Re: voting results

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?

> Alexander: If people speaking languages of a family (or of a
> superfamily) systematically pressed their neighbours they had to have
> a fundamental advantage. 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).
> Thereafter from
> the ecological point of view a serious difference between people and
> other
> animals appeared (still not ultimate then). This event happend
> independently in
> 7 or 8 places of the world from about 12 to 7 millenia ago.
>

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.

> Alexander: I think that every such a place with its unique set of
> initially domesticated plant and animal species (except dogs - it's a
> special story) strictly corresponds to one superfamily:

Gerry here: Alexander, I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. Now I
know that there are some unique places where domesticated plants and
animals exist; but I also know that a superfamily didn't hang out with
one particular resource. Why would they?Alexander writes:
IME(mill.ago)-PLACE-PLANTS-ANIMALS-SUPERFAMILY(Families included) 12 -
SE Asia - vegetables,rice - ? - Austric SF
(Austroasian+Austronesian+Tai) 10 - Near East - emmer/einkorn,barley -
goats/sheep - Nostratic SF + ? North Caucasian+Sumerian+Pre-IE European
lang.) 8 - China - chinese millet - pigs - Sino-Tibetian family 8 -
Sahara - millet - cattle - Sindsch SF (Niger-Kordofan + Nilo-Saharan)
8 - New Guinea - veget. - NG pigs - TransNG family (I have not learned
it properly yet) 10 - Peru - veget., potato - llama - "Andean" SF
echumaran+ Araucan+Chimu) 9 - Mexico - veget., maize - no anim. -
"Mesoamerican" SF Oto-Manguean+Uto-Aztecan+Hocaltecan+Siou+Algonkian) 7
- S.America - cassava - Guinea pig ? - "Amazonian" SF
(Mayan+Arawak+Chibcha+Caribean+Tupi+Ge+...)

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

> Alexander: (3 American superfamilies are my own "invention" not
> proved and even not
> discussed yet) (Racial correlations also can be found here) What
> remains? Some unattested languages (like Basque or Burushaski) and
> languages of folks which had not passed the "Neolithic revolution"
> (mainly very small groups except Na-Dene Indians and Australian
> aborigenes).
>

Gerry here: OK. Now I can begin to state my problem. How can you
remove languages such as Basque or Etruscan from PIE? Cannot you find
at least 4 similarly derived phonemes that are concurrent with each
language? I'm sure you can. And I'm also sure that if you can do this,
then according to "history" there is a convergence.

> 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!

> Alexander writes: However Near East Neolithic center seems to be a
> double (or mayby even a triple ?) one. Two different species of wheat
> appeared domesticated almost
> simultaneously in adjacent regions (Palestine - emmer and North
> Mesopotamia -
> einkorn). Plus barley. Sheep and goats also are animals practically of
> the same
> kind (when we are speaking only about meat). Soon all the communities
> of the
> Near East had possessed all the species mentioned, but there was an
> early phase
> when the couples were divided and the correlation of
> emmer+barley+goats contrary
> to einkorn and sheep existed.
>

Gerry here: Again, are you saying that because they possessed the same
food sources they spoke the same languages? This is a HUGE puzzle to
me! Why are you making this statement?

> Alexander: I must say, a lot is still unclear here. At the moment it
> seems to me the most
> probable that the line with initial emmer+barley+goats can be attested
> as
> Nostratic (IE+Kartvelian+Afroasiatic+Uralic+Altaic+Dravidian). Other
> Neolithic
> groups (einkorn+sheep initial line) either genetically independent
> from them or
> is related at an earlier stage (could call it a "hyperfamily").
>

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.

> Alexander writes: Basque language has nether linguistic nor
> archaeological reasons to be
> classified as a Nostratic one. So I did not vote for it.
>

Gerry here: Why? Is Basque not a legitimate language? Do NOT folks
relate Basque as their heritage? Aw Gee Alexander. What you are saying
doesn't make that much sense!

> Alexander writes: Etruscan. This language is not enough investigated
> yet. I heard some scholar's meanings that this language could be the
> most close relative to IE.

Gerry here: Just because a language hasn't been investigated, doesn't
mean it must fall outside the framework. Which scholars are you
referring to?

> Alexander writes: Up to now I belived that Kartvelian family was the
> last which parted with PIE. I know that in early Bronze Age there was
> a mighty movement from Eastern Anatolia to Aegean region (and maybe
> further to Balkans). To my mind they formed early Cycladic, Helladic
> and Cretan cultures of the Bronze Age. I thought they might speak
> Northwest caucasian languages.

Gerry here: And is this Northwestcaucasian language any different from
a PIE or Nostratic language?

> Alexander: However they (or a part of them) could be
> Kartvelian-speaking. If it were so I'd vote for Etruscan with my both
> hands.

Gerry here: Great! So now you see Etruscan as a PIE language?

> Alexander: You see, there is a great lot of speculations in my
> considerations. New facts
> are needed to clear up the picture. I'm also interested what did you
> mean when voting for all the families from the list offered.
>

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!)

> Best regards,
>
> Alexander

Cheers to you, Gerry