Discussion:
To have, hold, contain
Add Reply
Daud Deden
2018-04-10 06:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@Malay: have
***@Malay: contain.er
***@Malay: camp, village
***@Iroquois: village
***@Gk: reed container
***@Fr: having
(Con)***@Fr: have with
***@Sp: have
***@Grm: have
***@Latin: ?have
'***@Cockney: have

Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
Hen Hanna
2018-04-10 06:50:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
not sure what you're getting at, but ....
Kanata in JP is [far away] or Beyond Jenseits 彼方 (hiragana かなた, rōmaji kanata). the other, the other side.


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%BC%B6

Jp KAN is

1. pot; can
2. tin can
3. container


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B7%BB
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8D%B7#Chinese

Another Jp KAN is

1. volume of a book
2. reel of a film
Daud Deden
2018-04-10 23:15:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hen Hanna
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
not sure what you're getting at, but ....
= a containment of people
Post by Hen Hanna
Kanata in JP is [far away] or Beyond Jenseits 彼方 (hiragana かなた, rōmaji kanata). the other, the other side.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%BC%B6
Jp KAN is
1. pot; can
2. tin can
3. container
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B7%BB
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8D%B7#Chinese
Another Jp KAN is
1. volume of a book
2. reel of a film
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-04-10 11:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
be, exist
sack, pocket
kampung village, residential area
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
So what is the point of all this? You list several versions
of the same etymon (avoir/habere, tenir/tengo, haben/have/'ave, for God's sake!)
apparently just to make your list look more impressive, or perhaps
under the impression that you are the first to have noticed their
resemblance. Apart from these, there are the usual daisy-chain
resemblances, but no common sound pattern. And yet you are,
no doubt, morally certain that they all have a common origin,
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
You're as sloppy as ever with your data, and no closer to being able
to explain yourself.
Daud Deden
2018-04-10 23:24:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.

You list several versions
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of the same etymon (avoir/habere, tenir/tengo, haben/have/'ave, for God's sake!)
Yes, Andre requested.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
apparently just to make your list look more impressive, or perhaps
under the impression that you are the first to have noticed their
resemblance.
Hardly, Ross. I had a few minutes to consider them.
-
Apart from these, there are the usual daisy-chain
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
resemblances, but no common sound pattern. And yet you are,
no doubt, morally certain that they all have a common origin,
-
You are certain they don't. I question that.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
You're as sloppy as ever with your data, and no closer to being able
to explain yourself.
What I wrote shows resemblances and plausible derivation. Tidy is Neo-Etymology.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-04-11 01:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Post by Daud Deden
You list several versions
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of the same etymon (avoir/habere, tenir/tengo, haben/have/'ave, for God's sake!)
Yes, Andre requested.
Who?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
apparently just to make your list look more impressive, or perhaps
under the impression that you are the first to have noticed their
resemblance.
Hardly, Ross. I had a few minutes to consider them.
-
Apart from these, there are the usual daisy-chain
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
resemblances, but no common sound pattern. And yet you are,
no doubt, morally certain that they all have a common origin,
-
You are certain they don't.
No, some of them quite obviously do (the ones I mentioned above).
As regards the others, my view would be that there is no reason
to postulate a common origin for ada, kampung, habere, etc.
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
You're as sloppy as ever with your data, and no closer to being able
to explain yourself.
What I wrote shows resemblances and plausible derivation.
Nobody denies the resemblances. I didn't notice anything like a
"plausible derivation" in there. Perhaps you could point it out?

Tidy is Neo-Etymology.

No, that's just an excuse. Tidy is just good science.
Daud Deden
2018-04-11 10:25:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in

-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.

-
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?

-
Comparing to keyword.
-
Post by Daud Deden
You list several versions
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of the same etymon (avoir/habere, tenir/tengo, haben/have/'ave, for God's sake!)
Yes, Andre requested.
Who?
-
Andre = Ymir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
apparently just to make your list look more impressive, or perhaps
under the impression that you are the first to have noticed their
resemblance.
Hardly, Ross. I had a few minutes to consider them.
-
Apart from these, there are the usual daisy-chain
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
resemblances, but no common sound pattern. And yet you are,
no doubt, morally certain that they all have a common origin,
-
You are certain they don't.
No, some of them quite obviously do (the ones I mentioned above).
As regards the others, my view would be that there is no reason
to postulate a common origin for ada, kampung, habere, etc.
-
Random coincidental matches of both sound & meaning, combined, are extremely rare, needle in 1,000 haystacks. The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change that.
-
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-

Evidence is open to interpretation.
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
You're as sloppy as ever with your data, and no closer to being able
to explain yourself.
What I wrote shows resemblances and plausible derivation.
Nobody denies the resemblances. I didn't notice anything like a
"plausible derivation" in there. Perhaps you could point it out?
-

Have = bear(vb) an ember/baby/water etc. = xyambuatl.
-

Tidy is Neo-Etymology.

No, that's just an excuse. Tidy is just good science.
-

A Neo-etymologist would say that. Real science can be very messy indeed.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-04-11 11:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English
"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
You list several versions
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of the same etymon (avoir/habere, tenir/tengo, haben/have/'ave, for God's sake!)
Yes, Andre requested.
Who?
-
Andre = Ymir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
apparently just to make your list look more impressive, or perhaps
under the impression that you are the first to have noticed their
resemblance.
Hardly, Ross. I had a few minutes to consider them.
-
Apart from these, there are the usual daisy-chain
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
resemblances, but no common sound pattern. And yet you are,
no doubt, morally certain that they all have a common origin,
-
You are certain they don't.
No, some of them quite obviously do (the ones I mentioned above).
As regards the others, my view would be that there is no reason
to postulate a common origin for ada, kampung, habere, etc.
-
Random coincidental matches of both sound & meaning, combined, are extremely rare, needle in 1,000 haystacks.
No, you are completely wrong about this. Though we discussed the
numerals demonstration, you've obviously missed the main point.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact. Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-
Evidence is open to interpretation.
We could talk about interpretation if there was any evidence. You just
look at your words and say "They must be related."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
You're as sloppy as ever with your data, and no closer to being able
to explain yourself.
What I wrote shows resemblances and plausible derivation.
Nobody denies the resemblances. I didn't notice anything like a
"plausible derivation" in there. Perhaps you could point it out?
-
Have = bear(vb) an ember/baby/water etc. = xyambuatl.
Not a plausible derivation. Not any kind of derivation. Not a plausible
anything. A word connected to a string of words connected to something
that might be a word, by "="s which mean who knows what?
Why are you unable to formulate a coherent, intelligible statement?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Tidy is Neo-Etymology.
No, that's just an excuse. Tidy is just good science.
-
A Neo-etymologist would say that. Real science can be very messy indeed.
Of course. So can real etymology. But being sloppy with your basic data
just makes it worse.
Daud Deden
2018-04-11 12:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English
"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
-
Kamp(o/u)ng is a (long-term) camp, a human settlement in the rainforest. ***@Malay/***@Mbuti is a campfire.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?

Xyuambuatla etc.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
You list several versions
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of the same etymon (avoir/habere, tenir/tengo, haben/have/'ave, for God's sake!)
Yes, Andre requested.
Who?
-
Andre = Ymir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
apparently just to make your list look more impressive, or perhaps
under the impression that you are the first to have noticed their
resemblance.
Hardly, Ross. I had a few minutes to consider them.
-
Apart from these, there are the usual daisy-chain
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
resemblances, but no common sound pattern. And yet you are,
no doubt, morally certain that they all have a common origin,
-
You are certain they don't.
No, some of them quite obviously do (the ones I mentioned above).
As regards the others, my view would be that there is no reason
to postulate a common origin for ada, kampung, habere, etc.
-
Random coincidental matches of both sound & meaning, combined, are extremely rare, needle in 1,000 haystacks.
No, you are completely wrong about this. Though we discussed the
numerals demonstration, you've obviously missed the main point.
-
I prefer non-fiction to fiction, Ross. Even very good fiction.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact. Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
-
Needles are still exceedingly rare in haystacks, even if you multiply millions of haystacks (and include rusty nails).
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-
Evidence is open to interpretation.
We could talk about interpretation if there was any evidence. You just
look at your words and say "They must be related."
-
I ask, rather, and listen, rather than pre-judging based on other's opinions.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
You're as sloppy as ever with your data, and no closer to being able
to explain yourself.
What I wrote shows resemblances and plausible derivation.
Nobody denies the resemblances. I didn't notice anything like a
"plausible derivation" in there. Perhaps you could point it out?
-
Have = bear(vb) an ember/baby/water etc. = xyambuatl.
Not a plausible derivation. Not any kind of derivation. Not a plausible
anything. A word connected to a string of words connected to something
that might be a word, by "="s which mean who knows what?
Why are you unable to formulate a coherent, intelligible statement?
-
I'm not a Neo-entomologist.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Tidy is Neo-Etymology.
No, that's just an excuse. Tidy is just good science.
-
A Neo-etymologist would say that. Real science can be very messy indeed.
Of course. So can real etymology. But being sloppy with your basic data
just makes it worse.
-
I am operating under constraints whereby sloppyness is less significant than effectiveness. Again, my purpose is to understand, not convert or convince.
Ymir
2018-04-11 13:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the
city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English
"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
-
Kamp(o/u)ng is a (long-term) camp, a human settlement in the rainforest.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?
Xyuambuatla etc.
And whence comes this 'keyword'?

And how exactly do you compare these words to this 'keyword' to
determine whether there is common ancestry?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I'm not a Neo-entomologist.
What do insects (new or old) have to do with any of this?

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Daud Deden
2018-04-11 14:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On perspective and methodology:

One can determine the exact number of water drops contained in a beaker, then extrapolate to determine the approximate the number of water drops on Earth.

One can alternatively define Earth as being a water drop.

Both are true and useful, but apparently contradictory.

There is one human language, there are about 7,000 languages, there are about 7,000,000,000 languages.

Also true, but apparently contradictory.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-04-12 11:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
One can determine the exact number of water drops contained in a beaker, then extrapolate to determine the approximate the number of water drops on Earth.
No, one can't, because "water drop" is not a specific, defined quantity.
Post by Daud Deden
One can alternatively define Earth as being a water drop.
No, one cannot.
Post by Daud Deden
Both are true and useful, but apparently contradictory.
The second statement is a metaphor. Metaphors are not "true," though they can
be useful.
Post by Daud Deden
There is one human language, there are about 7,000 languages, there are about 7,000,000,000 languages.
Also true, but apparently contradictory.
They are all true, and the are not _actually_ contradictory. If they _appear_
contradictory to you, it is because you do not understand the different ways
the word "language" can be used.
Daud Deden
2018-04-13 04:39:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Peter, note the first and second words: On perception

The rest was commentary of much less significance.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-04-13 12:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Peter, note the first and second words: On perception
The rest was commentary of much less significance.
You talkin' to me? You must be, because there ain't no other Peters here,
but I have no idea what you're referring to.

If you are unable to quote what you respond to, then just go away.

Hint: It doesn't take any work on your part. Google Groups, for instance,
will do it for you, even putting in the correct number of chevrons for
each level of quotation.
António Marques
2018-04-13 13:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Peter, note the first and second words: On perception
The rest was commentary of much less significance.
You talkin' to me? You must be, because there ain't no other Peters here,
but I have no idea what you're referring to.
If you are unable to quote what you respond to, then just go away.
Hint: It doesn't take any work on your part. Google Groups, for instance,
will do it for you, even putting in the correct number of chevrons for
each level of quotation.
Ah, but she can’t follow the conventions everyone else uses, now, can she?
She’s not a paleousenette.
Daud Deden
2018-04-11 15:09:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Xyuambuatla etc.
-
And whence comes this 'keyword'?
-
My own investigation into basal human-hominin language origins.
-
And how exactly do you compare these words to this 'keyword' to
determine whether there is common ancestry?
-
Sound & meaning, along with ecological-geographic
-societal-technological background.
-
Post by Daud Deden
I'm not a Neo-entomologist.
-
What do insects (new or old) have to do with any of this?
-
Thank Google. Auto-correct is very buggy, wot? I did study forest entomology long ago, but I typed 'Neo-etymologist'.

Ross, this is Andre, Andre, this is Ross.

Ok, I must be off to clinic, back later.
Ymir
2018-04-11 16:08:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <c52b097b-824b-43ea-9569-***@googlegroups.com>,
Daud Deden <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Once again, can you please learn to quote properly. It's rather
difficult to follow attributions on anything you write.
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla etc.
-
And whence comes this 'keyword'?
-
My own investigation into basal human-hominin language origins.
That's not really an explanation.
Post by Daud Deden
And how exactly do you compare these words to this 'keyword' to
determine whether there is common ancestry?
-
Sound & meaning, along with ecological-geographic
-societal-technological background.
Again, not an explanation. I'm asking how exactly you would go about
comparing a given word with your 'keyword'.

As far as I can tell, it simply involves stream of consciousness with a
large quantity of pareidolia thrown in for good measure. That actually
makes Ruhlen's work and Greenberg's later work look downright rigorous.

It's dated, but you really should read James Matisoff's 1990 essay 'On
Megalocomparison' (Language, 66, 109-120)

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Daud Deden
2018-04-12 21:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ymir
Once again, can you please learn to quote properly. It's rather
difficult to follow attributions on anything you write.
-

Andre, at the moment, I have no interest in learning such things. Maybe tomorrow?
-
Post by Ymir
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla etc.
-
And whence comes this 'keyword'?
-
My own investigation into basal human-hominin language origins.
That's not really an explanation.
-
That's where it comes from, Andre.
-
Post by Ymir
Post by Daud Deden
And how exactly do you compare these words to this 'keyword' to
determine whether there is common ancestry?
-
Sound & meaning, along with ecological-geographic
-societal-technological background.
Again, not an explanation.
-
It is the correct answer.
-

I'm asking how exactly you would go about
Post by Ymir
comparing a given word with your 'keyword'.
As far as I can tell, it simply involves stream of consciousness with a
large quantity of pareidolia thrown in for good measure. That actually
makes Ruhlen's work and Greenberg's later work look downright rigorous.
-

"Mainstream American linguists have mostly been scornful of Greenberg’s methods; they can give all sorts of reasons why they shouldn’t work. But if dowsers got successful results as often as Greenberg did, I might start to take dowsing at least a little seriously." https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/who-we-are-6-the-americas/#comment-106432
Post by Ymir
It's dated, but you really should read James Matisoff's 1990 essay 'On
Megalocomparison' (Language, 66, 109-120)
Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
-
If I ever come across it, I will certainly skim it. Thanks Andre.
Ymir
2018-04-13 06:49:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ymir
Once again, can you please learn to quote properly. It's rather
difficult to follow attributions on anything you write.
-
Andre, at the moment, I have no interest in learning such things. Maybe tomorrow?
-
Post by Ymir
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla etc.
-
And whence comes this 'keyword'?
-
My own investigation into basal human-hominin language origins.
That's not really an explanation.
-
That's where it comes from, Andre.
Yes, but you're not explaining how exactly your investigation led to
this conclusion -- I'm asking for the *evidence*.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ymir
Post by Daud Deden
And how exactly do you compare these words to this 'keyword' to
determine whether there is common ancestry?
-
Sound & meaning, along with ecological-geographic
-societal-technological background.
Again, not an explanation.
-
It is the correct answer.
I'm asking you to describe the 'method' which you use to make the
comparisons. How do you decide whether two words are related? How close
must the sound and meaning be? How do you actually make use of the
'ecological-geographic-societal-technological background'?
Post by Daud Deden
I'm asking how exactly you would go about
Post by Ymir
comparing a given word with your 'keyword'.
As far as I can tell, it simply involves stream of consciousness with a
large quantity of pareidolia thrown in for good measure. That actually
makes Ruhlen's work and Greenberg's later work look downright rigorous.
-
"Mainstream American linguists have mostly been scornful of Greenberg’s
methods; they can give all sorts of reasons why they shouldn’t work. But if
dowsers got successful results as often as Greenberg did, I might start to
take dowsing at least a little seriously."
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/who-we-are-6-the-americas/#comment-1
06432
There's a very good reason why Greenberg's methods are rejected by the
vast majority of mainstream linguists.

A comment from a random user posting under a pseudonym on a blog is
hardly a compelling reason to reject the broad consensus of historical
linguists.

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Daud Deden
2018-04-13 11:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I align with Greenberg.
Ymir
2018-04-13 14:48:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
I align with Greenberg.
Well, sort of -- you align with Greenberg insofar as you seem to think
it is productive to look at putative distant relations without bothering
sorting out the details of the less distant relations.

But your method doesn't resemble Greenberg any more than it resembles
more standard comparative methods.

What I'm trying to get you to clarify is what these word lists you keep
posting are actually intended to _mean_. You provide no explanations;
your notation isn't standard. So we're left guessing *why* you see
relations among these words. Why not give an example where you actually
indicate the relevant similarities so people can at least figure out
what you are doing?

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-04-13 12:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ymir
As far as I can tell, it simply involves stream of consciousness with a
large quantity of pareidolia thrown in for good measure. That actually
makes Ruhlen's work and Greenberg's later work look downright rigorous.
"Mainstream American linguists have mostly been scornful of Greenberg’s methods; they can give all sorts of reasons why they shouldn’t work. But if dowsers got successful results as often as Greenberg did, I might start to take dowsing at least a little seriously." https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/who-we-are-6-the-americas/#comment-106432
I actually wasted a couple of minutes by visiting that link. Naturally,
"logarithmichistory," the anonymous source of that quote, gives no hint
of what the supposed "successful results" are. Not one contribution to
that discussion or its Comments (which include one by DD) shows the
slightest evidence of familiarity with historical linguistics, but they
do exhibit the fallacious assumption that genetic relationship tells us
anything at all about linguistic relationship.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ymir
It's dated, but you really should read James Matisoff's 1990 essay 'On
Megalocomparison' (Language, 66, 109-120)
If I ever come across it, I will certainly skim it. Thanks Andre.
Do you not know how to use a library? The journal Language can be accessed
by anyone who can consult JSTOR. That is an immensely important article.

The journal Language also carries my Book Notice of Greenberg's posthumous
book on Eurasiatic (vol. 80 [2004] 889-90). Unfortunately the editors
chose to delete from the review my display of the phonemic "system" for
Proto-Eurasiatic that could be gleaned from his hundreds of reconstructions
that showed that it resembled no phonemic system of any actual language
(unlike the reconstructions of systems like those of Proto-Indo-European,
Proto-Semitic or Proto-Afrasian, or Proto-Austronesian).
Ymir
2018-04-13 14:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ymir
As far as I can tell, it simply involves stream of consciousness with a
large quantity of pareidolia thrown in for good measure. That actually
makes Ruhlen's work and Greenberg's later work look downright rigorous.
"Mainstream American linguists have mostly been scornful of Greenberg’s
methods; they can give all sorts of reasons why they shouldn’t work. But if
dowsers got successful results as often as Greenberg did, I might start to
take dowsing at least a little seriously."
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/who-we-are-6-the-americas/#comment
-106432
I actually wasted a couple of minutes by visiting that link. Naturally,
"logarithmichistory," the anonymous source of that quote, gives no hint
of what the supposed "successful results" are. Not one contribution to
that discussion or its Comments (which include one by DD) shows the
slightest evidence of familiarity with historical linguistics, but they
do exhibit the fallacious assumption that genetic relationship tells us
anything at all about linguistic relationship.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ymir
It's dated, but you really should read James Matisoff's 1990 essay 'On
Megalocomparison' (Language, 66, 109-120)
If I ever come across it, I will certainly skim it. Thanks Andre.
Do you not know how to use a library? The journal Language can be accessed
by anyone who can consult JSTOR. That is an immensely important article.
In addition, I'm pretty sure that articles that old can be read on JSTOR
even if you aren't affiliated with a university or library with a paid
account. Just set up an individual account and you should be able to see
it free of charge.

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Daud Deden
2018-04-20 18:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I hadn't intended to deceive, so full disclosure:

http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/2018/04/oak-leaf-damage-oak-gall-wasp-egg-cases.html?m=1

---

I guess I am sort of a Neo-entomologist.
DKleinecke
2018-04-20 19:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/2018/04/oak-leaf-damage-oak-gall-wasp-egg-cases.html?m=1
---
I guess I am sort of a Neo-entomologist.
Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?
Daud Deden
2018-04-20 20:21:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
DK: "Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?"
-
Yes, but in cryptic form, not in typical prose.
DKleinecke
2018-04-20 23:36:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
DK: "Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?"
-
Yes, but in cryptic form, not in typical prose.
That's going to be as hard to find as any information about
the Aquamarine Center. I've moved to Fortuna and that ARC
is now in my local scope. I can't discover anything
concrete about it online however.

To most of us ARC still means Association for Retarded Citizens
- even though they now have a more PC name.

I deplore cryptic ramblings.
Daud Deden
2018-04-21 03:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
DK: "Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?"
-
Yes, but in cryptic form, not in typical prose.
That's going to be as hard to find as any information about
the Aquamarine Center. I've moved to Fortuna and that ARC
is now in my local scope. I can't discover anything
concrete about it online however.

To most of us ARC still means Association for Retarded Citizens
- even though they now have a more PC name.

I deplore cryptic ramblings.
---

I walked many a mile under the redwoods, beautiful country. I miss the kinetic sculptures and sea otters. I moved east after the Eureka quake split the concrete building that had Red Cross & Ink people arts.

No more concrete for me, I once built dams & culverts but now I'm a vegetarian. Cement industry is the world's 3rd worst polluter of greenhouse gases. Need to slow it down, alter it, rethink the convenience vs. cost.

ARC is not linked to my blog The Arc.

Yes, cryptics tend to dissuade most readers.

DK, I'm wondering if it is the right time to publish a "Deden / Duden Paleo-Pictionary", illustrating & demonstrating daily life in the ancient forest with the roots of language, technology & social behaviors eg. dance. Listed under Adult non-fiction popular science.

Any thoughts on that?
DKleinecke
2018-04-21 16:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
DK: "Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?"
-
Yes, but in cryptic form, not in typical prose.
That's going to be as hard to find as any information about
the Aquamarine Center. I've moved to Fortuna and that ARC
is now in my local scope. I can't discover anything
concrete about it online however.
To most of us ARC still means Association for Retarded Citizens
- even though they now have a more PC name.
I deplore cryptic ramblings.
---
I walked many a mile under the redwoods, beautiful country. I miss the kinetic sculptures and sea otters. I moved east after the Eureka quake split the concrete building that had Red Cross & Ink people arts.
No more concrete for me, I once built dams & culverts but now I'm a vegetarian. Cement industry is the world's 3rd worst polluter of greenhouse gases. Need to slow it down, alter it, rethink the convenience vs. cost.
ARC is not linked to my blog The Arc.
Yes, cryptics tend to dissuade most readers.
DK, I'm wondering if it is the right time to publish a "Deden / Duden Paleo-Pictionary", illustrating & demonstrating daily life in the ancient forest with the roots of language, technology & social behaviors eg. dance. Listed under Adult non-fiction popular science.
Any thoughts on that?
The world IMO will never be ready for that. All those of us
in sci.lang want is a clear explanation of (1) what you think
you are doing and (2) how to understand your posts.

You've been away from the Emerald Triangle too long now to
claim to still be stoned.
Daud Deden
2018-04-22 01:27:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
DKleinecke
- hide quoted text -
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
DK: "Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?"
-
Yes, but in cryptic form, not in typical prose.
That's going to be as hard to find as any information about
the Aquamarine Center. I've moved to Fortuna and that ARC
is now in my local scope. I can't discover anything
concrete about it online however.
To most of us ARC still means Association for Retarded Citizens
- even though they now have a more PC name.
I deplore cryptic ramblings.
---
I walked many a mile under the redwoods, beautiful country. I miss the kinetic sculptures and sea otters. I moved east after the Eureka quake split the concrete building that had Red Cross & Ink people arts.
No more concrete for me, I once built dams & culverts but now I'm a vegetarian. Cement industry is the world's 3rd worst polluter of greenhouse gases. Need to slow it down, alter it, rethink the convenience vs. cost.
ARC is not linked to my blog The Arc.
---

Also, though we shared the same concrete shell and initials, the American Red Cross isn't linked to The Arc, though I sometimes donated blood there. Here in So Flo I donate plasma.
---
Post by DKleinecke
Yes, cryptics tend to dissuade most readers.
DK, I'm wondering if it is the right time to publish a "Deden / Duden Paleo-Pictionary", illustrating & demonstrating daily life in the ancient forest with the roots of language, technology & social behaviors eg. dance. Listed under Adult non-fiction popular science.
Any thoughts on that?
The world IMO will never be ready for that.
---

Ok, then, I'll do it. GoFundMe or kickstarter might help.
---


All those of us
in sci.lang want is a clear explanation of (1) what you think
you are doing

---
I've been clear on that one, understanding language evolution in hominins-humans, Paleo-etymology being the primary instrument of exploration and Neo-etymology being secondary.
---
and (2) how to understand your posts.
---
That probably requires change in perspective.
---
You've been away from the Emerald Triangle too long now to
claim to still be stoned.
---
I've walked there and thru the golden triangle (Burma-Thai), never had interest in getting high. One pusher almost went swimming in the very cold bay when he insisted on sticking his bag of Hawaiian weed up my nose to smell how good it was.
---
Arnaud Fournet
2018-04-22 04:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
DKleinecke
- hide quoted text -
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
DK: "Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?"
-
Yes, but in cryptic form, not in typical prose.
That's going to be as hard to find as any information about
the Aquamarine Center. I've moved to Fortuna and that ARC
is now in my local scope. I can't discover anything
concrete about it online however.
To most of us ARC still means Association for Retarded Citizens
- even though they now have a more PC name.
I deplore cryptic ramblings.
---
I walked many a mile under the redwoods, beautiful country. I miss the kinetic sculptures and sea otters. I moved east after the Eureka quake split the concrete building that had Red Cross & Ink people arts.
No more concrete for me, I once built dams & culverts but now I'm a vegetarian. Cement industry is the world's 3rd worst polluter of greenhouse gases. Need to slow it down, alter it, rethink the convenience vs. cost.
ARC is not linked to my blog The Arc.
---
Also, though we shared the same concrete shell and initials, the American Red Cross isn't linked to The Arc, though I sometimes donated blood there. Here in So Flo I donate plasma.
---
Post by DKleinecke
Yes, cryptics tend to dissuade most readers.
DK, I'm wondering if it is the right time to publish a "Deden / Duden Paleo-Pictionary", illustrating & demonstrating daily life in the ancient forest with the roots of language, technology & social behaviors eg. dance. Listed under Adult non-fiction popular science.
Any thoughts on that?
The world IMO will never be ready for that.
---
Ok, then, I'll do it. GoFundMe or kickstarter might help.
---
All those of us
in sci.lang want is a clear explanation of (1) what you think
you are doing
---
I've been clear on that one, understanding language evolution in hominins-humans, Paleo-etymology being the primary instrument of exploration and Neo-etymology being secondary.
You must be seriously mistaken, if you believe the nonsense you post here has any logical relationship with language and etymology.
A.
DKleinecke
2018-04-22 05:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Daud Deden
DKleinecke
- hide quoted text -
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
DK: "Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?"
-
Yes, but in cryptic form, not in typical prose.
That's going to be as hard to find as any information about
the Aquamarine Center. I've moved to Fortuna and that ARC
is now in my local scope. I can't discover anything
concrete about it online however.
To most of us ARC still means Association for Retarded Citizens
- even though they now have a more PC name.
I deplore cryptic ramblings.
---
I walked many a mile under the redwoods, beautiful country. I miss the kinetic sculptures and sea otters. I moved east after the Eureka quake split the concrete building that had Red Cross & Ink people arts.
No more concrete for me, I once built dams & culverts but now I'm a vegetarian. Cement industry is the world's 3rd worst polluter of greenhouse gases. Need to slow it down, alter it, rethink the convenience vs. cost.
ARC is not linked to my blog The Arc.
---
Also, though we shared the same concrete shell and initials, the American Red Cross isn't linked to The Arc, though I sometimes donated blood there. Here in So Flo I donate plasma.
---
Post by DKleinecke
Yes, cryptics tend to dissuade most readers.
DK, I'm wondering if it is the right time to publish a "Deden / Duden Paleo-Pictionary", illustrating & demonstrating daily life in the ancient forest with the roots of language, technology & social behaviors eg. dance. Listed under Adult non-fiction popular science.
Any thoughts on that?
The world IMO will never be ready for that.
---
Ok, then, I'll do it. GoFundMe or kickstarter might help.
---
All those of us
in sci.lang want is a clear explanation of (1) what you think
you are doing
---
I've been clear on that one, understanding language evolution in hominins-humans, Paleo-etymology being the primary instrument of exploration and Neo-etymology being secondary.
You must be seriously mistaken, if you believe the nonsense you post here has any logical relationship with language and etymology.
A.
What DD thinks about and calls paleo-etymology seems to be the
old all-the-world's-langauges-are-related theory (which in turn
seems to be an explicit rejection of the Tower of Babel myth).
I've seen a book published in 1841 that operates on the same
basis. (I could probably recover a reference to it if I tried).
Unless DD has some cryptically hidden secret I can't see any
difference other than that DD has lots more data than the other
guy did nearly two centuries ago.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-04-22 11:44:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
What DD thinks about and calls paleo-etymology seems to be the
old all-the-world's-langauges-are-related theory (which in turn
seems to be an explicit rejection of the Tower of Babel myth).
I've seen a book published in 1841 that operates on the same
basis. (I could probably recover a reference to it if I tried).
Unless DD has some cryptically hidden secret I can't see any
difference other than that DD has lots more data than the other
guy did nearly two centuries ago.
Fabre d'Olivet, La langue hébraique réstituée? It was translated into
English not long after and reprinted by a publisher of works of mysticism.
DKleinecke
2018-04-22 16:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by DKleinecke
What DD thinks about and calls paleo-etymology seems to be the
old all-the-world's-langauges-are-related theory (which in turn
seems to be an explicit rejection of the Tower of Babel myth).
I've seen a book published in 1841 that operates on the same
basis. (I could probably recover a reference to it if I tried).
Unless DD has some cryptically hidden secret I can't see any
difference other than that DD has lots more data than the other
guy did nearly two centuries ago.
Fabre d'Olivet, La langue hébraique réstituée? It was translated into
English not long after and reprinted by a publisher of works of mysticism.
Nope. English-speaking author and church-oriented title -
something like "Unity of Human Speech Proves Divine
Origin". I wish I had paid better attention because I found
the book somewhere in the Gutenberg corpus while I was
browsing their catalog. Finding that book again will be
a very good case of needle and haystack.
Daud Deden
2018-04-22 18:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Daud Deden
DKleinecke
- hide quoted text -
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
DK: "Do you explain your paleo-etymology anywhere in that blog?"
-
Yes, but in cryptic form, not in typical prose.
That's going to be as hard to find as any information about
the Aquamarine Center. I've moved to Fortuna and that ARC
is now in my local scope. I can't discover anything
concrete about it online however.
To most of us ARC still means Association for Retarded Citizens
- even though they now have a more PC name.
I deplore cryptic ramblings.
---
I walked many a mile under the redwoods, beautiful country. I miss the kinetic sculptures and sea otters. I moved east after the Eureka quake split the concrete building that had Red Cross & Ink people arts.
No more concrete for me, I once built dams & culverts but now I'm a vegetarian. Cement industry is the world's 3rd worst polluter of greenhouse gases. Need to slow it down, alter it, rethink the convenience vs. cost.
ARC is not linked to my blog The Arc.
---
Also, though we shared the same concrete shell and initials, the American Red Cross isn't linked to The Arc, though I sometimes donated blood there. Here in So Flo I donate plasma.
---
Post by DKleinecke
Yes, cryptics tend to dissuade most readers.
DK, I'm wondering if it is the right time to publish a "Deden / Duden Paleo-Pictionary", illustrating & demonstrating daily life in the ancient forest with the roots of language, technology & social behaviors eg. dance. Listed under Adult non-fiction popular science.
Any thoughts on that?
The world IMO will never be ready for that.
---
Ok, then, I'll do it. GoFundMe or kickstarter might help.
---
All those of us
in sci.lang want is a clear explanation of (1) what you think
you are doing
---
I've been clear on that one, understanding language evolution in hominins-humans, Paleo-etymology being the primary instrument of exploration and Neo-etymology being secondary.
You must be seriously mistaken, if you believe the nonsense you post here has any logical relationship with language and etymology.
A.
---
What DD .. calls paleo-etymology seems to be the
old all-the-world's-langauges-are-related theory (which in turn
seems to be an explicit rejection of the Tower of Babel myth).
---

There is one Human language, with 7 billion individual dialects.
As Daniel Everett makes clear, human language is conversation-based.
As Merrit Ruhlen makes clear, words derive from an ancestral human language, the "mother tongue".
As the Torah/bible makes clear, many came from one; the 'tower' is an allegory.
I've seen a book published in 1841 that operates on the same
basis. (I could probably recover a reference to it if I tried).
Unless DD has some cryptically hidden secret I can't see any
difference other than that DD has lots more data than the other
guy did nearly two centuries ago.
Better sources, Paleo-etymology-wise:

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Language-Tracing-Evolution-Mother/dp/0471159638
https://www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-Invention/dp/0871407957/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524420168&sr=1-1&keywords=dan+everett

Extra credit: https://www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-Invention/product-reviews/0871407957/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&sortBy=recent#RWXTN8CL196B5
Daud Deden
2018-09-23 02:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Calumet = ***@Lakota: smoking pipe

Daud Deden
2018-04-22 10:43:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
show quoted text -
You must be seriously mistaken, if you believe the nonsense you post here has any logical relationship with language and etymology.
A.
---

Tacadac?
Daud Deden
2018-04-22 10:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
DK: "What DD thinks.."

I don't believe in mind reading.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2018-04-22 12:53:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
show quoted text -
You must be seriously mistaken, if you believe the nonsense you post here has any logical relationship with language and etymology.
A.
---
Tacadac?
Copocop. Copoticop. Clopoticlop.
Daud Deden
2018-04-22 13:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
MW: "Copocop.
Copoticop.
Clopoticlop."

Why exclude samples of the 4 other languages you know?
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-04-11 20:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English
"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
-
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?
Xyuambuatla etc.
Etc.? How many are there? Are they actually words? In what language?

So you compare the real words with (one or more) keyword(s), which
you have derived by some mysterious process ("reflection" as you say
elsewhere).

As I suggested a while ago, your conclusions are already in place. The
strings of words are not evidence, but things that you assume _must_
be derived from one of your keywords. And since there seem to be no
particular constraints on "derivation", it might just as well be "kampong"
as "kampung". Hence the sloppiness.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
You list several versions
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of the same etymon (avoir/habere, tenir/tengo, haben/have/'ave, for God's sake!)
Yes, Andre requested.
Who?
-
Andre = Ymir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
apparently just to make your list look more impressive, or perhaps
under the impression that you are the first to have noticed their
resemblance.
Hardly, Ross. I had a few minutes to consider them.
-
Apart from these, there are the usual daisy-chain
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
resemblances, but no common sound pattern. And yet you are,
no doubt, morally certain that they all have a common origin,
-
You are certain they don't.
No, some of them quite obviously do (the ones I mentioned above).
As regards the others, my view would be that there is no reason
to postulate a common origin for ada, kampung, habere, etc.
-
Random coincidental matches of both sound & meaning, combined, are extremely rare, needle in 1,000 haystacks.
No, you are completely wrong about this. Though we discussed the
numerals demonstration, you've obviously missed the main point.
-
I prefer non-fiction to fiction, Ross. Even very good fiction.
Where's the fiction in this?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact. Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
-
Needles are still exceedingly rare in haystacks, even if you multiply millions of haystacks (and include rusty nails).
Hence the inappropriateness of your analogy.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-
Evidence is open to interpretation.
We could talk about interpretation if there was any evidence. You just
look at your words and say "They must be related."
-
I ask, rather, and listen, rather than pre-judging based on other's opinions.
As do I. So who do you ask? And what do they answer? And exactly
how does your mysterious "listening" tell you they are related?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
You're as sloppy as ever with your data, and no closer to being able
to explain yourself.
What I wrote shows resemblances and plausible derivation.
Nobody denies the resemblances. I didn't notice anything like a
"plausible derivation" in there. Perhaps you could point it out?
-
Have = bear(vb) an ember/baby/water etc. = xyambuatl.
Not a plausible derivation. Not any kind of derivation. Not a plausible
anything. A word connected to a string of words connected to something
that might be a word, by "="s which mean who knows what?
Why are you unable to formulate a coherent, intelligible statement?
-
I'm not a Neo-entomologist.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Tidy is Neo-Etymology.
No, that's just an excuse. Tidy is just good science.
-
A Neo-etymologist would say that. Real science can be very messy indeed.
Of course. So can real etymology. But being sloppy with your basic data
just makes it worse.
-
I am operating under constraints whereby sloppyness is less significant than effectiveness. Again, my purpose is to understand, not convert or convince.
So it's a private exercise, with its own standards of "effectiveness"? But
you just can't keep from sharing it with the rest of us?
Daud Deden
2018-04-13 04:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Reply posted
To have, hold, contain
Apr 10me
***@Malay: have ***@Malay: contain.er ***@Malay: camp, village ***@Iroquois: village ***@Gk: reed container ***@Fr: havin
Apr 10Hen Hanna
not sure what you're getting at, but ....
Apr ***@ihug.co.nz
sack, pocket > ***@Malay: camp, village kampung village, residential area
Apr 10Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 23:02:47 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden <***@gmail.com> scribeva:
Apr 10me
= a containment of people
Apr 10me
Tong ***@Malay: trash can
Apr 10me
Apr ***@ihug.co.nz
tong barrel, cask
Apr 10Ymir
In article <7e51f316-b378-4f11-a3a2-***@googlegroups.com>,
Apr 11me
- (Con)tenir -
Apr ***@ihug.co.nz
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English "camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of
Apr 11me
- Kamp(o/u)ng is a (long-term) camp, a human settlement in the rainforest. ***@Malay/***@Mbuti is a campfire. -
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:28:27 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden <***@gmail.com> scribeva:
Apr 11Ymir
In article <82af682d-55a1-43fb-a2b1-***@googlegroups.com>, Daud Deden <***@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:29 AM b
Apr 11me
On perspective and methodology: One can determine the exact number of water drops contained in a beaker, then extrapolate to determine the a
Apr 11me
- I liberate sense with my method, Ruud. -
Apr 11me
Xyuambuatla etc. -
Apr 11Ymir
In article <c52b097b-824b-43ea-9569-***@googlegroups.com>, Daud Deden <***@gmail.com> wrote: Once again, can you please learn
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
Apr ***@ihug.co.nz
On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 12:05:54 AM UTC+12, Daud Deden wrote:
- hide quoted text -
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English
"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
-
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?
-

I've been referring the paleo-keyword Xyambotla/Xyuambuatlachya/Ndjambuangdualua/Xyuambuatla etc. for years.
-
Etc.? How many are there? Are they actually words? In what language?
-
Ross, quantification, words & languages are modern concepts, right?
-

So you compare the real words with (one or more) keyword(s), which
you have derived by some mysterious process ("reflection" as you say
elsewhere).

As I suggested a while ago, your conclusions are already in place.
-
You continue to misunderstand. I had no idea that avoir & habere were connected to Xyuambuatla until I compared them in response to Andre's request.
-

The
strings of words are not evidence, but things that you assume _must_
be derived from one of your keywords.
-
No, Ross. Actually I doubted it. Why? Because they are very generalized verbs. As opposed to eg. Shine, sieve, bottle. Specialized terms tend to be easier to examine.
-

And since there seem to be no
particular constraints on "derivation", it might just as well be "kampong"
as "kampung". Hence the sloppiness.
-
Nguambuang.ualua/kampong.
-
- show quoted text -
Where's the fiction in this?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact. Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
-
Needles are still exceedingly rare in haystacks, even if you multiply millions of haystacks (and include rusty nails).
Hence the inappropriateness of your analogy.
-
To you perhaps.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-
Evidence is open to interpretation.
We could talk about interpretation if there was any evidence. You just
look at your words and say "They must be related."
-
I ask, rather, and listen, rather than pre-judging based on other's opinions.
As do I. So who do you ask? And what do they answer? And exactly
how does your mysterious "listening" tell you they are related?
- show quoted text -
So it's a private exercise, with its own standards of "effectiveness"? But
you just can't keep from sharing it with the rest of us?
-
First you complain that I don't share, then you complain that I share. What next, Ross?
Ymir
2018-04-13 06:41:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
You continue to misunderstand. I had no idea that avoir & habere were
connected to Xyuambuatla until I compared them in response to Andre's
request.
How did you go about comparing them? They bear no resemblance to
'xyuambuatla' as far as I can tell.

Also, my original question was about latin 'habere' and german 'haben',
which are known to be completely unrelated. How does your 'method'
recognize the unrelatedness of these two words while still somehow
managing to connect 'habere' to 'xyuambuatla'?

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-04-13 11:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Reply posted
To have, hold, contain
Apr 10me
Apr 10Hen Hanna
not sure what you're getting at, but ....
Apr 10Ruud Harmsen
Apr 10me
= a containment of people
Apr 10me
Apr 10me
tong barrel, cask
Apr 10Ymir
Apr 11me
- (Con)tenir -
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English "camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of
Apr 11me
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
Apr 11Ymir
Apr 11me
On perspective and methodology: One can determine the exact number of water drops contained in a beaker, then extrapolate to determine the a
Apr 11me
- I liberate sense with my method, Ruud. -
Apr 11me
Xyuambuatla etc. -
Apr 11Ymir
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
- hide quoted text -
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English
"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
-
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?
-
I've been referring the paleo-keyword Xyambotla/Xyuambuatlachya/Ndjambuangdualua/Xyuambuatla etc. for years.
...without ever telling us: "This is what I call a keyword".
Post by Daud Deden
Etc.? How many are there? Are they actually words? In what language?
-
Ross, quantification, words & languages are modern concepts, right?
Depends what you mean by "modern" and "concepts".

But you're a modern person. Since the keyword(s) is/are your discovery,
you ought to be able to tell us how many you've discovered. Or have
you discovered a big squish of them, which can't be separated and counted,
and in which new ones might be discovered at any time?

You don't have to get all fussy about any technical definition of "word".
You call them "keywords", so unless you're being deliberately misleading,
you think they are words, i.e. sequences of vocal sounds that had a meaning,
that people spoke at some time in the past.

And you don't have to fuss about knowing how many languages there are,
or naming them. A rough time frame for when these words were used would
be better than nothing.
Post by Daud Deden
So you compare the real words with (one or more) keyword(s), which
you have derived by some mysterious process ("reflection" as you say
elsewhere).
As I suggested a while ago, your conclusions are already in place.
-
You continue to misunderstand. I had no idea that avoir & habere were connected to Xyuambuatla until I compared them in response to Andre's request.
So things might have turned out differently? Suppose you encounter a word
that is not connected to Xyuambuatla -- what's your next step?
Post by Daud Deden
The
strings of words are not evidence, but things that you assume _must_
be derived from one of your keywords.
-
No, Ross. Actually I doubted it. Why? Because they are very generalized verbs. As opposed to eg. Shine, sieve, bottle. Specialized terms tend to be easier to examine.
-
And since there seem to be no
particular constraints on "derivation", it might just as well be "kampong"
as "kampung". Hence the sloppiness.
-
Nguambuang.ualua/kampong.
What does that mean?
Post by Daud Deden
- show quoted text -
Where's the fiction in this?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact. Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
-
Needles are still exceedingly rare in haystacks, even if you multiply millions of haystacks (and include rusty nails).
Hence the inappropriateness of your analogy.
-
To you perhaps.
To any rational observer. Relaxing the criteria, in any case, is not
equivalent to multiplying the number of haystacks, but to broadening
the definition of "needle", which makes them much easier to find.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-
Evidence is open to interpretation.
We could talk about interpretation if there was any evidence. You just
look at your words and say "They must be related."
-
I ask, rather, and listen, rather than pre-judging based on other's opinions.
As do I. So who do you ask? And what do they answer? And exactly
how does your mysterious "listening" tell you they are related?
- show quoted text -
So it's a private exercise, with its own standards of "effectiveness"? But
you just can't keep from sharing it with the rest of us?
-
First you complain that I don't share, then you complain that I share. What next, Ross?
Don't be silly. I complain that you present us with the results of your
research, in a form largely unintelligible to us, yet show no interest
in explaining the method by which you have arrived at these results, or
even making the results themselves more understandable to others. What's
the point? Is it just that our being baffled gives you a feeling of
superior wisdom?
Daud Deden
2018-04-16 03:57:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 12:05:54 AM UTC+12, Daud Deden wrote:
- show quoted text -
Etc.? How many are there? Are they actually words? In what language?
-
Ross, apparently my answer was lost. Xyuambuatla has many variants.
-
So you compare the real words with (one or more) keyword(s), which
you have derived by some mysterious process ("reflection" as you say
elsewhere).
-
Basic Paleo-Etymology.
-

As I suggested a while ago, your conclusions are already in place.
-
You have presented the forum with standard prejudicial remarks without substantiation.
-
The
strings of words are not evidence, but things that you assume _must_
be derived from one of your keywords.
-
Nope. If they fit, they fit, if not, not.
-

And since there seem to be no
particular constraints on "derivation", it might just as well be "kampong"
as "kampung".
-
Geographic variation.
-


Hence the sloppiness.
-
Hence your misperception.
-
- show quoted text -
Where's the fiction in this?
-
An abstraction is a fictional device. You can find '10 clams'; you cannot find '10', there is no reality of quantification aka numerals.
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact.
-
Right, therefore irrelevant to Paleo-Etymology.
-
Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
resemblances.
-
No more relevant.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
-
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-04-16 04:43:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
- show quoted text -
Etc.? How many are there? Are they actually words? In what language?
-
Ross, apparently my answer was lost. Xyuambuatla has many variants.
OK, "many" is better than nothing. Are those variants just the fragments
of the mother-keyword that turn up from time to time (e.g. "mbuatla",
I think, today)? Or do they differ in other ways? Don't suppose there's
a list of them somewhere?
Post by Daud Deden
-
So you compare the real words with (one or more) keyword(s), which
you have derived by some mysterious process ("reflection" as you say
elsewhere).
-
Basic Paleo-Etymology.
An equally mysterious phrase, conveying no more than "what D.D. does".
Post by Daud Deden
As I suggested a while ago, your conclusions are already in place.
-
You have presented the forum with standard prejudicial remarks without substantiation.
Since we have had no information about how these keywords were arrived at,
or demonstration of how any real-language evidence would affect them,
what else can we think?
Post by Daud Deden
The
strings of words are not evidence, but things that you assume _must_
be derived from one of your keywords.
-
Nope. If they fit, they fit, if not, not.
How do you tell if they fit? And if not, what do you do next?
(This is essentially a repetition of a question I asked a
couple of posts back, which you have not answered.)
Post by Daud Deden
And since there seem to be no
particular constraints on "derivation", it might just as well be "kampong"
as "kampung".
-
Geographic variation.
In this case, perhaps.
Post by Daud Deden
Hence the sloppiness.
-
Hence your misperception.
No, my perception of your sloppiness is quite clear.
Post by Daud Deden
- show quoted text -
Where's the fiction in this?
-
An abstraction is a fictional device. You can find '10 clams'; you cannot find '10', there is no reality of quantification aka numerals.
You mean there is no physical object corresponding to '10'. Fine.
Who do you think has been claiming there is?
Post by Daud Deden
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change > > > that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically > > exact.
-
Right, therefore irrelevant to Paleo-Etymology.
But I was not doing Paleo-Etymology. I was demonstrating the frequency
of chance resemblances, a fact you seem extremely reluctant to accept.
Post by Daud Deden
Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
-
No more relevant.
-
Ymir
2018-04-11 02:10:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
You list several versions
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
of the same etymon (avoir/habere, tenir/tengo, haben/have/'ave, for God's sake!)
Yes, Andre requested.
Clearly you didn't understand my request since I asked for an
*explanation*, not a random list of words.

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-10 12:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 23:02:47 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
NOT cognate. Already mentioned. See wiktionary for REAL etymologies.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-10 23:28:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 23:02:47 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
NOT cognate. Already mentioned. See wiktionary for REAL etymologies.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Cognate = co-generate = con-genera

I generalize, you specialize. Different goals, different values, different results.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-11 12:51:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:28:27 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 23:02:47 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
NOT cognate. Already mentioned. See wiktionary for REAL etymologies.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Cognate = co-generate = con-genera
I generalize, you specialize. Different goals, different values, different results.
You have no method and delibrate nonsense.

I quote reliable sources of Wiki that are based on reliable sources.
Daud Deden
2018-04-11 14:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
I generalize, you specialize. Different goals, different values, different results.
You have no method and delibrate nonsense.
-
I liberate sense with my method, Ruud.
-
I quote reliable sources of Wiki that are based on reliable sources.
-
Very good, though not very deep IMO.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-12 06:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:55:16 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Daud Deden
I generalize, you specialize. Different goals, different values, different results.
You have no method and delibrate nonsense.
-
I liberate sense with my method, Ruud.
-
I quote reliable sources of Wiki that are based on reliable sources.
-
Very good, though not very deep IMO.
Going deeper than feasible is fantasy.

You're not going deep, you work on shallow resemblances only, as if
sound shifts never have occurred. That is simply contrary to observed
facts in all language families.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-13 04:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Going deeper than feasible is fantasy.

You're not going deep, you work on shallow resemblances only, as if
sound shifts never have occurred. That is simply contrary to observed
facts in all language families.
-
Ruud, your paradigm blocks your comprehension of my studies.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-14 09:58:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksetymologie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology
You should study those Wikipedia articles, learn from the errors of
thought described there, conclude to stopping your own project, and
start enjoying traditional etymology, for example as collected in
Wiktionary. There's really a lot to enjoy there. And to write about. I
never find the time, otherwise my menu
http://rudhar.com/fonetics/fonetics.htm would be fuller.
Sorry, that should be http://rudhar.com/etymolog/ of course.
But I don't
need to invent my own phoney etymological methodology for being able
to do that.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-14 09:57:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:32:48 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ruud, your paradigm blocks your comprehension of my studies.
What you are doing is not studying, but a classic example of folk
etymology.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksetymologie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology

You should study those Wikipedia articles, learn from the errors of
thought described there, conclude to stopping your own project, and
start enjoying traditional etymology, for example as collected in
Wiktionary. There's really a lot to enjoy there. And to write about. I
never find the time, otherwise my menu
http://rudhar.com/fonetics/fonetics.htm would be fuller. But I don't
need to invent my own phoney etymological methodology for being able
to do that.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-14 11:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ruud: "What you are doing is not studying, but a classic example of folk
etymology."
---

Classic, perhaps, thanks for the compliment; but do you include apes & monkeys as "folk"?
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-14 12:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 04:19:53 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ruud: "What you are doing is not studying, but a classic example of folk
etymology."
---
Classic, perhaps, thanks for the compliment; but do you include apes & monkeys as "folk"?
And have no idea what you mean by this.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-14 15:14:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 04:19:53 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ruud: "What you are doing is not studying, but a classic example of folk
etymology."
---
Classic, perhaps, thanks for the compliment; but do you include apes & monkeys as "folk"?
And have no idea what you mean by this.
And I have no idea why I started that sentence with "and" instead of
"I".
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
António Marques
2018-04-14 12:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:32:48 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Ruud, your paradigm blocks your comprehension of my studies.
What you are doing is not studying, but a classic example of folk
etymology.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksetymologie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology
No, folk etymology, despite the name, is a process of linguistic change.
That’s not what she’s doing!
Daud Deden
2018-04-15 00:17:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Daud Deden
Ruud, your paradigm blocks your comprehension of my studies.
What you are doing is not studying, but a classic example of folk
etymology.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksetymologie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology
Ant: "No, folk etymology, despite the name, is a process of linguistic change.
That’s not what she’s doing!"
-
(Ant is referring to 'Elizabeth' here. I'll let Ross respond to his charge.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-04-15 00:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Daud Deden
Ruud, your paradigm blocks your comprehension of my studies.
What you are doing is not studying, but a classic example of folk
etymology.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksetymologie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology
Ant: "No, folk etymology, despite the name, is a process of linguistic change.
That’s not what she’s doing!"
-
(Ant is referring to 'Elizabeth' here. I'll let Ross respond to his charge.
? Why should I? And who's 'Elizabeth'?
Daud Deden
2018-04-15 03:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I was referring to this:

***@gmail.com
- show quoted text -
What is your source for "Calumet"?

which was a response to my Paleo-Etymology & Cave thread.

I would hate to think that Ant is so sexually ignorant that he confuses men for women and women for men. So since Elizabet. is the only feminine name that has been active since I arrived here in this forum, it must be her that Ant is referring to. Right, Ross?
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-11 16:14:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:28:27 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 23:02:47 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
NOT cognate. Already mentioned. See wiktionary for REAL etymologies.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Cognate = co-generate = con-genera
I generalize, you specialize. Different goals, different values, different results.
No. The difference between serious etymology, and nonsense based on
superficial resemblances.

You should read some good books on etymology first and try to
understand the methods. Indo-European is a good example to start with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#History_of_Indo-European_linguistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History

Then maybe Bantu languages and North-American indigenous languages
(several unrelated families).
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-13 03:58:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
I generalize, you specialize. Different goals, different values, different results.
No. The difference between serious etymology, and nonsense based on
superficial resemblances.
-

Ruud, never accuse me of doing 'serious etymology', please. I do Paleo-Etymology, and I do it very well. It is beyond your comprehension, and that upsets you, since it does not align with your paradigm of what etymology is supposed to be.
-

You should read some good books on etymology first and try to
understand the methods. Indo-European is a good example to start with.
-
Who was speaking IE 100ka?
-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#History_of_Indo-European_linguistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History

Then maybe Bantu languages and North-American indigenous languages
(several unrelated families).
-
Ruud, who was speaking Bantu & NAm languages 100ka? If your response is "Nobody" then maybe you could allow me to continue my investigative research on Paleo-Etymology, letting the thousands of Neo-etymologists focus on modern & recent languages & linguistic families, since that is what they've been trained to do.
As I've said before, sometimes I get it wrong. That is part of linguistic exploration, there is no answer book. But that doesn't mean there are no answers to be found.
DKleinecke
2018-04-13 04:07:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Daud Deden
I generalize, you specialize. Different goals, different values, different results.
No. The difference between serious etymology, and nonsense based on
superficial resemblances.
-
Ruud, never accuse me of doing 'serious etymology', please. I do Paleo-Etymology, and I do it very well. It is beyond your comprehension, and that upsets you, since it does not align with your paradigm of what etymology is supposed to be.
-
You should read some good books on etymology first and try to
understand the methods. Indo-European is a good example to start with.
-
Who was speaking IE 100ka?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#History_of_Indo-European_linguistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History
Then maybe Bantu languages and North-American indigenous languages
(several unrelated families).
-
Ruud, who was speaking Bantu & NAm languages 100ka? If your response is "Nobody" then maybe you could allow me to continue my investigative research on Paleo-Etymology, letting the thousands of Neo-etymologists focus on modern & recent languages & linguistic families, since that is what they've been trained to do.
What is your opinion of Nostratic and Alan Bomhard's ongoing
work?
Daud Deden
2018-04-13 04:58:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
DK: "What is your opinion of Nostratic and Alan Bomhard's ongoing
work? "
-
I respect & appreciate their efforts, though I align more with M. Ruhlen's opinion on Nostratic. Technically, my focus is quite different; agriculture, societal hierarchies, writing systems and their affects on language being 'modern' not Paleo. What is Bomhard up to? Nostratic analysis?
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-14 10:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 20:58:08 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Daud Deden
I generalize, you specialize. Different goals, different values, different results.
No. The difference between serious etymology, and nonsense based on
superficial resemblances.
-
Ruud, never accuse me of doing 'serious etymology', please. I do Paleo-Etymology,
and I do it very well.
No.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
It is beyond your comprehension, and that upsets you, since it does not align with
your paradigm of what etymology is supposed to be.
-
You should read some good books on etymology first and try to
understand the methods. Indo-European is a good example to start with.
-
Who was speaking IE 100ka?
We don't know. And with the available evidence, we cannot know.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#History_of_Indo-European_linguistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History
Then maybe Bantu languages and North-American indigenous languages
(several unrelated families).
-
Ruud, who was speaking Bantu & NAm languages 100ka?
We don't know. And with the available evidence, we cannot know. And
neither can you. Certainly not by comparing seemingly similar words
from languages spoken now or in the last 500 years. Which is your only
method.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
If your response is "Nobody" then maybe you could allow me to continue
my investigative research on Paleo-Etymology,
Studying something for which there is no data available, is mere
fantasy, speculation at best, not serieus science.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
letting the thousands of Neo-etymologists focus on modern & recent
languages & linguistic families, since that is what they've been trained
to do.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-15 04:19:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@Malay: have
***@Malay: contain.er
***@Malay: camp, village
***@Iroquois: village
***@Gk: reed container
***@Fr: having
(Con)***@Fr: have with
***@Sp: have
***@Grm: have
***@Latin: ?have
'***@Cockney: have

Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
---

So, to have = contain.

Class dismissed. Thanks for your participation.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-15 07:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated. But you prefer
to ignore it. English 'to have' in reality is cognate with Latin
capere, capisce?

And habere perhaps with give, but I'd have to look that up first.
Post by Daud Deden
So, to have = contain.
Class dismissed. Thanks for your participation.
No. We'll stay and teach YOU.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-15 07:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated. But you prefer
to ignore it. English 'to have' in reality is cognate with Latin
capere, capisce?
And habere perhaps with give, but I'd have to look that up first.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habere
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habeo#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/g%CA%B0eh%E2%82%81b%CA%B0-

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/have#Etymology_1
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/habjan%C4%85#Etymology_1
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/keh%E2%82%82p-
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Daud Deden
So, to have = contain.
Class dismissed. Thanks for your participation.
No. We'll stay and teach YOU.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-15 13:30:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Xyambuatla habere/capere/capture/given/have etc. etc. etc.

, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated.
-
Wrongly.
-

But you prefer
to ignore it.
-
I dismiss ignorance & arrogance, the walls surrounding Neo-etymological specialism.
-

English 'to have' in reality is cognate with Latin
capere, capisce?
-
Xyambuatla.
-

And habere perhaps with give, but I'd have to look that up first.
Post by Daud Deden
So, to have = contain.
Class dismissed. Thanks for your participation.
No. We'll stay and teach YOU.
-
Stay after class if you like, but I doubt you are capable of grasping the evolution of language unless you brush up on the Biology of humans.
Without that, you are just quacking with the ducks, Ruud.

- show quoted text -
Ymir
2018-04-15 14:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Xyambuatla habere/capere/capture/given/have etc. etc. etc.
, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated.
-
Wrongly.
-
Why wrongly?

Can you explain why 'neoetymologists' view these an unrelated? Unless
and until you understand this claim, you're not going to be able to
argue against it. So why not lay down the 'neoetymological arguments'
and then show where they are wrong.

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Daud Deden
2018-04-15 15:10:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Xyambuatla habere/capere/capture/given/have etc. etc. etc.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated.
-
Wrongly.
-
Why wrongly?

Can you explain why 'neoetymologists' view these an unrelated? Unless
and until you understand this claim, you're not going to be able to
argue against it. So why not lay down the 'neoetymological arguments'
and then show where they are wrong.
-
Because they are obviously related.

Because I don't like to waste my research time in argument.

Because Neo-etymologist perception of 'relatedness' does not reflect Paleo-Etymology reality.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-15 15:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:10:21 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Xyambuatla habere/capere/capture/given/have etc. etc. etc.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated.
-
Wrongly.
-
Why wrongly?
Can you explain why 'neoetymologists' view these an unrelated? Unless
and until you understand this claim, you're not going to be able to
argue against it. So why not lay down the 'neoetymological arguments'
and then show where they are wrong.
-
Because they are obviously related.
Obviously? What makes that so obvious? That they are similar in form
and meaning? If that is your argument, you ignore the observed fact
that languages slowly change over the course of time.
Post by Daud Deden
Because I don't like to waste my research time in argument.
You don't want you silly folk-etymology guessing game spoiled by
observed fact and solid reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
Because Neo-etymologist perception of 'relatedness' does not reflect Paleo-Etymology reality.
That's what I just said.

You really think that in the remote past, they were NO gradual sound
changes, whereas we know for a fact that between Latin and Romance
languages for example, they have taken place?

Why would that be so? Those people were not people? But they did have
language?
Daud Deden
2018-04-15 20:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Because they are obviously related.

Obviously? What makes that so obvious? That they are similar in form
and meaning?
-
That and they share same root, Xyambuatla. Of course they evolve.



If that is your argument, you ignore the observed fact
that languages slowly change over the course of time.
Post by Daud Deden
Because I don't like to waste my research time in argument.
You don't want you silly folk-etymology guessing game

Ruud, you display arrogance & ignorance.


spoiled by
observed fact and solid reasoning.
Post by Daud Deden
Because Neo-etymologist perception of 'relatedness' does not reflect Paleo-Etymology reality.
That's what I just said.

You really think that in the remote past, they were NO gradual sound
changes, whereas we know for a fact that between Latin and Romance
languages for example, they have taken place?

Evolution. Duh.

Why would that be so? Those people were not people? But they did have
language?

??
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-16 12:50:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:01:27 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Because they are obviously related.
Obviously? What makes that so obvious? That they are similar in form
and meaning?
-
That and they share same root, Xyambuatla. Of course they evolve.
How do you know? How can you know? What is Xyambuatla? What language
is that, when spoken by whom?
Ymir
2018-04-16 14:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:01:27 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Because they are obviously related.
Obviously? What makes that so obvious? That they are similar in form
and meaning?
-
That and they share same root, Xyambuatla. Of course they evolve.
How do you know? How can you know? What is Xyambuatla? What language
is that, when spoken by whom?
And how exactly is it pronounced?

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Daud Deden
2018-04-17 02:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Because they are obviously related.
Obviously? What makes that so obvious? That they are similar in form
and meaning?
-
That and they share same root, Xyambuatla. Of course they evolve.
-
How do you know? How can you know? What is Xyambuatla? What language
is that, when spoken by whom?
---

What car did they drive?
Daud Deden
2018-04-17 03:13:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Daud Deden
Because they are obviously related.
Obviously? What makes that so obvious? That they are similar in form
and meaning?
-
That and they share same root, Xyambuatla. Of course they evolve.
-
How do you know? How can you know? What is Xyambuatla? What language
is that, when spoken by whom?
---
Daud said exactly the same thing in a parallel thread!

I don't care, it's immaterial. He talks about language dead for ages
-
Wrong, human language is continuous, communal and evolutionary software. Geographic and socio-hierarchical dialects differentiate (mutate) from others over time. Big trees have deep roots, human language has xyuambuatla, both are alive, both hidden beneath the surface, undetectable to those who tread too lightly upon the Earth instead spending all their time in cubicles arguing and insulting the work of others.
-
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-17 05:35:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 20:13:45 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Daud Deden
Because they are obviously related.
Obviously? What makes that so obvious? That they are similar in form
and meaning?
-
That and they share same root, Xyambuatla. Of course they evolve.
-
How do you know? How can you know? What is Xyambuatla? What language
is that, when spoken by whom?
---
Daud said exactly the same thing in a parallel thread!
I don't care, it's immaterial. He talks about language dead for ages
-
Wrong, human language is continuous, communal and evolutionary software. Geographic and socio-hierarchical dialects differentiate (mutate) from others over time. Big trees have deep roots, human language has xyuambuatla, both are alive, both hidden beneath the surface, undetectable to those who tread too lightly upon the Earth instead spending all their time in cubicles arguing and insulting the work of others.
-
If you used a proper Usenet interface (news reader) it might properly
insert quotation marks.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ymir
2018-04-16 09:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Xyambuatla habere/capere/capture/given/have etc. etc. etc.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated.
-
Wrongly.
-
Why wrongly?
Can you explain why 'neoetymologists' view these an unrelated? Unless
and until you understand this claim, you're not going to be able to
argue against it. So why not lay down the 'neoetymological arguments'
and then show where they are wrong.
-
Because they are obviously related.
Except they are not. Some 'obvious' things turn out to be wrong on
closer investigation.
Post by Daud Deden
Because I don't like to waste my research time in argument.
Now I'm a bit confused. If you have no interest in arguing your case,
then why are you bothering posting your claims on a public forum?

Mental masturbation is fine (I mean it won't make you go blind or
anything) but it's something best done in private.

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-15 14:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Xyambuatla habere/capere/capture/given/have etc. etc. etc.
, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated.
-
Wrongly.
OK, so what is your evidence that the etymologies for the two words
quoted in Wiktionary are false?

We know from hundreds of examples that Germanic h corresponds to Latin
c = /k/. So why and how could it suddenly be h in this case? A
loanword? When and it what direction? Based on what evidence?
Post by Daud Deden
But you prefer to ignore it.
-
I dismiss ignorance & arrogance, the walls surrounding Neo-etymological specialism.
English 'to have' in reality is cognate with Latin
capere, capisce?
-
Xyambuatla.
Yeah, right.

Do you also deny that English head and Latin caput are cognate? And
house and casa?
Daud Deden
2018-04-15 15:29:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Xyambuatla habere/capere/capture/given/have etc. etc. etc.
, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated.
-
Wrongly.
OK, so what is your evidence that the etymologies for the two words
quoted in Wiktionary are false?
-
They are recently diverged.
-

We know from hundreds of examples that Germanic h corresponds to Latin
c = /k/. So why and how could it suddenly be h in this case?
-
Different spoken trails.
+

A
loanword? When and it what direction? Based on what evidence?
Post by Daud Deden
But you prefer to ignore it.
-
I dismiss ignorance & arrogance, the walls surrounding Neo-etymological specialism.
English 'to have' in reality is cognate with Latin
capere, capisce?
-
Xyambuatla.
Yeah, right.

Do you also deny that English head and Latin caput are cognate?
-
Heaven heofan xyambuatl
Rosh front



And
house and casa?
Hutch casa lost mb, xyauatla
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-15 15:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Xyambuatla habere/capere/capture/given/have etc. etc. etc.
, 14 Apr 2018 21:19:35 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
People already told you that those two are unrelated.
-
Wrongly.
OK, so what is your evidence that the etymologies for the two words
quoted in Wiktionary are false?
-
They are recently diverged.
???

Who or what are "they"? What does "diverge" mean? How recent is
"recent"? 100 years, 200, 2000?

What do you mean by "They are recently diverged"?
Post by Ruud Harmsen
We know from hundreds of examples that Germanic h corresponds to Latin
c = /k/. So why and how could it suddenly be h in this case?
-
Different spoken trails.
What do you mean by that?
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-15 15:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Do you also deny that English head and Latin caput are cognate?
-
Heaven heofan xyambuatl
Rosh front
What do you mean by that?

English "heaven" is of uncertain etymology:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heaven#Etymology
Daud Deden
2018-04-15 19:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
English "heaven" is of uncertain etymology:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heaven#Etymology
-
Heavy-heady, heft-loft-light, Zion/tian/cyan/thiop...
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-16 12:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heaven#Etymology
-
Heavy-heady, heft-loft-light, Zion/tian/cyan/thiop...
Where's you evidence, beside fantasy and free association?
Daud Deden
2018-04-17 02:43:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heaven#Etymology
-
Heavy-heady, heft-loft-light, Zion/tian/cyan/thiop...
Where's you evidence, beside fantasy and free association?

"Uncertain etymology".
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-17 05:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 19:43:47 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heaven#Etymology
-
Heavy-heady, heft-loft-light, Zion/tian/cyan/thiop...
Where's you evidence, beside fantasy and free association?
"Uncertain etymology".
Real scientists admit it when there is insufficient evidence to be
conclusive.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-17 15:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Conclusive? With enclosure?
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-17 18:24:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:16:37 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Conclusive? With enclosure?
I have no idea what you are getting at. Please use longer sentences
which more amply explain your thoughts. My English is not so good.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-18 01:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Conclusive? With enclosure?

I have no idea what you are getting at. Please use longer sentences
which more amply explain your thoughts. My English is not so good.
- show quoted text -
-
I'm not enclosing/concluding, Ruud, I am exposing ancient roots.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-18 06:20:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:28:57 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Conclusive? With enclosure?
I have no idea what you are getting at. Please use longer sentences
which more amply explain your thoughts. My English is not so good.
- show quoted text -
-
I'm not enclosing/concluding, Ruud, I am exposing ancient roots.
You're not. You mention fragmentary fantasies. Mention only.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Daud Deden
2018-04-18 06:42:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Conclusive? With enclosure?
Post by Ruud Harmsen
I have no idea what you are getting at. Please use longer sentences
which more amply explain your thoughts. My English is not so good.
- show quoted text -
-
I'm not enclosing/concluding, Ruud, I am exposing ancient roots.
You're not. You mention fragmentary fantasies. Mention only.
---

Mentioning is exposing.
You claim fantasy because the roots are simply too deep for you to fathom. You need Wikipedia support, linguistic labels, quantities and other modern tools. But THEY didn't. You and the other Neo-etymologists don't comprehend that part.
Daud Deden
2018-04-18 20:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here we see the link between ***@Iroquois: village/containment and ***@Malay: have/contain/bear and ***@Malay: container and ***@Malay: village.

gan'ā***@Huron: village > canada

In Mbuti, a camp = campfire = apa.

(It may be impossible for Neo-etymologists to recognize.)
--
Post by Daud Deden
Reply posted
To have, hold, contain
Apr 10me
Apr 10Hen Hanna
not sure what you're getting at, but ....
Apr 10Ruud Harmsen
Apr 10me
= a containment of people
Apr 10me
Apr 10me
tong barrel, cask
Apr 10Ymir
Apr 11me
- (Con)tenir -
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English "camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of
Apr 11me
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
Apr 11Ymir
Apr 11me
On perspective and methodology: One can determine the exact number of water drops contained in a beaker, then extrapolate to determine the a
Apr 11me
- I liberate sense with my method, Ruud. -
Apr 11me
Xyuambuatla etc. -
Apr 11Ymir
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
- hide quoted text -
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know.
Apparently, Ross is a plurality. I thought it was some guy in New Zealand.

You
can daisy-chain in English
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
-
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?
-
I've been referring the paleo-keyword Xyambotla/Xyuambuatlachya/Ndjambuangdualua/Xyuambuatla etc. for years.
...without ever telling us: "This is what I call a keyword".

I've referred to "the paleo-keyword Xyambuatla" many times at many places on the net, but only recently here.
Post by Daud Deden
Etc.? How many are there? Are they actually words? In what language?
-
Ross, quantification, words & languages are modern concepts, right?
Depends what you mean by "modern" and "concepts".

But you're a modern person. Since the keyword(s) is/are your discovery,
you ought to be able to tell us how many you've discovered. Or have
you discovered a big squish of them, which can't be separated and counted,
and in which new ones might be discovered at any time?

The keyword's pronunciation depends on locale & time period, so naturally there is variation.


You don't have to get all fussy about any technical definition of "word".
You call them "keywords", so unless you're being deliberately misleading,
you think they are words, i.e. sequences of vocal sounds that had a meaning,
that people spoke at some time in the past.

I've been clear. You simply do not like to hear.


And you don't have to fuss about knowing how many languages there are,
or naming them. A rough time frame for when these words were used would
be better than nothing.

100ka - today.
Post by Daud Deden
So you compare the real words with (one or more) keyword(s), which
you have derived by some mysterious process ("reflection" as you say
elsewhere).
As I suggested a while ago, your conclusions are already in place.
-
You continue to misunderstand. I had no idea that avoir & habere were connected to Xyuambuatla until I compared them in response to Andre's request.
So things might have turned out differently? Suppose you encounter a word
that is not connected to Xyuambuatla -- what's your next step?

Semitic languages tend to permutate them, otherwise most words I've examined follow the order, as I've shown here numerous times.
Post by Daud Deden
The
strings of words are not evidence, but things that you assume _must_
be derived from one of your keywords.
-
No, Ross. Actually I doubted it. Why? Because they are very generalized verbs. As opposed to eg. Shine, sieve, bottle. Specialized terms tend to be easier to examine.
-
And since there seem to be no
particular constraints on "derivation", it might just as well be "kampong"
as "kampung". Hence the sloppiness.
-
Nguambuang.ualua/kampong.
What does that mean?

Concave structure/stand + ualua is one interpretation.
Post by Daud Deden
- show quoted text -
Where's the fiction in this?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact. Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
-
Needles are still exceedingly rare in haystacks, even if you multiply millions of haystacks (and include rusty nails).
Hence the inappropriateness of your analogy.
-
To you perhaps.
To any rational observer. Relaxing the criteria, in any case, is not
equivalent to multiplying the number of haystacks, but to broadening
the definition of "needle", which makes them much easier to find.

Only if they are there.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-
Evidence is open to interpretation.
We could talk about interpretation if there was any evidence. You just
look at your words and say "They must be related."
-
I ask, rather, and listen, rather than pre-judging based on other's opinions.
As do I. So who do you ask? And what do they answer? And exactly
how does your mysterious "listening" tell you they are related?
- show quoted text -
So it's a private exercise, with its own standards of "effectiveness"? But
you just can't keep from sharing it with the rest of us?
-
First you complain that I don't share, then you complain that I share. What next, Ross?
Don't be silly. I complain that you present us with the results of your
research, in a form largely unintelligible to us, yet show no interest
in explaining the method by which you have arrived at these results, or
even making the results themselves more understandable to others. What's
the point? Is it just that our being baffled gives you a feeling of
superior wisdom?

See "On perception".
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-04-18 22:36:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
In Mbuti, a camp = campfire = apa.
(It may be impossible for Neo-etymologists to recognize.)
We recognize it for what it is.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Reply posted
To have, hold, contain
Apr 10me
Apr 10Hen Hanna
not sure what you're getting at, but ....
Apr 10Ruud Harmsen
Apr 10me
= a containment of people
Apr 10me
Apr 10me
tong barrel, cask
Apr 10Ymir
Apr 11me
- (Con)tenir -
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English "camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of
Apr 11me
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
Apr 11Ymir
Apr 11me
On perspective and methodology: One can determine the exact number of water drops contained in a beaker, then extrapolate to determine the a
Apr 11me
- I liberate sense with my method, Ruud. -
Apr 11me
Xyuambuatla etc. -
Apr 11Ymir
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
- hide quoted text -
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
be, exist
sack, pocket
tong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know.
Apparently, Ross is a plurality. I thought it was some guy in New Zealand.
As you well know, there is more than one person reading your posts here.
Post by Daud Deden
You
can daisy-chain in English
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
-
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
kanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
So what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?
-
I've been referring the paleo-keyword Xyambotla/Xyuambuatlachya/Ndjambuangdualua/Xyuambuatla etc. for years.
...without ever telling us: "This is what I call a keyword".
I've referred to "the paleo-keyword Xyambuatla" many times at many places on the net, but only recently here.
...as I said.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Etc.? How many are there? Are they actually words? In what language?
-
Ross, quantification, words & languages are modern concepts, right?
Depends what you mean by "modern" and "concepts".
But you're a modern person. Since the keyword(s) is/are your discovery,
you ought to be able to tell us how many you've discovered. Or have
you discovered a big squish of them, which can't be separated and counted,
and in which new ones might be discovered at any time?
The keyword's pronunciation depends on locale & time period, so naturally there is variation.
But just one keyword?
Post by Daud Deden
You don't have to get all fussy about any technical definition of "word".
You call them "keywords", so unless you're being deliberately misleading,
you think they are words, i.e. sequences of vocal sounds that had a meaning,
that people spoke at some time in the past.
I've been clear. You simply do not like to hear.
Wrong again.
Post by Daud Deden
And you don't have to fuss about knowing how many languages there are,
or naming them. A rough time frame for when these words were used would
be better than nothing.
100ka - today.
So, in your conceptual world, people are still saying "xyambuatla"
today -- it just comes out sounding like "ada" or "kampong" or whatever?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
So you compare the real words with (one or more) keyword(s), which
you have derived by some mysterious process ("reflection" as you say
elsewhere).
As I suggested a while ago, your conclusions are already in place.
-
You continue to misunderstand. I had no idea that avoir & habere were connected to Xyuambuatla until I compared them in response to Andre's request.
So things might have turned out differently? Suppose you encounter a word
that is not connected to Xyuambuatla -- what's your next step?
Semitic languages tend to permutate them, otherwise most words I've examined follow the order, as I've shown here numerous times.
The "order" being Velar/Sibilant > Labial > Dental/Liquid?
And what has governed your choice of words to examine?
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
The
strings of words are not evidence, but things that you assume _must_
be derived from one of your keywords.
-
No, Ross. Actually I doubted it. Why? Because they are very generalized verbs. As opposed to eg. Shine, sieve, bottle. Specialized terms tend to be easier to examine.
-
And since there seem to be no
particular constraints on "derivation", it might just as well be "kampong"
as "kampung". Hence the sloppiness.
-
Nguambuang.ualua/kampong.
What does that mean?
Concave structure/stand + ualua is one interpretation.
Now you can explain what "Concave structure/stand + ualua" means,
and then perhaps what connection it has to what came before.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
- show quoted text -
Where's the fiction in this?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
The fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact. Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
-
Needles are still exceedingly rare in haystacks, even if you multiply millions of haystacks (and include rusty nails).
Hence the inappropriateness of your analogy.
-
To you perhaps.
To any rational observer. Relaxing the criteria, in any case, is not
equivalent to multiplying the number of haystacks, but to broadening
the definition of "needle", which makes them much easier to find.
Only if they are there.
Of course they are there. And the looser your definition of "them",
the more you will find.
Post by Daud Deden
Post by Daud Deden
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Daud Deden
I question that.
So your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-
Evidence is open to interpretation.
We could talk about interpretation if there was any evidence. You just
look at your words and say "They must be related."
-
I ask, rather, and listen, rather than pre-judging based on other's opinions.
As do I. So who do you ask? And what do they answer? And exactly
how does your mysterious "listening" tell you they are related?
- show quoted text -
So it's a private exercise, with its own standards of "effectiveness"? But
you just can't keep from sharing it with the rest of us?
-
First you complain that I don't share, then you complain that I share. What next, Ross?
Don't be silly. I complain that you present us with the results of your
research, in a form largely unintelligible to us, yet show no interest
in explaining the method by which you have arrived at these results, or
even making the results themselves more understandable to others. What's
the point? Is it just that our being baffled gives you a feeling of
superior wisdom?
See "On perception".
I'll take that as a "yes".
Daud Deden
2018-04-19 02:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
In Mbuti, a camp = campfire = apa.
(It may be impossible for Neo-etymologists to recognize.)
We recognize it for what it is.
Post by Daud Deden
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:48 AM benl..
---

Finally.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-04-16 12:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden

By the way, how are we supposed to pronounce "Daud Deden"? What
language is it supposed to in?

English? [dO:d di:dn]?
António Marques
2018-04-16 13:20:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
By the way, how are we supposed to pronounce "Daud Deden"? What
language is it supposed to in?
English? [dO:d di:dn]?
[‘m&rI,***@In]
Ymir
2018-04-15 14:24:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
Xyuambuatla ember-bearer
sHyAmBE.ATA/(xy)AVoiR
CAN.ATA
KAN.TOng/KAM.POng
(Con)Teng.r
---
So, to have = contain.
Class dismissed. Thanks for your participation.
That's hardly a class. That's a list of random words with absolutely no
explanation of why you've grouped these words together.

Anyone can play that game. Here's an example for you (using your
peculiar notation as best as I can figure it out):

***@French: cow
***@german: pig
***@Mayan: pig
***@English: chicken

txvachein yummy animal

That's no less compelling then your example of 'xyuambuatla'.

Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Loading...