Re: Darwinistic or ancient strata?

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Raivo Seppo <uiracocha@H...> wrote:
>
> Does some conlangs, or even natlangs, reflect Darwinistic views? That
> is,
> the words designating apes and men, birds and reptiles, could they be
> cognate? I don´t mean figurativeness ("apeman") but really ancient
> strata in
> language.
(Almost?) Every language's naming system for the species its speakers
are familiar with embodies a folk taxonomy.  This folk taxonomy may, or
may not, be cladistic.  Whether or not it is cladistic, it may, or may
not, be consistent with some theory of evolution.  If it is consistent
with some theory of evolution (such as Hugo de Vries's mutation theory,
Lamarckianism, Lysenkoism, genetic drift, or whatever), this theory
may, or may not, have evolution be responsive to the environment; and
may, or may not, have evolution be selective and based on selection of
survivors.  If all of those "may or may not"s are in fact "may"s, then,
the system will be consistent with -- but not require -- a Darwinian
explanation for evolution.

As a statistical universal,
People's folk taxonomies usually have five levels -- unlike the
Linnaean scientific taxonomy, with its seven (Kingdom, Phylum, Class,
Order, Family, Genus, Species).  (Actually, there are many more; its
just that, these are the seven that every species has.  There are some
groups intermediate between, for instance, Kingdom and Phylum, or Class
and Order, or Family and Genus.)

Another statistical universal;
The most-commonly-used level in everyday speech will almost always be
the middle level.

See
Folk & pre-Linnaean taxonomy (21-Jan-03)
http://www.botany.utoronto.ca/courses/bot300/lectures/300-21-Jan-03.html

Also, read
http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/disk0/00/00/02/67/ijn_00000267_0
0/ijn_00000267_00.pdf
It has a lot of good stuff in it that will help you answer your
questions for yourself, and it's short.

http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/disk0/00/00/01/22/ijn_00000122_0
0/ijn_00000122_00.doc
is longer, but probably clearer, or at least simpler to get into.

-----

Tom H.C. in MI