From: Gerry
Message: 507
Date: 2003-03-24
> Larry Trask wrote: (mixing posts)elements
> I'd guess that the extent to which a language conserves its
> correlates to some degree with its lack of contact with otherfeatures
> languages. I imagine that even an isolated language would change
> drastically over time, but it might also retain some of its
> much longer than a non-isolate. And if not, how would we know that?GR: Haven't word list analogies proven a connection?
> >Here we go with the nonsense. Apart from a few special cases likethan
> >creoles, all human languages are equally "old", and no language is
> >"older" than any other. An assertion that one language is older
> >another is meaningless, and it shows merely that the speakerdoesn't
> >know what he's talking about.GR: A provocative concept. Do all languages originate from one
> To use a fish analogy, I suppose sturgeon are not "older" than theessentially
> cichlid species of Lake Victoria, yet they've maintained
> the same form for 100 million years, while some of the latter havedidn't
> been around for only a few thousand or less. These obviously
> pop into existence from thin air, but I think it's prettyreasonable
> to say the cichlid is the "younger" of the two.GR: Somewhere on the web (and elsewhere) I've seen the fish analogy
> >Since the time of King Alfred, English has changed so drasticallycould
> >that King Alfred could understand nothing of our speech, if he
> >hear it, and we can't even understand the written English of hisday
> >without learning it as a foreign language. But declaring Englishto
> >be "extinct" is hardly an appropriate response. Nor does it make aerectus
> >lot of sense to declare Old English to be "extinct". If it went
> >extinct, then where did modern English come from?
>
> If Old English isn't extinct, don't we have to say that Homo
> isn't either?GR: Wow. This idea is a HOT one. Old English is a foreign
> >The authors point out that the Hadzabe and the Ju|'hoansiseparated
> >from the rest of us very early -- fine -- and from this theyconclude
> >that the languages of these two peoples must be exceptionallyfrom
> >conservative. But, by the same token, the rest of us separated
> >these two groups very early, and so *our* languages ought toGR: If these languages can be thought to separate from a single
> >be the conservative ones.
> The authors infer from genetic data that the Hadzabe and theclicks
> Ju|'hoansi separated *from each other* very early, so that the
> in their current languages may be conserved features.GR: ???
> Two lines of evidence, rarity of clicks in human languages andclick
> complexity of the shared repertoire of clicks and accompaniments,
> suggest that independent invention of clicks in San and Hadzabe
> populations is an unlikely explanation for the observed genetic
> pattern. With regards to complexity of click repertoires, each
> language includes a particular set of clicks and accompaniments.Some
> languages include larger sets than others do, but these sets doHadzabe
> overlap. The clicks integral to Hadzane largely overlap with those
> clicks integral to Khwe and San languages. The hypothesis of
> independent invention, as it applies to the languages of the
> and San, lacks linguistic support...GR: I haven't had the chance to investigate the physiology of those
> ...[Another] a priori explanation of sharing of clicks by San andlanguage,
> Hadzabe in the context of genetic differentiation is linguistic
> borrowing. Xhosa, for instance, while uncontestedly a Bantu
> incorporates some clicks borrowed from Khwe or San languages. Theinhibit
> extensive population contact required for such click borrowing,
> however, leaves a genetic signature through gene flow, as has been
> well documented. The minimal genetic similarity between San and
> Hadzabe consists of sharing the NRY M2 mutation. Data herein and
> elsewhere strongly suggest that M2 has been introduced into
> click-speaking groups by non-click-speaking neighbors. In addition,
> gene flow leads to short, central branches for admixed populations,
> contrary to Ju|'hoansi and Hadzabe differentiation. Finally,
> distortions of the tongue required to produce click consonants
> borrowing of the full repertoire of clicks by adult nonnativeSan
> speakers. The Nguni language, for instance, includes a click system
> that is far less deeply integrated and complex than the systems of
> Hadzabe and San languages. Deep mtDNA and NRY divergence between
> and Hadzabe is contrary to expectations under a scenario ofborrowing
> of clicks by Hadzabe from San. Current genetic and nongenetic datasharing
> are inconsistent with three of four a priori explanations for
> of clicks without genetic similarity."GR: Yada, yada, yada. My question is simply: is there a
> So why, if clicks are so rare, and if indeed these groups have beenGR: Why? Could be something peculiar about their
> isolated from one another for so long, do they both have clicks?
> authors' suggestion that they're a conserved element of what wasonce
> the same language seems to me to have some merit.population,
>
> ************
>
> On the question of the minimum size of the ancestral human
> if anyone cares here are a few references:2003
>
>
> FJ Ayala, A Escalante, C O'hUigin, and J Klein
> Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins
> PNAS 1994 91: 6787-6794.
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/15/6787
>
> N Takahata
> Allelic genealogy and human evolution
> Mol Biol Evol 1993 10: 2-22
> http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/2
>
> Li, W. and Sadler, L.
> DNA variation in humans and its implications for human evolution.
> Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 1992. 8:111-134.
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> News in Brain and Behavioural Sciences - Issue 90 - 22nd March,
> http://human-nature.com/nibbs/issue90.htmlhttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Hubey
> hubeyh@...
> http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey