Gerry wrote

> 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.

What a flood of questions. I don't know about PIE or !Kung Gerry,
but I do know that Aboriginal and Papua New Guinean languages have
modified since contacting Wadjala (i.e. White-fella) or Kondol (Red
(sunburned) Skins). In Nyungar people have come to greet each other
by saying "YES!" (i.e. Gaya). In Huli it was "Egerabagi" -
i.e. "Good (going)". But linguists inform me that these terms only
came with linguistic interference from English or Pidgin (Tok Pisin).

Hope this helps

Regards

John