Human Map

Human Map
[ 7 Comments #126928 ] Friday January 20, @01:43PM

I thought about the cases of fauna of plants, animals and bacteria in both the Amazon and deserts. I can assume similar conclusion on human fauna here.
Chinese, Americans are semi-single dominant language group or people in the world, occupying large plain in the continent, which is suitable for living by a large number of people.
Geographically complex areas like Caucasus, Balkan, Central Asia and a rim of Russia are occupied by many peoples with small population each.
In talking about language group, the distinction is more apparent. Indo-European and Chinese are two major language groups with huge population, there are so many other languages with as many peoples.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Human Map Log in/Create an Account Top 7 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 7 comments 0: 7 comments 1: 7 comments 2: 4 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads)
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In ancient America(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on Friday January 20, @01:55PM (#14520781) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: Thursday February 02, @04:44PM)
There were the original six nations. While every tribe and villiage had it's own dialect due to a lack of mass communication, those dialects came from a very small number of original starting points. Ainu in Japan and my own ancestor's Kwakiutal-T'Chinook-Klickitat (Nation, Subgroup, Tribe) language contain some of the same roots- as one would expect for Northern Pacific Natives. Lahkota Souix share some of the same roots with the Alloquin, who share some roots with the native Laplander tounge in Europe and with Danish- probably due to Erik the Red's visit ~1000CE. Apache have their own tounge, as do the Cherokee- and Seminole. Navaho is related to Oxcali in Mexico- part of the Mezcalero group in the desert south, the Aztec empire- which is also related to Mayan and Incan.
Re:In ancient America(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on Friday January 20, @02:17PM (#14520997) (http://mercedo-comments.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: Sunday February 05, @12:41PM)
No doubt that here in East Asia the most dominant language is Chinese with population of over 1.3 billion, about 10 times as large as that of this tiny island, and Japanese language is definitely correlated to Korean, Mongolian, central Asian Turkey. Ainu is thought to be one of subdivision of this language group diversified along the rim of very large language group-Chinese.
So, the language of your ancester and that of Japanese along with Ainu are correlated back in thousands of years ago, but because of the domination of Chinese language here, all tribes had to move to the edge of the continent.
Japanese language has no universality, like me who prefer using English will increase more here.[ Parent ]
Re:In ancient America(Score:2)
by Krach42 (227798) on Friday January 20, @08:22PM (#14523746) (http://starport.dnsalias.net/ Last Journal: Friday January 06, @10:24PM)
I think you're refering to the proposed Altaic languages [wikipedia.org]. It's important to note that unlike evolution this actually *is* contested by linguists, and not generally accepted.It's generally widely considered that Ainu is unrelated to Japanese, and while it has been postulated by a number of people that Japanese and Korean are related, it has not been proved at all.Japanese and Korean remain to this day classified as isolation languages, and are generally accepted to have no living relative languages today. It is possible that they were related so far back that we are unable to characterize or prove the relation, but they have certainly not been definitively proven to be related. [ Parent ]
Re:In ancient America(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on Saturday January 21, @04:02AM (#14525254) (http://mercedo-comments.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: Sunday February 05, @12:41PM)
Apart from the superficial resemblance in lots of loan words from China, Korean and Japanese languages are different in their basic terms, but happened to be similar in syntax -how to order the words, both languages would be agglutinative, not reflexive. They both use post position instead of preposition, so when it comes to superficial syntax, the similarlity of two languages are apparent.
But that similarlity doesn't tell at all that two languages have one common parent language long long ago.
As to the superficial similarity in syntax, English and Chinese are astonishingly similar. But nobody claims that two languages are derived from one common parent language. Two languages -English &Chinese happened to aquire similar syntax because their syntax is based on more logical order than others. The more the number of the speaker of the languages increase, the more they are likely to aquire more logical syntax. Logic is based on mathematics, inclusion within a concept, exclusion from the concept are strictly followed by mathematical order, there's no room for others to raise doubt in them.
Latin is more inflective than English, English is more like Chinese analytic, yet Latin and English have two common parent language. Despite many similarities, Korean and Japanese are two different, isolated languages as Basque or Ainu, proposed Altaic language family is illusory.[ Parent ]
Re:In ancient America(Score:2)
by Krach42 (227798) on Saturday January 21, @09:31PM (#14529837) (http://starport.dnsalias.net/ Last Journal: Friday January 06, @10:24PM)
Only recently have I read about Sprachbuende (pl. of Sprachbund) Now that I know about it, Japanese and Korean fit far better under that explanation header than having them in genetic relationship. Doesn't change the matter that many people still insist that Japanese and Korean must have some common ancestor somewhere.As to the superficial similarity in syntax, English and Chinese are astonishingly similar. But nobody claims that two languages are derived from one common parent language. Two languages -English &Chinese happened to aquire similar syntax because their syntax is based on more logical order than others. The more the number of the speaker of the languages increase, the more they are likely to aquire more logical syntax. Logic is based on mathematics, inclusion within a concept, exclusion from the concept are strictly followed by mathematical order, there's no room for others to raise doubt in them.Ok, here you just lost me. Their syntax is no more or less based on logical order than any other language. I don't even know how you could have come up with such idea, unless you're one of those "one language can be superior to another" wackos.I don't know how you can claim English to be based more on logical order than say, Japanese. Let's just compare one single facet, English: tons of irregular verbs, Japanese: one, which they don't really consider a verb.In fact, it can be shown that English has a most similar grammar to most creoles, and thus it is a far more basic, and rudimentary language than most others. [ Parent ]
Re:In ancient America(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on Sunday January 22, @10:00AM (#14532487) (http://mercedo-comments.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: Sunday February 05, @12:41PM)
Their syntax is no more or less based on logical order than any other language.
I agree any language is based on some grammatical order. Of course there's a grammer. I am saying English and Chinses are much more based upon gramatically logical order than Japanese. For example, in English you say 'This is not a pen'. Probably the most logical order must be 'This not is a pen.', since 'is' has to be negated beforehand.
In Japanese we say 'This a pen is not.' This verbal expression is against our logical order of conception. 'A', 'pen', 'is' have to be negated beforehand. Gramatically speaking many order of words are possible, but logics is based on a natural sequence of order of things or objects, incidents. So I said ther's no room for anyone to raise doubt in them.
thus it is a far more basic, and rudimentary language than most others.
English is easy to learn for non-native speakers like me because it is more simple and fundamental than other languages like Japanese, German, French, etc. Latin languages leave many paradigm changes in which English has already lost most of all. Thus I said English is no more reflexive (I mean inflexive), English is more analytical means there's no distinguished paradigm change in it, which is very similar to analytical language like Chinese. For non-native speakers the distinction of is/am/are/ doesn't matter, I be/You be/ He be/ all are fine.[ Parent ]
Re:In ancient America(Score:2)
by Krach42 (227798) on Sunday January 22, @06:16PM (#14534955) (http://starport.dnsalias.net/ Last Journal: Friday January 06, @10:24PM)
I agree any language is based on some grammatical order. Of course there's a grammer. I am saying English and Chinses are much more based upon gramatically logical order than Japanese. For example, in English you say 'This is not a pen'. Probably the most logical order must be 'This not is a pen.', since 'is' has to be negated beforehand.How do you arrive that this is the most logical order? Why is it not more logical to say, ((this) is (not pen)) (German: "dies ist kein Kuli") Why does it have to be the verb that is negated rather than the predicate? What makes this more logical or not? (English: ((this) (is not) (a pen)))In Japanese we say 'This a pen is not.' This verbal expression is against our logical order of conception. 'A', 'pen', 'is' have to be negated beforehand. Gramatically speaking many order of words are possible, but logics is based on a natural sequence of order of things or objects, incidents. So I said ther's no room for anyone to raise doubt in them.Your assumption is that this is the most logical order, but you fail to provide any evidence at all, except an appeal to common sense. I must disagree. If we take for example the ordering of prepositional phrases, in English we have Place-Manner-Time (I will go to the store (place) with my friend (manner) tomorrow (time)), but in both German and Japanese it is Time-Manner-Place (Ich gehe morgen (time) mit meinem Freund (manner) zum Geschaft (place)), and (watashi wa ashita (time) tomodachi to (manner) sakeya ni (place) ikimasu.) Who is to say which is a more logical order? In each language a standard has been dictated, and to deviate makes it sound weird, and it makes it confusing.English is easy to learn for non-native speakers like me because it is more simple and fundamental than other languages like Japanese, German, French, etc.Right, because it's practically a creole, and thus has very simplified syntax. It's all analytical, and not synthetic. This doesn't make English any more superior in except that it is simple to pick up essentially "broken English" but to truely grasp and understand the hojillion different word orders that exist in English and their slight variations of meaning... takes a lifetime.Latin languages leave many paradigm changes in which English has already lost most of all. Thus I said English is no more reflexive (I mean inflexive), English is more analytical means there's no distinguished paradigm change in it, which is very similar to analytical language like Chinese. For non-native speakers the distinction of is/am/are/ doesn't matter, I be/You be/ He be/ all are fine.Correct, but this inflection comes at a simplification and a variety which is not expressable in English. English lacks any reasonable way to make topicative sentences. German and Latin with their casing provide the ability to shift word order to make something else more important, and express the topic of the sentence. "Den Ball habe ich dir gegeben." Thus the only thing that can be done in English is to placce an emphasis upon the word you wish to make the topic, but this just doesn't do it justice: (I gave you *the ball*.)This analytical nature yields ease of speech in some cases, but diminishes other capacities. Every language has made a choice in this manner. They promote one grammatical form over another, and in that they gain something, but at the very same moment, they lose something also.There exists no rightfully placed "fundamental logical order" of language. Your assertion cannot be upheld by anything except an appeal to common sense. [ Parent ]