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

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/28/99 10:13:03 AM, rayhendon at worldnet.att.net wrote:

<<the appropriateness of using
the medical model of disease spread to describe the spread of a language.
As you may recall, the medical model postulates two primary variables that
are to be used in predicting the spread of a disease: the number or people
who are susceptible to the infections and the exposure they receive from
those that are already infected.  Knowing these two values allows the modelr
to predict how the disease spreads amoung a population.>>

In a message dated 4/29/99 12:19:14 AM, you wrote:

<<There are many analogies between language and biological processes, as you
pointed out. >>

Let me suggest a directional problem that you might want to consider.

What drives the spread of microbial infection in a medical model is the
interest of the microbe.  But we know that language serves other functions
besides the survival of the language itself.  Communication, cultural
survival and basic self-orientation are all human objectives in language.
This may mean that the analogy is more to the spread of sources of nutrition
or medical treatment than it is to disease.

Also, the traits of a particular microbe do not transfer to other unrelated
strains.  If common traits, they develop independently.  In language,
effective traits can be borrowed in their full maturity.

And finally using addiction as the infection form for your medical model adds
another factor that may not be analogous - the physiological need that is
counterfunctional to individual survival, which (hopefully) language does not
share.

Regards,
Steve Long