Oasis
11-29-2023, 12:26 PM
https://i.ibb.co/VxqL5CR/62.png
In Gerhard Jager’s “From words to features to trees…” (2017) the territorially isolated from the sea coast, deeply inland Papuan language (Yale) Kosarek clustered as an outgroup of the cluster of the main Afroasiatic languages.
It might be a chance similarity result. However, we hear that the distinctiveness of the (Yale) Kosarek has been known to Western specialists in East Asian studies well before Jager’s work.
Later, it was published in "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar" that:
“WALS gives 14 languages, all Tibeto-Burman except for Yale (Kosarek), a Trans - New Guinea language , and Rumu , a Tirama - Kikorian language also spoken in Papua New Guinea , with N > Num > Dem and Rel > N order”. (…)WALS gives just one language with Rel > N , N > Num > Dem , and VO order ( i.e. V - to - v movement ) : Bai, a Sino - Tibetan language spoken in Yunnan , China , whose affiliation as Tibeto - Burman or Sinitic is debated [that is, it is not clear, if Bai is a Sinitic language or Tibeto-Burman language]. (…) With N > Rel , N > Num > Dem , and VO order, WALS gives 170 languages. Languages of this type appear to fall into three areal groups: sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia and New Guinea/Polynesia. In the West African areal cluster we find Yoruba, Ewe, and probably Igbo and Gungbe (Gungbe has N > A > Rel > D > Num; see Aboh & DeGraff 2017: 452).”
https://i.ibb.co/MkZ5g38/60.png
At the first sight, the (Yale) Kosarek and Rumu localization in Papua New Guinea cause the association with the Papuan branch of yDNA C1b, or with basal C1b observed in a Laos’s Hoabinhian LA368, who should share some genetic ancestry with Papuans. As for the mentioned East Asian Bai people in Yunnan, their male uniparentals were the following in “Genetic substructure analysis of three isolated populations in southwest China”(the Yunnan Province) http://www.chinagene.cn/EN/10.16288/j.yczz.22-013 :
D-M174: 5.88%
C-M217 2.94%
N-M231 8.82%
O-M175 82.35%
In case of the remote Bai neighbours in terms of the feature N > Rel , N > Num > Dem , and VO order, "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar" chose to point to West Africans, such as Yoruba, in the first place. It is consistent with the belief that if a rather late isolated branch yDNA D0 (of yDNA D-M174) was observed to be split between inhabitants of Arabia and West African Nigeria, West Africa should be considered a priority, despite other more diverse branches of D-M174 inhabiting East Asia and Southeast Asia. However, the basal yDNA D-M174* branch was also observed in the Malaysian Hoabinhian MA911.
Thus, if the distribution of Afroasiatic-like linguistic features were not considered, but at least the distribution of the linguistic features mentioned in "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar", shared between different populations of the world, were considered, one might suspect yDNA C1b* Hoabinhians (such as LA368) and yDNA D* Hoabinhians (such as MA911) as mediators for populations living in East Asia. Nonetheless, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" discarded the “Out-of-Papua” scenario and also concluded that there is no reliable genetic data on the coming of the Hoabinhians, born in Southeast Asia, to the territory of China.
Before that, the Chinese geneticists were interested in finding the similarities between LA368 and MA911 Hoabinhians on the one hand and populations in China as well as broad East Asia and Eastern Eurasia on the other hand. “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China” produced the following results of genetic similarities of different origin, shared by modern and ancient East Asians with the combined group of LA368 and MA911 Hoabinhians in f3-statistics:
https://i.ibb.co/bd03rrn/61.png
The above article stated that: “The Man Bac result [of similarities, shared with Hoabinhians] is lower than that observed for most other Southeast Asians, and the [Japan Jomon] Ikawazu result is lower or similar to that observed for several present-day East Asians, and ancient individuals from the Tibetan Plateau and coastal northern East Asia.
Thus, the result of similarities, shared with the Hoabinhians, appeared quite similar in the ancient Shandong Boshan (ancient yDNA N-M231-related population from coastal northern East Asia) and the Japan Jomon Ikawazu (yDNA D-M64-related population) in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”. This article also highlighted the role in similarities with the Hoabinhians of the ancient Tibetan Plateau, where not only D-M174-related populations’ ancestries can be observed, but also yDNA CT*, F*, DE*-related populations’ ancestries can be observed in some localizations.
Thus, the search for a more precise route for the distribution of ancient Afroasiatic-like linguistic similarities should continue, in view of the importance of this question for a population residing in China and some other East Asian countries.
In Gerhard Jager’s “From words to features to trees…” (2017) the territorially isolated from the sea coast, deeply inland Papuan language (Yale) Kosarek clustered as an outgroup of the cluster of the main Afroasiatic languages.
It might be a chance similarity result. However, we hear that the distinctiveness of the (Yale) Kosarek has been known to Western specialists in East Asian studies well before Jager’s work.
Later, it was published in "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar" that:
“WALS gives 14 languages, all Tibeto-Burman except for Yale (Kosarek), a Trans - New Guinea language , and Rumu , a Tirama - Kikorian language also spoken in Papua New Guinea , with N > Num > Dem and Rel > N order”. (…)WALS gives just one language with Rel > N , N > Num > Dem , and VO order ( i.e. V - to - v movement ) : Bai, a Sino - Tibetan language spoken in Yunnan , China , whose affiliation as Tibeto - Burman or Sinitic is debated [that is, it is not clear, if Bai is a Sinitic language or Tibeto-Burman language]. (…) With N > Rel , N > Num > Dem , and VO order, WALS gives 170 languages. Languages of this type appear to fall into three areal groups: sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia and New Guinea/Polynesia. In the West African areal cluster we find Yoruba, Ewe, and probably Igbo and Gungbe (Gungbe has N > A > Rel > D > Num; see Aboh & DeGraff 2017: 452).”
https://i.ibb.co/MkZ5g38/60.png
At the first sight, the (Yale) Kosarek and Rumu localization in Papua New Guinea cause the association with the Papuan branch of yDNA C1b, or with basal C1b observed in a Laos’s Hoabinhian LA368, who should share some genetic ancestry with Papuans. As for the mentioned East Asian Bai people in Yunnan, their male uniparentals were the following in “Genetic substructure analysis of three isolated populations in southwest China”(the Yunnan Province) http://www.chinagene.cn/EN/10.16288/j.yczz.22-013 :
D-M174: 5.88%
C-M217 2.94%
N-M231 8.82%
O-M175 82.35%
In case of the remote Bai neighbours in terms of the feature N > Rel , N > Num > Dem , and VO order, "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar" chose to point to West Africans, such as Yoruba, in the first place. It is consistent with the belief that if a rather late isolated branch yDNA D0 (of yDNA D-M174) was observed to be split between inhabitants of Arabia and West African Nigeria, West Africa should be considered a priority, despite other more diverse branches of D-M174 inhabiting East Asia and Southeast Asia. However, the basal yDNA D-M174* branch was also observed in the Malaysian Hoabinhian MA911.
Thus, if the distribution of Afroasiatic-like linguistic features were not considered, but at least the distribution of the linguistic features mentioned in "Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar", shared between different populations of the world, were considered, one might suspect yDNA C1b* Hoabinhians (such as LA368) and yDNA D* Hoabinhians (such as MA911) as mediators for populations living in East Asia. Nonetheless, "Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago" discarded the “Out-of-Papua” scenario and also concluded that there is no reliable genetic data on the coming of the Hoabinhians, born in Southeast Asia, to the territory of China.
Before that, the Chinese geneticists were interested in finding the similarities between LA368 and MA911 Hoabinhians on the one hand and populations in China as well as broad East Asia and Eastern Eurasia on the other hand. “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China” produced the following results of genetic similarities of different origin, shared by modern and ancient East Asians with the combined group of LA368 and MA911 Hoabinhians in f3-statistics:
https://i.ibb.co/bd03rrn/61.png
The above article stated that: “The Man Bac result [of similarities, shared with Hoabinhians] is lower than that observed for most other Southeast Asians, and the [Japan Jomon] Ikawazu result is lower or similar to that observed for several present-day East Asians, and ancient individuals from the Tibetan Plateau and coastal northern East Asia.
Thus, the result of similarities, shared with the Hoabinhians, appeared quite similar in the ancient Shandong Boshan (ancient yDNA N-M231-related population from coastal northern East Asia) and the Japan Jomon Ikawazu (yDNA D-M64-related population) in “Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China”. This article also highlighted the role in similarities with the Hoabinhians of the ancient Tibetan Plateau, where not only D-M174-related populations’ ancestries can be observed, but also yDNA CT*, F*, DE*-related populations’ ancestries can be observed in some localizations.
Thus, the search for a more precise route for the distribution of ancient Afroasiatic-like linguistic similarities should continue, in view of the importance of this question for a population residing in China and some other East Asian countries.