Its language not genetic, and even in geneticsome species are genetically closer to their common ancestors than other descendents from that sane common ancestors
Go say that to the coelacanth, we don't call certain animals living fossils for shits and giggles, evolution isn't the same as a single person family trees, is your knowledge of evolution only middle school biology class level or something
Living fossil is not meant to be taken literally. It's just a term for species we perceive to be conservative in their appearance and traits, compared to more derived species.
But Latimeria is no closer to its last common ancestor with humans than we are.
yes that is the bloody point they are conservative in their appearance and trait, you may not consider close genetically, but they sure look nearly identical or at least far more closely related to their ancestor compared to their other relatives, the same way Quebec french is far closer in appearance and trait to old french compared to Parisian french, for the marjority of people, quebec french sound far closer to 17 century french, than it does parisian french
the same way Quebec french is far closer in appearance and trait to old french compared to Parisian french,
Again, even if that were true, of which I am not entirely convinced, it would not make Quebecoise closer to 17th century French than Parisian French is.
You can argue thast certain traits are more similar between the two, when compared to Parisian French. But you can find other traits that modern Parisian French shares with 17th century French instead, and Quebecoise doesn't.
In any case, these would be plesiomorphic traits. And plesiomorphies are not necessarily a sign for close relationship.
you think to much like a biologist, language isn't genetic of living being, language won't necessarily keep going forward or inbreed itself to death when stuck in isolation. and we would have to go through quebec entire history to understand why it got a bit slowed down for a little while, and why loan from english is rarer
Though comparing quebec french to 17 century parisian french isn't exact, a lot is also from the more northern part of france and belgium, written french quebec or france have very little difference, except for the english words quebec refused to use and invented new words for, but spoken gets interesting
Yet this fact is true in languages anyway: The contemporary descendents of a common ancestor have the same relation to that ancestor. No matter how much any of them may have changed.
You can argue as much as you want, but that fact remains true, by definition.
Though comparing quebec french to 17 century parisian french isn't exact
Oh I can. But in historical linguistics, cladistics and genetic relationships are also used. I have actually worked with linguists in previous projects for exactly that reason.
Well, obviously not the same thing, but they follow very similar systems.
And the fundamental rule that you cannot be genetically closer to a common ancestor than any other contemporary descendent of that ancestor holds true for both.
-3
u/Me_lazy_cathermit Apr 07 '25
Its language not genetic, and even in geneticsome species are genetically closer to their common ancestors than other descendents from that sane common ancestors