----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <nostratic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] Problems with Bomhard


>
>
> Alexander to John Croft:
> >If so, I expect you to demonstrate:
> >1- archaeological cultures which can theoretically correspond to
> >ALL Nostratic families. [...]
> >2 - any Nostratic linguistic group or subgroup whose members remained
> >hunter-gatherers. [...]
>
> I can't help but notice, Alexander, that your demands are bizarre
> and completely dyslogical.


Thanks.


> What don't you understand about the
> spread of an innovation such as agriculture? The spread of
> agriculture is seperate from the spread of people, the spread
> of culture, the spread of language or the spread of Hepatitis C!
> Each "spread" can move in different directions and speeds. Further,
> the reason for their expansions can have completely different
> motivations.


Glen, this is not a question of a particular science, rather of
Weltanschauung.
Some people believe in existence of causality in the principal events of the
mankind development, other people believe that everything happens by chance.
Some people believe that functions can travel separately from arguments,
other people don't.
Some police commissioners believe in coincidences, other ones don't.

We will never prove to each other that you/me is wrong.
The best we can do is to keep in mind the peculiarities of views of the
opponent and respect him.


> As for #2, it should be clear that whether a group continues to be
> hunter-gatherers or not has absolutely no bearing on whether they
> once were or not, just as our modern-day lack of bows and arrows
> has no bearing on whether our ancestors once used them or not.
>

> In all, your association of agriculture to the Nostratic language
> is far off in left field. There won't be many people agreeing with
> you on this one.

I think you are right.
Nevertheless any other variant of explanation of the following facts seems
to be less probable from my point of view:

1. Nostratic languages pressed out all the languages of hunter-gatherers
from Europe, North Africa and West+North+South Asia (excluding only areas
not suitable for farming)
AND
Nostratic languages spread from the region where goats+sheep and
wheat+barley has been domesticated (Near East)

1a. There are Non-Nostratic languages (NEC, NWC, Basque, old
"Mediterranean") on the same areal
HOWEVER
The picture of development of farming at Near East shows presence at least 2
different traditions (for example PPNA and PPNB)

2. Austric languages (Austroasiatic+Austronesian+Tai) pressed out all the
languages of hunter-gatherers from SouthEast Asia (excluding only areas not
suitable for farming)
AND
Austric languages spread from the region where dog (for meat)+pig and
taro+yams and some later rice has been domesticated (Indo-Chine)

3. Sino-Tibetan languages pressed out all the languages of hunter-gatherers
from East Asia
AND
Sino-Tibetan languages spread from the region where Chinese millet has been
domesticated (the Yellow river valley)

4. Sindsh languages (Congo-Kordofanian+Nilo-Saharan) pressed out all the
languages of hunter-gatherers from Central and South Africa (excluding only
areas not suitable for farming)
AND
Sindsch languages spread from the region where cattle and bulrush millet has
been domesticated (Sahara)

Thus, in the Old World
- There is no superfamilies which would not be connected with one of the
centers of neolithisation
- There is no centers of neolithisation which would not produce a
superfamily

The linguistic situation in Americas and New Guinea is not so well studied
however these regions seem to fit this scheme as well.

I understand, it is not a proof, just a comparison of facts.


Alexander