Glen (ME) wrote, based on John's genetic proclamations:
>>>Why couldn't we say based on this 90,000 year-old gene that Welsh
>>>and Papuan lgs are related? How does one choose "good" genes from >>>
>>>"bad" genes for the purposes of this research? By what arbitrary >>>
>>>criteria?
Piotr:
>>That's also a question I wanted to ask to geneticists. I suppose >> the
>>mutation that could generate such a gene is estimated very improbable, so
>>it is not likely it appeared two times [...]
John:
>Presumably, if humans were already talking when they came out of >Africa
>about 90,000 years ago,
Presumably... Yes, John, a presumption on your part. Why wouldn't humans be
talking some 90,000 years ago? Do you think that pre-humans went through a
"mute" phase and stopped their meaningless primate pre-human chatter
whereupon aliens entered the scene and genetically "engineered" modern
humans to speak a meaningful language?? Maybe these protohumans became
monks, retreated to the Himilayas in silence and then only resurfaced once
they had perfected their God-given Aryan language??
Of COURSE, humans could talk to some degree already some 90,000 years ago!
The question is at what time range can we say that a gestural-to-vocal
abstraction phase took place - this is still up in the air but it's not
impossible that the phase ended long before 90,000 years ago since humans
are much older than that and too smart to not figure out the power of their
wonderfully gifted mouths.
>For Guillaume and Glen and any others interested in these subjects, I
>would recommend they read L.B.Jorde et al "Origins and affinities of
>modern humans: a comparison of mitochondrial and nuclear genetic >data"
Sigh. No thanks, I don't read brain candy. Reading without a logical purpose
is not my style and if the basis of a research is irrational there is no
point going further into it.
>Continuing this line of speculation, [...]
I'd rather not. This is horribly speculative to the point of farce.
Ionesco would be proud.
John:
>Guillaume continued Language appeared at different times and places
> >independently, and I think modern languages have a different origin >from
>the begining of ages.
>
>I feel this is a statement of Belief rather than of Reality
I'm afraid there is logic to back this statement up. Polygenesis is a must,
otherwise we run smack into the chicken-and-the-egg paradox that I stated in
an earlier post. If you do quote from me again, do take care to not mangle
it with your fuzzy interpretation. A good way to avoid this is to _directly_
quote me when responding. Thank you.
Secondly, you should be one to talk about Belief when the following has been
posted from the murky recesses of the proto-world you live in:
>tik (finger, one)
>pal (two)
>mama (one parent, usually mother)
>papa (the other parent)
>akwa (water)
>me (what?)
>anka (I)
>bak (not)
>mena (know)
Cute and in a way, comedic.
I see where /anka/ is coming from. It's an unprofessional synthesis of
DC/Amerind languages with *ni and Asiatic languages especially AN that have
a *k form (AN, Thai, Australian, HmongMien...). No doubt, out of sheer
incompetence, the word is being patterned on AfroAsiatic, a known Nostratic
language who most likely derives its pronoun from *nu rather than a childish
**anka form (Bomhard *na/n@).
I know of only a few world languages with a negative starting in b- such as
Mandarin. Nostratic has a form *lu.
The word "to know" is derived obviously from IE *men- which I doubt is from
such a simple form as **mena. These cracks are probably seeing *muhini
"brain" found easily across DeneCaucasian languages. The term definitely has
a medial laryngeal based on the NEC and Nostratic forms as well as indirect
evidence in Basque: vowel lengthening and subsequent resistance of *u >
Basque i/e in burumuin "brain" from an earlier *(buru-)muzini with lost *-z-
(/buru/ means "head" by the way). If I could find a corresponding term in ST
for it, maybe something like **bryang, that would be cool.
The term *mi "who?" is also a prevalent animate interrogative in DC.
And *akwa is just plain sad. It should be automatically dismissed as nothing
but a transparent IE derivative.
The terms "mama" and "papa" can be found anywhere and are pointless to
reconstruct if time is not taken to properly assess their justification for
reconstruction in each individual language grouping and macrogrouping under
this Proto-World pseudofamily.
This leaves *tik and *pal, two very badly reconstructed terms based on
completely unrelated forms in various modern languages. Maybe English "pal"
perhaps? Stooooopid. Coocoo. Nutteriffic.
>As for Glen's rudeness, well it is really up to him... It only got
>under my skin once when he was accusing me of racism. Apart from >that, I
>think it just behoves the rest of us to conduct ourselves >with civility
>and compassion.
Don't worry, John, despite my violent opposition to your assumptive theory,
I love everyone, even the one's bordering on racism. Will you be my
Valentine :)
- gLeN
______________________________________________________