posted
Science 24 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5926, pp. 464 - 465 DOI: 10.1126/science.324_464c
Letters
Linguistics More Robust Than Genetics
In their Research Article "Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement," 23 January, p. 479), R. D. Gray et al. analyzed a very large lexical data set on 400 Austronesian languages to shed light on Polynesian origins. The study raises the classic issue of how closely patterns of genetic and linguistic evolution correspond, and which better reflects ancient population histories (the Research Article rejects some genetic-based reconstructions of Austronesian history). Other recent studies in the Pacific have shown the robustness of linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions in comparison to genetic ones, when adequate linguistic data sets are available (1, 2). [b]Any congruence between linguistics and genetics is disrupted when populations speaking unrelated languages are in close contact. In such cases, genetic distinctions between groups rapidly become blurred, because genetic exchange is generally more prevalent and pervasive than is language borrowing or adoption. Languages are more integrated sets of features than are gene pools.[b]
Language change does not occur in a social vacuum, and sociolinguistic pressures to maintain distinctions between groups can evidently have a strong inhibitory effect against linguistic convergence. This underlines the comparative power of historical linguistics for reconstructions of population histories, especially in contact situations.
Jonathan Friedlaender,1,1 Keith Hunley,2 Michael Dunn,3,4 Angela Terrill,3 Eva Lindström,5 Ger Reesink,3 Françoise Friedlaender1
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jfriedla@temple.edu
1 23 Hunting Ridge Road, Sharon, CT 06069, USA. 2 Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. 3 Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, 6525 HT Nijmegen, Netherlands. 4 Language and Cognition Group, PB 310, NL-6500 AH Nijmegen, Netherlands. 5 Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
References
1. K. Hunley et al., PLoS Genet. 4, e1000239 (2008). 2. J. S. Friedlaender et al., PLoS Genet. 4, e19 (2008).
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Linguistics is more robust because it uses actual data while geneticist make statistical models to explain population movements which often fail to reflect actual migrations.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In their Research Article "Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement," 23 January, p. 479), R. D. Gray et al. analyzed a very large lexical data set on 400 Austronesian languages to shed light on Polynesian origins. The study raises the classic issue of how closely patterns of genetic and linguistic evolution correspond, and which better reflects ancient population histories (the Research Article rejects some genetic-based reconstructions of Austronesian history).
Other recent studies in the Pacific have shown the robustness of linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions in comparison to genetic ones, when adequate linguistic data sets are available (1, 2). [b]Any congruence between linguistics and genetics is disrupted when populations speaking unrelated languages are in close contact. In such cases, genetic distinctions between groups rapidly become blurred, because genetic exchange is generally more prevalent and pervasive than is language borrowing or adoption. Languages are more integrated sets of features than are gene pools.[b]
Language change does not occur in a social vacuum, and sociolinguistic pressures to maintain distinctions between groups can evidently have a strong inhibitory effect against linguistic convergence. This underlines the comparative power of historical linguistics for reconstructions of population histories, especially in contact situations.
The claims here are problematic. Linguistic analysis offers insights relatively short term human sociological movement. The reason is obvious: linguistic mutations occur much more rapidly than genetic mutations. You can have new dialects developing because of what one might call "linguistic drift". In this instance, unitary populations slit up and over time create new dialects and intonations(accents) of the same language[regional English language dialects in the U.S. for example]. There could also be in-group isolation leading to new dialectical forms[African American dialects in the U.S.]. New languages may also develop as a result of isolation[New Guinea with its hundreds of languages and dialects]. There could also be language erasure because a more dominant language with a larger population enters a sociological space.[erasure of indigenous languages in Europe in favour of Latin and Greek-based languages. The expansion of Hausa, Arabic and Swahili in Africa, etc.]
This rapid mutation rate of language explains why in fairly restricted areas where populations seem phenotypically homogeneous there may be a multiplicity of languages. This most likely signals population movements from different areas with the groups remaining fairly isolated.
The rapid mutational rates of language forms, therefore, does not tell us much about cladistic relationship among peoples. This is where genetic analysis is more robust analytically and answers questions as to the origins of different population groups. The resaon for this also obvious: lasting genetic mutations occur far more infrequently than linguistic mutation.
There is one issue though that often ledas to confusion: the fact that Y-based or Mt DNA based mutations have a very different impact from non-sex based mutations that prove to be environmentally adaptive--as in pigmentation; from random selection for a particular trait that expands across populations purely on the basis of stochastic differentials.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In their Research Article "Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement," 23 January, p. 479), R. D. Gray et al. analyzed a very large lexical data set on 400 Austronesian languages to shed light on Polynesian origins. The study raises the classic issue of how closely patterns of genetic and linguistic evolution correspond, and which better reflects ancient population histories (the Research Article rejects some genetic-based reconstructions of Austronesian history).
Other recent studies in the Pacific have shown the robustness of linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions in comparison to genetic ones, when adequate linguistic data sets are available (1, 2). [b]Any congruence between linguistics and genetics is disrupted when populations speaking unrelated languages are in close contact. In such cases, genetic distinctions between groups rapidly become blurred, because genetic exchange is generally more prevalent and pervasive than is language borrowing or adoption. Languages are more integrated sets of features than are gene pools.[b]
Language change does not occur in a social vacuum, and sociolinguistic pressures to maintain distinctions between groups can evidently have a strong inhibitory effect against linguistic convergence. This underlines the comparative power of historical linguistics for reconstructions of population histories, especially in contact situations.
The claims here are problematic. Linguistic analysis offers insights relatively short term human sociological movement. The reason is obvious: linguistic mutations occur much more rapidly than genetic mutations. You can have new dialects developing because of what one might call "linguistic drift". In this instance, unitary populations slit up and over time create new dialects and intonations(accents) of the same language[regional English language dialects in the U.S. for example]. There could also be in-group isolation leading to new dialectical forms[African American dialects in the U.S.]. New languages may also develop as a result of isolation[New Guinea with its hundreds of languages and dialects]. There could also be language erasure because a more dominant language with a larger population enters a sociological space.[erasure of indigenous languages in Europe in favour of Latin and Greek-based languages. The expansion of Hausa, Arabic and Swahili in Africa, etc.]
This rapid mutation rate of language explains why in fairly restricted areas where populations seem phenotypically homogeneous there may be a multiplicity of languages. This most likely signals population movements from different areas with the groups remaining fairly isolated.
The rapid mutational rates of language forms, therefore, does not tell us much about cladistic relationship among peoples. This is where genetic analysis is more robust analytically and answers questions as to the origins of different population groups. The resaon for this also obvious: lasting genetic mutations occur far more infrequently than linguistic mutation.
There is one issue though that often ledas to confusion: the fact that Y-based or Mt DNA based mutations have a very different impact from non-sex based mutations that prove to be environmentally adaptive--as in pigmentation; from random selection for a particular trait that expands across populations purely on the basis of stochastic differentials.
There is no such thing as "rapid mutations" of language forms. A dialect is not a mutation. There may ne changes in the pronunciation of specific vowels in relation to a dialect, but the structure remains constant.
This is why linguists can demonstrate a genetic relationship between Dravidian and Niger-Congo languages; and ancient Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages eventhough they are separated in time and space.
posted
What I mean by "rapid mutation rate of language" is the rate at which any existing language changes its structure--either by adding new words, using old words with new meanings, etc. I use the term metaphorically--and with some licence--in the sense of genetics.
Sure a dialect is not mutation but a dialects may take many forms--such as minor differentiations from the ancestor language but also major ones. Examples: Pular speakers in Guinea and Northern Nigeria(Fulani) speak mutually unintelligible dialects of Pular. Mandinka spoken in the Gambia differs from the Mandinka of Guinea in that there are are many phonemic and morphological differences. There is some mutual intelligibility though.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: What I mean by "rapid mutation rate of language" is the rate at which any existing language changes its structure--either by adding new words, using old words with new meanings, etc. I use the term metaphorically--and with some licence--in the sense of genetics.
Sure a dialect is not mutation but a dialects may take many forms--such as minor differentiations from the ancestor language but also major ones. Examples: Pular speakers in Guinea and Northern Nigeria(Fulani) speak mutually unintelligible dialects of Pular. Mandinka spoken in the Gambia differs from the Mandinka of Guinea in that there are are many phonemic and morphological differences. There is some mutual intelligibility though.
I doubt this. There is considerable intelligibility between these languages.
The rate at which languages change is variable. It appears that linguistic change is culture specific. Consequently, the social organization and political culture of a particular speech community can influence the speed at which languages change.
Based on the history of language change in Europe most linguists believe that the rate of change for all languages is both rapid and constant (Diagne, 1981,p.238). The idea that all languages change rapidly is not valid for all the World's languages.
African languages change much slower than European languages. (Armstrong, 1962) For example, African vocabulary items collected by Arab explorers over a thousand years ago are analogous to contemporary lexical items (Diagne,1981, p.239). In addition there are striking resemblances between the ancient Egyptian language and Coptic, and Pharonic Egyptian and African languages (Diagne, 1981; Diop, 1977; Obenga, 1988, 1992a, 1992b, 1993,).
This makes it clear that African languages due to linguistic constancy change much slower than European languages. This also disputes your idea that African languages show deep difference.
References:
Armstrong,R.G. (1962). Glottochronology and African linguistics. Journal of African History,3(2), 283-290.
Diagne,P. (1981). In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.), General history of Africa I: Methodology and African prehistory (233-260). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Diop, C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. Westport, Conn.:Lawrence Hill and Company.
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop, C.A. (1978). Precolonial Black Africa. Wesport, Conn. :Lawrence Hill and Company.
Diop, C.A. 1981. A methodology for the study of migrations. In African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, by UNESCO. (Unesco: Paris) 86--110.
Diop, C.A. (1991). Civilization or Barbarism. Brooklyn,N.Y.:Lawrence Hill Books.
Obenga, T. (1973). L'Afrique dans l'antiquite-Egypte pharaonique-Afrique noire. Paris: Presence Africaine.
Obenga, T. (1978a). Africa in antiquity, Africa Quarterly, 18, no.1, pp.1-15.
Obenga,T. (1978b). The genetic relationship between Egyptian (ancient Egyptian and Coptic) and modern African languages. In
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: language and genetics = same.
two valid disciplines, both only as reliable as the scientist who applies them.
like every other science.
Too bad that in the hands of so-called scholars like Winters any discipline becomes invalid and unreliable. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More apples & oranges. Language, while its origins can be traceable via phylum reconstruction, is cultural and can be adopted via acculturation. What does this mean? It isn't meant to, nor need to be an effect marker of biological ancestry. However, inherited DNA is biologically inbuilt and cannot be altered; therefore, it is an irreplaceable indicator of biological ancestry.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: More apples & oranges. Language, while its origins can be traceable via phylum reconstruction, is cultural and can be adopted via acculturation. What does this mean? It isn't meant to, nor need to be an effect marker of biological ancestry. However, inherited DNA is biologically inbuilt and cannot be altered; therefore, it is an irreplaceable indicator of biological ancestry.
True. But it provides only evidence of the people who are tested in a region today. It says nothing about previous groups.
The same can not be said for linguistics. Using linguistics we can examine and detail substratum and superstratum languages which were spoken in an area. Linguistic evidence that testifies to the former and present inhabitants of a locale.
More apples & oranges. Language, while its origins can be traceable via phylum reconstruction, is cultural and can be adopted via acculturation. What does this mean? It isn't meant to, nor need to be an effect marker of biological ancestry. However, inherited DNA is biologically inbuilt and cannot be altered; therefore, it is an irreplaceable indicator of biological ancestry. [
True. But it provides only evidence of the people who are tested in a region today. It says nothing about previous groups.
That's why we study "clusters" of lineages; to follow a lineage's bio-historic demographic pattern, and trace the origins of a designated population. Uniparental lineages are the best markers for this sort of thing. This is then supplemented by skeletal data, linguistic and archaeological data.
We learn about the history of language too from *living* groups, because without "intelligibility" via assistance [familiarity] of surviving languages [meaning spoken by "living & breathing" populations], a largely defunct sibling or a now marginalized ancestral version of contemporary language would not be cracked and its familial link would therefore not be determined. A solid reconstruction of the history of language, its evolution from a parent to present, is generally one that also takes into account what other disciplines tell us, as supplementary material, namely molecular genetics/bio-anthropology and archaeology.
And again, a population could be in the same region since the prehistoric era, and yet loose its aboriginal language through acculturation. What then, in that scenario, does the present language of said population tell us about their now lost aboriginal language? DNA though, is there to stay, regardless of acculturation.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
CW, Language change is a function of a number of variables, one of which is the "isolation factor".
Thus, my claim--and its an incontrovertible fact based on experience--that Pular spoken in Guinea is mutually intelligible with Pular spoken in Nigeria stands up.
On the other hand some languages become dialects when there are migratory forces that push people apart--especially when the distances migrated are large. Such dialects eventually become separate languages if there are no future contacts between the original dialect speakers.
We should recognise too that Europe is a relatively small land area compared to Africa--so there is more basis for contacts between languages. But again, note that Europe was settled by at least 7 different migrations from Eurasia and Asia Minor at different times. So let's take Polish and modern Greek, or Gaelic and Estonian? Any connections?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's that New York Times article about research that showed language used to reconstruct the 100,000 year-old ancestral population that was Mother to click languages that dispersed at that time:
________________________
Nicholas Wade, Click Languages, an Echo of the Tongues of the Ancients, New York Times, March 18, 2003.
Do some of today's languages still hold a whisper of the ancient mother tongue spoken by the first modern humans? Many linguists say language changes far too fast for that to be possible. But a new genetic study underlines the extreme antiquity of a special group of languages, raising the possibility that their distinctive feature was part of the ancestral human mother tongue.
They are the click languages of southern Africa. About 30 survive, spoken by peoples like the San, traditional hunters and gatherers, and the Khwe, who include hunters and herders.
Each language has a set of four or five click sounds, which are essentially double consonants made by sucking the tongue down from the roof of the mouth. Outside of Africa, the only language known to use clicks is Damin, an extinct aboriginal language in Australia that was taught only to men for initiation rites.
Some of the Bantu-speaking peoples who reached southern Africa from their homeland in western Africa some 2,000 years ago have borrowed certain clicks from the Khwe, one use being to substitute for consonants in taboo words.
There are reasons to assume that the click languages may be very old. One is that the click speakers themselves, particularly a group of hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari, belong to an extremely ancient genetic lineage, according to analysis of their DNA. They are called the Ju|'hoansi, with the upright bar indicating a click. (''Ju|'hoansi'' is pronounced like ''ju-twansi'' except that the ''tw'' is a click sound like the ''tsk, tsk'' of disapproval.)
All human groups are equally old, being descended from the same ancestral population. But geneticists can now place ethnic groups on a family tree of humankind. Groups at the ends of short twigs, the ones that split only recently from earlier populations, are younger, in a genealogical sense, than those at the ends of long branches. Judged by mitochondrial DNA, a genetic element passed down in the female line, the Ju|'hoansis' line of descent is so ancient that it goes back close to the very root of the human family tree.
Most of the surviving click speakers live in southern Africa. But two small populations, the Hadzabe and the Sandawe, live near Lake Eyasi in Tanzania, in eastern Africa. Two geneticists from Stanford, Dr. Alec Knight and Dr. Joanna Mountain, recently analyzed the genetics of the Hadzabe to figure out their relationship to their fellow click speakers, the Ju|'hoansi.
The Hadzabe, too, have an extremely ancient lineage that also traces back close to the root of the human family tree, the Stanford team reports today in the journal Current Biology. But the Hadzabe lineage and that of the Ju|'hoansi spring from opposite sides of the root. In other words, the Hadzabe and the Ju|'hoansi have been separate peoples since close to the dawn of modern human existence.
The Stanford team compared them with other extremely ancient groups like the Mbuti of Zaire and the Biaka pygmies of Central African Republic and found the divergence between the Hadzabe and the Ju|'hoansi might be the oldest known split in the human family tree.
Unless each group independently invented click languages at some later time, that finding implies that click languages were spoken by the very ancient population from which the Hadzabe and the Ju|'hoansi descended. ''The divergence of those genetic lineages is among the oldest on earth,'' Dr. Knight said. ''So one could certainly make the inference that clicks were present in the mother tongue.''
If so, the modern humans who left Africa some 40,000 years ago and populated the rest of the world might have been click speakers who later lost their clicks. Australia, where the Damin click language used to be spoken, is one of the first places outside Africa known to have been reached by modern humans.
But the antiquity of clicks, if they are indeed extremely ancient, raises a serious puzzle. Joseph Greenberg of Stanford University, the great classifier of the world's languages, put all the click languages in a group he called Khoisan. But Sandawe and Hadzane, the language of the Hadzabe, are what linguists call isolates. They are unlike each other and every other known language. Apart from their clicks, they have very little in common even with the other Khoisan languages.
Correction: March 20, 2003, Thursday An article in Science Times on Tuesday about the ancient nature of click languages in southern Africa misspelled the given name of a linguist at Northern Arizona University who suggested that clicks could have been invented more than once. She is Dr. Bonny Sands, not Bonnie.
That the Hadzabe and the Ju|'hoansi differ as much in their language as in their genetics is a reflection of the same fact. They are extremely ancient, and there has been a long time for both their language and their genetics to diverge. The puzzle is why they should have retained their clicks when everything else in their languages has changed.
Dr. Knight suggested that clicks might have survived because in the savanna, where most click speakers live, the sounds allow hunters to coordinate activity without disturbing prey. Whispered speech that uses just clicks sounds more like branches creaking than human talk. Clicks make up more than 40 percent of the language and suffice for hunters to convey their meanings, Dr. Knight said.
Dr. Anthony Traill, an expert on click languages at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa, said he did not find the hunting idea very plausible.
''Clicks are acoustically high-impact sounds for mammalian ears,'' Dr. Traill said, ''probably the worst sounds to use if you are trying to conceal your presence.''
But he agreed that it was a puzzle to understand why clicks had been retained for so long. He has found that in the ordinary process of language change, certain types of click can be replaced by nonclick consonants, but he has never seen the reverse occur. ''It is highly improbable that a fully fledged click system could arise from nonclick precursors,'' Dr. Traill said.
Because languages change so fast, it is difficult for linguists to measure their age. Indeed, most think that languages more than a few thousand years old can rarely be dated. But if Dr. Traill is right, that clicks can be lost but not reinvented, that implies that clicks may be a very ancient component of language.
Dr. Bonnie Sands, a linguist at Northern Arizona University, said click sounds were not particularly hard to make. All children can make them. Dr. Sands saw no reason why clicks could not have been invented independently many times and, perhaps, lost in all areas of the world except Africa.
''There is nothing to be gained by assuming that clicks must have been invented only once,'' she said, ''or in presuming that certain types of phonological systems are more primordial than others.''
Dr. Traill said that although a single click was not difficult, rattling off a whole series is another matter, because they are like double consonants. ''Fluent articulation of clicks in running speech is by any measure difficult,'' he said. ''It requires more articulatory work, like taking two stairs at a time.''
Given the laziness of the human tongue, why have clicks been retained by click speakers while everything else changed? ''That is a major problem,'' Dr. Traill said. ''All the expectations would be that they would have succumbed to the pressures of change that affect all languages. I do not know the answer.''
A leading theory to explain the emergence of behaviorally modern humans 50,000 years ago is that some genetic change enabled one group of people to perfect modern speech. The new power of communication, according to an archaeologist, Dr. Richard Klein, made possible the advanced behaviors that begin to be reflected in the archaeological record of the period.
The Stanford team calculated a date of 112,000 years, plus or minus 42,000 years, for the separation of the Hadzabe and Ju|'hoansi populations. If this means that modern speech existed that long ago, it does not appear to fit with Dr. Klein's thesis.
But Dr. Knight said the estimate was very approximate and added that he believed the new findings about click language were fully compatible with Dr. Klein's theory. Clicks might have been part of the first fully articulate human language that appeared among some group of early humans 50,000 years ago. Those with the language gene would have outcompeted all other groups, so that language become universal in the surviving human population.
That would explain why the metaphorical Adam hit it off with Eve. They just clicked.
Correction: March 20, 2003, Thursday An article in Science Times on Tuesday about the ancient nature of click languages in southern Africa misspelled the given name of a linguist at Northern Arizona University who suggested that clicks could have been invented more than once. She is Dr. Bonny Sands, not Bonnie.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing special about click languages. As long as any child can learn "click languages" then it means that clicks are no more unusual than the guttaral or rolled "r" in a number of modern languages. And there are those languages like Arabic that are quite guttaral.
So nothing unusual about the click languages.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
...other than the fact they are indicators one of the oldest language patterns of modern humans before the advent of ancestors of contemporary non-African populations.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard people speak the so-called click languages and its percentage of use is no more prevalent that the rolled "r" in some languages. I have even tried it. It's pretty simple to do. So what's the fuss? It's only because Euro linguists have picked this feature of Khoisan languages as something they are fascinated with.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are speaking in two different languages: you are talking about how easy it is to speak click languages, and I'm referring to why researchers think it is special. Hope that helps.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Lamin writes]: There is nothing special about click languages. As long as any child can learn "click languages" then it means that clicks are no more unusual than the guttaral or rolled "r" in a number of modern languages. And there are those languages like Arabic that are quite guttaral.
So nothing unusual about the click languages.
[Marc writes]: Lamin. Dr. Sands agrees wholeheartedly with you. The following quote is from the above. You can read her comment and the response by Dr. Traille, an expert on click languages at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa.
Dr. Bonnie Sands, a linguist at Northern Arizona University, said click sounds were not particularly hard to make. All children can make them. Dr. Sands saw no reason why clicks could not have been invented independently many times and, perhaps, lost in all areas of the world except Africa.
''There is nothing to be gained by assuming that clicks must have been invented only once,'' she said, ''or in presuming that certain types of phonological systems are more primordial than others.''
Dr. Traill said that although a single click was not difficult, rattling off a whole series is another matter, because they are like double consonants. ''Fluent articulation of clicks in running speech is by any measure difficult,'' he said. ''It requires more articulatory work, like taking two stairs at a time.''
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: CW, Language change is a function of a number of variables, one of which is the "isolation factor".
Thus, my claim--and its an incontrovertible fact based on experience--that Pular spoken in Guinea is mutually intelligible with Pular spoken in Nigeria stands up.
On the other hand some languages become dialects when there are migratory forces that push people apart--especially when the distances migrated are large. Such dialects eventually become separate languages if there are no future contacts between the original dialect speakers.
We should recognise too that Europe is a relatively small land area compared to Africa--so there is more basis for contacts between languages. But again, note that Europe was settled by at least 7 different migrations from Eurasia and Asia Minor at different times. So let's take Polish and modern Greek, or Gaelic and Estonian? Any connections?
I never disputed the fact that Pular is the same in both places. What I am saying is that linguistics can tell us more about ancient relationships than genetics because the DNA samples are from people who live in the area today and may not reflect the original inhabitants.
This fact is proven when we attempt to isolate the ancient Europeans. Contemporary Europeans lack the genetic signature of the original Europeans as proven from the extraction of DNA from Cro-Magnon people.
This makes it clear that these populations are disimilar. If not for the recovery of ancient DNA we would believe that contemporary Europeans are the modertn representatives of the Old Europeans--which they are not, based on the lineages they carry.
More apples & oranges. Language, while its origins can be traceable via phylum reconstruction, is cultural and can be adopted via acculturation. What does this mean? It isn't meant to, nor need to be an effect marker of biological ancestry. However, inherited DNA is biologically inbuilt and cannot be altered; therefore, it is an irreplaceable indicator of biological ancestry. [
True. But it provides only evidence of the people who are tested in a region today. It says nothing about previous groups.
That's why we study "clusters" of lineages; to follow a lineage's bio-historic demographic pattern, and trace the origins of a designated population. Uniparental lineages are the best markers for this sort of thing. This is then supplemented by skeletal data, linguistic and archaeological data.
We learn about the history of language too from *living* groups, because without "intelligibility" via assistance [familiarity] of surviving languages [meaning spoken by "living & breathing" populations], a largely defunct sibling or a now marginalized ancestral version of contemporary language would not be cracked and its familial link would therefore not be determined. A solid reconstruction of the history of language, its evolution from a parent to present, is generally one that also takes into account what other disciplines tell us, as supplementary material, namely molecular genetics/bio-anthropology and archaeology.
And again, a population could be in the same region since the prehistoric era, and yet loose its aboriginal language through acculturation. What then, in that scenario, does the present language of said population tell us about their now lost aboriginal language? DNA though, is there to stay, regardless of acculturation.
You can discover if a language was formerly spoken in an area today by examining its lexicon and placenames. For example, less that 40 percent of Greek can be explained by Indo-European languages, in the Turkic languages we find a Dravidian substratum (mainly Tamil) which proves that the Dravidians former lived in Central Asia because it is a substratum language.
Archaeology might help disccover a connection between populations, but it can not tell us much about language. For example, the characetristic pottery of the C-Group is red-and-black. This ceramic assemblage was used by a number of people descendant from the C-Group and was employed by people from ancient Kush into Iran, Central Asia and back into Pakistan and India. The people who used this pottery style spoke different languages including Dravidian, Sumerian and Mande.
These people also used the same script to write their literature and keep records.
Another example is the Minoan, Olmec, Harappan. Linear Elamite and Proto-Sumerian scripts. These scripts have similar signs but they were written in different languages which show a genetic relationship but have distinct characteristic.
Genetics, and pots, describe populations--but like skeletons they say nothing about the languages spoken by the manufacturers of the pots or the (bio-anthropology) skeleton found in a grave.You see bones and genes lack language--they don't speak.
You can discover if a language was formerly spoken in an area today by examining its lexicon and placenames.
You cite people without understanding what they told you. I told you that in order for one to find language relationship between old defunct languages and contemporary ones, is if one examines languages being spoken by living populations; otherwise there is no way of reconstructing a language superphylum, let alone understand a defunct abandoned language. Place names don't say jack about the nature of a language or what was the predominant language spoken in an area in the past; this is apparent to anyone who is remotely familiar with linguistic 101.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
You can discover if a language was formerly spoken in an area today by examining its lexicon and placenames.
You cite people without understanding what they told you. I told you that in order for one to find language relationship between old defunct languages and contemporary ones, is if one examines languages being spoken by living populations; otherwise there is no way of reconstructing a language superphylum, let alone understand a defunct abandoned language. Place names don't say jack about the nature of a language or what was the predominant language spoken in an area in the past; this is apparent to anyone who is remotely familiar with linguistic 101.
Again Explorer you show your ignorance of linguistics.
quote: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Toponymy is the scientific study of place-names (toponyms), their origins, meanings, use and typology. The first part of the word is derived from the Greek tópos (τόπος), place; followed by ónoma (ὄνομα), meaning name. It is itself a branch of onomastics, the study of names of all kinds. To understand the value of toponyms, visualize each toponym (or geographical name) as the title of a story revealing some aspect of a region's cultural or natural heritage.
Toponyms are not just words on maps and signs, but vital communication tools that reflect patterns of settlement, exploration, migration, and heritage that may otherwise be overlooked by residents, visitors, and future generations. A toponym is a named point of reference in both the physical and cultural landscape on the Earth's surface. This includes natural features, such as streams (whose names are studied as hydronyms) and artificial ones (such as cities). Natural features are no more geographical than man-made features or administrative units because all such features have names that are in essence artificially applied. Toponyms are typically conservative and give insight into the buried human history of a region. For example Moses I. Finley observed, "it is significant that the bulk of the towns and districts in Greece in historical times retained their pre-Greek names";[1] viewed with archaeological remains, the conclusion is that speakers of proto-Greek infiltrated the region by degrees, rather than in a massive invasion, and that they found already in place a comparatively highly-developed culture.
Toponymy gives us considerable information on the history of an area. You say place names don't matter because you don't know anything about linguistics. If you did you would know that place names can tell us lots about the language formerly spoken in an area and former people.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Linguistics is more robust because it uses actual data while geneticist make statistical models to explain population movements which often fail to reflect actual migrations.
.
You just keep trying to link non-africans to Africans. Some of everyone share similar languages; some are in relations others co-relations and others have no relations at all.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic