> 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.
Gerry here: Well Alexander, I think this study of languages into
language families is a total waste of time. YAWN. And I've only been
doing it for 10 years; certainly am glad I didn't center my entire life
on it ;-)
I think that structures that confine an idea are meant to be broken.
But once they're broken then chaos sets in. Then with chaos, an
organizational system must be applied and we're off to structuralism
again. YAWN.
NOW I'LL RANDOMLY SELECT ITEMS THAT YOU WROTE AND RESPOND DIRECTLY TO
THEM.
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.
Gerry: mono- and polygenesis is the way it needs to be represented.
I'll check out what was said on Cybalist a month or so ago (if I can
find it). Do you know of a term whereby both mono and poly can be
represented? If the current world wide nationalism is any indicator,
all of us had better find a solution pronto, politically correct or
not!.
Alexander:
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.
Gerry: Yes, and this genetics stuff is really becoming scary. Read
today that Iceland has agreed to submit its population to genetic
testing and then link this to disease.
And yes, of course interactions between languages can influence their
position on the systematic tree. If language A borrows x% from language
B, at what point does language A = B, and at which point does language B
disappear totally?
Alexander:
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.
Gerry: Sorry about that. Guess I was moving too fast. There it is as
plain as can be. Niger-Kordofan + Nilo-Saharan. QUESTION: Where is
the Proto link? Is it with Asia or the Middle East?
Alexander: "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.
Gerry: YAWN. I'm afraid that for now I have nothing further to offer.
Let's see, if food causes language group formatrion . . . hmmm. Perhaps
I should apply to NSF for a grant and investigate the hypothesis
further. Would you like to share the project?
Cheers ;-),
G