0

1

Cro-Magnon's Language: Emergence of Homo Sapiens, Invention of Articulated Language, Migrations out of Africa – Kindle Edition

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU & Ivan EVE ASIN: B074DXJM5C US$ 8.00 € 6.81

BACK COVER PRESENTATION Cro-Magnon’s language is an ambitious project in phylogenic linguistics. The objective is to go back to

the shift from animal to human articulated language. Homo Sapiens some 300,000 years ago, found himself endowed with mutations selected by his being a long distance fast bipedal runner: a very low larynx; a complex articulating apparatus; a sophisticated coordinating system bringing together diaphragm, breathing, heartbeat, legs and general body posture. These three physiological improvements permitted new linguistic possibilities: more consonants; more vowels; a brain able to construct a mind both producing and produced by articulated language. This developed the ability to conceptualize and develop abstract thinking.

The phylogeny of language from a purely linguistic and cognitive point of view activates three

articulations to generate human language: vowels and consonants; the morphology of the word from root to stem and then frond; the syntactic structures of utterances. This is based on the communicational syntax conveyed by the human communicational situation that requires the power to conceptualize, both daily procedural communication and inter/intra-generational cognitive and didactic communication.

Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa from previous hominins (Homo Faber or Homo Ergaster) that already

migrated out of Africa to the Middle East and Central Asia where Neanderthals and Denisovans respectively evolved from them. The nest of this evolution is debated due to recent archaeological discoveries, but the first migration was in Africa from sub-Saharan Africa to Northern Africa. Then out of Africa.

I assume the migrations took place every time the phylogeny of language stabilized on the basis of each

articulation. The first migration was on the basis of the simple consonant-vowel articulation producing root languages (all consonantal root languages). The second migration on the basis of the morphological articulation produced stems categorized as nouns or verbs, spatial or temporal. These languages are isolating invariable-character languages. The third migration corresponded to the production of fronds, words syntactically categorized as functional nominals and conjugated verbals ready to build syntactic utterances. The communicational syntax was essential to build discourse in root language and little by little was integrated in langue itself reducing the extension and role of discourse, and in the last forms many categories integrated in words are exteriorized outside the words as determiners, prepositions, auxiliaries, adverbs, thus realizing in langue abstract systems of categorizing operations and forms.

These migrations lead us to three phylogenic linguistic families: consonantal root languages; isolating

invariable-character stem languages; and agglutinative or synthetic-analytical frond languages. These languages spread in the world along with the successive migrations of Homo Sapiens. The answer then to the question about Cro-Magnon’s language is simple and clear: an agglutinative Turkic set of languages and dialects we could call Old European languages to be replaced after the Ice Age by Indo-European languages coming from the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia.

Follow the detail of this exploration in this book, a life-time research and exploration and the first stage of

a vaster research. The next stage is the linguistic psychogenesis of human children and language learners. That next stage will come soon. The final stage will be the exploration of how acculturation-deculturation-acculturation is the very human process of human civilization and corresponds to the Buddhist birth-death-rebirth vision invented in the other branch of Indo-Iranian languages, viz. the Indo-Aryan languages that migrated from the same nest as Indo-European languages but east instead of west.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: OBJECTIVES AND GOALS – PRIMORDIAL CONCEPTS

AND EFFERENT PROCESSES THE INVENTION OF HUMAN LANGUAGE CROSSING PHYLOGENY AND MIGRATIONS OUT OF AFRICA THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF THIS RESEARCH LANGUE DISCOURSE PAROLE COMMUNICATION SYNTAX CONCEPTUALIZATION PHYLOGENY OF LANGUAGE THE THREE PHYLOGENIC LINGUISTIC FAMILIES THE NEST MIGRATIONS AND PHYLOGENY HOMO SAPIENS AND DIVISION OF LABOR HOMO SAPIENS AND MIGRATIONS MIGRATIONS AND LINGUISTIC EXCHANGES OR EVOLUTIONS LEXICOSTATISTICS POST SCRIPTUM

CHAPTER ONE: THE TRIPLE ARTICULATION OF LANGUAGE STARTING POINT: VOWELS AND CONSONANTS HMMMMM COMMUNICATION, A FIRST STEP TOWARDS ARTICULATED LANGUAGE NEANDERTHALS AND SAPIENS: DIFFERENT LINGUISTIC COMPETENCES THE FIRST ARTICULATION OF LANGUAGE WHAT IS THE SECOND ARTICULATION OF LANGUAGE? THE THIRD ARTICULATION OF LANGUAGE A HIERARCHIZED CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE A HIERARCHIZED SYNTACTIC SYSTEM WILLIAM CROFT AND EVENT LEXICALIZATION AND ARGUMENT REALIZATION BACK TO THE SYMBIOSIS OF THE BRAIN AND LANGUAGE

STATE 0 HOLISTIC UTTERANCES

STATE 1 FIRST ARTICULATION

STATE 2 SECOND ARTICULATION

STATE 3 THIRD ARTICULATION

ADJUNCTS, CONJUNCTS, SUBJUNCTS SYNTAX LANGUAGE IS A SUSTAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM

CHAPTER TWO: PHYLOGENY AND MIGRATIONS THE LAST ICE AGE (PEAK AT -19,000 BCE) DO-GOODERS’ ANACHRONISM THE INVENTORS OF LANGUAGE THE MIGRATING SPECIES THE FIRST MIGRATION, THE FIRST LINGUISTIC FAMILY

3

STONEHENGE AND GOBEKLI TEPE THE NEOLITHIC “REVOLUTION” THE “WATCHERS” 1st ARTICULATION LANGUAGES VERSUS 3rd ARTICULATION LANGUAGES SECOND ARTICULATION LANGUAGES

CHINESE, A SITUATIONAL AND CONTEXTUAL LANGUAGE SOME DESCENDANTS OF THE IRANIAN PLATEAU THIRD ARTICULATION LANGUAGE: THEIR MIGRATIONS THE THIRD ARTICULATION LANGUAGE FAMILIES THE CASE OF FATHER

CHAPTER THREE: AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGES VARIOUS APPROACHES OF AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGES

WILLIAM CROFT AND GENETIC LINGUISTICS ALFRED TOTH AND AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGES 3.1. Nominal clause 3.2. Attributive adjective 3.3. Numerus absolutus 3.4. “half; half part” in one of the body parts in pairs 3.5. Noun as adjectival attribute 3.6. Copulative and tautological compounds 3.7. Possessive personal suffixes 3.8. Possessive Relation 3.9. Possessive personal pronouns in determining function 3.10. Possessive personal suffixes with pronouns and numerals 3.11. “habere”, “non habere” 3.12. Postpositions 3.13. Reflexive pronoun 3.14. Interrogative pronoun 3.15. Tripartite case system 3.16. Lative constructions 3.17. Ablative/adessive constructions in comparisons 3.18. Accusative object with and without suffix 3.19. Figura etymologica 3.20. Verbal nouns as verbal forms 3.21. Use of verbal nouns 3.22. Copulative connection of coordinate parts of speech 3.23. Parataxis and verbal adverb instead of hypotaxis 3.24. Yes-no-questions and answering strategies 3.25. Word order OUR CONCLUSION ON SUMERIAN WHAT ABOUT BASQUE? GRAVETTIAN CULTURE: FROM ITALY TO UKRAINE-RUSSIA: BEFORE THE ICE AGE BACK TO AFTER THE ICE AGE EVALUATING THE LENGTH OF THE TRANSITION THE VEDIC RSI

HYMN LXXXVII. Varuṇa.

CHAPTER FOUR: THEO VENNEMANN THEO VENNEMANN: GENERAL BACKGROUND THEO VENNEMANN: VASCONIC

POST- AND PRE-SPECIFICATION: SEMITIC OR TURKIC? THE CASE OF ROMANCE LANGUAGES THEO VENNEMANN: SEMITIC PICTISH AND SEMITIC

4

THEO VENNEMANN AND LINGUISTIC CONTACT HOW SIMILAR ARE SIMILAR THINGS? THEO VENNEMANN: ENGLISH

LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL MAPPING HUMAN REVOLUTION OR HUMAN EVOLUTION?

CHAPTER FIVE: THE MIGRATIONS THE FIRST ARTICULATION MIGRATION THE THIRD ARTICULATION MIGRATION THE SOURTHERN COASTAL CORRIDOR THE SUMERIAN LANGUAGE AGGLUTINATIVE OR POLY-SYNTHETIC A SUMERIAN PROVERB THE SUMERIAN NOUN PHRASE THE AGENTIVE GENITIVE THE SUMERIAN VERB SUMERIAN A VOCALIC LANGUAGE AMBIGUITY RESULTING FROM VOWEL MERGING SUMMARY BINARY VERSUS TERNARY INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES BRAJ BASI LAL AND ANATOLIAN, KURGAN AND OTHER I/E HOMELANDS B.B. LAL AND HIS HARAPPAN APPROACH NASIDZE AND GENETIC EVIDENCE

CHAPTER SIX: DARWINIZATION IN QUESTION

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW DARWIN IN MORE DEPTH DARWIN’S THE DESCENT OF MAN

DARWIN AND LANGUAGE STEPHEN L. ZEGURA PHILIP LIEBERMAN MODERN LINGUISTIC PHYLOGENIC APPROACHES THE USE OF SWADESH LISTS BASIC VALUE OF SWADESH LISTS WHAT ABOUT JOSEPH GREENBERG AND MULTILATERAL COMPARISON? THE RICHNESS OF LANGUAGE SUMMARY

CHAPTER SEVEN: WHERE GUSTAVE GUILLAUME MEETS WITH SALLY McBREARTY

ROOT VERSUS WORD START WITH THE WORD (OR ROOT) AND AIM AT SYNTAX THE CASE OF THE NOMINAL DETERMINER BACK TO THE CONTEXT: DESCENT vs RECONSTRUCTION OVERPOWERING METHODOLOGY AN ALTERNATIVE TO LEXICOSTATISTICS A LANGUAGE IS A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS SALLY McBREARTY AND HER STAND AGAINST THE NEOLITHIC REVOLUTION SALLY McBREARTY AND GENETICS ASTRONOMICAL (AND ASTROLOGICAL) KNOWLEDGE

5

1967-1968 Athénée de Ngiri Ngiri, Kinshasa, French teacher, Cours Descartes, Kinshasa, English teacher,

Canadian Embassy, French teacher to English speaking secretaries 1969-1970 French Teacher in Dunn High School, North Carolina. 1973-1974 Fulbright Scholarship at Davis, California. 1973-1974 Teaching Assistant in English literature at University of California at Davis. 1980-1995 Jean Rostand technical and industrial high school in Roubaix, Nord, Teaching English high school

and college level in robotics, audiovisual technology and art, industrial computing technology and science, network technology, industrial maintenance.

1991-1992 English teacher, National Police Academy in Roubaix-Hem. 1990-1995 Prof. of English grammar & translation, Université Lille III in Roubaix, Applied Languages

Department. 1999-2001 English Prof., MS in Managing Science, Université Paris IX Dauphine 2000-2001 English Prof., DESS (Post grad. degree), Industrial Property, Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas 2002-2003 English Prof., Multimedia Communications and Tourism, Université Perpignan at Mende 2003-2008 English Prof., Payroll-management, Université Paris Dauphine 2005 (Aug-Nov) Prof. of the English of Buddhism at Pali university of Dambulla at Pidurangala 2005-2010 Université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, English Prof. (history, philosophy, geography, fine arts,

MA political science, history of audiovisual art, history of technology and techniques) 2007-2009 English Prof. Marketing of Sustainable Solutions, Vocational BA, IUT Mantes en Yvelines,

Université Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines 2009-2010 English Prof., economics and management, Université Paris 12 Val de Marne at Créteil 2009-2010 English Prof., ICT, Université Paris 8 Vincennes Saint Denis 2008-2014 English Prof., Payroll management for SynopsisPaie, Nice, vocational further higher education at

CEGID University, Boulogne-Billancourt, France 2014-2016 English Prof., Payroll management for SynopsisPaie, Nice, vocational further higher education at

SEFOREX, Levallois-Perret, France

6 years spent in foreign countries: 1 year in North Carolina USA, 1 year in California USA, 1 year in Zaïre (Kinshasa), 3 months (2005, August-November) in Sri Lanka on research with an NGO attached to the UNESCO site of Sigiriya, numerous shorter periods in Great Britain, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany (East and West), Austria, among others

SOME RECENT SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS (since 2013) « The Dhammapada, Chapter 25 Bhikkhu Vagga, Verse 364 » in Percutio n° 7, Titus Books, Auckland New Zealand & Paris France, 2013 Dr Jacques COULARDEAU & Ivan EVE, Illustrations Annunzio COULARDEAU, “SUPERNATURAL” CAR CHASE OR JOY RIDE?, Editions La Dondaine, Olliergues, France, 28 mars 2013, KINDLE DIRECT PUBLISHING, Amazon.com/.co.uk/.fr/.de/.it/.es/etc. Jacques COULARDEAU & Paula OSORIO, “Colonization and Decolonization in the US and Mexico” in IMAGES OF DÉCOLONIZATION IMAGES DE LA DÉCOLONISATION, With an Introduction by/Avec une introduction de Cornelius CROWLEY, Edited by/Sous la direction de Geetha GANAPATHY-DORE & Michel OLINGA, Academic committee: Cornelius Crowley, Michel Naumann, Geetha Ganapathy-Doré, Michel Olinga, SARI (Société d’activités et de recherches sur le monde indien) Cergy-Pontoise, 2013, http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/82/15/22/PDF/IMAGES_OF_DECOLONIZATION.pdf PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE ET INDUSTRIELLE :DROITS D’AUTEUR, PATRIIMONIAUX ET MORAUX,COPYRIGHT ET BREVETSDES DROITS DE L’HOMME FONDAMENTAUX, Report for the Syndicat National des Auteurs et des Compositeurs (SNAC), online Open Access, on Dr Jacques

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU Birth Date and Place: 18 02 45 BORDEAUX (33) France Nationality: FRENCH Home address: 8 rue de la Chaussée - F-63880 OLLIERGUES Home Telephone: (33) 04 73 95 59 17 email: dondaine@orange.fr

http://drjacquescoulardeau.blogspot.fr/; http://independent.academia.edu/JacquesCoulardeau

6

COULARDEAU’s personal page at Independent.Academia.com at http://www.academia.edu/3172920/PROPRIETE_INTELLECTUELLE_ET_INDUSTRIELLE, April 2013 HANDEL'S AGRIPPINA MODERN INTERPRETATIONS AND THE ROLE OF COUNTERTENORS [Format Kindle] Jacques COULARDEAU (Auteur), Ivan EVE (Auteur), Annunzio COULARDEAU (Illustrations) Editions La Dondaine; 11 avril 2013 KINDLE DIRECT PUBLISHING, Amazon.com/.co.uk/.fr/.de/.it/.es/etc. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, A UNIVERSAL LESSON IN CONSTITUTIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS, Jacques COULARDEAU (Auteur), Ivan EVE (Auteur), Editions La Dondaine (July 19, 2013), KINDLE DIRECT PUBLISHING, Amazon.com/.co.uk/.fr/.de/.it/.es/etc. “Samuel Beckett ou la damnation de l’humanité”, in Théâtres du Monde n° 23, Université d’Avignon, Association de Recherches Internationales sur les Arts du Spectacle, Avignon, 2012, p. 201-230 SIGIRI GRAFFITI, Bilingual edition French-English, Jacques COULARDEAU, Editions La Dondaine (September 3, 2013), KINDLE DIRECT PUBLISHING, Amazon.com/.co.uk/.fr/.de/.it/.es/etc (Ivan EVE, research assistant/assistant de recherche) « Commerce maritime, plateforme d’échanges portuaires par conteneur : la réémergence de l’Océan Indien au niveau mondial », in Deborah JENNER & Malou L’HÉRITIER (eds), Espace Mondialisation, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2013 « Sécularisme et Bouddhisme Theravada, Dhammapada et liberté mentale », in Évelyne Hanquart-Turner & Ludmilla Volná, Education et Sécularisme, Perspectives africaines et asiatiques, Centre de recherches « Civilisations et Identités Culturelles Comparées des Sociétés Européennes et Occidentales » (CICC-EA2529), Paris L’harmattan, 2014 “Pakistani Islam and escapism, Dandyism away from the shariah”, in Marie-Noëlle ZEENDER, ed., THYRSE n° 5, Le Dandysme et ses representations, Paris, L’harmattan, 2014, p. 139-157 SHADOW IN THE NIGHT, SIGIRIYA SHINY LADIES, Bilingual English and French Edition, Translated from the Sigiri Graffiti of Sigiriya, Historical English and French Introduction, Jacques COULARDEAU, Publication Amazon Kindle, July 13, 2014 « Du temps historique au temps spirituel : Hanay Geiogamah et la renaissance indienne », in Théâtres du Monde n° 24, Université d’Avignon, Association de Recherches Internationales sur les Arts du Spectacle, Avignon, 2014, p. 255-281 « Faust de Goethe d’Edmond Rostand, une création de Philippe Bulinge », in Théâtres du Monde n° 24, Université d’Avignon, Association de Recherches Internationales sur les Arts du Spectacle, Avignon, 2014, p. 339-348 “The Abhidhamma and the Ecology of the Mind,” in LITERARY ORACLE, Vol I, Issue I, Jan-June 2014, New Delhi, India, Worldwide Circulation through Authorspress Global Network, Copyright (C) 2014 Editor, Editor-in-Chief Shruti Das, Managing Editor Sudarshan Kcherry http://www.authorspressbooks.com/book_detail.php?preference=443&j=y « M’enfin j’en ai le tournis », in Percutio n° 8, 2014, Bill Direen, ed., Editions de Titus, Dunedin, New Zealand, http://titus.co.nz, © october 2014 LOONY-LU & LULU, THE BELOVED SACRIFICED TO AND BY THE BELOVED, A MYSTICAL PARODY, Jacques COULARDEAU, Olliergues, Publication Amazon Kindle, November 12, 2014, « Le Bouddhisme et le défi mental ou l’Abhidhamma et l’écologie de l’esprit » in Karima ZEROUALI, À REBOURS : une autre mondialisation, Luttes et identités, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2014. « Le défi de la christianisation d'un mythe oral celte: Tristan et Yseult » (33-60) & NOTES DE LECTURE : « James V. Hatch & Ted Shine, eds. Black Theater USA. Plays by African Americans. The Recent Period 1935-Today » (357-366), in Théâtres du Monde, numéro 25, Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, Association de Recherches Internationales sur les Arts du Spectacle, Avignon, mai 2015. “James Baldwin” & “Marcus Garvey,” entries in The Encyclopedia of Postcolonial Studies (EPC); ISBN 978-1-4443-3498-2, published in print on 4th January 2016, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, United States THE INDIAN OCEAN FROM ADMIRAL ZHENG HE TO HUB AND SPOKE CONTAINER MARITIME COMMERCE, co-auteur Ivan EVE, Amazon Kindle, Janvier 2016, « Philosophie et religion chez Voltaire : Le Fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète (1741), Traité sur la tolérance (1763) et Les Guèbres, ou la tolérance (1769) » : Note de Lecture, « Jean Racine, Athalie », in Théâtres du Monde, numéro 26, Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, Association de Recherches Internationales sur les Arts du Spectacle, Avignon, mai 2016 “The music of love or Juno’s capriccios,” in Maurice Abiteboul, Lectures d’une oeuvre “As You Like It” de William Shakespeare, Le temps éditeur, Pornic, 2016 Freedom of Expression and Copyright (1100-2016), The Foundations of All liberties, (Research, 210 pages), Editions La Dondaine, March 13, 2017, Language: English, Amazon Kindle ASIN: B06XNJZ4W6

7

Freedom of Expression and Copyright (1100-2016), The Foundations of All liberties, (Documents, 550 pages) Editions La Dondaine, Free Open Access, uploaded March 12, 2017 https://www.academia.edu/31829015/Freedom_of_Expression_and_Copyright_The_Foundations_of_All_Liberties, “Benjamin Britten, L’étranger, l’enfant et la mort dans ses operas,” in Théâtres du Monde, n° 27, Université d’Avignon et des Pays du Vaucluse, Association de Recherches Internationales sur les Arts du Spectacle, Collection Théatrum Mundi, Mai 2017, p. 154-186

Some Perspective

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU, PhD in Germanic Linguistics (University Lille III) and ESP Teaching

(University Bordeaux II) has been teaching all types of ESP, especially technological, scientific and historical ESP. He has done research in the fields of English and American literatures, drama and arts; opera, cinema and television at a global level; general linguistics with particular emphasis on Germanic, Indo-European, African and more recently Indo-Aryan languages, as well as Pāli and Sumerian. He spent some time in Africa, the USA and many countries in Europe, and more recently Sri Lanka where he studied Buddhism and oriental spirituality. His present research covers the “language of Cro-Magnon” and the emergence of language among Homo Sapiens, the phylogenic and psychogenetic emergence of human language, and further studies on opera, drama and cinema, including mythological contacts between Indo-European and Turkic traditions and cultures. He is vastly published in many countries in all these fields and on the internet.

More recently Ivan EVE has been assisting him in his main research on the emergence of human

language and co-authoring an important project on the TV series Supernatural, after having co-authored an article on “Sri Lanka: from the arrival of Homo Sapiens to the Indian Ocean as a maritime Hub” published by a New Zealander publisher and assisted on the paper on the re-emergence of the Indian Ocean in global maritime commerce.

In the same way Paula OSARIO is co-authoring another important project on the role of Indian women in

the colonization of Central and Northern America (La Malinche, Sacagawea, Pocahontas and Black Indians). This project led to a major publication in 2013.

He taught up to 2016 within the CEGID (Compagnie Européenne de Gestion par l'Informatique

Décentralisée, European Management Company by Distributed Computing; established in 1983) for the Groupement des professionnels de paie et de gestion (Synopsis paie, Centre of pay-roll management professionals) in Nice, after having taught in many Paris universities up to 2010, including Panthéon-Sorbonne and Assas-Panthéon within the Sorbonne itself, Vincennes-Saint Denis, Créteil and Dauphine..

He has published at KDP-Amazon so far ten books, five of fiction and poetry, 1- Right At The Bottom of The Urn, 2- Tripping Endlessly All Along The Downfall, 3- L’Apocalypse selon Saint Jean, Sigiri Graffiti, 4- Ilya and Vanya, 5- Loony-Lu & Lulu or The Beloved Sacrificed to and by the Beloved, A Mystical Parody, AN

UNTELLABLE STORY, A dramatic Confession, THE NINETEEN STATIONS OF SARAPHIC LOVE,

plus four of research with Ivan EVE, and the recent Freedom of Expression and Copyright (1100-2016), The Foundations of All liberties (check list of publications) in 2017.

He has also published a shorter article on the Dhammapada (Verse 364) and its translations in Percutio

N°7, 2013, at http://titus.books.online.fr/. Verse 364 presented along with several different common translations into English and his own translations into English and French.

He is an active Independent Researcher on Academia.edu for several years with a great number of

papers published at https://synopsispaie.academia.edu/JacquesCoulardeau

8

+ 33 (0)6 75 39 55 47 ivan.eve@greentertainment.com 24 rue Saint-Joseph, 75002 Paris

Ivan EVE Born on 13/05/1991 – 26

years old Working languages: English /

French Driver’s licence

CONSULTANT & JOURNALIST MEDIA, DIGITAL, CULTURE

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES

2017 (in going) :

Digital strategy

Social Media Manager

Editorial strategy & brand content

CONSULTANT – BRAINSONIC

Expert of the Innovation & Services department

In charge of the digital section for Localtis, more than 150 articles published

In charge of the content for the hardback information letter Autoroutes de l’Information et

Territoires, more than 10 publications

JOURNALIST – TACTIS/EVS

CONSEIL

Missions for institutional actors in the cultural and media fields

In charge of the publications

JUNIOR CONSULTANT – THINK & ACT

2015 (6 months) :

2 MASTERS, 2 LICENCES – Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

2014-15 : - Master 2 (Vocational) Ethires : Applied Ethics : Environmental & social responsibility 2012-14 : - Master 2 Cinema 2009-12 : - Licences History & Political science

MULTIDISCIPLINARY BACKGROUND

HOBBIES

Research assistant for Dr. J. Coulardeau (linguist), and published author at Editions La Dondaine.

Owner and manager of greentertainment.com, a website dedicated to the synergies between sustainable

development and the cultural & entertainment industries.

A curiosity for the world with almost 40 countries under my belt, and a 6 months journey (from January

to July 2017) across Oceania, South & North America and more than 12 years in South-East Asia.

2015-16 (17months) :

9

INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES AND GOALS

PRIMORDIAL CONCEPTS AND EFFERENT PROCESSES

The present research is extremely complex because it crosses several scientific fields that have never been crossed before for the simplest reason that archaeologists are not phylogenic linguists and phylogenic linguists are not archaeologists, and strangely enough an archaeological team will not integrate in its daily work a phylogenic linguist and in the same way a phylogenic linguistic team will not integrate an archaeologist. We can regret it but it is a fact. That’s why it is necessary to explain the general goal of this research that tries to cross these various fields.

THE INVENTION OF HUMAN LANGUAGE The language of Homo Sapiens is unique in the world in the fact that it is articulated and it is built with

three successive and hierarchically organized articulations. This is the result of what is called the phylogeny of language. The validation of this phylogeny is in the psychogenetic acquisition of language (first and foreign languages) by children, teenagers and adults. This is pure linguistics and the very first linguist who dedicated a lot of energy to the subject of what he called the “glossogeny” of language was Gustave Guillaume, particularly in his lectures in 1958-59 and in 1959-60 (the last lecture of January 28, 1960 was delivered five days before his death at the age of 77).i He too saw three stages in that process of the emergence of human language. He centered that complex emergence on what he called “thought” [pensée] and he advocated the idea that thought was building language at the same time as it was being built by language. This idea of simultaneous and mutually generating thought and language is an idea I would favor though I would also shift it slightly towards a more mental process centered on the ability of the brain to discriminate patterns in the continuous flow of sensations received from all senses and physiological sensors in the body, then to identify and to conceptualize these patterns by using language to name them. The invention of referential words to name such patterns developed language and the ability of the brain to discriminate and conceptualize such patterns. Language develops along with conceptualization that develops along with language.

This phylogeny of language is based on the three levels of morphological growth of the word in

languages. First the root, second the stem and third the frond. The root only identifies and conceptualizes a semantic meaning which is not captured as spatial or

temporal, as nominal or verbal. This root is not categorized, meaning it does not carry in itself such a category or part of discourse that would make it a nominal (spatial) element or a verbal (temporal) element. In the same way this root does not carry in itself any function, gender, number, extension on one hand or tense, mode, aspect, person, number on the other hand. All these elements are attached to the roots within the discursive production of linguistic utterances. These root languages are thus constructed on the basis of only the first articulation between consonants and vowels integrated in the langue of such languages. All the rest is discourse.

10

The stem is a categorized linguistic item and it carries nothing else but a nominal or verbal categorization added to the meaning of the root. The words produced at this level are invariable and all other elements like function, gender, number, extension on one hand or tense, mode, aspect, person, number on the other hand are added around these items by the discursive process itself producing utterances. These languages are thus built on the second articulation between spatial and temporal elements due to the conceptualization of space and time by the human mind and their integration in the langue of the concerned languages, a langue that is entirely built on these conceptualized categorical elements. All the rest then is discourse.

The frond is an item that carries nominal and verbal categories and may also carry function, gender,

number, extension on one hand or tense, mode, aspect, person, number on the other hand. The words are thus ready to build utterances in the discursive process that will associates these fronds together. The langue of such languages has integrated such syntactic elements by conceptualizing the very communicational situation. All that it has not integrated in this communicational situation is discourse.

Note these three levels are present in the languages that are based on such fronds, that have reached

the third articulation, that of fully or vastly integrated communicational syntax in the words themselves. English for instance with some words like “work” have kept or recreated some kind of root items since the word “work” itself is not clearly categorized and seems to be invariable in many uses. Yet it is categorized too and thus it is a stem since it can be used without any change as a noun or as a verb, and at the same time it is a frond because it can carry in some other uses special nominal or verbal marks. The following utterance does not say whether the word “work” is a noun or a verb.

“Work, work, always work!”

Actually it can be both. First a noun: “Work, work, always work! No doubt work is an admirable thing!”ii Second a verb: “You must work, child, work, work, always work.”iii It is common in Indo-European languages or Indo-Aryan languages (both third articulation languages or

frond languages) to have words that are built on roots categorized in a way or another as nominal or verbal stems and then carrying various marks that make them be fronds. Think of the noun “food” versus the verb “feed” from the Proto Indo-European root *pa-. “Food” is a frond since it is neuter in gender, can carry a plural mark, can have articles attached to it, plus adjectives, plus attachments or agreement rules for person and number, etc. “Feed” is a verb since it can be conjugated (“feed,” “feeds,” “fed,” “feeding” and all other temporal or modal constructions) and it can carry agreement rules for person and number, etc.

CROSSING PHYLOGENY AND MIGRATIONS OUT OF AFRICA This phylogeny is based on the observation of many languages. But the originality of this research is that

we cross this phylogeny with the migrations out of Africa and the languages these migrations produced. The

11

oldest migration produced root languages (Hamito-Semitic languages). The middle migration produced stem languages (isolating character languages). The final migration produced frond languages (agglutinative and synthetic-analytical languages).

Founding then this work on a simple observation about the conservative linguistic behavior of any

people, individuals or groups, leaving their linguistic communities, we considered that the three great migrations left the African nest of humanity at the three important stages of the phylogenic development of human language in the nest, thus freezing it at the level it had reached when they left.

As you can see I start from what Greenberg and his school have asserted and proved, that all human

languages had only one original source. Then I integrate what archaeology has been discovering for twenty or twenty-five years proving all humanity started in Africa with a completely different time-agenda for the migrations out of Africa. I then integrate the results of genetic research that is speeding up so much that it becomes difficult to follow it, but it has proved only the Africans who have never been in genetic contact with people from outside Africa do not have the Neanderthals or Denisovan genetic heritage all other human beings outside Africa have, which is the proof Africa was the starting block since Neanderthals and Denisovans could only be met outside Africa.

It is on the basis of these fields of research that I can articulate the phylogeny of language and the

migrations out of Africa. The linguistic families I propose are thus based on this phylogeny of language and satisfy at the same time archaeological and genetic results.

Thus we can ask and answer the question of the “origin of language.” Language is not something given

from who knows whom, what, where and how, not to mention when, but language is a human invention developed in a strictly defined environment on the basis of physiological mutations selected naturally to make Homo Sapiens a fast bipedal long distance runner confronted to a strong communicational need if not obligation to simply survive, on the basis of the communicational abilities of their non Homo Sapiens ancestors. Note Neanderthals and Denisovans are not ancestors of Homo Sapiens but they descend from the same ancestors, which implies these pre-Homo-Sapiens ancestors are also pre-Neanderthals and pre-Denisovan ancestors, implying further that these Homo Faber (or whatever other name you give them) had already migrated far out of Africa, assuming Neanderthals and Denisovans continued their migration, hence went to Europe and spread in Asia, which implies their ancestors came from Africa.

The communicational situation is then seen as the matrix of the very syntax of all human languages, a

matrix that exists outside any individual man himself, though it contains all these individuals in social interrelations, and outside human language itself, though this outside communicational situation is integrated by the phylogenic process into the langue of human language, progressively from one stage to the next. Yet this strict outside communicational situation remains active after the invention of language because it is needed to compensate for what the langue has not integrated, and no langue of no language has integrated the whole communicational situation. It is this communicational situation that will enable children to learn the language or languages they are confronted to. There is no Universal Grammar in some kind of genetically inherited black box: there is only the human brain that discriminates patterns in sensorial impulses and then uses the articulatory power of man’s body (mainly the larynx, the glottis, the mouth, the tongue and the lips, plus the coordinating Broca area of the brain) to give “names” to these patterns and thus to develop human conceptualization and this power will enable the child to conceptualize everything: vowels and consonants, space and time and the communicational situation itself, and there you have the three articulations and vast families of languages.

This research then opens up new vistas in phylogenic linguistics where we meet Gustave Guillaume and

a few others, but also (though it is not concerned in this here research, but will be later in a second part of the research) in psychogenetic linguistics where we meet Jean Piaget, L.S. Vygotsky, and many other psychologists, linguists and didacticians.

The main conclusion is that communication is potentially equal all over the world: any language can

potentially express anything it wants to express with the langue it contains and the communicational situation and syntax that contain the human speakers. Here we definitely meet people like Paul Radin, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Margaret Mead and many others who refused to consider some languages as more apt to express abstract ideas than others. The communicational situation and its syntax are the same, absolutely similar for all

12

human beings. What varies is the level of required communication that depends on the situation in which this communication occurs. You generally do not discuss the latest progress in nuclear science and technology with your cows while taking care of them on your farm, if you are a farmer, because you cannot really get a response on the subject from these cows. That does not mean your language could not discuss this abstract subject if you were required to do so and if you had the knowledge necessary.

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF THIS RESEARCH The very first cluster of concepts we have to clarify are coming from Saussure and have become in their

neo-Saussurian forms a standard in linguistics. Saussure was speaking of “langage = langue + parole” which is practically untranslatable in English because the two French words “langage” and “langue” only have one equivalent in English, “language,” which explains why the word “langue” has been imported into English.

LANGUE This langue is the potential linguistic system constructed from Homo Sapiens’ circumstantial, existential,

experiential, situational and phenomenological need to communicate, a construction that is generated by the brain into the mind. This langue is a construct of the brain and the essential part of the mind on the basis of which all mental constructions will have to be developed. This concept of langue is not problematic in itself. It is only problematic in what some want to impose onto it: the innateness of some Universal Grammar. We will insist in our work that this is not the case. All abstract concepts or notions are constructed the way I have just said because the brain works in such a way that it isolates, identifies and then later recognizes patterns, small or big, single or composite, in the constant flow of nervous impulses coming from all the sensors and of course first of all the various senses and their organs in the body. This ability is the very basis of the power to conceptualize, but there cannot be any conceptualization if first “names” cannot be given to these patterns and if the need to conceptualize and to communicate these concepts to other fellow humans cannot be fulfilled for the very basic urgency to survive as an individual within a social group and within a species. It is this basic need to socially organize their survival that led Homo Sapiens to use the articulatory and phonological means the various mutations that made him a fast long-distance bipedal runner to propose, which means invent, language. And from this circumstantial, existential, experiential, situational and phenomenological need to conceptualize and communicate in order for the individual, the group and the species to survive, the whole syntax is invented, deducted and devised before being designed, in agreement with local elements. And since the trauma of birth, the trauma of long infantile dependence and the trauma of extreme weakness in front of the mostly hostile environment are basically the same for all humans since the mutated Homo Sapiens emerged from Homo Faber in Africa, the syntax of this langue will be altogether very similar among all humans, since it is derived from this situation. Language is the positive invention of the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome of the emergence of Homo

13

Sapiens as a species. Communication existed before Homo Sapiens but among monkeys and apes it was essentially a code of calls and signals, not an articulated language. Among Homo Faber and other Homonins the codes of signals and calls might have been more complex but the question is whether they had nor not the rotation of vowels and consonants that really produces the concepts of vowels and consonants and the power of phonological articulation.

I insist here on the fact that the concepts of the langue we are speaking of are directly derived

from the environment by human mental conceptualization and on the fact that the basic syntactic architecture of the langue is directly derived from the circumstantial, existential, experiential, situational and phenomenological need to communicate in order for the individual, group and species to survive.

DISCOURSE But this langue can be built in the mind only because Homo Sapiens is able to speak that langue into

what neo-Saussurians call discourse, which is a vague hence incorrect practical word. I just said the concepts cannot exist if they cannot be spoken. It is the speaking or utterance of the concepts that makes the concepts real, otherwise they would never become effective. We can be sure many animals do build in their minds such “abstract notions” but they do not have human articulated language to make these “abstract notions” effective beyond some sensorial instinctive reaction. And this effectiveness is essential because the conceptualization we are speaking of and the langue itself develop along with this vocalization of human mental concepts. We keep this notion of “concept” in an undifferentiated state though we know that there are many psychogenetically important levels of conceptualization and we do transfer these levels into the phylogeny of abstract thinking. In fact, it works exactly in the reverse order: the phylogeny of conceptualization builds a sequence of logical steps of complexification and it is this sequence of lexical complexification that survives in the psychogenetic acquisition of this hierarchical sequential conceptualization. But it is not the place now to speak of it. Neither will I consider here the case of Homo Faber seen as the ancestor of Homo Neanderthalensis, Denisova Homininsiv and Homo Sapiens in three different locales. The question is not to know whether they all had or not a certain level of conceptualization, but to know whether they had the same level of articulatory power that could support a similar level of articulated language to that of Homo Sapiens. My basic idea here is that it was not the case and that this limited articulatory power also limited the production of abstract conceptualization and articulated language itself.

14

PAROLE Beyond this first concept of langue we have to come to the second concept that cannot be discourse,

but has to be parole to follow Gustave Guillaume. But this concept of parole is not equivalent to that of speech used by some linguists. This parole is first of all a potential: it is the potential vocalization of the concepts that are being born in the self-constructing mind of Homo Sapiens. The need to communicate requires this vocalization to happen, hence these abstract notions to emerge from the identification and recognition of patterns that have to find a material realization that can be transmitted from one individual to another, hence a medium that can carry these notions among human beings, and that tool is the voice of man, the articulated sounds man can produce. This is the effective parole corresponding to the potential parole the way it exists in the mind as the conceptualization of the sounds themselves used to vocalize the lexical and syntactic concepts. This potential parole is not part of langue but part of the mind, a construct of the mind.

In the mind the potential communicational system that is produced by the conceptualization of the

concrete communication Homo Sapiens experiences is composed of the langue (itself composed of the various concepts reached by the mind and the syntactic architecture conceptualized by the mind from everyday experience) and of the potential parole. These two potential complex and composite elements in the mind cannot develop and cannot exist if they do not find a medium to carry them out of the mind into communication. And that medium is the physical purely auditory and spoken vocalization of the various concepts and syntactic structures. I can only agree here with Gustave Guillaume who considers the concept of discourse as in no way phylogenic nor psychogenetic. The concept of discourse describes the medium used by parole to shift itself from a potential to a reality. In other words, the concept of discourse is only capturing the phenomenon from the outside end of it and thus it misses the mental end of this enormous invention of Homo Sapiens, articulated language. In other words, it reduces the fundamental cognitive dimension of the mind, the conceptualization it produces, the language it develops from this conceptualization under the pressure of the environment and of the need to communicate. It reduces it to some practical procedure that has no genesis. It does not have to do with the construction and transmission of knowledge any more but with only the direct exchange between individuals. And it forgets this has been purely oral for some 300,000 years and written only for some 5,000 years. The invention of writing is awesome in a way but the new media it brought to light and to existence are nothing but the subsequent transposition of what is first of all and above all always and forever oral shifting then to some non-oral media. In other words, the term discourse reduces up oral language to the lips and tongue movements and written language to the stylus or the pen and to the clay tablet or the paper. There would have been no written language if oral language had not produced in the mind of the speakers the possible conceptualization of that very orality.

I will use the concept “discourse” and its derivatives “discursive situation,” “discursive need or

obligation,” and some more but always keeping in mind that these discursive developments cannot in anyway be cut off from their basic “parole” existence before and deeply inside the mind. Present media like smart phones are proving the point. In English there would be no “IOU” (that existed a long time before smart phones) or “I4U” or whatever other message of that type without understanding that the oral dimension, the parole dimension is first and foremost primordial and essential.

We can see then that the concept of language is ambiguous because it covers both the human ability to

use articulated languages and the very articulated languages used by it. It is both the ability and the tools, the potential and the material reality, the concept and the object it designates.

But what is communication?

15

COMMNICATION There cannot be any communication without a communicational situation and a communicational need

around and in the participants in this situation. It is this situation that contains all the basic elements that will build the syntax of any language by their own conceptualization into thematic functions and operative relations. It is in this communicational situation that time and space are differentiated, space first and time on the model of space, because space is easier to conceptualize since we can touch it. It is this communicational situation that produces basic syntactic notions often seen as choices that are purely opportunistic to the circumstantial, existential, experiential, situational and phenomenological need to communicate. It is the case with the choice between an ergative or a transitive syntax. It is the case with the choice between an active or a passive syntax. In discursive communication a full syntax has been conceptualized by Homo Sapiens: it is the syntax of the discursive communicational situation itself. This full syntax then gets mapped differently according to the level of syntactic integration of each particular language or family of languages. Part of this syntax is integrated in the langue of a particular language and the rest of the full syntax will be entrusted to other means than the langue itself, hence discursive means like word order, intonation and tone, body language, deictic language (pointing at items for example like so many in computer direct instruction: “you do this, press that button, etc.” along with the manual demonstration of it) and many other non-linguistic means of expression that could be music, pictures or whatever a creative person can invent. Langue syntax includes the potential parole which explains that the use of vowels in Semitic languages is partly conceptualized in the langue of these languages, but only partly since the langue is based on a lexicon of roots and not words.

SYNTAX We can come to a simple formula first for syntax:

16

And then the same for the full communicational act:

What we have to keep in mind is that all syntax is the conceptualization into the architecture of a

language of the relations between the members of the human community inventing and developing their language in their daily communication that is first of all oral, and eventually using other medium-generated means like body language, writing, images and pictures, animated pictures, etc.

CONCEPTUALIZATION At this point I have used the concept of conceptualization without explaining what it may mean for man.

I have said that the brain only receives an influx of nervous electric impulses from the senses and other corporeal sensors. The vast parallel organ that the brain is can capture patterns in this continuous influx. This is not typically human. This discrimination enables the brain to shift from pure sensations to perceptions. That’s where conceptualization is going to come into being and effectiveness. The brain will store the patterns and identify them with some code. The ability to produce “words” will bring this identification to the higher level of naming. A name is different from an animal call: an animal call is always produced in the presence of what it refers to, whereas a human name of some item can be used in the absence of this item: a wan can cry wolf in the absence of a wolf. A monkey will not cry eagle in the absence of an eagle. An ape can bring letter cubes together to spell “dog” or whatever but that ape has to be confronted to the experimental incitation to do so: the presence of the experimenter is essential, be it only to report the action of the ape. Have two apes been confronted in the absence of any experimenter and have they produced such letter cube compositions with any meaningful impact from one ape to the other? Have two apes gotten into communication using letter cubes

17

without the presence of any experimenter, and even so this experiment would not be their natural experiential circumstances. The patterns discriminated by human beings receive names and thus become mental linguistic items. That is the first step of conceptualization. Homo Sapiens had to do a lot more.

He experimented on those objects he projected in his mind as useful in a way or another, for one

purpose or another, an experimentation that is performed in real life. This experimentation led him to speculation about why and how things were produced or could be produced. From this experimentation and speculation all human inventions were possible from simple weapons and tools (partly inherited) to hunting, fishing, foraging, fire, preparing food and clothes, organizing their living and working space, building temporary or permanent habitat, domesticating animals, developing agriculture, etc., including of course writing which will accelerate the movement, but it is always accompanied with language and communication to inform others, to discuss what is found or proposed, etc.

It is from and after this experimentation and speculation that conceptualization found its highest point

with what will become philosophy, poetry, literature, religion, science and technology. Each concept might have required one generation of 25-30 years if not more. You can imagine the millennia necessary to devise concepts like “god” or “agriculture.” We could summarize this conceptualization in a chain of verbs or nouns:

This chain of mental operations reaches its end, its maximum, and this maximum is open-ended, with

Homo Sapiens, but animals may have devised procedures that are in a way going along this chain without using words. The question is to know how far they can go without words. The other day a herding dog followed me on the road where I was walking in the mountain and deposited a pine cone in front of me. I threw the pine cone in the forest down the slope on the left and he retrieved it, brought it back and deposited it in front of me for me to throw it again. It went on for a while till he could not retrieve the pine cone. He came back and then looked for another pine cone to start the game again. He stopped when I reached a certain distance from his farm and I heard him behind me, from a distance, barking in a very special sad-sounding howling way probably for farewell. That dog had devised quite a few notions, including the proper object he wanted to play with, and a whole body language procedure to mean what he wanted. That means he had built mental representations including of the communication he wanted to establish, something like a mental body-parole in his own even if limited mind. That kind of language and game are only possible between a “humanized” domesticated dog and his “human” master (in my case an occasional and transient master, but human all the same). The difference between all animal species under Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens himself is only a question of level of conceptualization. Homo Sapiens is unique and that uniqueness gives him a flexibility, adaptability and inventiveness no other animal species up to and including the closest under Homo Sapiens has been able to equal, including Homo Neanderthalensis or Denisova Hominins.

PHYLOGENY OF LANGUAGE

18

It is here we reach the concept of the phylogeny of language. Language is not something that came

with the genes of Homo Sapiens. It was not revealed by any extra-human force or dimension. It was a direct invention of Homo Sapiens on the basis of what was common around him among close Hominins like Homo Faber, his ancestor.

Let me clarify the couple “hominin/hominid” as defined by the Smithsonian institute:

“Family: Hominidae (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) Subfamily: Homininae (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) Tribe: Hominini (humans and our close extinct relatives; the group that was called

Hominidae in the previous classification) Genus: Homo Species: sapiens Here, the term hominin refers to the tribe Hominini. That’s why many of our extinct

ancestors are now called hominins. But it’s not technically wrong to call them hominids—all members of Hominini are also members of the subfamily Homininae and the family Hominidae, that’s how the nesting system works. It’s just a less precise term.”v

We can consider the hominin language of Homo Faber was advanced as compared to that of apes. The

language of apes is a set of calls with, maybe, some concatenate assemblies that some suggest is some kind of syntax, and Homo Faber might have developed these calls in number and in complexity including as for their concatenation. The complexity of the calls and their concatenation depends on the articulatory capacity of Homo Faber, hence on the depth of his larynx that diversifies the vowels and on the articulatory power of the glottal area and mouth to articulate consonants and vowels together, which implies a dependence on the innervation of this articulatory elements in order to coordinate them. We have to keep in mind one cannot develop any hierarchical syntax if the phonological articulation has not been totally conquered with the rotation of vowels and consonants thus producing semantic roots, or roots with a semantic meaning.

The concept of phylogeny implies that language developed in the mind of Homo Sapiens in a sequence

of logical phases from the start of the recognition of vowels and consonants to the full articulated linguistic communication all languages are able to produce. I follow here Gustave Guillaume who captured the ternary nature of the set of all human languages but he did not follow a phylogenic approach but what he calls a “glossogenic” approach, defining it as “the constructing movement of language in time.”vi Both are close but not equivalent. The phylogeny of language states that language is a pure invention of man himself and thus has a point of origin. It is this point of origin that Gustave Guillaume does not consider. He is of course under the authority of the second articles of the statutes of the “Société de Linguistique de Paris” that reads:

“The “Société” does not accept any communication or presentation either on the origin

of language or on the creation of a universal language.”vii

I then borrowed from Jacques Teyssier’s last Master’s class in Germanic linguisticsviii the three concepts he systematized in both historical linguistics and in descriptive linguistics as he applied them to Germanic languages. His three concepts were “racine,” “theme” and “mot,” which we could translate as “root,” “theme” and “word.” It is obvious the last two are problematic in English because of other values. I expanded the image of the tree that is contained in the first one and used the word “stem” for the second and “frond” for the third. For him, in Germanic languages the root was the basic non-categorized element, the most ancient too; the stem was the categorized elements issuing from the root by being made temporal or spatial, verbal or nominal, relational or entitative; the frond is the final form of linguistic entities when they carry the syntax, both verbal or nominal, conjugation or declensions, of the sentence.

I just applied these concepts and their “glossogenic” dimension to the invention of language to reach the

phylogenic model I suggest here and explore in the full research. That produced three vast phylogenic phases in the phylogenic history of language.

19

THE THREE PHYLOGENIC LINGUISTIC FAMILIES The first one is based only on the simple differentiation of vowels and consonants. The whole logic of the

language is based on this couple of phonetic objects that are invested in consonantal roots with the vowels used to import categorization and syntax into the words and the sentence. These are Semitic languages and the whole family of consonantal root languages.

The second is based on the stem concept, hence on the existence of two invariable types of words

differentiated by their categorization as spatial and temporal, hence nominal and verbal. The syntax is then imported into the sentence with other means: order, tone, and the development of syntactic more or less delexicalized words. We are dealing here with the languages that are called isolating languages that use characters as their words.

The third is based on the frond concept which implies the words in langue are derived from stems and

provided in langue with all types of syntactic elements they carry, such as conjugations in tenses and moods for verbs and gender, number and syntactic functions for nouns. The words are thus ready to be used in the building of a sentence, of an utterance. It’s only then a question of order. Note elements like ergative, transitive, active, passive, are part of this syntactic level of langue. That gives two vast families of languages. First agglutinative languages in which the functional elements carried by the nouns are reflected in the verb with a set of affixes or inflections. Second what I call synthetic-analytical languages that keep the functional elements on the nouns and the temporal or modal elements on the verbs with at times transfer of number and person from the nouns onto the verbs. In both cases order and intonation (or tone) are essential to make sense.

20

THE NEST This approach of the phylogeny of language implies a birth, a birth place, hence an original nest. This

invention was possible as soon as the mutations producing the fast long distance bipedal being Homo Sapiens were effective. Homo Sapiens had the low and deep larynx, the articulatory apparatus, the highly developed innervation of the subglottal area and the specific Broca zone in the brain and the whole architecture of that brain that enabled him to coordinate all kinds of organs and body parts for that running, particularly the heart, the lungs, the diaphragm, the breathing itself amplified and made effective by the use of the whole respiratory system from nose, to mouth, to glottis, to larynx and then the bronchi and the lungs activated by the diaphragm. Everyone knows that we speak and sing with our lungs, larynx and diaphragm.

Then the nest is in Africa some 300,000 years ago . . . at least. And the whole humanity has left that

nest at one time or other. And that’s when things become interesting. In the nest the phylogenic evolution of human language followed the three phases I indicated before. But archaeology has done tremendous progress on the way to dating the various migrations in Africa and out of Africa. And my original work is to bring together the phylogeny of language I have described and the various migrations in and out of Africa the way we can date it thanks to the progress of archaeology over the last fifty years and especially the last twenty years, and evolving very fast.

21

MIGRATIONS AND PHYLOGENY The principle I am going to implement here is simple and can be verified everyday. As soon as a human

group migrates from one linguistic area to another they become conservative about their language and they develop it along extremely conservative lines at times. They do certainly not follow the evolution in the original linguistic area. I propose here this simple hypothesis that each migration left at one particular moment of the phylogeny of language in the nest and thus produced families of languages developing on the stage reached when they left.

It is also important to understand that migrations required some level of mental development that could

not be reached without linguistic communication. But we must also understand that Homo Faber, Homo Neanderthalensis and Denisova Hominins must have had a certain level of linguistic communication since they were migrating species. My idea is that these ancient species had a signal and call language of the type apes (Hominidae) have today, but more developed due to their lower larynx, though probably not as low as Homo Sapiens, and giving them more calls and maybe even the possible rotation of vowels or consonants to produce these calls, hence the premise of what will lead to the first articulation. This more developed lexicon of calls probably enabled these species to develop some concatenation of calls, and that would have been the premise of some syntax, purely communicational conveyed by strings of two or three calls. But I doubt they had reached a point beyond this two-or-three-calls language, hence discursive communication, but even a simple three calls concatenative pseudo-syntax or maybe even syntax is quite advanced when compared with all ape species.

22

This mental development connected to the level of language reached by the Homininae subfamily or

tribe and later by Homo Sapiens supports the development of conceptualization and the conceptualizing power of Hominins and later Homo Sapiens, a conceptualizing power that is in constant development in Homo Sapiens. That conceptualizing power explains the need to expand as a species and to migrate to conquer new territories in a very organized way and with connections kept with the settlements they leave behind and exchanges between the various settlements.

HOMO SAPIENS AND DIVISION OF LABOR The characteristic of Homo Sapiens is that they are a very weak physical species. Their infants and

children have to be carried, breast fed and taken care of for a long time since such infants will not be able to walk for at least one year, to feed on normal food for about the same time and will not be autonomous for at least three years.

The expanding nature of Homo Sapiens implied a high level of procreation for a species whose life

expectancy was about 28-29 years. That means that from the age of 13 onward fertile women were constantly carrying a child on their back or in their womb and these children who had to be taken care of could only be entrusted to their mothers. This was the first division of labor only capable to bring to procreative age (13 years of age) three or four children.

Recent archaeological finds let us believe that women also had another responsibility: the spiritual

decoration of their habitat and probably spiritual guidance, hence what was to become religion. The social organization that resulted from this physiological and physical dependence of children was

also based on valorizing exchanges. We are dealing with rather small groups of people and the exchange of genetic heritage by exchanging women and men from one group to another in “marriage” is indispensible and that led to some kind of matrimonial (exchange of women as future mothers) market that could also be seen as some patrimonial (exchange of men as future fathers) market, hence some kind of market economy.

Archaeology proved that within Africa some exchanges existed in northern Africa but also in southern

Africa, especially with some shells being found a long distance from where they could be collected. The fact that these shells were found pierced to be threaded up and in great numbers in one spot let us think that it was not only decoration but some kind of exchange means, hence the first ancestor of what is known today as money. Such practices existed still among primeval tribes of human beings in some isolated areas approached in various regions of the globe by western colonizers over the last one or two centuries. These necklaces were not only for decoration but they probably showed the value of the person or his possessions.

All that revolves around conceptualization, and conceptualization cannot develop without language, and

it is this level of communication and conceptualization that incited Homo Sapiens and other Homininae to migrate to new territories.

23

HOMO SAPIENS AND MIGRATIONS Homo Sapiens, like his ancestor Homo Faber and like his closest relatives Homo Neanderthalensis and

Denisova Hominins, are both an expanding species and a migrating species. They did not migrate like most other animals which migrate following the seasons or their own migrating preys, but they migrated to settle further on and farther away.

The very first migration was down south in Africa. These never got out of Africa and this migration

produced the languages we consider as click languages and must have taken place progressively some 200,000 years ago. There is a lot of discussion on the subject of this first migration because of recent archeological finds. It is no longer absolutely sure it was from the north to the south and some even think there might have been two nests, one in the north and one in the south. It is as of today impossible to say for sure.

The second migration was to northern Africa something like 160,000 years ago. They followed the

Mediterranean coast to the west. They apparently crossed into the Levant to the east, though they will retreat around 80,000 years ago to then go back there around 30,000 years ago. Apparently too they crossed to Crete where Homo Sapiens has recently been proved to have been present around 160,000 years ago without any descent. This migration produced the vast family of Semitic languages that are consonantal root languages.

The third migration used the horn of Africa and the southern Arabic corridor along the southern coast

of the Arabic Peninsula and then crossed the Strait of Ormuz to then move north, north-east and east into the whole of Asia. It must have occurred something like 120,000 or 100,000 years ago. It produced the vast family of isolating languages today connected to Chinese, Tibetan, and the languages of South East Asia. We also may attach Tamil to this family, which then implies the Tamils arrived in India a long time before the Indo-Aryan. It is this migration that met the Denisovans that provided them with the gene that made them able to live at very high altitudes, though not only. Denisovan genes can be found a long way in far east and south east Asia.

The fourth migration that either split along the way or took place in two successive waves followed the

same way up to Ormuz and then probably took two different paths. The first wave around 70,000 years ago moved north and north-west to Central Asia and to Siberia, but west to the Middle East and to Anatolia, then across the Caucasus and then into Europe and are known there as Cro-Magnon and later the Gravettians. They are the vast family of Turkic languages, all agglutinative. The surviving language of Cro-Magnon and Gravettian times is Basque in France and Spain. Later migrations will bring them to Finland and then to Hungary. In the same way from Siberia they will migrate to northern America where some North American Indian languages are agglutinative. The other population to have migrated to Northern America from Siberia were of the isolating linguistic family.

The other wave after 70,000 years ago up to maybe 50,000 years ago must have gone up the Persian

Gulf and settled on the Iranian plateau which must have been mostly empty by then and partly in Mesopotamia. This migration will stay there for a long time developing the last family of languages, the synthetic-analytical

24

languages. They are probably the ancestors of the Sumerians whose language is in-between agglutination and synthesis-analysis. They became the best known migration when they decided after the Ice Age to move again, and at an earlier time than generally thought, probably around 14,000 or 12,000 years ago maybe slightly before (the thawing of the Ice Age ice cap must have started around 16,000 years ago).

They moved in two directions. To the east establishing themselves as what is today known as the

Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex in Turkmenistan and from there down into Pakistan and India. They are the Indo-Aryan languages. The most famous language in that group is Sanskrit that covers a long period and that will give the Vedas and the Vedic civilization when they devised some writing system. The direct descending languages are, among others, Urdu, Hindi and Sinhala.

The common language in Iran will become Persian known today as Farsi. The other migration from there went west and produced the Indo-European languages with probably

two routes: one went west to Anatolia with Hittite taking over the Hatti (Turkic) area (kingdom or empire) with maybe a second wave that will leave Armenian behind in the Middle East and produce Greek from which romance languages are derived via Latin; the other route went north through the Caucasus and then into the vast Pontic-Caspian area and from there to Europe producing the Germanic, Celtic and Slav subfamilies. It is also this route that gave rise to several hypotheses about Proto-Indo-European, the Kurgan hypothesis, the Indo-Germanic hypothesis and the Pontic-Caspian hypothesis.

MIGRATIONS AND LINGUISTIC EXCHANGES OR EVOLUTIONS There is a fatal flaw in all the theories which are trying to find the nest of this or that proto-language and

that flaw is that these people were always coming out of Africa, hence had moved out of Africa, at times over tens of thousands of kilometers. It is also the fact that these people spoke a language before they arrived in that particular locale. And finally the proto-language reconstructed retrospectively is going the other way than the natural descent. That’s where Gustave Guillaume should be read and meditated by some. He speaks of “glossogeny” and he always means the evolution of language with time, hence in the natural descending direction from the past to the present. We can maybe reconstruct retrospectively but this reconstruction is going the wrong way and has to be proved then not by some kind of abstract phonological principle but by some concrete and observable descending evolution.

And even so we miss the main point: what were there people speaking before and what linguistic

contacts did they have? These two basic questions are totally ignored by the supporters of all the various theories about the nest of Proto-Indo-European when it is not the nest of Proto-Indo-Germanic. Without entering the full debate here, let me say that I found it slightly vain especially that no one can explain why Armenian is directly connected to Greek and that Greek is only very loosely connected to the other Anatolian Indo-European languages and why the non-Romance languages of Europe are rather loosely connected to Greek. There is between these two subfamilies a rift that is such that we have to state a split that is farther east in the Middle

25

East and farther in time before the northern branch crossed the Caucasus, and that all theories saying that there was only one route through Anatolia and then the Balkans and then the Danube valley are just unrealistic.

Just as much unrealistic as those who state that Indo-Aryan languages are descended from Indo-

European languages in Europe by late migrations back to Asia from Europe, and I insist on “back to Asia” because they came from Asia originally. This back movement is fictitious.

I should insist here on the dating of Proto-Indo-European with the invention of the wheel and chariot is

also vain because before inventing the wheel, and what’s more the axle and the chariot, they had to conceptualize the rotating movement to transport heavy and bulgy burdens or loads and they probably discovered that the use of round logs to do that was handy and it took them a long, very long time to conceptualize that rotating movement so that words for that rotating movement existed a long time before the wheel that requires the shift from a rotating log to a rotating axle. How did the people in Gobleki Tepe (11,000 years ago) transport the enormous stones they used to build their city long before the official date of the invention of the wheel and what’s more the axle and chariot that would have been very large indeed to transport these stones. My position is simple: the invention never comes first, but the conceptualization of the abstract movement, function comes first, as a project, a need or an “inspiration,” and this conceptualization produces words that represent this function, this movement. And it is this concept that will lead to the invention of the project of some implement that could help produce this movement, fulfill this function. This rotational movement is not “natural” at all except maybe in a maelstrom or a tornado, and from this dangerous or destructive movement to the concept of rotation and what’s more wheel there may be a few thousand years. But I will not pursue this idea here because it could lead us too far.

My hypothesis is as follows:

This hypothesis is based on a simple vision that requires a point of origin (ultimately Africa) and a

linguistic source (ultimately the level of phylogenic development of the language in the nest at departure time). I can represent this as follows:

And this has to be understood as an open representation since populations and their languages are

moving around all the time in those ancient times just like today and since language is part of the identification of a population, is the medium of their spirituality, heritage, past and culture, it is impossible to accept the idea of a proto-language to appear from scratch and to evolve all by itself and in an isolated vacuum. One other element has to be taken into account, the fact that these migrating populations might have not been monolingual and probably were at least bilingual if not trilingual like all African populations in Africa today, even when the colonial language is not taken into account.

26

The question is and always has to be: Where did they come from? What language(s) did they speak when arriving and what language(s) was/were spoken where they came from? Who did they find when arriving and what language(s) did these speak?

LEXICOSTATISTICS Lexicostatistics based on Swadesh lists, or other lists of the same type, are mostly superficial and they

prove very little as Greenberg and the linguists in his school have proved: words can only prove that all languages must have only one nest because some “roots” are universal and that cannot be attributed to pure chance. For Greenberg that proved the hypothesis that humanity came from only one nest and that nest was in Africa, since Africans could not come from outside, and today we have the genetic evidence of that fact: they do not have the Neanderthals or Denisovan genetic heritage all other humans have.

Lexicostatisticians only consider words, never syntax, at best syntactic words but without any

consideration of the various syntaxes possible behind any syntactic word like, the pronoun “I” which is syntactic since it carries the first person singular of the speaker, whose syntactic nature could be discussed.

They totally ignore the fact that words cannot be reduced to single meanings. Each word in each

language is a reticular multilateral lexical semiotic unit and it has to be considered in its full paradigmatic and syntagmatic networks of implied meanings and connections. And there Saussure should be invoked who was one of the first to clearly say that a word had no value if not considered in its paradigmatic and syntagmatic contexts.

As such ONE WORD in one language is NEVER equivalent to ONE WORD in any other language, even

when they are obviously related as one descending from the other: think of “buffetier” and “beefeater.” Greenberg and the linguists of his school, in spite of the fact they only consider words, have used that

method of lexical connections among languages to only prove some roots are present in all languages often under many disguises due to shifts of meaning. This was at the time the proof of the unique origin of Homo Sapiens in Africa. Since then archaeology has vastly proved the point that does not need a linguistic proof anymore. The value of the fact then is different nowadays: it proves all languages have one phylogenic origin and that origin is in Africa. Then it proves that all linguistic families have to be derived from this phylogeny due to the scaling of migrations in phylogenic and historical time. That is for me essential. History started with the emergence of Homo Sapiens and not with writing, which is such a late invention. History is the history of the human species, of Homo Sapiens. We can also speak of the history of the universe, cosmic and geological history, but once again writing has nothing to do with that history nor the human history, except that it is a milestone in human history, human development. I personally refuse the concept of pre-history as purely anti-human, negating Homo Sapiens and our origins.

The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS, http://wals.info/) is extremely rich at the syntactic level

but they do not consider languages within any phylogenic approach. Languages of different phylogenic families

27

can share some characteristics and yet not be of the same family: resemblance does not mean descent in one direction or the other. In fact, I would rather lean towards Saussure again who considered that value was based on differences.

“Concepts are purely differential and defined not by their positive content but negatively

by their relations with the other terms of the system. Their most precise characteristic is in being what the others are not.” (Ferdinand de Saussure. Course in General Linguistics. (1959) The Philosophical Library, New York City. Page 170)

In the same way Gustave Guillaume considers the value of any linguistic element, and not only lexical

units can only be grasped within the systematic environment of these elements. But Saussure considers the value of a linguistic element vertically for the paradigm and horizontally for the syntagm but both in a two-dimensional vision and representation. Gustave Guillaume works in a three dimensional vision because he considers the potential value it has in langue, both paradigmatically with all the units it is positively or negatively genetically connected to and with all the units it can be connected to within a potential utterance in the langue deep architectural system; and what’s more he also considers the real value it takes in discursive parole in the same way paradigmatically with other units it is connected to or differentiated from and syntagmatically this time in the real utterance that has been produced. This leads Gustave Guillaume to connecting the value of a term to the two levels of “puissance” (the potential value in langue) and “effet” (the effective value in discursive parole), which is expressed as “signifié de puissance” (potential signified) and “signifié d’effet” (effective signified) both being two-dimensional and the connection between the two being the third dimension of the depth of the vision. We could and should discuss the reduction of “value” to “signified” but that would lead us too far here. And we have to keep in mind that for Gustave Guillaume time is always present in the normal time of the universe as well as in operational time (“temps opératif”), the time needed for the mind and brain to produce the utterance that corresponds to the potential signified prompted by the communicational situation that prompts this potential signified.

POST SCRIPTUM PBS NEWSHOUR published on their site a fascinating article that brings up very strong questions on the

first migration to Northern, and maybe Central America. Nsikan Akpan presents the facts and the stakes in “Analysis: A new study says settlers arrived in the Americas 130,000 years ago. Should we believe it?” of an archaeological find in Southern California near San Diego: a mastodon dated as from 130,000 years ago that reveals some artifacts and some actions on its bones that require human intervention.ix

“It makes ours the oldest archaeological site in the Americas — older by a factor of 10,”

San Diego Natural History Museum paleontologist and study coauthor Thomas Deméré at a press briefing Tuesday. “Currently the oldest widely accepted date of human presence in the new world is 14,000 to 15,000 years ago.”x

28

Over the last twenty or thirty thousand years the old Clovis theory that set the arrival of Homo Sapiens in Northern America around 5,000 or 6,000 BCE has been modified to push the dates to what is called the Clovis Civilization dated back to 11,000 years BCE with an arrival date recently confirmed by archaeological finds in Alaska to be between 13,000 and 18,000 BCE in which a migration from Siberia took advantage of a corridor that appeared in the ice cap due to the beginning of the melting up process. Some today believe that the first arrival was symmetrical to this one but before the peak of the ice age at around 23,000 years BCE or slightly before.

There are yet many questions that have to be brought up. First, the identity of the migrating individuals. We have no human remains at all on this site. Are they

Denisovans or related descendants coming from Siberia where they were present before the arrival of Homo Sapiens, or are they descendants of the Homo Sapiens who first arrived in Eastern and Central Asia or Siberia?

Second, this discovery has to be connected to the rock face paintings of Baja California that cannot be

dated because the coloring mixtures used do not contain carbon, even the black paint. These paintings represent humans and animals and we have to wonder if these animals are feasible in this region that is close to San Diego like the present site, though south rather than north. If they are Homo Sapiens then they have to be connected with the second migration out of Africa which went to (Eastern, Central and Northern) Asia and thus would have been of the second linguistic articulation, hence speaking languages that will become later the Sino-Tibetan family, hence an isolating character language.

Third, some suggest they would be connected to the Amazonian Indians. That brings in South America.

We thus have to be concerned with the site in south Chile that goes far beyond what is traditionally considered as the earliest arrival date in Northern America, suggesting that geographically and time wise this site should be connected to the migration that reached Easter Island and produced the giant carved stone heads, which implies they had some stone carving culture that could be considered as the basis of the Southern and Central American stone building capabilities of Indians settling there, an ability that has not been, so far at least, shown as existing in Northern America.

Fourth, and we have to consider the possibility of sea passage from Africa to Brazil on the currents

crossing the Atlantic there, currents that will become the Gulf Stream farther on. This hypothesis is carried by the presence of some plants in South America that may have had an Africa origin. This migration though would be after the Peak of the Ice Age when in Africa some agricultural knowledge and practice may have developed. We have to consider our estimations about this agricultural development in Black Africa is probably, and it is practically sure if we consider other situations and the general approach for the whole world, underestimated and set quite late by present standard approaches.

Fifth, this last element brings up the idea that crossing the Bering Strait was not such an impossible

deed. We know that early migrating Homo Sapiens did cross from northern Africa to Crete 160,000 years ago. And we could find other examples like the British Isles and Ireland, or the many islands in the Southern Pacific, right through to Chile if my hypothesis is correct. This is more problematic with Denisovans since the vast migrations of these Hominins are only asserted as being on land.

Sixth and last question, we are late on the front of DNA. There is a lot to do about it in today’s reality

and the necessity to map out the DNA characteristics on the American continent among Native Americans or First Nations. We are far from having done all we should be doing.

This new discovery and study are not included in the following chapters and that’s why I set it in this

introduction.

29

i Gustave Guillaume – Roch Valin & Walter Hirtle eds – Leçons de linguistique de Gustave Guillaume 1958-1959 & 1959-1960 – Les Presses de l’Université Laval – Québec – Klincksieck – Paris – 1995 ii Gamaliel Bradford, Horace Greeley, in Highlights in the History of the American Press: A Book of Readings, edited by Edwin H. Ford, Edwin Emery, Minnesota Archive Edition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA,1954, page 163, available at https://books.google.fr/books?id=rS2HabGJABsC&pg=RA1-PA163&lpg=RA1-PA163&dq=%22work+work+always+work%22&source=bl&ots=whEgmSJX1w&sig=tjVfREsgydKSYfJl6PN8Rz1a-9I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=atIXVfrAFsbTaI6dgcgL&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false, accessed March 29, 2015 iii Etty Hillesum, Etty: The Letters and Diaries of Etty Hillesum, 1941-1943, Novalis, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1986, Page 317, available at https://books.google.fr/books?id=UaMquRjHwcAC&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=%22work+work+always+work%22&source=bl&ots=BHQVki2NPZ&sig=Ap05cfUL7q_5L_122HgbQhFvR1w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=atIXVfrAFsbTaI6dgcgL&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22work%20work%20always%20work%22&f=false, accessed March 29, 2015 iv The gene named in honor of Asia's counterparts to Neanderthals is most common today in Vietnam, Borneo and China. It has a modest presence on other continents - See more at: http://dnaconsultants.com/denisovan-gene#sthash.zcSv4kPx.dpuf, http://dnaconsultants.com/denisovan-gene, accessed March 6, 2015

v Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/whats-in-a-name-hominid-versus-hominin-216054/#wr8Mcm3tJ8UvZuGw.99 Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter vi Annie BOONE & André JOLY, Dictionnaire Terminologique de la Systématique du Langage, L’Harmattan, Paris, 1996, entry « Glossogénie » page 209, my translation. vii ART. 2. - La Société n’admet aucune communication concernant, soit l’origine du langage soit la création d’une langue universelle. viii The notes of this course were published By the publication Rule Syntactica, Association Internationale de Psychomécanique, d’Anglais de Spécialité et de Didactique des Langues (AIPASDL) Roubaix and Olliergues, 1993-1996. Available in free open access at https://www.academia.edu/12065912/Jacques_Teyssier_at_Rule_Syntactica ix Steven R. Holen, Thomas A. Deméré, Daniel C. Fisher, Richard Fullagar, James B. Paces, George T. Jefferson, Jared M. Beeton, Richard A. Cerutti, Adam N. Rountrey, Lawrence Vescera & Kathleen A. Holen, “A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA,” in Nature, Issue 544, p. 479–483, 27 April 2017, https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html, accessed April 27, 2017, and the main article in free open access at https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22065.epdf?referrer_access_token=A-58x_Mu7bymBWfsuZhMD9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Odq55Wqltd4FPUqYwCTOB2IrOnkHrOr5WzFT30V6_Tbc8Xpuh5xKKTlSKGB8dSDv5ZE4rmj-g2SMCHGePlCXLrLepfEtHEAPV422LVa9oDjNER48K1Sw6Booq5vpEQfE5xMK5lD1VRI1sSevqQuISaivVwLgcgN1zDUlxKSt4JqVq_VefPaWU_IG70FY7MCx8eCMJGzr9-8wGVP3zKDxN5fhP14R3PxS_QcwUinbuY0ZakM-D-bFvpV_lvN0zA1SM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.pbs.org, accessed April 27, 2017.

x Nsikan Akpan, “Analysis: A new study says settlers arrived in the Americas 130,000 years ago. Should we believe it?” PBS Newshour, April 26, 2017, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/analysis-new-study-says-settlers-arrived-americas-130000-years-ago-believe/, accessed April 27, 2017.