Il primo "inglese" della storia? Aveva la pelle nera

Ma anche i capelli ricci e gli occhi azzurri. Ecco la rivelazione di un esame del Dna del più antico essere umano rinvenuto in Gran Bretagna, il "Cheddar Man", che visse circa 10mila anni fa.

LONDRA – Il primo “inglese” della storia aveva la pelle nera, i capelli ricci e gli occhi azzurri. E’ la rivelazione di un esame al Dna, effettuato con nuove tecniche, dei resti del più antico essere umano rinvenuti in Gran Bretagna: il cosiddetto “Cheddar Man”, che visse circa 10mila anni or sono nella regione dell’odierno Somerset, trovati un secolo or sono nella Giugh’s Cave, una caverna della zona.
 
C’era stato sempre grande interesse su questo fossile, la cui origine risale al tempo in cui i primi uomini passarono dall’Europa continentale alle isole britanniche al termine dell’ultima era glaciale. I bianchi anglosassoni di oggi sono dal punto di vista genetico i discendenti di quella specie. Inizialmente si riteneva che il Cheddar man avesse la carnagione chiara. Ma l’analisi al dna, condotta nei giorni scorsi da un gruppo di scienziati dell’University Collegee London e di altre università su cranio e scheletro del reperto, ha fornito un’immagine del tutto diversa.
 
Il volto ricostruito al computer e poi ricreato da due “paleo-artisti” del “primo inglese” per conto del National History Museum di Londra – nero anziché bianco – campeggia stamane sulla prima pagina di tutti i giornali del regno: alla faccia, sarebbe il caso di dire, di xenofobi e razzisti. La scoperta sembra dimostrare che gli uomini europei hanno acquisito la pelle bianca molto più tardi di quanto si pensava.
 
Apparso originariamente nell’Africa centro-orientale, l’Homo Sapiens emigrò verso l’Europa circa 40 mila anni fa, transitando attraverso il Medio Oriente e i Balcani. L’evoluzione verso la carnagione chiara favoriva l’assorbimento della vitamina D nei territori del nord Europa, dove le giornate erano più corte e c’era meno sole che in Africa. Già in passato era emerso che popolazioni di 8500 anni fa in Spagna, Lussemburgo e Ungheria avevano la pelle scura.

______________________
http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2018/02/07/news/inghilterra_immigrazione_dna_fossile-188233469/?ref=RHPPBT-BH-I0-C4-P3-S1.4-T1

Resistance to changes in grammar is futile, say researchers

Linguists say that random chance plays a bigger role than previously thought in the evolution of language – but also that ‘English is weird’.

When it comes to changes in language, there’s no point crying over spilt milk: researchers charting fluctuations in English grammar say the rise of certain words, such as spilled, is probably down to chance, and that resistance is futile.

Comparisons have long been drawn between evolution and changes in language, with experts noting that preferences such as a desire for emphasis can act as a type of “natural selection”, affecting which words or forms of grammar are passed on between generations. 

But a new study shows that another evolutionary mechanism might play a key role : random chance.

 Should the Americanisation (or Americanization) of English worry us?

Rebecca Rideal

 

Read more

The authors of the study say that the work adds to our understanding of how language changes over centuries.

“Whether it is by random chance or selection, one of the things that is true about English – and indeed other languages – is that the language changes,” said Joshua Plotkin, co-author of the research from the University of Pennsylvania. “The grammarians might [win the battle] for a decade, but certainly over a century they are going to be on the losing side.”

Writing in the journal Nature, Plotkin and colleagues describe how they tracked different types of grammatical changes across the ages.

Among them, the team looked at changes in American English across more than one hundred thousand texts from 1810 onwards, focusing on the use of “ed” in the past tense of verbs compared with irregular forms – for example, “spilled” versus “spilt”. 

The hunt threw up 36 verbs which had at least two different forms of past tense, including quit/quitted and leaped/leapt. However for the majority, including spilled v spilt, the team said that which form was waxing or waning was not clearly down to selection – meaning it is probably down to chance over which word individuals heard and copied. 

“Chance can play an important role even in language evolution – as we know it does in biological evolution,” said Plotkin, adding that the impact of random chance on language had not been fully appreciated before.

For just six of the 36 verbs, the rise of one form over another was clearly not only down to chance, but was largely a result of active preference – akin to natural selection.

The study also revealed that a flower today is more likely to be “smelled” rather than “smelt” and that the neighbour’s cat probably “dove” behind the sofa – although, as Plotkin notes, British felines remain more likely to have dived.Specifically, “woke” is increasingly preferred over “waked” and “lit” more popular than “lighted”, while “weaved” and “snuck” are on track to eventually overtake “wove” and “sneaked”, respectively. 

But there was a puzzle. “The prevailing view is that if language is changing it should in general change towards the regular form, because the regular form is easier to remember,” said Plotkin. However, four of the six verbs show a rise in the irregular form of the past tense.

That, the team note, might at least in part be down to whether the word sounds similar to other commonly used words of the age. For example the increasing popularity of “dove” rather than “dived” in American English coincides with the development of cars, and hence the rise of soundalike “drive” and past tense “drove” in describing journeys. The team add that they suspect similar effects might be at work in a number of the verbs that currently look like they might be changing by chance alone.

 After Brexit, EU English will be free to morph into a distinct variety

Cathleen O'Grady

 

Read more

The authors add that the research suggests rare words are more likely to vary over time and be subject to random chance.

The study also explores the use of negation in sentences, such as “I say not”, across English texts dating from the 12th to the 16th centuries, revealing that the placement of the negative word has changed more than once due to selection, possibly because of a desire for emphasis.

“There a was period of time where double negation ... was the way to negate things, just as it is in French today,” said Plotkin.

Dr Christine Cuskley, from the Centre for Language Evolution at the University of Edinburgh, agreed that similarities to commonly used irregular verbs could affect which form of past tense is on the rise.

But she said that it was likely that there were other pressures affecting which form of a past tense is favoured. What’s more, Cuskley added, it is not clear if the conclusions from the latest research could be applied to other languages.

“English is weird,” she said.

_____________________

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/01/resistance-to-changes-in-grammar-is-futile-say-researchers?CMP=share_btn_tw