From: tgpedersen
Message: 27958
Date: 2003-12-04
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>wrote:
> .....that
> > That is not the way I use "mass comparison". I tend to scavenge
> > already published attempts at proving new super-groups using mass
> > comparison for words I then claim to be loans.
>
> >
> > The reason I do that is this: Whenever you try to do mass
> comparison
> > you find that most words are thoroughly incompatible with the
> > exception of a few which are suspiciously lucidly similar.
>
> Hi Torsten,
>
> But how do we get from suspicion to proof? Since you acknowledge
> this similarity occurs in only a few cases how do you eliminate theYes, how do we get from suspicion to proof? I think you hit the nail
> possibility of chance resemblances?
> I'mBut the "dog" word is just one of many I've proposed.
> > reminded of the experience I get listening to a Greenlandic
> newscast
> > on the radio, sounding in my ears like this "groqpoq
> kommunaldirektør > > voqgioq syvogtredive millionit kronit toq"; in
>other words I suspect
> > they are loans.
>
> Not exactly a fair comparion I think. This example is a very recent
> multisyllabic borrowing- the words you allege represent borrowings
>of
> the Austronesian word for dog are much shorter, and have long
> histories in separate languages and their origins are obscured by
>the
> passage of time. Thus the odds of their perceived resemblance being
> due to chance are much greater.
>Why else is Ruhlen's list so short? Obviously, if
> youI'm not saying you are defending Ruhlen's methods.
> > try other words, you fail to come up with correspondences.
>
> I'm not trying to defend Ruhlen's use of mass comparison to find
> cognates- I'm questioning your use of it to claim that there is a
> common term for dog in many language families which isn't due to
> chance.
>
> .....the
> ....
> > > is the inclusion of proto-Bantu another instance of (forgive
> > > word) cherry-picking?Bantu.
> >
> > Actually I've used several other correspondences with Proto-
> > The reason I included it was this: If there is an AustronesianEuropeans
> > influence on IE it must have gone either overland in the Middle
> East
> > or around Africa. Logistically it would be the reverse of the
> > European finding a trade route to the East. In order to create a
> > trade route overland you need control over a route to the extent
> that
> > you are not disturbed by tax-happy local sovereigns. The
> > tried for centuries to break through the Muslim states to createa
> > safe passage to the Indian Ocean but it wasn't logisticallythen
> possible.
> > Only with da Gama's journey did they find a way. And this
> alternative
> > route financially weakened the Middle East to a degree that it
> > became possible to create an overland route.Niger
> > In order to have a circum-Africa route you need way-stations. ...
> The obvious choice in West
> > Africa is the Niger delta:
>
> Given the mortality rate of outsiders who tried trading in the
> Delta from the 16th to 19th centuries I would have rated it asamong
> the least obvious choices.In that case outsiders = Europeans. People who weren't used to the
>
> they grow the third agricultural specieson
> > of rice (the two others are Chinese and Indian), the Bantu
> expansion
> > started there, they have iron (Proto-Bantu *-beda (Meeusen), PIE
> > *bherso-m > Latin ferrum, Semitic b-r-z, Proto-
> HesperonesianFormosan
> > *bari[], Proto-Hesperonesian *besi), and in general, for whatever
> it
> > seems many of the words on Manansala's and my list seem to have
> > cognates in Proto-Bantu (at least one rule: l/r > d).
>
> Your reasons sound convincing to someone who already accepts your
> proposal I suppose, but except for the last they do not appear at
>all
> convincing to me. If there really is a sound rule as you claim it
> would be potentially significant, but given your stated position
> cherry-picking I will maintain my doubts about its reality for theI'm sure you've said something convincing here and in time I might
> time being.
>Since this an IE list, and not Bantu or Austronesian weYou are right. Theories proposing that the "dog" word is originally
> had better leave it at that.
>
> .....accepted ;-
> > > > > > As opposed to what kind of etymology?
> > > > >
> > > > > As opposed to a generally accepted etymology
> > > >
> > > > Which all began as conjectural etymologies.
> > >
> > > Which is besides the point- the point being that many, if not
> most
> > > conjectural etymologies do not become generally accepted ones.
> > >
> > Aha, and you don't accept them, so they are not genrally
> )Ah, if only my self-confidence were as great as you imagine it to
>
>
> Ah, if only my self-confidence were that great.
> > > > > ....... I asked ifWhy
> > > > there
> > > > > was evidence of voyages to Taiwan before the Neolithic?
> > > >
> > > > At the time of low water, Taiwan was highland, relatively.
> > > shouldit,
> > > > the inhabitants of the river plain go there? The way I see
> > theit?),
> > > > Austronesian speakers of Taiwan are refugees from the floods.
> > >
> >
> > > Is this a way of conceding that you do not have evidence of
> > > paleolithic canoe voyages to Taiwan?
> > Yes. On the other hand we don't have evidence of canoe voyages to
> the
> > Mt Blanc either.
>
> I don't recall you citing canoe trips to Mt Blanc as supporting
> evidence for one of your hypothesis (did you, and I just missed
> thus I did not ask you to defend that particular claim.Erh, OK, whatever you say.
>
> > I am sorry if I might have upset some British sensibilitiesFortunately, there is a calculator on this computer, so that I was
>
> Yes, it would be unfortunate if we have upset anybody's
> sensibilities, but if you imagine I have a particular connection to
> British sensibilities I'm afraid you are 227 years behind the times
> :-)
>