0:19 to lay the groundwork for this series
0:21 what we want to establish before we look
0:23 at the natural history of language is
0:26 exactly what we mean by language and
0:28 this is how linguists study language in
0:31 particular and it's important to realize
0:33 that as easy as it is to think that
0:36 language is just a collection of words a
0:39 language is a lot more than that it's
0:41 not only the words but it's the grammar
0:44 that we use to put the words together in
0:47 order to convey and utterance and even
0:50 in order to affect the world by the
0:53 utterances that we produce so for
0:57 example you could know 5,000 words in a
0:58 foreign language you could cram them all
1:01 into your head with flashcards and still
1:03 you wouldn't be able to say things like
1:06 she might as well finish it getting in
1:07 that nuance of might as well and what
1:10 that means or you probably wouldn't know
1:12 how to say it happened to be on a
1:14 tuesday in many other languages you
1:15 wouldn't use the word for happen that's
1:17 just one way happen happens to be used
1:19 but it's things like that that our
1:21 language it's something very unique that
1:25 we can do it's easy to look at animals
1:27 in the way they communicate and think
1:29 well they can talk to and there's even
1:31 kind of a strain among some people to
1:33 resist the notion that there's something
1:34 unique that human beings do when it
1:36 comes to language and in this first
1:39 lecture I want to get across what I'm
1:41 always going to mean by this wonderful
1:43 thing called language with some examples
1:46 from the animal kingdom and why they're
1:48 not quite getting to where we are then
1:50 we're going to look at the very
1:53 beginnings of language among humans as
1:56 far as we know at this point but in
1:58 general we can start with the fact that
2:01 animals even though the communicator not
2:03 exactly using language and so for
2:05 example I love dogs and cats as much as
2:08 anybody you can kind of communicate with
2:10 them but Bertrand Russell the
2:13 philosopher once said a dog cannot
2:15 relate his autobiography however
2:18 eloquently he may bark he can't tell you
2:19 that his parents were honest though poor
2:22 and that's true there's an awful lot
2:24 that a dog simply could not
2:29 say bees are an example of how animals
2:32 can communicate to an extent and so it's
2:35 been found that in their hive Abby can
2:38 tell the other bees where honey is based
2:40 on this kind of dance it goes in the
2:43 direction where the honey is and then it
2:46 wag 'old its posterior with a certain
2:49 frequency that corresponds with how far
2:52 away the honey is and it vibrates kind
2:54 of frenetically while doing this
2:55 waggling to indicate how rich the
2:57 sources that's pretty neat and Sobeys
3:00 can actually tell each other which way
3:03 to swarm that's absolutely fabulous and
3:06 that's all they can do they can't talk
3:08 about anything they can't talk about
3:10 where anything else is they can't convey
3:12 concepts there's just this one thing
3:14 absolutely miraculous that allows them
3:16 to communicate in that one way about
3:19 that one thing so that is communication
3:22 but bees cannot chew the fat they only
3:24 do that one thing so that's one level of
3:26 communication but it's not exactly
3:30 language now apes are better than bees
3:32 at this kind of thing and there have
3:35 been all sorts of attempts to get some
3:37 sort of speech out of apes i recently
3:41 had occasion to deal with a chimpanzee
3:43 and they do seem to look at you with
3:46 almost human eyes at one point the
3:48 chimpanzee reached up with its finger
3:50 and went like this and took it down with
3:52 the same poise that we use in scratching
3:54 our nose their little human beings so
3:56 you would think well can't you talk and
3:58 the fact is that they can just
4:00 approximate what we're doing but never
4:04 get terribly impressively far it goes
4:06 way back to hope that you could make
4:09 these queer little semi people talk
4:12 Samuel peeps who was a man of affairs
4:15 and restoration England encountered a
4:18 baboon and he writes about it in his
4:20 diary which is very quotidian and
4:22 colloquial and at one point he said it's
4:25 a great baboon butt so like a man and
4:27 most things that yet I can't believe but
4:30 that it is a monster god of a man and a
4:32 she baboon I do believe it already
4:34 understands much English and I'm of the
4:38 mind it might be taught to speak or may
4:41 signs so people have tried to teach a
4:44 Tata talk and it doesn't really get too
4:47 far in 1909 there was a little
4:50 chimpanzee and it learned to say mama
4:54 and that was it then in 1916 there was
4:57 an orangutang and learned how to say
5:01 Papa and cup and that was as far as he
5:04 got then in 1940s there was a chimpanzee
5:07 that could say Papa mama cup and up up
5:09 referring to it wanting to be picked up
5:10 but it never got any more words than
5:12 that that's not language that's
5:15 communication so parental units cup
5:16 probably with something good in it and
5:18 being picked up but that was it that's
5:21 different from talking about how you saw
5:23 a strange looking piece of fish and ate
5:24 it and it made you sick or something
5:27 like that so they only went so far now
5:30 there have been times when things went a
5:32 little further and there's a large
5:36 literature about this washoe the
5:41 chimpanzee 1966 Washoe was taken when
5:44 she was about three machos taken with
5:47 you is about a year old and after about
5:49 three months she started being able to
5:52 sign and watch I was in the company of
5:54 people who really wanted to see how far
5:56 we could take in teaching these
5:58 creatures to sign because one suspects
6:00 that there's something about their vocal
6:01 apparatus that keeps them from being
6:03 able to do this but maybe they could do
6:04 it with their hands because humans of
6:06 course I've signed languages which are
6:09 very much full nuanced languages so by
6:12 the time washa was four she had a
6:15 hundred and thirty-two signs and that's
6:18 pretty darn good and she was taught open
6:21 by opening a door and then she could
6:23 mentally extend that to say taking a lid
6:25 off of something or taking a lid off of
6:27 a pot which is a kind of an advanced
6:29 cognition to think of both of those
6:32 things as opening at one point the big
6:36 dramatic moment with Washoe was there
6:38 was a pond somewhere in New York City
6:42 and a swan went by and Washoe pointed at
6:44 it and with her hands said water bird
6:46 now that's pretty darn good he knew
6:48 water and she knew bird and then she
6:50 called this thing something now even if
6:51 maybe he was saying
6:53 that that bird is in the water that's
6:54 pretty good for something that's not
6:56 supposed to be able to talk and also
6:59 that Washoe pointed this out on her own
7:02 and so nobody said there's this thing
7:03 what is it it's just that all of a
7:06 sudden she pointed and said it so Washoe
7:09 was pretty interesting and there have
7:12 been other cases of eights that learned
7:15 something kind of like language but
7:19 there are limits for example they are
7:21 inconsistent it's one thing to talk
7:25 about water bird or things like me you
7:27 out which wash I would say to indicate
7:30 let's go out the thing is that actually
7:32 generally if there are two or more words
7:36 at a time then Apes will understand most
7:38 of the time but not all they
7:41 misunderstand a lot more than even a
7:43 small child would so it seems that it
7:47 can only penetrate so far for them then
7:48 there's the issue of are they
7:51 understanding grammar or are they going
7:54 from context so for example you can say
7:58 put the sour cream in the cooler now
8:00 there it's clear that put is the action
8:02 the sour cream is the object and the
8:04 cooler is what we might call a
8:06 prepositional object as linguist but
8:07 suffice it to say that that's where the
8:09 sour cream should go so those are those
8:13 three big elements now as it happens you
8:16 can also sign cooler sour cream put and
8:19 an ape might then go put the sour cream
8:20 in the cooler some people have said well
8:22 that means that they understand grammar
8:24 they understand that one of these things
8:26 is the action one of these things is the
8:27 object and you can scramble it around
8:29 and they can still tell but really
8:32 there's a lot of context to because you
8:34 couldn't put the cooler in the sour
8:36 cream if you put the cooler on top of
8:37 the sour cream then as an ape you
8:39 couldn't get to it and you wouldn't want
8:41 that obviously if there's pudding and
8:43 sour cream and cooler then you are going
8:45 to put the cream into the cooler that's
8:47 not necessarily understanding grammar
8:50 that's just being a relatively sentient
8:53 being in the world so one wonders then
8:56 there's the imitation issue on which is
8:58 easy to lose in the literature sometimes
9:01 which is that forty percent of the time
9:04 one of the Apes that got the best of
9:05 this would
9:08 imitate a human while being signed to so
9:10 the human starts and then the ape starts
9:12 doing it with them now that's cute in a
9:15 way but it's also different from the way
9:17 we use language children apparently do
9:19 this at the rate of about five percent
9:20 of the time this would often be at the
9:23 ends of sentences but imagine telling a
9:25 child go upstairs and get your toy and
9:27 you say go up and by the time you get to
9:28 stairs the child is looking up anything
9:31 stairs and get your toy that would be a
9:33 very peculiar and probably slightly
9:35 deficient child with that there's
9:37 something wrong with that kid that is
9:39 about as good as Apes can do part of it
9:42 is imitative and that's different from
9:45 actually communicating and so it seems
9:48 that between the imitation and the fact
9:50 that they have a way of misinterpreting
9:52 and the fact that there's little
9:53 evidence that they're actually seeing
9:55 the grammar there's clearly something
9:58 different and Charles hockett was one of
10:01 the most prominent linguists in America
10:04 and a while ago he listed 13 features
10:07 that distinguish human language from for
10:09 example what bees can do and what apes
10:11 had been shown to be able to do when
10:14 Hockett wrote and among them one of them
10:16 was what's called displacement and that
10:18 is that one thing that we can do with
10:20 language although we often don't have to
10:21 think about this consciously as we can
10:23 talk about something that isn't there
10:25 it's in the past it might be in the
10:27 future it might be hypothetical and so
10:31 we can say there are giant squid 50 feet
10:33 long and once I was walking along the
10:35 beach and I found one of the carcasses
10:37 washed up you can talk about that having
10:39 happened 10 years ago that could happen
10:42 to some eight that happens to live near
10:43 the shore but the ape couldn't
10:45 communicate that to any other eight no
10:48 animal could communicate that to another
10:49 animal something completely displaced
10:52 the other day I saw some queer colored
10:55 berries on a bush and I ate them and you
10:56 know they weren't really as bad as you
10:58 might think no matter how expressive and
11:00 communicative and Orangatang is that
11:02 just not going to come out he can only
11:04 talk about bananas get out of my way
11:06 things that are right there so that's
11:09 kind of different then there's what's
11:11 called productivity which means that you
11:13 can take the elements of language and
11:15 combine them in infinite combinations so
11:18 it's not just eat a banana wanting a banana
11:18 banana
11:21 or where's the banana it's all sorts of
11:22 things about the banana the banana
11:26 tastes good the banana is broken I'm
11:28 going to break this banana so that I can
11:31 fit it into the cooler etc this sort of
11:33 what's called productivity is a hallmark
11:35 of what we're doing this is not
11:38 something that animals are so good at
11:43 all so even the really hot shotted
11:47 chimpanzees rarely initiate conversation
11:49 you're using language you have a thought
11:52 and you say something you might be the
11:54 kind of eight that happens two key
11:55 things to itself but there would
11:57 presumably be some of them that were
11:58 just running their mouths all the time
12:00 as they do within their limits all of
12:02 that chattering that you know apes and
12:04 chimpanzees tend to do but it's very
12:06 rare for one of these quote-unquote
12:08 talking chimpanzees to look up and say
12:11 you know you know even something like
12:13 maybe there be I'd like a banana but
12:14 that's rare you have to start it out
12:17 with banana you know washoe and then
12:19 she'll tell you or would tell us you
12:21 were here but in general there's nothing
12:23 along the lines of it's a nice day
12:25 there's all evidence to suggest that the
12:27 higher primates do know that it's a nice
12:29 day bonobos will sit down and put their
12:31 arms around each other and look at the
12:33 sunset that's how close they are to us
12:36 but never has any ape said in its nice
12:37 out or something like that you have to
12:39 start it with them so basically it's a
12:42 game to them the bit about the Swan was
12:44 marvelous because really it was a
12:47 one-off surprise so there is that
12:51 difference there are eerie experiments
12:54 with parrots where you see some of the
12:58 same combinations of marvel and
13:00 limitation so for example Irene
13:04 Pepperberg is a professor of psychology
13:07 at Brandeis and she has an African Grey
13:10 parrot named Alex and since the late 70s
13:13 she's been training Alex to talk parrots
13:16 are pretty remarkable you can get that
13:18 sense of human soul in them too they
13:20 don't have the opposable thumb but they
13:22 definitely seem to have some sort of
13:23 higher consciousness in the
13:26 impressionistic sense I spent a weekend
13:28 with one of those birds once and it's
13:29 it's odd they have a gamut of emotions
13:32 they prefer one person to another for
13:34 no good reason they're just like us and
13:38 they also talk in their way and so Irene
13:41 Pepperberg has gotten amazing results
13:45 out of little Alex you can ask him what
13:48 object is green and three cornered and
13:50 there happens to be one in his play box
13:53 and he will tell you whatever Irene
13:54 Pepperberg happens to have named that
13:58 object Alex can count to six and there
14:00 are indications that he kind of knows
14:04 what that means he can ask for food
14:06 saying things like why not and he
14:09 actually wants a nut and he and he gets
14:11 it and he actually can spell a bit
14:14 because Irene Pepperberg has taught him
14:17 how to break things down into sounds and
14:19 he gets impatient and so at one point
14:23 she was showing him to researchers and
14:25 asked and she was asking him questions
14:28 about naming sounds but he wanted a nut
14:30 and so finally apparently he slit his
14:35 eyes and said why not and a tete new
14:37 that's that's pretty good you know
14:38 that's that that's really a talking bird
14:42 but the fact is alex is not like the
14:44 talking parrot in the Flintstones that
14:46 I'm imitating right now they're their
14:49 limits it's clear that really he thinks
14:52 that language is a game so sometimes you
14:54 will say something like what color is
14:56 this alex and the marvel is that he can
14:58 do this but a lot of the time he'll just
15:00 start rattling off the colors because he
15:02 doesn't really feel like it it seems
15:04 that he's only vaguely aware that
15:06 there's some sort of correspondence
15:08 between naming things like this in the
15:10 world that we live in and doing
15:12 something with it the brain kind of
15:15 stops there and also as far as answering
15:18 questions yes he can answer them but
15:20 only four out of five times right what
15:21 about the other five now if that were
15:23 human being we would assume there's
15:25 something seriously wrong and he's a
15:27 very well behaved bird too it's just
15:29 that it seems that what we've taught
15:33 alex to do is kind of a party trick it's
15:35 it's a game it's not a mode of
15:36 expression so Irene Pepperberg has done
15:39 wonderful work with Alex but it's very
15:42 hard to say that alex is really holding
15:45 conversations that alex is experiencing language
15:46 language
15:48 like us and when and what it really all
15:51 comes down to is that there are no Apes
15:53 that sign in the wild in any way
15:55 presumably they wouldn't use our signs
15:57 but they don't have any of their own if
15:59 this was something that was natural then
16:01 presumably they do it parrots are not
16:04 running around talking to each other in
16:06 the wild they don't communicate with
16:07 each other on any level higher than any
16:09 other bird screaming and yelling and
16:11 beaking and all the things that they do
16:14 so we can get them to do this but
16:16 clearly we're kind of pushing their
16:19 limits and really a lot of them clearly
16:21 would rather not that's not their nature
16:26 and it clearly is ours so there's
16:28 something very different and to pull the
16:30 camera back thinking about what the bees
16:33 do thinking about if we can get beyond
16:35 the understandable sentiment what our
16:38 dogs and cats cannot do what even these
16:41 almost human beings with in some cases
16:46 DNA 98.5 percent of ours cannot do what
16:48 Alex the parrot cannot do and we see
16:50 that what we're doing is light years
16:52 beyond what even the best of them can do
16:54 that is what we mean by language and
16:56 that's what every human being for the
16:59 most part does and does very well
17:01 despite the fact that language is very
17:06 complicated so it's often been wondered
17:09 when did human language arise of this
17:11 kind there's grunting and then there's
17:13 many people would say there was a kind
17:15 of half language but when did this thing
17:19 that I'm doing now start and it's often
17:23 been thought that um Homo sapiens is
17:26 defined partly by this ability to use
17:29 complex language that this is actually
17:32 more central to what being human is then
17:34 we might think it was it's been thought
17:37 that probably crow Mannion men spoke and
17:40 many would say that Neanderthals could
17:43 just grunt and for a while there was a
17:46 an interesting theory that got a certain
17:49 amount of attention and justifiably by
17:51 phillip lieberman who is in the
17:53 cognitive and linguistic science
17:56 department at brown and lieberman had
18:00 the idea that human larynx
18:04 sit lower in our throat than in animals
18:07 and this allows our oral cavity like
18:10 from the side to be longer and that
18:13 that's what allows us to speak in a
18:15 sophisticated way in terms of sound
18:17 production and making a wide range of
18:20 vowels and consonants and what made him
18:23 say that was because apes have higher
18:25 alliances just like dogs do just like
18:28 tiny children do and they can't talk yet
18:31 and Neanderthal larynxes can be shown to
18:33 have been higher and so it seems that
18:36 the larynx came down and allowed us to
18:37 be able to make this kind of
18:40 sophisticated sound and even at the
18:42 expense of danger if you think about it
18:45 if you have a dog never does a dog start
18:47 choking on its food and on dogs are
18:49 messy impulsive little creatures
18:51 knocking vases over and stuff but one
18:53 thing they don't do no matter how happy
18:55 they are so they wolf that food up
18:56 there's no such thing as having to bang
18:58 your dog on the back and give it the
18:59 Heimlich maneuver they don't do that
19:02 because the larynx is up so the food
19:04 slides past the lyrics with us the
19:05 reason that's a dangerous because our
19:07 allowances lower we swallow the food it
19:09 might go down the right pipe wrong pipe
19:13 and we could die and apparently it's it
19:15 could be said that the reason that
19:17 happened was because it allows us to
19:19 speak which would assist us and thriving
19:22 as a species but the fact is that the
19:25 lieberman hypothesis it's one of those
19:26 things that's so pleasant you want that
19:29 to be true I'm not sure it is based on
19:31 evidence that has come up since and one
19:34 of the most difficult things is that the
19:37 larynx only lowers starting in puberty
19:40 and no infants can't talk but certainly
19:43 eight-year-old boys can so that suggests
19:45 that the larynx couldn't be the whole
19:47 story and then there's some other things
19:49 it's not absolutely sure that the
19:50 Neanderthals larynx is worth at low
19:52 that's the kind of thing that you really
19:54 only get certain suggestions of in a
19:57 skeleton as opposed to a corpse and
19:59 there are other things that suggest that
20:02 maybe that idea might not be as
20:05 promising as was once thought but you
20:06 find it often in the literature and it
20:09 is interesting but nowadays there are
20:13 other ideas as to when language might have
20:13 have
20:17 started and where a lot of it begins is
20:19 with the fact that it's pretty generally
20:21 agreed now that Homo sapiens probably
20:24 began about a hundred and fifty thousand
20:25 years ago which is not that long if you
20:29 think about not millions just 150,000
20:31 and many have said that there's a kind
20:34 of a big bang just 50,000 years ago if
20:36 you follow up on the subject you'll find
20:38 this again and again but 50,000 years
20:41 ago suddenly there is the kind of art
20:44 that suggest some sort of conceptual
20:47 sophistication and all sorts of
20:48 developments that you find that suggests
20:51 that there was some sort of leap from
20:54 quote-unquote caveman to what we are
20:58 today and so it's often been thought
21:00 that during that big bang that must have
21:03 been when human being started speaking
21:04 and that's been a rather prevalent
21:06 theory particularly over about the past
21:10 15 years and it's it's seductive um when
21:12 homo as opposed to Homo sapiens but the
21:16 genus Homo emerges about 2 million years
21:20 ago after that 500,000 years ago human
21:24 brains were already as big as ours and
21:26 yet there was none of this big bang and
21:28 then a hundred thousand years ago in the
21:30 end of those brains were actually bigger
21:32 with it acknowledged that the
21:34 correlation between brain size and brain
21:36 power is approximate but there are
21:39 things to be seen and yet there was no
21:41 development this Big Bang only happened
21:44 50,000 years ago there's a wonderful
21:47 quote about this by Derek bickerton who
21:49 has done a lot of very interesting work
21:52 on language evolution and he notices
21:54 that there are remains of humans found
21:58 in caves in zoo kudi on china and it
22:00 starts at five hundred thousand years
22:03 ago and goes to 200,000 years ago and
22:04 there's no development and so the way he
22:07 describes it is they SAT 4.3 million
22:10 years in the drafty smoky caves of zoo
22:12 coochie on cooking bats over smoldering
22:13 embers and waiting for the caves to fill
22:15 up with their own garbage and that is
22:18 what they did and there was certainly a
22:20 kind of nobility about that but still
22:23 that's not the Big Bang they give no
22:26 evidence of being as sharp
22:30 and self-destructive as we are and so
22:32 many people have thought well there must
22:36 be this mutation that happened on 50,000
22:38 years ago now you're going to keep
22:40 reading that I'm sure because 50,000
22:42 sits well in the memory and at this
22:44 point they're people who have their
22:47 careers hinging on this 50,000 i think
22:49 that the evidence for that is falling
22:51 apart it's not that the idea is wrong
22:53 but it's just that it's a little less
22:55 dramatic a lot of evidence suggests that
22:59 humans were sophisticated in the sense
23:01 that we were long before 50,000 years
23:03 ago and to give a sense it is not just
23:06 idle dates remember 150,000 years ago
23:08 that's when the species arose so that's
23:10 our benchmark and then here we are so
23:11 it's been said that the Big Bang is
23:13 about here but really there's evidence
23:15 that it goes much further back as we
23:18 discover more and more evidence of early
23:21 man they're all sorts of evidence that
23:22 this sophistication that we're talking
23:25 about probably happened very gradually
23:27 starting two million years ago before
23:30 there was a homo sapiens and gradually
23:31 came up to this now there are a lot of
23:34 people that like gradualism the idea of
23:36 it being step by step by step by step by
23:38 step I think that from what I've seen
23:40 the evidence is that there was a certain
23:42 acceleration at a certain point Homo
23:45 sapiens is special but it was possibly a
23:48 good 80,000 maybe 90,000 maybe a hundred
23:50 thousand years ago the findings
23:52 particularly in southern Africa is
23:53 showing that there were sophisticated
23:56 pieces of art for example long before
24:00 50,000 years ago the bit about 50,000
24:02 years ago has always surprised me
24:05 actually because if you just do a little
24:07 bit of rooting around in the field of
24:11 human evolution you find that it's
24:14 generally supposed that humans reached
24:18 Australia and New Guinea 70,000 years
24:20 ago at this point now I would say at
24:23 least and so there was always this idea
24:25 that there was this big bang that went
24:28 on in Europe and perhaps the northern
24:30 reaches of Africa and the Middle East
24:33 and that then there was all of this
24:35 sophistication but then on the other
24:37 hand all the people involved any
24:38 reputable social scientist would say
24:39 that all he
24:43 now are the exact same species same
24:45 genetic specifications except for small
24:47 flutter at the edges and that is what
24:50 people genuinely believe but if the Big
24:53 Bang happened way over in Europe and its
24:55 environs then what was going on with all
24:56 those people down in New Guinea and
24:58 Australia and all the people in southern
25:00 Asia and other places that humans are
25:02 documented to have gotten by then and
25:04 the answer until then for many people is
25:07 just diffusion and diffusion is often a
25:10 kind of a weasel word in many fields and
25:11 social science including in this one
25:13 linguistics how would it have diffused
25:16 and diffusion also seems too often
25:19 indicate dilution how would this perfect
25:21 equal degree of sophistication have
25:24 gotten all over the world it never
25:26 seemed to quite make sense if the Big
25:29 Bang was further back then were on
25:31 better ground because then we can have
25:33 the Big Bang happening in Africa where
25:35 it's now certain that our species arose
25:38 then once the species started radiating
25:40 out of Africa everybody had that same
25:42 kit of sophistication to deal with and
25:45 so it works better um there is a
25:47 wonderful new book which is called the
25:50 real Eve modern man's journey out of
25:53 Africa which is one of the books on this
25:56 topic which is more readable than many
25:57 with many of the books on this you start
26:00 to get bogged down and you know jeans
26:03 with names and plateaus of Iran this one
26:04 actually keeps you going for the most
26:06 part and it's cutting-edge I highly
26:07 recommend it the title the real Eve is
26:09 unfortunate because that and the cover
26:10 make it look like it's about something
26:12 very different but it's a nice one and
26:16 in any case it seems that human language
26:19 most likely emerged in Africa and
26:22 probably with the emergence of Homo
26:26 sapiens possibly earlier species of Homo
26:29 and there is support for this in that
26:33 there is a gene called the Fox p2 gene
26:36 and it seems to trace back a hundred
26:37 thousand years which is pretty nice and
26:41 it's long before that 50,000 year mark
26:44 that the Big Bang people specify as
26:47 being the birth of language now as it
26:50 happens there is a certain amount of
26:52 evidence that we are genetically specified
26:53 specified
26:57 to speak in this way and it's a very
26:59 controversial theory it's even somewhat
27:02 repulsive too many and as such I have to
27:04 introduce it to you and so that will be
