Re: [tied] Re: The physical type of proto-Indo-Europeans

----- Original Message -----

From: Cyrus Parsi

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Cc: G&P@... ; smykelkar@... ; ytielts@... ; st-george@...

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 12:20 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: The physical type of proto-Indo-Europeans

Dear all,

While it may be assumed to be wrong to oversimplistically equate RACE with
LANGUAGE as a hard and fast general rule, especially since the modern ages
of widespread migrations, cross-cultural and cross-racial intermarriages
in newly founded countries based on melting pots like in America (South and
North alike),
not to mention the distant effects of linguistic
acculturation/deculturation/imperialism (whatever one shall call it)
bequeathed down from the colonial eras of ancient (i.e. forced latinizing
and racial intermingling imposed on Roman conquered provinces) and modern
times (European colonial empires),
one must not deny the obvious fact that there has always been a strong
CORRELATION between
RACE and LANGUAGE, as has amply been proven not only by genetics (exploring
the genotypes),
but also more evidently simply by the phenotypes (outward racial
appeareance) of Indo-Europeans:
e.g. there are striking similitudes in the facial features of many Northern
Indians, Persians and Europeans,
attesting to an Indo-European common ancestry.

Besides, to harp back on an old, if not corny, cliché, blue-eyed
fair-skinned Nordic-looking Persians or Indians with typically European
facial bone structures are infinitely more numerous than you would think...

<snip>

 

***

Patrick:

 

I am rather surprised to see that a discussion of this type, attempting to correlate genetics and language, is being permitted on Cybalist; but I welcome the fact that it can be.

 

I have some thoughts I would like to share with those who are interested in this illuminating correlation that I will not argue though some of you might want to.

 

My reason for offering these thoughts only as dsicussion/thought teasers is because I confess I am never going to be able to get my mind around the rapidly burgeoning genetic evidence. Although I think I understand it superficially, I am simply not capable of understanding it sufficiently thoroughly to be confident in drawing independent conclusions from it.

 

I have a little more confidence in my ability to understand the linguistic implications of a scenario (although there will be some on this list, and many on others who would vociferously question even that ability) I will tentatively propose so here it is.

 

THE PLAYERS:

 

Group 1: A group speaking a _West_ Caucasian language, and ethnically resembling Basques and Sephardic Jews, including Minoans; situated at the beginning of historical times on the northern Mediterranean coast (Mediterranean);

 

Group 2: A group speaking an _East_ Caucasian language, and ethnically resembling Ashkenazic Jews, Armenians; situated at the beginning of historical times on the Southern Mediterranian coast (Dinaric);

 

Group 3: A group speaking a _PAA_ language, and ethnically resembling Eastern Africans, Arabs, situated at the beginning of historical times in Egypt, Northeastern African coast, and Arabia (Hamitic);

 

Group 4: A group speaking a _Uralic_ language, and ethnically resembling modern Northern Germanic peoples (Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, and Northern Germans; some Poles; some Balts; and Finns, situated at the beginning of historical times in North_eastern_ Europe) (Uralic);

 

Group 5: A group speaking an _Austronesian_ language, and ethnically resembling modern Dravidians, and Asian islanders, situated at the beginning of historical times along the Asian coast (Austronesian).

 

One might notice the absence of a couple of languages one might expect: PIE and Semitic.

 

PIE, I believe, can be identified with no relatively unmixed ethnic group but rather is an uneven product of the contact of Dinaric and PAA.

 

Semitic, I believe, can be identified with no relatively unmixed ethnic group but rather is an uneven product product of the contact of Dinaric and PAA (no typo), just a different mix at a different time, under different circumstances.

 

No, finally, in conclusion, let me say: "sticks and stones can break my bones but . . ."

 

***