> I am skeptical about Proto-World, but it is not a crackpot >theory.
The idea that there existed a proto-World language, the ancestor to all
languages that now exist, at some point in the remote past is not a crackpot
idea, no. However, Pat's reconstructions are very much psycho because they
are purely at whim due to reasons that I have previously explained. While I
definitely encourage people to freely explore issues concerning long-range
linguistics, it would be well-advised for those who are interested in
becoming properly informed about comparative linguistics to pay no serious
heed to Ryan's personal reconstructions. It is not how linguistic
reconstruction is actually done.
>Matt Ruhlen and Joshua Greenberg believe in it.
Ah, there's your problem. Ruhlen and Greenberg are not very well accepted
personnages in the linguistic world, although I admit that their general,
big-picture ideas aren't totally dismissable and even attractive. Piotr has
already mentioned Greenberg's erroneous use of the mass comparison
technique. As to whether Ruhlen and Greenberg can be said to be
"professional linguists"... I suppose this is true in the sense that they
have made careers out of it in much the same way as the 6-o'clock news often
attracts ratings through sensationalism, to the detriment of
reality-ensconced information.
>Joshua Greenberg thinks that there was a small group of humans who >came
>out of northeast Africa around 50,000 BC, populated the whole >world and
>wiped out all traces of all other hominids such as >Neanderthal.
This hypothesis is often mentioned and generally accepted to some degree, if
I'm not mistaken. However, the exact dates of the population bottleneck and
subsequent spread is still disputed. I personally find 50,000 years not
quite enough time to explain all world language families that I'm so far
aware of.
>Pat Ryan's analysis of ancient languages such as Etruscan, Egyptian >and
>Urartian and their possible relations is quite good.
Oh my. Could you refresh me on what his views are on these languages? I have
gone to his site to refresh my memory but there is nothing there but
glossary lists (which in themselves appear surprisingly accurate for the
most part) and a whole bunch of proto-world explanations which, as stated ad
supra, are with certainty cracked.
While Egyptian was something of an exotic tongue in the 1920s, there is
absolutely little mystery of Egyptian anymore. Egyptian and its descendant,
Coptic, are classified quite securely as "AfroAsiatic" languages (also:
HamitoSemitic, SemitoHamitic). One who classifies it otherwise, bluntly
exposes one's inadequate level of understanding about linguistics.
Etruscan is also not much of a mystery. It is now understood that it relates
to two other languages, Rhaetic (in Northern Italy) and Lemnian (on the isle
of Lemnos), which form a unique language family. These three "Tyrrhenian"
languages are generally agreed to be seperate from, but related to,
Indo-European. Again, any other claims of classification are now deemed
unlikely. Some hold steadfast to calling Tyrrhenian an isolate grouping
while others cling to calling Etruscan an IE language... but Etruscan is
definitely NOT under the IE umbrella.
Finally, Urartian is well known to be related to Hurrian. Urartian is not
descended from Hurrian even though it was spoken much later than Hurrian.
The two languages form the HurroUrartian family. Knowing that, many then
further suspect HurroUrartian to be related to NorthEast Caucasian because
of some similarities in vocabulary and grammar.
One would have to take many hallucinogenic substances to ever be able to
predict what "proof" Mr Patrick Ryan could possibly whip up in his
linguistic cuisinart to somehow shake us from these widely accepted
linguistic facts in favor of his creative dillusions.
>Prehistory seems to show an entirely different picture, though. If
>there was a Proto-World language, it must have been from a group of
>peop[l]e who spread out and replaced all other languages.
No, not if the human population was greatly reduced to a few thousand in the
remote past (say, 75.000 BCE, for example), as is currently suspected. In
this scenario, there wouldn't be ANY languages to replace. It would be a
clean slate, a fresh start. With such a mass reduction in population, whole
language families would have went extinct overnight, leaving maybe one or
two "proto-worlds" left to populate the globe anew.
>Respectable academics have talked about a "language mutation" around
> >50,000 years ago. I think they are wrong about that.
Are you speaking of the genetic language mutation? Yes, it's absolutely
crazy. As I say, even my dog Spot understands the concept of language
because if he didn't, he would not come to me when I say "come". Language
performed by elephants is now gaining interest by scientists and being
zealously looked into. It might be argued that although our primate
relatives lack firm "grammar" when communicating through sign or symbolic
representations, they still exhibit some idiosyncratic grammatical
preferences which challenges the belief that only humans are capable of
"grammar". It is not meant to be poetic when I say that language is as old
as life itself. The development of our "uniquely human" speaking
capabilities could only have been very gradual. No need for desperate
grasping towards ad hoc hypotheses to answer these simple questions about
the origin of human language.
> I follow Ruhlen back in time at least as far as Dene-Caucasian.
>The most recent "explosion" was Indo-European. Indo-European was >just one
>branch of Nostratic, which was an earlier explosion. >Nostratic may have
>been a branch of Dene-Caucasian. This explosion >sent languages all the
>way to Arizona; Navaho is a Dene-Caucasian >language.
I totally agree. I accept Nostratic as part of the Dene-Caucasian language
family. I personally position it between NigerKordofanian and BuruYen
(Burushaski & Yeneseian) as part of the "S-Group" branch of DeneCaucasian.
SinoDene would be the easternmost S-Group language, giving birth to NWC,
SinoTibetan and NaDene. The other DC branch, the "T-Group", is VascoCaucasic
- Basque, NEC and HurroUrartian. To be honest, I'm not read up on how others
classify these DC languages but then again, it's all entirely theoretical
and tentative anyway.
>Cavalli-Sforza believes that Amerind is associated with Nostratic. I
> >think he is wrong, but he is more respected than some of us are.
Regardless, I don't respect that opinion. I would prefer relating Amerind
with the "Asiatic" languages (Australian, Austronesian, MonKhmer, Ainu,
TaiKadai).
>I have looked at languages like Zulu and Hawaiian. There seem to be
> >similiarities that go beyond chance.
Similarities? Zulu is a NigerKordofanian language most closely related to
Swahili. Hawaiian is Austronesian. The two families are quite seperate, both
geographically and in terms of their probable relationship.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com