Re: [tied] Re: 'Dog' revisited

26-11-03 13:08, tgpedersen wrote:

> The question is, when did it start to spread out of its SE Asian
> home? Perhaps on rafts caught in postdiluvian floods? I'm sure Noah
> would have taken some on board.

If you'd read the original article (I've just posted a link), you'd have
learnt that dog domestication started to spread _very_ long ago. The
earliest find of a dog in Europe (Germany) dates back to 14,000 BP, and
after 9000 BP dogs begin to crop up more regularly in the archaeological
record. That's earlier that the Neolithic, and much earlier than the
deepest imaginable dates for Proto-Austronesian. Incidentally,
Savolainen et al. don't locate the domestication of dogs in "SE Asia" as
you insist but just "East Asia", including a vast part of continental
Asia. Apart from you with you idée fixe, no-one suggests that the spread
was mainly or exclusively by boat -- and indeed why should it be?

>>Talking of similarities, however, the alleged popularity of
>> "kwon" as a term for 'dog' in various language families is a myth.
>>It's
>> only when you start cheating, relaxing your criteria until "kwon"
>>and,
>> say, Semitic *kalb count as similar, that you create the impression
> of a
>> long trail of "kwons" starting in SE Asia.
>
> Orël & Stolbova thinks 'kalb' _may_ belong to one of their entries,
> cf.
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/kur.html
> Who's cheating now?

What does Orël and Stolbova's thinking that *kalb may be derivable from
their putative Proto-Afroasiatic roots (if that's what you mean) have to
do with your "kwon"? "Kal-" is not "kwon" either.

Piotr