Twilight Bark Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s997867.htm http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/26/languages031126 http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml...11§ion=news Some people can now say "I told you so!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 TB, I wonder what an evolutionary biologist has to do with language evolution. Did I miss something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Why is this news when it's been a long-established theory with only two more "competitors", namely the Ukranian steppes and the Caucasus? I just hope that this "newest" theory won't be used by some of the forumers to claim things that barely have any foundation at all, such as Armenians being the inventors and the dispersers of the language family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Did I miss something? Well Domino, apparently you did. I barely looked at the articles yet. But they are bringing novel tools into the discussion. I cannot say whether the tools should or should not be applied. However, I can safely say that their applicability would be higher than the biased handwaving that has dominated the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Why is this news when it's been a long-established theory with only two more "competitors", namely the Ukranian steppes and the Caucasus? I just hope that this "newest" theory won't be used by some of the forumers to claim things that barely have any foundation at all, such as Armenians being the inventors and the dispersers of the language family. It is news because they are bringing tools that are amenable to objective analysis rather than whose academic mafia can bully whom, and similar nonsense. As for those results exciting some people into an overly speculative mood, I don't have much to sayon that. In any event, it would not be the scientists' fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 I understand that they need datation tools used by evolutionists, but archeologists already uses such tools as well, I just do not understand why biologists would be interested on studying that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 I understand that they need datation tools used by evolutionists, but archeologists already uses such tools as well, I just do not understand why biologists would be interested on studying that. one word: bioinformatics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 (edited) TB right on! I was wondering to laugh or cry As I said in a different place, next thing to do would be for the Western "scientists" to discover the hot water.But being dumb is just norm these days. I just wonder how much more efforts it will take to say that actually IE languages came from what TODAY is known GEOGRAPHICALY as turkey! Edited November 30, 2003 by gamavor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 "Language like biological species diverge with time," Gray said. I wonder. Maybe language is more like a virus. I tend to agree with Marr in his view that language belongs to the "superstructure" of a society. I.E., that it is a superficial and replaceable part of society, that a specific language is no more physically a part of one race of humans, than say, the latest ringtone is physically part of your mobile phone. Nairi - you seem to know about such things. What is the current status of Marr in the world of linguistics? http://www.virtualani.freeserve.co.uk/marr/index.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 a specific language is no more physically a part of one race of humans, than say, the latest ringtone is physically part of your mobile phone. I think those scientists are aware of that Steve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Nairi - you seem to know about such things. What is the current status of Marr in the world of linguistics? The only thing linguistics produces is more linguists I don't think Marr's status is any worse than Chomsky's, though I guess it depends on which linguist you ask... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtashesM Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 The technique used is called "Glottochronology" and is similar to DNA analysis that connects animal groups by looking at their genetic similarities. According to an article from today's LA Times, the technique remains hotly debated among many linguists. This is even more cirucumstantial evidence that the "Anatolia" origins theory is more sound than the "Kurgan horseman" from the Russian steppes theory. The full article is in the journal Nature. ArtashesM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 The technique used is called "Glottochronology" and is similar to DNA analysis that connects animal groups by looking at their genetic similarities. According to an article from today's LA Times, the technique remains hotly debated among many linguists. Glottochronology has been discredited (as the authors point out themselves). Gray and Atkinson relaxed the unreasonable "constant mutation rate" assumption, and applied cutting-edge probabilistic methods borrowed from bioinformatics, treating words as genes; so it is a sgnificantly different beast. It appears that they applied their methods very cautiously, and that their conclusion has great weight to say the least. This is from a cursory glance; I still have to read it in detail. The links I posted are already broken. Here is a groong link that will be broken in less than a week: http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg77779.html It has the full text, sans figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggyWiggy Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Hi. I just joined, so Sup? My name is Haik (preety cool armenian name). And I am from Los Angeles. Age 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 so Haik, what do you know about Indo-European family and its origins being from Anatolia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggyWiggy Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 That it is still a fairly new theory. And that no conclusion should be jumped to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.