The Rabbi

Evolutionists struggle to explain human language acquisition. Two streams of argument flow: (1) as with the entire evolutionary process the step from non language to language was gradual; (2) it was just the opposite--animals function differently than humans, they don't think, they react. Bickerton is in the latter group and well sets out his theory. Some version of homo starting talking, simply, most likely related to getting food to eat. That led over time to larger brain capacity, which then gave rise to increased thinking.
I read to discern if any of this would make me better understand Hebrew, it didn't.
But I must admit the relation between the bible and science intrigues me. There are no easy answers to the difficult questions.

If you can believe it, this is an enjoyable read. I will briefly sum: English was, and is a dynamic language; ie, grammar not only vocabulary changes on the fly. The clash of languages produces new "bastard" (my favorite kjv word) forms and syntax. English teachers beware; your grammatical rules are out of date. But then the rules never were such, only passing forms of how we do now what they did differently before,and certainly only partially related to how our children will do the same.

McWhorter describes an interesting step in the formation of proto-Germanic, the precursor of old English; that is, a possible Semitic influence via the Phoenicians. Ah, the Brits really have descended from Israel. He likewise refuented the proposal that culture influences language or the other way around. For example, western civilization advanced physics because our languages have distinct, diverse tense indicators. Something to think about, but it's really a goofy idea.

So English traditionalist beware: the e is coming back in the word "judgement," and the distinction between subject and object pronouns is almost history. To you and I, this should not matter.