Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fingerprints and aquatic habits

Expand Messages
  • waluk@best.com
    ... http://glen_gordon.tripod.com/LANGUAGE/NOSTRATIC/STEPPE/IE_Mid/iemid_p honolo ... speakers is? ... Altaic etc. ... It cannot be done. That s my point. For
    Message 1 of 93 , Oct 2, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In AAT@y..., "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@v...> wrote:
      >
      http://glen_gordon.tripod.com/LANGUAGE/NOSTRATIC/STEPPE/IE_Mid/iemid_p
      honolo
      > gy.html
      >
      >
      > >> >> >Any idea what the ethnic composition of the Nostratic
      speakers is?
      > >> >>
      > >> >> Nostratic evolved into Uralic, IndoEuropean, Dravidian,
      Altaic etc.
      > >> >
      > >> >Are you claiming Uralic, IndoEuropean, Dravidian, Altaic etc.
      > >> >are ethnic groups?
      > >>
      > >> No. They're linguistic groups.
      > >
      > >True, but aren't languages spoken by people (by ethnic groups)?
      > >Of course they are.
      >
      > Yes, and how do you hope to find out which ethnic groups spoke which
      > languages?

      It cannot be done. That's my point. For every language there are as
      many varieties of dialect as there are river valleys and within the
      same ethnic group individuals speak different dialects as well as
      numerous languages. The picture is extremly complicated.

      > >> > Interesting. Please continue.
      > >>
      > >> That's it. (If *you* want to relate these to ethnic groups, go
      ahead.)
      > >
      > >I wish it could be done but it can't. There are too many
      variations. But
      > >to simply eliminate ethnic groups from language doesn't add any
      legitimacy
      > >to languge studies.
      >
      > ??
      > Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darĂ¼ber muss man schweigen.

      Translation please?

      > >> >> It was one language. Not a composition, but a reconstruction
      from
      > later
      > >> >> languages (not from "all" languages of course!!). Just as the
      hominoid
      > >> >> LCA was 1 species (no composition!), reconstructed from the
      > >> >> living & fossil hominoid species.
      > >> >
      > >> >Confusing. You say Nostratic was one language (a
      reconstruction) and
      > >> >Glen dates it to 15,000 BCE but below no one identifies which
      language
      > the
      > >> >pre-Nostratics spoke. Also, I do like your idea that hominoid
      LCA was 1
      > >> >species but I'd substitute another word for hominoid. And
      which date
      > are
      > >> >you giving to hominoid LCA?
      > >>
      > >> Gerry, we've discussed this many times. Probably ca.20 Ma or so.

      This is wherein the problem lies. Your 20 Mya date places us in the
      Miocene, an era that not too long ago you pooh-poohed. Have you
      now "reached" back to the Miocene? Then you and Cremo do have
      something in common!!!

      > >Hmmm. NO we haven't Marc. We've discussed origins of homonids,
      not
      > origins
      > >of language.
      >
      > Several times.

      Sorry but I don't recall.

      > (BTW, Nostratic is NOT about language origins!) Marc

      Exactly. But Proto World is. However, Nostratic is about one
      language group evolving into another and this creates a major
      problem. Linguists simply gathered 50 or 100 words (even fewer)
      showed a comparison and claimed one language derived form the other.
      This is clumsy science (not to mention linguistics). And for those
      interested, this is only an interpretation given by the linguist in
      charge.

      Gerry

      > >You appear to be weak on the origins of both but not on the
      > >accumulation of detail. Your knowledge never ceases to amaze me,
      said
      > Gerry
      > >in true ernestness.

      Wow. Did I say that? I still mean it. Marc's knowledge is a source
      of inspiration :-)
    • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
      ... From: Marc Verhaegen To: Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [AAT] Re:
      Message 93 of 93 , Oct 11, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...>
        To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 4:18 PM
        Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Fingerprints and aquatic habits


        > >> >I certainly have no problem with ancestors of all living humans having
        > >> >aquatic adaptations if you mean that at a point in the "far" distant
        > past
        > >> >our ancestors were aquatic. This in effect corresponds with organisms
        > >> >adapting to their environment. As far as how much "time" it took
        > >> >organisms to adapt to a particular environment, I'm not certain. Do
        > >> >you have additional information on this type of adaptation? Gerry
        > >>
        > >> AFAIR the chiclids in the African lakes evolved into more than 100
        > species
        > >> in a few 1000 years. All adapted to their own particular environment.
        > >> Marc
        > >
        > >And Darwin's finches evolved into many different species in even a
        shorter
        > >time period. Yet the rhinoceros is still around pretty much in the same
        > >form for many, many 1000's of years. Does this have something to do
        > >environmental differences between African lakes and African savannah
        > >(chiclids and rhinoceros)? Gerry
        >
        > In the lakes there are bottom-dwellers, surface-dwellers, snail-eaters,
        > fish-eaters, plant-eaters, parasitic species etc. etc. These evolved many
        > times in parallel in different lakes or in different parts of the same
        lake.
        > Some think it might have something to do with the breeding system of the
        > cichlids, or with the special jaw articulations (which would allow very
        > specific dietary adaptations), or with the size (eg, rhinos have much
        longer
        > generation times). In any case, evolution in certain instances can be very
        > "fast".
        >
        > Marc

        This sounds like the scenario I found when I visited the Monterey Aquarium.
        Each species evolves to fit its environment. Didn't someone today state
        that the environment with more participants breeds faster than that with
        only a few? But I do agree that the environment must be accompanied by
        other factors such as dietary adaptations, size, generation times etc. The
        end result of evolution is "mind boggling".

        Gerry
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.