Xavier Rouard searches and researches the linguistic world, scientific research of course, for the origin, the cradle, the homeland, or the motherland, of Indo-European. He is not the only one in the world, but he goes against practically all the others by positioning this linguistic nursery in Central Asia based on a Eurasian or trans-Eurasian language or languages. But precisely Eurasian languages only came into existence from the moment when syntactic-analytic Indo-Iranian languages left the Iranian plateau where they had stationed themselves when they arrived from Black Africa, some 40,000 years ago, or BCE, not much difference here. They had to go through the Ice Age first and finally get on the move after this climate event probably around 15,000 BCE, some east to the southern Asian continent, with Pakistan and India, others west down into Mesopotamia and from there to Europe. These people, on both side, encountered people who spoke other languages, Turkic agglutinative languages, and isolating Sino-Tibetan languages, mostly. These languages had integrated the Denisovans and their own language(s). Thes encountered people were hybrid Homo Sapiens with a varying proportion of Denisovan DNA in Central Asia, and the same in Mesopotamia with a varying proportion od Neanderthalensis DNA. When they reached Europe, the population was essentially of Turkic language and origin with a varying level of hybridization with European Homo Neanderthalensis. It is such encounters that generated or engendered the various Indo-European or Indo-Aryan languages My approach is phylogenetic and thus it is absolutely impossible for me not to take into consideration the migrations and geographic, hence social, cultural and linguistic movements of these populations. That’s the basic principle of Joseph Greenberg who considered that all these migrations had only one matrix or melting pot that produced the emergence of human articulated language on the basis of what these emerging Homo Sapiens inherited from the other Hominins from which they were descending. But Joseph Greenberg and his disciples encountered a problem: in all language you should find a certain number of words whose “roots” are universal and stable in meaning. These are the roots coming from Black Africa before any migration out of Black Africa. The problem is then that it does not enable any topology of languages. So, they, Greenberg and his disciples, tried to introduce “grammatical” or “syntactic” words, but even so it does go that far. To get somewhere you have to ask the question about the phylogeny of articulated language(s), and there you only find three articulations in a precise order: root-languages (by the way vastly ignored by Xavier Rouard), Isolating character languages, and agglutinative as well as synthetic-analytic languages according to the migrations out of Black Africa. If you do not consider this phylogeny, then you put all sorts of languages together in the melting pot [...}

2. JOSEPH GREENBERG
CONGRATULATES XAVIER
ROUARD
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU’s critical
contribution
XAVIER ROUARD – TEN REASONS WHY CENTRAL ASIA HAD TO BE
THE PIE ORIGINAL HOMELAND – MARCH 2024 –
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378846126_Ten_reasons_why_Central_Asia_had_to_be
_the_PIE_original_homeland
A French version exists on the same site. “Dix raisons pour lesquelles l'Asie Centrale devait
être le foyer originel des Indo-Européens, Gaulois et peuples des Balkans,” March 2024,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379227051_Dix_raisons_pour_lesquelles_l'Asie_Central
e_devait_etre_le_foyer_originel_des_Indo-Europeens_Gaulois_et_peuples_des_Balkans. Those
who do not feel at ease can get to the French version. I did not read the French version, except for
the title and a few passages. But the title surprised me because “had to be” says clearly that the
proposed solution is the only possible solution and it should have given in French “se doit d’être,”
or “ne peut qu’être.” But the author used the “had to be” formula that implies an absolute obligation
or necessity, in this case scientific. That is slightly excessive. But that is a detail after all, and that
might be a mistake from the translating machine, or the AI used to produce the translation. But it is
regrettable.
The first point will be to say that all the examples of WORDS and ONLY WORDS concerned
here and put forward by Rouard prove what Greenberg said and published that all human
languages have only one source in Black Africa where and when they evolved along with Homo
Sapiens who emerged thanks to this evolution there from Homo Erectus or Homo Ergaster. I will
be slightly more open and I might say from the two or three languages Homo Sapiens spoke in
Black Africa around 300,000 BCE with contacts and exchanges between the diverse communities,
enabling them to exchange words which explains why we can only track one root for a certain
number of words that can be considered as very old, if not original, and corresponding to items that
were essential for human survival, like water, fire, and some parts of the body, but also some
natural dangers. Xavier Rouard crosses the same limitation as Greenberg: he does not consider
the phylogeny of language (the communicational ability using clusters of sounds to build words),
nor the phylogeny of the languages he quotes or mentions. The phylogeny of language follows
three articulations: rotation of vowels and consonants, morphological particularization of the
clusters produced by the previous articulation into spatial (nominal) and temporal (verbal), and
finally the syntactic articulation based on functional marks for the spatial units, and conjugation for
the temporal units, with two levels. Agglutination makes the verbs carry marks representing all the
functional elements that carry this verb, and a movement of externalization of all these temporal
and nominal marks with periphrastic phrases and exterior tool words leaving the morphologic
clusters more and more naked, and yet flexible in morphology and functional or conjugational use.
That leads to three vast families of particular languages: Semitic root languages, isolating
character languages, and the double third articulation vast family with the older or first generation
in time, Turkic agglutinative languages, and the younger or second generation, in time, Indo-

3. European and Indo Aryan, or if you prefer for both together, Indo-Iranian languages with the
masters of both branches being respectively Sanskrit for Indo-Arian languages and Sumerian for
Indo-European languages. I do not say origin because I am a phylogenist. But to understand this
you have to compare what is different in different languages but if you stick to words only you can
only compare what is similar. Saussure used to say that the value of any linguistic element is in the
differences these linguistic items carry. Value is in the difference between compared elements.
Breast cancer and colorectal cancer are two forms of one thing, cancer, and yet they cannot be
dealt with the same way because of their differences. They may end up the same way, but they are
not really similar. They are at least as radically different as the Chinese and the Turkish languages,
not to mention Lingala or Bambara.
Joseph Greenberg Jacques Coulardeau Xavier Rouard
Being from Rouen, he must have known the linguistic masters there, Jean-Baptiste Marcellesi
(who left for Corsica), Louis Guespin, and Bernard Gardin who brought up the concept of
Glottopolitique invoked in January 2003 as follows, quoted from Glottopol, On-line sociolinguistic
Journal N°1 dealing with What Linguistic Policy for What Nation or State? The quotation is signed
by Jean-Baptiste Marcellesi, since in 2003 Bernard Gardin and Louis Guespin crossed the final
river of life leading to the unknown. The original is available at http://glottopol.univ-rouen.fr/.
I would like to give below, more as topics for discussion than as doctrinal pillars,
some assertions that, in my opinion, we, the Rouen team, have put forward in the field of
glottopolitics. We can discuss them and perhaps reject them at the end of a debate. But if
we pass without considering them, the glottopolitics that we shape will simply be a
traditional approach whose name will have been changed. First of all, languages are not
an “always – already there” object. We must accept them in their temporal, spatial, and
social variations. We must keep in mind that there is a constant glottogenesis always at
work and that the only birth of a language is its recognition. The unifying conception
(which does not simply mean unifying) necessarily leads to forms of alienation. Certainly,
linguistic planning stiffens in the face of variation... This is no reason to align glottopolitics
with it. On the other hand, on the ground, in time, or society, languages are not often
reifications with very clear boundaries. These are difficult objects to count (how many
Romance languages are there?) if we see their existence as processes marked by the
dialectic of satellization vs. differentiation, linguistic identity being a determined element
even if it can become and often then does become overdetermining if we take for a reality
what is only its shadow. Hence the need to take into account, for teaching, pluralistic
strategies and, when appropriate, polynomic input.1
1
Je voudrais donner à la suite, plus comme des sujets de discussion que comme des piliers doctrinaux, quelques assertions que, selon
moi, nous, l’équipe rouennaise, avons avancées dans le domaine de la glottopolitique. On peut les discuter et peut-être les rejeter au
terme d’un débat. Mais si on passe sans les prendre en considération, la glottopolitique que l’on façonnera sera simplement une
démarche traditionnelle dont on aura changé le nom. D’abord les langues ne sont pas un objet « toujours – déjà-là ». On doit les
assumer dans leurs variations temporelles, spatiales, sociales. Il faut avoir à l’esprit qu’il y a une constante glottogenèse toujours à
l’œuvre et que la seule naissance d’une langue est sa reconnaissance. La conception unifiante (ce qui ne veut pas dire simplement
unificatrice) conduit nécessairement à des formes d’aliénation. Certes la planification linguistique se raidit devant la variation… Ce n’est
pas une raison pour aligner sur elle la glottopolitique. D’autre part, sur le terrain, dans le temps ou dans la société, les langues ne sont

4. The shortcoming is simple: a language evolves along the line of its inner phylogeny that can
only be specified if we understand the phylogeny of a language has no ends, no beginning, and no
final stage: it always comes from some linguistic entity and will evolve into some other linguistic
entity, and both entities can be plural. It is constant and continuous phylogeny and evolution, each
stage of this evolution is the result of the evolution contained in the previous state, and the
phylogenetic putative and potential evolution that will produce the next stage. It is not because
some non-English-speaking purists refused to use the English word “cluster” during the COVID-19
pandemic that the word has disappeared. In fact, it has even spread to other domains that have
nothing to do with the aforementioned pandemic. You may still not buy a cluster of radishes at the
supermarket, but you can be confronted with strange uses like:
To date, document clustering by genres or authors has been performed mostly
utilizing stylometrics and content features. With the premise that novels are societies in
miniature, we build social networks from novels as a strategy to quantify their plot and
structure. From each social network, we extract a vector of features that characterize the
novel. We perform clustering over the vectors obtained, and the resulting groups are
contrasted in terms of author and genre.2
And that was even before COVID-19. I remember going to this university several times,
particularly for the first conference on Glottopolitique in which I presented a paper on the practice
and use of Picard in North-Pas de Calais with the special case of industrial Picard in the textile
industry, the mining industry still active at the time, and the steel industry, not to speak of the use
of it on the intercom of SNCF including when communicating with the train drivers, with the special
case of Eurostar drivers who have to respond properly to this local Picard used by the guiding
personnel. Greta, a service providing training to employed adults, had to devise a full training plan
for the future Eurostar drivers on the French side for English and we advised the English side for
pas souvent des réifications aux limites bien nettes. Ce sont des objets difficiles à compter (combien y a-t-il de langues romanes ?) si on
voit leur existence comme des processus marqués par la dialectique de la satellisation vs la différenciation, l’identité linguistique étant
un élément déterminé même s’il peut devenir et devient souvent ensuite surdéterminant si on prend pour la réalité ce qui n’en est que
l’ombre. D’où la nécessaire prise en compte, pour l’enseignement, de stratégies pluralistes et, quand il y a lieu, d’une saisie
polynomique.
2
Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature (CLFL), April 2014, Gothenburg, Sweden,

5. the training of the English drivers of these trains. To follow Marcellesi’s way. Is Picard a Romance
language or a mostly Germanic language?
What I say here fits very well with Buddhist philosophy which has become over the centuries
and millennia Asian philosophy. Three principles, three fundamental concepts. Anicca, Dukkha,
Anatta. Everything changes all the time. Everything goes through repetitive cycles birth-living-death
which produce a feeling of insecurity and frustration, what traditional English translators of Pāli
Buddhist writings, like the Pāli Texts Society, translate as “suffering,” which is at best one-third of
the reality of such cycles. Birth is sukkah, satisfaction, and happiness, living is very contradictory
since many such cycles accumulate, and death is frustration and disappointment, and it might be
suffering if we do not accept the idea that everything has and must have an end. The third concept
is the result of these first two: anatta states that nothing and nobody has a permanent and even
really durable self, essence, or soul. So, let’s go back to language and languages. No language
can be seen and understood if we lock it up in an essence, a self, or even a soul or a spirit. It’s
even worse if we want to identify the homeland of a language, the birthplace of a language. Any
language is brought by a community or even communities, A language evolves from previous
languages, or maybe from only one previous language. French is castrated if it is not seen as the
result of an extremely long revolution with several languages living in what was to become the
French territory, The Old European Turkic languages, the various Indo-European languages,
particularly Gaulish and Celtic languages but also other brands visiting, passing or simply coming
for commerce like the Semitic Phoenicians, and then Greeks like commercial navigators too, and
Latin with the Roman Empire and the legions stationed in what will eventually become France, and
Roman legions were at least multilingual. Later on, the Germanic tribes invaded the Roman empire
and their languages are still directly visible in various French dialects, still today. And what about
today with all the Semitic languages of the Maghreb, and the languages from Black Africa, not to
speak of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German, Romanian, and many other languages more or
less permanently present and mixing with any other linguistic groups? You list languages as if they
were permanent stable entities in a stable and durable territory.
We cannot separate languages from the Hominin's ability to develop and use linguistic
communication. It is communication that is the very survival instinct and capability Hominins have
had and still have to develop just to survive. You never really analyze Human, and before, Hominin
communication. As a biology teacher used to say in my Californian community, “Taxogeny
recapitulates phylogeny.” The gestation, growth, and life of a human being recapitulates the whole
phylogeny of the human species from the big apes to the mechanized AI Hominin machine
humans are going to become tomorrow. A language in its evolution from identification to its death
recapitulates the whole phylogeny of the linguistic communication this particular language helps
develop by developing itself as a language but at the same time, all of the linguistic competence of
Hominins and then Homo Sapiens to communicate and use communication to manage time and
space.
If we follow A.P. Derevianko we should update our concept of “Sapiens” since this author
widens it to include Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Denisovan, hence building three branches
in the genus Homo Sapiens, i.e., Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, Homo Sapiens Denisovan,
both in Eurasia centered on the Urals, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens positioned in Africa that should
be qualified as Black Africa. For him, the three Homo Sapiens branches can interbreed, and the
hybrids are fertile. We have to enter this research because nothing is said about language,
communication, migration, and phylogeny in the abstract (see below). We know the heavy
integration of Homo Denisovan in Southeast Asia (and incidentally in the Himalayas, what is today,
Tibet, into Homo Sapiens communities when these arrived there. We know about the limited
though significant integration of Homo Neanderthalensis in the Middle East and Europe into Homo
Sapiens communities just arriving from Blackl Africa, and we also know the absolute non-
integration of the two other branches in Black Africa, because those two other branches never
moved to Africa, nor the Americas, though the Homo Sapiens that migrated from Southeast Asia to
South America were carrying the famous Denisovan gene that enabled Denisovans and their
Homo Sapiens hybrids to live at high altitude like the Andean Native Americans (Incas for
example). But we have to move from migratory elements to cultural elements. Similar myths and

6. stories in North America and South America have different though similar sources. In North
America, from Siberia (mixed languages and hybrid genetic and cultural heritage. In South
America, from Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. Julien d’Huy has noticed the presence in
South American myths and stories of elements that can only come from the South Pacific and
Southeast Asia.
The linguistic and cultural elements are the only really serious elements to follow migrations
and the emergence of “sapiens-ness.” The three branches of Homo sapiens according to A.P.
Derevianko can interbreed and produce fertile hybrids. But how far do the mental, linguistic, and
cultural specifications of the three branches integrate one another at the level of the hybrids thus
produced? That explains the situation in Europe today: the DNA there is 75% Old European, Turkic
and agglutinative, as for languages, and only 25% New European, Indo-European synthetic-
analytic as for languages. What enables a demographic minority to integrate into a demographic
majority and completely take over their language(s) and their culture(s)? Languages and language
are more flexible. This is to be seriously doubted, flexible yes but within some stiff stability. The
spiritual culture, practices, and heritage are more fascinating, mesmerizing, and stronger for the
explanation of experiential and existential realities. Here so far, studies are few, and unluckily they
hardly go beyond the peak of the Ice Age, 24,000 BCE to 14,000 BCE (about 10,000 years long.
How did Homo Sapiens and the hybrids of the two other branches survive that long?). Your data
does not even go that far and is too much centered on scriptural data without defining what you
consider scriptural data. It has been proved that Homo Naledi (maybe Homo Sapiens Naledi), and
Homo Neanderthalensis (maybe Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) have engraved geometric
figures, maybe entoptics, over various material media that survived or in the rock over burials or
next to representational engravings or paintings. Paintings seem to be more from Homo Sapiens
(Cro-Magnons, Gravettians, Homo Sapiens in Indonesian caves, all those around the same dates
going back to at least 45,000 BCE, but provisional dates like 300,000 BCE or even maybe earlier
for Homo Naledi and 100,000 for Homo Neanderthalensis. Even if we can’t archaeologically prove
much beyond these dates (about 50,000 BCE or BP for Homo Sapiens) we have a lot to study and
say about the long period from 50,000 to 19,000 BCE. You don’t consider this period and thus you
froze the ethnic, demographic, and linguistic (not cultural, not syntactic, not phylogenic) at dates
that are around, mostly around 5,000-3,000 BCE, and occasionally slightly further back to 10,000
BCE. You do not speak of Gobekli Tepe which is a long time before your main dating attached to
scriptural elements, or Çatalhöyük which both are well advanced into representational symbolism.
That’s where we have to enter the logic of A.P. Derevianko.

8. Some 3 million years ago, the genus Homo originated from australopithecines in
Africa. In the Pleistocene, in the course of subsequent evolutionary processes such as
natural selection, hybridization, and adaptation to changing environments, in the 200–100
ka BP interval, anatomically modern humans emerged in Africa, Homo Sapiens
Neanderthalensis in Europe, and Homo Sapiens Denisovan in Central and Northern Asia
[Note the absence of Tibet and Southeast Asia, my comment]. The origin of these
taxa has been discussed in various publications and at many symposia. In the course of
debates, several hypotheses were advanced—African Eve, multiregional evolution,
evolution with hybridization, etc. All of them proceed from the assumption that the earliest
anatomically modern humans originated in Africa. The main disagreement between the
experts concerns the role of native Eurasians in the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens
following the migration of anatomically modern humans from Africa to Eurasia. In several
publications of mine, a scenario of the phylogenetic history of the genus Homo, somewhat
different from the currently discussed hypotheses, was proposed. The analysis of the
genetic legacy of anatomically modern humans, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, and
Homo Sapiens Denisovan has shown that those hominins were able to hybridize and that
the hybrids were fertile. This means that hybridization and assimilation proceeded not
between separate species but within a single species, whose populations were open
genetic systems. Consequently, if, at the final stage of the phylogenetic history of Homo,
200–100 ka BP, three taxa capable of hybridization emerged on various continents in the
process of a long evolution, then all previous Early and Middle Pleistocene taxa in Africa,
Europe, and Asia, established by the analysis of fossils, had likewise open genetic
systems. This means that over a nearly 3-million-year-long evolution of the genus Homo,
resulting in progressive sapienization, three key factors — natural selection,
hybridization, and adaptation to changing environments of the Pleistocene [My
emphasis] — have shaped both morphology and genetics of that genus. The article
addresses the origin of a single basal species in Africa, ancestral to all anatomically
modern humans, their spread to Eurasia, and their role in the origin of H. sapiens
neanderthalensis in Europe. (https://doi.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2024.52.1.003-034)
Note this author, in his abstract, does not mention language, communication, or cultural
practices including religion. Difficult to know for such distant periods of time, but definitely not
difficult to specify for the period starting around 50,000 BCE for Homo Sapiens (maybe Homo
Sapiens Sapiens. With the meaning of A.P. Derevianko? Or with the meaning, starting around
75,000 BCE, of Yuval Noah Harari?)

9. That kind of deculturization of languages was typical of the three researchers in Rouen
University at Mont Saint Aignan I have quoted, and I worked with them too, within the Centre
d’Études et de Recherches Marxistes, Boulevard Auguste Blanqui at the time, in the 1970s. They
defended the standard Marxist theme that “All Languages can say Everything.” They just forgot
that not two languages can say everything THE SAME WAY. You compare but you must not
treat them as being the same, agglutinative languages, synthetic-analytic languages, isolating
languages, and Semitic languages. Their phylogeny is different for each group and within each
group, each language has its own phylogeny. But that was the contradiction of Marcellesi. All
languages were able to say all the same things, and yet, Marcellesi spoke of Glottopolitics
differentiating each language with this enormous parameter or set of parameters. And yet he
rejected the Stalinist untruth of the 1930s with Marr explaining that since Russian is the language
of the Soviet Union it is bound to become the language of the world when the world is – certainly
not will or may be – socialist, eventually communist. And yet, he moved with his wife back to
Corsica because for him Corsican was his real language. He was collaborating with Robert Lafont
from Montpellier whom I knew at CERM in Paris and Université Paul Valéry in Montpellier. The
disagreement was that for Lafont a language, any language, was identifying for the community that
spoke it, for the individuals who had been raised in this language and its community. And once
again, the root for “cheval” is the same in many Romance languages but in Germanic languages,
you have two roots “Pferd” and “Ross,” the last one will give “horse” in English, and do not tell me
about the French “rosse” that compete with “canasson.” Le Robert Dictionnaire tells me and us:
rosse
définitionsynonymesexemples17e siècle
DÉFINITION
Définition de rosse nom féminin et adjectif
1- vieilli Mauvais cheval.
2- Personne dure, méchante. ➙ familier chameau, vache.
Ah ! les rosses !
adjectif
Vous avez été rosse avec lui.
définitionsynonymesexemples17e siècle
SYNONYMES
Synonymes de rosse
nom féminin
teigne, chameau, vache (familier), carne (familier, vieilli)
adjectif
dur, injuste, méchant, sévère, vache (familier).
You can note the « canasson” is not there. Le Robert Dictionnaire gives the following
definition :
canasson
définitionsynonymesexemples
DÉFINITION
Définition de canasson nom masculin
familier Cheval.
définitionsynonymesexemples
SYNONYMES
Synonymes de canasson nom masculin
cheval, vieille bique (familier), bourrique (familier), haridelle (familier), criquet (familier, viei
lli), carne (vieilli), rosse (vieilli), rossinante (vieilli), mazette (vieux)
We can note Le Robert Dictionnaire has special meanings for ”familier” and “vieilli,” both
equivalent to “mauvais.” Most of these “familier” words become insults if you apply them to a

10. human being. “Ma patronne n’est rien d’autre qu’une vieille haridelle.” The AI of Google Translate
provides me with « “My boss is nothing but an old harlot.” You can see “harlot” is no longer
connected with a horse in any way except for the Cowboy or Cowgirl sexual positions she may
eventually provide you with. The Oxford Dictionary is clear, in due respect with Shakespeare:
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
harlot
noun
ARCHAIC
a prostitute.
Words can show a surface connection, but you have to take morphological, syntactic, and
paradigmatic elements into account to really measure the value of a word, and then you have to
get out of this frozen approach of word listings and enter the phylogeny of the words, and
especially the phylogeny of the language, even including paradigmatic cultural elements with these
beautiful graphs Julien d’Huy uses, after his master, Jean-Loïc Le Quellec, to map the uses and
values of a mythological element. This kind of derivational paradigmatic tree was used in
Semantics and Semiology long before mythological studies.
I would advise curious readers to check a pre-COVID article of mine, COGNITION IS
COMMUNICATION, September 2018, in Psychology Research, September 2018, Vol. 8, No. 9,
doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2018.09.001.
ABSTRACT
The author will present work on the central role of two virtual human
constructs of man’s nervous system and brain confronted with their real
environment, both natural and social. These two constructs, the mind, and
language, are the results of the development of the general pattern-capturing
potential of the brain’s architecture. The mind and language develop
simultaneously, reciprocally, and in close coordination, transforming the pattern-
capturing potential of the brain into the mental and linguistic conceptualizing power
of men/women. It comes in six stages: sense; perceive; discriminate/recognize
patterns; experiment; speculate; and conceptualize. Long before birth, a child is
bombarded with physiological and verbal communication to which he/she cannot

11. respond verbally. As soon as born, he/she is cast into a communicational situation
crucial for his/her survival: call―respond―feed―nurture―speak. That produces
the development of Henceforth, a fourfold personality(Lacan’s Square). A
phylogenic and psychogenetic approach of the connected pair mind/language
captures this cognitive conceptualizing power, using the architecture of the highly
parallel, hierarchical, and pattern-discriminating brain. This leads to a cognitive
procedure: Bertrand Russel for the first three steps and Lev Vygotsky (Jean
Piaget) for the last three steps. Language is the first and main tool of this
procedure that starts yet for the child in pure action. The Internet and artificial
intelligence (AI) minimize authority/other. Are social networks the new anti-social,
anonymous, uncatchable killers of cognition, or supreme absolute cognition and
total freedom of expression? Can a processing framework guarantee true
cognition or at least as little false cognition as possible?
Keywords: communicational situation, mind/language, conceptualization,
cognition, education, Internet, artificial intelligence (AI), womb-memory
(PDF) COGNITION IS COMMUNICATION. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328887669_COGNITION_IS_COMMUNICATIO
N [accessed Apr 27, 2024].
And here is one of these diagrams from Julien d’Huy’s own research on mythologies and
myths.
Figure 2: Neighbor-Net Splitgraph without some mythemes D'Huy, Julien, (2013) "A
Cosmic Hunt in the Berber sky: a phylogenetic reconstruction of a Paleolithic mythology,"
Les Cahiers de l'AARS, # 16, Amis de l'Art Rupestre Saharien, Saint Lizier, France
Every single linguistic element within the SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS that any language is
and that can be compared but in no way homogenized with the systems of systems of

12. other languages. This process has no starting point and no ending point. It is the
phylogeny of language and languages. A dead language is not dead. It is simply not used
anymore. And remember that the taxogeny recuperates the phylogeny., the taxogeny of
learning any language recuperates the phylogeny of this language and beyond the
phylogeny of language as the capacity to communicate orally and in writ. I am convinced
today that we have to go back to the emergence of articulated language, and thus stop
locking language within Homo Sapiens (emerging around 300,000 BCE, emerging from
where, when, what?), or locking it within the time when Homo Sapiens started writing
somewhere around 3,500 BCE (no language, no languages existed/exist as long as the
oral linguistic communication was/is not written). That’s where I have found a lot of
symbolic activities, long before these scriptural limits, even beyond this Homo Sapiens
species, and since using oral messages that are clusters of vowels and consonants,
becomes representative of the symbolic power, competence, and function of these first
primeval forms of language, there are numerous reasons to consider that there were some
forms of oral communication in some hominin species before Homo Sapiens whose oral
communication is nothing but the development of the oral communicational competence of
these pre-Sapiens Hominin species.
Here is the simplest possible representation of this phylogeny of language, of
languages (and by extension of communication).
If you consider every single element of any language and imagine the cosmos of all
the elements to be taken into account in the learning of the language starting before birth
and never ending before death itself, it is clear that there cannot be two people speaking
the same way in the same language, and if we consider not only what they say, but what
they imply and all that they base their utterances on, it is always a miracle if
communication is effective. In this communicational linguistic churn, with a continuous flow
of vowels and consonants, Homo Sapiens, after his older parent species, turned it into a
flow of oral clusters, and then into some kind of flowing “text.”
To Conclude, I will simply say that Xavier Rouard proves beyond any reasonable
doubt that Greenberg was right when he said that all languages in the world have
phylogenetically evolved from one single source in Black Africa, though this unique source
might have contained two or three territorial dialects because diversity is the basic survival
axiom of Hominins (and maybe all living species). So, Xavier Rouard might be right when
speaking of Indo-European though I doubt very much that the question on the origin,
birthplace, or whatever nest of Indo-European is a good question. It is of course in perfect

13. agreement with the mental functioning and thinking of most if not all orthodox beliefs, be
they religious or political, at least as soon as a supreme being or supreme leader is
appointed at the head of the community concerned. And it is vain to look for a Big Bang
that we pinpoint at a more or less fuzzy moment in the past if we do NOT know anything
about what existed before. As Buddha is reported to have said: “If I state the existence of
an original creator of the world, then you will be perfectly justified to ask me: ‘Who created
that original creator?’”Remember they all came from Black Africa, including the Semitic
people who migrated only to North Africa and stayed there up to 30,000 BCE, apart from
some migration to Crete that led nowhere in 160,000 BCE. The Indo-European and Indo-
Aryan, Indo-Iranian if you want to unify the process, are the direct result of the phylogeny
of language – and languages – traced so far back to Black Africa. Greenberg had it right
and his attempt to work from there with no knowledge or mention of the mental and
intellectual phylogeny of the Hominin genus led him to an out-of-time topology. If taxogeny
recuperates phylogeny, topology is an abstract construction that leads to little, apart from
knowing what can be compared since we do not mix fish and potatoes, except in fish and
chips. The first time I tried to buy some fish and chips in London, I was asked “Cod,
haddock, or flounder?” Being from Bordeaux, I knew about cod since Bordeaux was a cod-
fishing-and-processing harbor up to the 1970s (the last cod-processing factory was in
Bègles and it was transformed in the 70s after I left Bordeaux into a nightclub), though the
cod I knew was dry and preserved in salt. Quai de Bacalan is a direct Portuguese heritage
from “bacalhau.” I took the one I knew, and I was probably wrong.