The Indo-European Hypothesis [was Re: The Neolithic Hypothesis]

[JoatSimeon at aol.com]

>fcosw5 at mail.scu.edu.tw writes:

>Does this difference from Roman Imperial policy wrt administrative practice
>have anything to do with the fact that English remains the dominant language
>throughout most of the former British Empire?

-- however, English became the -native language- only in areas of the British
Empire that were

(a) settled by English emigrants (non-francophone Canada, New Zealand,
Australia) to whom later emigrants had to conform, or

(b) by slaves or other migrants who came from many linguistic groups and had
to adopt English or an English-based pidgin to communicate with each other
and their English-speaking masters (Carribean, American South).

The language of a homogenous, densely settled agricultural population is an
extraordinarily stubborn thing, difficult to dislodge even when all the
resources of a modern State are bent to it, with compulsory education of
children, conscription, etc.

Language replacement usually requires something more drastic; settlement of
native speakers, combined with widespread social and demographic
disorganization of the native community.  Or mass urbanization, which has
many of the same characteristics.