Re: Austric Gleanings

--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry <waluk@...>" <waluk@...>
wrote:

> 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"?

Pretty well all Indo-European languages are spoken in what are or have
recently been socially stratified societies. However, this may well
not have been so in the Early Neolithic.

> 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?

Socially-determined body adornment can include tattoos (or their lack)
as well.

> And with the discovery of
> the FOXP2 Gene, environment can also have a direct effect on the
> organism.

I don't understand this statement at all!

Richard.