[tied] Re: 'Dog' revisited

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:

...

> >
> > Nice sleight-of-hand! I admire the way you deftly slipped an
> unspoken
> > assumption in there. Even disregarding the cautionary note that
> > Piotr has raised regarding the whole SE Asia point of origin
> > hypothesis, what evidence is there that dogs spread by trade?

Given

> > the propensity of domestic dogs to seek out human company, and

the

> > length of time involved, the movement of strays from group to

group

> > could account for the spread of dogs without the need for any

inter-

> > group contact.
>
> Yes you are right. If that is so, then all the *kwon words _must_

be

> onomatopoeia.
>
> >
> > How does one say in PIE "He followed me home, Mom. Can we keep

him?"

> >
> > ;-)
> >
>
> Was that "He followed me home off the ship, Mom. Can we keep him?"
> Would some other language do? Eteo-Cypriot? Minoan? Sardic? On the
> other hand, how can I possibly maintain with certainty that the dog
> did not swim after the ship, instead of sitting aboard it? Yes, I
> _am_ a sneaky character, and you caught me out! Kudos to you!
>
> The pig and the dog are _the_ Austronesian animals. They alway

carry

> them on ships going places.
>
> Let me return the compliment by admiring how you deftly slipped in
> the assumption that that all cultures, after the initial

dispersion,

> were sedentary. I read somewhere that this is a British -ism, but

now

> I can't find the reference.
>
> Torsten

Hi Torsten,

Thanks for the compliment ;-) but I hesitate to accept unearned
praise. Where did I slip in an assumption that any group was
sedentary? All I said was that dogs could pass from group to group
without any contact between the humans in either group. That says
nothing about whether the humans were sedentary or not. All it says
is that dogs are not always sedentary.

As for the speakers of Eteo-Cypriot, Minoan, Sardic etc. which you
allude to, what evidence is there that they acquired dogs through
trade rather than bringing the canines with them when they first came
to their islands themselves? Note that I am not denying the
possibility of trade, I am just questioning the necessity of it in
explaining the spread of dogs.

Since the perceived common root for a canine term in many different
language groups is probably illusory anyhow, the following is moot,
but just for the sake of discussion- how does your hypothesis account
for the fact that in some cases the word applies to hyenas instead of
dogs? (A) it is a mere accident of chance when it occurs if it
happens to apply to hyenas, but is definitely of significance if it
happens to apply to dogs; or (B) the Austronesians were carrying on a
long distance trade in hyenas during the Neolithic.

Ned