Linguistic prehistory is a remarkable subject. It integrates with many other disciplines: archaeology, historical and comparative linguistics, lexicostatistical dating, glottochronology, prehistoric population movements and replacement, mitochrondrial dna genetic popolulation studies and much more...
What do you make of such studies? Are they valuable, helpful? Of great import or of little importance? What are the implications of such studies for culture history, culture process, behavioral human ecology, etc.
What always amazes me is the way some scientists make relationships between early humankind abilities to make different kind of sounds (exploring the structures of skulls and making hypothesis about the possibilities of early languages) and early development of infants structural possibilities for certain sounds (sorry for the approximation...english not my first language). As if there is a way to "read" human developmental history by observing infants development. And maybe vice versa?
Linguistic prehistory is essential for understanding the past of our species. It can be useful for evaluating working hypotheses based on historical, archaeological, or bioanthropological data. In short, it is an essential part of the overall picture.
Here is a attempt at using comparative language studies, combined with archaeological and historical studies, to clarify the roles of the two main language groups of the central valleys of Mexico during the pre-Hispanic period:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317268377
A similar study focusing on the Bajío region, in north central Mexico, is in preparation.
Chapter Otomianos y nahuas: antiguos pobladores del Centro de México
I believe that it is in our past that we learn of potent strategies to face contemporary situations. The same immense relevance is with the study and research into prehistoric linguistics. It is a great source of understanding the etymology of languages and their diacritics. Best regards
Dickson Adom
What always amazes me is the way some scientists make relationships between early humankind abilities to make different kind of sounds (exploring the structures of skulls and making hypothesis about the possibilities of early languages) and early development of infants structural possibilities for certain sounds (sorry for the approximation...english not my first language). As if there is a way to "read" human developmental history by observing infants development. And maybe vice versa?
Alan:
Here's a chapter on the linguistic prehistory of the Bajío, a region in north central Mexico, hot off the virtual press. It has some fresh reflections on the dates from Yutonahuan glottochronology that may be of interest to you:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320256140
When I read about the cognitive and prelinguistic or linguistic abilities of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other hominins based on skull structure I can't help but think of phrenology.
I think it is more about the structure of the larynx or pharynx and their position
Isabelle Faubert I didn't mean that cognitive and prelinguistic or linguistic abilities were linked to bumps on the skull. I meant that the inference from bone structures to features of specific organs (e.g. larynx) and features of the cognitive or neural organization of the brain doesn't seem much better than the inference from phrenology's bumps on the skull to specific mental faculties and their locations in specific areas of the brain. Both sorts of inference make huge evidential leaps, and in the case of hominins there is not even soft tissue available for partial verification.
As the children are becoming more tech savvy and many of them mastering smartphone use before their language development :
Do you think we are having a new linguistic Era?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics