sansahansan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I followed his logic on why no language is older
> than another language.
>
> But I do not understand how it can not be flawed
> somehow, or else my understanding of the statement
> is flawed. ...snip...
> Can any one clarify? Either the statement is
> flawed or my perception of it is.

I hung up on exactly the same point. Surely English is not as old as, say, Ancient Egyptian. Its precursors may have been around, but English as a language certainly wasn't. Even Old English is virtually unintelligible to speakers of Modern English. I thought he was being a bit disingenuous, or else had a pretty elastic definition of "language".