Re: voting results

Dear Gerry,

Let me start from the very end of your message

>
> Gerry here: I voted for all families being related simply because I see
> all families as part of that Great Human Race. And because of my
> preconceived notions, I will do everything possible to make EVERYONE fit
> within this racial format (whether they like it or not!)
>

Alexander:
I see we meant quite different thing when said "closest relatives". I spoke
about genetical connections of the next level after the family level, i.e. about
processed which took place during the last 12 - 7 millenia. Any conclusions I
would make are not able neither support nor disprove your position if you speak
about "families as part of that Great Human Race". If I understand you right,
you are actually interested in the problem of mono- or polygenesis of human
languages (the processes of about 100 millenia ago or earlier). By the way this
topic has been discussed at the Cybalist group a month ago.

>> Alexander writes:I'm convinced that such global events as spreading of
>> large linguistic families can't be caused by combination of accidental
>> factors.
>Gerry here: Alexander, I totally agree with you. But I also see
> MANY accidental factors adding to the spread of large linguistic
> families. By the way, are we talking about a large linguistic family
> such as Nostratic breaking down, or are we talking about smaller
> families linking to a large one? Or, for the sake of arguing, are we
> talking about both events happening simultaneously?

I think both processes -divergetion and convergention- take place in reality,
however if we talk about GENETIC relations we should consider only splitting
groups of a higher systematical rank (say, superfamilies) in smaller ones of a
lower
rank (families). Interaction between different languages (substrat/superstrat,
borrowings, Sprachbuende) can be intensive but are can not influence the
position of languages on the systematic tree.

> > Alexander: ... I believe that the most
> > important step (up to now) in the history of H. sapiens sapiens was
> > the
> > "Neolithic revolution" (fire was obtained by earlier Hominids).
> >
> Gerry here: And the ecological has always been an important
> consideration from the beginnings of when creatures occupied their
> environments. And V. Gordon Childe in his listing of events for the
> Neolithic Revolution definitely does NOT list fire.

Of course. Fire has been used much earlier than the Neolithic Revolution epoque.
I mentioned this only as an event which importance could be compared to the
Neolithic Revolution importance.

> Gerry writes: Alexander, you forgot the African continent. And as I
> mentioned in my previous post, so did I.

I did not forget Africa. Please pay attentiot to the line:
8 - Sahara - millet - cattle - Sindsch SF (Niger-Kordofan + Nilo-Saharan)

The Sindsch superfamily unites all the African languages but Afroasiatic family,
languages of Hottentots and languages of Bushmen.

> > Alexander: Formally following the scheme I should vote for all the
> > families listed as you
> > did, because all of them no doubt belong to wheat/barley/sheep/goats
> > zone.
>
> Gerry here: Hey Alexander, just because families belong to the same
> wheat/barley/sheep/goat zone doesn't mean VERY much. Just because they
> ate the same food, then they speak the same language? Now that's
> SILLY!

Oh Gerry, you made me laugh a lot! There are many crazy thoughts and foolish
ideas in my head but this - eaten meal determining the language of the eater -
is too much even for me.
I mean another thing. According to my views every independent center of
domestication has produced a linguistic superfamily while people from this
center had a huge advantage in comparison with their Mesolithic neighbours and
due to this their descendants were able to occupy giant territories. Of course,
the number of domesticated species increased monotonously, including species
from other centers of domestication. Still archeology allows to obtain reliable
data on the initial sets of crops and livestocks for different ancient cultures.
If my suppositions are right the same initial set in cultures means that their
languages belong to the same superfamily.

> > Alexander: I must say, a lot is still unclear here...
>
> Gerry here: Perhaps the reason all of the above is unclear is because
> you have established the framework into which you wish the evidence to
> fit. And just because it's evidence, it won't fit! If you agree to
> this instance, then perhaps the solution is to modify the framework.
> But I'm only suggesting.

"Unclear" is not "incorrect", rather "need further investigations".
Nevertheless your words are right. Therefore I want to receive ANY new reliable
fact on the problem of interest. These facts can either support my views, or
correct them or make me deny them. By the way the last variant is the most
fruitful because as a result of it I'll obtain a new conception of a higher
reliability. We are not advocates who MUST defend an ordered position with any
means.

Best regards,

Alexander