Discussion:
Papuans in Brazil 11.5ka
(too old to reply)
Daud Deden
2018-01-22 21:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Papuans in Brazil 11.5ka

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full new article

11.5ka Luzia et. al. at Lagoa Santa Karst rockshelters, unique morphology.

Near region of the "Melanesian" genetic trace:
(from 2015) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
-

Luzia et al ancestors were from a SEAsian-Papuan group that used bark-canoes (from Sago palm processing) riding the north Pacific Gyre of the warm-water Kuroshio current going up the Pacific coast when Beringia blocked today's cold Arctic current, northeastward-eastward (south of Beringia) then southward to California & Honduras to the equator where they met the northflowing Antarctic current and landed.

AmerIndians arrived later via Mexico-North Dakota (cf. Mandan c.oracles)-Canada (between glacial massifs)-Beringia-Siberia, their landlubber journey had begun earlier in north Siberia. DD

-

Let's track their linguistic journey & contacts, shall we?
Daud Deden
2018-01-22 22:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans in Brazil 11.5ka
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full new article
11.5ka Luzia et. al. at Lagoa Santa Karst rockshelters, unique morphology.
(from 2015) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
-
Luzia et al ancestors were from a SEAsian-Papuan group that used bark-canoes (from Sago palm processing) riding the north Pacific Gyre of the warm-water Kuroshio current going up the Pacific coast when Beringia blocked today's cold Arctic current, northeastward-eastward (south of Beringia) then southward to California & Honduras to the equator where they met the northflowing Antarctic current and landed.
AmerIndians arrived later via Mexico-North Dakota (cf. Mandan c.oracles)-Canada (between glacial massifs)-Beringia-Siberia, their landlubber journey had begun earlier in north Siberia. DD
-
Let's track their linguistic journey & contacts, shall we?
-----

- from my comment at West Hunter blog:

DD'eDeN January 22, 2018 at 2:13 pm

As I’ve stated elsewhere, bark-canoes (later log dugouts canoes) were invented in Papua (from Sago palm processing), logically some went north along coastal Asia following the coastal current. Beringia BLOCKED the north-south arctic cold currents (like those we currently have), so the Kuroshio-California warm currents (North Pacific swirling gyre) propelled Luzia et al’s ancestors eastwardly along Beringia’s southern coast onward to Alaska, California, Honduras to the equator where they met the northward Antarctic current and stopped. The next immigrants were Beringian landlubbers who started earlier but arrived later, who begot the AmerIndians & Na Dene etc.

My claim apparently passes genetic, architectural, linguistic, technological, migratory-least-cost-most-efficient voyage, testing as far as I can see. The original adze, the original flour pancake-flatbread, the oldest non-coracle boat, the "kelp highway" (not used by the landlubbers with their old-school wicker & yakskin kudru/ buffalo bull-boat coracles cf. Tibet & N. Dakota Mandan (between the 2 glacial massifs)). The evidence is there, my interpretation is logical. DD
DKleinecke
2018-01-23 00:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans in Brazil 11.5ka
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full new article
11.5ka Luzia et. al. at Lagoa Santa Karst rockshelters, unique morphology.
(from 2015) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
-
Luzia et al ancestors were from a SEAsian-Papuan group that used bark-canoes (from Sago palm processing) riding the north Pacific Gyre of the warm-water Kuroshio current going up the Pacific coast when Beringia blocked today's cold Arctic current, northeastward-eastward (south of Beringia) then southward to California & Honduras to the equator where they met the northflowing Antarctic current and landed.
AmerIndians arrived later via Mexico-North Dakota (cf. Mandan c.oracles)-Canada (between glacial massifs)-Beringia-Siberia, their landlubber journey had begun earlier in north Siberia. DD
-
Let's track their linguistic journey & contacts, shall we?
-----
DD'eDeN January 22, 2018 at 2:13 pm
As I’ve stated elsewhere, bark-canoes (later log dugouts canoes) were invented in Papua (from Sago palm processing), logically some went north along coastal Asia following the coastal current. Beringia BLOCKED the north-south arctic cold currents (like those we currently have), so the Kuroshio-California warm currents (North Pacific swirling gyre) propelled Luzia et al’s ancestors eastwardly along Beringia’s southern coast onward to Alaska, California, Honduras to the equator where they met the northward Antarctic current and stopped. The next immigrants were Beringian landlubbers who started earlier but arrived later, who begot the AmerIndians & Na Dene etc.
My claim apparently passes genetic, architectural, linguistic, technological, migratory-least-cost-most-efficient voyage, testing as far as I can see. The original adze, the original flour pancake-flatbread, the oldest non-coracle boat, the "kelp highway" (not used by the landlubbers with their old-school wicker & yakskin kudru/ buffalo bull-boat coracles cf. Tibet & N. Dakota Mandan (between the 2 glacial massifs)). The evidence is there, my interpretation is logical. DD
But, so far as I can tell, not supported by anything resembling
evidence.
Daud Deden
2018-01-23 19:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ross, nowhere did I say that Papuans used sago rinds for ocean-going watercraft.

'Crank' etymology: ?

DK, you already showed your 'expertise' on the Pirahã, now tell us all about Papuans:
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-01-23 03:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans in Brazil 11.5ka
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full new article
11.5ka Luzia et. al. at Lagoa Santa Karst rockshelters, unique morphology.
(from 2015) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
-
Luzia et al ancestors were from a SEAsian-Papuan group that used bark-canoes (from Sago palm processing) riding the north Pacific Gyre of the warm-water Kuroshio current going up the Pacific coast when Beringia blocked today's cold Arctic current, northeastward-eastward (south of Beringia) then southward to California & Honduras to the equator where they met the northflowing Antarctic current and landed.
AmerIndians arrived later via Mexico-North Dakota (cf. Mandan c.oracles)-Canada (between glacial massifs)-Beringia-Siberia, their landlubber journey had begun earlier in north Siberia. DD
-
Let's track their linguistic journey & contacts, shall we?
Sorry, Paul Rivet was onto it nearly a century ago. Other cranks
have had a go in the meantime. I don't think you'll produce anything
more interesting.

The idea of putting to sea, let alone circumnavigating the Pacific, in
a dugout of Metroxylon wood, strikes me as laughable. But I'm not
an expert. I hope you'll try your scenario out on some archaeologists
and anthropologists, even if it passes all your "tests".
Daud Deden
2018-01-23 19:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ross, what was Rivet's migration theory you speak of? Wiki has no details, and my French skill is too limited to read his book.

I specified route, method & motive, all aligned with present evidence and logical speculation. No-one that I'm aware of has done that.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-01-23 23:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, what was Rivet's migration theory you speak of? Wiki has no details, and my French skill is too limited to read his book.
All he says in the 1925 paper (the only one I can readily get hold of)
is that there were migrations "by way of the islands", first by Australians
and later by Melanesians/Polynesians. He (and others) believed in
the migrations on the basis of physical and cultural resemblances.
In this paper he presents what he considers linguistic evidence, comparing
the Chon languages (Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego) with Australian, and
the Hokan group (mainly North American) with Oceanic.

I'd be polite enough not to call Rivet a crank; he was an anthropologist,
highly esteemed by his French colleagues. But he had no more clue than
the average crank about what linguistic evidence is. He compares basketfuls
of languages on either side and finds (unsurprisingly) random similarities.
Others before and since have done the same.
Post by Daud Deden
I specified route, method & motive, all aligned with present evidence and logical speculation. No-one that I'm aware of has done that.
Daud Deden
2018-01-25 15:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.

http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai

I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.

Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.

Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.

If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-01-25 22:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
That's a nice site -- nice looking and so much more credible than
some of the "untranslatable" or "they have a word for it" rubbish
that floats around online and in books. They've gone to the trouble
of checking with credible sources (even a couple of people I know!),
and present clear and interesting linguistico/cultural explanations.

The name Jess Tauber is vaguely familiar, but I can't decide of they're
male or female, or what else they've done.
Daud Deden
2018-01-26 16:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Re. JT, he's from Jersey.
-

Queensland: American

https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/01/researchers-discover-piece-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)&m=1#F4Bl8UtXst4xTxs4.97
-

Trump declares Queensland "American Territory', establishes TRUMPLAND ESTATE military base, resort & casino, no immigrants allowed. (Fake News Today)
Daud Deden
2018-05-15 22:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---

***@Cree: manufactured grease
***@Malay: to grease (skin, hair)

Yampi/***@Shoshoni: yam-tuber-wild carrot (swollen roots)
***@Latin: round, around, root of ambi.dextrous both(right)hands, amphibian
***@OE: womb uambelly from xy.uambuatlay.achya
***@Hebrew: swelling

Interesting, in Dakota, -ton = town/***@English cf kantong/***@Malay

Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-15 23:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-16 09:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-16 10:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.) Just not a variant
of kampong.
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.

Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?

How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Daud Deden
2018-05-16 17:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?

Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
***@Cant: Containment (communal)
***@Dakota: community
-ton, ***@English: sedent. camp
***@Aztec: b.order
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-16 20:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Daud Deden
2018-05-16 22:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-16 22:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound. You've agreed
that xyuambuatla... was a word, something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
seem to represent vowel sounds. (If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
Daud Deden
2018-05-17 03:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.

It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".


You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.

something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...

I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.

(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-17 06:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen. I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
Daud Deden
2018-05-17 10:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.

I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone. What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range. IOW, Yip = woof.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-17 11:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
So...what that means is that XYUAMBUATLA should actually be
written in CAPS, and we are to understand that UA could be,
phonetically, an indefinite list of vowels and diphthongs?
Why did you choose UA to represent this?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.
No it's not, don't be silly. And it's you that keeps getting exercised about
"quantifying". All I asked was what range of vowel sounds they actually
made. Your "ua" gives the impression that those were their only vowels.
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone.
Not to me. Or do you mean it should be crystal clear to anyone that these
vowels _seem to you_ to be more basal. No even that's not clear. You just
don't seem to realize how unclear most of what you say is.
Post by Daud Deden
What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
You seemed to be reluctant to give a straight answer to a simple question.
We seem to have a sort of answer, but typically not a straight one.
You say something enigmatic, then eventually you may explain how we're
supposed to understand it. Why not just try the straight answer in the
first place?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range.
No, you are wrong in claiming that a vowel is an abstraction like a number.
A vowel can be described in terms of human physiology; production of a vowel
can be recorded, photographed, timed, located, measured etc. None of these apply to a number.

Of course if we want to go beyond single occurrences we need to generalize. You can call that "abstraction" if you want, but it is abstraction only in the sense that "a dog" is an abstraction from individual dogs. You attempted to use this "abstraction" dodge to rule my question about Palaeo vowels out of order. It's no more out of order than asking if they had dogs.


IOW, Yip = woof.

Whatever that may mean.
Daud Deden
2018-05-17 13:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
So...what that means is that XYUAMBUATLA should actually be
written in CAPS,
Why?

and we are to understand that UA could be,
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
phonetically, an indefinite list of vowels and diphthongs?
Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Why did you choose UA to represent this?
Parsimony; the sound is retained in many distal tongues and variants tend to reflect branching from the root.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.
No it's not, don't be silly.
If only.

And it's you that keeps getting exercised about
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"quantifying". All I asked was what range of vowel sounds they actually
made.
"How many vowels..."
Count/quantify


Your "ua" gives the impression that those were their only vowels.

-tlaya/-tlachyah has aye, ya.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone.
Not to me. Or do you mean it should be crystal clear to anyone that these
vowels _seem to you_ to be more basal. No even that's not clear. You just
don't seem to realize how unclear most of what you say is.
As expected, Neo-etymological confusion.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
You seemed to be reluctant to give a straight answer to a simple question.
We seem to have a sort of answer, but typically not a straight one.
You say something enigmatic, then eventually you may explain how we're
supposed to understand it. Why not just try the straight answer in the
first place?
Tong sampah.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range.
No, you are wrong in claiming that a vowel is an abstraction like a number.
A vowel can be described in terms of human physiology;
Or equally dog physiology;


production of a vowel
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
can be recorded, photographed, timed, located, measured etc. >None of these apply to a number.
All of these apply to a dog's whine, or for that matter, the wind in a cave.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Of course if we want to go beyond single occurrences we need to generalize. You can call that "abstraction" if you want, but it is abstraction only in the sense that "a dog" is an abstraction from individual dogs. You attempted to use this "abstraction" dodge to rule my question about Palaeo vowels out of order.
There's a guy at SAP who also claims others use 'dodges'. I wonder if that is a symptom of paranoid defensiveness. He isn't very flexible in learning. The Paleo-Keyword is very consistent in its order format, but it's descendants may vary per changes such as triliteral root permutions.

It's no more out of order than asking if they had dogs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
IOW, Yip = woof.
Whatever that may mean.
Precisely.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-17 20:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
So...what that means is that XYUAMBUATLA should actually be
written in CAPS,
Why?
From your explanation of "UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i.." it
looked as though you were using UA as a cover symbol for a whole range
of vowels and diphthongs -- a more abstract level of notation. Since
the consonants would, I guess, be similarly phonetically variable,
XYUAMBUATLA would stand for some hundreds of phonetically different
possibilities.

and we are to understand that UA could be,
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
phonetically, an indefinite list of vowels and diphthongs?
Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Just trying to get clear about what you're saying.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Why did you choose UA to represent this?
Parsimony; the sound is retained in many distal tongues and variants tend to reflect branching from the root.
That certainly isn't obvious from the examples you've shown here. You seem
to be able to derive pretty much any vowel from UA.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.
No it's not, don't be silly.
If only.
And it's you that keeps getting exercised about
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"quantifying". All I asked was what range of vowel sounds they actually
made.
"How many vowels..."
Count/quantify
OK. The number was not the important thing, but the range.
Post by Daud Deden
Your "ua" gives the impression that those were their only vowels.
-tlaya/-tlachyah has aye, ya.
I don't remember that one. Is it another word in the same language, or
an optional appendage to the Keyword, or what?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone.
Not to me. Or do you mean it should be crystal clear to anyone that these
vowels _seem to you_ to be more basal. No even that's not clear. You just
don't seem to realize how unclear most of what you say is.
As expected, Neo-etymological confusion.
Neo-etymology is not the source of the confusion.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
You seemed to be reluctant to give a straight answer to a simple question.
We seem to have a sort of answer, but typically not a straight one.
You say something enigmatic, then eventually you may explain how we're
supposed to understand it. Why not just try the straight answer in the
first place?
Tong sampah.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range.
No, you are wrong in claiming that a vowel is an abstraction like a number.
A vowel can be described in terms of human physiology;
Or equally dog physiology;
production of a vowel
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
can be recorded, photographed, timed, located, measured etc. >None of these apply to a number.
All of these apply to a dog's whine, or for that matter, the wind in a cave.
Yes. Does that make them "abstractions"?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Of course if we want to go beyond single occurrences we need to generalize. You can call that "abstraction" if you want, but it is abstraction only in the sense that "a dog" is an abstraction from individual dogs. You attempted to use this "abstraction" dodge to rule my question about Palaeo vowels out of order.
There's a guy at SAP who also claims others use 'dodges'. I wonder if that is a symptom of paranoid defensiveness. He isn't very flexible in learning. The Paleo-Keyword is very consistent in its order format, but it's descendants may vary per changes such as triliteral root permutions.
By "order format" you mean the consonants. This would be an interesting claim
if you could prove it, but that doesn't seem to be on your agenda. I suspect
you are the victim of chronic confirmation fallacy.
Post by Daud Deden
It's no more out of order than asking if they had dogs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
IOW, Yip = woof.
Whatever that may mean.
Precisely.
Daud Deden
2018-05-17 22:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
So...what that means is that XYUAMBUATLA should actually be
written in CAPS,
Why?
From your explanation of "UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i.." it
looked as though you were using UA as a cover symbol for a whole range
of vowels and diphthongs
I don't know where that came from. I used no cover symbol. Ua was pronounced ua, but has evolved in many directions (due to climate differences, societal hierarchy, migrations etc.), as obvious by examining the vast majority of compound words which sound similar to, yet distinctly different from, xyuambuatlaya.


-- a more abstract level of notation. Since
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the consonants would, I guess, be similarly phonetically variable,
XYUAMBUATLA would stand for some hundreds of phonetically different
possibilities.
Of course, nobody speaks the original primitive language used by human ancestors 100,000 years ago, it has evolved and branched as have the words.

However I have shown that: 1. the order, 2. the consonants (in general) and 3. the vowels (in general) have often remained similar to the original Paleo-keyword.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
and we are to understand that UA could be,
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
phonetically, an indefinite list of vowels and diphthongs?
Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Just trying to get clear about what you're saying.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Why did you choose UA to represent this?
Parsimony; the sound is retained in many distal tongues and variants tend to reflect branching from the root.
That certainly isn't obvious from the examples you've shown here. You seem
to be able to derive pretty much any vowel from UA.
As I wrote. (8+)
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.
No it's not, don't be silly.
If only.
And it's you that keeps getting exercised about
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"quantifying". All I asked was what range of vowel sounds they actually
made.
"How many vowels..."
Count/quantify
OK. The number was not the important thing, but the range.
Please restate your question in a way that makes sense from the perspective of a hunter-gatherer who has no numbers, no compound tools, no computer etc.

If you can't do that, the rest is immaterial.

You can't, of course, because of Neo-etymology training, you are boxed in, like Ruud etc.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Your "ua" gives the impression that those were their only vowels.
-tlaya/-tlachyah has aye, ya.
I don't remember that one.
At least 20 times here at Sci.lang. Xyambuatlachya, Paleo-keyword.

Is it another word in the same language, or
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
an optional appendage to the Keyword, or what?
Tong sampah.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone.
Not to me. Or do you mean it should be crystal clear to anyone that these
vowels _seem to you_ to be more basal. No even that's not clear. You just
don't seem to realize how unclear most of what you say is.
As expected, Neo-etymological confusion.
Neo-etymology is not the source of the confusion.
idem.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
You seemed to be reluctant to give a straight answer to a simple question.
how many vowels?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
We seem to have a sort of answer, but typically not a straight one.
You say something enigmatic, then eventually you may explain how we're
supposed to understand it. Why not just try the straight answer in the
first place?
Tong sampah. You ask questions of little relevance.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range.
No, you are wrong in claiming that a vowel is an abstraction like a number.
A vowel can be described in terms of human physiology;
Or equally dog physiology;
production of a vowel
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
can be recorded, photographed, timed, located, measured etc. >None of these apply to a number.
All of these apply to a dog's whine, or for that matter, the wind in a cave.
Yes. Does that make them "abstractions"?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Of course if we want to go beyond single occurrences we need to generalize. You can call that "abstraction" if you want, but it is abstraction only in the sense that "a dog" is an abstraction from individual dogs. You attempted to use this "abstraction" dodge to rule my question about Palaeo vowels out of order.
There's a guy at SAP who also claims others use 'dodges'. I wonder if that is a symptom of paranoid defensiveness. He isn't very flexible in learning. The Paleo-Keyword is very consistent in its order format, but it's descendants may vary per changes such as triliteral root permutions.
By "order format" you mean the consonants.
Why do you keep claiming to know what I mean yet proving you don't?

I mean the sequential sounds which includes consonants, vowels, pauses, glottal stops, tonal changes etc.

This would be an interesting claim
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
if you could prove it, but that doesn't seem to be on your agenda. I suspect
you are the victim of chronic confirmation fallacy.
You just never stop, do you? GIGO.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It's no more out of order than asking if they had dogs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
IOW, Yip = woof.
Whatever that may mean.
Precisely.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-17 23:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
So...what that means is that XYUAMBUATLA should actually be
written in CAPS,
Why?
From your explanation of "UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i.." it
looked as though you were using UA as a cover symbol for a whole range
of vowels and diphthongs
I don't know where that came from. I used no cover symbol. Ua was pronounced ua, but has evolved in many directions (due to climate differences, societal hierarchy, migrations etc.), as obvious by examining the vast majority of compound words which sound similar to, yet distinctly different from, xyuambuatlaya.
So you're saying that at some point it was only [ua], but later
developed in many different directions?
Post by Daud Deden
-- a more abstract level of notation. Since
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the consonants would, I guess, be similarly phonetically variable,
XYUAMBUATLA would stand for some hundreds of phonetically different
possibilities.
Of course, nobody speaks the original primitive language used by human ancestors 100,000 years ago, it has evolved and branched as have the words.
But the "original primitive language" had only [u] and [a]?
Post by Daud Deden
However I have shown that: 1. the order, 2. the consonants (in general) and 3. the vowels (in general) have often remained similar to the original Paleo-keyword.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
and we are to understand that UA could be,
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
phonetically, an indefinite list of vowels and diphthongs?
Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Just trying to get clear about what you're saying.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Why did you choose UA to represent this?
Parsimony; the sound is retained in many distal tongues and variants tend to reflect branching from the root.
That certainly isn't obvious from the examples you've shown here. You seem
to be able to derive pretty much any vowel from UA.
As I wrote. (8+)
As I said.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.
No it's not, don't be silly.
If only.
And it's you that keeps getting exercised about
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"quantifying". All I asked was what range of vowel sounds they actually
made.
"How many vowels..."
Count/quantify
OK. The number was not the important thing, but the range.
Please restate your question in a way that makes sense from the perspective of a hunter-gatherer who has no numbers, no compound tools, no computer etc.
I'm not asking the hunter-gatherers. I'm asking you, who claim to have
discovered something about their language.
Post by Daud Deden
If you can't do that, the rest is immaterial.
You can't, of course, because of Neo-etymology training, you are boxed in, like Ruud etc.
The usual lame excuse for your inability to convince anybody else.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Your "ua" gives the impression that those were their only vowels.
-tlaya/-tlachyah has aye, ya.
I don't remember that one.
At least 20 times here at Sci.lang. Xyambuatlachya, Paleo-keyword.
Is it another word in the same language, or
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
an optional appendage to the Keyword, or what?
Tong sampah.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone.
Not to me. Or do you mean it should be crystal clear to anyone that these
vowels _seem to you_ to be more basal. No even that's not clear. You just
don't seem to realize how unclear most of what you say is.
As expected, Neo-etymological confusion.
Neo-etymology is not the source of the confusion.
idem.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
You seemed to be reluctant to give a straight answer to a simple question.
how many vowels?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
We seem to have a sort of answer, but typically not a straight one.
You say something enigmatic, then eventually you may explain how we're
supposed to understand it. Why not just try the straight answer in the
first place?
Tong sampah. You ask questions of little relevance.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range.
No, you are wrong in claiming that a vowel is an abstraction like a number.
A vowel can be described in terms of human physiology;
Or equally dog physiology;
production of a vowel
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
can be recorded, photographed, timed, located, measured etc. >None of these apply to a number.
All of these apply to a dog's whine, or for that matter, the wind in a cave.
Yes. Does that make them "abstractions"?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Of course if we want to go beyond single occurrences we need to generalize. You can call that "abstraction" if you want, but it is abstraction only in the sense that "a dog" is an abstraction from individual dogs. You attempted to use this "abstraction" dodge to rule my question about Palaeo vowels out of order.
There's a guy at SAP who also claims others use 'dodges'. I wonder if that is a symptom of paranoid defensiveness. He isn't very flexible in learning. The Paleo-Keyword is very consistent in its order format, but it's descendants may vary per changes such as triliteral root permutions.
By "order format" you mean the consonants.
Why do you keep claiming to know what I mean yet proving you don't?
Because you can't explain what you mean yourself? It saves time, over
asking you again and again and not getting any helpful answers.

So what do you mean by "order format"?
Post by Daud Deden
I mean the sequential sounds which includes consonants, vowels, pauses, glottal stops, tonal changes etc.
Since the vowels go ua - ua - a (and maybe another -a), and since ua
can change into pretty much any vowel, you are going to have a hard
time demonstrating any significant "consistency" between the Paleo-Keyword
and its descendants. That's why I surmised that it was really the
consonants that mattered.

Glottal stop is just a consonant. I don't know where you think it comes from.
Pauses? Tonal changes? Don't recall you saying anything about them. But OK.
Post by Daud Deden
This would be an interesting claim
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
if you could prove it, but that doesn't seem to be on your agenda. I suspect
you are the victim of chronic confirmation fallacy.
You just never stop, do you? GIGO.
Never stop what? You do know what GIGO means, don't you?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It's no more out of order than asking if they had dogs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
IOW, Yip = woof.
Whatever that may mean.
Precisely.
Daud Deden
2018-05-17 23:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
So...what that means is that XYUAMBUATLA should actually be
written in CAPS,
Why?
From your explanation of "UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i.." it
looked as though you were using UA as a cover symbol for a whole range
of vowels and diphthongs
I don't know where that came from. I used no cover symbol. Ua was pronounced ua, but has evolved in many directions (due to climate differences, societal hierarchy, migrations etc.), as obvious by examining the vast majority of compound words which sound similar to, yet distinctly different from, xyuambuatlaya.
So you're saying that at some point it was only [ua], but later
developed in many different directions?
YUA
See the little Y there? Hear it?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
-- a more abstract level of notation. Since
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the consonants would, I guess, be similarly phonetically variable,
XYUAMBUATLA would stand for some hundreds of phonetically different
possibilities.
Of course, nobody speaks the original primitive language used by human ancestors 100,000 years ago, it has evolved and branched as have the words.
But the "original primitive language" had only [u] and [a]?
The Paleo-keyword has YUA.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
However I have shown that: 1. the order, 2. the consonants (in general) and 3. the vowels (in general) have often remained similar to the original Paleo-keyword.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
and we are to understand that UA could be,
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
phonetically, an indefinite list of vowels and diphthongs?
Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Just trying to get clear about what you're saying.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Why did you choose UA to represent this?
Parsimony; the sound is retained in many distal tongues and variants tend to reflect branching from the root.
That certainly isn't obvious from the examples you've shown here. You seem
to be able to derive pretty much any vowel from UA.
As I wrote. (8+)
As I said.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.
No it's not, don't be silly.
If only.
And it's you that keeps getting exercised about
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"quantifying". All I asked was what range of vowel sounds they actually
made.
"How many vowels..."
Count/quantify
OK. The number was not the important thing, but the range.
Please restate your question in a way that makes sense from the perspective of a hunter-gatherer who has no numbers, no compound tools, no computer etc.
I'm not asking the hunter-gatherers. I'm asking you
You are telling me. Your ? are not open-minded inquiries, they rarely are.

, who claim to have
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
discovered something about their language.
Post by Daud Deden
If you can't do that, the rest is immaterial.
You can't, of course, because of Neo-etymology training, you are boxed in, like Ruud etc.
The usual lame excuse for your inability to convince anybody else.
You still pitch the same crap. Convincing who?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Your "ua" gives the impression that those were their only vowels.
-tlaya/-tlachyah has aye, ya.
I don't remember that one.
At least 20 times here at Sci.lang. Xyambuatlachya, Paleo-keyword.
Is it another word in the same language, or
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
an optional appendage to the Keyword, or what?
Tong sampah.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone.
Not to me. Or do you mean it should be crystal clear to anyone that these
vowels _seem to you_ to be more basal. No even that's not clear. You just
don't seem to realize how unclear most of what you say is.
As expected, Neo-etymological confusion.
Neo-etymology is not the source of the confusion.
idem.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
You seemed to be reluctant to give a straight answer to a simple question.
how many vowels?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
We seem to have a sort of answer, but typically not a straight one.
You say something enigmatic, then eventually you may explain how we're
supposed to understand it. Why not just try the straight answer in the
first place?
Tong sampah. You ask questions of little relevance.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range.
No, you are wrong in claiming that a vowel is an abstraction like a number.
A vowel can be described in terms of human physiology;
Or equally dog physiology;
production of a vowel
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
can be recorded, photographed, timed, located, measured etc. >None of these apply to a number.
All of these apply to a dog's whine, or for that matter, the wind in a cave.
Yes. Does that make them "abstractions"?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Of course if we want to go beyond single occurrences we need to generalize. You can call that "abstraction" if you want, but it is abstraction only in the sense that "a dog" is an abstraction from individual dogs. You attempted to use this "abstraction" dodge to rule my question about Palaeo vowels out of order.
There's a guy at SAP who also claims others use 'dodges'. I wonder if that is a symptom of paranoid defensiveness. He isn't very flexible in learning. The Paleo-Keyword is very consistent in its order format, but it's descendants may vary per changes such as triliteral root permutions.
By "order format" you mean the consonants.
Why do you keep claiming to know what I mean yet proving you don't?
Because you can't explain what you mean yourself?
More garbage.

It saves time, over
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
asking you again and again and not getting any helpful answers.
Garbage.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what do you mean by "order format"?
Post by Daud Deden
I mean the sequential sounds which includes consonants, vowels, pauses, glottal stops, tonal changes etc.
Since the vowels go ua - ua - a (and maybe another -a), and since ua
can change into pretty much any vowel, you are going to have a hard
time demonstrating any significant "consistency" between the Paleo-Keyword
and its descendants. That's why I surmised that it was really the
consonants that mattered.
Wrong again.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Glottal stop is just a consonant. I don't know where you think it comes from.
Duh.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Pauses? Tonal changes? Don't recall you saying anything about them. But OK.
Post by Daud Deden
This would be an interesting claim
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
if you could prove it, but that doesn't seem to be on your agenda. I suspect
you are the victim of chronic confirmation fallacy.
You just never stop, do you? GIGO.
Never stop what? You do know what GIGO means, don't you?
More garbage.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It's no more out of order than asking if they had dogs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
IOW, Yip = woof.
Whatever that may mean.
Precisely.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-18 00:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
So...what that means is that XYUAMBUATLA should actually be
written in CAPS,
Why?
From your explanation of "UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i.." it
looked as though you were using UA as a cover symbol for a whole range
of vowels and diphthongs
I don't know where that came from. I used no cover symbol. Ua was pronounced ua, but has evolved in many directions (due to climate differences, societal hierarchy, migrations etc.), as obvious by examining the vast majority of compound words which sound similar to, yet distinctly different from, xyuambuatlaya.
So you're saying that at some point it was only [ua], but later
developed in many different directions?
YUA
See the little Y there? Hear it?
I see it. Why you didn't include it in your UA =>... statement is unclear.
But I'll guess that it means the semivowel "y" [IPA j].

So at some point it was only [yua], but later developed in many different directions. And the UA after MB was just [ua], but later....etc.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
-- a more abstract level of notation. Since
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the consonants would, I guess, be similarly phonetically variable,
XYUAMBUATLA would stand for some hundreds of phonetically different
possibilities.
Of course, nobody speaks the original primitive language used by human ancestors 100,000 years ago, it has evolved and branched as have the words.
But the "original primitive language" had only [u] and [a]?
The Paleo-keyword has YUA.
and [y]
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
However I have shown that: 1. the order, 2. the consonants (in general) and 3. the vowels (in general) have often remained similar to the original Paleo-keyword.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
and we are to understand that UA could be,
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
phonetically, an indefinite list of vowels and diphthongs?
Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Just trying to get clear about what you're saying.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Why did you choose UA to represent this?
Parsimony; the sound is retained in many distal tongues and variants tend to reflect branching from the root.
That certainly isn't obvious from the examples you've shown here. You seem
to be able to derive pretty much any vowel from UA.
As I wrote. (8+)
As I said.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.
No it's not, don't be silly.
If only.
And it's you that keeps getting exercised about
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"quantifying". All I asked was what range of vowel sounds they actually
made.
"How many vowels..."
Count/quantify
OK. The number was not the important thing, but the range.
Please restate your question in a way that makes sense from the perspective of a hunter-gatherer who has no numbers, no compound tools, no computer etc.
I'm not asking the hunter-gatherers. I'm asking you
You are telling me. Your ? are not open-minded inquiries, they rarely are.
So this is your new excuse for not answering them?
Post by Daud Deden
, who claim to have
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
discovered something about their language.
Post by Daud Deden
If you can't do that, the rest is immaterial.
You can't, of course, because of Neo-etymology training, you are boxed in, like Ruud etc.
The usual lame excuse for your inability to convince anybody else.
You still pitch the same crap. Convincing who?
Anybody besides yourself.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Your "ua" gives the impression that those were their only vowels.
-tlaya/-tlachyah has aye, ya.
I don't remember that one.
At least 20 times here at Sci.lang. Xyambuatlachya, Paleo-keyword.
Is it another word in the same language, or
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
an optional appendage to the Keyword, or what?
Tong sampah.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone.
Not to me. Or do you mean it should be crystal clear to anyone that these
vowels _seem to you_ to be more basal. No even that's not clear. You just
don't seem to realize how unclear most of what you say is.
As expected, Neo-etymological confusion.
Neo-etymology is not the source of the confusion.
idem.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
You seemed to be reluctant to give a straight answer to a simple question.
how many vowels?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
We seem to have a sort of answer, but typically not a straight one.
You say something enigmatic, then eventually you may explain how we're
supposed to understand it. Why not just try the straight answer in the
first place?
Tong sampah. You ask questions of little relevance.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range.
No, you are wrong in claiming that a vowel is an abstraction like a number.
A vowel can be described in terms of human physiology;
Or equally dog physiology;
production of a vowel
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
can be recorded, photographed, timed, located, measured etc. >None of these apply to a number.
All of these apply to a dog's whine, or for that matter, the wind in a cave.
Yes. Does that make them "abstractions"?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Of course if we want to go beyond single occurrences we need to generalize. You can call that "abstraction" if you want, but it is abstraction only in the sense that "a dog" is an abstraction from individual dogs. You attempted to use this "abstraction" dodge to rule my question about Palaeo vowels out of order.
There's a guy at SAP who also claims others use 'dodges'. I wonder if that is a symptom of paranoid defensiveness. He isn't very flexible in learning. The Paleo-Keyword is very consistent in its order format, but it's descendants may vary per changes such as triliteral root permutions.
By "order format" you mean the consonants.
Why do you keep claiming to know what I mean yet proving you don't?
Because you can't explain what you mean yourself?
More garbage.
It saves time, over
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
asking you again and again and not getting any helpful answers.
Garbage.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what do you mean by "order format"?
Post by Daud Deden
I mean the sequential sounds which includes consonants, vowels, pauses, glottal stops, tonal changes etc.
Since the vowels go ua - ua - a (and maybe another -a), and since ua
can change into pretty much any vowel, you are going to have a hard
time demonstrating any significant "consistency" between the Paleo-Keyword
and its descendants. That's why I surmised that it was really the
consonants that mattered.
Wrong again.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Glottal stop is just a consonant. I don't know where you think it comes from.
Duh.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Pauses? Tonal changes? Don't recall you saying anything about them. But OK.
Post by Daud Deden
This would be an interesting claim
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
if you could prove it, but that doesn't seem to be on your agenda. I suspect
you are the victim of chronic confirmation fallacy.
You just never stop, do you? GIGO.
Never stop what? You do know what GIGO means, don't you?
More garbage.
And where did the original garbage come from?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It's no more out of order than asking if they had dogs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
IOW, Yip = woof.
Whatever that may mean.
Precisely.
OK, I'm tired of asking and you've given up answering. Enough.
DKleinecke
2018-05-18 00:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
sack, bag, pocket
Not necessarily sack, bag or pocket, eg. Garbage can/rubbish bin: tong sampah.
Yah, we've been here before. (I gave you that one.)
Gee, it might be a random coincidence, no?
Just not a variant
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of kampong.
Both are derived from xyambuatl/ndjambuangdualua: gather(contain) food/communal-camp-compound.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Cantonese tohng hall, meeting place.
B.uatlaxy.a ~ b.(w)ound/womb
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Let's see, which end of the Big Gumball will we get these from?
xy(t)uam(n)batla...?
or maybe ...tla(uo)(n(g))?
How many vowels did they have in those days, by the way?
Such Neo-etymological questions belong in the tong sampah.
Interesting. Franz is similarly coy about whether Magdalenian had phonemes.
Quantification of such abstractions is like hypotheses of hypotheses.
A vowel isn't an abstraction, it's a type of speech sound.
A dog can make such sounds: yipyip rauf woof etc.
Actually a dog can make very few human speech sounds.
Vowels are not human-unique, compounds are.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It takes a human to make claims that a specific quantity of such sounds is to be called "speech".
That's not what I'm talking about
Post by Daud Deden
You've agreed
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
that xyuambuatla... was a word,
I've claimed that it is the Paleo-Keyword.
something spoken. The "u" and "a" would
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
seem to represent vowel sounds.
UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i...
whatever that means
You wanted a quantity, I listed 8+.
So...what that means is that XYUAMBUATLA should actually be
written in CAPS,
Why?
From your explanation of "UA => u, a, ua, wa, wo, we, o, i.." it
looked as though you were using UA as a cover symbol for a whole range
of vowels and diphthongs
I don't know where that came from. I used no cover symbol. Ua was pronounced ua, but has evolved in many directions (due to climate differences, societal hierarchy, migrations etc.), as obvious by examining the vast majority of compound words which sound similar to, yet distinctly different from, xyuambuatlaya.
So you're saying that at some point it was only [ua], but later
developed in many different directions?
YUA
See the little Y there? Hear it?
I see it. Why you didn't include it in your UA =>... statement is unclear.
But I'll guess that it means the semivowel "y" [IPA j].
So at some point it was only [yua], but later developed in many different directions. And the UA after MB was just [ua], but later....etc.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
-- a more abstract level of notation. Since
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the consonants would, I guess, be similarly phonetically variable,
XYUAMBUATLA would stand for some hundreds of phonetically different
possibilities.
Of course, nobody speaks the original primitive language used by human ancestors 100,000 years ago, it has evolved and branched as have the words.
But the "original primitive language" had only [u] and [a]?
The Paleo-keyword has YUA.
and [y]
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
However I have shown that: 1. the order, 2. the consonants (in general) and 3. the vowels (in general) have often remained similar to the original Paleo-keyword.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
and we are to understand that UA could be,
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
phonetically, an indefinite list of vowels and diphthongs?
Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Just trying to get clear about what you're saying.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Why did you choose UA to represent this?
Parsimony; the sound is retained in many distal tongues and variants tend to reflect branching from the root.
That certainly isn't obvious from the examples you've shown here. You seem
to be able to derive pretty much any vowel from UA.
As I wrote. (8+)
As I said.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I see no advantage in forcing Paleo-Etymological keywords to fit post-Agricultural hierarchical societal concepts & rules. They did not operate under modern linguistic rules.
This is just a rhetorical smoke-screen.
No, it's fundamental.
Quantifying paleo-sounds or words or vowels is equivalent to claiming that a river of 5 million cubic meters which is boxed up into 5,000,000 cubes and stacked into a pyramid is still a river.
No it's not, don't be silly.
If only.
And it's you that keeps getting exercised about
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"quantifying". All I asked was what range of vowel sounds they actually
made.
"How many vowels..."
Count/quantify
OK. The number was not the important thing, but the range.
Please restate your question in a way that makes sense from the perspective of a hunter-gatherer who has no numbers, no compound tools, no computer etc.
I'm not asking the hunter-gatherers. I'm asking you
You are telling me. Your ? are not open-minded inquiries, they rarely are.
So this is your new excuse for not answering them?
Post by Daud Deden
, who claim to have
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
discovered something about their language.
Post by Daud Deden
If you can't do that, the rest is immaterial.
You can't, of course, because of Neo-etymology training, you are boxed in, like Ruud etc.
The usual lame excuse for your inability to convince anybody else.
You still pitch the same crap. Convincing who?
Anybody besides yourself.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Your "ua" gives the impression that those were their only vowels.
-tlaya/-tlachyah has aye, ya.
I don't remember that one.
At least 20 times here at Sci.lang. Xyambuatlachya, Paleo-keyword.
Is it another word in the same language, or
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
an optional appendage to the Keyword, or what?
Tong sampah.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not talking about "post-Agricultural
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
blablabla" either. They spoke. Did they make vowel sounds? Were u and a the
only vowel sounds they made? Only you can answer these questions, and you
seem to be afraid to.
What I write is an approximation of Paleo speech. Ua, a, u seem to be more basal than other vowels. That should be crystal clear to anyone.
Not to me. Or do you mean it should be crystal clear to anyone that these
vowels _seem to you_ to be more basal. No even that's not clear. You just
don't seem to realize how unclear most of what you say is.
As expected, Neo-etymological confusion.
Neo-etymology is not the source of the confusion.
idem.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
What am I afraid of? Only you claim such nonsense.
You seemed to be reluctant to give a straight answer to a simple question.
how many vowels?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
We seem to have a sort of answer, but typically not a straight one.
You say something enigmatic, then eventually you may explain how we're
supposed to understand it. Why not just try the straight answer in the
first place?
Tong sampah. You ask questions of little relevance.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
(If not, what?) I'm just curious whether
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
those were the only vowel sounds they made.
A vowel is an abstraction, just as a number is an abstraction.
Just wrong.
You are an idiot at times. How many vowels are in a language is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the formal definition of each vowel's range.
No, you are wrong in claiming that a vowel is an abstraction like a number.
A vowel can be described in terms of human physiology;
Or equally dog physiology;
production of a vowel
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
can be recorded, photographed, timed, located, measured etc. >None of these apply to a number.
All of these apply to a dog's whine, or for that matter, the wind in a cave.
Yes. Does that make them "abstractions"?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Of course if we want to go beyond single occurrences we need to generalize. You can call that "abstraction" if you want, but it is abstraction only in the sense that "a dog" is an abstraction from individual dogs. You attempted to use this "abstraction" dodge to rule my question about Palaeo vowels out of order.
There's a guy at SAP who also claims others use 'dodges'. I wonder if that is a symptom of paranoid defensiveness. He isn't very flexible in learning. The Paleo-Keyword is very consistent in its order format, but it's descendants may vary per changes such as triliteral root permutions.
By "order format" you mean the consonants.
Why do you keep claiming to know what I mean yet proving you don't?
Because you can't explain what you mean yourself?
More garbage.
It saves time, over
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
asking you again and again and not getting any helpful answers.
Garbage.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what do you mean by "order format"?
Post by Daud Deden
I mean the sequential sounds which includes consonants, vowels, pauses, glottal stops, tonal changes etc.
Since the vowels go ua - ua - a (and maybe another -a), and since ua
can change into pretty much any vowel, you are going to have a hard
time demonstrating any significant "consistency" between the Paleo-Keyword
and its descendants. That's why I surmised that it was really the
consonants that mattered.
Wrong again.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Glottal stop is just a consonant. I don't know where you think it comes from.
Duh.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Pauses? Tonal changes? Don't recall you saying anything about them. But OK.
Post by Daud Deden
This would be an interesting claim
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
if you could prove it, but that doesn't seem to be on your agenda. I suspect
you are the victim of chronic confirmation fallacy.
You just never stop, do you? GIGO.
Never stop what? You do know what GIGO means, don't you?
More garbage.
And where did the original garbage come from?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
It's no more out of order than asking if they had dogs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
IOW, Yip = woof.
Whatever that may mean.
Precisely.
OK, I'm tired of asking and you've given up answering. Enough.
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
(probably not Voltaire):
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"

It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-18 03:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-18 06:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
Somebody once indicated a reference that looked like that written by somebody else, a Frenchman of the 18th century, but I don't remember who.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-18 11:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Somebody once indicated a reference that looked like that written by somebody else, a Frenchman of the 18th century, but I don't remember who.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-19 04:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Because it really looks like the kind of vitriolic sentences Voltaire wrote.
A.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
Searching thru google.books, it seems that the first numerized book in French that explicitly attributes the sentence "C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose" to Voltaire is a Larousse Dictionary of 1870.
Before that, the sentence was already known, apparently, but it was not attributed to Voltaire. "disait-on" instead of "d'après Voltaire".
So the "legend" seems to have emerged in two phases, first the sentence existed, and later on, it got attributed to Voltaire, because it indeed looks like Voltaire's style. The attribution is at least as old as 1870.
When did Max Muller write that in English?
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-19 04:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-19 12:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-19 13:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-19 14:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-20 13:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-20 14:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
And this Tourettist expects people to consider him a scholar?

He probably didn't find any such phrasing at all, whether from 1864 or from
1846, and thought he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes just as he does
by "publishing" articles and even books at vanity web sites with no consideration
by knowledgeable persons at all.

Note that he can't even provide the phrase he "searched at google books" because
he knows that such a search would not replicate his "finding."
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-21 06:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
And this Tourettist expects people to consider him a scholar?
He probably didn't find any such phrasing at all, whether from 1864 or from
1846, and thought he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes just as he does
by "publishing" articles and even books at vanity web sites with no consideration
by knowledgeable persons at all.
Note that he can't even provide the phrase he "searched at google books" because
he knows that such a search would not replicate his "finding."
I don't understand the point of writing 10 lines of crap, when it's easy to check in google.books that I'm right.

The Athenæum: A Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, Volume 1
Éditeur J. Francis, 1842

This book is even older than the previous date and contains the sentence.

Got it, senile?

Max Muller has nothing to do with this sentence. It's probably a kind of sarcastic aphorism that already existed in the 18th century, and was attributed to Voltaire in the 19th, because it sounds like Voltaire's style.

As usual, anytime you make a concrete statement, your incompetent crap is provably false.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-21 10:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
And this Tourettist expects people to consider him a scholar?
He probably didn't find any such phrasing at all, whether from 1864 or from
1846, and thought he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes just as he does
by "publishing" articles and even books at vanity web sites with no consideration
by knowledgeable persons at all.
Note that he can't even provide the phrase he "searched at google books" because
he knows that such a search would not replicate his "finding."
I don't understand the point of writing 10 lines of crap, when it's easy to check in google.books that I'm right.
The Athenæum: A Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, Volume 1
Éditeur J. Francis, 1842
This book is even older than the previous date and contains the sentence.
Got it, senile?
Max Muller has nothing to do with this sentence. It's probably a kind of sarcastic aphorism that already existed in the 18th century, and was attributed to Voltaire in the 19th, because it sounds like Voltaire's style.
As usual, anytime you make a concrete statement, your incompetent crap is provably false.
Thanks for the reference. I didn't find the Athenaeum quote, but
searching for it led me to a couple of interesting things.

There's a fairly recent paper:

"Les voyelles ne font rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose": On the
history of Voltaire's supposed comment on etymology
Considine, John. Historiographia Linguistica Vol. 36, Iss. 1, (0, 2009): 181-189.
Abstract:
A widely quoted claim made in a lecture in 1863 by Friedrich Max Muller, alleging that "Voltaire defined etymology as a science in which...les
voyelles ne font rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose" (vowels count
for nothing and consonants for very little), has provided a mystery for historians of linguistics as nothing in Voltaire's writings corresponds
to this statement, although numerous possible 18th- & 19th-century sources
have been found for similar thoughts &/or wordings. An examination of existing scholarship suggests that Muller found the French saying in a similar form & scholarly function, although not attributed, in Hensleigh Wedgwood's anonymous 1833 review of Grimm's German grammar; it is August Wilhelm von Schlegel, however, who, writing in German in 1847, claimed Voltaire as its source.
Similar thoughts have been expressed by various 18th-century writers as a serious proposal for etymology, not a satirical comment; among the latter is Antoine Court de Gebelin (1775), whom Voltaire knew well. J. Hitchcock
[I don't know who Hitchcock is -- professional abstract writer?]

Anyhow, more unexpected was this from the _Oriental Herald and Colonial
Review_, v.3, issue 12 (December 1824).
"On the affinity of the Sanscrit, the ancient language of India, to the
Greek, the Latin, and other ancient languages of Europe", by James Silk
Buckingham
This is a fascinating paper in itself, a very early exposition for a general
audience of the comparative method and Indo-European in particular. It makes me want to know more about Buckingham. (Wiki has a bit.)

But the sentence of direct interest to this thread is:

"It is the more necessary to pursue this long and laborious operation, as
it is undeniable that etymology has hitherto been, as Voltaire says, a
science, in which the consonants are of _small_ importance, and the vowels
of _none whatever_." (p.486)

Since little Max Müller was celebrating his first birthday that month, it
seems safe to conclude that he was not the originator of the Voltaire attribution.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-21 10:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
And this Tourettist expects people to consider him a scholar?
He probably didn't find any such phrasing at all, whether from 1864 or from
1846, and thought he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes just as he does
by "publishing" articles and even books at vanity web sites with no consideration
by knowledgeable persons at all.
Note that he can't even provide the phrase he "searched at google books" because
he knows that such a search would not replicate his "finding."
I don't understand the point of writing 10 lines of crap, when it's easy to check in google.books that I'm right.
The Athenæum: A Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, Volume 1
Éditeur J. Francis, 1842
This book is even older than the previous date and contains the sentence.
Got it, senile?
Max Muller has nothing to do with this sentence. It's probably a kind of sarcastic aphorism that already existed in the 18th century, and was attributed to Voltaire in the 19th, because it sounds like Voltaire's style.
As usual, anytime you make a concrete statement, your incompetent crap is provably false.
Thanks for the reference. I didn't find the Athenaeum quote,
Just to clarify: I did not mean to suggest that it wasn't there, just
that the searching process was rather cumbersome and I came upon those
other things first. In fact I think I have your 1846 quote:

"The utility of his work is further diminished by his having adopted
a peculiar orthography, which effectually disguises the names of persons
and places; reminding us of Voltaire's complaint that, in philological
systems, vowels count for nothing and consonants for very little."

Anonymous review of "Life of the Amir Dost Mohammed Khan, of Kabul",
by Mohan Lal, Esq.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-21 13:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
And this Tourettist expects people to consider him a scholar?
He probably didn't find any such phrasing at all, whether from 1864 or from
1846, and thought he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes just as he does
by "publishing" articles and even books at vanity web sites with no consideration
by knowledgeable persons at all.
Note that he can't even provide the phrase he "searched at google books" because
he knows that such a search would not replicate his "finding."
I don't understand the point of writing 10 lines of crap, when it's easy to check in google.books that I'm right.
The Athenæum: A Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, Volume 1
Éditeur J. Francis, 1842
This book is even older than the previous date and contains the sentence.
Got it, senile?
Max Muller has nothing to do with this sentence. It's probably a kind of sarcastic aphorism that already existed in the 18th century, and was attributed to Voltaire in the 19th, because it sounds like Voltaire's style.
As usual, anytime you make a concrete statement, your incompetent crap is provably false.
Thanks for the reference. I didn't find the Athenaeum quote, but
searching for it led me to a couple of interesting things.
Thank you !

Apparently, the sentence is on p 55

The Athenæum: A Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, Volume 1
J. Francis, 1842

1 page contenant "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" dans ce livre

Page 55
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-21 13:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
And this Tourettist expects people to consider him a scholar?
He probably didn't find any such phrasing at all, whether from 1864 or from
1846, and thought he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes just as he does
by "publishing" articles and even books at vanity web sites with no consideration
by knowledgeable persons at all.
Note that he can't even provide the phrase he "searched at google books" because
he knows that such a search would not replicate his "finding."
I don't understand the point of writing 10 lines of crap, when it's easy to check in google.books that I'm right.
The Athenæum: A Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, Volume 1
Éditeur J. Francis, 1842
This book is even older than the previous date and contains the sentence.
Got it, senile?
Max Muller has nothing to do with this sentence. It's probably a kind of sarcastic aphorism that already existed in the 18th century, and was attributed to Voltaire in the 19th, because it sounds like Voltaire's style.
As usual, anytime you make a concrete statement, your incompetent crap is provably false.
Thanks for the reference. I didn't find the Athenaeum quote, but
searching for it led me to a couple of interesting things.
"Les voyelles ne font rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose": On the
history of Voltaire's supposed comment on etymology
Considine, John. Historiographia Linguistica Vol. 36, Iss. 1, (0, 2009): 181-189.
A widely quoted claim made in a lecture in 1863 by Friedrich Max Muller, alleging that "Voltaire defined etymology as a science in which...les
voyelles ne font rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose" (vowels count
for nothing and consonants for very little), has provided a mystery for historians of linguistics as nothing in Voltaire's writings corresponds
to this statement, although numerous possible 18th- & 19th-century sources
have been found for similar thoughts &/or wordings. An examination of existing scholarship suggests that Muller found the French saying in a similar form & scholarly function, although not attributed, in Hensleigh Wedgwood's anonymous 1833 review of Grimm's German grammar; it is August Wilhelm von Schlegel, however, who, writing in German in 1847, claimed Voltaire as its source.
Similar thoughts have been expressed by various 18th-century writers as a serious proposal for etymology, not a satirical comment; among the latter is Antoine Court de Gebelin (1775), whom Voltaire knew well. J. Hitchcock
[I don't know who Hitchcock is -- professional abstract writer?]
Anyhow, more unexpected was this from the _Oriental Herald and Colonial
Review_, v.3, issue 12 (December 1824).
"On the affinity of the Sanscrit, the ancient language of India, to the
Greek, the Latin, and other ancient languages of Europe", by James Silk
Buckingham
This is a fascinating paper in itself, a very early exposition for a general
audience of the comparative method and Indo-European in particular. It makes me want to know more about Buckingham. (Wiki has a bit.)
"It is the more necessary to pursue this long and laborious operation, as
it is undeniable that etymology has hitherto been, as Voltaire says, a
science, in which the consonants are of _small_ importance, and the vowels
of _none whatever_." (p.486)
Since little Max Müller was celebrating his first birthday that month, it
seems safe to conclude that he was not the originator of the Voltaire attribution.
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L%E2%80%99Encyclop%C3%A9die/1re_%C3%A9dition/ETYMOLOGIE
it can be noted that Turgot in his paper on "Etymologie" does not mention this sentence in 1751, but has a kind of variant §13
"la facilité qu’ont les lettres à se transformer les unes dans les autres, donne aux étymologistes une liberté illimitée de conjecturer, sans égard à la quantité prosodique des syllabes, au son des voyelles, & presque sans égard aux consonnes même,"
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-05-21 16:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
liberté illimitée de conjecturer
Daud Deden seems to have made full use of this liberty.
--
athel
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-21 16:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Arnaud Fournet
liberté illimitée de conjecturer
Daud Deden seems to have made full use of this liberty.
If Daud Deden had a modicum of linguistic culture, he would realize that there's nothing new in what he does.
Daud Deden
2018-05-21 17:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There is nothing new in Paleo-Etymology. I've been clear on that all along.
Daud Deden
2018-05-21 21:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why does Google not have a simple automatic way to sweep all the comments that are unrelated to the thread topic onto a new thread or into the dustbin?

There is a need for an app which does just that.
DKleinecke
2018-05-21 23:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Why does Google not have a simple automatic way to sweep all the comments that are unrelated to the thread topic onto a new thread or into the dustbin?
There is a need for an app which does just that.
There is no practical definition of "unrelated".
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-22 02:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Why does Google not have a simple automatic way to sweep all the comments that are unrelated to the thread topic onto a new thread or into the dustbin?
There is a need for an app which does just that.
Google has nothing to do with the nature or structure of "Usenet."
Ruud Harmsen
2018-05-22 05:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mon, 21 May 2018 19:10:49 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Why does Google not have a simple automatic way to sweep all the comments that are unrelated to the thread topic onto a new thread or into the dustbin?
There is a need for an app which does just that.
Google has nothing to do with the nature or structure of "Usenet."
Indeed. Just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet .
Conceived in 1979, established in 1980. There was no Google (nor
Wikipedia) back then.

My own first contribution can be traced back to on or before 10 July
1989:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.crypt/ISDOoEeqL1Q/nZbvqJfR4uMJ,
i.e. somebody quoted me then. I cannot find the original message I
wrote itself. My feeling is there must have been earlier ones too.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-22 06:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Why does Google not have a simple automatic way to sweep all the comments that are unrelated to the thread topic onto a new thread or into the dustbin?
There is a need for an app which does just that.
Personally, I'm dreaming of a simple automatic way to sweep all the trolls like you.
Daud Deden
2018-05-22 07:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Daud Deden
Why does Google not have a simple automatic way to sweep all the comments that are unrelated to the thread topic onto a new thread or into the dustbin?
There is a need for an app which does just that.
Personally, I'm dreaming of a simple automatic way to sweep all the trolls like you.
Tacadac?
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-22 11:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Daud Deden
Why does Google not have a simple automatic way to sweep all the comments that are unrelated to the thread topic onto a new thread or into the dustbin?
There is a need for an app which does just that.
Personally, I'm dreaming of a simple automatic way to sweep all the trolls like you.
Tacadac?
no, rather : "Raus Weck!"
António Marques
2018-05-22 13:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Daud Deden
Why does Google not have a simple automatic way to sweep all the
comments that are unrelated to the thread topic onto a new thread or into the dustbin?
There is a need for an app which does just that.
Personally, I'm dreaming of a simple automatic way to sweep all the trolls like you.
I’m unhappy that my newsreader doesn’t allow deleting threads, such as any
one that Olcott has been in.
Daud Deden
2018-05-23 04:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Recall the cave in Northern Australia that had reflective mica on the cave wall paintings and ground stone axes. It was dated about 65ka. Ebembe cave?
---

The following article claims people were deliberately rafting to Australia, I think that is wishful thinking.

“These would have been skilled maritime navigators who set out on a deliberate voyage to discover new lands,” Dr Ouzman said.

image: Loading Image...
People voyaged to Australia by boat more than 50,000 years ago
A now submerged string of islands between Australia and Timor and Roti. This kind of imagery has been used
to pinpoint likely routes between the islands and the Australian mainland [Credit: Australian Research
Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage]
“The coastline of Australia was a very different shape 50,000 years ago but it was not joined to other continents by land. There was a string of islands to the north of Australia and the voyagers would have travelled through them to reach mainland Australia. This was a carefully planned act by a significant number of people – the founding population may have been as high as 100 - 200.

“The findings provide evidence that the First Australians were skilled in construction of boats, navigation, and planning. This research should help change a perception that the settling of Australia started with a handful of people arriving here by accident, and then losing all ability to use watercraft.”


Read more at https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/05/people-voyaged-to-australia-by-boat.html#Y88FvEm6rjxO8THO.99
Daud Deden
2018-05-23 11:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
See this one Madgebembe cave 65ka
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314

Thousands of artifacts, fireplace..
Daud Deden
2018-05-23 12:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
BBC News

The researchers examined seven different types of malaria - three that infect chimpanzees, three that infect gorillas and the deadly human-infecting species.

Scientists discovered that the evolutionary lineage leading to Plasmodium falciparum emerged 50,000 years ago, but did not fully diverge as a human-specific parasite species until 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.

"The recent expansion of modern humans created the home in which the parasites irreversibly evolved into a human-specific form," explained Dr Berriman.

Prof Janet Hemingway, director of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine said the discovery was "really important" because it built a picture of how and when a disease crossed the species barrier, going on to become a deadly human disease.

Understanding how that happens, could enable scientists to recognise - and even avoid - patterns that might lead to the same scenario in future.

"These days most people think of malaria as a human disease, and forget that this was a zoonotic disease that crossed the species barrier 50,000 years ago and then co-evolved with its new human host to become one of the most deadly diseases known to man," said Prof Hemingway

TANN

People voyaged to Australia by boat more than 50,000 years ago

Posted: 21 May 2018 08:00 AM PDT

Researchers working to solve the mystery of how people first reached Australia have combined sophisticated deep sea mapping, voyage simulation techniques and genetic information to show that arrival was made by sizeable groups of people deliberately voyaging between islands. Torres Strait islanders on a bamboo raft, 1906 [Credit: Encyclopedia of New Zeland]Using cutting-edge modelling, similar to techniques used to search for the...


Far from special: Humanity's tiny DNA differences are 'average' in animal kingdom

Posted: 21 May 2018 06:00 AM PDT

Researchers report important new insights into evolution following a study of mitochondrial DNA from about 5 million specimens covering about 100,000 animal species. Today's study, "Why should mitochondria define species?" published as an open-access article in the journal Human Evolution,builds on earlier work by Drs. Stoeckle and Thayer, including an examination of the mitochondrial genetic diversity of humans vs. our closest...


Research suggests sweet potatoes didn't originate in the Americas as previously thought

Posted: 21 May 2018 05:00 AM PDT

New research by an Indiana University paleobotanist suggests sweet potatoes originated in Asia, and much earlier than previously known. A) Modern distribution of the sweet potato family (yellow line) and genus (white line). B) Fossil leaf of Ipomoea meghalayensis. C) Modern leaf of Ipomoea eriocarpa, showing similar size, shape and vein pattern [Credit: Indiana University]IU Bloomington emeritus professor David Dilcher and...

Scientists analyze first ancient human DNA from Southeast Asia

Posted: 17 May 2018 01:00 PM PDT

The first whole-genome analyses of ancient human DNA from Southeast Asia reveal that there were at least three major waves of human migration into the region over the last 50,000 years. Field workers excavate ancient human remains at Man Bac, Vietnam, in 2007. DNA from skeletons at this site was included in the current study [Credit: Lorna Tilley, Australian National University]The research, published in Science
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-21 11:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
And this Tourettist expects people to consider him a scholar?
He probably didn't find any such phrasing at all, whether from 1864 or from
1846, and thought he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes just as he does
by "publishing" articles and even books at vanity web sites with no consideration
by knowledgeable persons at all.
Note that he can't even provide the phrase he "searched at google books" because
he knows that such a search would not replicate his "finding."
I don't understand the point of writing 10 lines of crap, when it's easy to check in google.books that I'm right.
The Athenæum: A Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, Volume 1
Éditeur J. Francis, 1842
This book is even older than the previous date and contains the sentence.
Got it, senile?
Max Muller has nothing to do with this sentence.
Typical lie. He said it in 1863 and published it in 1864, becoming the
source for its distribution into the 20th century.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
It's probably a kind of sarcastic aphorism that already existed in the 18th century, and was attributed to Voltaire in the 19th, because it sounds like Voltaire's style.
As usual, anytime you make a concrete statement, your incompetent crap is provably false.
If only "AF" were as good at linguistics as at lies.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-21 13:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
C'est une science où les voyelles ne sont rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.
It sounds like something Voltaire might have written.
Why do you say that?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
But indeed, it cannot be found in Voltaire's works and letters.
So where did you find a French version? It was, as far as anyone can
discover, first written in English, by Max Muller.
google.books provide books in English as early as 1846 where the sentence "the vowels count for nothing and the consonants for very little" is attributed to Voltaire.
As usual, your claims are just plain false and invented.
And, exhibiting your typical grasp of scholarship, you do not cite any
book "as early as 1846" making that claim. It's entirely possible that
you have accidentally transposed the digits of the 1864 date of Max
Muller's book in a desperate, unconcscious need to justify your false claim.
As usual, you wretched piece of senile shit, you are exposed as entirely false in your claims, and then, you show up just as arrogant as before, parading amid your ocean of shit, nonsense and lies.
Nothing new, alas.
We've been thru that, several times already.
Now, now, M. Tourette, just admit you were too stupid to look at the
endnotes, and too dishonest to provide the information about your
claimed "1846" source.
"the information about your claimed "1846" source"
=> my source is google.books, you wretched piece of senile shit.
And this Tourettist expects people to consider him a scholar?
He probably didn't find any such phrasing at all, whether from 1864 or from
1846, and thought he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes just as he does
by "publishing" articles and even books at vanity web sites with no consideration
by knowledgeable persons at all.
Note that he can't even provide the phrase he "searched at google books" because
he knows that such a search would not replicate his "finding."
I don't understand the point of writing 10 lines of crap, when it's easy to check in google.books that I'm right.
The Athenæum: A Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama, Volume 1
Éditeur J. Francis, 1842
This book is even older than the previous date and contains the sentence.
Got it, senile?
Max Muller has nothing to do with this sentence.
Typical lie. He said it in 1863 and published it in 1864, becoming the
source for its distribution into the 20th century.
typical PTD's BS.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
It's probably a kind of sarcastic aphorism that already existed in the 18th century, and was attributed to Voltaire in the 19th, because it sounds like Voltaire's style.
As usual, anytime you make a concrete statement, your incompetent crap is provably false.
If only "AF" were as good at linguistics as at lies.
Talking about yourself, senile?
Arnaud Fournet
2018-05-19 04:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
No, Bloomfield (Language p6) does not quote Max Muller.
He precisely wrote: "Voltaire is reported to have said that".
How come you insist on Max Muller having anything to do with this sentence?
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-19 12:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
Back when DD first started posting in sci.lang I quoted someone
etymology is a science in which the consonants count for very
little and the vowels for nothing at all"
It appears to be a precise description of his technique.
Leonard Bloomfield quotes Max Muller quoting Voltaire. Muller gives no
reference for the Voltaire attribution, and it has remained undiscovered
among his voluminous writings.
No, Bloomfield (Language p6) does not quote Max Muller.
He precisely wrote: "Voltaire is reported to have said that".
How come you insist on Max Muller having anything to do with this sentence?
Thank you for revealing that you have no comprehension whatsoever of how
scholarship works. On p. 511 (of the original American edition of 1933,
and also of the 1935 English edition that replaced the General American
transcriptions of English with RP transcriptions) is the note "The epigram
about etymology is attributed to Voltaire by Max Muller, Lectures on the
Science of Language: Second Series (London, 1864), p. 238; I have sought
it in vain in Voltaire's writings."
Daud Deden
2018-05-16 17:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---

***@Inuit: seal oil (lamp)
***@Spanish: fat
***@Spanish: grease
***@Malay: fat
***@Malay: grease
***@Cree: grease
***@Sanskrit: clear butter
***@Tibet: grease skin coracle
***@German: shingler/skin
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-17 03:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-05-18 01:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-18 02:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---

Thanks Yusuf.

Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd

What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-18 02:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---
Thanks Yusuf.
Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd
What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
Kindlewick, Candlewax.
Qi(n)dl(u)ik, Xya(mb)ndula.uax
Got it.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-18 02:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---
Thanks Yusuf.
Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd
What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
As I quasi-predicted, chemise is a shift(sieve) related to oil:
Chemise or shift ... simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat & oil.

Got it.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-19 13:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---
Thanks Yusuf.
Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd
What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
Chemise or shift ... simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat & oil.
Got it.
Very nice, the root of alchemia may link to koumis(Khazak) & chemise vie dyeing/oiling of cheap materials to resemble dear ones.
---
Maddalena Rumor:

Finally, to go back to the name of the “art” itself, its origins might also be found in Mesopotamia. While the etymology of the Greek term chēmeia (χημεία) remains problematic, I have recently suggested that it may derive from the Akkadian term kamû/kawû, the secondary meaning of which is “to bake, to roast” (root *√kmy/kwy, surviving in Aramaic √kwy, “to burn”).
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-19 14:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---
Thanks Yusuf.
Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd
What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
Chemise or shift ... simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat & oil.
Got it.
Very nice, the root of alchemia may link to koumis(Khazak) & chemise vie dyeing/oiling of cheap materials to resemble dear ones.
---
Finally, to go back to the name of the “art” itself, its origins might also be found in Mesopotamia. While the etymology of the Greek term chēmeia (χημεία) remains problematic, I have recently suggested that it may derive from the Akkadian term kamû/kawû, the secondary meaning of which is “to bake, to roast” (root *√kmy/kwy, surviving in Aramaic √kwy, “to burn”).
http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/05/Alchemy-Between-Two-Rivers
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-05-20 02:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---
Thanks Yusuf.
Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd
What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
Chemise or shift ... simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat & oil.
Got it.
Very nice, the root of alchemia may link to koumis(Khazak) & chemise vie dyeing/oiling of cheap materials to resemble dear ones.
---
In Turkic usually qımız
Post by Daud Deden
Finally, to go back to the name of the “art” itself, its origins might also be found in Mesopotamia. While the etymology of the Greek term chēmeia (χημεία) remains problematic, I have recently suggested that it may derive from the Akkadian term kamû/kawû, the secondary meaning of which is “to bake, to roast” (root *√kmy/kwy, surviving in Aramaic √kwy, “to burn”).
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-20 11:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---
Thanks Yusuf.
Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd
What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
Chemise or shift ... simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat & oil.
Got it.
Very nice, the root of alchemia may link to koumis(Khazak) & chemise vie dyeing/oiling of cheap materials to resemble dear ones.
---
In Turkic usually qımız
Yes, Yusuf, horses/mares were apparently domesticated in Kazakhstan cf Botai, so that pronunciation is perhaps relevant?
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Finally, to go back to the name of the “art” itself, its origins might also be found in Mesopotamia. While the etymology of the Greek term chēmeia (χημεία) remains problematic, I have recently suggested that it may derive from the Akkadian term kamû/kawû, the secondary meaning of which is “to bake, to roast” (root *√kmy/kwy, surviving in Aramaic √kwy, “to burn”).
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-25 15:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---
Thanks Yusuf.
Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd
What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
Chemise or shift ... simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat & oil.
Got it.
Very nice, the root of alchemia may link to koumis(Khazak) & chemise vie dyeing/oiling of cheap materials to resemble dear ones.
---
In Turkic usually qımız
Yes, Yusuf, horses/mares were apparently domesticated in Kazakhstan cf Botai, so that pronunciation is perhaps relevant?
Who First Domesticated Horses?
The History News of the Week
Daryl Worthington 14.5.18

Were horses first domesticated by descendants of hunter-gatherer groups in
Kazakhstan?
and not by the Yamnaya culture 5.3­4.6 ka?

Guus Kroonen:
"The successful spread of the Indo-European languages across Eurasia has
puzzled researchers for a century.
It was thought that IE speakers played a key role in the domestication of
the horse,
and that this (with the development of wheeled vehicles) allowed them to
spread across Eurasia from the Yamnaya culture."

The new study in Science shows that horses were already being used by the
Botai people 5.5 ka & much further East in C-Asia, independent of the
Yamnaya pastoralists.
The team analysed ancient & modern human DNA samples, and compared the
results:
the 74 ancient whole-genome sequences were up to 11 ka, and were from
Inner Asia & Turkey.
They found no genetic link between the Yamnaya & Botai.
Intriguingly, the Botai were eventually pushed out of the central steppe
region by migrations from the West.
The Botai horses were also replaced: had domestication of horses already
occurred elsewhere?

Alan Outram:
"We now know that the people who first domesticated the horse in C-Asia
were the descendants of ice age hunters, who went on to become the
earliest pastoralists in the region.
Despite their local innovations, these peoples were overrun & replaced by
European steppe pastoralists in the middle & later Bronze Age, and their
horses were replaced too."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Finally, to go back to the name of the “art” itself, its origins might also be found in Mesopotamia. While the etymology of the Greek term chēmeia (χημεία) remains problematic, I have recently suggested that it may derive from the Akkadian term kamû/kawû, the secondary meaning of which is “to bake, to roast” (root *√kmy/kwy, surviving in Aramaic √kwy, “to burn”).
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-05-25 16:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, thanks. I came across an interesting blog while seeking Jess Tauber, Yahgan linguist and old acquaintance in geodesic architecture & spatial geometry.
http://www.untranslatable.org/words/mamihlapinatapai
I don't expect Chon(an) languages linked to Melanesian/Andamanese, but much more likely would be Yahgan, Pirahã, Surui(Melanesian DNA) & Beothuk, though probably only traces would have remained due to massive influence of AmerIndian genes & memes.
Some of the early Japanese (Jomon, Ainu) had the YAP gene as do Andamaners.
Dan Everett wrote of his main contact person in the Pirahã village having curly hair and complexiom different from others, which I assumed meant he had some recent African mixture, but possibly it could have come from ancient Melanesian genes.
If Rivet claimed Melanesians/Australians crossed the Pacific like later Polynesians, he was wrong. New World Melanesians were coastal foragers, not open-ocean sailors. The continental shelves were all emergent before 10ka: Sahul, Sunda, Japan, Beringia, unlike at post-glacial sea level rise.
---
---
Xyambuangualua/skin-mongolu
It's Turkic kımız / qımız. It's a loanword in Mongolian
---
Thanks Yusuf.
Gumok/pimiy/qimiz/cheese/grease/ghee/yogurt/curd
What is chemise? Similar to cheesecloth? Sieve/xyuambuatl
Chemise or shift ... simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat & oil.
Got it.
Very nice, the root of alchemia may link to koumis(Khazak) & chemise vie dyeing/oiling of cheap materials to resemble dear ones.
---
In Turkic usually qımız
Yes, Yusuf, horses/mares were apparently domesticated in Kazakhstan cf Botai, so that pronunciation is perhaps relevant?
Who First Domesticated Horses?
The History News of the Week
Daryl Worthington 14.5.18
Were horses first domesticated by descendants of hunter-gatherer groups in
Kazakhstan?
and not by the Yamnaya culture 5.3­4.6 ka?
"The successful spread of the Indo-European languages across Eurasia has
puzzled researchers for a century.
It was thought that IE speakers played a key role in the domestication of
the horse,
and that this (with the development of wheeled vehicles) allowed them to
spread across Eurasia from the Yamnaya culture."
The new study in Science shows that horses were already being used by the
Botai people 5.5 ka & much further East in C-Asia, independent of the
Yamnaya pastoralists.
The team analysed ancient & modern human DNA samples, and compared the
the 74 ancient whole-genome sequences were up to 11 ka, and were from
Inner Asia & Turkey.
They found no genetic link between the Yamnaya & Botai.
Intriguingly, the Botai were eventually pushed out of the central steppe
region by migrations from the West.
The Botai horses were also replaced: had domestication of horses already
occurred elsewhere?
"We now know that the people who first domesticated the horse in C-Asia
were the descendants of ice age hunters, who went on to become the
earliest pastoralists in the region.
Despite their local innovations, these peoples were overrun & replaced by
European steppe pastoralists in the middle & later Bronze Age, and their
horses were replaced too."
Ancient genomes revisit the ancestry of domestic and Przewalski's horses
Charleen Gaunitz ... Ludovic Orlando 2018:
Science 360:111-114 doi 10.1126/science.aao3297

The Eneo-lithic Botai culture of the C-Asian steppes provides the earliest
archaeological evidence for horse husbandry, ~5.5 ka,
but the exact nature of early horse domestication remains controversial.

We generated 42 ancient-horse genomes (incl. 20 from Botai).
Compared to 46 published ancient- & modern-horse genomes, our data
indicate:
Przewalski's horses are the feral descendants of horses herded at Botai,
and not truly wild horses.
All domestic horses dated from ~4 ka to present only show ~2.7 % of
Botai-related ancestry.

This indicates that a massive genomic turn-over underpins the expansion of
the horse stock that gave rise to modern domesticates,
this coincides with large-scale human population expansions during the
Early Bronze Age.


______


Revisiting the origins of modern horses

Horse domestication was very important in the history of humankind.
However, the ancestry of modern horses & the location & timing of their
emergence remain unclear.
Gaunitz cs generated 42 ancient-horse genomes, incl. the Botai
archaeological site in C-Asia, considered to include the earliest
domesticated horses.
Unexpectedly, Botai horses were the ancestors, not of modern domestic
horses, but rather of modern Przewalski's horses:
in contrast to current thinking on horse domestication, modern horses may
have been domesticated in other (more Western) centers of origin.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Finally, to go back to the name of the “art” itself, its origins might also be found in Mesopotamia. While the etymology of the Greek term chēmeia (χημεία) remains problematic, I have recently suggested that it may derive from the Akkadian term kamû/kawû, the secondary meaning of which is “to bake, to roast” (root *√kmy/kwy, surviving in Aramaic √kwy, “to burn”).
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Translated as “spirit lake community of people,” the word Mdewakanton breaks down like this: mde means lake, wakan means spirit or holy, and “ton” is a shortened version of otonwan, signifying a community of people
Daud Deden
2018-06-02 03:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
LeeO at HOM:


Posted by: Lee Olsen (IP Logged)
Date: June 1, 2018 05:18AM
Fifty thousand years to get to New Zealand with
all those so-called boating skills?
Here is a very easy to get book:
[www.amazon.com]
While the dating has changed since 1999, the archaeology sites and ship logs of the first people (like Bligh of Mutiny on the Bounty fame etc.) to describe the Tasmanians hasn't.

Start on page 344 and read through 352 and read twice the comments on "Visiting Islands" and "Island exploitation".
Key words: canoe-shaped float
This explains how a viable breeding population of 250 (compatible with the latest DNA evidence) could have accidentally got over the Wallace Line without anymore planning and "skilled maritime " exploring than it did for monkeys to get to the Americas.
Daud Deden
2018-02-01 00:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, what was Rivet's migration theory you speak of? Wiki has no details, and my French skill is too limited to read his book.
All he says in the 1925 paper (the only one I can readily get hold of)
is that there were migrations "by way of the islands", first by Australians
and later by Melanesians/Polynesians. He (and others) believed in
the migrations on the basis of physical and cultural resemblances.
In this paper he presents what he considers linguistic evidence, comparing
the Chon languages (Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego) with Australian, and
the Hokan group (mainly North American) with Oceanic.
I'd be polite enough not to call Rivet a crank; he was an anthropologist,
highly esteemed by his French colleagues. But he had no more clue than
the average crank about what linguistic evidence is. He compares basketfuls
of languages on either side and finds (unsurprisingly) random similarities.
Others before and since have done the same.
Post by Daud Deden
I specified route, method & motive, all aligned with present evidence and logical speculation. No-one that I'm aware of has done that.
--

There might be something to it. New paper shows genetic anomaly in southern South America:

Whole genome sequence of Mapuche-Huilliche Native Americans
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/24/252619

This article is quite technical as is indicated by the tone of the abstract. 

In their Admixture analysis, Vidal et al. detected differences between the Huilliche genomes and those of other Native American populations:

"We ran ADMIXTURE from K = 1 to K = 15 models.....Notably, a large component of the AMR ancestry in PEL, MXL, CLM and PUR populations (dark gray) is not present in HUI genomes (average = 0.5%) and is marginally represented in Chilean Latino individuals (average = 6.9%, compared with 76.2% in PEL, 42.9% in MXL, 25.6% in CLM and 13.5% in PUR samples). These results suggest that HUI individuals and the broader Chilean cohort derive this genetic component from shared Native American ancestors with low genetic representation in other admixed American populations.

mtDNA sequences of the Southern Cone populations nearly all belong to haplogroups C & D.  It is no surprise, then, that the mtDNA sequences of the Mapuche-Huilliche of this study also all belong to these two haplogroups, only:

"Analysis of mitochondrial DNA showed that all HUI individuals belong to the Native American haplogroups C and D, two of the major pan-continental founder haplogroups. The majority of genomes sequenced (7 out of 11) belong to the C1b haplogroup and 6 of them were assigned to the clade C1b13 (Additional file 1: Fig. S5a), which is a branch found mainly in the Southern Cone of South America between 38° and 42°S [15, 29]. While the other 4 individuals belong to the D haplogroup, 3 of them are in the D1g clade, which is found almost exclusively in the central-southern part of Chile and Argentina, and only one is in the D4h3a clade (Additional file 1: Fig. S5b), found mainly in the Southern Patagonia [15, 29]. These results are in agreement with the admixture data (K = 10, as described before) showing that the genetic component of the HUI cohort differs from the genetic component of other Native American populations living in the northern region of South America."
Daud Deden
2018-02-01 00:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Ross, what was Rivet's migration theory you speak of? Wiki has no details, and my French skill is too limited to read his book.
All he says in the 1925 paper (the only one I can readily get hold of)
is that there were migrations "by way of the islands", first by Australians
and later by Melanesians/Polynesians. He (and others) believed in
the migrations on the basis of physical and cultural resemblances.
In this paper he presents what he considers linguistic evidence, comparing
the Chon languages (Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego) with Australian, and
the Hokan group (mainly North American) with Oceanic.
I'd be polite enough not to call Rivet a crank; he was an anthropologist,
highly esteemed by his French colleagues. But he had no more clue than
the average crank about what linguistic evidence is. He compares basketfuls
of languages on either side and finds (unsurprisingly) random similarities.
Others before and since have done the same.
Post by Daud Deden
I specified route, method & motive, all aligned with present evidence and logical speculation. No-one that I'm aware of has done that.
--
Whole genome sequence of Mapuche-Huilliche Native Americans
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/24/252619
This article is quite technical as is indicated by the tone of the abstract. 
"We ran ADMIXTURE from K = 1 to K = 15 models.....Notably, a large component of the AMR ancestry in PEL, MXL, CLM and PUR populations (dark gray) is not present in HUI genomes (average = 0.5%) and is marginally represented in Chilean Latino individuals (average = 6.9%, compared with 76.2% in PEL, 42.9% in MXL, 25.6% in CLM and 13.5% in PUR samples). These results suggest that HUI individuals and the broader Chilean cohort derive this genetic component from shared Native American ancestors with low genetic representation in other admixed American populations.
"Analysis of mitochondrial DNA showed that all HUI individuals belong to the Native American haplogroups C and D, two of the major pan-continental founder haplogroups. The majority of genomes sequenced (7 out of 11) belong to the C1b haplogroup and 6 of them were assigned to the clade C1b13 (Additional file 1: Fig. S5a), which is a branch found mainly in the Southern Cone of South America between 38° and 42°S [15, 29]. While the other 4 individuals belong to the D haplogroup, 3 of them are in the D1g clade, which is found almost exclusively in the central-southern part of Chile and Argentina, and only one is in the D4h3a clade (Additional file 1: Fig. S5b), found mainly in the Southern Patagonia [15, 29]. These results are in agreement with the admixture data (K = 10, as described before) showing that the genetic component of the HUI cohort differs from the genetic component of other Native American populations living in the northern region of South America."
Per geneticist Gisele Horvat: "The majority of genomes sequenced (7 out of 11) belong to the C1b haplogroup..."

C1b - like Upward Sun River1 (The oldest AmerIndians via Beringia, now extinct)
Daud Deden
2018-05-15 23:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans in Brazil 11.5ka
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full new article
11.5ka Luzia et. al. at Lagoa Santa Karst rockshelters, unique morphology.
(from 2015) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
-
Luzia et al ancestors were from a SEAsian-Papuan group that used bark-canoes (from Sago palm processing) riding the north Pacific Gyre of the warm-water Kuroshio current going up the Pacific coast when Beringia blocked today's cold Arctic current, northeastward-eastward (south of Beringia) then southward to California & Honduras to the equator where they met the northflowing Antarctic current and landed.
AmerIndians arrived later via Mexico-North Dakota (cf. Mandan c.oracles)-Canada (between glacial massifs)-Beringia-Siberia, their landlubber journey had begun earlier in north Siberia. DD
-
Let's track their linguistic journey & contacts, shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_colossal_heads

The dates of the Olmec stone heads may be much later than the "Melanesian" skeletons & genetically linked Surui & Karitiana, but may have some connection.

Notably the Olmecs were the first large highly civilized cities of the Americas, before the Maya, Aztecs and Incas, so statistically, the proportion of Melanesians would be higher among them than in later groups of AmerIndians.

Most stone heads have been dated to the Early Preclassic period (1500–1000 BC)

There may have been a much older tradition of carved wood structures which did not endure in the tropical rainforest?

The stone heads have noticeably negroid-like features compared to later Mayan & Aztec pictures.

Whether that might be linked to Andaman-Melanesian forerunner facial features is not known.
Loading...