Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!petrich
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Halloran's Crackpottery
Message-ID: <petrichDx4r3x.MI@netcom.com>
Keywords: language origin, Sumerian
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <4vv851$evi@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it> <seagoat.529.023A24F6@primenet.com> <petrichDx2znB.6vI@netcom.com> <seagoat.531.00FC2DB4@primenet.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 00:09:32 GMT
Lines: 64
Sender: petrich@netcom17.netcom.com

In article <seagoat.531.00FC2DB4@primenet.com>,
John A. Halloran <seagoat@primenet.com> wrote:
>In article <petrichDx2znB.6vI@netcom.com> petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:

>>        This hypothesis does not explain how (say) the Americas got 
>>language, since those continents are rather far away from the Fertile 
>>Crescent.

>I can't tell you exactly how the Americas acquired the concept of language,
>but other scholars will tell you that it was relatively recently.  Here are
>some quotes:

>The Amerindian protolanguages "existed approximately three
>to five thousand years ago, that is, 1000-3000 B.C." (Mary
>R. Haas, The Prehistory of Languages (Paris: Mouton, 1969),
>pp. 75-76.

	[similar quotes deleted]

	However, there are numerous such protolanguages, and there is a 
big controversy over the Larger Picture. The most serious "lumping" to 
date is that of Joseph Greenberg, who posits three New World 
macrofamilies -- Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene, and Amerind. However, he has been 
much criticized for his methodology, that of eyeball comparison of lots 
of word lists, and many linguists prefer to split up Amerind. 

	[agriculture going back to 8000 BCE in Central America...]

	And there is absolutely zero evidence of Fertile-Crescent crop 
plants like wheat in the New World until European settlers started 
arriving _en masse_ over the last millennium. And that's not to mention 
the lack of immunity of many New Worlders to Old-World diseases.

	And that is not to mention places like New Guinea and Australia.

>>        There is reason to believe that our species is hardwired to 
>>produce and use spoken language; there are specialized brain areas for 
>>various linguistic tasks, and children have the ability to pick up their 
>>elders' language without *any* formal instruction. Studies of pidgins and 
>>creoles indicates that people have the ability to invent various language 
>>structures.

>It is not clear whether you have researched the literature regarding language 
>and the brain.

	I have.

>In regard to the brain being hard-wired for language, this does not take into 
>account the concept of pre-adaptation.

	And what *positive* evidence is there for preadaptation here? 
Like what were the parts adapted to language originally adapted for???

>It is also not clear if before responding you took the time to investigate 
>the facts about the Sumerian vocabulary that are presented at my Sumerian 
>Language Page.

	I checked, and that page is one big fat non sequitur.

-- 
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


