Discussion:
Arabic, Ancient North Arabian advances
Add Reply
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-05-23 21:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-new-history-of-arabia-written-in-stone
DKleinecke
2018-05-23 23:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-new-history-of-arabia-written-in-stone
It was a long time ago I first heard about Safaitic and suspected
it held riches for an archeologist. But I never had a chance to do
archeology outside of California.

I'm delighted it's getting the attention it deserves.
Daud Deden
2018-05-24 02:21:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-new-history-of-arabia-written-in-stone
Remarkable, thanks, Yusuf.

In 2013, Al-Jallad used the Safaitic database as he worked on an inscription containing several mysterious words: Maleh, Dhakar, and Amet. Earlier scholars had assumed that they were the names of unknown places. Al-Jallad, unconvinced, searched the database and discovered another inscription that contained all three. Both inscriptions discussed migrations in search of water, and a possibility occurred to him: if the words referred to seasons of migration, then they might be the names of constellations visible at those times.

Al-Jallad began pulling up every inscription that mentioned migrating in search of rain, and soon he had a long list of terms that had resisted translation. Comparing them with the Greek, Aramaic, and Babylonian zodiacs, he started making connections.
---
Cf Brian Pellar's astro-alphabet
-
Dhakar matched up nicely with dikra, the Aramaic word for Aries,
---
***@Congo(Dutch?) = forest antelope
deer
***@Malay: forest antelope
-

and Amet was derived from an Arabic verb meaning “to measure or compute quantity”—a good bet for the scales of Libra.
---

Libra/pound/***@Aztec/quant/coin/count/amount/amet/measure/mens(urate/truate)/
-

Hunting for Capricorn, the goat-fish constellation, Al-Jallad found the word ya’mur in Edward Lane’s “Arabic-English Lexicon,” whose translation read, “A certain beast of the sea, or . . . a kind of mountain-goat.” He stayed up all night, sifting the database and checking words against dictionaries of ancient Semitic languages. By morning, he had deciphered a complete, previously unknown Arabian zodiac. “We’d thought that they were place names, and, in a way, they were,” he told me. “They were places in the sky.”
Daud Deden
2018-05-24 12:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-new-history-of-arabia-written-in-stone
Remarkable, thanks, Yusuf.
In 2013, Al-Jallad used the Safaitic database as he worked on an inscription containing several mysterious words: Maleh, Dhakar, and Amet. Earlier scholars had assumed that they were the names of unknown places. Al-Jallad, unconvinced, searched the database and discovered another inscription that contained all three. Both inscriptions discussed migrations in search of water, and a possibility occurred to him: if the words referred to seasons of migration, then they might be the names of constellations visible at those times.
Al-Jallad began pulling up every inscription that mentioned migrating in search of rain, and soon he had a long list of terms that had resisted translation. Comparing them with the Greek, Aramaic, and Babylonian zodiacs, he started making connections.
---
Cf Brian Pellar's astro-alphabet
-
Dhakar matched up nicely with dikra, the Aramaic word for Aries,
---
deer
-
and Amet was derived from an Arabic verb meaning “to measure or compute quantity”—a good bet for the scales of Libra.
---
-
Hunting for Capricorn, the goat-fish constellation, Al-Jallad found the word ya’mur in Edward Lane’s “Arabic-English Lexicon,” whose translation read, “A certain beast of the sea, or . . . a kind of mountain-goat.” He stayed up all night, sifting the database and checking words against dictionaries of ancient Semitic languages. By morning, he had deciphered a complete, previously unknown Arabian zodiac. “We’d thought that they were place names, and, in a way, they were,” he told me. “They were places in the sky.”
---
***@Arm: 2, e(r)qu.al
***@Ltn: ***@Grk: ***@Arb: ***@Indic
Kupharigolu/Qufa/teba/topa/cover-bowl/gulu/khwelo
Kuphos/cup/coop/hoo(p/f/v)
/syaduof/shi'***@Arb: between 2 mtns/mounds/mams/mongolu/moons/mens(es)
***@Greek: leve(l/red)/lift

Gufa.libra = Kupha.rigolu = Cup.Hrql, !hxaro/cargo/jar/jug/iug/yoga/yoke =lever/level (~ ***@Aztec:
eck? ~ s.teg.osaurus) ~ women carrying water jars on their heads? .
Daud Deden
2018-05-24 12:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-new-history-of-arabia-written-in-stone
Remarkable, thanks, Yusuf.
In 2013, Al-Jallad used the Safaitic database as he worked on an inscription containing several mysterious words: Maleh, Dhakar, and Amet. Earlier scholars had assumed that they were the names of unknown places. Al-Jallad, unconvinced, searched the database and discovered another inscription that contained all three. Both inscriptions discussed migrations in search of water, and a possibility occurred to him: if the words referred to seasons of migration, then they might be the names of constellations visible at those times.
Al-Jallad began pulling up every inscription that mentioned migrating in search of rain, and soon he had a long list of terms that had resisted translation. Comparing them with the Greek, Aramaic, and Babylonian zodiacs, he started making connections.
---
Cf Brian Pellar's astro-alphabet
-
Dhakar matched up nicely with dikra, the Aramaic word for Aries,
---
deer
-
and Amet was derived from an Arabic verb meaning “to measure or compute quantity”—a good bet for the scales of Libra.
---
-
Hunting for Capricorn, the goat-fish constellation, Al-Jallad found the word ya’mur in Edward Lane’s “Arabic-English Lexicon,” whose translation read, “A certain beast of the sea, or . . . a kind of mountain-goat.” He stayed up all night, sifting the database and checking words against dictionaries of ancient Semitic languages. By morning, he had deciphered a complete, previously unknown Arabian zodiac. “We’d thought that they were place names, and, in a way, they were,” he told me. “They were places in the sky.”
---
Kupharigolu/Qufa/teba/topa/cover-bowl/gulu/khwelo
Kuphos/cup/coop/hoo(p/f/v)
eck? ~ s.teg.osaurus) ~ women carrying water jars on their heads? .
-
Errata ***@Aztec: step; ***@Aztec: roof = ***@Grk: roof(round), as original cup (inverted, cf quaff), so water jar on head/hopf/kopf.
Daud Deden
2018-05-24 23:36:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.academia.edu/9003930/Al-Jallad._2014._An_ancient_Arabian_zodiac._The_constellations_in_the_Safaitic_inscriptions_Part_I_Addendum_
Daud Deden
2018-05-25 01:18:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
https://www.academia.edu/9003930/Al-Jallad._2014._An_ancient_Arabian_zodiac._The_constellations_in_the_Safaitic_inscriptions_Part_I_Addendum_
---
His blog on zodiac:

http://www.leiden-islamblog.nl/articles/an-ancient-zodiac-from-arabia-discovered
Daud Deden
2018-05-26 19:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
https://www.academia.edu/9003930/Al-Jallad._2014._An_ancient_Arabian_zodiac._The_constellations_in_the_Safaitic_inscriptions_Part_I_Addendum_
---
http://www.leiden-islamblog.nl/articles/an-ancient-zodiac-from-arabia-discovered
---

OT: Arabic words in English

http://www.dictionary.com/e/s/arabic-roots/#candy
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-05-26 20:03:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
https://www.academia.edu/9003930/Al-Jallad._2014._An_ancient_Arabian_zodiac._The_constellations_in_the_Safaitic_inscriptions_Part_I_Addendum_
---
http://www.leiden-islamblog.nl/articles/an-ancient-zodiac-from-arabia-discovered
---
OT: Arabic words in English
http://www.dictionary.com/e/s/arabic-roots/#candy
Arabic qand قند 'mass obtained from boiling sugar' qandiyy قندي pertaining to it
Daud Deden
2018-05-26 22:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
https://www.academia.edu/9003930/Al-Jallad._2014._An_ancient_Arabian_zodiac._The_constellations_in_the_Safaitic_inscriptions_Part_I_Addendum_
---
http://www.leiden-islamblog.nl/articles/an-ancient-zodiac-from-arabia-discovered
---
OT: Arabic words in English
http://www.dictionary.com/e/s/arabic-roots/#candy
Arabic qand قند 'mass obtained from boiling sugar' qandiyy قندي pertaining to it
---
Thanks Yusuf, interesting, being that sugar came from Papua as a cane via canoe (hollowed/halo-(rind)-hull) & catamaran. Is qand also used to describe a mass obtained from boiling saltwater or tree sap or milk or any other items, or solely for sugar?
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-05-27 00:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
https://www.academia.edu/9003930/Al-Jallad._2014._An_ancient_Arabian_zodiac._The_constellations_in_the_Safaitic_inscriptions_Part_I_Addendum_
---
http://www.leiden-islamblog.nl/articles/an-ancient-zodiac-from-arabia-discovered
---
OT: Arabic words in English
http://www.dictionary.com/e/s/arabic-roots/#candy
Arabic qand قند 'mass obtained from boiling sugar' qandiyy قندي pertaining to it
---
Thanks Yusuf, interesting, being that sugar came from Papua as a cane via canoe (hollowed/halo-(rind)-hull) & catamaran. Is qand also used to describe a mass obtained from boiling saltwater or tree sap or milk or any other items, or solely for sugar?
In Arabic it seens to be used exclusively for crystallized sugar. Perhaps from qandah قندة which would mean a single piece of crystallized sugar. Some sources try to derive it from sukkar qandiyy سكر قندي'crystallized sugar', but I fail to find it used for anything other than candy.

For further etymology

https://www.etymonline.com/word/candy
Daud Deden
2018-05-27 05:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
https://www.academia.edu/9003930/Al-Jallad._2014._An_ancient_Arabian_zodiac._The_constellations_in_the_Safaitic_inscriptions_Part_I_Addendum_
---
http://www.leiden-islamblog.nl/articles/an-ancient-zodiac-from-arabia-discovered
---
OT: Arabic words in English
http://www.dictionary.com/e/s/arabic-roots/#candy
Arabic qand قند 'mass obtained from boiling sugar' qandiyy قندي pertaining to it
---
Thanks Yusuf, interesting, being that sugar came from Papua as a cane via canoe (hollowed/halo-(rind)-hull) & catamaran. Is qand also used to describe a mass obtained from boiling saltwater or tree sap or milk or any other items, or solely for sugar?
In Arabic it seens to be used exclusively for crystallized sugar. Perhaps from qandah قندة which would mean a single piece of crystallized sugar. Some sources try to derive it from sukkar qandiyy سكر قندي'crystallized sugar', but I fail to find it used for anything other than candy.
For further etymology
https://www.etymonline.com/word/candy
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").

candy (v.)
"preserve or encrust with sugar," 1530s, from candy (n.). Related: Candied; candying.

Catamaran = kat(t?)u ***@Tamil?: tied(cut & secured)logs ~ (possibly from secured/stored/boiled syrup of cane, just as saltwater was put in bamboo and boiled to make salt in highly humid SEAsia). I suspected this, which is why I asked if qand referred only to sugar. Salt wasn't made this way in dry climates.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-27 13:14:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately." Given the chain of borrowing as listed
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian." Unless
"ultimately" is being taken from the opposite viewpoint -- last in time
rather than last in the chain of languages we can discover.
Daud Deden
2018-05-27 16:42:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could only have been brought to India by Papuans, the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian. First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.

The Cree & Algonkwin terms for 'containment/hamlet' canada/ganata are related to qand/kantong etc. as the birch bark containers to gather maple sap (sugar-water) and sumac stiles replaced bamboo containers. The Chippewa birch bark canoe is direct descendant of sago palm processing.

Only the coracle preceded these bark & dugout canoes & hollow-reed rafts.

As I said, there is one human language, with 7k ~ 7bn variations.


Unless
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"ultimately" is being taken from the opposite viewpoint -- last in time
rather than last in the chain of languages we can discover.
"We" have already discovered the truth "ultimately", in Papua.

Xyuambuatlachya. DD
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-27 17:21:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane
The use of the word "ultimately" has nothing to do with the origin of
sugar cane.
Daud Deden
2018-05-28 02:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane
The use of the word "ultimately" has nothing to do with the origin of
sugar cane.
It certainly does, since there could not have been a name without it, and it existed only outside of Africa-EurAsia, so no 'ultimately'.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-28 02:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane
The use of the word "ultimately" has nothing to do with the origin of
sugar cane.
It certainly does, since there could not have been a name without it, and it existed only outside of Africa-EurAsia, so no 'ultimately'.
Imported things don't necessarily carry their names with them. The
Germans call some sort of communication device a "handy." Wherever they
got that word for it, it's not the name of the American-made thing in
English.
Daud Deden
2018-05-28 04:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane
The use of the word "ultimately" has nothing to do with the origin of
sugar cane.
It certainly does, since there could not have been a name without it, and it existed only outside of Africa-EurAsia, so no 'ultimately'.
Imported things don't necessarily carry their names with them.
True. But non-existent things never carry their name with them. Sugar cane did not exist physically or linguistically outside Sahul until Papuans brought it to EurAsia (in longboats not coracles), so no EurAsian or African languages had a name for it. Logical deduction.

The
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Germans call some sort of communication device a "handy." Wherever they
got that word for it, it's not the name of the American-made thing in
English.
Did Tandy Corp. (radio shack) make a walkie-talkie or cell phone called a Handy for sale in Europe?
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-27 21:06:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could. Nothing requires that the name we have now be
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those? Sugar cane was being grown around the
Mediterranean by the 10th century AD.
Daud Deden
2018-05-28 02:39:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.

Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.

Sugar cane was being grown around the
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Mediterranean by the 10th century AD.
Papyrus too in Sardinia & Sicily, earlier IIRC.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-28 02:57:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from
Papua, and could only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
There are no such principles in historical semantics.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
Sugar cane was being grown around the
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Mediterranean by the 10th century AD.
Papyrus too in Sardinia & Sicily, earlier IIRC.
Thus no "European explorers" were involved in their discovery or naming.
Daud Deden
2018-05-28 05:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from
Papua, and could only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
There are no such principles in historical semantics.
There are in science, especially in evolutionary biology, which is where Paleo-Etymology fits. Is historical semantics a science?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
Sugar cane was being grown around the
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Mediterranean by the 10th century AD.
Papyrus too in Sardinia & Sicily, earlier IIRC.
Thus no "European explorers" were involved in their discovery or naming.
Correct, the term vegetable honey probably lost favor to more common names in southern EurAsia where it was already long well-known.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-28 06:08:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.

You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
traced right back to "Papua". Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage." Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one. I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
Post by Daud Deden
Sugar cane was being grown around the
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Mediterranean by the 10th century AD.
Papyrus too in Sardinia & Sicily, earlier IIRC.
Daud Deden
2018-05-29 03:53:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Candystore.com has a nice brief history of candy/sweets/lollies. Alexander mentioned in ref. to making "honey".
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-30 01:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Candystore.com has a nice brief history of candy/sweets/lollies. Alexander mentioned in ref. to making "honey".
So your "first European explorers" are Nearkhos and his associates,
descending the Indus in 326-324 BC, who may indeed have been the first
Europeans to see (and taste) sugarcane. The account (as it has come down
to us) refers to a "reed" (kalamos) from which "honey" is made, without
bees.

I find the expression "vegetable honey" only in a few 19th century books,
referring to sweet secretions or preparations from plants, such as
the tamarisk exudation that some have identified as the biblical "manna",
or date syrup.
Daud Deden
2018-05-30 04:27:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Candystore.com has a nice brief history of candy/sweets/lollies. Alexander mentioned in ref. to making "honey".
So your "first European explorers" are Nearkhos and his associates,
descending the Indus in 326-324 BC, who may indeed have been the first
Europeans to see (and taste) sugarcane. The account (as it has come down
to us) refers to a "reed" (kalamos) from which "honey" is made, without
bees.
Plausible. Of course, sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars, and sago is a vegetable rich in starches, both were long cultivated by Papuans.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I find the expression "vegetable honey" only in a few 19th century books,
referring to sweet secretions or preparations from plants, such as
the tamarisk exudation that some have identified as the biblical "manna",
or date syrup.
Yes, that reminds me of the tamarisk/damar/ambergris wordstring, and map.le sap/tap.
Daud Deden
2018-06-04 22:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Candystore.com has a nice brief history of candy/sweets/lollies. Alexander mentioned in ref. to making "honey".
So your "first European explorers" are Nearkhos and his associates,
descending the Indus in 326-324 BC, who may indeed have been the first
Europeans to see (and taste) sugarcane. The account (as it has come down
to us) refers to a "reed" (kalamos) from which "honey" is made, without
bees.
Plausible. Of course, sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars, and sago is a vegetable rich in starches, both were long cultivated by Papuans.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I find the expression "vegetable honey" only in a few 19th century books,
referring to sweet secretions or preparations from plants, such as
the tamarisk exudation that some have identified as the biblical "manna",
or date syrup.
Yes, that reminds me of the tamarisk/damar/ambergris wordstring, and map.le sap/tap.
---

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-agriculture-uncover-clues.html
Daud Deden
2018-06-04 22:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Candystore.com has a nice brief history of candy/sweets/lollies. Alexander mentioned in ref. to making "honey".
So your "first European explorers" are Nearkhos and his associates,
descending the Indus in 326-324 BC, who may indeed have been the first
Europeans to see (and taste) sugarcane. The account (as it has come down
to us) refers to a "reed" (kalamos) from which "honey" is made, without
bees.
Plausible. Of course, sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars, and sago is a vegetable rich in starches, both were long cultivated by Papuans.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I find the expression "vegetable honey" only in a few 19th century books,
referring to sweet secretions or preparations from plants, such as
the tamarisk exudation that some have identified as the biblical "manna",
or date syrup.
Yes, that reminds me of the tamarisk/damar/ambergris wordstring, and map.le sap/tap.
---
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-agriculture-uncover-clues.html
"Hindcast" predicting the past based on data

---

https://phys.org/news/2010-11-dna-reveals-european-farmers.html
Daud Deden
2018-05-30 10:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."

Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
-
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
-
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.

-
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
-
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants. But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
traced right back to "Papua". Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage." Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one. I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Sugar cane was being grown around the
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Mediterranean by the 10th century AD.
Papyrus too in Sardinia & Sicily, earlier IIRC.
-
(Phone issues temporarily)
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-30 12:10:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or
Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.

You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.

But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
Daud Deden
2018-05-31 02:00:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".

Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that

Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.

and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.

Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.

that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.

I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.

We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).

Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.

Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.

That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.

Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD

Science requires balanced observation & testing.

Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.

You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.

You have nothing.

Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.

Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.

You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.


In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.

I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.

Pre-history, not history, is my interest.

But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?

I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or
Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
Daud Deden
2018-05-31 03:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272226840_Early_Paleoindian_Mobility_and_Watercraft_An_Assessment_from_the_Mississippi_River_Valley

Boats not widely used by Paleo-Indians with fluted-point tech. in Missouri & Mississippi basins

---

(Re. History of canoeing)

The Birth of Homo, the Marine Chimp
When the Tool Becomes the Master
Paperback 28 Sep 2017
by Michel Odent
Drawing on a diversity of fast-developing disciplines including genetics, physiology, pathology as well as the history of canoeing and studies of the fluctuation of sea levels, revolutionary thinker and birth pioneer Michel Odent examines the case for viewing the genus Homo as a 'marine chimpanzee' ­ particularly adapted to coastal areas.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-31 04:09:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
(Re. History of canoeing)
The Birth of Homo, the Marine Chimp
When the Tool Becomes the Master
Paperback 28 Sep 2017
by Michel Odent
Drawing on a diversity of fast-developing disciplines including genetics, physiology, pathology as well as the history of canoeing and studies of the fluctuation of sea levels, revolutionary thinker and birth pioneer Michel Odent examines the case for viewing the genus Homo as a 'marine chimpanzee' ­ particularly adapted to coastal areas.
"birth pioneer"?
Daud Deden
2018-05-31 05:08:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
(Re. History of canoeing)
The Birth of Homo, the Marine Chimp
When the Tool Becomes the Master
Paperback 28 Sep 2017
by Michel Odent
Drawing on a diversity of fast-developing disciplines including genetics, physiology, pathology as well as the history of canoeing and studies of the fluctuation of sea levels, revolutionary thinker and birth pioneer Michel Odent examines the case for viewing the genus Homo as a 'marine chimpanzee' ­ particularly adapted to coastal areas.
"birth pioneer"?
Yes, he took a Leboyer Bath and ran with it.

Www.Motherspace

A hospital birth most often means being herded into a labour room, being drugged and strapped to the table and delivering the baby with legs in stirrups.

Dr. Michael Odent, a French Obstetrician, pointed out the errors in this position for the first time. He expressed the view that when the legs are held in stirrups, a woman has to push her baby upward, against the force of gravity. This leads to stronger contractions, greater pain and extended labor. To make childbirth more natural, Dr. Odent devised his own method based on traditional midwifery.

Thus the concept of natural birthing, which includes the use of birthing pools and birthing rooms designed to offer a gentler, less clinical atmosphere came into existence.
---
Pygmy mothers preferentially give birth in shallow chrystalline streams, avoiding voracious army ants which are triggered by blood & body fluids. This was probably done by earliest Homo after leaving the arboreal canopy for the rainforest floor. Unlike most mammals and all primates, human mothers discarded the placental afterbirth rather than recycling (eating) it.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-31 11:28:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
birth pioneer Michel Odent examines the case for viewing the genus Homo as a 'marine chimpanzee' ­ particularly adapted to coastal areas.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"birth pioneer"?
Yes, he took a Leboyer Bath and ran with it.
Www.Motherspace
A hospital birth most often means being herded into a labour room, being drugged and strapped to the table and delivering the baby with legs in stirrups.
How many decades ago was that written?
Daud Deden
2018-06-01 01:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
birth pioneer Michel Odent examines the case for viewing the genus Homo as a 'marine chimpanzee' ­ particularly adapted to coastal areas.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"birth pioneer"?
Yes, he took a Leboyer Bath and ran with it.
Www.Motherspace
A hospital birth most often means being herded into a labour room, being drugged and strapped to the table and delivering the baby with legs in stirrups.
How many decades ago was that written?
I don't know.

"Do you not know how to use Google?"
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-01 02:16:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
birth pioneer Michel Odent examines the case for viewing the genus Homo as a 'marine chimpanzee' ­ particularly adapted to coastal areas.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"birth pioneer"?
Yes, he took a Leboyer Bath and ran with it.
Www.Motherspace
A hospital birth most often means being herded into a labour room, being drugged and strapped to the table and delivering the baby with legs in stirrups.
How many decades ago was that written?
I don't know.
"Do you not know how to use Google?"
Ok, can't recognize rhetorical questions casting doubt on the relevance,
or accuracy, of a statement ...
Daud Deden
2018-06-02 02:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
birth pioneer Michel Odent examines the case for viewing the genus Homo as a 'marine chimpanzee' ­ particularly adapted to coastal areas.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"birth pioneer"?
Yes, he took a Leboyer Bath and ran with it.
Www.Motherspace
A hospital birth most often means being herded into a labour room, being drugged and strapped to the table and delivering the baby with legs in stirrups.
How many decades ago was that written?
I don't know.
"Do you not know how to use Google?"
Ok, can't recognize rhetorical questions casting doubt on the relevance,
or accuracy, of a statement ...
At least...
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-05-31 10:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to.
You make statements. Many of them. I assume you believe them to be true.
Therefore I know some of your beliefs. If I am wrong, and you are just
talking any old shit that you don't really believe, you should be
honest enough to admit it.

I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.

A correction of no consequence to my argument.
Post by Daud Deden
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support,
Do any of your statements here have any support other than your own belief?

I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Once again you reveal your ignorance of actual language histories.
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony.
Like I say, when "logical deduction" and "parsimony" give you results
contrary to fact, time to question their validity.

New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.

No, new term, not derived from old term, same old meaning.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form?
I am talking about real Papuan languages, not your made-up "originals".

Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).

More irrelevant mumbling.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension.
Yes, I'm afraid we do have to do it without your paleo-confabulations.

In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.

If so, that would be a good reason not to apply it to etymology.
Post by Daud Deden
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Obviously. Yet you feel qualified to tell the language historians they
are wrong about these things.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
No, you've been told before that this is a false distinction.
Post by Daud Deden
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Daud Deden
2018-06-01 02:04:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to.
You make statements. Many of them. I assume you believe them to be true.
Therefore I know some of your beliefs.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If I am wrong, and you are just
talking any old shit that you don't really believe, you should be
honest enough to admit it.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
A correction of no consequence to my argument.
Post by Daud Deden
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support,
Do any of your statements here have any support other than your own belief?
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Once again you reveal your ignorance of actual language histories.
I study human language with its variation and its precursor.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony.
Like I say, when "logical deduction" and "parsimony" give you results
contrary to fact, time to question their validity.
What you claim as fact is your opinion, what you claim as belief is my opinion. Polarise much?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
No, new term, not derived from old term, same old meaning.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form?
I am talking about real Papuan languages, not your made-up "originals".
I have no "original" languages, I have the Paleo-keyword which informs on the evolution of human language.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
More irrelevant mumbling.
More irrelevant responses.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension.
Yes, I'm afraid we do have to do it without your paleo-confabulations.
Human language is descendants of such.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
If so, that would be a good reason not to apply it to etymology.
The principle is useful in separating the wheat from the chaff.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Obviously. Yet you feel qualified to tell the language historians they
are wrong about these things.
More vapid claims.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
No, you've been told before that this is a false distinction.
Another vapid claim.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-06-01 03:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to.
You make statements. Many of them. I assume you believe them to be true.
Therefore I know some of your beliefs.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
So you don't actually believe these things you say.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If I am wrong, and you are just
talking any old shit that you don't really believe, you should be
honest enough to admit it.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
I repeat, you should be honest enough to admit that you're just talking crap.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
A correction of no consequence to my argument.
Post by Daud Deden
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support,
Do any of your statements here have any support other than your own belief?
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
OK. To rephrase: Do any of your statements here have any support whatever?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Once again you reveal your ignorance of actual language histories.
I study human language with its variation and its precursor.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony.
Like I say, when "logical deduction" and "parsimony" give you results
contrary to fact, time to question their validity.
What you claim as fact is your opinion,
Not (merely) my opinion.

what you claim as belief is my opinion. Polarise much?

I don't know. What sort of distinction are you trying to make between
opinion and belief? You keep saying I don't know your beliefs. Do I know
your opinions?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
No, new term, not derived from old term, same old meaning.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form?
I am talking about real Papuan languages, not your made-up "originals".
I have no "original" languages, I have the Paleo-keyword which informs on the evolution of human language.
Two lines above you referred to "the original form"? What did you mean by that?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
More irrelevant mumbling.
More irrelevant responses.
Quite appropriate, then.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension.
Yes, I'm afraid we do have to do it without your paleo-confabulations.
Human language is descendants of such.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
If so, that would be a good reason not to apply it to etymology.
The principle is useful in separating the wheat from the chaff.
The "chaff" would be the etymologies your principle tells you can't be true.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Obviously. Yet you feel qualified to tell the language historians they
are wrong about these things.
More vapid claims.
Perfectly true. Oh well, if you're going to get all touchy about me telling
you how you "feel", I'll say: You act as though you were qualified to
tell the language historians they are wrong about these things.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
No, you've been told before that this is a false distinction.
Another vapid claim.
Perfectly true. I don't know what you mean by "vapid".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Daud Deden
2018-06-02 03:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to.
You make statements. Many of them. I assume you believe them to be true.
Therefore I know some of your beliefs.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
So you don't actually believe these things you say.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If I am wrong, and you are just
talking any old shit that you don't really believe, you should be
honest enough to admit it.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
I repeat, you should be honest enough to admit that you're just talking crap.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
A correction of no consequence to my argument.
Post by Daud Deden
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support,
Do any of your statements here have any support other than your own belief?
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
OK. To rephrase: Do any of your statements here have any support whatever?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Once again you reveal your ignorance of actual language histories.
I study human language with its variation and its precursor.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony.
Like I say, when "logical deduction" and "parsimony" give you results
contrary to fact, time to question their validity.
What you claim as fact is your opinion,
Not (merely) my opinion.
what you claim as belief is my opinion. Polarise much?
I don't know. What sort of distinction are you trying to make between
opinion and belief? You keep saying I don't know your beliefs. Do I know
your opinions?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
No, new term, not derived from old term, same old meaning.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form?
I am talking about real Papuan languages, not your made-up "originals".
I have no "original" languages, I have the Paleo-keyword which informs on the evolution of human language.
Two lines above you referred to "the original form"? What did you mean by that?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
More irrelevant mumbling.
More irrelevant responses.
Quite appropriate, then.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension.
Yes, I'm afraid we do have to do it without your paleo-confabulations.
Human language is descendants of such.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
If so, that would be a good reason not to apply it to etymology.
The principle is useful in separating the wheat from the chaff.
The "chaff" would be the etymologies your principle tells you can't be true.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Obviously. Yet you feel qualified to tell the language historians they
are wrong about these things.
More vapid claims.
Perfectly true. Oh well, if you're going to get all touchy about me telling
you how you "feel", I'll say: You act as though you were qualified to
tell the language historians they are wrong about these things.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
No, you've been told before that this is a false distinction.
Another vapid claim.
Perfectly true. I don't know what you mean by "vapid".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
---
You enjoy arguing, I find arguing to be unproductive & stultifying.
So unless you have something relevant to the topic, I'll stop rehashing things I've covered in previous threads and just focus my interest on qand etc. and disregard further OT degenerative comments, though feel free to add as many as you like, since you have plenty of time & detetermination to do so. If you post something interesting, I'll surely respond.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-06-02 03:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to.
You make statements. Many of them. I assume you believe them to be true.
Therefore I know some of your beliefs.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
So you don't actually believe these things you say.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If I am wrong, and you are just
talking any old shit that you don't really believe, you should be
honest enough to admit it.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
I repeat, you should be honest enough to admit that you're just talking crap.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
A correction of no consequence to my argument.
Post by Daud Deden
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support,
Do any of your statements here have any support other than your own belief?
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
OK. To rephrase: Do any of your statements here have any support whatever?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Once again you reveal your ignorance of actual language histories.
I study human language with its variation and its precursor.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony.
Like I say, when "logical deduction" and "parsimony" give you results
contrary to fact, time to question their validity.
What you claim as fact is your opinion,
Not (merely) my opinion.
what you claim as belief is my opinion. Polarise much?
I don't know. What sort of distinction are you trying to make between
opinion and belief? You keep saying I don't know your beliefs. Do I know
your opinions?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
No, new term, not derived from old term, same old meaning.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form?
I am talking about real Papuan languages, not your made-up "originals".
I have no "original" languages, I have the Paleo-keyword which informs on the evolution of human language.
Two lines above you referred to "the original form"? What did you mean by that?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
More irrelevant mumbling.
More irrelevant responses.
Quite appropriate, then.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension.
Yes, I'm afraid we do have to do it without your paleo-confabulations.
Human language is descendants of such.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
If so, that would be a good reason not to apply it to etymology.
The principle is useful in separating the wheat from the chaff.
The "chaff" would be the etymologies your principle tells you can't be true.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Obviously. Yet you feel qualified to tell the language historians they
are wrong about these things.
More vapid claims.
Perfectly true. Oh well, if you're going to get all touchy about me telling
you how you "feel", I'll say: You act as though you were qualified to
tell the language historians they are wrong about these things.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
No, you've been told before that this is a false distinction.
Another vapid claim.
Perfectly true. I don't know what you mean by "vapid".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
---
You enjoy arguing, I find arguing to be unproductive & stultifying.
What you call "arguing", I call subjecting your claims to rational
examination and criticism. Clearly you enjoy only stating them.
Post by Daud Deden
So unless you have something relevant to the topic, I'll stop rehashing things I've covered in previous threads and just focus my interest on qand etc. and disregard further OT degenerative comments, though feel free to add as many as you like, since you have plenty of time & detetermination to do so. If you post something interesting, I'll surely respond.
DKleinecke
2018-06-02 04:08:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to.
You make statements. Many of them. I assume you believe them to be true.
Therefore I know some of your beliefs.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
So you don't actually believe these things you say.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
If I am wrong, and you are just
talking any old shit that you don't really believe, you should be
honest enough to admit it.
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
I repeat, you should be honest enough to admit that you're just talking crap.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
A correction of no consequence to my argument.
Post by Daud Deden
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support,
Do any of your statements here have any support other than your own belief?
Again, you do not know my beliefs.
OK. To rephrase: Do any of your statements here have any support whatever?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Once again you reveal your ignorance of actual language histories.
I study human language with its variation and its precursor.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony.
Like I say, when "logical deduction" and "parsimony" give you results
contrary to fact, time to question their validity.
What you claim as fact is your opinion,
Not (merely) my opinion.
what you claim as belief is my opinion. Polarise much?
I don't know. What sort of distinction are you trying to make between
opinion and belief? You keep saying I don't know your beliefs. Do I know
your opinions?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
No, new term, not derived from old term, same old meaning.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form?
I am talking about real Papuan languages, not your made-up "originals".
I have no "original" languages, I have the Paleo-keyword which informs on the evolution of human language.
Two lines above you referred to "the original form"? What did you mean by that?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
More irrelevant mumbling.
More irrelevant responses.
Quite appropriate, then.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension.
Yes, I'm afraid we do have to do it without your paleo-confabulations.
Human language is descendants of such.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
If so, that would be a good reason not to apply it to etymology.
The principle is useful in separating the wheat from the chaff.
The "chaff" would be the etymologies your principle tells you can't be true.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Obviously. Yet you feel qualified to tell the language historians they
are wrong about these things.
More vapid claims.
Perfectly true. Oh well, if you're going to get all touchy about me telling
you how you "feel", I'll say: You act as though you were qualified to
tell the language historians they are wrong about these things.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
No, you've been told before that this is a false distinction.
Another vapid claim.
Perfectly true. I don't know what you mean by "vapid".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
---
You enjoy arguing, I find arguing to be unproductive & stultifying.
What you call "arguing", I call subjecting your claims to rational
examination and criticism. Clearly you enjoy only stating them.
Post by Daud Deden
So unless you have something relevant to the topic, I'll stop rehashing things I've covered in previous threads and just focus my interest on qand etc. and disregard further OT degenerative comments, though feel free to add as many as you like, since you have plenty of time & detetermination to do so. If you post something interesting, I'll surely respond.
Why let grubby facts get in the way of a beautiful theory.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2018-06-04 22:54:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
You enjoy arguing, I find arguing to be unproductive & stultifying.
So, everybody should just believe what you say because it is your Highness who vouchsafeth to say it.
Daud Deden
2018-06-06 01:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Archaeologists make sweet discovery at underwater site in Croatia

Posted: 02 Jun 2018 09:00 AM PDT

Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.

The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-06-06 02:27:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM
UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:

What's this doing on a thread that is supposed to be on archaic Arabic?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Archaeologists make sweet discovery at underwater site in Croatia
Posted: 02 Jun 2018 09:00 AM PDT
Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.
The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
Daud Deden
2018-06-06 04:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM
What's this doing on a thread that is supposed to be on archaic Arabic?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Archaeologists make sweet discovery at underwater site in Croatia
Posted: 02 Jun 2018 09:00 AM PDT
Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.
The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or
Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
---

Yusuf, I am awaiting a response from a Croatian acquaintance about archaic Croatian terms for sugar, sweets, candy.
Daud Deden
2018-06-06 05:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM
What's this doing on a thread that is supposed to be on archaic Arabic?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Archaeologists make sweet discovery at underwater site in Croatia
Posted: 02 Jun 2018 09:00 AM PDT
Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.
The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or
Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
---
Yusuf, I am awaiting a response from a Croatian acquaintance about archaic Croatian terms for sugar, sweets, candy.
---
A comment at Sci.anthropology.paleo:

Seka, peka: It's from turkish - šećer :-)

If so, it links to sugar, sacharum (Latin), sucker, suckle (baby sucking tit) & adzocatl (Aztec) socket, from paleo-form xyuambuatl: sieve mother-water.

That seems related to but different from candy, qandi, qand, khandah, kattu which refer to crystal sugar made from Papuan sugar cane.
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-06-06 10:18:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM
What's this doing on a thread that is supposed to be on archaic Arabic?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Archaeologists make sweet discovery at underwater site in Croatia
Posted: 02 Jun 2018 09:00 AM PDT
Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.
The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or
Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
---
Yusuf, I am awaiting a response from a Croatian acquaintance about archaic Croatian terms for sugar, sweets, candy.
---
Turkish şeker šeker is from Persian šakar

Turkish initial š- is either secondary, late or foreign. Common Turkic š (Chuvash l) < *ĺ Proto Turkic has no initial liquids
Post by Daud Deden
Seka, peka: It's from turkish - šećer :-)
If so, it links to sugar, sacharum (Latin), sucker, suckle (baby sucking tit) & adzocatl (Aztec) socket, from paleo-form xyuambuatl: sieve mother-water.
That seems related to but different from candy, qandi, qand, khandah, kattu which refer to crystal sugar made from Papuan sugar cane.
Daud Deden
2018-06-10 15:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM
What's this doing on a thread that is supposed to be on archaic Arabic?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Archaeologists make sweet discovery at underwater site in Croatia
Posted: 02 Jun 2018 09:00 AM PDT
Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.
The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or
Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
---
Yusuf, I am awaiting a response from a Croatian acquaintance about archaic Croatian terms for sugar, sweets, candy.
---
Turkish şeker šeker is from Persian šakar
Turkish initial š- is either secondary, late or foreign. Common Turkic š (Chuvash l) < *ĺ Proto Turkic has no initial liquids
Post by Daud Deden
Seka, peka: It's from turkish - šećer :-)
If so, it links to sugar, sacharum (Latin), sucker, suckle (baby sucking tit) & adzocatl (Aztec) socket, from paleo-form xyuambuatl: sieve mother-water.
That seems related to but different from candy, qandi, qand, khandah, kattu which refer to crystal sugar made from Papuan sugar cane.
-
Croatian
Sugar is "shecher"
Sweet is "slatko".
Syrup is "sirup".
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-06-10 16:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM
What's this doing on a thread that is supposed to be on archaic Arabic?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Archaeologists make sweet discovery at underwater site in Croatia
Posted: 02 Jun 2018 09:00 AM PDT
Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.
The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or
Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
---
Yusuf, I am awaiting a response from a Croatian acquaintance about archaic Croatian terms for sugar, sweets, candy.
---
Turkish şeker šeker is from Persian šakar
Turkish initial š- is either secondary, late or foreign. Common Turkic š (Chuvash l) < *ĺ Proto Turkic has no initial liquids
Post by Daud Deden
Seka, peka: It's from turkish - šećer :-)
If so, it links to sugar, sacharum (Latin), sucker, suckle (baby sucking tit) & adzocatl (Aztec) socket, from paleo-form xyuambuatl: sieve mother-water.
That seems related to but different from candy, qandi, qand, khandah, kattu which refer to crystal sugar made from Papuan sugar cane.
-
Croatian
Sugar is "shecher"
Probably Turkish şeker < Persian
Post by Daud Deden
Sweet is "slatko".
Syrup is "sirup".
Ultimately Arabic šarāb شراب beverage
António Marques
2018-06-10 16:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
That seems related to but different from candy, qandi, qand, khandah,
kattu which refer to crystal sugar made from Papuan sugar cane.
-
Croatian
Sugar is "shecher"
Probably Turkish şeker < Persian
Post by Daud Deden
Sweet is "slatko".
Syrup is "sirup".
Ultimately Arabic šarāb شراب beverage
Portuguese _xarope_ /S@‘rOp+/, Galician _xarabe_ /Sa’rabe/.
Daud Deden
2018-06-10 18:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
That seems related to but different from candy, qandi, qand, khandah,
kattu which refer to crystal sugar made from Papuan sugar cane.
-
Croatian
Sugar is "shecher"
Probably Turkish şeker < Persian
Post by Daud Deden
Sweet is "slatko".
Syrup is "sirup".
Ultimately Arabic šarāb شراب beverage
-
My guess, xyuambua2 > xy(-u)a(+u)ab(ua).
Daud Deden
2018-07-19 09:55:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Top I again encountered a Portuguese word that stems from Gothic: sacar = to draw out, extract. It is a loan from Gothic "sakan", which meant "plead". It is easy to see that it is cognate with Dutch "zaak", the oldest meaning of which, according to the WNT(Woordenboek der NederlandscheTaal - a historic dictionary of Dutch) is indeed that of "lawsuit", I again encountered a Portuguese word that stems from Gothic: sacar = to draw out, extract. It is a loan from Gothic "sakan", which meant "plead". It is easy to see that it is cognate with Dutch "zaak", the oldest meaning of which, according to the WNT(Woordenboek der NederlandscheTaal - a historic dictionary of Dutch) is indeed that of "lawsuit",
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM
What's this doing on a thread that is supposed to be on archaic Arabic?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Candy/qand/kantu ~ conde(nse) ~ kontang
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
Archaeologists make sweet discovery at underwater site in Croatia
Posted: 02 Jun 2018 09:00 AM PDT
Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.
The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud Deden
As I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud Deden
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
Post by Daud Deden
If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Deden
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud Deden
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Explain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or
Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Nothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
traceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
You'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Deden
traced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud Deden
Or "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud Deden
I don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Peter T. Daniels
First European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
---
Yusuf, I am awaiting a response from a Croatian acquaintance about archaic Croatian terms for sugar, sweets, candy.
---
Turkish şeker šeker is from Persian šakar
Turkish initial š- is either secondary, late or foreign. Common Turkic š (Chuvash l) < *ĺ Proto Turkic has no initial liquids
Post by Daud Deden
Seka, peka: It's from turkish - šećer :-)
If so, it links to sugar, sacharum (Latin), sucker, suckle (baby sucking tit) & adzocatl (Aztec) socket, from paleo-form xyuambuatl: sieve mother-water.
That seems related to but different from candy, qandi, qand, khandah, kattu which refer to crystal sugar made from Papuan sugar cane.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-07-19 13:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 02:55:09 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
sacar = to draw out, extract. It is a loan from Gothic "sakan", which meant "plead".
It is easy to see that it is cognate with Dutch "zaak", the oldest meaning of which,
according to the WNT(Woordenboek der NederlandscheTaal - a historic dictionary
of Dutch) is indeed that of "lawsuit",
It still is today. Zaak = rechtszaak = process, lawsuit.

It doesn't surprise me you found such a word, as there are many in
Portuguese (also in French). Here are some that I found in the past:
http://rudhar.com/etymolog/germport.htm
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-07-19 22:15:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 02:55:09 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
sacar = to draw out, extract. It is a loan from Gothic "sakan", which meant "plead".
It is easy to see that it is cognate with Dutch "zaak", the oldest meaning of which,
according to the WNT(Woordenboek der NederlandscheTaal - a historic dictionary
of Dutch) is indeed that of "lawsuit",
It still is today. Zaak = rechtszaak = process, lawsuit.
It doesn't surprise me you found such a word, as there are many in
http://rudhar.com/etymolog/germport.htm
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud, it is copied from your website. Some data didn't paste right, due to phone problem, below is what I sent to my emailbox.

=
17 Mar 2002 Ruud writes
Inbox
x

DDeden <***@gmail.com>
04:38 (12 hours ago)
to me

I again encountered a Portuguese word that stems from Gothic: sacar = to draw out, extract. It is a loan from Gothic "sakan", which meant "plead". It is easy to see that it is cognate with Dutch "zaak", the oldest meaning of which, according to the WNT(Woordenboek der NederlandscheTaal - a historic dictionary of Dutch) is indeed that of "lawsuit",
=

Ruud, it seems that ***@Gothic: to extract; is cognate to English suckle. Agree? Thence it should match sugar, etc.

Which came first, infants suckling or lawsuits? Sugar cane or sockets (bow-drill fire-starter base-hole)?

***@Aztec: socket

DD ~ David ~ Da'ud ~ Diode ~ ∆^¥°∆
Ruud Harmsen
2018-07-20 06:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:15:02 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 02:55:09 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
sacar = to draw out, extract. It is a loan from Gothic "sakan", which meant "plead".
It is easy to see that it is cognate with Dutch "zaak", the oldest meaning of which,
according to the WNT(Woordenboek der NederlandscheTaal - a historic dictionary
of Dutch) is indeed that of "lawsuit",
It still is today. Zaak = rechtszaak = process, lawsuit.
It doesn't surprise me you found such a word, as there are many in
http://rudhar.com/etymolog/germport.htm
Ruud, it is copied from your website.
Ha! I already wondered why it was in such clumsy English! The bad
style somehow looked familiar.

This is the deeplink:
http://rudhar.com/etymolog/rentesen.htm#Latest

Over 16 years ago that I wrote that. Time flies.
Daud Deden
2018-07-20 14:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:15:02 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 02:55:09 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
sacar = to draw out, extract. It is a loan from Gothic "sakan", which meant "plead".
It is easy to see that it is cognate with Dutch "zaak", the oldest meaning of which,
according to the WNT(Woordenboek der NederlandscheTaal - a historic dictionary
of Dutch) is indeed that of "lawsuit",
It still is today. Zaak = rechtszaak = process, lawsuit.
It doesn't surprise me you found such a word, as there are many in
http://rudhar.com/etymolog/germport.htm
Ruud, it is copied from your website.
Ha! I already wondered why it was in such clumsy English! The bad
style somehow looked familiar.
You style is quite recognizable in English. Clumsy in the sense of not applying conventions of Americana but largely accurate.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
http://rudhar.com/etymolog/rentesen.htm#Latest
Over 16 years ago that I wrote that. Time flies.
Yup.
Daud Deden
2018-07-19 22:27:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 02:55:09 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
sacar = to draw out, extract. It is a loan from Gothic "sakan", which meant "plead".
It is easy to see that it is cognate with Dutch "zaak", the oldest meaning of which,
according to the WNT(Woordenboek der NederlandscheTaal - a historic dictionary
of Dutch) is indeed that of "lawsuit",
It still is today. Zaak = rechtszaak = process, lawsuit.
It doesn't surprise me you found such a word, as there are many in
http://rudhar.com/etymolog/germport.htm
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
icar
hoist = heist = high/height/heft/lift/loft/loift/leaven-heaven

alar
***@Spanish: pull

colcheia / croc ***@Fronconian:hook = ***@Scottish: hook/crook
Ruud Harmsen
2018-07-20 07:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:27:25 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
içar
hoist = heist = high/height/heft/lift/loft/loift/leaven-heaven
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoog#Etymology_2
From Proto-Germanic *hauhaz.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heaven#Etymology
Of uncertain origin. But:
"Accepting these as cognates, some scholars propose a further
derivation from Proto-Germanic *heminaz "

Even then, a completely different Germanic word.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hijsen
"From late Middle Dutch hisen. Further etymology uncertain, but
possibly related to Proto-Germanic *hatjana (“to hunt down, pursue,
persecute, attack”). "

I wonder, though, if English "heaven" could be connected to the Dutch
"(ver)heffen", which has the past particium "verheven".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heffen#Etymology
"From Middle Dutch heffen, from Old Dutch hevan, from Proto-Germanic
*habjana, a class 6 strong verb with j-present, [...]"

Different yet again.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/habjan%C4%85
This let to English "to have", like Dutch "hebben":
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hebben#Etymology
Daud Deden
2018-07-20 14:07:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:27:25 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
içar
hoist = heist = high/height/heft/lift/loft/loift/leaven-heaven
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoog#Etymology_2
From Proto-Germanic *hauhaz.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heaven#Etymology
"Accepting these as cognates, some scholars propose a further
derivation from Proto-Germanic *heminaz "
Even then, a completely different Germanic word.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hijsen
"From late Middle Dutch hisen. Further etymology uncertain, but
possibly related to Proto-Germanic *hatjana (“to hunt down, pursue,
persecute, attack”). "
I wonder, though, if English "heaven" could be connected to the Dutch
"(ver)heffen", which has the past particium "verheven".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heffen#Etymology
"From Middle Dutch heffen, from Old Dutch hevan, from Proto-Germanic
*habjana, a class 6 strong verb with j-present, [...]"
Different yet again.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/habjan%C4%85
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hebben#Etymology
***@Dutch: seek (teat) = suckle, rooting for the nipple/nourishment/enrich/riches.
Xyuambuatlachya sieve-leaky zoeke
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-05-27 18:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
ultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately." Given the chain of borrowing as listed
there, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian." Unless
"ultimately" is being taken from the opposite viewpoint -- last in time
rather than last in the chain of languages we can discover.
Probably used because of the European languages skipped in the chain
Daud Deden
2018-10-01 23:48:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-new-history-of-arabia-written-in-stone
Remarkable, thanks, Yusuf.
In 2013, Al-Jallad used the Safaitic database as he worked on an inscription containing several mysterious words: Maleh, Dhakar, and Amet. Earlier scholars had assumed that they were the names of unknown places. Al-Jallad, unconvinced, searched the database and discovered another inscription that contained all three. Both inscriptions discussed migrations in search of water, and a possibility occurred to him: if the words referred to seasons of migration, then they might be the names of constellations visible at those times.
Al-Jallad began pulling up every inscription that mentioned migrating in search of rain, and soon he had a long list of terms that had resisted translation. Comparing them with the Greek, Aramaic, and Babylonian zodiacs, he started making connections.
---
Cf Brian Pellar's astro-alphabet
-
Dhakar matched up nicely with dikra, the Aramaic word for Aries,
---
deer
-
and Amet was derived from an Arabic verb meaning “to measure or compute quantity”—a good bet for the scales of Libra.
---
-
Hunting for Capricorn, the goat-fish constellation, Al-Jallad found the word ya’mur in Edward Lane’s “Arabic-English Lexicon,” whose translation read, “A certain beast of the sea, or . . . a kind of mountain-goat.” He stayed up all night, sifting the database and checking words against dictionaries of ancient Semitic languages. By morning, he had deciphered a complete, previously unknown Arabian zodiac. “We’d thought that they were place names, and, in a way, they were,” he told me. “They were places in the sky.”
---
Kupharigolu/Qufa/teba/topa/cover-bowl/gulu/khwelo
Kuphos/cup/coop/hoo(p/f/v)
eck? ~ s.teg.osaurus) ~ women carrying water jars on their heads? .
In the early period, Etruscan culture played an intermediary role in transmitting Greek myth and religion to the Romans, as evidenced in the linguistic transformation of Greek Heracles to Etruscan Her[e]cle to Roman Hercules.

= Phoenician Melqart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cippi_of_Melqart
image.png
Daud Deden
2018-10-02 09:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The initial M of Melqart remains problematic, a wild guess puts it as a prefix, ~ ***@Arb or ***@English, associating with the sea, but unlikely so.
Loading...