mother tongue newsletter 3 (spring 1987)

7/27/2019 Mother Tongue Newsletter 3 (Spring 1987)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mother-tongue-newsletter-3-spring-1987 1/36

TDNSUE 1 THREE. <I ••• , Circular.3)I.

d• Jaur. ARCHEDLDSICAL HEURISMS. Sub- t i t l • • Facu• an India.

H8rain an• 1• i n v i t ~ t a tak• a br•ak fram t •chnical l in ;u l • t t c • ant • di f f icu l t Jar;an cnm•talan;ua;•") and Jain in •am• • t r a t • ; i c thinking ma

to tha t of arch•ala;y . Than w. v•t •am• •p .c i f ic id •• • from arch•ala;y .

W• hav• invi t•d a number of cal l •avu•• in t • r • • tad in Dravidian and ,and N•hali CNihali) to Jain th • Club. Th• qu•• t ian• which Vita

about Au•tra-Thai Can a l l . ; •d l a r ; • r phylum can• i • t in ; o f Au•traa• ia tand Au•tran••ian CMalaya-Palyn••ianJ) ar• •am• of th • ma•t

an•• which wa fac•• Au•traa•iat ic i • crucial ta •verythin; . Thu•,an b• • • •n , fram th • per•p•ct iv• which you will know in a moment, tha t

brid ;•• narth•rn A•i• and •auth•rn ~ i a - - but th i s i • nat •uchconsideration. Thai-Kadai didn•t ; a much of anywh.r• •xcapt to b• push

into •auth China and fur th•r Sauth•a•t A•ia. <Banadict•• racan•truct•dborrowing• in old Chin••• ar ;u• ma•t paw•rfully far an old Thai locatioCENTRAL CHINA.) Au•tran••ian •pr•ad a ll th • way aero•• th • Pacif ic , and wMada;a•car but • • . _ ta hav• a w.•t Pacif ic ham•land sam•wh•r• b•tw.an

M•lan••ia. Cl wagerit

i • northern Sunda-land • th • Phi l ippin••Sa what? Sa in a • •n• • Au•tran••ian, Thai-Kadai and Sina-Tib•tan a raf China and th • Sauth China S••· Sina-Tib•tan i • th • north . rn . r of

• th r • • and thu• th • ma•t l ik• ly an pur•ly ; .agraphical ground• ta b• r • l •a l l . ; •d Na•trat ic or ath•r phyla of nar th. rn Eura•i• <• . ; . , Yan•••ian). B

y almost •v.ryan••• rackaning Au•tra• ia t ic i • ABDRISINAL IN S.E.ASIAI incluo f •auth China in tha t . Thar•far•, by a ;•agraphical and pr8hi• tor ical

would b• fa r th . r from narth•rn Eura•ian phyla than. • Indo-Pacific and Au•tralian. Th•n it aught ta b• C• may b• •xpact•d toe phylum c la•as t to Indo-Pacif ic , •xcapt far Au•tralian. That s••m• to be

haw Swad••h •aw it in h i• KHMER-TASMANIAN phylum <••• Circular .2) . B• includ•d Au•tran••ian and Thai-Kadai in tha t tao, appar•ntly. I t i • al•a

Marri• Jain•d Ta•manian to h i• Sauth••• t A•ian bunch, nat t

Ju• t • • e r. . barg Jain•d it mar• r•c•nt ly to Indo-Pacific. <I wihad th • internal d• ta i l • of Swad••h'• • l •v•n gr•a t phyla af th • world!)HOWEVER, Au•traa•iat ic i • also wall graund•d in INDIA, wh•r• •v•rya

gr... tha t it i s ABDRISINAL. Probably nat iv• t a •a• t • rn and •autharn Indiab• th • dominant r•act ian but •am• • • • th • lang hand af Au•traasiat ic a

r north and wast as Himachal Prad••h and •van th • lndu• val l•y <•auth•rn).ba•ical ly ha• t h i • • t r • tch•d-aut phylum an th • bord•r• of th • Middl• Eait i • ma•t l ik• ly an pur•ly geographical ground• to b• th • n•xt a f kin

via i t • a l l . ; ~ Elamita-Dravidian •ub-phylum. Dravidian of caurs•in from Baluchi•tan and drav• th • Aborlgin•• ••stward• or ab•orb•d th•mDravidian papulation•. Dr •a th•y .. . Au•traa•iat ic i s al•a wid•ly

ta b• •••acia tad with th • •a-cal led Au•tralaid phy•ical typ• of mank

i • a l •a thought t a b• ABDRISINAL IN INDIA. Th• canc•n•u• an t h i • mu•t100'X.Wha i • r•lattld to Au•traa•iat ic? <Nowaday• we •hauld say "mar• cla•

1 b•cau- th • nat i an of a l l b•i ng r• la t •d i • b•i ng brui t•d about ! ) Fait would b• qui t • •naugh to know IF Au•traa•iat ic ha• any l ingui• t ic kinmy i n t . r • • t in India i • • trang •nau;h by i t • • l f . Parhap• bacau•• of

inf lu•nc• a f th • l a t • Pat•r Schmidt •varyan• •••m• t a laak •a•tward - -ar Austran••ian. W• a l •a know, incidental ly , tha t thar• will b•

r .. s tanc• from a t l • a • t th • American •xp•r t • an Au•tran•sian. Th• lof g•agraphy ha• alr•ady argu•d abav• tha t an inquiry in ta Au•traa•iat ic

Indo-Pacific might turn up ra • • • · Sine• Indo-Pacific i • va•t and s

· - · - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -



I I .in t ime, an• might in fac t detach a piece af i t and give i t ta

e . ; . , Andaman••• ar Timor•••· <One doubts tha t , since .• • • • ta hold together l ike glueda but in Africa Thila

•••m• ta have succ. . ful ly tarn away part af N-K and given i t taonly known case, although "ukaravsky strongly and Bennett weakly th

sam. af w.stern N-C should ; a with Basque instead a f N-C. Barry abaut t

Why nat laak ta the WEST? Ta Nihali , Kusunda and abave a l l Dravidiaof ald Nostrat ic• Austraasiat ic has "checked" consonants which I MOul

• • ; l a t t a l i c in ; r.. iv. . Cimplasiv. . were I ; iv .n p.rmissian byZide, David Stampe, S.rard Difflath ar H-J. Pinnow. "Y mistake. Shade

f c .n t ra l Africa• We have gla t ta l ic in;ressiv. . fram west.rn Somalia ta Dakd we always have the same twa tha t Austraasiat ic has, ta wit, tBl and tDJ

and td•J) . In fac t sam. ~ n d a languages have the whale implosive s . twhich i s Just l ike Kansa af southern Ethiopia. Sauth af tha t bel t ,begins the north-south b e l ~ af velar ic in;ressiv.. (clicks>, sp l i t

by Bantua the bel t always lacks ; l a t t a l i c ingressive• but da.s have. ; ; r ess ives . CDa you agree, Khaisanalagists?) But what da•

resemblanc.. prave anyway? Prave? Nothing! We might a l l agree.t su ; ;. . heuris t ical ly? "•ybe a la t !

By naw the archealagis ts must be in tears! Can't w. ev. r stap talkinblaady guttural cansanants and get an with thase 11heurisms 11? Okay, l e t

a that . What i s a heurism? The Nard was Just invented as a back farmatian fan the madel 1 capitalism 11 cap i ta l i s t i c as heurism 11 heurist i

heurism i s something tha t helps us ta invent ar discover, l ike a heurist icshor ter and more clear ly factual . I t i s NOT a praaf but sam.thin

MY STI"'-LATE ar encourage hypa th• - • ·A l inguist ic heurism i s tha t Austraasiat ic shares a peculiar kind a

with central Africa1 sa Me might laok t a central Africa ar jus t ta<Sauth Cushitic>, Bani ar Kanso <East Cushit ic) , ar even "asai af N-S

s the clases t th in ; , Just acrass the Nell-traveled Indian Ocean fram India.

ar bialagical heurism wauld be the sa-called Australaid physique whinvi tes us ta laok towards New Suinea <Inda-Pacific) ar Australia

Anather physical heurism wauld be the sa-cal led ••veddaid• ardespised caste ; raups in Aden Ce.; . , the Zabidi) and ather

af a farmer Australaid presence in southern Arabia. Samehave much emphasized th • • • alleged fac ts .

The archeala; ical heurism I have in mind i s the famous " ~ v i u s ' s Liseparates the western Old Warld fram the eastern Old Warld, separates

xe t radi t ion from the adze t radi t ion , and runs narth ta south through Indiar • precisely, ~ v i u s · s Line runs fram the Bay af Bengal narth thru Tripurata east Bhutan, thence w.st alang the wall far .ad by the Himalayas,

and Hindu Kush unt i l the wall turns narth and northeast through Tien,ta the Altai " t s . and half way ta Lake Baikal. Narth af the Ti•n Shan apar t ian af the Line i t i s presumed tha t na human habitat ion BKist•d ·the Pl•istac•ne. Sa a giant human faul t l ine af sor t s runs thrau;h In

s an ald Paleol i thic divider a f humanity inta fundamentally different grouppretty strang! The inventor, Hallam "avius, i s s t i l l al ive in Cambrid

but lang re t i red and aut af tauch with current apinian. The l a te Carlea famous physical anthrapala ; is t also af Harvard, thought ~ v i u s ' s Lin

s dandy and used it in his ••The Living Races af "an•. In his scheme the Lithe ancestral tu r fs af the Australaids and "angalaids af the east fro

e Caucasoids, Capaids <Khae • San) and Cangaids CNegra.s) a f the -•t. Ofalthough northern Tibet, Sinkian; and Siber ia north af Mavius•s Line



I I I .frozan over durin; most of the great mom.nts in human physical evolutio

durin ; warmer pha••• af the Pleistocene, and af te r i t , human intercourd t ravel and migration could t raver•• the carr idar from Saviat Central As

Khazakstan, ta inner Mongolia and north China. Or ; a the other wmi;ht even cal l i t the Sina-Caucasic ar Vasca-D•n• Carridar, i f an• wish

a . Then again, one mi;ht NOT wish ta! And Caan himself da•• not lack cr i t ic

One WOULD l ike t a hear fram archeala ; is ts about the Line • • viawadSince sa much af Mavius•s Line dep.nds an the obvious and eternalbarr ie r af our world 's greatest black af mountains, then it i s h

o ... the Line • • seriously mistaken. But it may have leaked mare than Mavand in mare important ways than he thau;ht . Like the suspicions af

t rave l in ; fram cantral Asia ta China ta Alaska and beyand. Ydefini te ly need ta hear fram archaala ; is ts and/ar physical anthropologis

n th i s .Caan and ather• f ind much evid.nce af Australaids sa-cal led in Indi

t by Mavius Line reasanin; they should have maved in ta India from EAST OFi . e . , fram the Na;a h i l l s and Burma ar beyand. That mavemant COU

e the f i r s t mavemant af Austraasiat ic fram i t s homeland in Southeast Asia i

BUT, BUT, and here the prablem gets hat , Mavius•s Line runs almastthe center , Just ta the west af center , of Austraasia t ic 's PRIMARYAccordin; ta Berard Difflath in his Bri t tanica ar t ic le an

the family <phylum) has three primary sub-families, viz . , MUNand MaN-KHMER. Munda i s faund anly in central and eastern India

wast af Ban;ladesh and Mavius•s Line. Nicabar••• i s faund only in thIslands which l ie Just south af the Andamans and probably cauld bemdSt easi ly durin; law ••a- levels by land fram Chit ta ;an; ar Ran;aan

of but basical ly west of mainland Southeast Asia. Man-Khmer has twelvespread from Viet Nam to Assam, with i t s center of gravity in Thailai t s diversi ty it da. . nat 0 wei;h" mare than Munda when w. came ta

balance paint ar center of ; ravi ty af the th r • • sub-families.paint ar center would • • • • ta l ie mare alan; th • ••• t• rn shares af the

f B•n;al than anywhere e lse , perhaps near Ran;aan. The weight af Nicabar•••her• . If samethin; else were ta be thrown anta the sea l • • , the balancsh i f t decisively ei ther • • • t ar west. As th in ; • stand now, there i s an

modest tilt towards the eas t .W.ll, there stand India ' s THREE SMALL PHYLA, ta wit, Nihali , Kusund

nd Burushaski. <The res t af you guys cal l them "Isolates" .) Naturally, Paulmay be r i ; h t in • • • in ; Austraasiat ic • • connected ta Austronesian a

and I ; rea t ly respect h is apinian. Then the balance would sh i f t mta the eas t and Munda would be an ald migration ar expansion fram

However, i f Vaxantav daes nat convince Dyen and ather Austranesianisthe India cards au;ht t a be play•d. Nihali especial ly , but alsa the athmay have much ta shaw us. ·

Nihali CNehali, Nehari, Nihart) ar Kalt .a i s located smack in theaf India proper, near Indore. As others have said in pr in t , I taa fouth i s "bandit ' s Jar;an" was loaded with barrawin;s fram Indic CIE>,

and Austraasiat ic, i . e . , everyone in central India or nearby lentwards. The Albanian af India but mare sa . Since Nihali has l as t sa mu

f i t s awn nat ive l •xican, it mi;ht be the f i r s t human langua;e t a bePRINCIPLE because it has sa l i t t . le af i t s ar i ; inal se l f l e

those wha teach the primacy af marphala;ical evidenc• in ;enet ic taxanamyCushitic) af Tanzania has been unclassi f iable because it barraw

t s whale ;rammar Calmest> from adJacent Bantu langua;es, whilst showing anan-Bantu lexicon. COr else they want ta cal l it a Bantu langua;•>



IV.But a l l has not turn•d out to b• hop•l•ss r• Nihali . Pinnow has madtha t N i h ~ l i i s coordinata to a ll of Munda as a dis t inc t wast•rn

of Austroasiat ic , as opposad to Mon-Khm•r and Nicobaras• which maeast• rn Austroasiat ic . In affac t it a ll balancas now r ight on Movius's Li

ut Zida doas not agr•• with Pinnow about Nihali . Why? Bacausa Pinnow us•dand verbs for h is argum•nt whil• Zida found tha t ordinary l•xicon w

ot ra la t •d to Austroasiatic. Also Zida quotas Pinnow as suggesting tha t Nihy hav• a nan-Austroasiatic substratum. Und so wait•r!

I t IS passibla tha t Nihali i s caardinata, nat to Munda only, but tol l of Austroasiat ic . Vas, but , thara ara tho•• who say tha t Viatnam••• i s a

to a l l tha ras t , thus throwing waight an our balanca towards theSuch a l inguist ic balanca i s not suppos•d to axis t along Movius's Linatha Lin• i t s a l f i s wrong. Or mayba wa naad to r • l a t • Austraasiat ic

to anoth•r phylum to sa t t la tha mattar. Vat in tha • • t t l ing it musttha t tha basic movamants of Austraasiatic-spaaking p•opl•s into

or Sauthaast Asia, an• or tha ather , must ba prat ty ald. Is anyoneon Austroasiatic "•xternal ra la t ians" ? Tall samaon• what you think!

I t will b• u.. ul to quat• a saction from a r •c•nt l • t t • r from Vitaliluot•• 11 About Austra-Tai, Miao-Yao, ate . If on• i s a t t •n t iva

not to includa borrowings in to inh•r i t •d basic l •x ics ona op•ra t •• wireconstructing prata-languagas, d•t•rmining ganatic r • la t ianships , a te .

na gats tha following pictur•• Austra-Tai CAustran•sian and Para-Tat CTaDng-B•, Li, Lakia, and on• or two mora group<•> which includ• Lao,

i s r•mataly r • la t •d to Austra-Asiatic <Mundu, Mon-Khm•r, Vi•t-Muong,Palaung-Wa, Khmu7 and Miao-Yao). This i s , mer• or 1•••• tha

which i s prapos•d by I . Pajros in th • mat•r ia ls of th • '84CP•Jros wrota a paper on Prota-Miao-Yao, but I don' t know i f i t h

publishad) and which, in principia , corr•sponds to s. Yaxantav•s <Jaxanr Yakhontav) data - - ... S. Yaxantov in tha matarials of tha '77 Nostrat ic

<"Dafanding tha Austro-Tai Hypothasis") and in "Ganatic, Araal anof Asian Languag . . . , Moscow '83 Cpp. 19-33). Yaxanto

sol id stuffa roots <words) which almost cartainly ara no borrowingsin Austronasian and Tait s tabla words of th i s kind common in Miao-Yaoand Khmu, ate . Th• prablam of Dyan·s, B•n•dict•s and ath•rs is. th • la

f und•rstanding what i s inh•r i t •d and what balongs to anciant borrowings Cwas a pion•ering work and, in principia , carrac t , - - but tha amou

f mistakas i s larga and raconstructions ar• inaccurataa his la s t book i s wrprinc ipl• , •xact ly bacausa of tha abov• lack of undarstanding). 11 Unquota

As ona will • • • from Ruhlan's l • t t a r Clatar) Gr•anb•rg admits to baMiao-Yao and would •••m ta agr•• with PaJras and Yaxantov. Si

d•fending Gr•anbarg's arrar as an a l t • rna t iva hypath•sis, I fe•l fooliHaw•var, s ine• I kaap mentioning Dyan's ald position an Austran•sian, ihalp i f wa haard from him dirac t ly .

A f inal nata about typological and morphological cr i te r ia in g•natiTh••• ara constant praaccupatians af his tor ica l l inguis t ics ,

r sura. B•rard Difflath t a l l • us in tha Brit tanica tha t Munda and Vi•tnamcam• sa much undar tha inf luanc• af Indian languagas and Chin••• in tha

ca••• tha t tha i r valua in racanstruct ian i s l imi t•d· Typologicallara v•ry diss imilar . Viatnamasa i s monosyllabic and tonal• Munda i s pol

and nan-tonal . Munda has campl•x morphology with a f f ix • • of a ll typViatnam••• has •••ant ia l ly no morphology. Lika Chin••• vis -a-vis Tib•ti s also th • placa whar• Bumparz has shown adJac•nt Dravidian and Indic

swapping grammars with each ath•r . Burushaski i s , of caurs• , a v•rIndian languaga from th • viewpoint of typological phonemics.

- --- -- - - - - - - -------



v.India has SEVEN af what I cal l phyla ~ • P ~ • • • n t • d t h • ~ • i n . Indic

th • auts id• , as did th • b i t af Thai-Kadai in Assam. D ~ a v i d i a n ibut susp.ct•d af b•ing f ~ a m th • auts id• . A u s t ~ a a s i a t i c has ana

in Sauthaast Asia taa . But Nihali , Burushaski and Kusunda hav• noinsid• a ~ autsid• af India. I t i s an ald t ~ a p i c a l a ~ • a , famous f a ~

t s unity and d i v • ~ s i t y , but with a ~ c h • a l a g i c a l knawl•dg• w•ll b•hind a u ~af i t s languag•s, c u l t u ~ • • and badi•• · In th i s cas• th • a ~ c h a o l a g i

c a n s i d • ~ using l inguis t ic h • u ~ i s m s ta h•lp th•• • • lv•• ·I am wont ta think tha t A u s t ~ o a s i a t i c i s th • "saf t u n d • ~ b • l l y af th

p ~ a b l • m " , as B i ~ Winston might put i t . Suppa•• tha t A u s t ~ a a s i a t i c t u ~ nut ta b• fought a v • ~ bacaus• it accupi•s, as M a ~ ~ i s Swad•sh would put i t , a•y c a n t ~ a l pasi t ian in th • NET af human languag•s. On th • ana hand, jus t

tha t it i s ~ • m o t • l y ~ • l a t a d ta Austran•sian <pac• I s i d a ~ • ! > andan th • athar hand Just suppas• it i s ~ • m a t • l y ~ • l a t a d ta Nihali a

Laak what it has l ink•d t a g • t h • ~ - - c • n t ~ a l India and c • n t ~ a l Chinat ta mantian Hawaii and Naw Z•aland. I t ~ . m i n d s m• sa much af Inda-Eurapaa

s••ms alsa ta hav• th i s c • n t ~ a l ra l • b•tw••n Mauritania and th • B•ringAA, Kartv•l , Dravid ta th • sauthJ Uralic , Altaic, Chukch•• n a ~ · • a s t

N•w Win•. HEURISMS FROM PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY.

Serag•n•tic r•••arch (blaad groups & • ~ u m prat• ins) has add•d g ~ a aa th • study af human variat ion and has giv•n us sam•thing b• t t • r than th • a

class i f ica t ions . As a ll Am•rican anthropologists ar• taught nat ttha t " t h • ~ • a in ' t na c a r ~ • l a t i a n b•tw••n rae• , languag• and c u l t u ~ • " •

cannot us• biological •vid•nc• t a • • t t l • matt•r• in l inguis t ic disput•s .us•d as h • u ~ i s m s , thas• sam• data can g iv • u s us•ful ar pat•nt ia l

abaut langua;• ar foss i l c u l t u ~ • • · In sam• cas•s, African badi••languag•s far •Mampl•, wh•r• th •a r i • s ~ • l a t i n ; badi•s ta languag•s a

a c a n t r a v • ~ • i a l and lang fought av•r , h e u ~ i s m s rapidly b•cam• saurc•• a f pat th • r • ar• l •v• l • af i n q u i ~ y wh•r• h • u ~ i s m s n••d nat b• sa disturbing. In

h• A u s t ~ o a s i a t i c cas• , far •Mampl•, •• rag•n• t ic h•urisms would •ncauraga ana look towards Austran•sian and Thai-Kadai but away f ~ a m Burushaski. T h • ~ •

ta b• na s•ralagy af th • Nihali ar Kusunda. Nat •v•ry g•n•t ic systemus much about human variat ion but sam• ; •n • • a ~ g•n• c lus t • r •

allatyp••> l ik• Rh•sus, Duffy and Gammaglabulin (abov• al l ) canh•lpful .

Th• Rh•sus and Duffy data an th • Munda-sp•aking populat ions ar•

mora l ik• th • data fram Sauth•ast Asia and th • west•rn Pacificthay ar.• l ik• tha t f ~ a m Indic and Dravidian fa lks. Th• few instanc•s af

add zast ta tha t conclusion. GM data an A u s t ~ a a s i a t i c s p • a k atha t " A u s t ~ a l a i d " daas NOT m•an Papuan ar Australian aborigin•. U a

by a photograph af soma Sti•ng m•n f ~ a m Cambodia b•caus• th•y laak•

l ik• a fr i •nd af min•f ~ a m B i h a ~ ! ) .

In Rh•sus, Duffy, andBM

th •af Thai-Kadai, Austran•sian and A u s t ~ a a s i a t i c a r• sa s i m i l a ~ tha t tb• cansid•r•d ta b• an• papulation. Ev•n th • Palyn•sians mostly

i t inta th i s p a t t • ~ n . Sam• af th • Malan•sians a ~ • •Mc•ptianal in tha t th•yt ransi t ional ta N•w Guin•a 's twa basic <nativ• ar nan-Austran•sian>

but in a multi tud• af d i f f • ~ • n t ways! Outsid• af th • n a r t h • ~ n coasaf New Buin•a i s s t ~ a n g l y appas•d in BM, although v•ry s i m i l a ~ in Rh•su

d Duffy. A u s t ~ a l i a i s appas•d in Rh•sus and 8M far th • mast p a ~ t .At an •v•n higher l •v•l af a b s t ~ a c t i a n , hawev•r, a l l th r • • gan•tic

shaut a t us tha t a l l Africans ar• nat th • sam• but tha t sam• A f ~ i c a nr• m a ~ • l ik • th • autsid• n a n - A f ~ i c a n world than ath•r A f ~ i c a n s ar• · Pigmi•s



VI.d mast c•ntra l Africans ar• less l ik • th • r • • t af the warld than anybady ••ar th. Th• Khai and the San ar• appr•ciably mar• l ik • autsid•rs . Say th •

ar• with Amarinds ar nat iv• Austral ians ar Papuans ar the Englisi s campar•d achi•v•• the gr•at•s t g•n•t ic dis tanc• ar th • small•st

with th • Pigmi•• af c•ntra l Africa. CCavalli-Sfarza·and atheruse mathematically-saphist icat•d measur•• af ; •n• t ic distanc•1

add up the s imilar i t ies . I have na id•• why I fraqu•ntly get th • sam•resul t s tha t they da, but it must be an accident!) . When an• u•••

genes and/ar haplotype• than th. . thr• • • an• na Ianger ; • t • th • resul tI g•t with Just Bm, Rhesus, and Duffy.

Sometimes the "dendrograms•• Ctr•••) praduced by seragenet ic ist• l•aabsurdi t i • • · I saw an• which careful ly separat•d twa groups af Sardinian•

•ach ather and assigned ••ch ta graups raughly • • diss imilar • • th • Ir id the Arabs. The early resul ts in same systems, ••G•t histo-compatibil i ty

have given the mast outlandish ,.. . l ts af a l l , l ike lumping th •af Eskimos, Pigmies and Papuans together, whil• thaughtfully

n•w rae•• a f ather Eskimos, Pigmi. . and Papuans - - and throwing th •in fa r gaad measure with th • Papuans.

H•y, nabady's perf•c t! SUr•ly a ll Africanist languag• c lass i f i • r • cta the equally absurd things tha t we hav• dane. CW. hav• d•clar•d, anc

mutually in t • l l ig ib le dia lec ts in Kardafan b•lang•d ta to ta l ly unr•lat•b•cau•• af typalagical dissimilar i t ies!) But far a la t af h•urisms tha

r• us•ful , in my apinian, and a t l • a • t in t •r•s t ing , t ry Arthur St•inb•rg•sOF THE HUMAN IMMUNOGLOBULIN ALLOTYPE&. Of caurse, thanks t a H•r

I h•ard about the new super dup•r mitochondria s tu f f . I t was l a te rin the sci•nce section af the Baston Slab• and th•n s t i l l l a t • r i tan educational te levis ian in • • • te rn New England. Purpart• t a DATE

b•tween human populations by means af dif far •nc•• Car i s it

in mitochondrial DNA b•tween samples af females. This could bfar Lang Ran;• Comparisons, n ' • • t - c • pas? Daes anyan• knaw anything m

i t ? Obviausly, I da nat "command the subJ•ct•• taa w•ll but I ' l l t rying

ta foresta l l a week's cram r•ading in the Bialagy Library! Adrian Hilf Oxfard, Rebecca Cann af Berk•l•y and Douglas Wallac• a f Emory hav• b•anta share the i r exp•rt ise an the subJect with us and maybe 1. . n

fram our members taa . CFar Cann•• response, wait a bi t ! )Concluding heuri••• · I exp•ct tha t Niger-Conga will .prave t a be th •

af a ll ta re la te ta ather phyla, i f an• counts anly th • Cphysical)af Rhesus, Duffy and SM. BUT Cavalli-Bfarza in an• publication, in

puts Europeans and Africans together, as apposed ta the r • • t afWHILE Christy Turner in his very inter•st ing study af TEETH alsa

Africans with Europeans cs- the magazine ' 'Natural Histary 11 , Jan. 19811 h•r• includes Narth Africans, Arabs and many west Asians). On•

then expect Nigar-canga CN-c), Nila-Saharan CN-S>, Khaisan, Basqu•,CAA), and lnda-Eurapean CIE) ta farm a ; •n• t ic unity, as appas•d

af th • phyla. Th• underlying fare• af Turn•r•s and Cavall i -Sfarza ' •hypath•••• could be geography, i . e . , Europeans and Africans r •pr•• •n

• w . ern s ide af th • Old World with camman .. •c t ive pr•••ur•• and sharedflaw. Shad•• af Mavius! Is th is axe versus adz•?

Of course, i t da•• nat make any difference a t a l l what the biologicmight pr•dict . The l inguist ic canclusians cauld b• f la t ly appas•d t

and s t i l l b• p•rfectly valid. B•sid•• tha t , however, I daubt tha t ourarientad cal l•agu•• have any consensus an Africans, Eurap. . s a

and t h • i r taxanamic praximit i • • · But possibly, Just possibly, th •studi. . may t ip th • sea l • • towards an• af th • working hypath•s



VII.than the ather-. BUT THIS STUFF IS CERTAINLY FASCINATINB !!

One af my r-easons far- m ~ t i a n i n Q the bialaQical h.urisms in thecase i s tha t w. •••m ta have in Afr-ica an even lar-ger- counter-par-t ta

he Mavius•s Line pr-abl.m. Ever-yane wha i s interested in AA and i t s cann.ct ita laak tawar-ds Europe ar western A•ia - - an the assumption tha t tha t

he dir-ection ald p-AA came fr-om. Like the •1aak eastwards far- Austr-aasiatic

Even though I r-emember- saying in Cir-cular-.2 tha t I did nat expect e i thN-C ta be r-elated ta AA, s t i l l I HAD laaked a t them. Alsa Breenberg i

suggested tha t ane ar- bath af them might yet tur-n aut t a be r-elated taa it might be a goad thinG i f ever-yane wha i s now t rying sa hard ta r-elatea IE wauld Just tur-n around and laak the ather way fa r a while. Maybe yau w

mare evidence than I did!Another view natur-ally i s tha t AA i s an Afr-ican phylum IN DRIBIN.

r-aver- Hudson has held tha t view and m• taa . CS•• haw car-eful I am gett ing twhat athers have said in the past!) If AA i s r-elated ta IE ar

i t means tha t they CIE and Nostr-atic) came fr-am Afr-ica or-iginallyd I am posi t ive tha t i s what Carl HadQe and Karl Petr-acek think.

Alas, Nila-Sahar-an CN-S) der-ives vir-tually na help fram s e r - a g ~ e t i cincluding na help a t a ll in the case a f BM and Duffy. In Rhesus wh

there are , mostly an Nilates , emphatically l ink them with Tuar-eg .. . fs ,Pigmies, the San hunters, Hadza and other-s, less sa an

Bantu and same coastal West Afr-icans, and even less sa withand mast peoples af the Sahara. But mostly the N-S pictur-e i s bla

you believe tha t the famous supposed 11 Nila-Hamit . . . af Kenya <e.g.,Tur-kana, etc . ) ar-e 1••• known serological ly than mast Papuans?

d the sauth.,.n t i e r s a f AA tao, ••G•t 100-150 Chadic-speakinQ peoples areunbled? All af Omatic i s r-epr-esented by an• small BM sample af

na Rhesus, Duffy, MNS, P, Hp, nat e v ~ useless a le ABO data arefa r any Omatic-speaking peoples. Dr tha t the ar-ea wher-e mare

BM data would make a gr-eat difference - - India - - ther-e i sDit ta Palyn. . a . Biological ,.... rchers Just have their- awn str-ategi

a r dealing with the qu. . i ans tha t THEY ar-e inter-ested ln . Our- pr-oblem i s tet mare af them t a • • • haw much they can help heur-ist ically in the solution

pr-oblems.Chr-isty Turner•• dental data and conclusions which were aimed a t th

Wor-ld and i t s pr-oblems, nat a t Afr-ica and Eur-ape, const i tute s ignif icantfar- Amerindists. He . . revat. . Na-Den• people, the Den• af Vasca

fr-am the main mass af Amerinds af Nar-th and South Amer-ica. Nat ta mene Eskimaux and Aleuts wha are also differ-ent. Bath the Na-Dene and Eskimo

Aleut) have dental kin in Siber-ia, accordinG ta Turner-. Does tha t natthe ventur. . me 1 i nguis t s 1ike Swadesh, Breenberg and Ni kalaev

sayinQ? Cln tha t same "Natural History• ar-ticle it mentianed tha t Williamhad concluded tha t the Aleuts must r-epr. . nt the mast ancient

fr-am Asia ta the N.w Wor-ld! Well, r-eporters a f t ~ misquote theirI doubt tha t Laughlin said tha t because it seems ta be the appo

f l inguist ic canclusians and via la t. . what I wauld cal l 11 Catnman sense•.)There sur-ely exis t sour-ces af misleadinG information, which I will

DIS-HEURISMS an the madel af the famaus pol i t ica l 11disinfarmatian 11• One

e mast famaus must be Thor Heyerdahl's discover-y tha t a r-aft cauld f laa t fta Polynesia. And ther-efore the Polynesians were migr-ants fr-am Peru ar-South America? Africa has had the almost equally famous case af th • ·

af West Afr-ica wha•• physiques suvgested tha t ancient t r ibes af Israer Egyptians wer-e their- anc.. a rs and tha t therefore Fula CPeul) was a Hami

P a t ~ t i a l l y , in my aplnian, the vr-eatest case af Dis-heur-1•• i s th

· - - - · · - ~ · ~ - - · - - - · - · ~ ' --·---- - - - - -



VIII.f the Bantu of South Africa , evan though mast scholars have nat bean foaledt - - stranQaly enough! On the ana hand, mast Bantu languages of the souther

l ike Xhosa, Zulu or Tswana, are loaded with cl icks <valaric ingressivand gla t ta l i c eggressiv. . - - jus t l ike the Khaisan languages. On the ather h

Bantu bodies bear much resemblance to thasa of Bushman and Hottentoterminology>, especial ly in GM where Khai and San populat ions have vary

haplatypes. In same Bantu populat ions, accardinQ to Trafar Jenkins aStainbarQ, gena flaw from Khai and San reaches the 50% mark. One caul

y tha t the Xhosa are seragen•t ical ly jus t as c las • to th • !KunQ as th•Y a rsam• narth•rn Bantu papulation l ik • th • Kango or Luba. One could make a

argument t ha t Xhosa's proper gen•t ic class i f ica t ion was Khaisan.at no one •••m• to hav• b. . fooled! P•rhaps cal l•agu• Westphal knows of suca•• · I would gu••• t ha t th • answer i s t ha t •veryane has ••an th • t ruth - -

amount of BORROWING <clicks and ; •n••> can produce a s i tua t ion r ipe widis-haurism. This busin••• of BORROWING will always b• ana of our

B••r? WHO INVENTED MOTHER TONGUE ??W• of caur• • s••m to b• ••rv ing up s t a l • b•ar . The qu•st ian of the

of human language hanQs aver the Lang Rang• Comparisons Club l ike than old bear ha l l . I t i s supposedly unanswerable i f put in the farm

question l ike• "Wh•n did humanity acquire spa•ch?" or "What a ra t h a orig inf human languag•?". Notoriously, the French are said to have outlawed tha

discussion lang ago. And av•ryane fallowed the i r lead, as usual ly happthe French t ak• a stand of soma sa r t ar ather . Sa t h i s topic i s dead?

Apparently not! Lannaberg and Chomsky's ideas, Hockett 's carefuldesign faa tur•s , Li•b•rman'• laryngeal hypothesis, W•stcat t ' s

<not read, unfortunately, by myself) , and many others indicate te topic i s t ru ly al ive . I t has possibly nat bean noticed by l inguis ts but

introductory teKtbooks in Physical Anthropology have something to say oe question of the evolut ion of human language, by which they mean orig ins.

l ika Barnard Campbell, have quite a b it to say. Not tao lang ago a boothe topic came out. I t was ent i t led GLOSSOBENETICS1 THE ORIBIN AND EVOLUTLANGUAGE, edited by Eric da Bral iar <ISSC, Paris) and published by

<Harwood Books, London>. Perhaps it escaped mast people's noticeFrank Livingston• and Phil ip Lieberman had ar t ic les in i t , among athe- - sam• of them obviously d••P probers on Mather Tongue.

Tabl• of Contents ran something l ik • th i s •Part I . Neurobiology, Primatolagy and Palaaanthropalagyl

Rena Tham. Animal Psychism vs Human Pyschism.Jan Wind. Primate Evolution and the Emerganc• of Sp•ach.Kathla•n R. Gibson. Comparative N•urabahaviaral Ontag•ny and th • Construct

- i s t Approach to th • Evolution of the Brain, ObJectManipulation and Languag•• <Nat ana ta mince wards, ah

Jaffrey T. Laitman. The Evolution af the Hominid Upper Respiratory SystemImplicat ions fa r the Origins of Sp. . h.

Phil ip Lieberman. On the Natura and Evolution of the Biological Bases ofLanguage.

Roger Saban. Asymmetry of the Middle Meningeal Veins Network in the Fossi lMan and I t s Possible Significance.

Bardon w. Haw••· The Invention of Phanemically-Based Language. CWaw! - HF>Frank B. Livingstone. Evolutionary Theory, Human Adaptation and the Evolut

of Language.



IX.Pater c. Raynalds1 Ape Constructional Abili ty and tha Origin a f Linguist ic

Structura.H. Lyn Milas• Twa-way Communication with Apas and the Evalutian af LanguaDavid F. Armstrong and Solaman H. Katz• Brain Lataral i ty in Signad and Spa

Languaga1 Neural Factors in tha Evalutian af Linguistic BahaviHermann Jakab and Willi K. Muallar• I ta ra t iva Spaach Disardar in Huntingt

Disaasa.Part I I . Symbolism, Communication and Cultural Adaptation.

Andraw Locka "Racapulatian 11 in tha Ontagany and Phylagany af Languaga.Charlas R. Paters and Ban B. Blount• Schamatic Raprasentations af

Macralinguistic Pracass••• Alian Contact, Human Onto;eny and HominLanguaga Evalutian.

Walburga van Rafflar-Engal• On tha Synchronous Davalapmant af Sast icula t iaand Vocalisation in Man's Early Cammunicativa Behavi

J.L.Fischar• Magical Imitation in tha Origin af Languaga.Ivan Fanagya Pracancaptual Thinking in Languaga <An Essay in Linguistic

Palaantalagy>Ernest E. Wr.. hnar• Rad Ochra in Farmativa Pracassas af Calor Symbolism a

tha Quastian af Languaga Davalapmant.Part I I I . Linguist ics•

Edwin G. Pullayblankl The Beginnings af Duality af Pattarning in LanguageAndre Martinat1 Fram Optional ta Obligatory Marking af Syntactic Ralat iansDamanica Paris i • A Thraa-Staga Modal af Languaga Evalutian• Fram Pantamima

SyntaM.Farnand Vandamma1 Ragis tar- l inguis t ics• A Nominalistic Languaga

Intarpratat ian and I ts Implications far Sama Central PrablamGlassaganasis.

Mary LaCran Fastara Salving tha Insalublal Languaga Ganatics Today.Jaanna Martinat1 Tha Davalapmant af Linguistic Structuras by tha Child.Raman Stapa1 Suppasad Firs t Words af Apaman.Jurgan Pasat1 On tha Diract Study af tha Phylagany af Languagas. <I bat ha

will prava canclusivaly tha t wa cannot da what wa ara doingEric da Gralier1 In Saarch af Samantic Univarsals <Summary>.AppandiM 11 Eric da Graliar• Prapasal far a Transdisciplinary Symposium an

Blassaganatics.came aut in 1983. I ts • i s ISBN• 3-7186-01S8-3. Pp. S46. Prica $38.50.

prava ta ba vary in tarast ing and valuablal I hava nat raad it yat .sa as ta inhibi t aur avar-aMpanding Jargon, I hapa tha t tha tarm

glassaganatics" daas nat catch an! <Mara an thasa callaaguas af aurs latar .Unlika athar pratalanguagas, aur common human Mathar Tangua has

prablams assaciatad with i t . I think tha t wa a ll prasuma tha t an aal ika prate-Australian ar prata-Macra-Maya i s i t sa l f darivad from a

languaga about which wa knaw nothing cancrata but which wa assuas tha "usual dasign faaturas" af human languaga. Or ta put it anathar way

wa prapasa pr.ata-Ket-Kat <Yanasaian>, wa da nat hava ta salva tha or igif human language question. We presume tha t p-Kat-Kat had same sa r t af anca- another languaga much l ike p-Kat-Kat in ganeral a t t r ibutes . I presume tha

presume. Yau may nat agree and, as usual , a spir i ted disagreament helps aalong i t s way. But a kay quastian would ba samathing l ika th is• la t

tha t paragon af eMpart racanstruct ian - - prata-IE <p-IE> - - tha modal al l aur mathads. Wa say tha t p-IE was spakan by a papulation af cawbays,

tomahawks, in south Russia around 4000 BC. But, af caursa, we da naay 1 our ancastars wha l ived in south Russia around 4000 BC INVENTED LANBUAnd passed i t dawn ta us. That would ba sa s i l ly ! But why would it ba sa s i l



x.we knew tha t there are thousands af ather human languages which are

fram p-IE and because we presume tha t these a ther languages, ar a tsame af them, are in principle RELATABLE ta cur IE languages. And I da

tha t in th i s context "relatable" means ta have ana ar mare COMMON

But Mather Tongue has th i s special problem, as well as being a t raa

ambiguity. <Again, l e t me say tha t11

Mather Tongue" i s Vi ta l i j • s term,invention. Alsa ana should t ry ta obtain fram him a copy of tha t smallpaper an Mather Tongue. I t i s nearly poetic in i t s feeling far theWe da NOT presume tha t Mather Tangua had an ancestor, a t leas t nat

tha ana which pracaded prate-Kat ar p-IE. Mathar Tongue was the FIRST ahas eternal ly at tached ta harsalf tha HOW COME? quast ian. Let us

far the mamant tha t Mather Tongue was a languaga basical ly l ika herand tha i r daughtars, und sa waitar . Sha had phanas and phanalagic

marphemas and/or wards, and grammatical ru las a t a highar laval <phrad santances) . If she had nat those a t t r ibutes , then she would nat be l ike

basical ly. New l e t us sa t up a nama, t ime and place, as we did farand barrow them fram Rebecca Cann <except fa r the name). Then we MISHT

Mather sapiens ar Mama sapiens who was tha common ancestor af a l l moder

females invented language in 200,000 BC in Africa and passed it dawn ts. Then, given tha way cur minds wark, we are l ikely to ask• HOW DID SHE DO

? I t would seem tha t Eric de Bral iar•s beak and much theorizing an thahave addressed tha t quastian.

But we could alsa ask the standard p-IE question in a di f ferent farmMather Tongue•• ancestor and did she have any cousins or did thera

similar to her? Let us suppasa tha t Mather Tongue had an ancest• • Mama sapiens had ana t ea . Mama sapiens was descended fram Homo erect

d perhaps sa-ca l led archaic Home sapiens Just bafara her. This seems ta beknown. But Mather Tongue has anly same vague and quest ionable ent i ty

her, l ike 11aa r l i e r farms af human c:ammunicatian", and thare are tho think Mather Tongue sprang in ta baing • • a mutation or <it s t r ikes me) •

aM Machina, a miracle. That•s a handy way to escape tha Haw Came? probleut it ent i re ly asc:ap. . the CONTENT quest ions t ao , i . a . , what was the phenet

and grammatical CONTENT o f Mather Tangua.Here are same simple fac ts or observat ions. W. have na idea i f Mama

invented Mather Tongue or nat <pace Liebarman). We rea l ly da NOT knewit was a case of MONOGENESIS or POLVBENESIS, i . e . , did Mather Tongue

cousins ar nat . Suppose tha t we never can shaw tha t Austral ian and N-C,a twa ends of the t ropical Old World, are ralated to the re s t af cur

Then Mather Tongue i s plura l , i . e . , palygenasis i s correc t <in anIndeed a t th i s very moment, i f we take phyla tha t l inguis ts generallwa have palyganesis an a grand scala . In ana defeated grant proposal27 Old World phyla and between 3 and 13 New World phyla. If l inguis tas cautious diachronically as i t i s now, than tha t numbar af 30 ta 4

language phyla will remain and tha conclusion wil l have to be tha t curhad a t l eas t 30 Mathers. <Tha re s t of you may perhaps grant me th is

tha t fa r the purposes af leaking in ta the remote past any UNRELATEDshould be cal led a PHYLUM. Just l ike the hundreds of languages in N

represents a l inguis t ic portion of mankind without kin and thereforewith i t s awn Mather Tongue. A• in the case of Basque the Kusunda

may hava l a s t many clans betwean than and now. To ca l l thesa thingsIsa la tes" i s to lack a t them synchronical ly, fram a warehausaman•s viewpoin

and Nihali are t iny and socia l ly unimportant nowadays but l ika thePlatypus the i r importance l ie s in avalut ionary taxonomy.).

~ ~ ~ - ------------



XI.

B••id•• tha t , Math•r Tangu• i • qui t • ambiguau• in a di f f • r •n t .. ••i s Math•r Tangu•-1, th • ba•ic pr•-candit tans in brain and anata.y fa rh ~ l .nguage. Thera i s 11Dth11r Tangu-2, tha t languag• ""ich in i t

underl i•• mad•rn languages. THE TWO COULD BE DIFFERENT! Far •xample,tha t Phil Lieb•rman i • carr•ct in •aying tha t th • anatomy a f a u ~ •P•

wa• nat r•ady far mad•rn languag• unti l fa i r ly l a t • Hama ••pian•

tha t •van Frau N•anderthal af 7 0 0 0 0 - 3 ~ , 0 0 0 BC wa• nat inv•nting MathOf caur. . i f Naand•rthal wa• a Eurap•an affshaat which l a te r b•c•m•ar ab•arb•d inta Hama •api•n• •api•n• <Cra-Magnan with Aurignacianthen th • archaic Hama ••pian• af kibi•h <Ethiopia), fa r • x a ~ l • , mig

b••n "anatomically r•ady" by 130,000 BC. According ta S.E. k•nnedy1980), anatomically modern p•apl• <Haaa •apien• •api•n•>

r • naN knawn t a b• di• tr ibuted fram Africa ta Au•tral ia , and ind••d •van inby 40,000 BC. <Mayb• ~ o , o o o BC in California. A• many af yau kna

f caur••• anything human b•far• 12,000 BC in th • New World i • •xtremely

Sa th • sp•ech apparatu• 1• r•ady ta wark with th • big mad•rn brain.ad•rn hu•an languaga. That i • Nhat 1 cal l th • brain + anatamy

L•t u• ••Y th • dat• i • b•far• 40,000 BC and th • lacatian i •b•tw•en Dakar and Timor, ••Y Iran ar Oman. That hu.an papulation MIS

ta • • l ec t •aund•, arb i t ra r i ly a••ign ••aning• t a ••quanc•• af •aund•,an grammatical ru l • • ar •a•• thing l ik • tha t . B•cau•• • • an• can

r•a l iz•• THEY DID NOT HAYE TO DO IT! Although I hav• na idea a tt h i • day in my •tudy, haw th•y did i t , l • t u• Ju•t •uppa•• tha t an• can

haw they began ' 'phan. . cal ly-ba••d human languag•" by r•ading Gordain Eric d• Sra l i • r ' • baak. Hi• t i t l • ...m• t a b• facu•ed an th • key·

fram th • standpoint af CONTENT. Mayb• a'f t•r aur anc.. ar<•> war•ta s ta r t up a languag• th•y war• • t i l l •a lazy and •law-maving tha t

th•m anather 10,000 y•ar• ta g•t an• actual ly • ta r t •d .Even thaugh many a f u• hat• ar f •a r camput•r• and th• i r Jargan, l • t

•a briaf ly us• a b i t <nat a byt•!) a f camput•r•s•. By analagy, Nhat I c

h• pr•-candit ians af human •p..

h may b• called th • HARDWARE. Th• actuala f th • languag• may b• called th • SOFTWARE. Th•n my qu. . ian becam••n• af 1 haw lang did it tak• , af te r tha "hardwar•" wa• r•ady, far •amean• t

th • f i r • t pragram, 1 ••• , g • t th • "saf twar•"? Dr, did t te actually inveh• "•aftwar•" f i r s t and th•n g•t ' 'hardwar•" t a •u i t i t ? And, giv•n tha t th •hardwar•" was in plac• , Nar• di f fe r•n t "saftwar. . inv•nted a t dif fe ren t t imn di f fa r•n t plac••• 1••• , Nhen p•apl• war• raady ta sp•ak, th•v invant•d an

languag• <Mather Tangu•) in Africa and anather dif fe ren t an• in Australicall•agu. . will naturally think th. . qu•st ian• ta ta l ly r idiculau• .

NHEN wa• Mather Tangu• i nvent•d?

Swad••h thought 2 ~ , 0 0 0 BC and th • Ma•caw Circ l• s.. • ta agr...

favar• a dat• af 12,000 BC fa r prata-Am•rind ta arr iv• in Northwith Na-D•n• and E•kimaan fallawing l a t • r · H• ha• alsa mentioned

tha t he thought prata-Afraasiat ic wa• 11 N•ali th ic" in ariginl tha t8000 BC mar• ar l • •s . Mili tar i•v and Diakanaf <according t a Militari•vagr. . with Sreenberg'• Neoli thic dat• fa r Afraa• ia t ic . I t i • l ik• ly th

r. . b.rg wauld agr. . with SWad•sh an th • dat. . af Mather Tangu•, but h• i •r. . t a sp•ak fa r hi• • • l f abviau•ly. Sh•varashkin favar• 2 ~ 0 0 0 8C alsa but

tha t it could b• much •a r l i • r . W••tcatt favar• an •a r l ie r dat• afPaleolithic" fa r Mather Tangu• which by standard Eurap•an arch•alagic

. . ns b•tween 3 ~ 0 0 0 8C fa r th • f i r s t P•rigardian in Franc• ar 32,000

- ~ ~ - ~ - - - - - ~ - ----- - - ~ - - - - - - -



XII.r ~ h • appaaranca a f Cra-Magnan and ~ h • Aurignacian in Franca. Liabarman wo

w i ~ h W . s ~ c a ~ ~ a r hav• i ~ • a r l i • r b•caus• ha w a n ~ • t a •xc lud• N • a n d • r ~ h aut na t n•c • • •a r i ly archaic Hama sapi •ns . I t i s c • r ~ a i n ~ h a ~ many a ~ h • r p•ap

a th • r d a ~ • • • r igh t naw I c a n n a ~ ramamb•r ~ h • m . E x p l i c i ~ l y , I can ram•mb

Hadga and Karl P a ~ r a c a k giving • • ~ i m a ~ • • fa r AA by i ~ • • l f and AA-cum-IEu ~ I c a n n a ~ ramamb•r th•m pr•c i s • ly . Probably much mar• ~ h a n 8000 BC how•v•

da• • 20,000 s ~ i c k in my mind?) And f ina l ly sam• physical a n ~ h r a p a l a g i s ~famous a n• • l i k • Washburn(?), hav• p u ~ ~ h • d a ~ • • back in •a r ly

~ i m • • • mara ~ h a n a mil l ion yaars aga a r whanavar ~ a a l usa

W h a ~ i s tha l ag ic , a r w h a ~ a ra ~ h • l ag i c s , a f ~ h • • • • • ~ i m a ~ e d d a ~ • •Swadash a x ~ r a p a l a ~ a d backwards fram g l a ~ ~ a c h r a n a l a g i c a l • • ~ i m a ~ . . af

phyla . T w a n ~ y yaars l a ~ a r wa can • • • ~ h a ~ by Marr i s ' s awn way a f .d a ~ • • ha wauld ba abl igad nawadays ~ a giv• AA a l an• naar ly a s much

d • p ~ h as ha gava a l l a f human languaga. Tha Mascaw Circ la? I dan• t knaw

ut ~ h a y can ~ a l l us l a ~ • r an. Graanb•rg•s d a ~ • • a r • bas•d an arch•a lagica l

w i ~ h Paul T h i • m a - ~ y p a c u l ~ u r a l r • c a n s ~ r u c ~ i a n s . <Thiem•• s ine •

had wards fa r ~ r • • • and animals found in G•rmany, b u ~ n a ~ fa r ~ r • • • andfaund • l • •wher• , • rga p-IE l iv •d in Garmany). Thar• a r• agr icu l tura l

in p r a ~ a - A A , as Br••nbarg • • • • i ~ , and ~ h • r • f a r • p-AA i s N•al i th ic .•n t • r •d N a r ~ h Am•rica with ~ h • f i r s ~ humans t h • r • , • rga

d a ~ • • fram th • f i r s ~ fo s s i l •v id•nc• a f human c u l ~ u r • in N a r ~ hArch•a lag is t s ~ a l d him such •v id•nc• dat•d ~ a 12,000 BC, und sa

i s a l sa c laar ~ h a ~ Gr•anb•rgian d a ~ • • a r• d a f i n i ~ • l y NOT basad anwhich ha d is l ika s . W a s ~ c a ~ ~ and Li•barman fa l low th • l ag ic

a t r a n s i ~ i a n fram spaachl • • • •a r ly Hama ~ a spaachful l a ~ a r Hama. Same d a ~ •ra basad an i n ~ u i ~ i a n + hunch + guass , as in ~ h • cas • a f ~ h • many Chadic is t

1S,OOO BC fa r p-AA. (cf Ci rcu l a r . 2 ) . Chris E h r a ~ has a p a r ~ l y farmaliby-gu. . -and-by-ga l ly , which I c a l l p s a u d a - g l a ~ ~ a c h r a n a l a g y , b u ~

seam ~ a s tand up wall a rchaa lag ica l ly in N-S and S a u ~ h Cushi t ic . Fina l

a l ag ic a f Washburn and a thar physical a n t h r a p a l a g i s ~ s seams t a b• t ha t

i s J u s ~ pa r t a f cu l t u ra and tha t t a a l usa a r taal-making i s gaada f cul tura and sa ~ h • f i r s t avidanca af taal-making i s avidenca a f

a f languaga. I t i s , I th ink , l ika ly tha t a subs t an t i a l number af soc i

d cul tura l anthrapa lag i s t s would a l sa agr. . i ~ h th a toal-making l ag ic .

Sine• we a ra bas i ca l l y cancarnad with M a ~ h a r Tangua hera , na t dat inpar sa , wa a ra n a ~ farcad t a avaluata aach • • ~ h a d . L a ~ us w a i ~ ~ a • •

Sta ra s t in has cama up with in t ha cas • af da t ing mathads. B u ~ thara ara

ganaral ind ica t ions abaut th a aga a f Mathar Tangua which can ba usad t asame a f tha spac i f i c h y p a ~ h • s • • <nat tha mathads) m a n ~ i a n a d abave. I

tha pracass a f gat t ing r id a f chaff . Sam• af tha pr inc ip l • • a r log icsabava may, fa r axampla, ba cc:rract a r prava c a r r • c t but th • ca • •

w• f ind it appl iad may conta in sam• paar infa rmat ian a r hava m i s ~ a k • sBy analogy many paapla usa th • Camparativ• Method but sam• usa it

Th• i n tu i t iva a r by-guass-and-by-gal ly hypath•••s dapand an parsanaland sa c a n n a ~ ba ava lua tad aas i ly , al though th • axpar t • s spec i f i c

can ba •va lua t •d an a cas • by ca- bas i s . F ina l ly , same af th e

da tas a re basad in f ac t an archaalagica l h•urisms• ~ h • l i ngu i s t mashr•wd guass a b a u ~ tha archaalagica l sagmant which f i t s h is languag• graupd barraws tha archaalagica l da ta f a r h i s languag• graup a r l aans tawards i

I ba l iava t h a ~ what w• knaw abaut Aust ra l i a , New Guinea and th • Nawraqui ra us t a abandan a l l Mathar Tangua data• l a ~ a r <• mara racant ) ~ hBC. Or e l sa t a abandon the n a ~ i a n t h a ~ th e languages a f ~ h a s a places

a genet i ca l ly ra la tad t a a ~ h a r Old Warld languagas.



XIII.The New Warld cas• i s strongly debat•d, as mentioned befare, but

date far prata-Amerind i s 13,000 years taa recent in the opinionf same archeologists . Beatty MacNeish for an• and Fred Gorman far anath•r

tha t Man entered the New World • • •ar ly • • 2 ~ , 0 0 0 BC or • • r l i e r , mays early as ~ o , o o o BC in Garman•• apinian. Brian Fagan, a moderate cent r i s t

in his PEOPLE DF THE EARTH <1983), an introductory text in world

l i s t s the 14-16,000 BC f inds near Pittsburgh CMeadawcraft),BC fi.nds n•ar Mexica City, 1 8 , 2 ~ 0 BC in Peru, and another widespre~ r i c a n industry af 10,000 BC which was faund way dawn in Patagonia.

canclusian i s that• liluat•• "Any evidanca for human occupatioaf Alaska pr ia r ta 2 ~ 0 0 0 BC i s s t i l l unpravad. Paapl• wer• l iving in

probably far thar south, by 20,000 BC. • Unquote.Fagan also raparts avidanca fa r fossi l man in Alaska possibly as aa

• 38,000 BC COld Craw Flats) but agr. . with tha f inder <Marlan) tha t the ds ••highly uncertain." Tha 38,000 data was abtainad by ra la t iva dating af

banas, but tha sama matarial yialdad up radiocarbon dat•• af 23-27,00which I raad Fagan as saying ••at l aas t 23-27,000 sc•. Maraavar, had

cam• roaring avar tha Baring Stra i t s in 12,000 BC thay would hmuch af Alaska alraady occupiad by tha "Palaaarctic•• t radi t ion. This w

n placa by 13,000 BC, had sam• cannactians with Siberian cul turas a f tha tand was ancastral ta tha t radi t ion which sat t lad tha Aleutian is lands

raached Anangula, a • third a f tha way along tha chain" by 6700 BC.i s nat Eskimaan <Eskima-Alaut), than I will aat raw blubber!

Sail E. Kennedy l i s t s 4 s i t a s in Califarnia containing foss i l men abetwaan 17,000 and 48,000. Ther• i s alsa a 30,000 BC human from Canada

Alberta). Technical problems have kept mast af tha s i t e s in as ta tus but har dates area Quote C p . 4 0 ~ ) a " ••• obtained from th •

new technique af amino acid racemization. Although tha n•wnass oftachniqua has nat l imited tha accaptanca of amino acid datas far tha Ol

•uch data• fa r tha New World ara inaxplicably cantravar• ia l ... Unquat•Sa tha data• prapa••d by Sraanbarg raprasant a can•arvativa chaica

appa•ing archaalogical view•. Navarthal•••• a l l we athars can cancludaprata-Amarind may ba datad from 12 1 000 ta 48,000 BC gatt ing into Narthour •xpert collaaguas in archeology and palaaanthropalogy wil

ta advi•• u• about tha merit• af tha cantravar•Y•Sine• I wrata tho•• wards abava, I hava ;a t tan twa mara and strongl

opinion•. Firs t , a naw archaalogy/physical anthropology taxtbaakH.Nalson and w.Turnbaugh, 1987) categorical ly dani•• the validi t

f any of tha data• citad abava, •aying tha t avary singla ana of tham ear l ia12,000 BC hava baan INVALIDATED by mare racant axcavatians ar recant

to varify tham or, in tha c•• • af amino acid racamizatian datas,by new impravad radiocarbon datas. Same of tha 30-48 1 000 yaar dat

b. . raducad to as l i t t l a • • 1-2000 yaars! Sacandly, my callaagua Edt a l l s m• thr • • in tarast ing things , to wit, (a) thera i • a WILL to

vary aarly Amarind data• a.ang many Amaricanists, (b) much af th •far aarly d a t - was based an "Junk••, and (c) tha ••Palaaarctic••i s nat Eskima-Alaut but ra ther Amerind and tha t tha data of 13,000

s SOLID. Far back-up h• ci ted the opinions of four ather archaalagis ts whoan tha Arctic. This i s a • trang argumant!

Befara I t ry to find a placa to buy •ama raw blubbar 1·11 have t a pa small s t ruggla . Small becausa tha Amarica• i s nat my araa of axpart i •• ·

t bacause I am profoundly scept ical of 12,000 8C fa r l inguist ic reasons I·1around far same ather kinds af reasons. Firs t , one• upon a t im•

war• alsa famous far tha Hrdlicka t radi t ion wharain anything al

·----- - - - - - - · · · - · · - - . - - - - ------···



XIV.1000 BC was bi t t • r ly r • s i s t •d . S•candly, i f th • Pal•aarctic t radi t ion i

s Fagan says, c l •ar ly c a n t i n u ~ by th • Al•uts, i ••• , i f th • Al•uts d•r iv• frt radi t ion and th•y hav• ;an• an• third af th • way dawn th • Al•utian cha

by 6700 BC, th•n th • Al•uts must b• part af A.-rind ar • l s • th •t radi t ion i s nat Am.rind. As far as I know, NOBODY thinks tha t

<-Eskimo) i s par t af A.-rind l inguist ical ly ar cul tura l ly . But •ven Iup a r •but ta l ta my argum•nt, viz. - - those wha went dawn th • Aleutianf i r s t war• Am•rindsl th•Y w•r• l a t • r r•plac•d by Al•uts ar baca. - Aleu

sp•ach. Alas, tha t i s th • b•s t I can da but I r•main uncanvinc•d tha t 14,i s enough far a l l th • l inguist ic diversi ty in the Am•ricas, south af

But I WILL s ta r t lacking far a source a f raw blubber!Hold i t ! Dan•t •a t tha t blubb.r y•t! OUr ;aad a la Journal, NATURALhas struck again! This l a t • s t i ssu• has an ar t i c l • by Tam Dill•hay,

a t UIK•ntucky, en t i t l •d "By the Banks af the Chinchihuapi 11 in tan THE FIRST AMERICANS which Natural History has b••n running. Christ

ar t i c l • an Am.rican t • • th was in th is sar i • • • as w•ll as " • r r i t tv•ry infarmativ• piec• an langua;•s af th • Am.ricas. Dill•hay•s s i t

found in "apuch• <Araucanian) t e r r i to ry , way th• h• l l dawn in southern So

<southern Chil•) wher• the t ropics r •c•d• and the cl imat• r•s•mblesfa r . a re than th • Amazon. In tha t WET plac• sam• •xtraardinaryar t i fac ts has van• an - - th is i s a l l qui t • unusual. Far aur

h•r• th• r • ar• but four things ta say about Chinchihuapi. Firs t , thwas w•ll p r • s • r v ~ and s t ra t i f i •d and 18 radia-carban dat•• war•

S•cand, th • c l •a r r•mains af s tan• taa ls , WOODEN ARTIFACTS, hau•••footprints and a "hunk a f mastodon f l •sh" l •av• no doubt tha t i t i s as• t t l •ment . Third, tha t .. t l •ment i s about 13,000 y•ars old ar 11,000

, which can be seen as giving th. . folks a camfartabl• 2000 y•ars ta mak•from Alaska af 13,000 BC <th• Paleaarct ic t radi t ion v i • w ~ as Amerind).fourth, tha t "Fiv• fea t d•ep•r we found f •a tur•s and madifi•d stan. . th

ta an •v•n •a r l i • r culture." That •a r l i • r cul tur• h• dat•s ta 32,000had alr•ady argued tha t th • 11,000 BC cul tur• was mar• a faad

than a big gam• hunting an• and l ik• ly ta b• •a r l i • r than th • Clovtyp• af cul tur• assaciat•d with th • cans•rvat iv• f i r s t Am•rind dat• afBC. H• ga•• an t a saya Quat•• "In th • d•ep•r , sandy l •v • l • , wher• th •

a f organic r•mains i s paar, w• found thr • • apparent h•arthscharcoal . Radiocarbon dating af th • charcoal shaw•d it ta b• abou

y•ars ald. Assaciat•d with th • h•arths war• tw•nty-faur fractur•dseven a f which hav• clear p•rcussian scars . Faur af th•s• stan••

palish and s t r ia t ions an th• i r sharp •dg•s, r•sul t ing from scrapingplants , hid• and . . t . Th•r• i s na r•asan to b•l i •v• th•s• ar t i fac ts

down from above, s ine• th• s t ra ta b•twean th•m and th • higherl •v• l af th • s i t • a r• cul tura l ly • s te r i l • · , and ther• i s na •vide

f geological disturbanc••" But, h• goes an t a say, his r • su l t s have b. ... ~

with sc•pticism. H• i s in Scotland naw, sa 1 cauldn•t discuss h is mathoughts an th • matt . r with him.I tak• Dillehay•• work as an a . -n tha t Fagan, K•nn•d•y, "acNeish an

a r• going t a win th i s argument. If I find sam• ;aad tasty Yupik blubbt will go in to th • f r • •z• r far th • none•.

Austral ia and N•w Buin•a a r• nat sa dif f icu l t . Bath plac•• war•.. i b l • , •xc•pt by sea , throughout th • Pl• is tac•n• with i t s r is ing and

l •v • l s . Austral ia has Just ana phylum af lan;uag•• an i t . Newhas twa, bath with the i r ather f . . in Sunda-land. Amazingly; Tasmanib i t t • r end of th • whal• bloody world does nat fa l l within th • Australbut within an• to th • north and west of Australia! <Th.r• a r• qui t • a



xv.•w and qui t • div•r•• Tasmanian languag••• or th• r • w•r•). Although N•w Suinas arch•alagical dat•• as anci•nt • • 7000 8C far AGRICULTURE (!), tho•• cou• assaciat•d with Austran•sian b•c•u•• o f th • crap connections to Sauth••• t

Firs t •• t t l •ment af N•w Buin•• must b• much • • r l i • r than tha t but , a tcannot find th• r • l •v•nt dat•s . CS•• b•law far a foss i l parson of

BC in Papua.) Sine• Indo-Pacific i s mast paw•rfully facus•d an Naw

wa hav• ta leak • ls•wh•r• far sam. c lu•• ta i t s ag•· W• find th•m faa th • sauth.

Tasmania i t s • l f was • • t t l •d far sur• by 21 1 000 8C Ca datad s i t • ) bumuch aar l i • r . Fagan thinks tha t dat• cauld b• 28,000 BC. Pr•sumably

h• Tasmanian dat• has something t a da with Indo-Pacific, s ine• it i s part ophylum. What i s mast arr•s t ing i s th • arch•alagical

cantainad in Fagan's fur ther r • .a rks abaut th • fossi l cul tur•• afvis-a-vis Austral ia• Quat•• "Th•y had na haft•d t aa l s Cthat i s t ea laf s tan• h•ads or paints with waad•n shaf ts or handl•s) and r • l i •d

an scrap•r• and choppers sam.what l ik • tha•• usad by •a r lyan th • mainland• th•Y lack•d th • baam•rangs, •P••r- thrawars

ax•• , adz•• , and l ightw•ight s tan• t aa l s th • Australians af th •had whan th•y f i r s t •ntarad writtan his tory. Tasmania was sa t t l •d w

t was attach•d ta th • mainland during th • W•ichs•l glacia t ion, but many afs i t. . ar• probably buri•d und•r th • • • • • • • • •Th• r • su l t af Tasmania

was tha t i t s papulat ion, although farming part af th • Australiangraup, n•v•r r•c• iv•d th • l a t • r cultural innovations tha t spr•ad

Austral ia af t • r th • s • • l •ve ls ras••" Unquat•• COn• Weichs•l glaciatfram 28,000 BC t a 8000 BC. The • • • l •v • l • ra • • around 8000 BC,

although an •a r l i e r r i • • in sea l • v ~ • had occurred b•twe•n 40,00d 28,000 BC - HF)

Th• h•urism h•r• i s NOT abaut th • • • • l •v• ls b•c•u•• • • •c ra f t war•n•c••••ry far th• se t t l ing of Austral ia and N•w Guinea. Rath•r th •

tha t Tasmania was • • t t l •d fram Australia and tha t i t s foss i lr•sembl• tho•• af Australia i s th • arr•s t ing h•urism. On• would hav

tha t obvious g•agraphically. But wh•n Tasmanian languag. . w•r•• • lnda-Pacific, nat Australian, th•y suddenly b•cam• hard•r tofrom a whal• continent pack•d wall ta wall with al iens . Th• qu•stian

they gat ta Tasmania FROM NEW BUlNEA a r i • • • naturally in an• ' • mind. Nowfarcad ta think tha t Indo-Pacific PRECEDED AUSTRALIAN in th •

dry cant in•nt or a t l • a • t par t af i t . What i s •van mar• remarkabl• i sth is conclusion was th • an• drawn by Swad••h in his "Linguistic wav.. o

BC" map ! CCf Circular .2 again). Was he prescient ar a r• we bath wronsimpl•r conclusion would b• ta suspect tha t bath Bwad••h and

a r• wrong abaut Tasmanian• mayb• it IS r • l • t •d ta Austral ian. Can• t anath•r apinian an th • matt•r? Does anybody •1. . knaw anything about th i

But th is "p•apling a f th • Pacific ' ' qu•stian i s nat f inished. Sine•Indo-Pacific and Australian a r• bath invalv•d now in th • • • r l i • • t dat••

h• f i r s t human • • t t l ing of th • Pacif ic - - b•yand th • d. . water l in•• arounIndan. . a-- has an implication fa r th • dat• af Math•r Tangu•. W•ll,

to Tasmania by a t l • a • t 21,000 BC. Fagan r•ckans tha t Australia wpr• t ty • • r ly t Quat•• "Th• • • r l i • • t t rac• • af human .. t l •mant in

dat• ta far • • r l i • r than 30,000 y•ars aga, ind••d they a r• n•ar thl imi ts of radiocarbon dating C•arl i•r than 60,000 BC).• Unquat•. Th•n

in to a discussion a f s • • l •v • l • which I da nat think i s crucial far th •of th • Pacif ic . Than th• r • ar• "cut and charr•d animal ban••" foundAustralia "mar• than 37,000 Y••r• ago". Th•n prap•r foss i l cul tura



XVI.can ba found again in th • sauthw••t around 29,000 BC. That s i t a ,Lair , has continuous occupancy unt i l 3000 BC. Mammoth Cava naarby ha

from ci rca 33,000 BC unt i l Eurapaan contact! Cultural chang• •••m•a •xtramaly slaw by comparison ta athar par ts af tha warld. Anathar s i t •

lang way ta tha • • • t naar Malbarna, s tar tad around 20,000 BC.1•m using Fagan fa r canvani•nt summary. Thar• i s ather tastimany. F

our friand Kannady discu•••• physically madarn paapla CHama sap. saprasant in various par ts af Australia with datas from about 31,000 taBC a t twalva different s i t... Sh• includas a data of about 2S,OOO BC

Papua tao. Httr •• t imat• i s tha t man •ntarad Australia "at l • • • t 40,000aga". Thera i s also tha in tarast ing f inds from Kaw Swamp <Victoria) af

. e ra archaic papulation, s imilar ta Hama eractus , yat datad ta a . . • SThat strang• anomaly may turn aut t a ba vary important. Bath Kannady and

cal l at tant ian ta tha pr. . nca af madarn Homo • · • · in Barnao <Niah Cav39,SOO BC, about wham Kannady . .Y•• Quat•• "This individual , an adult

was vary dalicata in build and rasa.Glad sam• madarn sauthaast Asianthasa an Naw Buinaa••• u Unquata. Final ly , Ballwoad <PEOPLING OF

PACIFIC) puts tha aar l ias t paapling af Austral ia and Naw Buinaa a t 40 1 00. Of caursa, I originally haard about tha. . aarly data• from Mulvanay•s wo

charactar ist ical ly I cannot find a t tha mamant.Barnard Campball thinks tha Kaw Swamp paapla af Austral ia, who hav•

ta Sola man af Java, might shaw tha t tha t ransi t ion ta madarn paaplain Sunda-land, far from tha Naandarthal-Cra-Magnan prablam af Europ

c l •ar tha t th• • • Sunda-land foss i ls and possibly tha cantravarsial an•f North America ara alder than Cra-Magnan af Eurap•• Ta put it mara baldly

man camas l a te r in Europa than ha do•• in Sauthaast Asia and Sunda-land probably Australia taa. That i s , i f yau dan•t cansidar Naandarthal as

Haavans! Everybody•• basic t ra ining in anthropology i s baingCra-Magnans af Europa nat tha f i r s t madarn man! Thasa primit iv••

possibly madarn langar than Eurapaans! This i s a l l taa taa shackinar wards!

I cancluda tha t ful ly madarn human baing• carriad twa l inguist ic phth • Pacif ic around 40 1 000 BC. Fully •adarn human baing• carr iad batwaanna and thir taan l inguis t ic phyla in to North America by 13,000 8C carta inly

as aarly • • 20,000 BC. Na-D•n• fallawad a t a l a te r data and Eskimaas t i l l la te r .Dna sagmant af Indo-Pacific mad• it ta Tasmania by 21,000 BC arTha chanca tha t tha Tasmanians might b• d•rivad from th • Kaw Swamp

•••ms goad but c l •ar ly und•manstratad. In any ca•• wa knoth • Tasmanians could int•rbraad with mad•rn man bacausa th•y did. At l •

a sama spacias as tha Bri t i sh with wham th•y in tarbr•d. Ei th•r tha t mak••fu l ly madarn human b•ings or it shows tha t archaic p•rhaps aven H

typas could interbr•ad with madarn men from tha •xtrama appasita and• Old World. If sa , than why nat Naandarthals tao? On• should also mantian

Brit ish bahaviar toward tha Tasmanians i t sa l f shawad a lo t af ganuinai ••• , basic savagaryt thay allagadly kil lad th • Tasmanians of

Almost as importantly, wa s • • tha t Naw Buinaa, which i s vary l ikalybaan sa t t lad in i t i a l ly by Indo-Pacific •p•akars, has human dat•• • • aar

s 2S,OOO 8C a t laas t . Sine• th • Tasmanians a r• d•riv•d from Indo-Pacif ic ,appaars . . t lad in Naw Buinaa, th•n it . . m• tha t w• hav• about 23,000a f t im• d•pth in Indo-Pacific AT LEAST! Pl•a•• fallow th is raasaning.

af Indo-Pacific in Naw Buin•a i s a data fa r tha pr•sanc• af langue;•• Pacif ic t it daas nat dat• prata-lnda-Pacific <p-1-P). That data• from th

up af th • ••varal branch••· Tasmanian givas us tha t dat• bacausa b



.;

'

HOMINID EVOLUTION

up to appearance of archaic Homo sapiens

(based on Johansen-White interpretation)

The Emergence of Homo sapiens 25

--------------------------- - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - . . . 1Europe and Asia devoid of hominids

A. afarensis

living in Africa

4 million

A. robustus in Africa

A. afr ican us in Africa

3 million

REPLACEMENT HYPOTHESIS

worldwide

distribution

of archaic

Homo sapiens

200,000

UNILINEAR HYPOTHESIS

worldwide

distribution

of archaic

Homo sapiens

200,000

Homo habilis

appears in Africa

(earliest stone tools)

2 million

years tiP

100,000

years I ll '

H. erectus appears

and expands

archaic

H. sapien

appears

1 million 4oo.ooo 1200,000

elsewhere

fully modern

invade Europe,

wiping out

Neanderthals

H. sapiens sapiens

develop

70,000 35,000 0

in Europe Neanderthals develop

100,000

years BP

Neanderthals into modern Europeans

arise ~ c = \ , \genes flow from one

group to another

archaic peoples elsewhere

evolve into modern Africans,

Asians, etc.

70,000 35.000 0

The place ofNeanderthals. Time line represents hominid evolution and two theories ofNeanderthals' place in the line to modern Homo: In the

unilinear hypothesis, they are in the main stream; in the replacement hypothesis, they were lJypassed.

--------------------- ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - . -



XVI I .23,000 years ago it was severa l thousand miles south of its Papuan kinfo lk ,

i.e., it had s p l i t o ff from p- I -P , o r th e Papuans had. <I had ba t t e r pray t h a tGreenberg 's hypothes i s s tands up to t es t !>

Than t ha ra a re branches of Indo-Paci f ic in Halmahara <not too f a r

away>, Timor <over 1000 miles west of New Guinea) and th e Andaman I s l ands <not

l a ss than 3600 miles west of New Guinea and very f a r from Tasmania>. Andamanasand Tasmanian a re both major sub-phyla, along with th e grea te r New Guineacrowd, by Greenberg ' s reckoning. So t he i r t imes of s p l i t t i n g o ff tend to date

th e phylum a t l a rge . I am con ten t to argue t h a t Indo-Paci f ic has probably2 ~ , 0 0 0 years of t ime depth in it. I t i s a very l a rge phylum with grea t i n t e rna

d iv e r s i t y , indeed a modal fo r th ink ing about Amerind.Austral ian i s assoc ia ted with 40,000 BC but not with r e s p ec t to its

ances to r . Rather th e 42,000 years ago r ep re s en t th e phylum's a r r i v a l in th e ne

con t inen t , i.e., evidence fo r th e age of language in the P ac i f i c , and a minimudate fo r its separa t ion from whatever kin it l e f t behind in Indonesia . Ware it

r e la ted to Indo-Paci f ic one might sea 42,000 as th e t ime depth of th e s p l i tbetween th a two grea t phyla . I n tu i t i v e ly we might a l l agree t h a t a l a rge p a r t

of those 42,000 years go towards ca lcu la t ing tha da ta of pro to -Aus t ra l i an . I

would not ba surpr i sed i f both Kannath Hale and Paul Black ware to t a l l us t h apro to -Aus t ra l i an i s of f t he ch a r t s , too old fo r glot tochronology. But becauset he re i s reason to bel i eve t h a t Tasmanian occupied p a r t of Aust ra l ia fo r soma

t ime , then we have to suspec t t h a t Aust ra l ian was conf ined fo r p a r t of its

hi s to ry to a smal le r p a r t of Aust ra l ia from which it l a t e r expanded to occupya l l of Aust ra l ia . But it i s not only Tasmanian which would make us cau t ious bua lso t h a t bunch of ••archaic 11 fo lk in Victo r ia in 10,000 BC. They sugges t t h a tt ha ra were two d i f f e r en t popula t ions in Aus t ra l i a as l a t e as 12,000 years ago.But who would doubt it i f wa draw a mild conclusion t h a t pro to -Aus t ra l i an hasprobably got a minimum of 12,000 y ea r s t ime depth in it and qu i te l i ke lyupwards of 2 ~ , 0 0 0 years?

Penul t imate ly , wa seam a l so to have a bas i s in North America fo r

saying t h a t Amarind i s comparable with Indo-Paci f ic in d ivers i ty , but not

necessar i ly in t ime depth. Although they a re vary s t rong ly opposed by manya rcheo log i s t s , th e moderate c e n t r i s t dates of Fagan suggest t h a t Amerind hasb e t t e r than 22,000 y ea r s in its d i f fe ren t i a t ion in to most of th e languages ofCanada and th e USA, and a l l those of Meso-America and near ly a l l of SouthAmerica. <Some of them ware l e f t unc la ss i f i ed because of lack of data.> Coma tth ink of it, those unc la ss i f i ed South American languages have th e sameconsequence t h a t th e Kow Swamp people had in Aust ra l ia . Not a l l th e t ime ofhuman occupancy necessa r i ly belongs to th e ona phylum. Oh, damn! This topic cag a t d i f f i c u l t !

Morris Swadash did make al lowances fo r " lo s t languages" in Aust ra l i a

and South America, and only in those two places . <Sea Circu la r .2 again> I f oneth inks hard about the log ic of what we a ra doing, one cannot help curs ing thos

ypothe t ica l l o s t languages . Their presence e f f ec t i v e ly v i t i a t e s th e premise o

archeo log ica l cor re la t ion t h a t Greenberg has he ld and t h a t we have beanursuing. I f a l l th e languages of th e two southern con t inen t s belong to t h e i r

tw o respec t ive phyla , than a l l th e archeo log ica l t ime belongs to those phylao o , i.e., th e t ime of the en t ry of f i r s t modern humanity in to those vas t

omains i s a l so the t ime of en t ry of th e phylum assoc ia ted with each con t inen t

ut with " l o s t l angua;as 11 th e f i r s t data of human en t ry i s th e t ime of en t ry ooma l o s t language, NOT th a wall-known phylum t h a t in our t ime i s in t o t a lossess ion of the con t inen t . I t s data of en t ry i s "some t ime l a t e r " .alhaurausament, in A u s t r a l i a t he re i s good reason to bel i eve t h a t th e ; r a a t

phylum did not def lower a vi rg in con t inen t . But soma happin•• • i s



XVIII.re tu rned to us by Tasmanian. In South America? Wall , Morr is , j u s t to be ornery

I d o n ' t th ink I bel i eve in any l o s t languages! <At l e a s t it's an easy way to

so lve a nas ty little problem!>Fina l conclusion. Language seams to go back a t l e a s t 42,000 years in

th e Pac i f i c basin alone. Since th e o ther 24 phyla in th e Old World a re still

unaccounted fo r , "a seem to need more t ime to g a t back to Mother Tongue. Howmuch more t ime? Lord a lmighty , who knows? Pure ly i n tu i t i ve ly , my personal huncwould be -- 130,000 years -- to g et back to t he ea r ly Homo sap iens in E th iop ia

In any case Mother Tongue i s arguably much much older than most of us seem to

th ink. And I do b e l i ev e t h a t those 25,000 BC da tes fo r Mother Tongue a re simpf a l s e because they have bean f a l s i f i e d in th e Pac i f i c Basin.

TEA/COFFEE GENERAL THEORY, PHILOSOPHERS OF SCIENCE & TYPOLOGY

Someone undoubtedly was reminded of S ir Karl Popper in t h a t l a s tsentence above. The f a l s i f i c a t i on b i t der ives from th e phi losophy of s c i en ce ,

most par t i cu la r ly th e th ink ing of S ir Karl . Sc ience advances by discover ing

t ru th by exposing fa l sehood . The good s t u f f i s what doesn ' t ge t f a l s i f i e d . Sog e t r id of th e chaff and th e deadwood. It's a grea t s impl i f i c a t ion of th e

complex i t ies of logica l empir ic i sm, th e Vienna C i rc l e , Reichenbach, Carl Hemp

<my own t eacher> , und so wai te r . S ir Karl was no plodding i nduc t iv i s t ,ca re fu l ly marshal l ing h is evidence and advancing ano the r q u a r t e r of a sni tch

towards a higher l eve l t h eo ry . <Sorry, t h a t i s very id iomat ic American Engl ishA q u a r t e r of a sn i t ch roughly equals a very t iny amount.>

A Popperian s c i e n t i s t i s allowed to th ink big thoughts , be deduct ive

and to remember t h a t t heor i e s coma from th e heads of s c i e n t i s t s r a the r thanar i s ing l i k e vapors from th e smolder ing data . But he must then TRY HARD to

disprove th e t heor i e s he i nven t s , otherwise he wil l never know whether they a

t r u e o r merely fragments of h is imagina t ion . Few of us a re able to do t h i swel l ; it i s too much l i ke going to th e d e n t i s t . So t h a t i s what co l leagues a re

fo r ; it h u r t s them f a r l e s s to disprove my theory than it does me!Lovely s t u f f , t h i s phi losophy. But th e ques t ion comes up from t ime to

t ime about th e re levance of it. Phi losophers of sc ience of ten say t h a t theymerely repor t in genera l te rms what working s c i e n t i s t s ac tua l ly do and than t rto help by c la r i fy ing t h ings . But most of them g a t t h e i r knowledge of how r ea

sc ience proceeds from phys ics . Few of them <except Hempel> convince me t h a tthey know or care vary much about h i s t o r i c a l s c i en ces , except maybe astronomywhich i s p a r t of phys ics . But still evan t h a t synchron ica l ly -o r ien ted physics

modal can help us with one of our p e r s i s t en t problems -- typology. What these

phi losophers are r e a l l y good a t , in my opin ion , i s c l a r i f i c a t i on of conceptsand th e log ic of hypotheses . <We a l so have se r ious soc ia l problems but t he re

h i s to ry and t he soc ia l sc iences can help us more than th e physics model can.>Typology e x i s t s in soc ia l anthropology <e.g . , Weber>, archeology and

physica l anthropology <e.g . , soma race c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s in Europe>, but I amonly going to cope with th e case of l i n g u i s t i c s where it i s of ten def ined as

problem. Why i s it a problem? Because " typo log ica l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s" have somet imes been confused with "genet ic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s" . Or perhaps th e problem i st h a t people have used th e l abe l " typology" but have not unders tood what it i s ;th e term i t s e l f i s th e source of most of th e problem.

Thera i s one sensa of th e term where 11 typology 11 s imply means "taxonomor c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .. Thera i s ano th• r sense of it where it t ak as on m•aningsl i ke 11 essence 11 or "Pla ton ic essanca 11 or "archtype 11 • There i s a t h i rd sensewhere it only means 11 grammatical o r phonologica l fea tu re s" . The f i r s t sense in

f ac t inc ludes genet i c taxonomy as a subse t , because genet i c taxonomy i s a



. .-

XIX.member o ~ th e genera l s a t , taKonomy, along with a l l the other th ings t h a t canba used as th e bas i s o ~ a c l a s s i f i c a t i on . For example, many A ~ r i c a n l i n g u i s t i c

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s have used cu l tu r e , physical appearance , and geography as t h e ibases . The second sensa perhaps i s bas t exempl i f ied by th e Nordic Man, asr id i cu led by Hila i r e Beloc <"Behold, my son, th e Nordic Man. And be j u s t l i ke

him i ~ you can ••• >. The t h i rd sensa seems to be i nd i s t ingu i shab le ~ r o m th egenera l opera t ions o ~ descr ip t ive and/or t h eo r e t i c a l l i ngu i s t i c s , a t l e a s t in

its B l o o m ~ i e l d i a n or s u r ~ a c e s t ruc tu re phase . We use t he non-h i s to r i ca l

comparative method, common to mast s c i a n t i ~ i c a c t i v i t y , and c l a s s i ~ y th ings

in to s im i la r , d i s s imi la r and something e l s a ; than see what e l s a cor re l a t es withose c las ses . When do you ; a t languages with s h o r t words, many tones but ~ e w;rammamas? Under what cond i t ions do languages with grammatical gander occur?Haw coma Japanese , Amharic and Javanese have sa many pronouns? Is th e order SOuniversa l? Und so wai te r . You can r ep ea t th e method with a TG or ien ta t ion too

e . g . , what a re the p rope r t i e s o ~ languages t h a t lack a pass ive t r a n s ~ o r m a t i o nor a re a l l sen tences o ~ th e type : S ---> NP VP. 7

I t seams obvious t h a t typology in th e t h i rd sensa , which i s th e sensmost contemporary l i n g u i s t s usa th e te rm, does d i ~ f e r a n t t h ings than a genet i c

c l a s s i ~ i c a t i o n and should t h a r a ~ o r a nat be c o n ~ u s a d with one. Nor shouldtypology in th e t h i rd sensa be subs t i tu ted ~ o r genet i c taMonomy - - th e r e s u l tcan be di sa s t rous <e.g . , Africa>. But, s ince gene t ica l ly r e l a t ed languageso ~ t e n have much in common grammatical ly and phonolog ica l ly , typological taKawil l overlap with genet i c taKa a l o t . As l i ngu i s t i c heur isms, typological taKara swel l , a s long as we remember t h a t they can mislead u s , can be disheur i sm

and as lang as we remember t h a t the r e la t ionsh ips which they deny may be th e

t rue ones <e.g . , Munda versus Vietnamese, Mbuguvarsus Iraqw) or th e ana whichthey a s sa r t may be th a ~ a l s e one <a . ; . , Kusunda versus Aus t roas i a t i c , Thaiversus Chinese>. We could evan work ou t a typology of dishaurisms. Thecondi t ions under which l i ngu i s t i c dishaur i sms occur usua l ly <always? o ~ t a n ? >involve area l phenomena and borrowing and /or bi l ingua l i sm.

Enough on t h i s . My hunch i s t h a t everybody al ready knows a l l t h i s .

SURPRISE LIQUER. JUST WHAT ARE WE ALL ABOUT, ANYWAY ?

An i tem not previously on th e manu. A ~ i n a b o t t l e of Drambuie has beediscovered and added to th e meal.

Thera i s a se r ious r i sk t h a t we may not understand each o ther , as in

what a re wa about , what a re wa a ~ t a r , why hava a Long Range Comparisons Club?Sa long as th e nama MOTHER TONGUE i s used people may th ink t h a t wa assume t h aa l l languages can ba gene t ica l ly re la ted to each o ther , t h a t th e mystar ies

th e ori ; in<s> of human language<•> can be solved, and t h a t we wil l be ab le torecons t ruc t an e n t i t y ca l led proto-human language <mother tongue>. N'as t -cepas?

Let me speak fo r soma of us. The answers to th e above ques t ions are :

NO, NO, NO! Soma of us do not assume any such t h ings . Rather we want to TRY TOFIND ANSWERS, WANT TO SEE HOW FAR WE CAN GO, but make no assumption t h a t wewil l have success , e i t h e r in our l i f e t imes or in anybody 's .

Soma othe rs of us DO make th e assumptions f i r s t mentioned and it wast he i r enthusiasm t ha t inspi red the long discuss ions in th e f i r s t sec t ions o ~t h i s c i r c u l a r .

S t i l l othe rs o f us do NOT wish to t ry to ~ i n d answers THEMSELVES fo r

th e seemingly e te rna l quest ions we ~ i r s t s t a r t ed with. However, we don ' t mindthe r e s t us make th e - ~ ~ o r t s and wa wil l be in ta ras tad to l ea rn the

r e s u l t s our e f fo r t s . Many of thasa us have plen ty of other work to do or



XX.ware not t r a ined to do long range comparisons in l i n g u i s t i c s .

F i n a l l y , still othe rs of us DISAPPROVE of th e e f fo r t s th e r e s t of usare making and are CERTAIN THAT NOTHING WILL COME OF IT. The methodology oflong range comparisons i s , I suspec t , o f fens ive to soma of us , con t ra ry to ourhigh-qua l i ty , indead magis t e r i a l , command of our d i s c ip l i n e and con t ra ry to th e

t each ings of our gurus . For reasons of f r i endsh ip , po l i t enes s , or cu r io s i t y wedo not t e rmina te our assoc ia t ion with th e Club but t h a t i s a l l t h a t keeps us.

Now t h a t Ruhlen ' s book has coma o u t , Greenberg 's i s e i t h e r out or j u s

about to come out , B ald i ' s 11 workshop" a t Stanford i s only t h ree and a hal f

months away, a t a l , it seems cer ta in t h a t discuss ions on t h i s our topic wil l

become mora f requen t , more publ ic and mora heated . The Rica conference l a s tyear produced vigorous disagreement , accord ing to both Car l Hodge and JohnBengtson. Ruhlan ' s a r t i c l e in Natural His to ry produced severa l s t rong c r i t i q u eof it and equal ly s t rong r e b u t t a l s . CI do not fee l a t l i be r ty to t a l l you a l lth e p a r t i c u l a r s . Merr i t t may dec ide t o do so , however.>

Wall , s t rong c r i t i c i s ms and r e b u t t a l s , disagreements , i n t ens i ty andhea t , t h e s e a re a l l expected from scho la r s who a re not of th e same mind on anyp a r t i cu l a r t o p i c . From th e s tandpo in t of th e sc ience of human preh i s to ry t h i si s a l l to th e good because soma t h ings w i l l g a t f a l s i f i e d but soma th ings wil l

be s t rengthened and in th e and we w i l l be r i cher for it.

However, t he re i s another cons idera t ion which I wil l c a l l th e BORDERPATROLS. Among th e Amaricanis ts a mindse t i s sa id to e x i s t which i s s t rong onh o s t i l i t y to long range comparisons, to Swadash, and ul t imate ly to Sapi r . I tseams not to be in te res ted in discuss ion or empir ica l i nves t iga t ion of a reas odisagreement but r a th e r in s tamping ou t th e impulse towards deeper preh i s to ry .This does not sound l i ke a s c i e n t i f i c approach to me but smacks much more ofIDEOLOGY, RELIGION, or METAPHYSICS. That i s why I use "border pa t ro l s " ins tead

of 11 gate keepers . because those QUys are prepared to g at tough with people who

t r y to c ross t h e i r borders , v io l a t e t h e i r t u r f or f a i l to g a t proper vi sa s fromthem. This i s a l l hearsay to me, of course , because I have had j u s t aboutnoth ing to do with Amarind l i ngu i s t i c s . A fr i c a n i s t s and D r i a n t a l i s t s <MiddleEast to India> have t h e i r own problems and, yes , soma Semi t ic i s t s ac t l i keBorder P a t r o l s , but nona of t h i s seems to reach th e high l ava l of idea log ica l

conformity t h a t Americanis ts t a lk about or out s ide rs mention as baingp a r t i c u la r l y c h a ra c t e r i s t i c of Amarind l i ngu i s t i c s . Coma to th ink of it, it i sa lso sa id to ba th e case t h a t Indoeuropean l i n g u i s t i c s does a lo t of borderp a t r o l l i n g . Maybe it i s r e a l l y a universa l phenomenon; people hate to see t he iparadigms th rea tened . Why does t h i s remind me of o ld Pur i t an Boston?

I see two c r i t i c a l aspec t s to a l l t he se cons idera t ions . F i r s t , t he re

i s th e danger t h a t people wil l f a l l in to idaa log ica l or s ty l i s t i c camps andcarp a t each o t h e r end le ss ly , un t i l th e i n i t i a l impetus of t h i s l a t e s t surge

towards Mother Tongue ga t s l o s t in scho la r ly bicker ing . Second, t he re i s th e

hanca t h a t soma of us may t r y to PREVENT othe rs of us from EVEN TRYING bacauswa d o n ' t th ink t h a t success can poss ib ly be a t ta ined . Dr soma of us may

th e KIND of avidanca or da ta presen ted to support a p a r t i cu l a r

ypothes i s , not by eKamininQ t he da t a or th e hypothes i s bu t j u s t by denyingh a t t h a t KIND of data can prove anything. The l a s t vers ion of th e DON'T EVENRY a t t i t ude i s th e 11Wa need mora data" syndrome. Soma t imes we could use mora

as in some South American cas es or th e Himalayas , but t h a t i s no t whath a syndrome i s a l l about . I t i s s imply a s t a l l i n g t a c t i c . I have one co l leagu

o has so much data ha can s ca rce l y read it a l l but still i n s i s t s t h a t hemora. He j u s t l i k e s t o gather data!

Then t he re i s th e 11Wait u n t i l each proto-language along our way hasrecons t ruc ted" kind of a t t i t ude . That i s wil l ing to t r y but wants to r e ly



XXI.on what it t h inks i s s t ronger da ta . Dol;opolsky , Hodge and I have, or have hadt h i s a t t i t u d e . I t might be confused with th e 11 We need more data 11 syndrome bu tit i s bas i ca l ly d i f f e r e n t . Perhaps it i s sounder than t he ap t ly named MASSCOMPARISON METHOD of Greenberg <and Swadesh>. This l a s t could a lso be ca l l ed

th e Gun;-ho or 11 go fo r i t ! 11 approach. I say t h a t with RESPECT because it was

th e method which s e t up Greenberg 's Afr ican c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .To th e DoN·T EVEN TRY group. Let me bag you not to ac t l i ke Border

P a t ro l l e r s but to acknowledge t h a t th e f i n a l outcome i s REALLY AN EMPIRICALQUESTION. I f you do not th ink Mother Tongue can be achieved and it i s foo l i sh

even to t r y , then by a l l means l e t t h a t i n h i b i t YOUR work. But please do noti n s i s t t h a t no one e l se can make any progress in t he d i rec t ion of MotherTongue. For example, Mother Tongue seams una t ta inable to you but someone e l s emight succeed in j o in ing , say , Ural ic + Yukaghir or Alta ic + Japanese + Korean+A i n u . After a l l , t he re i s a whale of a lo t of di f fe rence between showing t h aAinu, Korean, and Japanese a re in Al ta ic Cor l ink up with Alta ic ) andrecons t ruc t ing proto-human or even l ink ing N-K with I-P ! Do be cau t ious , dear

co l l eagues , but do ba f l ex ib le too!To th e severa l va r i e t i e s of WILLING TO TRY. Let me beg you not to g e t

l o s t in methodological disputes and th e meri t s of var ious wri t ing systems undso wai te r . Simply l e t us n a t carp each other to death! I say 11 l e t us . . . . becausobviously I am in t h i s group. Le t us no t th ink t h a t one pe rson ' s f a i l u re t oshow a new connect ion CONVINCINGLY means t h a t no one can show it. We a l ready

have examples of co l leagues who have f a i l ed to convince t h e i r peers . L et us NOYELL a t those who do t h ings incompetent ly . I t does h u r t to sea a poorpresen ta t ion of th e case fo r a hypothes i s which you bel i eve in . But l e t us nott r y to blow th e other guy away. Try to show her /h im how to do it convinc ing ly .

This s t u f f i s f a i r l y hard to t each and f a i r l y hard to unders tand and some ofour co l leagues learned f au l ty methods of doing it. Everyone you blow away i sone LESS of an a l ready smal l minori ty of schola rs who a re wil l ing to t ry . Manyof the recons t ruc t ions I see in Afr ica , fo r example, a re not up to A nt t i l a ' ss tandards but Afr i can i s t s a re qu i t e a heterogeneous l o t , espec ia l ly in

Afroas i a t i c s , and simply have had d i f f e r en t t r a in ing one from t he o the r . Andsame t imes they use methods 11 improperly 11 but come up with th e r i g h t answersanyway! <How could t h a t be?)

I t i s probably sa lu ta ry to taka a more Popparian view of methodology.Lingu i s t i c s , par t i cu la r ly in its well-known Bloomfield ian or 11 opera t ionism 11

phase , has had more 11 methodology f reaks 11 than any f i e l d except sociology andexper imental psych. We owe it to Noam Chomsky fo r reminding us t h a t we hadmistaken PROCEDURE fo r PROBLEM, and METHOD fo r THEORY. <Pace, oh t r i b e ofBloomfield! I am ne i the r a Chomskyita nor a Bloamfia ldian. I value eachapproach fo r some t h ings . ) No one in t h e i r r i g h t mind would pre fe r a bad methoto a good one. My poin t i s t h a t one cannot r e fu te a hypothes i s by cla iming t h aits proponent i s a methological nonconformis t . And ana cannot say , as once aco l league argued in Koln, t h a t one ' s hypothesis i s t r u e because 11 I followed a l

th e proper procedures and s tandard methods 11 • Wall , one cAn say it but t h a tdoesn ' t make it a good argument. <Maybe we can ; a t a p h y s i c i s t ' s view. Ron?>

Fina l ly , we who are wi l l ing to t r y ought not to condemn those whofAi l to be convinced by our e f fo r t s . Let us be more to le ran t ! Sometimes werea l ly a re NOT convincing. And more of ten what it t akas to convince one womani s q u i t e d i f f e r en t from what it t ak es to convince anothe r woman. Althou;h hewil l always be kind and p a l i t a , Juho Janhunen wil l requ i re mara convincing thaHal F l a m i n g - - always. <Mora on h is l a t t e r l a t e r . )

For those Border P a t ro l l e r s who t r y to stomp out our inqu i r i es throug• •administ ra t ive . <gate-keeping) a c t s , wel l , we must f i g h t them -- vigorously .



XXII.DESSERT COMMENTS FROM VARIOUS PEOPLE

Even though I enjoyed wri t ing th e l a s t 21 pages , most of you-a l l wil l

probably be more in te res ted in th e comments of th e o ther members of th e Club.Roger Westcot t made an amusing suggest ion and I 'd l i k e to adopt it. It's so ap

and s h o r t ! . Let us c a l l us th a "Lon; Rangers" . For those not addicted toAmerican movies, th e Lone Ranger i s a hero ic cowboy or cava l i e r f i gure whor i d e s th e ranQes of th e West with h i s f a i t h fu l tndian ~ e m ~ a R i § R ~ Tanto , ; iv ingj u s t i ce to bad guys and help to good fo lks . <My kids ca l l him th e StonedStranger .> A l a rge chorus of BOOS fo r t h i s suggest ion wil l CANCEL it f as t !

General pol icy on l e t t e r s wil l be t h a t personal s t u f f i s alwaysexcluded hera and t h a t wri t ten mat ter may otherwise be summarized o r

ex t rapo la ted o r reproduced in f u l l . But t he re has to ba permiss ion fo r th e

l a s t . My ed i to r -w i fe t e l l s me t h a t I should ba more ca re fu l about copy-r igh tlaws because t h i s news le t t e r q u a l i f i e s l ega l ly as a kind of publ ica t ion . I hopAaron and Vi ta l iy don ' t sue me!

A faw l e t t e r s a re reproduced in f u l l , not because they are necessar i l

supe r io r , but because e x p l i c i t permiss ion was given. Some mater ia l on th e o the

hand was so copious <e.g . , Pia , Bennett> t h a t summaries a re a l l t h a t I can do.In other cases a lo t of mater ia l was rece ived in th e form of r e p r i n t s -- too

much to reproduce here . Some rep r in t s and data a re sooner o r l a t e r going to bereproduced here in bu t a t th e moment I 'm saving th e space fo r our Sovie t

co l leagues . Some of th e r e p r i n t s a re qu i t e valuab le , espec ia l ly those from HanMukarovsky which i l l u s t r a t e h is work on Basque and its ex te rna l r e l a t i o n s .

Future i s sues wil l be MOSTLY BASED on l e t t e r s , new data and r ep r in t s

which au th o rs want reproduced. That i s , unless I f ee l a need to t a lk to th e

pa leoan th ropo lo ; i s t s and bio log imts and a rcheo log i s t s again . Since I am a4 - f i e l d s an th ropo log i s t , I wil l no t wi l l ing ly turn us in to a l i n g u i s t i c c lub .

And I wish th e a rcheo log i s t s and othe rs would unders tand t h a t most of th el i n g u i s t i c Long Rangers want very much to t a lk to them. Even i f you d o n ' t saymuch of anything fo r a long t ima , still soma day you may want to put in yourtwo cen t s worth -- and we wil l want to hear you!. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . ... . . .

.. . .

.. .

..

LIONEL BENDER. Fr iend ly , he lp fu l . Wondered i f th e / sn / forms fo r "nose, smel l"might not be onomatopoeic. <2nd). Fr iend ly , more help fu l evan. Suggests wehave a confe rence . <3rd) Soma$$ fo r postage <thanks!) plus e d i t o r i a l h e lp .

A. MURTONEN. Fr iend ly , p o l i t e . Sure t h a t / sn / forms were onomatopoeic. Numbersl i ke "4" , a re of no va lue in comparat ive work. Needs help with publ i sh ing h i

book on West Semi t ic .

CARL HODGE. Fr iend ly , worried about qua l i ty of I l l i c h - S v i t i c h ' s etymologies ,b i t discouraged by oppos i t ion to Nos t ra t i c , has l o t s of IE and AAetymologies , wil l t r y to publ i sh them, discussed d i f f e r en t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o"4" and "nose, smal l " , i n t e r e s t i n g ideas on IE/AA sound l aws, Sc much e l s a .

Carl def in i t e ly i s one of our fcundinQ f a th e r s .GROVER HUDSON. Fr iend ly , he lp fu l . Has dona a l o t of work en proto-Highland Eas

Cush i t i c . Can ' t do much l ang range s t u f f r i g h t new because ho t on theore t i cat op ic but has some not ions on nul l hypotheses . Helped me g e t $$ from my ownunive rs i ty fo r postage!

PAUL NEWMAN. Busy, p o l i t e . Can ' t do anything r i g h t now o r l a t e r . S t i l l has tof i g h t of f a t t a cks on Chadic by French S emi t i c i s t ! .

OHN BENGTSON. Fr iend ly , enthusiasm. Lots of informat ion on Rica conference ,

two moie t ies and en e rg e t i c but f r i end ly debates t he re . Mentioned Trombet t i ' s

work which inc luded / su / "generate" in Khoisan and elsewhere. Also sugges t sIndones ian / empat / ba added to th a "4" list. G•va ma sev e ra l names of "team



XXIII.members". Now ac t ive ly pursu in ; and f i n d in ; ; l o b a l ca ;na ta s , one of which"ana , f i n ; e r , hand" i s vary ; c ad . <Ruhlen, Shevoroshkin mention t h i s same

ca ;na ta and it i s to be publ ished in Greenber ; ' s Amarind, a s it a l ready hasj u s t been in Ruhlan ' s book>. John has 20 years worth of inves tment in langran ;e comparisons and has amassed a lo t of e tymolo ; i e s ! Indeed, he should beconsidered one of our foundin ; fa the rs . <What I ca l l h is "Ticktacktoe"

cognate wil l be reproduced a t th e f i r s t convenient place . I t was discoveredby both Ruhlen and Greenber ; independent ly of each o th e r and John, a l so bySwadesh!

IGOR DIAKONOV. Fr i en d ly , in te res ted . Has books to f in i sh on: "Afras ianLan ;ua ;es" <due ou t 1987) and "Pro to-Afras ian and Old Akkadian: A Study in

H i s t o r i ca l Phonet ics" , with sample comparat ive vocabulary <due ou t 1987 or

1988) . <That he i s th e r an k i n ; sen io r Afras i an i s t in th a world today probablwould not be co n tes t ed . Encyclopedia Bri t t ann ica a ; rees> . He has heard t h a tth ink Omotic i s not Afrasian and hopes t h a t i s no t t rue because he seas a tl e a s t Vamma <Janjaro) ;rammar as Cush i t i c . H• mentions d i f f i c u l t i e s in

f i n d in ; my work because of l i b r a r y cutbacks on journa l s . <Let me usa t h i soppor tun i ty t o u r ; e co l leagues who have r ep r in t s t o send them to Diakonov. Ml i b r a r y has problems of t h i s s o r t f requen t ly , but of course I can swim acros

th e Char la• River to th e Harvard Library . That i s l i ke h av in ; th e MoscowSta t e Library j u s t 3 miles away.)

ALICE HARRIS. Hurr ied ly , from deep in th e Caucasus, she c a n ' t rep ly ye t .

ROGER WESTCOTT. Fr iend ly , in te res ted . Mentioned a l r ead y - ex i s t i n ; "team" focuseon Stanford and enclosed i n t e r a s t i n ; r e p r i n t s of h is r eco n s t ru c t i v e work.

PAT BENNETT. Lon; four-page l e t t e r , smal l t y p e , s ing le -spaced , fu l l of r ich

mat e r i a l , fu l l of exper ience in t e ach in ; h i s to r i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s , f u l l ofcau t ions and precau t ions , bas i ca l ly l e e ry of l o n ; range comparisons bu tw i l l i n ; to l e t us t r y , w i l l i n ; to comment on th ings invo lv in ; h is a reas ofexper ience and/or t r a in ing which ; r aa t l y exceeds N-K <includes AA, N-S, IE>.I cou ldn ' t photocopy h is l a t t e r because th e pr iva ta s t u f f in ta r th raadad withh is many hypotheses . <I'm sura ha wouldn ' t mind my r ep aa t i n ; t h a t h i s ha i r is tanding on and because of wha.t I 'm t ry ing to do.> . Pa t , my f r i e n d , you a re

exac t ly what Aaron wanted our natworkars to ba -- competent , i n t e l l i ; e n t ,t o t a l l y hones t , c r i t i c a l but he lp fu l , and t o l e r an t of us Lon; Rangers . What

wil l do with th e problem of p re s e n t i n ; P a t ' s opin ions , s i n ce he i s fa r to o

occupied elsewhere to do it fo r us , i s in th e next <4th) i s sue to summarizeh is <de-privatized> l e t t e r .

HANS SASSE. Fr iend ly , p o l i t e , w i l l i n ; to l e t us t r y , wil l ing to swap data andmake comments on proposed co ; n a t a s which involve Cushi t ic connec t ions . Alsohas a ; ena ra l viaw, Quota . " throughout my ca ree r I have bean a

raduc t iona . l i s t , p raach in ; the idea l of examining smal le r ; a n a t i c a l l y

unproblematic ; roups a s . thorou;hly as poss ib le before touching onf a r t h a r - r e a c h i n ; r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Afte r approximately 20 years of comparat iveresearch , I am still within th e borders of Eastern Cushi t ic and I still amconfronted with l o t s of problems in t h a t f ia l ·d . I can sea soma ways leading

t o P ro to -Cush i t i c . , but t he re i s still a lo t of work to do u n t i l we can react he re . Not to speak of A fro as i a t i c as a whole. Consequent ly , fo r my t a s t egenet ic hypotheses l i n k i n ; t o ; e th a r e n t i r e l an ;ua ;e phyla a re sameth in ;

e n t i r e l y i nconce ivab le ; ivan th e p resen t s t a t e of knowlad;a. Never the less , I

am w i l l i n ; t o p a r t i c ip a t e in your swapping network in orde r to help

d i ssemina t ion of in fo rmat ion , aspac ia l ly along th e w es t -aas t <and vice versa>ax i s • • • <Lots of work comin; o ut on Cushi t ic in a s e r i e s , ad i t ad by Hans,ca l led 11 CUSHITIC LANGUAGE STUDIES . , Hambur;: Buske> •• please fea l f rea toconsu l t me i f you <or someone e l s a in th e network> want any kind of



XXIV.in-formation on th in ; s I mi;ht possibly know . . . . . Unquote. I can certi-fy tha tone can ; a t some hi ;h qual i ty data in a swap with Hans. Since Hans stressedi t , I should remind Soviet scholars tha t he clear ly means tha t he will swapwith THEM.

BEN ROUSE. Friendly, in te res ted. Glad I l iked h is book, pleased I understoodh is basic aims. He -follows Sapi r ' s good advice in not spreading oneself tooth in . Work on archeology and l inguis t ics in ONE area , l ike the Caribbean inh is case, but s t i ck to one DISCIPLINE i-f you're t rying to work globa l ly .

SHEILA EMBLETON. Friendly, received two circular-s via natwor-ker-s, please add mto the network. <2nd> She will be a 2ndar-y mailer o-f 12 l e t t e r s <thanks!)

HANS MUKAROVSKY. Viennese <• -friendly, warm, generous>, hoping we a l l can meaa t the Congress o-f Hamito-Semitic Studies , meeting in Vienna Sapt .27-0ct .2,1987. At l eas t 1 ~ of us <Long Rangers> will be there . <Includin; a -few whowould sp i t up a t baing called a Lon; Ranger! - HF> Five o-f our Sovietcolleagues wil l be giving lec tures <• plenary session papers in US parlance><Havin; bean subjectad to Mukar-ovsky's hospi ta l i ty in 1982, I desperate lyWISH I could go th i s year but so -far I haven' t bean able to manage i t . ) . Hawas also concerned, because of the pos t - ; l ac ia l phyla di-f-ferentiation<Swadesh's>, shown in Cir-cular-.2, tha t , Quotea 11 That clear ly implies tha t yos t i l l th ink tha t Basque, contrar-y to the view soma Russians you quote hold,might have something to do with the group they newly name Dena-Caucasian,while it i s clear ly -far away -from Hamito-Semitic, and even closer to IE. Buquite the opposite i s the case! Your view simply ignores a lo t o-f writ ingperhaps a dozen publ ica t ions or so - - o-f mine s ince 1963! Certainly I am, a tl eas t in par t , responsible mysel-f -for your ignorance, as I never sent you ono-f these a r t i c le s , but simply because I never ant ic ipated tha t they mightin te res t you!" Unquote. My sympathy i s ent i re ly with Hans. H he thought Isaid tha t , than ha should protes t ; cer ta inly I appeared to be embedded inOmotic. However, tha t post- ice diagram was a l l Swadesh, not me. I have noopinion on Basque, except tha t in 3 FRAIL e-f-forts a t c lass i fying it, Icouldn' t get anywhere. I t i s obviously no close kin o-f anyone's . And, sincei t does r-epresent Atlant ic Europa be-fore IE took over and maybe the Maghrebtoo <before AA moved in>, it surely i s a very ser ious matter . I t s importancei s underlined by another ser-ogenetic heur-ism - - the Basque are a world climapoint -for Rhesus negative , while the Mountain Berber-s are another -for N. AlsBasques have more N than the re s t o-f Europa. Rest o-f AA fo lks have mora M,and Semites much much more M, than Berber-s and l ess Rhesus negative thanMountain Berber-s. <This s tuf f i s REALLY in te res t ing!) <Highland New Guinea itha other climax point fo r N, and Rhesus Rl>. Hans goes on to say tha t he wasending me h is r-eprints (since received - HF> And thAt mAybe Basque did hAveAsian connections but1 quotaa "not in the - f i rst plAce with Caucasianlanguages <as soma people tend to assume>. But th i s i s a n o th e r - - verye x c i t i n g - - question ••• ". Unquote.

JOHN C. STREET. Quotea "While 1 apprecia te your including my nama on yourNostrat ic mailing l i s t , I 'm real ly not much interested in such speculations--so you might as wall taka me off the l i s t . " Unquote. <D'accor-d - - HF>

BRUCE TRIGGER. Friendly, in terested, scept ical . Sees a revival o-f his tor i ca ll inguis t ics , a f te r doldrums, and then h is misgivings: Quota: "At the sametime I have grave suspicions tha t perhaps up to 4 per-cant o-f roots inlanguage famil ies could be s imi lar in form and meaning as a resu l t o-f chanceand the sor t of reinvention phenomenon Murdock demonstrated fo r mama andpapa. I therefor-e have ser ious r-eservations about evan a moderate number ofresemblances among major famil ies indicat ing his tor i ca l af-finity. But I ampr-epared to keep an open mind ... End quote. Also, s ince Bruce i s one of my

---- ~ - - - - -



XXV.authori t ies on Maroit ic , h is thoughts on it can ba quoted. Thus, 11 As .forMar-oitic tha c lassi -f icat ion i s s t i l l apan. Shinnia a .faw years a;o sug;astadit mi;ht ba a Kor-do.fanian lan;ua ;a , but used only a .few cognates <maybe onlyana>. A man ••• published an ar t i c l e in AZANIA su ; ; a s t in ; it was Sumerian buh is only ;aod cognate was the - t a locat ive pas tpas i t iva . Hintze, as a jake,

produced a paper ca l l ing a t tent ion to a lo t a.f Altaic cognates and soma havetaken tha t ser iously•••• Bechhaus-Gar-st and I th ink In;a Ho-f-fman s t i l l thinkthe Mar-oitic-Eastar-n Sudanic cognates are loan words but I .find th is mostimprobable. Also they .fail to nota tha t many Mer-aitic-Nubian cognates ar-aalso Mer-oitic-Eastar-n Sudanic ones. Pr-iasa and others seem supportive a.f anEastern Sudanic or perhaps more general Nile-Saharan re la t ionship and I s t i lregard tha t as most l ikely . . . . . . End quote. 0-f course, as Bruce points out ,Mer-oitic continues to have a basic problem that• 11 Ther-a i s s t i l l not adiver-sa enough carpus o-f material to do much." And . f inally ha welcomes thacontact with Soviet scholars because Amar-ind-istics has bene-fitted from the iwork ' ' in the past <t<onor-asov and tha Mayan t r-as.)" <I th ink tr-as =t r ans l a t i ons - HF>. <Mayba'someone a t t<oln can ask Marianna or In;a i-f theywant to sand the i r comments an Maroitic in? - - HF>

GENE GRAGG. <Telephoned>. Friendly, in te res ted. Gena i s running a computerizeddata bank on Cushit ic and Omotic lan;ua;as primari ly but includes some othertoo. Mora importantly, tha data bank has tha potent ia l .for much growth andGena so l i c i t s cooperative responses from Lon; Rangers or shor t ones. He mayalso be interested in computer modem re la t ions , where A connects with B viaspecial at tachment plus telephone, and the two computers 11 ta lk to eachather ... <Joe Pia also has strong in te res t s in this .>

DEREK NURSE. Friendly, in terested, problems witt)- wrong address. Everyone shoulknow tha t Derek i s now a t Memorial University of New-foundland. <1st>. Taobusy to say much but it sounded ;cod to him. <2nd>. di t to . <3r-d>. Star-tad upa N-K sub-group to sae i f the f ive <6 ?> of them might ; a t pr-oto-N-1< gain;st ronger. Tha N-1< sub-;r-aup consis ts of Derek, Kay Williamson, Pat Bennatt ,Tom Hinnabush, Garard Phi l l ipson, and Thila Schadebarg. I don' t know how man

responded to Derek 's i n i t i a t ive but l e t ' s hope! Thera i s hardly anything morimportant than a reasonably wall-craf ted pr-ota-N-K, unless it i s proto-N-S.Maybe you-all should know tha t Stanley Cushin;ham and John Hutchison are alson the l i s t . <Stanley Cushingham's carr-act address i s 1 3 4 ~ Elsworth Avenue,New Haven, Conn. 0 6 ~ 1 1 , USA)

NEIL SKINNER. Friendly, busy with comparative work an Hausa lexicon. Hausa has/ji/ fo r 11 small , fee l , haar 11 , /hanci / for 11 nosa 11 and / sunsun/ or / sansan/ fo11 sni.ff 11 • Interest ing discussion of other Hausa words. His wife, Meg, has apaper an 11 Is Bedauye a Chadic Lan;ua;e? 11 • He's incl ined to think tha t Magshowed Baja <Bedauye, Badawia> to be more Chadic than many of the languagesincluded in Chadic by Newman and Ma. 11 Sha never ; a t around to publishing it,and now she works ful l t ima ••• (advising s t uden t s - HF> ... <This i s the ~ t ht ime, I think, tha t someone has sean Baja as e i ther dis t inc t from the res t o

Cushit ic or closer to Chadic or as c lose to Chadic. Natural ly, it pleases mabecause I th ink Baja i s a branch of AA in termediate between Libyan(Chadober-bar) an d Cushi t ic , and Egyptian.>

HERB LEWIS. Friendly, in te res ted. Very busy, however. S t i l l , keep it up!PETER UNSETH. Friendly, in terested, but too much preoccupied by what he i s

doing to be dis t rac ted by l en ; ran ; • comparisons. So he wants to be OFF thamail ing l i s t . Pater should, however, s t i l l be regarded by Lon; Rangers as af r iendly resource parson. He knows about Shabo <Mekeyir->, Majang andsouthwest Ethiopia general ly. He confirms the hear-in; of a re t rof lex se t a.fconsonants in Gimir-a AND Shako (both North Omotic>, jo ining a group o-f 3



XXVI.t ra ined l i n g u i s t s who have now heard t h a t s a t <Klaus Wedekind, Mary Breeze,Akli lu Vilma>. Master Phonet ician and Magis t ra te Hayward wil l ba hearing <or

n at hear ing) th e s e t soan in Addis Ababa. H is opinion wil l ba d ec i s i v e . Why?Because twa us did NOT hear th e r a t r a ~ l e K s e r i e s <Bander a t moi) and sa

are inc l ined to put th e whale s e t in to "a l lophan ic var ia t ion" . I t looks l i kewe a re mistaken , however. The importance th e Gimira and Shako r e t r a ~ l e xs a t i s cons iderab le because

it

APPEARS to d i c t a t e a s u b s t a n t i a l enlargementth e s i b i l a n t / a ~ ~ r i c a t e s a t in pra ta-Omat ic . That v i s - a -v i s Semit ic shouldbe vary i n t e r e s t i n g . Di t t a with r e s p ec t to AA l a t e r a l a ~ ~ r i c a t e s and~ r i c a t i v e s . Perhaps ana wil l be ab le to hear mara about t h i s a t th a Viennameetings AA <Hamita-Samitic) in September, espec ia l ly i f Wedekind, Breezeor Hayward happen to be a t t end ing . <That ·s ca l l ed a h i n t , san.>

PAUL BLACK. Fr iend ly , i n t e r e s t ed , sc e p t i c a l , he lp fu l . Paul wrote a lang varythoughtful l a t t e r which I wil l reproduce p a r t s a ~ hera because he i s a r a r ebi rd amongst u s , having worked se r ious ly an IE , AA, Austrones ian andAust ra l ian nat to mention l a K i c a s t a t i s t i c s and mathematical models andcomputers . Same Paul · s viewpoin t resembles t h a t I s idore Dyen and th es t rang ~ a c u l t y in l i n g u i s t i c s a t Vale but Paul i s very much h is awn man, a s

they say . His focus here in i s an Nost ra t i c • Quote• <Margins increased - HF>

" Y e a h , keep me ab reas t developments , I want t o hear mara. But I·msura yau·11 apprec ia te my posi t ion a s a s cep t i c . I t • s n a t t h a t I do nat th ink

t h a t th e ·Nos t ra t i c · groups a re nat r e la ted - it seems l i k e l y t h a t they wouldbe. But suppose I s t a r t with th e hypothes i s t h a t mast languages in the worldare u l t imate ly descended from a very small number a ~ dis t inc t · pra ta languages ,

perhaps j u s t one. I t would n a t su rp r i se me I did nat see evidence of th e

r e la t ionsh ip , because o ~ t he g rea t t ime depth , but i f I should see suchevidence I am no t su rp r i sed . The problem i s thus no t so much to demonstra tet h a t th e Nost ra t i c languages a re r e l a t e d , but r a th e r t h a t they a re more c lose l

r e la ted to each o t h e r than to nan-Nos t ra t ic languages - i . e . to demonstra tet h a t Nost ra t i c i s a va l id subgrauping."

"I would eKpect t h i s to be a d i f f i c u l t t a s k . The p a r t people a re

picking up an i s th e f ind ing of puta t ive cognates . But r eca l l t h a t it i s na t

phonet ic resemblance t h a t makes cognates , bu t r eg u l a r phonologicalcor respondence. Thus Pers ian BAD <or something l i k e that> does in f ac t mean"bad" but apparen t ly i s n a t cognate with Engl ish "bad". We expect cognates totend to become phonological ly di s s imi l a r a t grea t t ime depth. I f you cancompare recons t ruc ted protoforms, so much th e be t t e r , but t h i s probably t ends

to make r e l i ance on th e phonet ics even mara r i sky , s ince we a re even l e s s sure

of th e ac tua l phonet ics of th e protoforms."

"O.K., sa you know th e problems and we a l l work within them. Thesecond p a r t i s using what cognates we f ind to demonstra te t h a t th e e .g .

Nost ra t i c languages a re indeed mare c lose ly r e l a t ed t o each o t h e r than to

outs ide languages . I t • s hard to make l a K i c a s t a t i s t i c s work a t such g re a t t imed e p t h s - percen tages become t ao smal l , and i f you increase the number of wordscompared you tend to g a t au t of bas ic vocabulary. Goad i f you can recons t ruc t

Nost ra t i cpronoun paradigm, but such data i s

a l sod e l i c a t e - r eca l l from myt h e s i s haw t he g rea t changes in th e Dasanach pronominal system misled Tucker.

Comparison o ~ grammatic mcrphemas can became to o easy - where suff iKas a re vers h o r t <e.g. -CV>, resemblance can eas i ly be dua to chance. The problems withtypo log ica l comparison have bean known f a r mcst cf the p resen t cen tury . .

" I . l l send you a concre te i l l u s t r a t i on . of th e problem as soon as ourphotocopier i s again opera t iona l • it•s a Dyen ms. e n t i t l e d ·BACKGROUND "NOISE"

OR "EVIDENCE" IN COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS• THE CASE OF THE AUSTRONESIAN-INDOEUROPEAN HYPOTHESis·. After l i s t i ng 78 puta t ive cognates between < o ~ t e n proto->



XXVI I .

Austronesian and Indoeuropean, Dyan concludes by s ay in ; , ' I must c o n ~ e s s t h a tam impressed with th e aMtant to which I have bean s u c c a s s ~ u l in ; a tha r ing

matchin;s between th e r econs t ruc t ions o ~ th e two ~ a m i l i a s . Granting t h a t thus

~ a r I have not wavered in my s t e a d ~ a s t b e l i e ~ in th a l ike l ihood t h a t anAustronesian-Indoeuropean re l a t ionsh ip can no t be demonst rated , should I waver

now?' The problem fo r you i s somewhat d i f fe ren t • can you make a b e t t e r case foIE ' s membership ~ o r Nost r a t i c than Dyen <tongue-in-cheekly> does ~ o r IE plus

Aust ronesian? Or i s Aust ronesian p a r t of Nost r a t i c too? I f so , what about a l lthe o ther groups t h a t you haven ' t yet looked a t? "

"Please usa my cynacism cons t ruc t ive ly by running hypotheses over it;

d o n ' t l e t it discourage you. But do note t h a t much pu ta t ive cognate ; a t h a r i n ;has a l ready been done, i f I 'm no t mistaken• Radar, I be l i eve , of Yale <of a l lplaces) was busy in th e ' 60s or so compil in ; volumes pu ta t ive cognates from' round th e world. 11

"On your $uw-/*suu- ' bea r , baga t ' s e t , nota Japanese UMU ' b e a r ' ,UMARERU ' be born · . <For ' f ou r ' I wanted to add Japanese HUTA-TSU <where H i s ab i l ab i a l f r i c a t i ve b a ~ o r e U, t he re i s n o ~ > , but I guess I 'd have to add it

twice; it only means ' twa · . ) 11

"Aus t r a l i a i s my cur ren t area i n t e r e s t ,o ~

course , but ;oodnassknows haw hard it i s to f ind cognates among soma ; r oups of Aust ra l ian

l anguages , much l a s s outs ide Aust ra l ia . Soma o ~ tha bas t evidence l i n k i n ; mastAust ra l ian l anguages a ra monosyl labic verbs t h a t should look something l i k eNYAA- ' s e e • , KAA- ' b r ing• , c a r ry , ~ - / W U - / Y U - ' g i ve · , PU- 'hit', TU-/RU-/LU' c r y · , VA- ' g o ' , VA- ' s ay • , PA- 'fall', ~ A - ' e a t • , TVA- ' e a t ' <and TYAAWA

'mouth ' ) , and MA- ' t a k e ' . Cognates to those wouldn ' t help your Nost r a t i c

hypothes i s , however ... Unquote.It's unclear to me what th a l a s t sentence meant. <Paul?) . Let me cor rec t afew de ta i l s . 11 Your hypathas i s 11 in my d i a l e c t and P au l ' s can mean e i t h e r

"one ' s hypothesis" or " thy hypothes i s" , as in " take your average Bostonpo l i t i c i an •• " . I f you <Paul) mean "hypothesis i s t h ine <Hal>", then I'll havto demurr. I t belongs to Aaron, Car l , Allan , and t he o the rs . I th ink it i s

probably going to ba a va l id gene t i c ; roup -- a l b e i t with presen t lyinde terminate parameters -- bu t I have n ot YET made up my mind about it.

Greenberg 's forthcoming EURASIAN ac tua l ly cu t s Nost r a t i c in ha l f by t ak ing

AA, Kar tva l ian , and Dravidian out o ~ it, and by adding Ainu, Gilyak andEskimoan to it. The forthcoming vigorous but amicable arguments among Lon;Ran;ars should have ~ r u i t f u l Papperian e f ~ e c t s and i l l u s t r a t e dramat ica l ly

P au l ' s poin t in h is 1 s t paragraph, l a s t sen tence . Twa othe r TRIVIA• th e11 bear , ; ene ra t e " roo t i s SU7 or $U7. Syl lable or roo t f i n a l g l o t t a l s tops a r

non- t r iv ia l in Omotic , matching up as they somet imes do with pharyn ;ea l s

elsewhere in AA or coming from underlying g lo t t a l i zed consonants . <Similar lyth e 11 nase , smel l 11 cognate has a f i n a l T, in twa phyla/sub-phyla <NorthCaucasic + Hurro-Urar tean and Omotic>; it's no t j u s t SN, but SUNT'. Alsoshows up as s u ~ 7 in Khaisan and apparen t ly with a f i n a l -G in soma Siber ian

languages . ) Fina l ly , P au l ' s 11 Aust ra l ian verb roo t s 3 immediately matchup with common or old AA forms <"say, go , ea t " ) and 4 i f MA- ' t a k e ' i sal lowed to match up with IM- ' g ive ' i n Omotic. North Caucasic , Elami t i c , andBurushaski co;na tas for "see" a lso leap to mind. This may a l so prove P au l ' spoin t t h a t "puta t ive" cognates can be amassed. Did he say "eas i ly"? Easi ly

and in grea t numbers? <I know t h a t t h i s quest ion i s Qoing to be DEBATED!Thera i s sa much to comment on ha re , but we must wait un t i l naMt i s sue . )

LEXANDRA AIHENVALD. Fr iendly , reassur ing because ona of twa e a r l i e s t responsefrom Sovie t col leagues . Working on pro to -Berber , i nc lud in ; Guanche in it.

Went to Bundesrepublik to a conference . <Hurray! Yippie! All r igh t ! - HF>



XXVIII.JOHN BENGTSON's "Ticktacktoe" c o c ; ~ n a t a . <Ruhlan has a near ly iden t i ca l s e t ,which you can read in h is book.> J o h n ' s < < "Selected Global Cognates: Toward

Sound Correspondences" , presen ted a t th e Third Biennia l Symposium onLingu i s t i c s and Semio t ics , March 1986, Rice Univers i ty , Houston, Texas :TEK I TEK' " f i n g e r / t o e , hand/foot" from which numerals: "one, t en , twenty"

Nile-Saharan: Maba / t e k / , Dinka / t ok / "1" , Merar i t / t o k / , Dendje /dok/ "10"Indo-European: * d e ~ - I d e g ~ , e t c . <Greek /deka , dak- ty los / , e t c .> .Ural ic : * tek - <Finnish /kah-dek-san / "8" , /yh-dek-san / "9" ? from "two

f i n c ; ~ e r s held down", "one f inger held down"; borrowing from Indo-Europeaseems more f a n t a s t i c than th is .>

Al ta ic : * tek - <Ainu / t e k / , Japanese / t e / "hand"; K o c ; ~ u r y e / t e k / ' '10">

Yenisaian: * tok- " f i n c ; ~ e r "Eskimo-Chukoton: * t i k i I a - t i c ; ~ o <Aleut / t i k - l Aq / 11 middle f i n c ; ~ e r " , / a tgu / 'if,rHok•n• Karok /tiik/, WAsho / i t , s i c ; ~ / "f inger . .Chibchan: Chibcha / i t i c ; ~ i - n a / "f inger"Arawakan: Paumari / d i k i / "arm".

Ruhlen 's s e t adds cognates from Sino-Tibe tan , Miao-Yao, Aus t roas i a t i c , Aust roTa i , Indo-Pac i f i c , Na-Dene, and culminates in <Greenberg's) Amerind l * t i k / . T

nice th ing about th e "Ticktacktoe" cognate i s t h a t it doesn ' t r equ i re one tofol low a to r tured semant ic path from one form to another , nor to imaginei nc red ib l e phonet ic changes and a rb i t r a ry metatheses . I t i s qu i te simple!

John also r epor t s a Trombatt i global cognate fo r " f a t , grease , o i l "CTrombetti ' s base /s im-I> and one fo r " t d n c ; ~ u a • • <roughly / t a l / d a l / t i l / d i l / d o l /John has added much to Trombe t t i ' s or ig ina l s e t s , including also ShevoroshkinNos t r a t i c r econs t ruc t ion l*c im,E/ fo r " f a t , e t c . " . The "tongue" s e t i s eas ie rfo r me to accep t than the 11f a t ' one. Fina l ly , he has some i n t e re s t ing th ings tadd to my e a r l i e r "Hanniba l ' s cognate" . Cit was so named because Hanniba l ' s

family name was BARCA.> I f John wil l forg ive me fo r not repor t ing the f i r s t twbecause space i s ge t t i ng dea r , I wi l l add h is " l i gh tn ing , e tc .. . forms, skippinh is AA and IE ones as redundant . In th e case of some more tenuous increments ,which John excised because of METATHESIS and th e ex i s t ence of a d i f f e r e n tcognate , I have put them back in because meta thes is in th ree consonant roo t smore bel ievable and in any case th e resemblances a re s t r i k i n c ; ~ . <Let me remindyou-a l l of a beau t i fu l case of meta thes i s which Paul Black found in the Oromogroup of East Cush i t i c , to wi t , Oromo / k ' u r t lummi / , Busa / k ' u rmuc ,a / , Gato/kurmuJa/ , Mashile / kurmuJJa / , and Konso /murkuuJa/ = 11 f i sh" .

J

0H

N

B

E

N

G

Niger-Congo: <Bantu> Swahil i /mul ika/ "sh ine , gleam, make l i gh t " a l so/k i -mul i -mul i / "f i ref ly/glowworm"

<Bantu) Rundi /murika/ "ec lAi r e r " .Sumerian: I p i r i g I "be br igh t 11

Al ta i c : Korean /p e r a k/ " f lash 6f l i gh tn ing"

Yukaghiran1 Chuvan /pon-paLag-en i j / "Nebel" <where /L / = "dark 1")Eskaleu t ian : Yupik / k in ix -p iLag / "l ightning-..Arawakan: Kinikinao /p a r u k a -ti/ " l igh tn ing"

Jamadi / Ja ruara / a -b a 1 i k u / 11 moon". Cf also Cul ina /abadz iko/ ,Paumari /massiku/ "moon"

T Austronesian: Bugis /b i 1 a k/ 11 l i gh tn ing"

S Rot t i /b u 1 a k / "moon, e t c . "0 <Malay / k i l a p , k i l a t / " l i g h t n i n c ; ~ " << l *p i l a k / ? >N Nile-Saharan• Kanuri /mol lak / l i c ; ~ h t n i n g , e t c . "

The o the r s a t : Ainu / peke re / " l i gh t " , /pekera -a$/ "be l i g h t " , Japanese / h i ka" l igh t " <OJ / F i k a r i / ) , Ural ian : Magyar / f e he r / "white 11 ,? Yukaghir /pozer -xo /" l i gh t , day, world, sun" , Arawakan: Campa / im-pok i r -o / " s t a r , e t c . " There ' s

----- ------------------



XXIX.some chaff in t h i s , but many good gra ins too!

JUHA JANHUNEN. Fr iend ly , p o l i t e , very s cep t i c a l . Juha ' s l e t t e r i s so s t rong anc l ea r and f r i e n d l y , yet cogn i t ive ly or s t y l i s t i c a l l y s imi l a r to many other

" s p l i t t e r s " , t h a t a l l should read it. I t ake the l i be r ty of breaking th e

r u l e s and zeroxing it e n t i r e l y , in hopes t h a t Juha wil l pardon me. <Three of

h is family terms may be unfami l ia r to non-Asian is t s . YENISEIC [Kat , KotJ ,named a f t e r the Yenisei r i v e r in western S i b e r i a , LUORAVETLANIC [Luorawet lanor more commonly in th e USA, Chukchi-Kamchadall or Chukchee, Koryak, andKamchadal of the eas te rn po in t of Sibe r i a on th e Bering Sea , and NIVKHIC[Gi lyakl of northern Sakhal in Is land and ad jacen t Sov ie t Pac i f i c coas t nearth e Amur r i v e r . Most "lumpers" put Luoravet lanic in Nost ra t i c or i t sequ iva len t and some put Gilyak t he re too . These t h ree fami l i e s plus YUKAGIRItYukaghir l are usua l ly found discussed under th e rubr i c of "Paleo-Siber ian" ,

a term which i s widely re ;a rded as unfor tuna te because it impl ies t h a t theya re a l l r e l a t ed , yet th e term i s "merely geo ; raph ica l " . In f a c t , it seemst h a t th e N o s t r a t i c i s t s and Greenberg view them a l l , except Yeniseic , as

r e la ted to Ural ic , Al ta ic [ inc lud ing or plus Japanese , Korean, and Ainul , anIE.> Juha ' s l e t t e r i s th e f i r s t ove r l ea f , followed by Merr i t t Ruhlen ' s .

MERRITT RUHLEN. Fr iend ly , i n t e r e s t ed , he lp fu l , on a ro l l <as Americans say>. Iaddi t ion to h is l e t t e r , which speaks fo r i t s e l f , it must be mentioned t h a th is new book has f i n a l l y come out . A GUIDE TO THE WORLD'S LANGUAGES. VOLUME1 CLASSIFICATION. Stanford Univers i ty Pres s , 1987. Stan fo rd , Cal i fo rn ia .

Pp.433. ISBN 0-8047-1250-6. I have read it cover to cover , almost withouts topping to s leep o r do anything e l s e , and a l ready use it as an au th o r i t a t i v

re fe rence book. I t i s a TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTION to th e "lumper" cause , y et i

wil l de l igh t " s p l i t t e r s " because it shows how t axa have grown and whata l t e rna t ive c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of var ious language groups e x i s t and indeed wherth e borde rs a re t h a t th e p a t r o l s might want to bui ld wal ls around. I t hasmany usefu l poin t s of methodology and theory . Perhaps most of a l l , a personcan f ind out what th e taxonomic "word" i s on soma language she might bei n t e re s t ed in -- seen from a " s p l i t t e r ' s " or a " lumper 's" viewpoint . Thus, i

should be valuab le to a rcheo log i s t s , soc i a l an th ropo log i s t s , b io lo g i s t s ,paleoan th ropo log i s t s , evan j o u rn a l i s t s . One does not have to agree withM e rr i t t' s t axa o r h is placement of any given language because he makes anoble e f fo r t to show what your cho ices a re .

I t i s not my job to review THE GUIDE in any formal way; I 'm sure t h a t

many scho lars have a l ready been assigned t h a t t ask by var ious journa l s .

Anyone who w r i t e s on th e languages of th e world in such a comprehensivemanner MUST expect some cr i t i c i sm -- some of it sharp , some of it heavy, somp a i n fu l . But t h a t i s l i f e in t h i s Popperian bus iness . I doubt , never the less ,

t h a t any c r i t i c i s ms of t h i s book wil l do se r ious damage to e i t h e r th e book ' s

repu ta t ion or M e rr i t t 's . I t i s JUST TOO DAMN GOOD, as we say in Texas. I dar

say too t h a t shor t ly Merr i t t wi l l come to be known as Greenberg ' s Huxley! Yeboth seem to have fo rgo t t en Swadash's l i f e and work; t h i s badly confuses me.

XXXIII.Thera remain many l e t t e r s to discuss . Too many fo r now because t ime irunning on and th e envelopes wil l soon be too f u l l . TIDBITS needs a page,mostly announcements , so th e r e s t of t h i s wil l be simply a list of l e t t e r s witminimum comments, maybe j u s t one i tem of spec ia l i n t e r e s t or t imel iness . Pleas

assume t h a t a l l of these have "Fr iend ly , i n t e r e s t ed , busy." as p re faces . Andth e r e s t of th e co n ten t wil l be repor ted in Mother Tongue.Four

KAY WILLIAMSON. Has some N-K add i t ions to "nose, smel l" . Working with Derek, aa l . Densely packed l e t t e r . Too much fo r now. Recommends Dr. John Stewar t of



_I< XSfDepartment of Asian and African StudiesUniversity of Helsinki

To: Dr. Harold C. FlemingDept. of Anthropology

Boston UniversityF-00100 Helsinki 10F in land 232 Bay State Rd.

Boston, Mass.

Dear Dr. Fleming

Thank you for your most interesting circular. I am ready to join you

as an occasional cri t ic in th e field of Siberian languages. As a matterof fact I am working on Siberia, in general, and Siberian languages ·are only one of my interests. On th e other hand, I have no competencein Semitic, African etc. matters.

I found your discussion about transcription particularly important.I have also recently been thinking of a unified transcription fo r the_

Siberian languages, simple enough to_ be handled by small computers.

I enclose a copy of a paper of mine on this topic. I have not used

digits , but your way of using 3 and 7 appears rather sensible (I knowthat 7 has been applied fo r th e glotta l stop by many American l in guists; I wonder who was th e f i r s t to suggest this transcription).

As to the Siberian languages, they represent in my opinion the follow

ing 10 language families: Uralic, Yeniseic, Tungusic, Turkic, Mongolic,Yukagiric, Luoravetlanic, Nivkhic, Ainuic, and Eskaleutic. Duringcertain periods, including the present period, Indo-European languages

have also been spoken in Siberia and adjacent regions.

Of the Siberian language families, we have good proto--language-level

reconstructions for Uralic, Tungusic, Turkic, Mongolic, and recentlyalso fo r Yeniseic (Starostin) as well as fo r Eskaleutic (Bergsland).

Nivkhic and Ainuic are each represented by a single comparatively

homogeneous language, but there is s t i l l a lot to be done before wecan reliably operate with proto-Nivkhic and proto-Ainuic ·data. North

ern Luoravetlanic has been bri l l iant ly reconstructed by a Soviet

colleague (Murav'iova, i f I remember correctly), bu t the work remains

unpublished.Suggestions of phylum-level relationships between Tungusic, Turkic

and Mongolic ("Altaic' '), or between these three and Uralic ("Ural-Al

taic ' ' ) , or between some other language families in Siberia are in

my opinion without any scientif ic basis. The relationship betweenTungusic and Mongolic has most recently been dealt with in an excellent monograph by Gerhard Doerfer.

I am not going to respond to each of your circulars in th e future, i fyou send them to me, bu t i f you have some special problems with the

NE Eurasian languages, I will be glad to comment upon your suggestions.

As you know, I do not consider Nostratic studies so urgent in today's

situation, but I share your very positive opinion about the persons

of many Nostratics, including Starostin, Dybo, and particularly Khelim-skiy.

I do not l ike your idea about th e global·significance of the English

language. We scholars in other countries have nothing against makingpart of our results avai-lable to the English-speaking public, bu t Isee no reason for you not to use other langugges, such as Russian,

Japanese and Chinese, for your communications. I enclose a Japanese

publication of mine in which I give a very general sketch of the

ethnolinguistic situation in North Asia.

~ u : ; ; a : h u n e n(Reader in North Asian Studies)



:XXX' .

Dear Hal_,

4335 Cesano Court

Palo Alto, California 94306February 8, 1987

Thanks for sending a copy of th e second circular . I hadalready read both circulars with ~ u c h interest . Cavalli-Sforza sent

a copy of the f i r s t and I borrowed Greenberg's second to read s o ~ et i ~ e ago. I do hope you will keep ~ e o n the ' ' in te rested ' ' l i s t for

any future circulars (which ~ u s t take up c o n s i ~ e r a b l e t i ~ e and

energy, no t to ~ e n t i o n the expense).

The Michigan group you referred to in circular 2 really only has

Shevoroshkin at Michigan; th e other ~ e ~ b e r s of the t e a ~ < ~ o s t of w h o ~met at th e Rice symposium last March) are ~ y s e l f , John Bengtson, Mark

Kaiser, and Roger Wescott. Greenberg and Cavalli-Sforza serve asconsulants, or rather will serve as consultants because we are s t i l l

at the beginning of the project , no t ' ' fa r along' ' as you ! ~ p l i e d .

Concerning Miao-Yao: Greenberg has long considered Miao-Yao to

be a m e ~ b e r of Austro-Tai, or even Austric , and not Sino-Tibetan.

You are correct of course that he assigned i t to Sino-Tibetan in th e

early 50's art icle to which you referred, but he la ter c a ~ e to regard

that as his greatest t a x o n o ~ i c blunder, essentialy accepting

Benedict 's evidence on the relat ionship. He has never published thisrevised opinion, so there was no way you could have known about i t .

In Benedict 's recent Festschrift Benedict recounts the following

amusing exchange with Frank LeBar at th e H u ~ a n Relations Area Files

Press in the 60's:

' 'But how about Miao-Yao, Frank? You pu t i t under Sino-Tibetan. Youkeep Kadai a l l by i t se l f but then you go and pu t Miao-Yao under Sino

Tibetan! That's crazy! I not know where i t goes bu t I do know~ t h i n g : i t ' s not Sino-Tibetan! ' '

Poor Frank could only come up with a very lame excuse.

' 'Greenberg put i t there . ' '

' 'Greenberg? He's a great Africanist but what does he knowabout SEA?''

' 'Greenberg thinks you're right about Tai-Kadai-Indonesian. Infac t , Paul, he's been your key supporter in al l this right along.

You know, a· lo t of guys in the field will believe anything Greenberg

te l l s them.' '

' 'I see what you ~ e a n . But I do wish that he hadn't got you to

classify Miao-Yao with Sino-Tibetan. He'l l have people believingthat for years . ' '

I enclosing preprints of three art icles. ' 'LinguisticEvidence ••• •• will appear in th e March issue of Natural History,



XXX I l

with the Maps of Greenberg's new classif ica t ion of New Worldlangauges ' ' co lor ized , ' ' but I haven't seen th e resul ts yet. ' 'The

A ~ e r i n d P h y l u ~ . . . ' is a s o ~ e w h a t speculative paper I gave at the

Rice S y ~ p o s i u ~ . focussing on the subgrouping of Greenberg's vast

A ~ e r i n d p h y l u ~ and the i ~ p l i c a t i o n s of such a subgrouping for

prehistory. ' 'A T a x o n o ~ i c Analysis

. . .' will be published by

Bla6kweli in the Proceedings of a S y ~ p o s i u ~ on ' 'LinguisticEvolution' ' held at Stanford in 1984. I t is a p r e l i ~ i n a r y a t t e ~ p t to

apply certain ~ o d e l s used in biology to l inguistic data and i t

indicates, I believe, that such approaches May be More p r o ~ i s i n g than

~ o s t l inguists would suppose. With proper r e f i n e ~ e n t we May be able

to bring yet another tool to bear on uncovering th e prehistory of our

species.

By the way, I just received word yesterday that both book onclassi f icat ion and Greenberg's on AMerind will be published at th e

beginning of next-Month, or so the Stanford Press swears. Since ~ i n ewas scheduled for las t DeceMber, I'M no longer holding MY breath.

I have had two general reactions to the f i rs t two circulars .Firs t , there seeMs to be a Nostrat ic-centr ic bias in that there is

~ u c h talk of adding this or that f a ~ i l y to Nostratic. I think atth is level of class i f icat ion i t ' s really necessary to consider a ll

th e f a ~ i l i e s / i s o l a t e s siMultaneously or otherwise specious

conclusions are l ikely to be reached. I f , as Greenberg states in his

A ~ e r i n d book, a ll languages belong to a single f a ~ i l y , then th e

coMparison of any set of supgroups will always find evidence that th e

subgroups are related--but this will no t necessarily Mean that they

forM a valid genetic grouping. Greenberg is currently working on abook on ' 'Eu ras i a t i c , ' ' which is siMilar to Nostratic. It d iffers ,however, in excluding Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian and Dravidian, and in

including Korean, Japanese, Ainu, Gilyak, Chukchi-KaMchatkan and

E s k i ~ o - A l e u t . Greenberg has also pu t together a set of 62e t y ~ o l o g i e s connecti4, Dravidian and Nilo-Saharan. I think we are

going to have to adopt a very broad perspective--the whole world--to

discern truly valid genetic groupings.

My second reaction was to what I take to be an undue e ~ p h a s i s onreconstruction as proof of classif ica t ion. Dolgopolsky said that hewould c o ~ p a r e Niger-Congo with Nostratic when soMeone reconstructed

i t , i ~ p l y i n g that without reconstruction class i f icat ion cannot

proceed. Yet none of Greenberg's classificatory work has ever

depended on reconstruction in any essential way, though he has of

course used t h e ~ where they exist . Reconstruction follows

classi f icat ion rather than leading to i t .

I have enjoyed the circulars and look forward to future issues.

I'M glad that these topics are f J ~ a l l y being raised again and I think

the tiMe is ripe.

Best regards,

2



Edinburgh, Scotland; Dr. Ramy Bola-Richard of Abidjan, Cote d ' Ivoi re ; and DrJohn Bendor-Samual of Dallas , Texas, a l l for membership in the Club. New booon p-N-K by Bander-Samuel i s coming out . Und so waiter und waiter!

DELL HYMES. Much on his tory of science aspects of Mother Tongue. Helped with $He has page proofs fo r review of Greenberg 's new Amerind book in CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY. I ant ic ipa te reading tha t review but it also means tha t THE

book i s about to come out , i fit

i s n ' t already out . After July 1s t , h is newaddress will be : Department of Anthropology, Universi ty of Virginia ,Char lot tesvi l le , Virginia 22903, USA.

AUL LEVIN. Much to say about IE and Semitic and AA.LLAN BOMHARD. A great deal of help. Gave a ton of materia l to peruse . Has

agreed to be co-responsible parson for the Club fo r formal organizat ional( i . e . , tax and grant> purposes. One of our founding fa thers .

HIL LIEBERMAN. Reprints , much on Mother Tongua-1 or "hardware ..EAN LYDALL. Hamar informant with them a t Mainz. Sent many cognate ideas, most

per t inent ly tw o re la ted to Circular .1 , to wit , / t suu / i s archaic term for"vagina, begettinQ 11 and a cognat ic group of descendants. "Lightning" •/balkat / and /p lak / • "f lash, g l in t , shine", ' ipak/ • "br ight" . Too much enSouth Omotic pronouns to repeat hera, except proto-SCM i s l* in ta / , not / i t a /

ARL H. MENGES. A great deal to say about Altaic vis -a -v i s Quachua, problems oNostrat ic , Elamit ic , e tc . Also i s working on Shamanism. Sounds in te res t ing!ARY RITCHIE KEY. A great deal about his tory of science aspects , South America

languages connecting with North and Meso-American languages, and more.OE PIA. Flood of ideas and suggestions! Tops of waves include modems and

software fo r computer intercommunication, ideas en Swadash + his tory ofscience aspects , ideas on conferences ~ newslet ters , how to survive outsideof academia, systems of t r ansc r ip t ion , how to re la ta Khcisan phonology toSin i t ic phonology, and much much mora.

NNA BELOVA. Fi r s t Sovie t response! Many thanks <from me>. They-al l are workinon responses and other new th in ; • • it wil l ba coming.

ERARD DIFFLOTH. Yes, l e t ' s r es i s t creeping organizat icnal ism. Sino-Tibatanistvery successful sans formal organizat ion. Much discussion of S.E. Asian

matters and a repr in t with permission to zarox <later -HF>. "At any ra te ,Austro-Thai i s NOT a re incarnat ion of Schmidt 's Austric; in i t s 1973 versioni t i s almost the opposi te ." Forget about Nahali; there are bet t e r problems.And th ink re Macintosh computer so you <Hal> can do IPA phonetics.

MILITARIEV. "By New Years, 1987, Staros t in and myself had completedstudy on ; lot tochronolcgy basad en new Staros t in ' s method (about 700 pages>and before July th i s year I am to f inish my Libyc-Guanche <Berber>comparative phonetics, and there i s an awful l e t of work ••• <we know! - HF>"Ha recommends a "very good archeologist , Dr. Victor Shniralman in Moscow .. femembership in the Club. <Everyone i s sa l iva t ing over the new dating method!)

FAGAN. (Mind you, ha didn ' t get th i s issue yet!> "Now tha t archaeologyhas f i l led in dramatic gaps in what we know about the la te Ice Age, I thinktha t Greenberg's important work on the languages in the Americas, also denta

XXXIV.morphology and perhaps mitochondrial genetic s tudies , allow us to leek a t thevents of the past 2:5,000 years on a much broader canvas than aver before ."

ARBEITMAN. Correct h is entry in the l i s t of members. His Language, Topic,and Area entry should read "Semites, lEans &c neighbors .. Also "Sam., AA, IEcontacts or IE loans .. Several repr in t s and reviews. Co-authored BONO HOMINIDONUM1 ESSAYS IN HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS IN MEMORY OF J . ALEXANDER KERNS, witAllan Bamhard. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. <Over 1000 pages &c cas t s $100 -HF>

SHEVOROSHKIN. Two mora l e t t e r s with much information. Helped with $$for postage <thanks!>. I s t i l l have not described the bas ics of Staros t in ' s



dat ing method; so r ry Vita l iy . I was hoping t ha t Serge would send a 5-10 pagesummary. Next i s sue I'll t ry to descr ibe it ~ r o m my uncer ta in memory.

SUSAN PARK. Has da ta on Paiute <Amerind l anguage) . Recommends Dr. Kay Fowler oUnivers i ty Nevada fo r membership in the Club. S e n t $ $ fo r postage. Merci!

HERRMANN JUNGRAITHMAYR. Fr iendly , suppor t ive , bu t I c a n ' t f ind h is l e t t e r now.REBECCA CANN. Sent r e p r i n t s her valuab le work. She i s now a t U/HAWAII. Key

a r t i c l e i s in NATURE, vol .325 , 1 January , 1987, pp. 31-36, en t i t l ed

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA AND HUMAN EVOLUTION, wri t ten with Mark Stoneking and AllanC. Wilson. Go read i t ! Qui te t echn ica l , no t easy , bu t so i s H o e n i g s w a l d ~ b o o k ,

GOOSH ANDRZEJEWSKI. Fr iendly , but has now r e t i r ed and devotes h i m s e l ~ to Somamat te r s , espec ia l ly poetry and l i t e r a t u r e . Take me o ~ f list. Okay.

DOUGLAS WALLACE. Admin. a s s ' t . wrote. Thank you ~ o r your i n t e r e s t in our work.FRANZ ROTTLAND. Quick note . He wi l l be a 2ndary mai le r in Europe. DANKE!DICK HAYWARD. Very very busy. Omotic book WILL be coming ou t . Bide a wee!KARL P E T R A ~ E K . Heavens! s ince I mentioned him severa l t imes a l r eady , I thought

I had remembered h is l e t t e r . Many th ings to say . Lots r e p r i n t s .WOLFGANG SCHENKEL. Only Egypto log is t response so f a r . Wil l ing to he lp ,

espec i a l l y when ques t ions within h is exper t i s e come up. Since compara t iv is t sof ten mangle Ancient Egypt ian d a t a , t h i s may be help to you. <Amen! -HF>

CHAIM RABIN. Now preoccupied with problems involved in rev is ing what we might

c a l l th e "received vers ion" o ~ how modern I s r a e l i Hebrew was born.ARTHUR STEINBERG. Having had no l i ngu i s t i c s , he doubts t ha t he can make much

a con t r ibu t ion . But we want to know about Gammaglobulin and Arthur i s a worlau thor i t y on t ha t . Please s t i ck with us!

WERNER VICICHL. <Misplaced h is l e t t e r t oo . ) Fr iend ly , i n t e re s t ed , and veryh e l p ~ u l , espec ia l ly in repor t ing on P r o ~ . Se to ' s work, but I am most pleasedby Werner ' s own i n t e r e s t --as one o ~ the sen io r a u t ho r i t i e s on AA,espec i a l l y Egyptian and Berber .

NO NAME. This to r ep re sen t th e l e t t e r which was l o s t in th e p i l e o ~ papers onmy desk . I f it was yours , please forg ive me! I'll f ind it even tua l ly .

MORE WINE TIDBITS

1) FLASH! FROM OUR SPIES ON THE WEST COAST IT IS RELIABLY REPORTED THATGREENBERG HAS CROSSED THE BERING STRAITS, TAKEN MOSCOW, AND IS ADVANCING ONDELHI AND KHARTOUM ! FRESH FROM HIS CONQUEST OF THE AMERICAS • • • • • MOPPING-UPOPERATIONS ARE PROCEEDING • • • • FIERCE POCKETS OF RESISTANCE REMAIN IN• • • •

The title of h is new book i s LANGUAGE IN THE AMERICAS, StanfordUnivers i ty Press , Stanford , Cal i fo rn i a . I f it i s as good as Ruhlen says it i s ,than it should be a proper miles tone on th e t r i p towards Mother Tongue. Even iit i s not t h a t , as in t h a t i s as fa r as we go , still it wi l l make a hugedi f fe renca- r r iNew Worla-prehis tory . Since much of the next YEAR wi l l probablybe t aken up with discuss ing t h i s book, enough fo r now.

2> The Glossogenet ic ~ e l k s have had an organiza t ion s ince 1983. They c a l lthemselves LANGUAGE ORIGINS SOCIETY or 11 Tha In t e rna t iona l Socie ty fo r th e Stud

XXXV.

of th e Orig ins and Evolut ion of Language . fo r shor t . They are i n t e rd i sc ip l ina rfo r su re , l i ke us. Thei r Pres iden t i s Jan Wind, Dep' t . of Human Genet ics , FreeUnive r s i ty , P.O.Box 7161, 1007 MC, Amsterdam, th e Nether lands; F i r s t Secre ta ryi s Eric de Gro l i e r , In t e rna t iona l Social Science Counci l , Pa r i s , France; e t a l<Et a l = 7 o thers on th e Execut ive Committee>. Membership fees are 11 ext remelyreasonab le . <US$20, $15 fo r s tuden t s ) . They have annual meet ings which usua l lygo in to a publ ished book and they g e t a news le t t e r con ta in ing 11 per t inen tbib l iographies recen t ly publ ished works and r e la ted book r ev iews" .

They a re having t h e i r 1987 meet ings in Nashvi l le , Tennessee , June 4-6



a t Vanderbi l t Univers i ty . C c n ~ e r e n c e reg i s t ra t ion cos t s $10, ~ o r s tudents $7.Fer mere c c n ~ e r e n c e i n ~ c r m a t i c n or whatever , wri te to the tw o co-hos t s :

Walburga von R a ~ ~ l e r - E n g e l Dorothy Carr ick , Ins t ructor1987 LOS C c n ~ e r e n c a Organizer Associate Conference OrganizeProfessor of Lingu i s t i c s Emeri ta Dep' t . c ~ Teaching ~ L e a r n i n gSenior Research Associate Box 330Ins t i t u t e fe r Public Pol icy Stud ies Peabody College I Vanderbi l t

Box 26 B Vanderbi l t Univers i ty Nashvi l le , TN 37203Nashvi l le , TN 37235

I may be mistaken but I th ink these guys are pr imar i ly in te res ted in the

"hardware" option in recons t ruc t ing Mother Tongue. Despi te t he i r s t r ik ingresemblance to a Reman legion - - a l l t i gh t , hie ra rch ica l and pompous - - , weought to cooperate with , and support , them fe r cur mutual sc i en t i f i c benef i t s .

3) Allan Bernhard once to ld me about an important workshop which wil l be helda t S t a n ~ o r d Univers i ty t h i s summer. Lionel Bender sa id it has j u s t beenannounced in the most recent LSA b u l l e t i n . I t i s co-sponsored by the Linguis t i

Socie ty c ~ America and the National Science Foundat ion. Organizer i s Phi l l ipBaldi Penn Sta te . Dates a re l a t e July-ear ly August, 1987 and it should bequi te a pew wow. Other de t a i l s are in th e LSA bu l l e t in <q.v.>. "Spl i t ters•• and"lumpers" wil l be discuss ing general quest ions c ~ h i s t o r i c a l methcdclcgy,

par t i cu la r ly ques t ions about the r e l i a b i l i t y and app l i cab i l i ty of orthodoxIndo-European methods < ~ o r what?>. I presume t ha t spec ta to r s a re al lowed, butdon ' t yet knew what it cos t s . Maybe I'll see some o ~ you t he re , whether asg lad ia to r s or ne t . <It seems to be Reman image time.>

4> An old New York Times news c l ipping got found. Some t ime in the 1960s. I tconcerned the discovery t h a t the Indus Valley s c r ip t had been de-ciphered byth e assumption t h a t the language wri t ten in it was Dravidian. I never followedup on it, expect ing to hear mere l a t e r . I never did . Does anyone know the

presen t whereabouts of th e three Finns who mAde th a discovery or j u s t knewabout the discovery i t s e l f ? Their names were Askc Parpc la , Simc Parpcla andSeppc Kcskenniemi. They worked under the supervis ion of P r e ~ . Pent t i Aaltc ofHelsinki Univers i ty .

5> The evidence and arguments ~ o r the c ~ t e n - m e n t i c n e d Elamit ic-Dravidian

~ a m i l y or phylum. Where can they be found? Has it been published? S/he whoth inks th e two are r e la ted - - can you generate a shor t summary c ~ the argumentfe r us? Since I worked a little en Elamit ic in the 1960s, but never get accessto very much da ta , I suspected it might be r e la ted to Dravidian. But even mereso to SUMERIAN ! Does anyone f ind any mer i t in t ha t idea?

Please detach and mail t h i s port ion to FlemingBesides Engl ish , I can read the following: My name________

FRENCH_ GERMAN_ ITALIAN__ RUSSIAN__ S P A N I S H _ POLISH__JAPANESE_ CHINESE_ ARABIC HINDI

r co IY\ m.a '(\dH..Q 'f..Q IS s om ..!I fl

!o' r o s + a . a ~(jo"' Y f \ ~ W \ b . . i r - S h t ' f · A-dd-r.Pss 15

s ~ v ~ P o s f a . d ~ :

T ~ k . t W\.1 of-1 };s+

mother tongue newsletter 3 (spring 1987)

Documents