L'Arabe,le Berbere et l'Egyptien sont ancetres des langues europeenes.

[humanbyrace]

J'ai trouve au web une description d'un livre qui pourrait peut etre donner des reponses,j'espere le trouver dans google books:

http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstrac..._ma crofamily
Contemporary patterns of allele frequencies allow inferences on past evolutionary processes. L.L. CavalliSforza [(1988) Munibe 6, 129-137] and C. Renfrew [(1991) Cambridge Archaeol. J. 1, 3-23] proposed that neolithic farmers from the Near East propagated a group of related ancestral languages, from which three or four linguistic families developed. Here we show that genetic variation among Indo-European, Elamo-Dravidian, and Altaic speakers (grouped by some linguists in the Nostratic macrofamily) supports this hypothesis, whereas the evidence on Afro-Asiatic speakers is ambiguous. Gene-frequency clines within these linguistic families suggest that language diffusion was largely associated with population movements rather than with purely cultural transmission. Archeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence can be reconciled by envisaging a process of population growth and multidirectional dispersal from the Near East as the main factor shaping genetic and linguistic diversity in Eurasia and perhaps in North Africa.

[humanbyrace]

J'ai trouve cette source d'une revue du nom GENEALOGY-DNA


http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-02/1171407563
Subject: [DNA] Nostratic and DNA double hypothesis
>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 2358 -0300
>
>Number six = 6 in different languages
>
>When you can't show numbers on one of your hand's fingers !
>
>One of oldest and most basic words to Mankind
>
>
>
>Arabic - sitta
>
>Hebrew - shesh
>
>Sumerian - asch
>
>Kurd - shesh
>
>Latin - sex
>
>English - six
>
>Portuguese/Spanish - seis
>
>Greek - hex
>
>Polish - szesc
>
>Persian - shesh
>
>Berber - seddis
>
>Etruscan - sha
>
>Sanskrit - shash
>
>
>
>There must be a fragmented common source of Semitic, Indo-European and
>others languages in a very far, blurred and distant common origin.
>
>
>
>Nostratic languages are a hypothesis for the ancestral languages of a large
>number of language families in Africa, Europe and Asia.
>
>"Allan Bomhard and Colin Renfrew are in broad agreement with the earlier
>conclusions of Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky in seeking the Nostratic
>urheimat within the Mesolithic or Epipaleolithic Middle East",
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languages
>
>
>
>Also there's a possible connection between human skeletons of a Cro-Magnon
>branch in North Africa (Mechta-el-Arbi or Mechta Afalou) with the
>stone-tool
>industry Iberomaurusian or Halfan culture, derived both from the East via
>the Kebaran culture of the Levante.
>
>
>
>Those people would have a language ancestral both to Proto-Semitic and
>Proto-Indo-European languages, the so called Nostratic.hypothesis.
>
>
>
>Nostratic Urheimat
>
>"The first of these is focussed on Palestine. The Kebaran culture of
>Palestine (18,000-10,500 BCE) not only introduced the microlithic assembly
>into the region; it also has African affinity, specifically with the
>Ouchtata retouch technique associated with the microlithic Halfan culture
>of
>Egypt (24-17,000 BCE). The Kebarans in their turn were directly ancestral
>to
>the succeeding Natufian culture of Palestine and the Levant (10,500-8,500
>BCE) which has enormous significance for prehistorians as the clearest
>evidence of hunters and gatherers in actual transition to neolithic food
>production. Both cultures extended their influence outside the region into
>Southern Anatolia: for example in Cilicia the Belba:i culture (13-10,000
>BCE) has Kebaran influence whilst the Beldibi (10-8,500 BCE) shows clear
>Natufian influence". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languages
>
>The "Nostratic" speakers would have people from different Y-DNA haplogroups
>and with a special concentration of the J Y-DNA. The same could be said
>about different Y haplogroups in the development of the Proto-Semitic
>languages with a special contribution of J1 Y-DNA haplogroup. Different
>haplogroups developed the Proto-Indo-European languages with a special
>contribution of Y-DNA J2.
>
>Agriculture, urban life, organized religion and later Monotheism
>(Islamism/Christianism/Islamism) all have strong connections with the
>spread
>of haplogroup J together with all others haplogroups.
>
>But what could be the Y-DNA of the Mechta skeletons and the Men of the
>Tassili Nomad Ladies http://www.paleologos.com/nomades.htm in North Africa
>milleniuns after ?
>
>Speculation is the agenda for future research !
>
>----------
>


Ricardo Costa de Oliveira

[Izno]

Mon but n'est pas de "gagner" la discussion, que tes théories aient un fondement scientifique, cela est possible mais toujours sujet à débat, ce que je te reproche, c'est d'improviser des théories que tu postes en les faisant passer pour des recherches scientifiques. Et le fait de présenter un lien vers un forum comme source n'appuie toujours pas ton point de vue.

Ce que j'en pense -origine du nostratique-? j'aurais pu te répondre si tu avais convenablement écris ton thread (source, lien, puis ton point de vue et tes possibles théories). Tant que ce n'est pas fait de manière rigoureuse, il est inutile d'en débattre.

[awtul]

vu que tous les hommes ont une origine commune (africaine) il en découle que toutes les langues ont une origine commune , maintenant il faut savoir dans quel ordre , quelle langues sont issues de quelles langues , et quelles langues parlaient les premiers hommes ..

[humanbyrace]

Mon but n'est pas de "gagner" la discussion, que tes théories aient un fondement scientifique, cela est possible mais toujours sujet à débat, ce que je te reproche, c'est d'improviser des théories que tu postes en les faisant passer pour des recherches scientifiques. Et le fait de présenter un lien vers un forum comme source n'appuie toujours pas ton point de vue.

Ce que j'en pense -origine du nostratique-? j'aurais pu te répondre si tu avais convenablement écris ton thread (source, lien, puis ton point de vue et tes possibles théories). Tant que ce n'est pas fait de manière rigoureuse, il est inutile d'en débattre.

il n'est biensur pas question de "gagner" c'est juste une discussion ou et vous et moi pouvons apprendre quelque chose de nouveau.

Le detail sur le haplotype des nosteratiques est un point parmi les points de ce sujet,je croies que tu ne contestes pas les autres points.

Le probleme est qu'on ne peut avoir une confirmation scientifique du haplotype des nostraiques originels puisque on ne peut retourner dans le temps et leur faire des tests.

Mais comme l'ecrit ce Ricardo Costa de la revue GENEALOGY-DNA, le fait que le urheimat du proto-nostratique est dans le croissant fertile,et que les haplogroupe (J)s'etend sur toute l'aire proto-nostratique et que la branche afro-asiatique qui est la plus ancienne de la famille nostratique,est celle ou le haplogroupe (J)se trouve le plus rend cette hypothese plutot veridique,et c'est le cas pour des centaines d'autres hypotheses de sciences molles meme celle de la famille semitique ou indo-europeene ou nostratique c'est aussi simple que ça.

Mais puis je savoir quel serait ton eventuel debat sur ce point precis,et pkoi ne pas avoir debattu les autres points (qui se basent sur les trois livres postes)si vous l'auriez voulu.

[absent]

Human par pitié soit coherent dans tes propos, pourquoi mêle tu haplotype et linguistique ? ce sont deux choses distinctes aussi une langue est un vehiculaire culturel et par consequent échappe à tes rapprochements genetiques, tu sais trés bien qu'en amerique du nord il existe des langues dites meta-basque et pourtant les amerindiens qui les parlent n'ont peu de choses communes ni avec les basques ni encore moins apparentés genetiquement, donc ne melons pas les choses dissemblables (la linguistique et la genetique)...

[humanbyrace]

Mr Tolkien ne t'adresses pas a ma personne STP,ce ne sont mes propos mais ceux d'anthroplogues et linguistes.(dont ce Ricardo oliveira)
Tu peux consulter le web pour le constater,
exemple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_haplogroup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_h..._ethnic_groups
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origin...s_europe.shtml
Tu peux lire ceci pour avoir plus d'idees sur cette synthese:

http://www*geocities*/therapeuter200...dispersal.html

2/Nostratique
The basic pattern of the expansion of the Homo sapiens sapiens on the Eurasian continent, of “the peopling of Eurasia,” is of the “ripple” type, with the Near East in the center pumping waves after waves of immigrants to the east (East Asia), west (Europe), and somewhat later, namely after the retreat of the last ice-age, north and south (back to North Africa). The model of Eurasia-peopling is, that is to say, “Out of the Near East Again and Again.” The first wave has just been described and the linguistic vestiges of it identified. Around 40,000 years or so BP, a second wave of immigration “radiated” outward from the Near East center (“homeland”) to both East Asia and Europe. It’s quite possible that many of the descendants of the “first wave”, already resident in the larger part of South Asia, were “assimilated” by the second wave, the linguistic field of which covered up large section of South Asia. That is, they adopted the customs and languages of the new-comers, having lost their own linguistic and cultural identities. This is a too-often repeated pattern in the story of humans-coming-to-be-in-where-they-are-today, as we shall see. On the other side, arriving in Europe, the immigrants of the “second wave,” the first Homo sapiens sapiens to there turn up, quickly swept across and populated all over the frozen continent (“lasting 5 to 10,000 years”; p. 66, Cavalli-Sforza et al. The History and Geography of Human Genes). They brought with them the more sophisticated Aurignacian lithic culture, in contrast with the local, Mousterian culture of the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They brought about, too, the extinction of the latter through their more accelerated population growth. This second wave is today identified as the Dene-(Sino-)Caucasian substratum, at this time constituting a vast dialect field extending over the entire Eurasia from the tip of Spain to probably as far as the coast of Northeast Asia. The time is approximately 30,000 years BP.
The European sub-culture of this vast Dene-Caucasian substratum has today left its traces in our memory as the “Cro-Magnon Man.”1 & 2 But only few vestiges from this “second wave” remain today. In the European west the only (linguistic) remnant today is the Basque (in southern France and northern Spain). To the east, the rest of the Dene-Caucasian substratum still remaining includes the north Caucasian family, Burushaski (of Pakistan), Sino-Tibetan, Yeniseian (Siberia), and Na-Dene of North America. Now if we want to identify the bearers of the language ancestral to today’s Chinese languages at this time, i.e. around 30,000 years BP, we can surmise that they were probably at this time no longer in the Near East but were to be found near the Himalayan region, the actual homeland of the Sino-Tibetan family 20,000 years or so later.
I want to retrack and put emphasis on the fact that the first “Europeans,” the “Cro-Magnon Man,” who pushed the Neanderthals into ever more unfavorable ecological niches and eventually into extinction, were most probably Dene-Caucasians and not the Indo-Europeans that according to all accounts arrived here only more than 20,000 years later. I’ve always been intrigued by the Europeans today who, when visiting museums of natural history, identified the reconstructions (models and images) of the Cro-Magnon Man they saw as their “(direct) ancestor,” and even by the museum curators who wrote the explanations for the pieces exhibited as if this Cro-Magnon Man were truly (directly) ancestral to themselves and the visitors staring wondrously at the reconstructions. (The museum curators, by virtue of their education, of course knew of the later coming of the “Indo-europeéns.”) The source of this illusion is certainly the fact that they all are on the same continent. The Cro-Magnon Man is ancestral to modern Europeans only in the sense that most of the genetic constitution of modern Europeans are inherited from Cro-Magnon Man;2 but certainly not in the linguistic sense. The complication involved in identifying an “ancestor” reflects the complex pattern of the process of people-coming-to-be-where-they-are-today.
We now come to the “third wave,” the third “Out of Near East.” Most of today’s linguistic and ethnic diversity on Eurasia continent in fact had its origin in this third, Nostratic focal expansion. Let me read to you from the excellent statement on this topic, Allan R. Bomhard and John C. Kern’s The Nostratic Macrofamily (Mouton de Gruyter, 1994). First, his concluding statement on the previous, second focal expansion, that of Dene-Caucasian.
“As always in hunter-gatherer societies, mobility was at a premium. Canoes were used for water travel and snow shoes and sleds were developed for overland travel in winter. The conditions were favorable for the rapid spread of tribes and their new linguistic family over immense distances. This expansion, which is called Mesolithic, is indicated archaeologically by microliths found all along Northern Eurasia and Southward through the Caucasus into the Near East, where it later developed smoothly into the Neolithic with its domestication of cereals and of animals suitable for food and fibers.
“The Mesolithic culture is aptly named, for it provided a gradual though rapid transition between the Upper Paleolithic and the agricultural Neolithic. There was, in fact, a steady advance in man’s ability to control and exploit his environment…”
the Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic language, had its beginning in or near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus, with a slightly later northern extension into Southern Russia in intimate association with woods and fresh water in lakes and rivers. From these positions, it had ready access to the lower Danube and the Balkans (Indo-European), to the Caucasus (Kartvelian), south of the Caucasus into Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa (Sumerian and Afroasiatic), eastward into Central Siberia (Elamo-Dravidian), and northward and thence eastward along the Circumpolar fringe (Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukchi-Kamchatkin, Gilyak, and Eskimo-Aleut [: these together with Indo-European constitute the Eurasiatic subgroup within Nostratic). In the process of its expansion, it undoubtedly effected a linguistic conversion of many tribes of Dene-Caucasian or other origins; this accounts for the fact that non-Nostratic languages in Eurasia in historic times have been found mostly as relics in mountainous regions. Exceptions are Chinese and the now moribund or extinct Ket, which, together with Hattic and Hurrian, probably represent post-Nostratic reemergences of Dene-Caucasian speakers from their relic areas
The above passage emphasizes for us once more the trend of history we have already noticed: focal expansion. The configuration of ethnic/linguistic distribution in Eurasia today is mostly the product of migrations in very recent times, starting at 15,000 years BP. Except for China and Southeast Asia the entire Eurasia from Berling Strait (and beyond: part of Northern Canada also) to the tip of Spain – and including North Africa too – is today covered by languages that are the descendants of the language of (very probably) a single village in the south of Caucasus mountain only 15,000 years ago. Is it surprising to you that the ethnological map we have today of Eurasia really does not reflect anything ancient?
Meanwhile, the Circumpolar families were developing in a situation that was geographically and environmentally separate. Here the Mesolithic way of life has been maintained continuously to recent times; any impulses toward agriculture have been late, and except for the Finno-Ugrians, they all have been received from non-Indo-European sources. The linguistic developments have been equally idiosyncratic. In all of these families the SOV word order and associated morphological principles of early Indo-European have been retained except where subjected to alien influences in more recent times, and they have been maintained with special purity in Altaic and Elamo-Dravidian, which may well have been of Siberian origin. In vocabulary, they show little in common with Indo-European or Afroasiatic except at a strictly pre-agricultural level.