--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham
<richard.wordingham@...>" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- 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.

Oppenheimer thinks all the "secret society", hierarchy and spin-
doctorism was introduced to Europe from Austronesian societies, which
are some of the most rigidly stratified in world. There's plenty of
anecdotal evidence to suggest that the aboriginals of North West
Europe are still much more wary of those things than their Southern
and Eastern counterparts (eg. between North and South Germans), but
it is strictly in the non-PC domain. But it is one of the reasons I
believe (following a long tradition in Denmark) that Odin was not
native to these parts. He is bad style.

>
> > 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?

Yes. They had pointy hats, of course.

>
> Richard.

Torsten