--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.humis.utah.edu/humis/docs/organization_919_1166141662.pdf
> >
>
> Don't we have our backs to the wall?! It is worth reading this passege
> from Campbell over and over again.
>
> "The ancestor of English and Hindi did not begin to diversify into
> separate languages
> until some 5,000 or 6,000 years ago, but they share only some five
> clear cognates on the
> Swadesh 100-word list (Campbell and Poser in press).
Note the words: *clear* cognates.
> English and Hindi are "clearly related" because we the comparative
> lingusits say so. They did not start diversifying until 4000 BCE
> because we the comparative linguists say so. And yet the fact is they
> have only 5 cognates on the Swadish list ...
No. The others are just not so clear.
thou - tu: - clear (but a bit dishonest, as 'thou' isn't actually in
the English list.)
who - kaun - not clear
what - kya: - not clear
not - nahi~: - Or is this just coincidence?
two - do: - clear
horn - si~:g - not clear
feather - par - looks clear - or am I wrong?
tooth - dã:t - clear
foot - pair - clear
know - ja:nna: - not clear
sun - su:raj - not clear
star - (si)ta:ra: - clear
warm - garam - not clear?
full - pu:ra: - clear
new - naya: - clear
name - na:m - clear
I score 7 honest clear cognates.
There are another three I am not so confident about:
eye - ã:kh
(finger)nail - na:khu:n
nose - na:k - Parallel stems?
There's a crude matching technique that Alex Manaster Ramer used on
Bengali and English. The statistical analysis - using a Monte Carlo
techniques - showed that despite an apparently low number of cognates,
the match was way better than random. The only flaw in the analysis
would be that it would be misled by, say, a tendency to have /n/ in
words for 'nose' and /m/ in words for mouth.
Richard.