Print

Print


Quoting Kevin Athey <[log in to unmask]>:

> >From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001984.html
>
> This is garbage.
>
> First of all, Proto-Austronesians did not, I believe, even come to Flores
> until long after H. florensis became extinct.  Even if that were not the
> case, SO much language change happens in 13,000 years that any trend caused
> by such an interaction would be burried in time.

As pointed out by others, it's entirely possible that H. floresiensis persisted
to much later than 13k years ago.

It seems somewhat ridiculous, tho, to suggest the possibility of floresiensis
creolization after rejecting that of creolization by pre-AN sapiens. Just 'cos
there wasn't plantation slavery doesn't mean no contact languages could arise,
and it seems unclear why floresiensis would be more capable or likely
creolizers than sapiens irrespective of whether slavery figured.

Of course, one shouldd better establish that the languages *are* the result of
creolization before speculation who did it.

                                                        Andreas