Basque, Nostranic, genes...

Fri Feb 23 18:35:16 UTC 2001

  I write you because I have some ideas and references
that can interest you.

  Independently, I' ve arrived at the same ideas as
some linguists did. Around 50000 bC there was a
"cultural explosion" and expansion of
  the Homo Sapiens Sapiens (reaching Europe, replacing
Neaderthal spices, having better skills, new
technologies, art, religion, etc.), that can
  be explained as a result by the adquirance of the
Language... To me, it was the second human revolution
by eight:

  1- The consciensce: This is almost the unique real
difference between humans and animals, the self
awareness of oneself - the most far        abstaction
-
       allowing it the existence of Good and Wrong:
animals haven't consciensce when they injure other
animals: they only feel agressive; but Humans
       are with the knowledge that injuring we are
doing wrong to ANOTHER as us.
  2- The Language: Do you imagine an Australian tribe
inventing at once agriculture or/and animal-breeding
with gunmachines in the
       V Century ? It was the
       lenguage, with language we have more chances to
survive, we learn skills more fast, we can hunt
together coordinately, we can do strategies.
       Taking in account this imaginary Australian
tribe, surely they will grow fastly, displace rival
tribes and hunt more. What about
       paleo-linguistics ? An expansion over the
"reachable" lands very quick, spreading their
language, religion, genes and customs. I think
       quickly because their competence could be as
the competence between advanced Tagalog technologies
and the Negritos ones in Philippines.
       This logical reconstruction of
paleo-linguistics has the consequence that there was
one source for language (I hardly believe that in the
same
       epoch it could have 3 focus or more). Other
matter is to rely where the focus or "epicenter" was.
In Sudan ? In the actual Persian Gulf ?
       In Java ? In Australia ?
  3- Bows and arrows 20000 years ago with their great
migrations ... ?? > more hunt + to win wars and to
occupe lands by neighbours...
  4- Agriculture and animal-breeding.
  5- The scripture and the states.
  6- The Industrial Revolution with the wapor machine.
  7- Internet (we will see soon...)
  8- The forthcoming Spacial Conquest (nobody dwells
in Moon or Mars today).

  Now, I develope some especulations taking in account
genes, races and languages... very teorethical, but I
think that at least, having the
  pieces of this puzzle displayed (and surely
disordered) is better to have all the pieces in the
box:
  Wherever language came from, the Mother Tonge and
its "big tribe" of perhaps an Australoid racial type,
  reached first the tropical and well climated zones
>> Australia, Indonesia, Indochina, South China, India
as a whole, Africa,
  Palestine, and the coastal zones of the Arabian
Peninsula and Iran (The Persian Gulf in such epoch was
dry); zones out from these were
  desertical or with hard climates. According to the
last genetics, the first race to split was the African
black... but what happens with the
  Negritos of Andaman, Philippines, etc ? Somebody
knows with which racial type are most related ? I have
read that Khoisan and Andaman people is related...
"WELLINGTON: Research giving clues to the origins of
man is being
                   suppressed because of an
international row over the ownership of
                   a strand of hair, The Dominion
newspaper reported here Tuesday.
                   Biochemist Erika Hagelberg had used
the latest DNA testing
                   methods to analyse a strand of hair
taken 90 years ago from an
                   Andaman tribesman living on islands
in the Bay of Bengal. She
                   found the hair closely matched
those of the Khoisan, bushmen and
                   Hottentots of South Africa.— AFP"
What are doing Negritos here ? What if
  Mitocondrial genes only write half of the history ?
Perhaps a sample of 0.01 for all populations is enough
?... Perhaps some type of Australoid Negritos were the
first race that reached all the zone mentioned above.
Centuries after, some pressured tribes decided to
colonize
  semi-inhospite territories as the zone Asia
Minor-Kurdistan-Caucas-Iran, where the caucasic race
grew up (these new inhabitants don't need of a
  dark skin, the sun is not so strong there). More
centuries after, there was (perhaps...) another split
in Central Asia, where this more hard climate
  modeled the yellow race (their phisical
charcteristics are to combat cool climates). If once
white and yellow races were related, where better ?
  This was the real history of races ? I don't know.
  Near 35000 bC, the caucasian race conquered the
Neaderthal's zones displacing them more and more,
taking all the resources of the land, until the
  Neaderthals had no land to norish themselves, and
so, they perished.  In the other side the yellow race
conquered the Far East and the
  Americas (Paleo-asiatic languages perhaps ?).
 After that, glaciations, warm epochs and cool epochs,
mixed up races in Eurasia >> In Africa, possibly,
  the Khoisan were in the south, and the Nilo-saharian
in the North (remnant Nilo-saharian speakers in Egypt,
Libia and Sudan today). This negroid
  later populations were mixed with a caucasoid one
some millennia before the coming of agriculture, their
consequence could be the Caucasoid
  Magrebies with their negroid ties and possibly some
language caucasian-related ( Afroasiatic ?
Nilo-saharian ??? ). In Far East Europe... yellow and
white races could have been mixed then (lappi, samoyed
and other mixed races). In the Asiatic Far East could
have been a mix of yellow race and Autraloid ones:
depending on latitude - climate more or less
Australoid component (and dark skin).
  Well, continuing with these mad speculations, we
arrive at the third revolution (animal breeding and
agriculture) in 8000 bC. As many linguists,
  I agree that this was the main factor in the late
diffusion of the actual families: How clear it is in
the Niger-Khordofan family; it seems that
  agriculture reached Central and South Africa at the
same time that this family (500 bC - 200 aC) over
Khoisan hunters. This revolution could have had the
same
  importance as the Language invention; with
agriculture, population is increased x50 +/- allowing
a demographic expansion > a migration > a
  desplacement or a settlement among less advanced
populations adquiring the language of the new
outcomers > repetition of the process.
  A great advantage in the agricole or pastorile
societies is a better "conservation" of a language:
with the creation of intertribal or interregional
markets.
  Theories say that some Anatolian-Caucasoid
population spread (from overpopulated Syria-Kurdistan
?) by such manner around 5750 bC taking
  Balkans, Crete, Italy, Spain, North Europe, Egypt,
Arabia and Maghreb giving for these regions once
Protobasque (Iberian, Basque, Etruscan,
  Minoican, Lemnos), once Afroasiatic (Coptic, Berber,
Semitic). In the other side, perhaps others decided to
conquer the troglodite populations
  of Iran... conquering Pre-Summer, Iran, Afganistan,
and the whole India giving them agriculture and
Proto-dravidian (Elamite, Dravidian); in
  India it is possible that these caucasoids mixed up
with native Australoids (Santal and Southern Indians
could be the less mixed with them).
  In the northern side, perhaps others decided to
conquer the paleolitic populations of Russia and
Siberia giving them proto-uralic (and perhaps
  proto-altaic in Central Asia ? ). This process was
surely repeated by  the Austronesian some millennia
after, from Indonesia to Madagascar,
  Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Micronesia,
Melanesia, New Zealand, Hawaii and so. The already
mixed yellow-australoid Austroasiatics from Indochina
or Taiwan towards India also competing with
Dravidians... The Indopacific ( India - Indochina -
Indonesia - Oceania millenia ago )
  was in Asia like Khoisan in Africa.

  More years after, a "wicked" tribe came to change
it: the Indoeuropeans, those who conquered Europe,
Anatolia, Iran and North India between
  2000 bC and 900 bC, leaving for the first wave of
Caucasian languages the issolated zones (Caucasian
Mountains, Basque Countries, Lapponia)
  and the most rich and strong populations of the
Mediterranean ( Iberians, Tartessians, Ligurians,
Etruscans, Minoicans - vs Hellenics and
  Latins ). These indoeuropeans, dwelling in Ukraine
around 3000 bC, were perhaps an split of Caucasian, or
a language with much influence
  and loanwords by the Caucasians (the Proto-Uralic
part ? >> a second caucasization ?).

  We know the historical part better. I'm for a Mother
Tonge... or 3 at maximum ! :

In Australia, the aboriginal languages have been
linked together. Aborigens reached Australia about
50000 bC and their languages haven't
 derived too much to be completely unlinkable to us.
With an early density of 0.1 unhab/km2 and 1000
speakers per each language...
 Austropacific, speaked in Papua-New Guinea, was
equaly speaked in Tasmania... Tasmania and Papua were
cutted off by the main Australia
 10000 years ago... Islands are more conservative than
the Australian continent ? There was once an unique
Aboriginal race and language ?
 In Africa, there are the Khoisan family in Namibia...
but there are "click" languages in Tanzania very far
in lexic of the main Khoisan.
 But we know that the "click" system is doubtful to be
invented twice. Otherwise, because of it, the majority
of the linguist link them.
 The same with America: if gentics are correct, the
Man reached America "once" and 30000 years ago.
Further linguists are linking the American
 families now in Amerind (it is obligated, all of them
came by one population and tongue !)
It is ascerted that in 10000 years, all the common
lexic of two familiar languages will dissapear being
impossible link them after. The existence
 of primary words are took in account ? Will derive
the same "mother" as "rebound" ? "father" as
"birdseed" ? The facts above explained
 aren't enough to rebuke this assumption at least
partially ?

 I have the idea that primary words are hard to erase
or sustitute in the language even with many centuries
(mother, son, hand...). But what is the word most
unease to erase or sustitute ? The word most repeated
when we speak ! In spanish is "I". Because of this,
per exemple we could have the Indoeuropean consevancy
with I, Ich, Ja, Eu, Yo, Jo, Jeu, etc. If we find
languages with common personal cognates, surely we
will
 have an older family that now are going separate. I
think it's the best clue that we have at all. From
here we could reconstruct the theorical
 Proto-language... And the best cognate is the first
person singular: basque NIK, iberian NI, etruscan
MI/NI, possible minoican NI,
 Magyar ÉN, Dravidian ÁN, hurrite EM, proto-sumerian
NI (self; body; one's own ); dravidian NI (you),
chinese NI (you); australian NA (I) ????
 There were religions and cultures very related in
many zones too... If ALL are coincidences... well,
then I will believe that God is playing with us.

 I would be happy if your or someone is doing that:
 A computer's program for paleo-linguistics with a
database with the maximum words, cognates, grammar,
languages, families, sufixes, means, etc
 including variants as areas per each language,
climate types (when I'm at 30 degrees my catalan "heu
trigat" goes to "heu trigatz"), racial
 trends (a Black doesn't have the same throath as an
Indian), genetical correlations, and so. This
miraculous program would be as an indiscutible
"oracle" that would "profetize" us which are the exact
branches per each family, and which families are
related, and how was the proto-x, if there was or not
a Nostranic, or the basque is related with sumerian or
not. Such machine would be almost indiscultible as a
proof for all
 paleo-linguists and linguists.

Otherwise, I suggest you some very interesting
readings:...

Minoicos, Cretenses y Vascos, by Jorge Alonso and
Antonio Arnaiz - Ed. Universidad Complutense 1999 (in
the spanish bol.com). It Links very well basque with
Iberian and Minoican; not so well Etruscan, but with
enough basis to relate it. Genetic proofs included.
Also:

 www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm
 http://members.tripod.com/tmajlath/
 www.summerian.org/summerian.htm
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0199issue/0199scicit1.html

These web sites are impressionant, their works are
biggest and possibly helpful. Very recommended.

Personaly, I have tested to link proto-summerian and
basque with random primary words (but only as a little
test): the results for the phonetics with exact or
likely correlation with the same cognates
proto-summerian and basque was 25%; I did it with the
same random words comparing Spanish and English > 40%;
Spanish and German 20%; Spanish and Russian 20% (!!).
It's only as a reference, as a clue...
Basque - Proto-Summerian - Meaning >> ABERE - BIR -
animal; AL - ALIM - power; AMA - AMA - mother, woman;
EME - MI - woman; IKU - IGI - to see; IBAI - ABA or
IDA - river; IRI - IRI - city; BUA - BU - fire, to
ignite; JAUN - NUN - master; KANAL - KUN - canal...;
KAR - KARA - flame, shine; LELE - LIL - little man,
soul; MI - EME - tongue;  NI - NI - I, self's body;
SEKO - SHEG - dry.
Other primary words where I have not found in only 1
hour correlations: luck, mouth, death, brother, soul,
valley, land/country, stone, night, eldery, door, yes,
one, two, way, his, heart, voice, house, owner, day,
light, people, no, place, fight, star, to know, ray,
water, dove, sky, to eat, time, little, rain, god,
forest, to smell.

P.S.: I'm not basque, I'm not racist, I'm not
linguist, I haven't any relation with persons or links
mentioned here. You can do what you want with these
theories: approfit them, use them, or rebuke them,
it's your choice ! Do you recommend me some good book
about that ? Do you know someone linking Khoisan and
Indopacific ? Answers welcomed !

My best wishes, Carles Vilar

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Obtenga su dirección de correo-e gratis @yahoo.com
en http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com