Glen pleaded
> PS: John, stop with the genetics! It doesn't work with AustroAsiatic
> linguistics and it doesn't work with Nostratic/Dene-Caucasian
> linguistics... or any linguistics for that matter. Please for the
> love of God (or the entity of your choice), get out some
> dictionaries or linguistics books and start supporting your
> theories with linguistic-related evidence. ARghHh...
I can only quote from the first major scientific text to have emerged
on this subject from the Human Genome Project "The History and
Geography of Human Genes" by L.Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and
Alberto Piazza (pp.98-100)
"we have proceeded to map.. language families and superfamilies on the
genetic tree of figure 2.3.2. Sixteen linguistic families could be
mapped onto the genetic tree. We have no speakers of Caucasian
languages among the 42 populations. Of the 43, Mbuti pigmies are
believed to have lost their original language, having borrowed those of
neighbours. There was a clear correspondence between the 16 linguistic
families and the 41 residula populations in that each family was
associated with either a single genetic population, or with a few
closely related ones, that is, to a genetic cluster that is low in the
evolutionary hierarchy, and hence presumably appeared late. In fig
2.6.2 the genetic tree ... show(s) parralels and discrepancies more
clearly.
The one to one correspondence between genetic clusters and linguistic
families is remarkably high, but it is not perfect. Two processes
cause exceptions: language replacement and gene replacement. In some
cases they can be readily indentified on the basis of historical
information. Genetic data on modern populations also helps to
destinguish between the two processes, or at least to assess the
contribution of the second of the two. Gene replacement is more likely
to be partial and follow demographic history. Two neighbouring people
may mix with asymetric gene flow, with only one of them contributing a
small number of individuals to the other in every generation. As we
have seen in section 1.17 the continuation of this process over a
sufficiently long time may determine an almost complete gene
substitution. In general, the gene pool tends to reflect faithfully
the numerical contribution from the two parental groups. Thus
genetically intermediate populations can be generated, with all
possible degrees of admixture. This process need not be accompanied by
language change. Languages tend to behave more like a unit, to be
replaced as a whole, if at all. One can, and usually does, notice
contribution to the lexicon from neighbours, but the structure of a
language is more stable and certain groups of words are more highly
conserved. In certain cases, therefore, one can observe massive
genetic contributions from an external source with little if any
language change, and in others, language substitutions with little
genetic change.
Some cases of language replacement are historically documented: Latin
for instance spread to western Europe and other countries undfer Roman
rule, foreign invaders imposed their languages in Hungary and Turkey
during the middle ages. In certain cases language replacement was a
massive phenomena, as shown by the spread of European languages to the
Americas or to Australia in Modern Times or of Arabic to North Africa
in the Middle Ages. The original languages then only appear as relics
in isolated places. This is believed to be the case for Basque, the
only surviving pre-Indo-European surviving in Europe after the spread
of the Indo-European languages (see Chapter 3). Similarly the
Dravidian family (see Chapter 4) is mostly confined to southern India
and a few more northern places, but was probably more widespread in the
past; in this case, the diffusion of Indo_European languages was also
the cause of the disappearance of the languages of earlier settlers.
The process of language replacement are described in some detail
later....."
Glen, I can sympathise with your frustration, but believe it to be
short-sighted.
You ask
> Please for the
> love of God (or the entity of your choice), get out some
> dictionaries or linguistics books and start supporting your
> theories with linguistic-related evidence. ARghHh..
All I ask is that you similarly aquaint yourself with a rudimentary
understanding of modern genetic theory, instead of rashly and
misleadingly accusing me constantly of racism. I am probably better
equipped to understand modern theories of human so-called races than
you are so please disist with these attacks on my credibility on these
matters.
Hoping that you can oblige
John