Re: Lesbianism and IE gender distinction

Glen (ME!!!) wrote:

>>NigerKordofanian languages cover the central belt of Africa,
>>whereas AfroAsiatic languages (to answer your next question) are
>>part of the younger Nostratic group and cover the northern part of >>
>>Africa. Both groups
>>had spread into the continent from the Middle East - first
>>NigerKordofanian and then AfroAsiatic on top of it.
>
>Gerry that is news to me. What evidence do you have that Niger
>Khordofanian is not African? According to Cavalli-Sforza the Niger
>Khordofanian languages are totally African in origin.

Cavalli-Sforza does genetics, not linguistics, and you'll stop calling me
Gerry and Gerry "Glen" so that we can get down to business without
confusion. :)

The evidence is linguistical. For instance, aside from the conformity
Swahili has to the DeneCaucasian pronominal system that I lay out (Swahili
ni- *ni "I", tu- *tLu "we", etc), Swahili curiously has (this is from
memory, so the vowels might be slightly off) /u-/ for "you" and genitive
/-ako/. This is in fact, the exact same state of affairs as in another DC
language called Burushaski (/un/ "you" with a suppletive form /ku/). It's
very suspicious.

>This ties in well with the archaeology as there seems to be a West >African
>source of dispersal, with various waves. There are >currently five
>branches to this group. The West Atlantic (including >Fulani), Mande,
>North Central (including Gru and the Adamawa->Ubangian waves that spread
>Eastward along the southern Sahel prior >to the last group), the South
>Central Niger Congo (bantu included) >group.

Calls 'em as I sees 'em.

>There is no evidence that Khoisan languages are any older than Niger
>Khordofanian, or Nilo-Saharan languages. They seem to have spread >out
>long before humans left Africa, and to be a lot older than >Nostratic.

No linguistic evidence of that either. I don't know where you're going with
that. The Khoisans aren't our ancestors. They're our siblings.

>On the genetics it would seem that this pattern best corroborates the
>evidence.

Genetics means nothing to language.

>Do you know of the attempts to look at Ur-World,

Please no Ur-World. I just got over Disney World.

>The Eurasiatic Superphyllum linked Indo-European, Uraolic-Yukaghir,
> >Altaic, Eskimo-Aleut and Chukchi-Kamchatkan). Nostratic foes not
> >include the last two,

The last two what? Amerind and Na-Dene? No, not Nostratic. Eskimo-Aleut and
Chukchi-Kamchatkan are definitely Nostratic under the ProtoSteppe grouping I
devise and under the ProtoEurasiatic that Greenberg has devised and that
Bomhard agrees to make a subgrouping with.

>Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian to the mix.

I know this already so I don't know why we're getting into this but for the
benefit of others on this list...

AfroAsiatic, Kartvelian and Eurasiatic might be viewed as being the three
main and most ancient branches of Nostratic. Eurasiatic is comprised of
Sumerian, Elamite, Dravidian and Steppe, in that order of migration from the
Fertile Crescent into the Eurasian steppes. Steppe (my grouping) is
comprised of IndoEtruscan, Uralic-Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchatkan
and Altaic (I guess, pretty much what Eurasiatic originally meant).

>There is also the attempt to
>link Sino-Tibetan - Caucausian/Basque - Eurasiatic - Amerind -
>Nostratic (the SCAN hyptothesis). It excludes Austro-Asiatic, Daic,
>Austronesian, Indo Pacific and Australian languages which seem >earlier.

To rearrange it to conform to what I've found, one would have Nostratic
(with Eurasiatic subgrouping), NWC, NEC, Basque and SinoTibetan under the
same family Dene-Caucasian. And so, the only link SCAN makes in addition to
mine would be that with Amerind. However, it's far too remote for me yet,
aside from some interesting similarities between DC pronouns and the
pronominal systems across this Amerind grouping.

>It thus seems that the SCAN links all cultures that were Aurignacian >in
>origin (40,000 years BP), but does not link those that occurred >before
>(Aboriginal people were in Australia from at least 60,000 >years BP).

Strangely, these "MacroAsiatic" languages seem to have that odd abbhoration
of the first and second person such that either is a velar instead of the
*ni/*ngu thing in DC and "Amerind" so, a possible relationship of
Dene-Caucasian and Amerind first, followed by a greater grouping between a
Dene-Amerind and a MacroAsiatic seems possible. Can't ascertain anything
though so far.

And there's always that damn Khoisan that I can't find anything on, taunting
me...

- gLeN



______________________________________________________