--- In [log in to unmask], 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 donīt mean figurativeness ("apeman") but really ancient 
> strata in 
> language.

1. First, you are confusing Darwinistic views with Linnaean 

That makes a simple yes-or-no answer to your question complicated; 
either answer would be false.

2.  As for the question; Does any natlang designate apes and men by 
basically the same or very similar words?  The answer is "Yes; indeed 
some people are of the opinion that most languages spoken by peoples 
who have no reading nor writing, but do have contact with great apes, 
call great apes 'people'".  An example is "orang-utan", "man of the 

3.  Linnaeus's taxonomy classifies living things into Kingdom, Phylum, 
Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.  There are two different and 
competing forces involved in this nomenclature; cladism and 
systematism.  Systematism has no underlying theory; but cladism 
basically believes that more similar organisms descended from a more 
recent common ancestor than dissimilar organisms.

4.  Cladism need not be Darwinian.  Lamarkianism was a different 
evolutionary theory than Darwinism.  Cladism need not even be 

5.  Please don't get annoyed by all my numbered paragraphs.  I wasn't 
bawling you out; I was just trying to make my thoughts clear while the 
librariy's loudspeaker was telling me I had to leave in ten minutes.  I 
actually enjoyed your question.


Tom H.C. in MI