I would like to point out related works.
1. It can be seen in Herodotus' Histories that the "click-speakers'
(e.g. the San or
their relatives) were still in North Africa. Herodus says that they are
troglodytes
and that they run fast and that the Libyans (Negroids?) chase them.
Herodotus
says that they do not have speech but make sounds like bats.
2. It can be seen in McEvedy's little book on Africa that the San occupied
North-East Africa and that they were pushed out/away by Bantu speakers
(Negroids).
3. Coon says that about 10,000 years ago Europoids invaded North
Africa. These people could have also helped to push the indigeneous
peoples away.
4. Coon's book says that the short-statured San of southern Africa
became this
way because of environment (like those in the Andaman Islands), and that
these
people (Capoids) were full stature in North Africa.
5. Years ago I posted on an African newsgroup that the Egyptians (the
original
ones--whatever that means) were probably neither white (Europoids) nor
black (Negroids) but that they were like Capoids (red). The Egyptians
painted
Asiatics (Europoids) white, the Negroids black, their own men as red and the
women as yellow. Since the women spent time indoors, they would have been
pale, and the men would have been red. That also explains why the name
referred to "red" (e.g. Keremet?); it is not the soil color, but the
peoples' color.
6. There was an article around the time I posted on the African newsgroup
that the peoples of Sudan and the Bushmen (San and Khoi) were the most
"middle" genetically e.g. centroidal. If the Bantu-speakers (Negroids) and
Europoids somehow managed to invade North Africa (the whites apparently
were first) then the peoples of North Africa today are a mixture of all four
races. I say four because Coon thinks the Capoids are also a separate race
which means Africa is home to two races, Capoids and Negroids.
I don't know how all this evidence fits in with the latest genetic
research that
claims that the Bushmen are the "oldest", however it could fit, e.g. Bushmen
are the oldest, and those that were left in North-East africa that mixed
with
Negroids and Europoids are really mixed and thus represent the "most
perfect average" of human races.
Please see below.
M. Washington wrote:
>RECENT ARTICLES ON CLICK LANGUAGE: An article on click languages appeared:
>Alec Knight, Peter A. Underhill, Holly M. Mortensen, Lev A. Zhivotovsky,
>Alice A. Lin, Brenna M. Henn, Dorothy Louis, Merritt Ruhlen, and Joanna L.
>Mountain, African Y Chromosome and mtDNA Divergence Provides Insight into
>the History of Click Languages, Current Biology, v. 13, pp. 464 -473, Issue
>of 18 March 2003.
>
>
>
>(Mostly) true or not?
>
>MASSEY WRITES: "It has been lately asserted by M. Maspero and Professor
>Sapeto that in the speech of some negro tribes on the Blue Nile, the clicks,
>which were deemed a peculiarity of South African speech, are detected; and
>more than this,
>
......
>
>"He represents Taht, or Tet, and Tet means speech, tongue, language, mouth.
>
>
This roots shows up in various language families and shows up in
Sumerian as "ti", Turkic as "de" (to speak),
til (tongue), tish (teeth), English teeth.tongue, etc. The original
could have been with *th, and the sound
changes were
*th -> {w,s/sh,l} + {t} + {dh}
*dh -> {y,z,r} + {d} + {ng}
There is also strong evidence that instead of a simple *th, it could
have been *nth. It is not clear
if *rth, and *lth came from *nth or if they also existed separately.
However these sounc changes
can be observed in Semitic, Indo-European, Turkic, and Sumerian, and
likely Uralic and others.
For example, the words for tongue/language and teeth show up with /l/ in
some languages e.g.
lisan (Arabic), lingua/language (Latin). The word for tooth in Semitic
is basically of the type
shinn. There is even a Semitic language (one of the Ethiopeans?) that
has tirs for teeth. The root
for 'red' (related to fire and burning) shows up as krasny(Russian),
*kIr (kiz), ker, xer etc in
many languages including English e.g. heat, hot. These examples can be
multiplied. For example
look at the words for stone that show up in IE as in megalithic,
neolithic, and iranian(?)
as lule, and Turkic as tash. I think prototurkic was *tathul, which
using the laws above also
produces, tash, Korean tol, Chuvash, chul, etc including the -lith- in IE.
The real problem now facing historical linguists is this; Suppose IE was
constructed from
Sinhalese, Polish and Icelandic. After other IE languages were
discovered wouldn't that
require redoing the *PIE protowords? Of course, the answer is yes. So
Nostratic will
probably have to be redone. And that would also likely require redoing PIE.
>
>
>
--
Mark Hubey
hubeyh@...
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey