Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:37
AM
Subject: RE: [Nostratica] Monogenetic vs
Polygenetic Language
I
don't wish to engage in a long, hair-splitting debate with you, Gerry, but
could you perhaps be more precise with your terminology? I believe that
monogenesis and polygenesis refer to the origin of language in general.
Monogenesis is the concept that ALL languages (okay, ALL human languages, for
sake of argument) are ultimately derived from a single root source.
Polygenesis, on the other hand, is the idea that didferent language
families are derived from different root sources: for example,
under polygenesis, Nilo-Saharan would have a different ultimate ancestor
than Sino-Tibetan, which would have a different ultimate ancestor than, say,
Indo-European. I may be off-base with this observation, but to me,
language polygenesis almost seems like a reflection of racism in
linguistics. These next TWO sentences are NOT an expression of
my personal beliefs but an observation to try to clarify my previous
comment: Negroid people and asian people look different than
caucasian people, so they must have different ancestors. Therefore, if
the people are descended from different ancestors, then their
languages can't possibly have the same common ancestor as the
languages of caucasian people. Personally, I think that that is pure hogwash,
but that's my opinion of polygenesis. Based on what I've read of the
"Out-of-Africa" theory, I think it covers the anthropological and linguistic
bases pretty well. An exodus of anatomically modern people from Africa
into the Middle East about 100K years ago, and from there, dispersing to
the rest of the world, taking their language(s) with them. The languages
would evolve grammar, syyntax and lexicon over time, and, as they were
further and further isolated from the original point of dispersal, they would
resemble the languages of other people going in different
directions.
An
individual language (or dialect-group, to head off your quibble), by
definition, is monogenetic. Individual languages CANNOT be
polygenetic. With the possible exception of som pidgins, each language
is descended from a single preceding language. For example, Modern
English is descended from MIddle English, which is descended from Old
English, which is descended from Northwest Germanic, which is descended from
Proto-Germanic, which is descended from Proto-Indo-European, which is
hypothetically descended, possibly through one or more intermediate stages,
from Proto-Nostratic. At no point does another language
family intrude into the fundamental evolution of English. Even the
massive French and Latin influence that came in the Middle English period
cannot change the fact that English is essentially a Germanic language.
Even if the French/Latin influx had fundamentally altered English, it
still would not be an argument for polygenesis of English, since Latin,
and French by derivation, are still Indo-European
languages.
To
summarize: one can argue whether human spoken language has a monogenetic
origin or a polygenetic origin. One cannot argue whether individual
languages are polygenetic in origin. I personally believe in
monogenesis.
Andy
Howey
A monogenetic language originates from a single source as opposed
to
polygenetic language which originates from many different
sources.
Identifying a protolanguage is actually constructing a manmade
monogenetic structure.
//snip//
Gerry