[tied] Re: 'Dog' revisited

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

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

.....

> > Hi Torsten- Yes, that is one possibility, but there are several
> > others too.
> > (1) the roots may reflect a proto-world term for a wild canine,
> > predating the domestication of dogs (not that I am really
> advocating
> > this solution)
> > (2) the roots in PAA, PIE and PFU may reflect a common Nostratic
> > root, or early borrowing; examples from other languages may be
> > coincidence.
>
> Why not the other way around? Why the tendency to dismiss things
> outside the sphere of order that we constructed for ourselves as
> noise?

Hi Torsten- because the odds favor that approach. While there is
certainly more reality outside our sphere of order, there is a hugely
greater amount of noise. There are many, many more things which
_might be- true, but are not, than there are things which _are_ true.
If we didn't demand to see impeccable credentials before admitting an
outsider into our sphere it would soon be crammed full of plausible,
but unreal, beliefs.

>
> > (3) most of the proposed roots from other language groups may
> simply
> > be cherry-picking or forced reconstructions by theorists who are
> > trying to fit their proposals to the few well-established
> > reconstructions.
>
> What exactly _is_ cherry-picking, and why is it inadmissible? The

way

> I see it used is as a reproach that the other did not account for

non-

> cognates in similar language, or didn't account for other words in
> the same language. I'd like to hear a definition. Until then, I'll
> keep ignoring reproaches using that term.

The way I was using it was to mean picking out similar sounding terms
and not accounting for there overall frequency. It would be one thing
to say "We have located over 100 [or whatever number] terms for dog
which begin with K-v-R in various languages throughout the world,
surely that cannot be due only to chance" and another thing to say "A
search of databases containing terms from 2,079 languages reveals 104
terms for dogs, breeds of dogs, or related canids which begin with K-
v-R. Analysis of the databases reveals that those 2,079 languages
contributed on average 3.718 terms for dogs, dog breeds, and related
canids. Statistical analysis indicates that the probability of this
result being due to chance is ..."

As to forced

> reconstructions, most glosses used by mass-comparisoners are not
> reconstructions.

Then the argument is even weaker- instead of comparing the number of
supposed cognates with a small number of language families then it
has to be compared with over 5000 languages. This just makes it more
likely the "cognates" are pure chance. And what criteria do they use
to determine a semantic match? If, as I suggested above, they include
names for particular breeds then their examples are plucked from an
even bigger pool [Heck, if they even allow for the accural of an
occasional prefix over the millenia, then they can include coCKER
spaniel in their "cognates"]

> > Now,
> > > if crossing the river (a

nd 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.
> >
> >
> > I see now- a conjectural etymology
>
> As opposed to what kind of etymology?

As opposed to a generally accepted etymology

> >+ unproven sociological speculation + >

> As opposed to what kind of sociological speculation?

As opposed to well-established sociological data

> >the theoretical possibility of 100 mile canoe trips =
> > evidence that Austronesian sailors traded dogs from Taiwan to
> Europe
> > c. 10,000-12,500 BCE
>
> That would have been Sundaland then.

I stand corrected- from the portion of Sundaland which later bacame
Taiwan and its adjoining waters.

>
> >(and came back to drop off pigs c. 8,000 years
> > later) ;-)
> >
> > "Long" is a relative term. In relation to the distance from SE

Asia

> > to North Africa or Europe, the trip across the Strait of Formosa

is

> > not long-distance. (And has it even been established that there
> were
> > voyages between the mainland and Taiwan until the Neolithic?

Could

> > earlier occupations have resulted from crossings when sealevels
> > allowed travel by foot?)
>
> Look at your Atlas. Just about every sea in those parts is light
> blue, less than 100 m deep.

I actually did look at an atlas before I wrote that to verify the
depth. What has that to do with my question though? I asked if there
was evidence of voyages to Taiwan before the Neolithic? Your comment
merely reaffirms the premise of my question. Occupation of Taiwan
between the time of the rise of sealevels and the arrival of
neolithic settlers by sea could have resulted from earlier foot
travel.

> But even when the Strait of Taiwan was supposedly dry land, there
> would have been a large river in the middle.

I meant _sea_ voyages.

>
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > How does your hypothesis account for them? And how accepted are
> they
> > by other researchers?
>
> How accepted are Orël & Stolbova? Some disagree strongly with

their

> reconstructions. But I were to do the same, there would still be
> their data, and I've seen it, and there _are_ -n-'s, -r-'s, and -l-

's

> all over the place.

See above comments.

>
> >As for the "either-or" I don't disagree (I'm
> > sure that on occasion dogs were bartered, even if not
> > transcontinentally) but the question is what does your hypothesis
> > explain which cannot be explained by the Nostratic hypothesis?
> >
>

...

> For one thing, how an article that was invented outside the area of
> Nostratic came to have a name in Nostratic similar to the names

used

> outside it.

More accurately- how it came to have a name similar to _some_ of the
names used outside it. But if for the sake of discussion I were to
concede your point, then my question would be what would your
hypothesis explain which could not be explained by Proto-World? I'm
certainly no devotee of Proto-World, but if confronted with a choice
of just that or the "transcontinental canine trading paleolithic
proto-austronesian canoe paddler" hypothesis I am not sure which one
Brother Oakham would start shaving.

regards,
Ned