[tied] Re: 'Dog' revisited

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

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

wrote:

> > > >
> > > > True. That slipped by me. As far as I can see your theory
> works,
> > > > given one small extra assumption: that the dogs who strayed

to

> > the
> > > > neighbors had the name 'kwon' engraved on its collar, so that
> the
> > > > neighbors didn't start calling it something irrelevant.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Torsten- and if you make the further assumption that Piotr

and

> > all
> > > his linguistic colleagues, who say that the supposed

commonality

> re
> > > the term for dogs is illusory, are correct, then it works
> fine. :-)
> > >
> >
> > If I knew what "the supposed commonality re the term for dogs"

was

> > and what it meant for that entity to be illusory, I might even
> agree.
>
> Sorry for the convoluted wording Torsten. The language center of my
> brain was probably asleep when I wrote that. What I meant to say

was

> that if one does not accept the hypothesis that there exist related
> terms for canines in many different language families, then it
> appears you would not see a problem with my hypotheis re the spread
> of dogs. (i.e. there would be no need for that tag engraved
> with "kwon")

Ehrm, probably yes. I think my language center is asleep, I still
have problems with understanding what you are saying. I seems you're
saying that if we assume the dog had no kwon tag, and instead we
ascribe all the the *k-n-, *k-r-, *k-l- and *k-t- roots arose
indepently by chance, then there's no problem anymore?

>
>
> > > However, whether any group deserves the description "the

traders"

> > at
> > > that time has not been established.
> > >
> > Do you know when that title will be officially awarded?
>
> No I don't- and my point was that you should not take it upon
> yourself to award the title without evidence to justify it.
>

I do that on the basis of the connection made by the Austronesian
scholar Robert Blust who sees a connection between the words for "the
other bank of a river" and words for negotiating a dowry for a bride
(see in

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Opr.html

), from which he draws the conclusion that Austronesian societies
originally were organised in moieties on either side of a river. Paul
Manansala assures me that it is still the case in the Philippines,
that you try to marry across the river (and also that the two sides
of the river are associated with life and death, respectively). Now,
if crossing the river (and I assume that was done in boats, pace Glen
Gordon) is a significant social act for the Austronesian speakers,
then as the land sank and rivers got wider, they would have had to
learn the hard way how to do long-distance sailing.

> > > > Since the perceived common root for a canine term in many
> > > different
> > > > > language groups is probably illusory anyhow,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so. Here are Orël & Stolbova's "dog"-words for
> > > Hamito-
> > > > Semitic:
> > > >
> > > > HSED 917: *ger- "dog, cub"
> > > > HSED 1425: *kan- "dog"
> > > > HSED 1434: *ka[ya]r- "dog"
> > > > HSED 1498: *kun- "dog"
> > > > HSED 1511: *küHen- "dog"
> > > > HSED 1521: *kV(w|y)Vl- "dog, wolf"
> > > >
> > > > This looks like a several times borrowed word.
> > >
> > > If so, it would only show a borrowing (or common ancestry)
> between
> > > PAA and PIE, not a chain stretching across Eurasia.
> > >
> > PFU *küjna (by memory). I'll go check.
>
> If the PAA, PIE and PFU words do all have a common origin wouldn't
> the Nostratic hypothesis be a simpler explanation than a hypothesis
> of long distance ocean travel from SE Asia to the PFU homeland?
>

As to a Nostratic hypothesis, how would you then reconcile all the
different forms in Afro-Asiatic? Besides, I don't think it's an
either-or.

Torsten