Re: Indo-European family tree (was Re: Celtic and Afro-Asiatic?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:42:32 -0400, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
wrote:

> On 9/22/05, Thomas Wier <trwier@...> wrote:
>>  I will say, though, that I think at least
>> some of these ethnoi were not autochthonous
>
> Oh!  Some of the ethnoi were not autochthonous? Well, that explains
> everything!
> Thanks for clearing that right up!  :)
>
> I (perhaps erroneously) consider myself fairly well-versed in the
> lingo, but that statement has not much more  meaning to me than "some
> of these filiwigs were not zellarite".   :)  I'm guessing an "ethnoi"
> is an "ethnic group"?  Does "autochthonous" mean  "occurring via
> spontaneous outgrowth from the existing population"?
"Some of the ethnic groups were not native to the area they inhabited",
which seems self-evident to me. How many generations of continuous
inhabitation are required to establish nativeness, or must one merely be
first to populate an area?




Paul