John:
>Glen wrote language and Genes do not *ALWAYS* correlate. Glen, it
>is good to see you are prepared to come some of the way.
Thankfully you now comprehend the views I've expressed from the very
beginning.
>I have never argued that they *always* did, only that they often do, and
>sufficiently often to be statistically discernable within populations.
Alright, so you don't believe that they *always* correlate. Good.
Now, let's work on this assumption of yours that they *often* do. What facts
give you the confidence to assert even this milder statement? Please prove
that genes and languages *often* correlate and I'll leave you alone.
>Of course there is no English or Chinese "gene". I have never
>remotely argued that there was. But Englishwomen and Chinese women
>both have genes, and if they emigrate they tend to carry both their
>language and there genes with them.
Of course, a plethora of logical complications arise here. First, the
Chinese woman is not an alien from Mars. She is a human being like the
English woman. The two women will tend to share many genes, regardless of
their geographical distance. Even if one particular English woman doesn't
share a particular gene with another Chinese woman, there are other
English women who may share such a gene with such a Chinese woman.
Sure, if the Chinese woman were to migrate to England, she certainly could
carry her language as well as her genes, assuming that a) she was able
to contribute to the survival of her native tongue in the new country and
that b) she had children to spread her own genes. However, a) and b) are
two seperate events that don't necessarily have to occur.
Again, what is the basis to asserting that they *often* correlate as opposed
to *sometimes*?
>Agreed, but even in case a) there is likely to be "a statistically
>significant spread" of genetic markers in a population too. English
>speaking in India (at the level of the total Indian population) could
>be seen to tend to correlate with Anglo-Indians, a sizable percentage
>of whom would have Y chromosomal links with England.
Do you have difficulty understanding the difference between "could" and
"does"? You're simply proving that it's possible that genes and languages
correlate... but John, we all get that part! What gives you the authority
to say that they *often* correlate??
> It is not surprising that the genetic boundary and the linguistic
>boundary between northern Mandarin and southern other languages
>correlates closely to this genetic boundary.
The only problem is that many of the southern languages are related to
Mandarin (Cantonese and Hakka, don't forget) despite such a "genetic
division". Ooops. Looks like your brain short-circuited again when you
wrote that.
>Glen, I am not doing so *blindly*.
Than how do you assert that they *often* correlate if you can't show
that this is so? It certainly sounds like blindness to me.
>I do consider these events. "Social considerations, local economic
>issues, prehistoric disasters" have an effect in that they all impact
>demographically - on birth rates, death rates and immigration. Their
>cumulative impacts shows up demographically.
The evolution of a society is hardly recorded in entirety by genetics.
There can be social changes that may be left unrecorded by physical data,
such as the replacement of a language with a new one.
>Based upon the "hardness" of genetic data, I would argue that b. and
>d. tend to be more often correct than a. and c.
This is a severe problem because you're attempting to explain the movement
of languages, yet you depend primarily on genetics. Your thinking here is
twisted. If you're tracking the movement of genetics, the study of genetics
is prime. If you're tracking the movement of language, the study of
linguistics is prime. Not hard to understand, is it? Your problem is that
you aren't interested in linguistics enough to be competent to track the
movement of languages and you use your knowledge of genetics and
archaeology to compensate even though this knowledge doesn't help you get
at the heart of the truth.
>My message was responding to your argument that genetics and
>linguistics only produce "junk correlations" that have no basis in
>fact. I was arguing that the correlations, when they do exist (and
>they frequently can) *ARE* meaningful.
But I agree to this! I do not agree that they are *often* meaningful
or that they *often* correlate. I'd feel less bothered by your
thinking if only you appreciated the "hardness" of linguistics. This
seems to be a problem for many people who are obsessed with seeing the
universe in only black & white, without accepting the reality of the
many shades of grey.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com