tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post4887201621114315306..comments2023-06-28T05:54:47.372-04:00Comments on Music 000001: 262. The Baseline Scenarios -- 38: The GapDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-70633973104355256412009-12-28T23:08:43.937-05:002009-12-28T23:08:43.937-05:00It's very possible in my opinion that tonality...It's very possible in my opinion that tonality was in East Asia from the beginning. However, as you suggested indirectly, it might well have been circumscribed to one or two populations, like the Kradai, which in turn influenced others (like Austroasiatics or Han Chinese). Or, as I suspect, it may have been a common feature of the geographical region that we know modernly as China (as well as, separately, of New Guinea - which also has other peculiarities of its own). <br /><br />If tonality was limited before Neolithic to parts of China and Papua, it would mean just two or so founder effects in an ocean of non-tonality or low tonality. In any case, sure, these founder effects were somewhat stronger initially and/or more influential in the long run than in the West (South and West Eurasia) but this could even be mere random distribution. <br /><br />Such kind of founder effects are also apparent (though not necesarily parallel or correlated) in the genetic landscape, apparently dating from the early Eurasian Expansion so it's not anything that surprises me. <br /><br />However, going a step further, I suspect (not sure) there might be a correlation between tonality and spread of some lineages such as mtDNA N and/or Y-DNA MNOPS, all of which are weak in South Asia. <br /><br />Is tonality correlated with this linguistic feature and/or with some genetic feature. Naturally it is very hard to say but I would really have liked that you presented a case-to-case comparison to see if there is effectively any correlation at all or is just another of those semi-random founder effects.<br /><br />You will surely ask why do these founder effects accumulate in Eastern Greater Eurasia? Of course the mini-bottleneck or pseudo-bottleneck hypothesis is a possibility but another reason is that the early spread of Eurasians was not the "U" (plus Sahul) we see now but rather a horizontal "T" (-|) pattern with its three poles in South Asia, Middle East Asia and Sahul, while West and Central Eurasia were closed to our species because they were under Neanderthal control and their accessible areas were rather arid possibly. This spread had the center of gravity in Indochina but the true origin in South Asia. So while East Asia and Sahul/Indonesia have some affinity this affinity is anyhow weak, very weak. Even the affinity between the various isolated remnant groups we know of south of Indochina is very limited and extremely old, so it's not like they are too correlated just for being east of South Asia. <br /><br />With this diversity of Eastern populations rooted already in the early Eurasian Expansion, it is only logical to find the high diversity of local founder effects of all sorts, in genetics as in tonality and probably also in music. <br /><br />India had its own early colonization led by one specific group (mtDNA plus Y-DNA F), which also participated in the colonization of the East but in the East we see that other groups had better opportunities themselves and hence co-participated in the colonization of these diverse regions, quite irregularly.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-36399281029549999482009-12-28T22:26:51.588-05:002009-12-28T22:26:51.588-05:00Maju: "The pattern is mixed, even if tonal la...Maju: "The pattern is mixed, even if tonal languages are more common in the East than in the West of the continent, where the pattern is not that mixed and tonal languages are very rare."<br /><br />Exactly. You seem to think that I'm arguing for a clear picture of tone language dominance in the East and I'm not. The picture is mixed, granted. But the presence of tone language in this region can't be denied, it is there. And if it's not autochthonous in the East, but due to "independent invention," then why don't we find similar "independent inventions" in other parts of Asia? Or Europe? There's a huge chunk of the world totally devoid of tone languages. Which is strange if it's so easy for a non-tonal language to morph into a tonal one.<br /><br />As I see it, the simplest and most logical explanation for East Asiatic tone languages is that they were always there from the beginning, as long as modern humans were there. And if some of them began as non-tonal and became tonal, that's most likely due to the influence of tone languages already in place, in the same region.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-91051981025622262482009-12-27T20:13:42.103-05:002009-12-27T20:13:42.103-05:00Ehm, just for the record, Indochina = mainland SE ...Ehm, just for the record, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina" rel="nofollow">Indochina</a> = mainland SE Asia, not just former French Indochina as some people seem to believe. Indochina includes that plus Thailand and Burma. Hence it's a major and central subdivision of SE Asia. <br /><br />The other regions that can be included in SE Asia are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundaland" rel="nofollow">Sundaland</a> (the continental platform south of the Kraa isthmus), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallacea" rel="nofollow">Wallacea</a> (the islands between Wallace and Lydekker lines, for some also including Philippines) and Southern China (excluding the Tibetan Plateau, which is rather part of Central Asia or a region on its own right).<br /><br />The "entire region" appears fragmented in the genetic landscape, probably because it was a crossroads at the Eurasian expansion, with different groups of people moving (at intergenerational level, of course) through it in several directions and it has clearly different prehistory and history after that. It is not like we should not make any distinctions. At least I do make them. <br /><br /><i>I'm looking for large-scale patterns and in this case there is a huge pattern that's obvious</i>.<br /><br />It is not THAT obvious: there are tonal languages in Papua and China (with spread into Indochina in recent times) but there are also non-tonal language phylums in that same area dating (probably) from the same process of Eurasian expansion. The pattern is mixed, even if tonal languages are more common in the East than in the West of the continent, where the pattern is not that mixed and tonal languages are very rare. <br /><br /><i>You can't see the forest for the trees, Maju, which is really a shame</i>.<br /><br />I can see the forest perfectly: it is a mixed forest not a simplified pine plantation. <br /><br />It is you who is looking at one or two trees and saying: "look, all this forest is pines". It is not, there are many other trees too that are not pines.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-43622978509652609982009-12-27T19:33:33.532-05:002009-12-27T19:33:33.532-05:00"If that were the case in the Old World, then..."If that were the case in the Old World, then the distribution pattern would be very different and in fact much more random looking. This does seem to be the picture in the New World and what you've read may apply for the most part there. From what I've been reading, it would seem that tone language in Asia doesn't so much "evolve" as diffuse due to the influence of neighboring or conquering peoples."<br /><br />Duh! Tones evolved in Asia independently of Africa, then spread around. That's why they look "non-random" to you. Tones evolved in America independently of Asia and didn't spread around because American Indian populations are more isolated from each other than Asian populations are from each other. Some tones in America probably died out without spreading. The Ket language for which we have data is in Asia. It evolved tones independently of either African, or Southeast Asian or American sources of tones. This language is near dead now, so are its tones.<br /><br />Victor, you constantly confuse places of origin and routes of migration with places of survival and pathways of innovation. In fact, in "The Genius of Kinship," the chapter about Darwin, Lyell and other 19th century theorists of "origins" is precisely about these important distinctions.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-11259270196087859022009-12-27T17:30:39.424-05:002009-12-27T17:30:39.424-05:00DocG: "I'm not interested in what happene...DocG: "I'm not interested in what happened in the last millennia, unless it can be proven that tone language originated and spread during that period, a theory which I don't think you could defend."<br /><br />"Spread in Indochina? Yes, I think it is very defensible that it happened that way."<br /><br />Why Indochina? Why are you so focused on just this one area? I could't at the moment care less about whether tone languages are native to Indochina. As well you know. <br /><br />Tone language either developed independently in this entire region (which includes southern China, Indochina, Malaya, Indonesia, Melanesia, etc.) or else represents a survival from the language of HMC. I see it as a very exciting and promising question to explore, but you seem to see it as some sort of threat that must be debunked before it goes too far. Typical for an archaeologist, I must say. Which is why everyone in this field always seems to be at everyone else's throat. What a shame!DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-77274591703747038052009-12-27T17:17:25.742-05:002009-12-27T17:17:25.742-05:00Maju: "Sincerely, I give up trying to persuad...Maju: "Sincerely, I give up trying to persuade you of the feebleness of this part."<br /><br />Good, because I've been getting very impatient with your continual nitpicking over this issue. Clearly there are people in what could be called "Greater Southeast Asia" who have spoken "in tones" for a very long time -- and they include some of the oldest and most isolated societies, such as the southern Chinese indigenes and highlanders of New Guinea. <br /><br />Whether there are other groups in the same general area who do not have tone languages is totally beside the point as far as my explorations are concerned. The overall picture presented in the WALS map may be misleading to some extent, but nevertheless there are more than enough native tone languages in this general area to present a very real contrast to what we see in South Asia. And that is all that concerns me. <br /><br />You consistently assume that I am making some sort of case that I am NOT trying to make and then find all sorts of piddling exceptions that have nothing to do with me. <br /><br />You seem to have picked up some really bad habits from reading too much in the archaeological literature where petty nitpicking of this sort is a kind of occupational disease. I have no interest in playing that sort of game. I'm not going to argue with you over whether it's a proven fact that some tone language or other is truly indigenous or comes from somewhere else, that would be pointless. I'm looking for large-scale patterns and in this case there is a huge pattern that's obvious. You can't see the forest for the trees, Maju, which is really a shame.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-39597084210861339032009-12-27T16:59:39.786-05:002009-12-27T16:59:39.786-05:00German: "I read around a bit, and it appears ...German: "I read around a bit, and it appears that tonal languages in Asia and in America (more hypothetically, as these languages are less known) are believed to have evolved multiple times."<br /><br />If that were the case in the Old World, then the distribution pattern would be very different and in fact much more random looking. This does seem to be the picture in the New World and what you've read may apply for the most part there. From what I've been reading, it would seem that tone language in Asia doesn't so much "evolve" as diffuse due to the influence of neighboring or conquering peoples.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-51704439607680569342009-12-27T14:14:28.184-05:002009-12-27T14:14:28.184-05:00Sincerely, I give up trying to persuade you of the...Sincerely, I give up trying to persuade you of the feebleness of this part.<br /><br />I don't see how Papua is more important than Australia or Andaman or the (seems originally non-tonal) Austroasiatic language family. It's an arbitrary choice of you. <br /><br /><i>I'm not interested in what happened in the last millennia, unless it can be proven that tone language originated and spread during that period, a theory which I don't think you could defend</i>.<br /><br />Spread in Indochina? Yes, I think it is very defensible that it happened that way. <br /><br />But whatever...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-41281248963808148502009-12-27T13:58:51.101-05:002009-12-27T13:58:51.101-05:00I read around a bit, and it appears that tonal lan...I read around a bit, and it appears that tonal languages in Asia and in America (more hypothetically, as these languages are less known) are believed to have evolved multiple times. There are known triggers and diffusion paths that generated tones independently in Mayan, Athabascan, Ket and Sino-Tibetan languages. What seems to be peculiar about African tones is that there're no known triggers and diffusion paths for tones there. <br /><br />This means that in Africa tones may have evolved earlier than in many parts of Asia and America, and the phonetic triggers have become murky with time. There's a chance that some languages in Asia retained their tones from the time when Asia was originally peopled (out of Africa?) but the fact that Australia lacks them tells me exactly what I knew originally, namely that tonogenesis is a pretty sporadic phenomenon occurring at different times and different places independently. <br /><br />See Childs, Introduction to African Languages, 2003, pp. 85-86, with other literature.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-73233145407089930512009-12-27T12:53:34.413-05:002009-12-27T12:53:34.413-05:00DocG: "Whether these languages survive in SE ...DocG: "Whether these languages survive in SE Asia or southern China is of no interest to me whatsoever."<br /><br />Maju: "It is very important because the known flow of cultures and languages in the last millennia in all the region has been from North to South, not the opposite."<br /><br />I'm not interested in what happened in the last millennia, unless it can be proven that tone language originated and spread during that period, a theory which I don't think you could defend.<br /><br />If Out of Africa is correct and the southern route is the correct one (which is the theory I have been exploring), then ALL people in East Asia originated in either SE Asia or even farther south. And this theory is reinforced by the recent genetic study I referenced earlier, on the origins of East Asians. So, if they were speaking tone languages, those languages would have spread from south to north. And the ones in the south, most of them, would have been obliterated by the recent spread of Austronesian languages. Which is probably why it looks as though those languages are confined mostly to southern China. If you are looking for an artifact, that's most likely it. The presence of tone language in highland New Guinea tends to confirm the above hypothesis, because this is one of the few places where we can peek behind the viel of Austronesian culture to see what was there earlier.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-86211284083408984412009-12-27T12:41:47.953-05:002009-12-27T12:41:47.953-05:00Maju: "The only of these phylums we can know ...Maju: "The only of these phylums we can know for sure that was there in the Paleolithic is the Andamanese language family/-ies (not tonal, but very much isolated anyhow)."<br /><br />The Andamenese are the only negrito group that would have been affected by Toba and in fact they would have been in the brunt of the worst of it. So if Toba is our engine of culture loss, then the Andaman Islands would have lost a great deal. And that seems to be the case. Not only do they lack a tonal language, their musical culture, so far as I've been able to determine, is extremely simple, to the extent that many songs appear to be monotonal, just the same note sung to different words. And they are apparently completely without musical instruments of any kind, except for a percussion platform. No one has done a systematic study of their music and there are only a few recordings, so my assessment may change in future.<br /><br />But they are certainly not the only groups in that general region who were most likely "in place" during the Paleolithic. We have any number of highland New Guinea peoples as well, and many of their languages have been identified as tonal. <br /><br />New Guinea is an extremely important indicator, along with parts of Island Melanesia, because it is one of the few places where Austronesian languages have spread without completely obliterating all the languages that preceded it. So if we find tonality among even some of the Papuan languages that suggests that many other languages now replaced by Austronesian languages might well have also been tonal.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-39626719615167813272009-12-27T09:56:08.709-05:002009-12-27T09:56:08.709-05:00As I understand it, most Austroasiatic languages a...<i>As I understand it, most Austroasiatic languages are not tonal, with Vietnamese as an important exception</i>.<br /><br />You may be right in this (at least in part, some other AA languages also seem tonal) but this would only make even less solid your claim of tonal languages being ancestral in SE Asia (excluding South China), because of all them only Austroasiatic languages are known to have some pedigree in the region (Neolithic at least). <br /><br /><i>But from what you've been saying I had the impression you believed that ALL tone languages in this whole region extending from southern China to SE Asia were due to the influence of modern Chinese</i>.<br /><br />Not at all, you were misreading me (much to the annoyance and confusion of both). All I said (and meant) was that Southern China (or China in general, if we include the Chinese language family) looks a more likely center of gravity for the tonal languages of the whole region. <br /><br /><i>So I'm relieved to learn that this was a misunderdstanding on my part</i>.<br /><br />And I'm relieved that you finally got it. :)<br /><br /><i>A great many things have obviously changed since the Paleolithic. We have no way of knowing for sure what any of these groups were speaking so long ago</i>. <br /><br />Precisely. The only of these phylums we can know for sure that was there in the Paleolithic is the Andamanese language family/-ies (not tonal, but very much isolated anyhow). Austroasiatic may also be very old in SE Asia but, as you made me notice now, is not all tonal. The rest are all recent arrivals of the last two millennia or so.<br /><br /><i>Whether these languages survive in SE Asia or southern China is of no interest to me whatsoever</i>.<br /><br />It is very important because the known flow of cultures and languages in the last millennia in all the region has been from North to South, not the opposite. <br /><br />This seems central to the ability to prove or not the claim that SE Asia was originally tonal-speaker. <br /><br /><i>... the Malay Peninsula</i>...<br /><br />According to the map you posted first of tonal languages, there is no such thing in the Malay peninsula. Only one Austroasiatic language is spoken there today and doesn't seem to be tonal either (adding against AA phylum being originally tonal as this language surely arrived to Malaysia c. 13,000 years ago, with the formation of the Senoi in a Hoabinhian context). Your newest map on the matter does not say differently. <br /><br />The more I look into the matter the less SE Asian tonal languages appear to me.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-79768523589631589932009-12-27T09:31:41.958-05:002009-12-27T09:31:41.958-05:00Maju: "I don't know what to think, but th...Maju: "I don't know what to think, but this guy is in fact claiming that Austroasiatic (i.e. Vietnamese) are not true tonal languages (but "tonalized" by the indfluence of Kradai)."<br /><br />As I understand it, most Austroasiatic languages are not tonal, with Vietnamese as an important exception. If this is in fact the case, the Wikipedia explanation makes sense. <br /><br />But from what you've been saying I had the impression you believed that ALL tone languages in this whole region extending from southern China to SE Asia were due to the influence of modern Chinese. So I'm relieved to learn that this was a misunderdstanding on my part.<br /><br />Maju: "I am warning you of feebleness in the identification of tonal languages as dominant in mainland SE Asia (Indochina for short). They are now but they may perfectly not have been in Paleolithic."<br /><br />A great many things have obviously changed since the Paleolithic. We have no way of knowing for sure what any of these groups were speaking so long ago. <br /><br />What I've been exploring (NOT asserting but exploring) is the possibility that the tone languages we now find in this general region (not only SE Asia but southern China, the Malay Peninsula, Melanesia, etc.) could be survivals from the tone language that was most likely spoken by HMP. <br /><br />Whether these languages survive in SE Asia or southern China is of no interest to me whatsoever. What's important is their presence among indigenous peoples in the southeastern region of Asia. AND the strong contrast with what we see in South Asia, where there is an enormous gap with very little trace of tone language.<br /><br />If all the tone languages of southern China and SE Asia were due to the relatively recent influence of the modern Chinese language(s), that WOULD matter, and that is what I thought you were claiming. AND it made little sense to me, so I'm glad this was a misunderstanding.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-23183295666208126862009-12-27T07:52:10.656-05:002009-12-27T07:52:10.656-05:00DocG: Are these languages derived from modern Chin...<i>DocG: Are these languages derived from modern Chinese?.<br /><br />Maju: "When did I say that? Please!"<br /><br />And I quote:<br />Maju: "What I say is that all SE Asian tonal languages have roots in modern mainland China and expanded from there."</i><br /><br />Exactly: there is not a single word about Chinese language. <br /><br /><i>You're confusing me, Maju. Either you believe they originated in modern Chinese or not</i>.<br /><br />China is not the same a Chinese language.<br /><br /><i>But southern China is a well known center of indigenous culture and many of these people have a very different type of culture entirely than that of China "proper." They certainly have very different musical styles</i>. <br /><br />All southern China was once, not so long ago not Chinese ("indigenous" or whatever you want to call it). <br /><br /><i>Yes. And so . . . ? What is your point? Are you saying that the map of tone languages appearing on the WALS website is misleading, that SE Asia is NOT a center of tone language after all, that this is merely some illusion produced by the fact that "all SE Asian tonal languages have roots in modern mainland China and expanded from there"?</i>...<br /><br />Yes. <br /><br />Notice that misleading is not the same as wrong. The map is perfectly correct (AFAIK), just that you are letting yourself being misled by the illusion so many dots on SE Asia create. <br /><br /><i>If so, then I suggest you contact the editors immediately to inform them of their error</i>.<br /><br />Are you kidding? The map is correct, it is YOU who is letting himself mislead out of wishful thinking. I even allowed myself to fall to the optical illusion at the beginning. But soon I realized I had to recant and call your attention on the subject. <br /><br /><i>For example it is generally accepted that tone spread to the Chinese languages through the influence of another language family, most likely Miao-Yao</i>...<br /><br />This is new to me but in any case Mia-Yao is a language group of <b>Southern Chinaz</b>, probably much more widespread in the past. <br /><br /><i>Something very similar happened in Vietnamese, probably under the influence of Tai-Kadai languages</i>.<br /><br />I don't know what to think, but this guy is in fact claiming that Austroasiatic (i.e. Vietnamese) are not true tonal languages (but "tonalized" by the indfluence of Kradai). It only makes clear that you need to research the matter further before making the claims you are making so lightly. <br /><br /><i>I know you're suspicious of Wikipedia</i>...<br /><br />I'm not suspicious of Wikipedia as such, I just know that the quality of articles varies a lot and some are blatantly wrong or one-sided. It is a good first hand reference but you have to be a bit careful, specially if there are no citations and/or the text seems to contradict other information. If there are citations, I normally prefer to look at them if they are open access. <br /><br /><i>But to be brurally honest, I see no reason to accept your opinion over this one</i>.<br /><br />I am not giving any opinion: I am warning you of feebleness in the identification of tonal languages as dominant in mainland SE Asia (Indochina for short). They are now but they may perfectly not have been in Paleolithic. <br /><br />I say and mantain that the center of gravity of all those East Asian tonal languages appears to be in <b>Southern</b> China (which has nothing to do by itself with Chinese language, which is original from <b>Northern</b> China), not Indochina.<br /><br />The case for Sundaland/Wallacea is even more murky. <br /><br />Didin't you get my last post on Nihali (re. India)?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-86898217887567435072009-12-26T21:36:12.981-05:002009-12-26T21:36:12.981-05:00DocG: Are these languages derived from modern Chin...DocG: Are these languages derived from modern Chinese?.<br /><br />Maju: "When did I say that? Please!"<br /><br />And I quote:<br />Maju: "What I say is that all SE Asian tonal languages have roots in modern mainland China and expanded from there."<br /><br />You're confusing me, Maju. Either you believe they originated in modern Chinese or not. It sounds like you just claimed that the former is so. If that's not true, then please explain exactly what it is you DO mean.<br /><br />Maju: "For example, of five primary subdivisions of Kradai, four are found in South China with only Daic being more common in Indochina."<br /><br />But southern China is a well known center of indigenous culture and many of these people have a very different type of culture entirely than that of China "proper." They certainly have very different musical styles.<br /><br />Maju: "So I am not claiming that tonality in these language families is derived from Chinese language but very possibly from the geographical area that corresponds with modern China."<br /><br />Yes. And so . . . ? What is your point? Are you saying that the map of tone languages appearing on the WALS website is misleading, that SE Asia is NOT a center of tone language after all, that this is merely some illusion produced by the fact that "all SE Asian tonal languages have roots in modern mainland China and expanded from there"? If so, then I suggest you contact the editors immediately to inform them of their error. And if this is not what you mean, then why are you wasting our time with these observations? <br /><br />Here is another Wikipedia quote (http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/39573.xml&style):<br />"Tone is frequently an areal rather than a genetic feature: that is, a language may acquire tones through bilingualism if influential neighboring languages are tonal, or if speakers of a tonal language switch to the language in question. For example it is generally accepted that tone spread to the Chinese languages through the influence of another language family, most likely Miao-Yao . . . Something very similar happened in Vietnamese, probably under the influence of Tai-Kadai languages."<br /><br />I know you're suspicious of Wikipedia, but this person appears to be authoritative, and seems to be saying the opposite of what you are saying. I'm not saying he is right and you are wrong. But to be brurally honest, I see no reason to accept your opinion over this one. As I see it, this is a question that is far from settled. But since the experts who produced the WALS maps also seem to believe that the distribution of tone languages presented there represents something meaningful, I will accept their view of this rather than yours, at least for now, Maju. Same with the genetic evidence. Sorry for being so "brutal," but there it is.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-62022706003871099902009-12-26T21:04:54.316-05:002009-12-26T21:04:54.316-05:00The other language of India I mentioned before is ...The other language of India I mentioned before is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihali_language" rel="nofollow">Nihali</a>. I don't know if it's tonal or not but has been strongly influenced by an Austroasiatic language (and secondarily Indoeuropean). It is a language isolate and only spoken (1991) by some 2000 tribal people. <br /><br />You may want to research it a bit.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-28580869446281576842009-12-26T17:38:32.152-05:002009-12-26T17:38:32.152-05:00The evidence from New Guinea can't be ignored ...<i>The evidence from New Guinea can't be ignored either</i>...<br /><br />True. But it is not too conclusive, specially with other pre-Neolithic survivor languages of the area south of Indochina (Andamanese, Australian Aborigines) not being tonal. Of these Papuans are also the only agriculturalists. <br /><br />Whatever the case, what we have in SE Asia in this aspect is a big question mark, rather than the "clear evidence" you have suggested. <br /><br /><i>So there is certainly enough evidence of archaic tonal languages at the far reaches of the southern route to contrast rather strongly with the absence of any sort of tonal languages in S. Asia</i>.<br /><br />Well, actually you have two: Burusho and Munda (Austroasiatic). And all the rest is Dravidian and Indoeuropean (except for certain very minor language in the verge of extinction - I have to check that one). Indoeuropean is clearly a recent arrival and Dravidian is disputed: some have argued that spread only in Neolithic times. <br /><br />However I'm willing to concede in this because you may well be somewhat correct, even if I am not sufficiently certain that you are. But I cannot but warn you that the conclusions you have reached re. tonal languages are not as solid and clear as you'd wish. <br /><br />I'm really sorry to "sabotage" your last addition to the puzzle's possible solution but I feel I must. Science is built upon critical thought.<br /><br />A possibility, even a probability, is not an incontrovertible fact.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-79663184206196098452009-12-26T17:21:35.704-05:002009-12-26T17:21:35.704-05:00Are these languages derived from modern Chinese?.
...<i>Are these languages derived from modern Chinese?</i>.<br /><br />When did I say that? Please!<br /><br />Modern China is a geographic region and the southern half of it (at least) was not originally Chinese-speaker. We know that Chinese language expanded from North to South as the Chinese state expanded itself. It did so over other ethno-linguistic peoples, who were often absorbed. Some important remnants of them still persist and all are directly related to the languages modernly spoken in SE Asia (Kradai, Tibeto-Burman, Austroasiatic and Asutronesian families). <br /><br />I understand that there is some evidence that strongly suggests that these linguistic groupings migrated from North to South. For example, of five primary subdivisions of Kradai, four are found in South China with only Daic being more common in Indochina.<br /><br />Tibeto-Burman is even argued to have migrated from Northern China (within the Sino-Tibetan phylum, somewhat controversial)<br /><br />The only real doubt is about Austroasiatic which appears old enough in the region to be at least Neolithic (some would argue surely that it coalesced in the Hoabinhian culture but I'm not really sure). <br /><br />So I am not claiming that tonality in these language families is derived from Chinese language but very possibly from the geographical area that corresponds with modern China. I only have serious doubts about Austroasiatic in this regard, which was almost for sure partly replaced by Daic and Burmese languages in relatively recent times. <br /><br /><i>Also from Wikipedia: "Kradai-speaking populations originated in the southern part of East Asia and then migrated northwards and eastwards with Kam-Sui probably being the oldest"</i>. <br /><br />Are you trying to insult my intelligence? I can perfectly read the many "citation needed" and "vague" clauses added by disgruntled users to that most confusing section. I have also been a Wikipedian myself in the past and I know that bad articles/sections can and do exist. <br /><br />Just for safety, I checked <a href="http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenguas_tai-kadai" rel="nofollow">the Spanish Wikipedia</a> and, know what?, it says exactly what I thought: <br /><br />"Las lenguas tai-kadai se originaron en el sur de China, que es el hogar de la mayoría de las subfamilias del grupo. Hablantes de lenguas tai se desplazaron hacia el sudeste asiático en tiempos históricos, fundando naciones que más tarde se convertirían en Tailandia y Laos".<br /><br />Translation: "The Thai-Kadai [Kradai] languages originated in Southern China, which is the homeland of most subfamilies of the phylum. Speakers of Thai [Daic] languages migrated to SE Asia in historical times founding nations that eventually would become Thailand and Laos". <br /><br />I am not going to work researching this matter further right now (if you happen to insist I'd consider doing it) but I have never before read any such hypothesis. I used to be member of an anthropology forum with very knowledgeable East Asians and all thought that Kradai has a South Chinese origin and that Austroasiatic was the only language phylum that could be considered native to mainland SE Asia, if any among the modern ones.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-56299868886301836372009-12-26T11:40:51.807-05:002009-12-26T11:40:51.807-05:00Maju: "However you now clarify that it's ...Maju: "However you now clarify that it's not meant to be a perfect parallel but just another sign of "the gap". Then I can agree, yes."<br /><br />OK, good. What's important to me is that this very strange looking large scale difference of distribution reveals a gap that can apparently be accounted for only through historical analysis. It could not have developed simply through normal channels of evolution or devolution, which would have produced a very different distributional pattern.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-40703176600734336192009-12-26T11:36:04.610-05:002009-12-26T11:36:04.610-05:00Maju: "What I say is that all SE Asian tonal ...Maju: "What I say is that all SE Asian tonal languages have roots in modern mainland China and expanded from there."<br /><br />Wikipedia: "The Kradai or Kra-Dai languages, also known as Daic, Kadai,[1] or Tai-Kadai, are a language family of highly tonal languages found in southern China and Southeast Asia. The diversity of the Kradai languages in southeastern China, especially on Hainan, suggests that this is close to their homeland."<br /><br />Are these languages derived from modern Chinese? Looks to me as though modern Chinese could be derived from one of them.<br /><br />Also from Wikipedia: "Kradai-speaking populations originated in the southern part of East Asia and then migrated northwards and eastwards with Kam-Sui probably being the oldest."<br /><br />The evidence from New Guinea can't be ignored either, though it's not strictly speaking SE Asia. Many of the highland Papuan languages are tonal. The languages of most of the coastal groups are Austronesian, i.e., much more recent, and are of course not tonal.<br /><br />So there is certainly enough evidence of archaic tonal languages at the far reaches of the southern route to contrast rather strongly with the absence of any sort of tonal languages in S. Asia.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-57269775635173131422009-12-26T11:18:28.095-05:002009-12-26T11:18:28.095-05:00Maju: "Not sure if tonality may have evolved ...Maju: "Not sure if tonality may have evolved and devolved several times, as German claims"<br /><br />Tonality, or any other cultural attribute for that matter, can only evolve or devolve within a given society. It can't do so en masse, with the same changes taking place in several unconnected societies at once -- unless all these societies were subject to the same external forces (such as the Toba explosion, for example, or some other large-scale event). <br /><br />So it's very difficult to see how large-scale differences, such as the differenced between Africa, South Asia and SE Asia, could result from local evolutions-devolutions on a group by group basis. That sort of thing would produce checkered results, more or less equally distributed in all regions.<br /><br />Maybe there should be a field within anthropology called "distribution studies," because so few anthropologists seem to understand the meaning of different distribution patterns. Large scale differences in distribution clearly have a very different history than small-scale differences.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-36517273426848144642009-12-25T18:51:13.457-05:002009-12-25T18:51:13.457-05:00"OoA is more than sufficiently demonstrated, ..."OoA is more than sufficiently demonstrated, whatever German thinks. I am persuaded that this is that way, and so is everybody but you. "<br /><br />Consensus is a poor predictor of truth. Out of Africa hasn't been scientifically demonstrated, otherwise I would've seen it. People who created out of Africa know only one thing, they aren't well rounded in all the disciplines involved, they dismiss what they don't understand. Your current debate with Victor attests to the fact that out of Africa has serious problems. I suggest a solution. <br /><br />"You may be thrown off by my critcisms, German, but in truth I am probably one of the few people who is paying you any attention (even if often reluctantly)."<br /><br />Your style of writing has nothing in common with criticism, as you lack an understanding of how trees are constructed, how genetic diversity evolves and how languages and kinship systems change. You have been a liability, rather than an asset to an academic discussion so far. But you're making some progress. Keep it up, we'll get there everntually.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-59160780862698186732009-12-25T08:18:04.460-05:002009-12-25T08:18:04.460-05:00I am NOT claiming that P/B is directly correlated ...<i>I am NOT claiming that P/B is directly correlated with tone language on a group by group basis. In fact I'm not even claiming a correlation between P/B and tone language</i>.<br /><br />I understood from your last posts that you were claiming that. Maybe I misunderstood you but maybe also you emphasized this matter a lot, as if it would be some sort of extra evidence and not just a possibility. <br /><br /><i>What I'm saying is that there is a correlation between the distributions of certain features, including P/B and tone language that reveals a very interesting and hard to explain gap in the southern migration path, a gap that needs to be explained</i>.<br /><br />If this is what you actually say, then I'm ok with it. Not sure if tonality may have evolved and devolved several times, as German claims, but I agree that it is an interesting possibility. <br /><br /><i>Even if I had the information on tone language from every single group that has P/B-related traditions, it wouldn't mean much because, as you know, there has been a great deal of language change in SE Asia, due mainly to the expansion of Austronesian but no doubt also to other linguistic expansions</i>...<br /><br />Agreed. Although Austronesian expansion only applies to Sundaland/Wallacea. There have been almost for sure other linguistic expansions: at least Daic and Tibeto-Burman, from what is now China. We also don't have any evidence that Negritos spoke tonal languages before Austroasiatic and Austronesian arrival (and Andamanese languages are rather evidence in the opposite direction). <br /><br /><i>It's even possible, as you imply, that much of the tone language we see in SE Asia is a relatively late development due to the influence of Chinese</i>. <br /><br />I don't say it's Chinese influence as such. What I say is that all SE Asian tonal languages have roots in modern mainland China and expanded from there. The only possible exception would Austroasiatic, which is at least as old as Neolithic in the area (and might be argued to be rooted in Hoabinhian - though very controversially) but is for sure not native to Sundaland/Wallacea. <br /><br />What I say is that the tonal languages area of Eastern Asia is not specifically SE Asian in any way, but rather of the China area. There are doubts re. Austroasiatic but only this one, and in any case don't apply to the southern (now mostly insular) half of SE Asia, where it's clearly a Holocene arrival as well. <br /><br />...<br /><br />I don't think there is any axe-grinding about this. I just happen to be quite unconvinced of the parallel you draw (or my understanding of it) and I express this disconformity the best I can. You (or anyone) should not only expect "sympathy and understanding", as I have a very critical nature. While this attribute may not be the best for social relations, it's really nice for scientific discussion and I always hope to be valued for it. <br /><br />However you now clarify that it's not meant to be a perfect parallel but just another sign of "the gap". Then I can agree, yes.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-77783132852544393262009-12-25T08:17:36.428-05:002009-12-25T08:17:36.428-05:00Victor: I think you might want to create a new map...Victor: I think you might want to create a new map, showing clearly the current status of P/B remnants in Greater Eurasia. Of course this is a request for my convenience, you don't have to if it doesn't suit you (I can always browse the blog carefully and build one myself). <br /><br /><i>We see P/B survivals in essentially the same regions as tone language: SS Africa, SE Asia and Melanesia</i>.<br /><br />I'm excluding ultra-Saharan Africa for this discussion because it's Eurasian processes what matter here, right?<br /><br />If so there are, as I outlined before, the following cases of P/B survivals:<br /><br />1. Papua (tonal languages)<br />2. Parts of SE Asia but not China (some imperfect overlap with tonal languages, which might well have arrived from China in the Holocene)<br />3. The Arctic-American group/s (no tonal languages mostly) <br />4. The West Eurasian group (no tonal languages mostly)<br /><br />The overlap is extremely imperfect in my opinion. You may be right or not in these two elements being related but the case has not been proposed in clear incontrovertible terms for Greater Eurasia. <br /><br /><i>And if I were to provide you with a more exact map, including all the many examples of instrumental hocket, the overlap would be even more striking</i>.<br /><br />That would be really interesting to see. <br /><br /><i>But you are assuming that by "correlated" I mean something different from what I've actually claimed, in fact something far more ambitious than what I've claimed</i>.<br /><br />You have been very absolute and insistent in your claim on this parallel, as something almost unquestionable, obvious... virtually the same thing. What I say is that I don't see it clear, not for Greater Eurasia. <br /><br />(cont.)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-64797710971841788542009-12-25T07:30:26.985-05:002009-12-25T07:30:26.985-05:00From the very beginning you behaved like an out-of...<i>From the very beginning you behaved like an out-of-Africa watchdog, which instantly threw me off</i>.<br /><br />Not sure what you mean by this. OoA is more than sufficiently demonstrated, whatever German thinks. I am persuaded that this is that way, and so is everybody but you. <br /><br />I do hold that, barring whatever new research can find, the currently known haploid phylogenies are perfectly valid and very much unquestionable. However if genetic research would some day show otherwise, I'd have to change my opinion. But I'm not going to change it only on alleged cultural correlations that are too easy to misunderstand and misinterpret: they are not on their own valid scientific evidence. <br /><br />OoA is as solid as Heliocentrism or the Law of Gravity. Questioning it may be an entertaining intellectual exercise for a high IQ "stoned" group of friends with nothing better to do... but is essentially pointless, specially when no new hard evidence is questioning it. <br /><br />You may be thrown off by my critcisms, German, but in truth I am probably one of the few people who is paying you any attention (even if often reluctantly).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com