Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!petrich
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Reposts: Sumerian - Monogenesis/Polygenesis
Message-ID: <petrichDxpEqA.FGo@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <5184eg$p8a@halley.pi.net> <seagoat.546.005359F7@primenet.com> <petrichDxnIA8.HKK@netcom.com> <seagoat.552.01DC06F9@primenet.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 03:51:46 GMT
Lines: 26
Sender: petrich@netcom19.netcom.com

In article <seagoat.552.01DC06F9@primenet.com>,
John A. Halloran <seagoat@primenet.com> wrote:

>Here is a quote which supports polygenetic invention, as opposed to 
>monogenetic descent, this time taken from a scholar of the languages in 
>Australia.

>In Australia's eastern corridor, "apart from ...words for boomerang, there is 
>great variety and no agreement at all.  This is usually the case in Australia: 
>similar words are usually nested amongst great variety, which suggests that 
>the original peoples, while racially similar, spoke a great variety of 
>unrelated languages.  This may be expected in terms of anything except 
>monogenetic theory of language origin."  "While there is no evidence anywhere 
>that language had a monogenetic origin, Australia seems to show positive 
>reasons for suggesting that it did not."  A. Capell, The History of Australian 
>Languages, p. 581.

	That's just Mr. Capell's *opinion*.

	IMO, this is more a case of some very ancient divergence.

-- 
Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html


