Linguistics thread

3/3

Rationalism in this sense means that he believes that the brain itself generates language, which fits Chomsky's idea of universal grammar, which is his idea that every human brain has the capability to use language instead of just learning it from trial and error from outside sources

Has any definitive link between Greek and Albanian ever been made? For some reason I inherently associate the two in my mind

Let's appreciate Brithenig and imagine if Britain spoke Romance mixed with Celtic instead of Germanic mixed with Romance.

A vestige of some language group that was common throughout Europe until the Indo-European migrations got rid of most of them. Scandinavia for example was once home to a language group simply known Proto-Nordic that was unrelated to Germanic or Finno-Ugaric languages that now inhabit Scandinavia.

well the're both IE langs spoken nearby each other, and Albanian has alot of Greek loanwords. But both are independent branches of IE, and so are quite unrelated

Do they form a sprachbund?

They are in different linguistic families

So French?

no, but albanian is in the southern balkan sprachbund

Completely speculative.

No one knows the distribution of linguistic families during the East Asian neolithic.

so is greek

Niger Congo A is not a real language group

Dogon, Bangi Me, Mande and Ijoid are all unrelated to one another and especially from Niger Congo

Nilo-Saharan was Greenberg's waste basket and has no merit as a group, internal classification is even challenged

Finally the lingusitic community recognizes what was so plainly obvious, the Khoisan family is not unified and three distinct families are known Tuu, Kx'a and Khoekhoe. Just because they share clicks doesn't mean they are close, in fact the genetic divergence between Tuu and K'xa people is as great as Europeans from West Asians.

Bantu is not a legitimate grouping and proto-bantu is patchy as a concept.

Basically African lingusitic has been ignored for far too long and is far more complex than people give it credit

Oh and Ainu has substantial amount of Austronesian influence

Source? Isn't Ainuic a linguistic isolate?

Sorry for being imprecise.

Yes Greek is technically in the Aegean region, but is far more linguistically homologous and insular than the former states of Yugoslavia. Although there are Armenain communities in Greece, the vast majority is further north.

pic related: Fortson, Benkamin W, "Indo-European Language and Culture", 2010

It's not really, Altaic/Austronesian but the greatest Japanese linguist states it's in the newly proposed Austro-Tai family.

Greek follows every example in the wiki page for the Balkan sprachbund except one

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund#Features

>Tfw your regional dialect didnt develop into its own language.
> English as a first language
>Brittish English constantly getting more yankified.
whyevenspeak

i understand these languages share features. but in terms of geographical distribution, greek is pretty separate from the melting pot that's going on further north.

Nice quints. There's no archaeological,genetic or cultural ties between the Ainuic speaking individuals and the purported Austro Tai.

Altaic isn't a language family but a linguistic sprachbund,even Koreanic(southern Manchuria) and Japonic(central/southern Korea) form a sprachbund.
academia.edu/6360018/From_Koguryo_to_Tamna

Though Japonic may have had a continental origin in its far past.
academia.edu/7869241/Out_of_Southern_China

what language are you talking about senpai

There is archeological evidence actually you should read the book Ocean Migrations which speak on it in depth

But also taro in Jomon society is well known and mentioned often, it's a hallmark of Austronesian expansion.

Altaic language influences come after the push of emishi to Hokkaido, before hand it was not an influence to the majority Jomonic peoples not a part of early post Yayoi Japan

Yorkshirian, it would be a beautiful language. Its an accent in Northern England (Yorkshire), relatively distinct from the other English accents.
I dont know if we`ll survive the spread of Southern accent.

>There is archeological evidence actually you should read the book Ocean Migrations which speak on it in depth
Interesting,though the dearth of rice/millet cultivation,pig farming etc. hurts your case.

The Austronesian impact must have been minimal as the modern Japanese and Ainu lack any sort of uniparental/autosomal genetic contribution.

>Altaic language influences come after the push of emishi to Hokkaido,
There's no proof Altaic even exists as a valid linguistic family or had a significant presence on the Japanese archipelago.

Japonic isn't Altaic,neither is Koreanic(the next closest linguistic isolate).

see

If you secede it'd become a language

That's not a source. As I stated in data from historical periods is already limited enough so how can linguists define what was spoken in the East Asian neolithic?

There's no evidence that Austronesian was ever spoken in coastal China or Japonic existed in China.

for reference here's a more accurate one

There needs to be a revival of British English and a purge of American English.

Except rice is not a hallmark of Polynesian horticulturalists and you clearly don't know enough about the Westward oceanic migration by stating rice agriculture as some hallmark that necessitates Austronesian expansion.

>The high rate of crown caries (8.6%; 119/1,377 teeth) and other oral pathologies in 101 central Japan Middle to Late Jomon Period (ca. 1000 B.C.) crania indicate a level of carbohydrate consumption consistent with an agriculture hypothesis. Because Jomon dental crown and root morphology shows strong resemblances with past and present Southeast Asians, but not with ancient Chinese or modern Japanese, Jomon agriculture could be of great antiquity in the isolated Japanese islands. These dental data and other assembled facts suggest that ancestral Jomonese might have carried to Japan a cariogenic cultigen such as taro before the end of the Pleistocene from tropical Sundaland by way of the now-submerged east Asian continental shelf

but i've heard and used both of those

>Polynesian horticulturalists
Reread Sagart's Sino-Austronesian hypothesis,why would the Jomon lack millet cultivation as well as pig farming if they mixed with Austronesians?

Polynesians uniparentals are downstream of Austronesians and modern day Sinitic speakers.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175080

>Using craniofacial measurements when we have autosomal DNA.
Read through some recent studies,Jomon are basal East Asians that predate the formation of modern East Asian populations.

nature.com/jhg/journal/v62/n2/full/jhg2016110a.html

Millet of several species is found throughout Japan in the mid and late Jomon period.

If you actually studied the topic you'd know this.

Pig remains have not been uncovered in either New Zealand or Easter Island. The process of animal abandonment is not rare, especially in Oceania.

Cranofacials of hundreds of remains are far more useful than the genetics of two individuals on an jsland with innumerable migrations in 30-50kys. Austronesians were towards the late Jomon but arguably and likely a southeast Asian migration north occurred long, long ago before the Austronesian family developed.

Polynesian and Malagasy motifs are not found in Taiwanese or Western Indonesians, it's a hallmark of Eastern Indonesia and Melanesia.

That does not by any means negate the very clear Austronesian contact even with your shifting goalposts.

>Millet of several species is found throughout Japan in the mid and late Jomon period.
Which is irrelevant as the Jomon never received the full Sino-Austronesian cultural package.

>Cranofacials of hundreds of remains are far more useful than the genetics of two individuals on an jsland with innumerable migrations in 30-50kys.
Autosomal DNA trumps craniofacial measurements,otherwise the Ainu would still be viewed as Australoids/Caucasoids.

Even if they were of southeast Asian origin they are equally related to modern day northeast/southeast Asians.

Ainu/Jomon mtDNA cluster with Paleosiberians while their yDNA are the result of isolation(split off from the ancestors of Andaman Islanders and Tibetans by more than 40,000 years).

>Polynesian and Malagasy motifs are not found in Taiwanese or Western Indonesians, it's a hallmark of Eastern Indonesia and Melanesia.
Polynesians have dual ancestry from an East Asians source(Austronesians) and Australasian(Papuans).

If the Jomon mixed with these purported Austronesians/Polynesians you would expect gene flow in modern Japanese/Ainu.

On the other hand,South Amerindian tribes consistently show excess Australasian/East Asian admixture that corresponds with archaeological finds.

>That does not by any means negate the very clear Austronesian contact even with your shifting goalposts.
Ainuic is an isolate,nothing you have provided proves contrary. Not to mention none of the other Jomonic languages survive.

While the archaeological evidence is intriguing,contact between Austronesian and Ainuic is still speculative and doesn't mesh well with genetics.

As proto Japonic may ultimately have a continental origin(Vovin) they are far more likely to have interacted with the pre Austronesians.

Agriculture does not have to come in packages, Maori all but abandoned traditional Polynesian crops save for taro and yam in the far north.

Millet and taro remained in Japan, stop changing goalposts.

Japan has had a number of migrants that have become collectively known as Jomon

>As for the geographic distribution, M7a1 has its highest frequencies (14%) and diversities (86%) in the Ryukyuans, and it is also very common in the whole of China, with a mean diversity of ∼76%. But, curiously, it has not been detected in Koreans or in Ainu, and is rare in mainland Japanese. In a similar way, M7a has its highest diversity in Ryukyuans (83%). Both groups are rather common in the Philippines.

>This haplogroup was first defined as group A by Ballinger et al. (1992), and later renamed as F by Torroni et al. (1994). This group was characterized by the lack of HincII and HpaI sites at 12406. According to the newly proposed nomenclature (Kivisild et al. 2002; Kong et al. 2003), 12406 is now one of the six mutations that specifically define subhaplogroup F1. Recently, haplogroup F has been phylogenetically included as a subcluster of haplogroup R9 (Yao et al. 2002a). Besides F1, two new subgroups (F2 and F3) have been defined by Kong et al. (2003). We have found a new subcluster, named F4 (Fig. 2), that is characterized by three coding-region mutations (5263, 12630, 15670). This group has a particularly high incidence in Southeast Asia (Ballinger et al. 1992), but only subhaplogroup F1b is well represented in the Japanese, including the indigenous Ainu and Ryukyuan. The highest diversities for this subgroup are in eastern China including Taiwan (100%).

>B4a shows a similar distribution as B4, having branches prevalent in Ryukyuans, Lahu of Yunnan, and aborigine Taiwanese (Table 2). In a similar vein, some branches of B4c are more abundant in southern areas (B4c2), whereas others (B4c1) are mainly detected in Korea and Japan, with derivatives in Taiwan (B4c1b).

I know what I am talking about, I know what I've been researching for years. I know the work of Shichirō Murayama and I know the genetics already prove my point.

Two skeletons do not encompass all of Jomon period with it's diverse population, you have to be critical of that kind of mindset that you have the answers from such small samples giving such a small peephole to the past.

Unless you can backtrack and change more goalposts once again you cannot deny the Austronesian influences of Japanese, the Polynesian genetic history is multilayered and complicated far more than you think with doze s of archeologists and geneticists duking it out your model is not taking in consideration that complex and dynamic past.

>bitching about genetics

"Who brags about his great forbears
Would steal the praise that should be theirs."

I am simply showing how user is wrong to think two samples can embody 14 thousand years or dozens of migrations.

The foremost Japanese linguist recognizes Austronesian substratum, the Japanese archeological community accepts Austronesian influence, the genetics of Okinawan and Ainu show Austronesian input.

user just hasn't studied the topic in depth and thinks pulling up the two Jomon remains is some ultimate card with nothing else to offer except baseless retorts of genetics they don't fully understand and do not contextualize.

>Millet and taro remained in Japan, stop changing goalposts.
I'll give you taro,but do you have proof that millet was brought to the Jomon by Austronesians?

>MtDNA from modern Ainu
The Hokkaido Jomon had N9b*,N9b1,D4h2,G1b and M7a* resembling modern day Siberians like the Udegey.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21953438

Of the haplogroups you chose M7a* is restricted to Japanese/Koreans(though this might be a link to Hmong Mien populations),the Japanese share F1b with other north Asians not Austronesians(F3/4) and only B4a is arguably a more recent southern origin.

>I know the genetics already prove my point.
On the contrary,mtdna from the Hokkaido Jomon seem closely related to Siberian populations.

Though M7 and B4 had to come from somewhere(the Japanese clades split too early to come from the Austronesian expansion)
press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n2320/html/ch03.xhtml?referer=&page=10

>Two skeletons do not encompass all of Jomon period with it's diverse population, you have to be critical of that kind of mindset that you have the answers from such small samples giving such a small peephole to the past.
I can only base my conclusions on published data.

Analogous to how Kenniwick man was treated as being unrelated to Amerinidans,Sanganji Jomon are proven to be an early split of East Asians rather than a population related to modern day West Eurasians/Australasians.

>Unless you can backtrack and change more goalposts once again you cannot deny the Austronesian influences of Japanese
I never denied contact between pre Austronesian and proto Japonic.

I'm just questioning whether the Austronesians reached Japan before the Yayoi and if they did why didn't leave behind DNA or lexicon.

>the Polynesian genetic history is multilayered and complicated
It's pretty clear cut that Polynesians have excess Australasian ancestry that other Austronesians lack.
nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7626/abs/nature19844.html

>I am simply showing how user is wrong to think two samples can embody 14 thousand years or dozens of migrations.
That's literally all we have,craniofacial measurements clearly aren't enough.

No one would have guessed the Yayoi component/Koreans came from a mix of southern Chinese/southeast Asian populations and the Devil's Gate samples
advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1601877.full

> the genetics of Okinawan and Ainu show Austronesian input.
So where is this putative Austronesian input?

Going by mtDNA the M clades in modern day Japanese and Austronesians prior to the Austronesian expansion(see M7a* in Hokkaido Jomon) while the Japanese lack the Austronesian/Polynesian B4a1a and B4a1a1a.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032179

You are changing goalposts posts yet again stop.

You first denied any sort of connect, then once I claimed taro claimed their was no rice, then claimed there was no millet or pig.

You're wrong on the agriculture at this point do your own research because every time you speak on it your ignorance shows up.

Satsumon culture is the result of epi-jomon and konfun peoples, the Ainu are a mix of this society and Okhotsk culture who have clear Siberian roots.

The Ainu ARE NOT JOMON, they are a derivation of Jomon as all people in Japan are, those roots included Siberians of which I am not and have not denied. Those Siberian roots DO NOT invalidate clear genetic ancestry from Austronesians.

The Peopling of Japan especially of Polynesians, proto-polynesians and Austronesians is indeed multi-layered. The genetic research is still not all corroborating, slow and fast boat theories, Oppenheimer theories, etc.. is providing lenses with which a clear pre-Lapita Austronesian expansion occurred.

Lapita were NOT the first oceanic Austronesian population, the you also are trying to pigeonhole my stating Austronesian peoples with Polynesians. My bringing up Polynesians was related to agriculture and the lack of rice in the Oceanian vegeculture systems of which taro was among them.

Stop. Shifting. Goalposts.

I have already stated the Polynesian motif being not a result of Austronesian expansion given it's origin in the east of Indonesia to Papau here
>Polynesian and Malagasy motifs are not found in Taiwanese or Western Indonesians, it's a hallmark of Eastern Indonesia and Melanesia.

That is LAPITA migrarion not Austronesian migration as a whole, there is more than one branch of Malayo-polynesian languages

Stop changing goalposts

I just want to say that this is possibly one of the most heated exchanges I've seen on this site, but it's actually one of the most civil and mutually polite ones as well. I do have to ask you both however, seeing as stability of goalposts is the crux of the issue, have either of you ever been close enough to even touch an actual goalpost, or is it just a word that gets thrown around in your line of work? And how does that affect you linguistically?

user is changing the people's spoken on and fixating on the Lapita expansion while I am speaking of an Austronesian expansion much older and to the north of Taiwan.

They have denied the evidence several occasions, then accepts when it's clear it's legitimate, then changes the prerequisite "thing" needed to show my Austronesian point.

They don't seem to understand what the Austronesian expansion is, they have no clue of the archeology, foodways or lifeways of various Jomonic and post-konfun Japan and they are contorting my words in the process boxing me into an argument I am not making.

>You are changing goalposts posts yet again stop.
No,my whole point of contention was linking Ainuic(by extension Jomon) with Austro Tai.

I have no qualms linking Austronesian/Japonic though going by Vovin this is most likely a Japonic/Tai Kadai areal contact.

>You first denied any sort of connect, then once I claimed taro claimed their was no rice, then claimed there was no millet or pig.
I based my claims on this Sagart's paper "confirmed by the absence from the Japanese Islands of any of the characteristic elements of early Austronesian culture: rice, pigs, and red slipped pottery"

If I'm wrong I'm wrong,no need to get so heated.

>The Ainu ARE NOT JOMON, they are a derivation of Jomon as all people in Japan are, those roots included Siberians of which I am not and have not denied. Those Siberian roots
Strawman,when have I claimed the Ainu were equivalent towards the Jomon?

All I've stated is Ainuic is related to the extinct Jomonic languages(Jahunen).

Regardless,you became upset that I reference extant data that shows Sanganji Jomon are outside modern East Asian variation and show no preference to southeast Asians.

You cannot invalidate the Hokkaido Jomon data just because they mixed with some Paleosiberian elements.

>DO NOT invalidate clear genetic ancestry from Austronesians.
You haven't provided any proof whatsoever.

You are unable to distinguish between different mtDNA subclades of B4 and M7 found in Austronesians and Japanese and this post >2745376 looks to me like cherrypicking when you don't understand that these markers are tens of thousands of years old.

Whatever population that brought M7a*,M7a1 and B4e towards the Japanese archipelago would not have been Austronesian.

>The Peopling of Japan especially of Polynesians, proto-polynesians and Austronesians is indeed multi-layered.
That's a poor excuse for the data that doesn't fit your conclusions.

As thrice stated,where is this Polynesian/Austronesian genetic contribution?

>user is changing the people's spoken on and fixating on the Lapita expansion while I am speaking of an Austronesian expansion much older and to the north of Taiwan.
I believe this is my mistake.

I used the lack of certain crops from Sagart's paper as my argument while Polynesians were provided as counterexample(pigs).

I interpreted this as if there were Polynesian elements in Japan. Ergo,my claim was since Polynesians are known to have Australasian admixture why isn't there Australasian related admixture in modern day Japanese/Ainu.

>They don't seem to understand what the Austronesian expansion is, they have no clue of the archeology, foodways or lifeways of various Jomonic and post-konfun Japan and they are contorting my words in the process boxing me into an argument I am not making.
I'm approaching this from a laymen's point of view,pre Austronesians were agriculturalists from coastal China with possible connections towards Sinitic and Tai Kadai.

Skimming Sagart's papers,I've noticed there was a Sino-Austronesian package that wasn't directly imported to Japan. I have no interest in Polynesians and from what I've seen in DNA they are derivative of Taiwanese aborigines with Australasian input.

My logic was if there was Austronesian impact on the Jomon/Yayoi why isn't this reflected in uniparentals or autosomal DNA in modern populations.

I provided genetic evidence that Jomon reflected both northern/southern elements,predating modern variation while all I see from you is complaints about the sample size and distortions of mtDNA.

>confirmed by the absence from the Japanese Islands of any of the characteristic elements of early Austronesian culture: rice, pigs, and red slipped pottery

Rice is not a prerequisite for austronesian expansion

Pigs are absent or were abandoned in a number of Austronesian populations

Pottery linking Austronesians to outer Japan is confirmed

>I've stated is Ainuic is related to the extinct Jomonic languages(Jahunen). Regardless,you became upset that I reference extant data that shows Sanganji Jomon are outside modern East Asian variation and show no preference to southeast Asians. You cannot invalidate the Hokkaido Jomon data just because they mixed with some Paleosiberian elements.

Jomon are not genetically uniform, you are using two samples from the middle Jomon period and claiming them as the template for all Jomonic people. The limitations of the genetic research of two middle Jomon remains inspite of clear lingusitic and archeological evidence does not refute the data of the latter two

>You are unable to distinguish between different mtDNA subclades of B4 and M7 found in Austronesians and Japanese and this post 2745376 looks to me like cherrypicking when you don't understand that these markers are tens of thousands of years old. Whatever population that brought M7a*,M7a1 and B4e towards the Japanese archipelago would not have been Austronesian.

The data you posted is not what I am debating, the genetics found be they recent or late where by proto-siberian or more recent Siberian migrants is not what's being debated. I fully recognize the known migrational history of Jomon populations. My argument is for a migration and lingusitic shift to Austronesian peoples at a later date showing clear connections to non-papuan influenced Austronesian peoples.

>That's a poor excuse for the data that doesn't fit your conclusions. As thrice stated,where is this Polynesian/Austronesian genetic contribution?

Pic

Your samples are older than the proposed period in which my Austronesian expansion took place. It's "sealing" Jomon in a way that is not reflected in numerous ways and ignores the waves of settle Japan has had as shown by numerous non-genetic data.

This is why relying on genetics alone especially "skimming" leads to incorrect assessments especially when you are debating about Polynesians when the discussion is about Austronesians.

Red Ware is found in Yaeyama Island, even pig which may have been left there by people to be hunted if an when sailing people's landed.

>that filename
And yes I whole-heartedly agree. Simplified English needs to be stopped right now.

These are reversed.

A good intro to Chomsky and Generative Grammar is a book by Virginia Cook called Chomsky's Universal Grammar. It's a good overview and accessible.

Also, Steven Pinker's Words and Rules is a good general audience type of book.

One that I would throw out there, which is not really an easy book, but one that I think any smart and dedicated user could into without much previous knowledge on the subject, is Heim and Kratzer's introductory textbook on formal semantics.
cs.brown.edu/courses/csci2951-k/papers/heim00.pdf

But linguistics is weird field. You can have two people working in the linguistics dept at a university, one is a phonetician, one is a semanticist, and neither one has a clue what the other one does.

you realize that in many respects, such a rhotacism, American English is more conservative in that it retains more characteristics of earlier English

"dependency grammar vs phrase structure" is something that seems to exist solely on wikipedia. virtually every syntactician uses some version of phrase structure.

>>>Altaic

>Caring this much

>Jomon are not genetically uniform, you are using two samples from the middle Jomon period and claiming them as the template for all Jomonic people.
How many times do I have to state this,the Sanganji Jomon are the only extant examples that were genotyped.

I already referenced Kenewick man and outdated views on the Jomon as to why craniofacial measurements should be used in conjunction with DNA.

I'm sure the model will be fine tuned in the future,but I'm basing my conclusions on what we have now.

>The limitations of the genetic research of two middle Jomon remains inspite of clear lingusitic
Show some sources where Austronesian-Ainuic is a valid linguistic family.

>Pic
That's not a source,neither is "South Chinese Neolithic farmers" representative of Austronesian.

In fact,there are no samples from historical Korea/Japan dating towards the Yayoi period and the Liangzhu samples(continental O1 split off from the O1 that contributed to Austronesians)need to be sorted with recent phylogenetic trees.

Due to their isolation and subsequent bottleneck Austronesians have uniparentals that are downstream of continental East Asians while Polynesians are downstream of Austronesians.

Japanese lack these downstream Austronesian sub lineages while sharing ancestral clades that originated in the paleolithic.

Austronesians are downstream of the basal branches,share O3a2b2a2-F706 with East Asians while O3a2b2a2b-B451 is an Austronesian specific marker.

As shown in the paper the Korean sample is O3a2b2a2-F706 not O3a2b2a2b-B451.

The dearth of O3a2b2a2-F706 in modern Japanes males also raises a red flag.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175080#pone.0175080.ref012

Furthermore,Austronesian mtDNA such as B4a1a is downstream of mainland clades that contributed to the ancestry of the Japanese.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032179

>Your samples are older than the proposed period in which my Austronesian expansion took place.
That's my point,the "southern" lineages such as M7a,F or B found in modern day Japanese have nothing to do with the Austronesians as they belong in complete separate sub lineages.

Whoever this individual insists there was an Austronesian contribution in Jomon/Japanese.

There's a dearth of genetic data from prehistoric China never mind those cultures were ancestral to more than just Austronesians.

Even the minuscule amounts of O1 found in Japanese cluster with Koreans and they are separate from the lineage that the Austronesians carry.

>Austronesian contribution in Jomon/Japanese.
Meant genetic contribution,not cultural(there clearly are some ties between Japanese and mainland cultures from southeast Asia and formerly southern China).

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development - just a meme?

That's a current linguistic map

...

Algonquin-Basque pigin

Best thread on Veeky Forums in weeks