From: Gerry Reinhart-Waller
Message: 2184
Date: 2000-04-24
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerry Reinhart-Waller <waluk@...>
> To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
>
> Please excuse me for intervening:
> (I am new to this list and a simple amateur of history, end not a native
> english speaker)
> but I cannot understand the title of the table labelled:
> " % of divergence between any two languages "
> Might not it be labelled
> " % of CONVERGENCE (still existing) between any two languages " ?
> In this casethe figures found in the tabel would be correct showing 100%
> convercence at the beginning (= no differientiation) and 0 % convergence at
> the bottom of the list (= total differentiation)
> Thanks in advance. (Marcus Prometheus, Italian living in Romania).
>
> > > Gerry, Glottochronology gives the following table
> > >
> > > since divergence occurred
> > >
> > > 100 0
> > > 90 3.5
> > > 80 7.4
> > > 70 11.8
> > > 60 16.9
> > > 50 22.9
> > > 40 30.3
> > > 30 39.9
> > > 20 56.6
> > > 10 102.6
> > > 1 225.0
> > >
> > > Thus by knowing the difference in similarity you can read out a
> > > minimum time of divergence. Since Amerindians have been living in
> > > North America between 120-150 centuries, we are looking at Burushaski
> > > having between 1-10% common vocabulary. This would rate as a
> > > difference in language, Gerry, not a difference in dialect.
> > >
> > > Nostratic is dealing with such long horizons. It is what makes the
> > > field so contentious.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > >
> > > Regards
> >
> >
> > Thanks John for the Glottochronology chart. Now if Amerindians have
> > been living in North America longer than 150 centuries ago (which I
> > reasonably suspect they might) then we are looking at a similarity of
> > 0-1% in vocabulary. That's almost a meaningless number, yet it's a
> > number nevertheless. So, rather than a phonetic examination of
> > commonality, we need to see alternate methods. For starters, I'd go
> > with DNA evidence.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Gerry
> >