...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
OT: R*-M173 back migration
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Mystery Solver said [QUOTE] Which language was supposedly doing this 30ky ago? You don't seem to be properly engaging in what is being said. If there no specific language family being noted here, and this is just done for the heck of hypothesizing, then wouldn't this take us back to the question you are responding to? And as already relayed to you, so what if many of the *Euro-identified* languages have been deemed to belong to families; does this in any way diminish diversity of African languages? If not, then what's the issue? [/QUOTE]Since the "back migration" idea is so offensive, [/QUOTE]According to whom? Yourself? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: let's do this; Between 30-20 KYA in East Africa the precursors of proto-Nilo Saharan and proto-Niger-Congo developed and also a technological advance in hunting/gathering technique or a new social organization developed, which conferred an advantage to these populations. Then, say 12KYA they rapidly expanded over much of Africa displacing and/or absorbing the variety of linguistic families that already occupied the land.[/QUOTE]I hope that you are aware that when you say "let's do this", you're effectively engaging in something that wasn't promoted by the piece you posted, right? And so, you'd essentially be putting words into the author's mouth, no? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Somewhat later proto-Afroasiatic did the same. This would, I think, [b]produce what Blench finds (and tries to explain)[/b]-- a few well-defined language phyla but with a huge variety of phonological and morphological differences in the languages composing the phyla and relatively few isolated languages.[/QUOTE]Specific Blench citation? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The point to concentrate on is the relatively recent large expansion of a few language phyla over a territory that was already occupied by people with many different languages.[/QUOTE]Why? This isn't the point made by your source. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: These characteristics seem contrary to the enormous time depth of African languages and the expected variety that would result. "Enormous time depth" of which African languages - how enormous? You just claimed that your extracts from Blench were acknowledging relatively recent divergences of many of the major languages spoken, so what is all this talk of 'enormous time depth'? [/QUOTE]Basically, it seems that by the time humans left Africa they had language and that surely means that modern humans in Africa had language prior to that. Thus, in Africa humans have had language for some 100,000 years. Comparing the diversification that occurred in other areas with much shorter occupations [b]one would expect that Africa would have had at some time a much much more varied set of languages[/b] than even those found today.[/QUOTE]But why?...given what I had already pointed out time and again. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But, they became extinct and were replaced by what we find now.[/QUOTE]Well, it is a given that some languages over time, due to acculturation, would become largely defunct. However, how does this support the notion that languages in Africa in the past would have been 'extremely' more diverse than they are, or that they 'ought' to be as diverse? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Mystery Solver said [QUOTE] ^This is why I said you hadn't been carefully engaging in what my reponses to your extracts were saying and why so.[/QUOTE]This does not go one way only. You (and Rasol) [b]keep arguing that African languages are very diverse and that Blench is denying that[/b][/QUOTE]Citation? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: but I keep pointing out that what Blench is trying to explain is the unexpectedly low number of well-defined language phyla which, however have a huge diversity of phonology and morphology, i.e. African languages are very diverse-- no denial there. [/QUOTE]Why would the current language phyla be [i]unexpectedly[/i] low? Is it not the fact of reality? You dodged my last question about the bearing of language families on diversity; please try not to do that again. Thanks. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3