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