Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!petrich
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
Message-ID: <petrichE142t4.DGu@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <54q9ou$85o_002@dialin.csus.edu> <56n631$5cs@fridge-nf0.shore.net> <56nj5p$kpv@csu-b.csuohio.edu> <56oh14$i2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:39:03 GMT
Lines: 70
Sender: petrich@netcom2.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.archaeology:56136 sci.lang:64495

In article <56oh14$i2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whittet@shore.net> wrote:

>Let's allow that some of the evidence (writing) is limited to 
>historically-attested languages. Loren is fond of claiming that 
>linguistic reconstructions of language are also evidence of the 
>existence of language, so to limit the language that he allows
>has evolved to historically attested languages strongly implies
>that he thinks whatever was spoken prior to the written evidence
>of its having evolved, was created in the same perfectly proficient
>form which Ben claims.

	I never claimed ANY SUCH THING!!!

	Just because groups of existing languages had some common 
ancestor does not preclude that ancestor having ancestors of its own. 
Thus, the Germanic languages clearly have a well-defined common ancestor, 
but this ancestor is clearly descended from the ancestor of the IE langs.

>If there is "no need for evolution in phonology, grammar, 
>basic vocabulary, etc." what is there need for evolution in?

	Words for new things.

>If it evolved from one souce and diffused around the world, does
>it reflect people coming from one source and bringing language
>with them, or did it come to people where they had settled
>previously either without language, or with an older language 
>that the new language from the common source replaced?

	Most likely, our species has had language as long as humanity has 
existed. Even people in distant parts of the world with Paleolithic-level 
technology have had language.

>How long would it take for such a process, (whatever process
>you decide to choose) to distribute common bits of language 
>around the world. Would it make a difference in the amount 
>of time the process took, how sophisticated and urbane mankind 
>had become at the point when this occured? Would language
>diffuse faster at a time when there were mechanisms for the
>rapid transmission of new ideas such as boats and horses?

	So what if more-advanced technology helps language spread faster?

	Mr. Whittet, if you spend 1/10 the time studying historical 
linguistics that you spend on archeology, you might actually *learn* 
something about this subject.

>Suppose that language were independently invented over and 
>over again all over the world. When would this first occur?
>When was the last time you think it occured? 

	There is good reason to suppose that that has happened only once. 
Why aren't there any language-less stragglers?

>>To label it anything *but* controversial is either to indulge in 
>>wishful thinking or to be uninformed.  The last time I looked, the 
>>controversy hadn't been resolved.
>What controversy do you refer to? 

	Mr. Whittet, don't be an idiot. Ape-language claims have provoked
some strongly skeptical responses and some failed attempts at repetition; 
the most that's been claimed is "sentences" of 2 or 3 words. 

	[a lot of (metaphorical) squid-style squirted ink deleted...]
-- 
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


