Dear Guillaume amd Nostraticists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillaume JACQUES" <xiang@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] Digest Number 4


> 'Proto-language' xiansheng :
> The idea of a unique origin for each ancient civilization must explain satisfactorily why, after millenia of stasis, at about the same time, cities began to be established. It beggars credulity to assume that parallel enlightenment brightened so many places at roughly the same time.
> As for labeling something "quasi-raciste", it is a very poor argument to attempt to discount an idea by 'calling it names' rather than showing why it does not fit with the facts.
> From my perspective, it looks probable that speakers of AA came into contact with Caucasian speakers, who enslaved them. The Caucasian speakers adopted AA as well as they could, creating two major varieties: Semitic in the south, and IE in the north.
> This enslavement provided the necessary condition for the establishment of cities (enforced, regular agriculture and agricultural surpluses), and the accumulation of wealth that is a prequisite for higher culture (writing came from memory-unmanageable accumulations of goods).
> It is a little like Western technology today. Though the non-Western world resents the West for originating it, they are not too proud to be glad to benefit from it.
> GJ:
> D'abord ce n'est pas vrai ce que tu racontes; par exemple, les civilisations urbaines amerindiennes ont bien ete capable de se developper sans la 'lumiere' des Caucasiens. La civilisation Chinoise aussi (a mon humble avis que je peux developper tres en detail si necessaire) a developpe tout un ensemble de technologies sans apport de l'ouest.

Why do you not read what I wrote instead of feverishly imaging what I might have said? I said nothing about Amerindians being beholden to Caucasians for their civilization, and you are arguing against a position I would never adopt; nor have ever adopted. So why bother?

As for China, I am not so sure that some Caucasian influence might not be in the mix of factors which produced Chinese civilization but I will not insist on it. Your insistence on the purely Chinese origin of Chinese civilization semms a bit overreaching in the light of today's knowledge. Perhaps --- perhaps not!

> Ensuite, ton scenario est conpletement de la science-fiction; quelles donnees archeologiques as tu pour soutenir ce que tu pretends ?

I am sure you meant this dismissively but actually, science fiction is what we all do. We attempt to write a scenario for the past by employing every scientific tool in our arsenal. And if we employ our tools well, our fiction --- and it must remain fiction since we can never absolutely be sure that we have interepreted the evidence correctly --- may be something close to what actually happened.

As for "pretende", I outlined what I think is a plausible scenario that fits the facts as I know them. What possible difference would it make if an archaeologist agreed with me or not?

As for archaeological facts, it is well-known that no two archaeologists can agree on the color of the dirt they hold in their hands.

As for the occasion of the scenario, my reasons are primarily linguistic. But I do think Caucasian animal herders could make a smoother transition to being slaveholders than hunter-gatherers or even dirt-farmers.

> Les dernieres remarques enfin sont *tres* deplacees, parce que la science moderne n'est pas occidentale; les japonais, les chinois et les hindous ont participe de maniere signifiante a l'avancement de la science, et une grande partie des prix nobels americains sont des etrangers qui se sont installe aux etats-unis.

Yes, they do participate now that they have rid themselves of the superstitious and anti-progressive forces that seem to have been native.

Foreigners that come here to live obviously share American values more than those who stay at home, would you not agree?


PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: and PROTO-RELIGION: "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)