John Croft says:

> The nature of greetings seems to be very much determined by the
> evolution of social classes. Upper classes, based upon "refined
> language styles" evolve a whole series of "politeness expressions",
> that are not present I believe in the languages of hunter gatherer
> societies where social class destinction is either absent or poorly
> developed.

Of interest. Thus, are all the Indo-European languages of an "upper
class"? About hunger gatherer societies, when the early ones
were "discovered" such as the !Kung San (DeVore & Lee) they
supposedly depicted a "different lifestyle" -- are they (Dobe Kung)
still considered primitive? What about the different "clans" of
Australian Aborigines or the primitive groups from Papua New Guinea?
Have they modified their language to become more western?
Considering the other end of the spectrum, does a refined language
style always reflect an "upper social class"? And what about dress?
Do "upper class" people dress in a similar fashion (shirt, tie and
sports jacket) vs. a pair of jeans and cowboy boots? Class certainly
is a silly construct, isn't it? Yet as our world readjusts itself,
people will live in certain places and dress according to the
lifestyle they prefer. Those who like "wide open spaces" will wear a
cowboy hat to keep a blazing sun off the face while those in colder
climes need a jacket to fend off the cold. Climate controls not only
lifeways but thinking patterns as well. And with the discovery of
the FOXP2 Gene, environment can also have a direct effect on the
organism.

Cordially,

Gerry