There is an interesting counter argument to what you suggest about mama and
papa in Ruhlen.
"In general, children learn the sounds of a language--any language--in
roughly the same order, with easy sounds loike p, m, an a appearing first,
and difficult sounds like r and [th] appearing last (all of us have
probably known older children who still substitute w for r). Of course,
different languages have different sounds, and the developmental trends are
hardly ironclad, allowing for a good deal of individual variation.
Nonetheless, no one doubts that the aqquisition of a child's sound system
tends to proceed along these lines. Since forms like mama and papa would be
among the first to appear in all languages, it is only natural, Jakobson
argued, that these most basic forms would become attached to the most basic
semantic concepts, 'mother' and 'father.' Their broad distributin is thus
a special case of convergence, and suuch terms do not endanger the
independence of the innumerable families that have them.
"But is Jakobson's explanation for the broad distribution of 'mama' and
papa' really correct?. . .What indicates to me that Jakobson's solution is
basically deficient is the existence of other kin terms, besides 'mama' and
'papa,' that are almost as widespread as these two, but for which
Jakobson's child-language explanation seems inapplicable. Specifically,
there is a very widely attested form kaka that is associated with the
meaning 'older brother' (or closely related concepts like 'uncle, brother,
older sibling') in many supposedly unrelated families. Examples of this
root in the Old World would include forms such as Yukaghir aka 'older
brouther, Proto-Uralic *eka Ryukyuan (a language closely related to
Japanese) aka 'older brother,' gilyak ikin 'older brother,'
Proto-Tibeto-Burman *ik 'older brother,' Proto-Yao *k) 'older brother,' and
Proto-Austronesian *kaka 'Older brother.'" Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of
Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), p. p. 122-123
He then goes on to list Amerind forms
Nisqualli kukh 'older brother'
Bodega Miwok Kaaka 'uncle'
South. Sierra Miwok kaka 'uncle'
Yuki kik-an 'maternal uncle'
Zuni kaka 'maternal uncle'
Natchez kaka 'older brother'
Totonac kuku 'uncle'
Achomawi kex 'uncle'
East Pomo keq 'uncle'
North Pomo -ke- 'older brother'
Kashaya -ki- older brother
Salinan kaai older brother
Jicaque kokam uncle
Varohio kukuri paternal uncle
Tirub kega uncle
Matagalpa kuku-ke uncle
Paya uku uncle
South America
Yeba kako uncle
Masaca kokomai uncle
Waraicu ghuk uncle
Manao ghooko maternal uncle
Sanamaika koko uncle
Mashco kokoa uncle
Kushichineri koko uncle
Cuniba kuku uncle
Canamari ghughu uncle
Piro koko uncle
Apiaca koko uncle
Bakairi kxugu ungle
Pimenteira kucku uncle
Cavinena ekoko uncle
Panobo kuka uncle
Pacawara kuko uncle
Palmas keke older sib ling
Apucarana kanki older brother
Oti koaka brother
Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1994), p. 123-124
I can attest that in Mandarin the sound 'gurga' means older brother,
something like the sound above in Canamari. Ruhlen then makes his argument:
"Why are these forms a problem for Jakobson's explanation? could his
analysis of mama and papa not be extended to cover kaka 'older brother'? I
think not. First of all, velar consonants like k and g, unlike m and p,
are not learned particularly early in child language acquisition. Is it
then plausible that older brothers should appear in the child's world at
just the moment when velar consonants are developing? Of course the older
brothers will have been there all along, so why do children around the
world wait to acquire their velar consonante before they get around to
naming their older siblings? Teh organization of human societies is not
likely such that the arbitrary association of velar consonants and older b
rothers could come about independently in family after family. Thes forms
must be the result of common origin, not of convergence. But if kaka has a
genetic explanation, why should we assume that there is no genetic
component in the multitude of mama and papa forms around the world?"Merritt
Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), p. 124
>These may be interpreted as
>
> - vestiges of an original language
>
> - link-words that might be expected in cross-cultural communications
Not enough cross cultural transmission until the past 4 centuries.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm