>>12323334btw language in animals is likely commonplace there are two things stopping us from accepting this and interpreting it correctly:
1. no context most of the time so it's basically impossible for us to tell what they're saying and discerning the structure.
2. it is dogma that humans are a cut apart and language is very important to peoples' (mainly academics') perception of that.
if you think up it reasonably, they basically need it to function, even apparently unsocial species. so why insist otherwise? there is no hard distinction between true language and preset calls, aside from the latter likely being wrong and limiting language to uselessness. there is practically no species that could get by with these inborn calls, they need some notion of morphemes and the ability to create and pass them on, so it's nonsense out of the box.
