One of the blogs I ususally follow is Babel's Dawn, published by Edmund Blair Bolles. Babel's Dawn focuses on a linguistic topic that has received considerable attention in the last couple of decades, and that I find quite interesting: the origins of human speech. In his blog, Mr Bolles discusses the main trends in this field of research and makes his own proposals. He is not a 'professional' linguist or a university professor specialised in the subject. However, his posts are on the cutting edge. Quite interestingly, he attends international conferences on language origins, as a 'freelance' linguist. I like this kind of things; I am convinced that something as complex and profound as the study of language origins involves something more than linguistic academia, and ousider views are probably quite ncecessary too. He was at the 2008 Evolang Conference in Barcelona and has recently attended the Ways to Protolanguage Conference in Torun (Poland), publishing a series of interesting posts about the most remarkable proposals made in both events. In the last post about the Torun Conference he focused on the concept of proto-language, which was one of the most debated issues in that conference. I have just posted a comment in that post. In fact, what I wrote in that comment is an idea that I was planning to develop as a post in my blog. But finally, as you can see, it is written in the form of a post comment, i.e. in a more dialectical form. You can read it here.
And here's an excerpt from my comment:
I think language must have started with a few nouns and a few imperatives, and little more. The increase in vocabulary, in both the nominal and verbal sides of language, and the development of more varied ways of expressing notions such as time and space, must have put human language in a critical position: how can you possibly handle an ever increasing number of nomina and verba and of linguistic variabiblity? Can you just memorise the whole set, or is it not just easier if you do what humans have always done: use logic? I think 'grammar' is just a logical response to the increase in size of human language. There's nothing special about recursion or parameters; they are examples of a human response to a given problem. Grammar as we imagine it (or the 'true language' that some linguists talk about) is an additional tool, a necessary solution that makes language (a communicative tool in itself) apt for social use: rather than having an unlimited number of nouns, verbs and functions, humans have implemented a series of patterns using analogy and logic.