On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:49:27 +0100, Piotr wrote:
>There is an interesting argument about linguistic areas in Bob Dixon's
>"Rise and Fall of Languages" (1997 [2nd edition 1999], Cambridge University
>Press). Supposing, for the sake of the argument, that Australia was peopled
>just once, ca. 50,000 BP, by a small linguistically uniform group of people
>(say, a few boatloads) and that any subsequent immigrations (before the
>arrival of the Europeans) were not substantial enough to upset its linguistic
>structure -- how would Proto-Australian have developed into the known
>Australian languages?
The problem I have with Dixon's scenario is that, again for the sake
of argument, New Guinea was peopled by the exact same few boatloads of
people. And New Guinea (as well as the Northern, tropical, tip of
Australia), has developed in a radically different way. We have a
twisty maze of languages, all different: phonologically,
typologically, lexically. In fact, after 50,000 years, what we would
expect is NG, not Australia.
Ironically, I think it's precisely a lack of _equilibrium_ which has
likely created the Australian situation. As Dixon himself notes on p.
92 of the "Rise and Fall", Australian prehistory has seen several
cycles of population contraction (extremely dry periods) followed by
expansion (wetter periods) and contraction again. Language mixing may
have taken place when the remnant population was confined to
relatively few spots along the coast and major rivers. Repeat several
times and stir well, and you may get something like the Australian
linguistical situation. This did not happen in the climatically much
more stable New Guinea, or in places where there was a constant influx
of new populations and languages.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...