for koko the gorilla and nim chimpsky, the ASL they were taught indeed seemed to reveal something about their internal linguistic abilities (baby gorillas "babbling" to themselves, trying out "sounds"/primordial words in ASL), to conceptualise of themselves as an entity, for example, and then express that with others in a manner that was understood and reciprocated. as such, our intersubjective lives gives meaning to words. having your own made up language with no one who understands it is pointless. this is sort of Wittgenstein via Putnams "meaning aint in the head" argument, like the meaning of words are ascribed when there is a shared utility, and so there is a "point" to having a word. however, its not all behaviourism either, as chomsky initially made his mark on linguistic by pointing out. there is a poverty of stimulus and prior understanding there: these words appear to map to some prior internal concept. you can see this happening with children in development, first objects (ball, chair) and then pronouns, then prepositions, and much later getting into highly abstract concepts like equity, entropy or ethics as the brain develops and these words eventually have something to map onto when the world around you encourages the brain to care about such things by having peers using that word and giving them value. so the initial conception may happen first internally, which paves the way for the codification of the concept through shared use, this corroborates the collective and shared use of this conception and this process may even modulate the initial conception, as the word is heard in different contexts. the entire process of resolving initial conceptions and overlapping collective uses may serve as a beneficial social practice? i think it is fair to assume that the internal monologue of a toddler is much less advanced than that of a teenager and so perhaps your idea of "internal thought using the grunts and signals" may not be so far off. inside their heads, before they can speak, they may already have seen themselves in the mirror and conceptualised the self, abstracted the entities of each parent into various sub-divisions that may later have language systems mapped onto them. clearly, internal thought, being much more general than language, comes before external language, both in development and evolutionarily. however, that thought may not yet have a fully developed accompanying language capacity to express it, neither internally nor externally, and so those internal conceptions, that may never the less be abstract, reside in a pre-linguistic state, possibly relying on other cognitive capacities that form earlier, such as the visual system. obviously there are different discussions of this "Language of Thought"/mentalese, but thats roughly how i conceive of it. certainly our language is littered with abstractions from more literal, prepositional concepts " i dont think chomsky was saying anything about fully fledged internal thought coming first. i think he just says that there is also huge benefit to internal language, just as there is for external language, just as internal visual imagination is useful but also based on some understanding of prior visual experience. he is just saying that language is more to do with thought and conceptualisation than communication. the thought that leads to the meow is more complex than the meow itself. the thought doesnt have to be in meow itself. i think this is one of the main lessons of transformational grammar. that sentences, beyond their use as pragmatic communicative tools, often reveal further meaning that reflects deeper thought. for example, we leave ambiguities all over the place when we dont need to. if it was all about comunication, it would be a lot less creative and a lot more ...communicative. there is a lot to be said for communication during a hunt, but also a lot to be said about the walk back to camp, pondering, "but what did he really means when he said that "my bow is sharper than my mind?"". i know this stuff has been covered in many places, from A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1959) through to more recent discussions on "The Merge Function In Thought And Speech" from the 90s (can be found on youtube)

Yes, you are simply failing to understand correctly. Whether it is due to a lack of intelligence on your part, or, the inability to study difficult texts because you're constantly being distracted by your phone, I don't know. I merely know that you in this regard are a complete failure. If I were you, I would lose all hope. You gave it your best shot, don't feel too bad. Chomsky wasn't exactly worth reading in the first place!

As a student of linguistics. I would legitimately love to hear why you consider his argumentation as false. No ill will

I was analysing a sample sentence. I wasn't expressing an opinion on his position. I should have specified that.