Conservative dilemma

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Herb Stahlke wrote:

> McLaughlin writes:

> G. has NOT made it inconceivable that the "Amerind" languages are genetically
> unrelated.

> >>>>>>>>

Stahlke responds:

> I can't argue this since I don't know the American data.  The literature I've
> read, however, suggests that, while "inconceivable" is too strong a word, the
> case is not without merit.

There isn't as much merit as you might think.  Much of Greenberg's
"evidence" consists of a loosely spun web of information that is just as
easily accounted for by sound symbolism and language universals.  Some of
G's strongest morphological arguments aren't even exclusively American.
With the inexactness of his methodology and data, the majority of serious
Americanists find nothing there at all.  You must be reading the popular
press rather than the serious Americanist authors.

> >>>>>>>>>>
> McLaughlin writes:

> There is also a fundamental anthropological difference between Africa and
> Native America.  African was generally populated "from within", that is, no
> one had to come there in order for it to be full of people (indeed, it's the
> only continent that was not populated through immigration).  The Americas
> were colonized by immigrants.  Greenberg assumes one tribe speaking one
> language (excluding the much later Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut immigrations)
> entered the Americas and then differentiated.  We cannot (at this time, and
> possibly never) prove whether the populating of the Americas was a one-time,
> one-tribe, one-language event, or a multi-time, multi-tribe, multi-language
> event.  Indeed, Greenberg himself believes there were three events--one for
> Amerind, one for Na-Dene, and one for Eskimo-Aleut over the course of the
> last 40 some-odd thousand years.  Just three immigrations in 40,000 years.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Stahlke responds:

> The opportunities for migration have been limited by geology.  That several
> related groups could have migrated over a period of a few thousand years, and
> at a time depth of 40,000 years it would be hard to tell the difference.  The
> comparative method has never been extended back more than about a quarter of
> that time depth.  That the non-Na-Dene and non-Eskimo-Aleut migrations were
> consistently earlier seems indisputable.

I don't completely understand your second sentence.  Geology is NOT a major
factor here.  The Bering Strait route was open for several thousand years.
And after that, sea crossing was (and still is) quite possible.  A sea
crossing is the most likely source of the Na-Dene presence in America and
the actual source of the Eskimo-Aleut presence.  You have also hit upon the
main problem with G's work--he IS trying to extend the comparative method
(his version) back to between 12 and 40k by positiing his "Amerind".  He's
saying that everything in Native America (excluding E-A and N-D) is related.
And actually, the N-D and E-A migrations are indisputably LATER than G's
proposed Amerind presence.


> McLaughlin writes:

> Hmmmm.
> That's the difference between the Americas and Africa.  Africa's had a stable
> indigenous population.  The Americas haven't.  Indeed, it's quite possible
> that northwestern North America has been the site of many groups of people
> from Asia, speaking different languages, landing on the shores of or walking
> across the "bridge" to a New World.

> >>>>>>>>>>

Stahlke responds:

> This apparent difference is deceiving.  The Khoi-San languages, with or
> without the Tanzanian pair, represent a clearly distinct group probably
> originating in southern Africa.  Although all but substratal information on
> pre-Bantu pygmy languages has disappeared, and the substratal information
> isn't any better than in most other parts of the world (worse, in fact), they
> must have represented at least one ancient language family that has
> disappeared.  Beyond those, the major migrations appear to have east to west
> (most of Niger-Congo) and north to south (Cushitic, Nilotic, and Bantu, in
> that order).  Nilo-Saharan, if Songhay belongs in it, may represent a central
> Sahara to Great Lakes migration.  Cushitic, as a branch of Afro-Asiatic,
> represents either a group that originated somewhere along the Red Sea or a
> migration from the Arabian Peninsula.  A-A probably is NE African in origin.
> All of these represent time depths of rather less than 40k:  N-C and A-A in
> 10k-15k range, and Nilo-Saharan and older.  At these time depths, it's hard
> to make a case that extra-continent vs. intra-continental orign makes much of
> a difference.

You're missing the point.  You're describing a mixing and matching WITHIN
the confines of native Africa.  But still within Africa.  You haven't
described a single event here of an EXTERNAL group coming into Africa and
affecting the mix of languages.  In the Americas, we're talking about just
the opposite.  We're discussing groups from northeast Asia coming INTO
America from outside a number of times overland during the life of the
Bering bridge and by sea afterwards.  These immigrants would be bringing
languages from OUTSIDE the Americas, not just moving around within the same
group of languages as you're describing for Africa (and as also happened
within the American continents).  This could have happened many, many times,
although G's "Amerind" implies ONE migration by land at least 12k (but more
likely much earlier) ago, one migration (possibly by sea) for Na-Dene, and
one migration by sea for Eskimo-Aleut.

Africa and the Americas are apples and oranges as far as linguistic history
and population history is concerned.

John E. McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
mclasutt at brigham.net

Program Director
Utah State University On-Line Linguistics
http://english.usu.edu/lingnet

English Department
3200 Old Main Hill
Utah State University
Logan, UT  84322-3200

(435) 797-2738 (voice)
(435) 797-3797 (fax)