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

Re: Nostratic's New Guinea Home

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... capita ... daughter m09 ... concentrations of ... prove ... being m09 s ... points in ... up. ... Aha! Oho! Sundaland! Floods! Disasters! I told you so!
    Message 1 of 10 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@y..., x99lynx@a... wrote:
      > This means that the first time we meet a significant modern per
      capita
      > concentration in the Underhill data on grandpa m168, pa m98 or
      daughter m09
      > is -- believe it or not -- New Guinea. You can explain the
      concentrations of
      > later 09 mutations as you wish, but if you are going to use them to
      prove
      > origins, then New Guinea sure gives exactly the same evidence of
      being m09's
      > original origin place. Or at least being near it.
      >
      > Finally, it seems a little inconsistent to find all these origin
      points in
      > other per capita concentrations and then balk when New Guinea shows
      up.
      >
      > Steve

      Aha! Oho! Sundaland! Floods! Disasters! I told you so! (and annoying
      etc etc)

      Torsten
    • x99lynx@aol.com
      tgpedersen wrote: Looking at the Underhill tree again, I
      Message 2 of 10 , May 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
        <<Aha! Oho! Sundaland! Floods! Disasters! I told you so! (and annoying etc
        etc)>>

        Looking at the Underhill tree again, I see just how old the underived 09
        mutation (haplotype 87) may be. It is a mere 5 mutations from the "non-human
        primate" root. Two generations back its predecessor is the founder node for
        80% of all Underwood's groups (e.g., about 80% of the variation in all modern
        human males) and which supposedly "marks the expansion of anatomically
        modern humans out of Africa."

        09 itself generated about 40% of all such variations in modern human males.

        So the Underhill's "New Guinea" mutation looks like it is way, way back
        there. We are given a wide range of dates for all this -- 35,000BP to 89,000
        BP-- and Underhill's estimate is relatively recent for these kinds of
        estimates. If we send 09 half-way back and do use Underhill's dates (?),
        then the original 09 mutation would date at 18,000BP - 44,000BP -- average it
        to about 31,000BP. This would put it about 20,000 years before the end of
        the ice age and maybe 15,000 years before there were such a thing as a modern
        Steppe climate. And 23,000 years before the first farmers and about 20,000
        years before the disappearance of the sabre-tooth tiger and the mastodon.

        So I would imagine that there wouldn't be too much memory left of all this.

        And I have also determined using comparative and internal reconstruction that
        the human language at the time would have consisted of a single sound, which
        I have determined to be equivalent to the French diphthong "en." So far it
        seems <en> meant "what's cooking?" and <en-en> meant "where's the men's
        room?". ;-)

        Steve
      • kalyan97
        ... 20,000 years before the end of the ice age and maybe 15,000 years before there were such a thing as a modern Steppe climate. And 23,000 years before
        Message 3 of 10 , May 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In cybalist@y..., x99lynx@a... wrote:... This would put it about
          20,000 years before the end of > the ice age and maybe 15,000 years
          before there were such a thing as a modern > Steppe climate. And
          23,000 years before the first farmers and about 20,000 > years before
          the disappearance of the sabre-tooth tiger and the mastodon.> > So I
          would imagine that there wouldn't be too much memory left of all this.
          > > And I have also determined using comparative and internal
          reconstruction that > the human language at the time would have
          consisted of a single sound, which > I have determined to be
          equivalent to the French diphthong "en." So far it > seems <en>
          meant "what's cooking?" and <en-en> meant "where's the men's >
          room?". ;-)

          en?

          This sounds very familiar. In Tamil, en- means 'mine' and en-n-a
          means 'what'? An elongated: e_n means 'why'?

          um. It appears the frontal lobe wasn't networked effectively. Or, is
          it loosely-coupled corpus colossum?
        • tgpedersen
          ... reconstruction that ... sound, which ... So far it ... men s ... You realize of course that this sexist reconstruction implies that women couldn t speak.
          Message 4 of 10 , May 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In cybalist@y..., x99lynx@a... wrote:
            > "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
            > And I have also determined using comparative and internal
            reconstruction that
            > the human language at the time would have consisted of a single
            sound, which
            > I have determined to be equivalent to the French diphthong "en."
            So far it
            > seems <en> meant "what's cooking?" and <en-en> meant "where's the
            men's
            > room?". ;-)
            >
            > Steve

            You realize of course that this sexist reconstruction implies that
            women couldn't speak. The alternative theory I won't even contemplate.

            Torsten
          • x99lynx@aol.com
            So far it ... tgpedersen wrote:
            Message 5 of 10 , May 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              So far it
              > seems <en> meant "what's cooking?" and <en-en> meant "where's the men's
              > room?". ;-)

              "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
              <<You realize of course that this sexist reconstruction implies that women
              couldn't speak. The alternative theory I won't even contemplate.>>

              Women could speak, but really had nothing to say. The reconstruction is
              based on the enlightened, post-processual idea that women already had the
              answers and so at that early point, it was only males who needed to ask dumb
              questions.

              Obviously, the interrogative must have preceded the indicative. Unless there
              are questions, there is no need for answers. :) (<- humor intended)

              Steve
            • tgpedersen
              ... annoying etc ... underived 09 ... the non-human ... node for ... all modern ... anatomically ... human males. ... back ... to 89,000 ... of ... dates (?),
              Message 6 of 10 , May 2, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In cybalist@y..., x99lynx@a... wrote:
                > "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
                > <<Aha! Oho! Sundaland! Floods! Disasters! I told you so! (and
                annoying etc
                > etc)>>
                >
                > Looking at the Underhill tree again, I see just how old the
                underived 09
                > mutation (haplotype 87) may be. It is a mere 5 mutations from
                the "non-human
                > primate" root. Two generations back its predecessor is the founder
                node for
                > 80% of all Underwood's groups (e.g., about 80% of the variation in
                all modern
                > human males) and which supposedly "marks the expansion of
                anatomically
                > modern humans out of Africa."
                >
                > 09 itself generated about 40% of all such variations in modern
                human males.
                >
                > So the Underhill's "New Guinea" mutation looks like it is way, way
                back
                > there. We are given a wide range of dates for all this -- 35,000BP
                to 89,000
                > BP-- and Underhill's estimate is relatively recent for these kinds
                of
                > estimates. If we send 09 half-way back and do use Underhill's
                dates (?),
                > then the original 09 mutation would date at 18,000BP - 44,000BP --
                average it
                > to about 31,000BP. This would put it about 20,000 years before the
                end of
                > the ice age and maybe 15,000 years before there were such a thing
                as a modern
                > Steppe climate. And 23,000 years before the first farmers and
                about 20,000
                > years before the disappearance of the sabre-tooth tiger and the
                mastodon.
                >
                > So I would imagine that there wouldn't be too much memory left of
                all this.
                >
                >
                > Steve

                Of the mutation, no. But as has been pointed out several times etc,
                etc; in other words, did the backwash occur immediately after the
                mutation; they might have waited some ten thousands of years?
                Which reminds me: for them to go backwards, covering their own
                tracks, for their own safety, they would have needed a boat,
                considering that on the way out they were a beach-combing, hence
                beach-hugging species.

                Speaking of which, the casual depiction of Bering Strait crossers
                traveling across a Bering Strait bridge by foot, baggage in hand,
                annoys me. Being Danish, you know a little about conditios in
                Greenland, which would be similar in climate and geography; only a
                narrow strip of land along the coast is ice-free. Still today, there
                are no roads there, if you move, you do it by boat in summer, by dog-
                sleigh in winter, across the sea-ice across fjords. You don't walk;
                that's suicide. They have a word, qivitoq, for someone who has lost
                it and has walked into the fjeld (Danish: rocks, mountains).

                Torsten
              • tgpedersen
                ... men s ... that women ... Unless there ... Huh? ;-) Torsten
                Message 7 of 10 , May 2, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In cybalist@y..., x99lynx@a... wrote:
                  > So far it
                  > > seems <en> meant "what's cooking?" and <en-en> meant "where's the
                  men's
                  > > room?". ;-)
                  >
                  > "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
                  > <<You realize of course that this sexist reconstruction implies
                  that women
                  > couldn't speak. The alternative theory I won't even contemplate.>>
                  >


                  > Obviously, the interrogative must have preceded the indicative.
                  Unless there
                  > are questions, there is no need for answers. :) (<- humor intended)
                  >
                  > Steve

                  Huh?
                  ;-)
                  Torsten
                • x99lynx@aol.com
                  ... Unless there ... Torsten replied: EXACTLY! Since we modern humans must learn languages, the very first person to invent and use a language
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 2, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I wrote:
                    > Obviously, the interrogative must have preceded the indicative.
                    Unless there
                    > are questions, there is no need for answers. :) (<- humor intended)

                    Torsten replied:
                    <<Huh? ;-)>>

                    EXACTLY! Since we modern humans must learn languages, the very first person
                    to invent and use a language had no one to talk to.

                    So no matter what his first word was, the second word had to be...

                    "Huh?"

                    Steve
                  • x99lynx@aol.com
                    tgpedersen wrote:
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 2, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
                      <<But as has been pointed out several times etc, etc; in other words, did the
                      backwash occur immediately after the mutation; they might have waited some
                      ten thousands of years?>>

                      I don't remember that there were any large concentrations of derived m09
                      reported for New Guinea. So, to the extent we can trust the data, the
                      carriers of the original 09 would have left New Guinea (or South East Asia)
                      before the string of 09 mutations started. But remember that mutations
                      (according to this study) are averaged about every 5,000 - 11,000 years. And
                      the gene needed some time to go forth and multiply BEFORE they left. So,
                      it's not like one guy with a brand new mutation in his Y-Chromosome felt some
                      kind of an itch and took off. There is I remember a high concentration of
                      one immediately subsequent 09 type in Cambodia, others in Japan and America
                      and Central Asia. So, the spread of 09 may have been in many waves and
                      directions. And remember that this started maybe about 30,000BC or earlier,
                      so land masses and climates may vary.

                      <<Which reminds me: for them to go backwards, covering their own
                      tracks, for their own safety, they would have needed a boat, considering that
                      on the way out they were a beach-combing, hence beach-hugging species.>>

                      This original 09 group were definitely travelers. And I'm a big believer in
                      early water-bourne travel.

                      <<Speaking of which, the casual depiction of Bering Strait crossers
                      traveling across a Bering Strait bridge by foot, baggage in hand,
                      annoys me. Being Danish, you know a little about conditios in
                      Greenland, which would be similar in climate and geography; only a
                      narrow strip of land along the coast is ice-free. Still today, there
                      are no roads there, if you move, you do it by boat in summer, by dog-
                      sleigh in winter, across the sea-ice across fjords. You don't walk;
                      that's suicide.>>

                      Interesting point. This is currently a big bone of contention between the
                      Clovis and the coastal migration groups. I suspect we are a little fooled by
                      the steppes/horse analogy in a lot of these locations (e.g., the Black Sea.)
                      Look at all the IE migration maps -- e.g., Mallory's and Renfrew's -- and
                      they always go AROUND the Black Sea. But in fact the water may have been a
                      faster and better highway than the land. Linguistic "contact" may have been
                      stronger across water and up and down rivers than across dry land. And the
                      route to Central Asia from east or west may have been a lot more comfortable
                      with better food if you went by way of water and up through India and
                      Pakistan then the other way around -- even with horses. Alexander went home
                      by boat.

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