Re: Sard

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:21 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Sard

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Nice article by the doctor but there is nothing in it which suggests
> that men have not been eating cereal grains since they came down
> from the trees.

Other than the fact that eating grain to excess (a cupful a day?)
would have made them go mad and die.

***

Read the article again. Wheat gluten makes a few people sick; these same people could have eaten millet, sorghum, rye, rice (a grass, too) without a problem.

***
> Our evolutionary success is tied to the fact that men will eat
> anything that does not eat them first.

No they won't. The Chinese eat plenty of stuff we don't and never did.

***

Gosh, I thought the Chinese qualified as 'men'. How foolish of me!

***

> Man, the hunter, the keen observer of animal behavior, would have
> certainly noticed rut, and the regularly timed appearance of animal
> births after it.

It didn't matter to them.

***

You want to get a crowd of little children together? Stage a male and female dog going at it.

Of course it mattered. Sex has always had a great fascination for our lubricious ancestors.

***

> I, personally, have no doubt that seeds and roots were collected to
be eaten long before the idea of agriculture developed.

I don't think your lack of doubt counts as an argument.

***

If you think this is my judgment alone, I suggest you check the literature a little more closely.

 

***
> In fact, _why_ would agriculture have developed at all if men were
> not collecting and eating what they later cultivated?

Women did. They were not important to hunters.

***

There are matriarchal tribes of hunters. Women are important to all men including homosexuals, to whom they are damnable competition.

 

***

> Accordingly, there is no real reason to suppose that the PIE's, at
> any stage of their wanderings, ever had a need to borrow terminology
> for ejaculation.

I never claimed they did. I think the term meant "disperse, fertilize,
conceive"

***

Perhaps you are still mentally where you claim your hunters were???

Conception (pace parthogenesis) requires among most of the animal kingdom fertilization through ejaculation.

***

> Whether a given group recognized the connection
> between internal ejaculation (coition) and pregnancy or not (I can
> hardly believe any did not though they did believe pregnancy could
> be caused, in addition, by other agencies, such as the wind), male
> ejaculate externally as well.

Not 'in addition'. The connection between coition and reproduction is
important to agricultural society, not before.

***

Creating heirs and fellow-warriors is as important to hunters as to gatherers and agriculturists. Where are you getting this?

***

> You think they needed to borrow a word from another language of a
> people practicing agriculture?

For "disperse, fertilize, conceive"? Yes. The idea that life was
generated, not spontaneous, was new, at least as a central concept of
their world image.

***

Prove that point rather than just assert it, if you can.

 

***
> I think that is plainly silly.

Erh, OK.

> You are making an unwarranted leap from the particular (gluten rich
> wheat) to the general (all cereal grains).

All the four common grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye) contain gluten,
but wheat the most.

***

But the article clearly makes the point that only monoculturally gluten-enriched wheat causes serious health roblems for a defective few.

***
> Had the English sent the Irish rye, would they have died in droves?

Most likely in smaller droves. I am sorry if I have hurt Irish
sensibilities (I think).

***

The Irish are much more hard-skinned than that, I can personally assure you.

 

Patrick

***
> You seem to want to connect gluten intolerance to the 'noble hunter'

Please don't attribute medical communis opinio to me.

***

N.B. That is what I am understanding you to be doing.

 

***

> but the truth is, anyone with gluten intolerance is defective since
> a widely available source of nutrition is prohibited to them.

Are you implying that more Irishmen than other people of other nations
are defective? A potential source of nutrition is prohibited to those
who can't tolerate hemlock (pretty much all of us).

I realize that this insight partially robs the Irish of their
martyrhood at the hands of the English, but it might be what really
happened.

Torsten