>uvazhaemyj tovarishch,
Accessing... undergoing linguistic analysis... DeneAsiatic...
DeneCaucasian... Nostratic... Eurasiatic... Steppe... IndoEtruscan...
IndoEuropean... BaltoSlavic... Russian. Linguistic analysis complete.
Undergoing grammatical analysis... Accessing... VERB NOUN construct. Noun is
undeclined... vocative case.
Haha, bai. Esan zara guztia irakurtzen naiz. Mintzatugu nire lagun...
>Archaic chinese script was clearly not a syllabary, but it was still
>95% phonetic. Characters written with the same phonetic (xie3sheng1)>had
>the same initials (unregarding voicing, aspiration, -r- infix, -s
>suffix) and the same final. MC sam has word-families relationship >with
>words that belong to a lateral series.
Like what exactly, I dare ask?
Glen (ME) wrote:
>So you have no cognates for this STAN. Just some possible tiny
>grammatical
Guillaume wrote:
>We do have cognates. I admit a few affixes would be far from enough.
>Just check the references I gave. Cognates between AN and TB have not
>yet been well established, but there are. I just cite the cognates in
>modern languages, because no real reconstructions are yet available.
No, of course not. No real reconstructions like SinoTibetan or anything that
pop up in every book I can find in Canada... (rolling the eyes)... I can
tell you have a long, long way to go yet before this theory ever becomes
seriously entertained. You know your Chinese, it would seem, and there's no
doubt that Austronesian, MonKhmer and other languages in the area had an
effect on Chinese.
Regardless, you're denying alot for nothing. You deny SinoTibetan, which is
certainly established in North America and correct even if it's not perfect,
all for what? What is the advantage? It seems we just end up with less and
even shakier information than before.
Let me ask you then how you go about explaining the pronominal system? Let
me guess, "it's all too difficult to determine", "it's a hodgepodge of a
whole bunch of random Austronesian cognates", "it's too complex to talk
about"... Please, be gone with you lest I get my fly swatter.
The forms that I recognize are the forms I see from many sources together
with much direct and self-evident justification: *nga "I" and *nei "you". No
doubt others on this list have seen the same reconstruction. I'd rather not
subject myself to what I view as bad linguistics and read these alien
conspiracies. What's more, so far no one wiser than I has said otherwise on
the subject on this list to make me feel to the contrary.
>Examples :
Oh god, no...
>TB,WT'phur AN,paiwan mi-perper (to fly), Chinese MC phjien < b/phen <
>b/pher (to fly quickly)
Gee, why *r > *n? Is this supposed to be regular? Is (MC -ie-)=(AN u) a
regular thing?
>TB,lushai lu "head", AN,paiwan qulu "head", Chinese syuwX < b/lhu?
>(shoudu de shou)
Ah, yes the infamous voiceless lateral which when used properly can yield
amazing cognates such as found in NEC but, when used with a bad or naive
heart, can make any connection look good (such as what Bomhard does in his
version of Nostratic). Why does Paiwan have a /qu-/ might I ask naively? My,
how easy it is to link anything with a voiceless lateral like
/k/,/s/,/s^/,/z/,/z^/,/t/....
And why isn't this TibetoBurman Lushai language with /lu/ for head not, say,
relatable to Mandarin & Cantonese /lao/ and /lou/ "brain"? Is the connection
too direct for you STANkees?
And do you have any regular correspondances to follow that voiceless lateral
up?
>Making a reconstruction of PTB without even knowing the
>intermediate branches is risky, isn't it - like reconstructing IE >with
>english, persian and albanian.
Their relationship can still be seen even so. Certainly more so than
AfroAsiatic which is what you are comparing them to, in analogy.
>So finding real cognates with chinese and AN is not easy - finding >similar
>words is.
It's not easy because they are too remotely related.
>In France, Germany and the Netherlands, if you speak about
>'dene-caucausian', no professor will want directing your PhD. I don't
>how linguistics is like in american universities, but please speak of
>DC as a hypothesis. You cite numerals as a evidence for DC, but don't
>forget that there was a time when people couldn't count !
Are you joking?? If I was a professor, I wouldn't touch your PhD either
based on the last statement which demonstrates out of line reasoning. Of
COURSE ancient man knew how to count! Very probably NOT to a billion but
certainly to a small group of numerals. Regardless, the word is present in
all these languages and similarities are present. You may ignore them as you
do the logical rasor.
>Therefore, they had dual and trial number. Proto-turkic people had >only
>numerals up to six.
Dual, Trial? Only numerals up to six?? What on earth are you babbling about.
This is an assertion of a negative that is unprovable. The items in question
may not be satisfactorily reconstructed in your view and that's where your
assertion must end. You're only serving to disprove yourself with statements
like that and if this is what European universities consider "PhD material"
than I must take some time out to pray. Of course, the Netherlands is bong
paradise and I've never known a hippy to come up with good research anyway.
:P
>But they were surely technologically more advanced than were people >by
>6000 BC. I think there might be indeed common substratum >languages. But
>the evidence is so scare that calling them anything >is rather bold.
It's as bold if not bolder to believe in STAN and dismiss SinoTibetan for a
few VERY scanty, monosyllabic (or in some cases non-syllabic) connections
here and there with AN. At least what I offer (*mnrit "eight") has meat on
its bones for such an archaic word. There is also *(gu-)sul-mu "three",
*(gu-)li-mu "four", *pingu "five", *rutL "six", *sulrit "seven", and *kum
"ten".
>Besides, many pan-asiatic or pan-eurasiatic Wanderw�rter need not
>postulate a genetic relationship :
No, this is why I use grammatical analysis to put weight on my theories.
SinoTibetan *nga "I" and *nei "you" are from DeneCaucasian *ni "I" and *ngu
"you" respectively. You see, DeneCaucasian *i in closed syllable or enclitic
regularly drops to SinoTibetan *a as in *mnrit "eight" -> SinoTibetan
*bryat, similar to, although independantly in, Basque bederatzi "nine" (from
*minrac, whose reasons for the semantic shift have already been explained).
Plus, medial *m regularly becomes Vasconic *w and then often disappears
altogether in Basque as in *sulmu -> *hirwu -> hiru or *limu -> *lawu ->
lau. In Nostratic, *gusulmu & *limu show up as *gulmu (regular *s > NULL)
and *lilmu (irregular reduplication of *-l-). The form *gu-sulmu becomes
*gsum in SinoTibetan through regular loss of final vowel and *li (without
final *-mu) yields *bli with irregular influence with *bnga "five".
Maybe this cornucopia of related pronouns and numbers could be deceptive,
casual SinoTibetan loanwords if it weren't for the causitive *s-, the *m-
word class... Ah yes and
DeneCaucasian *m-hutL "eye":
SinoTibetan (OChin my�k, Tibetan myik)
Burushaski -yec "to see"
Vasconic *mik: (Basque begi)
Nostratic *hWugW
IndoEuropean *hWekWts
Altaic uka- "to notice"
Sumerian igi "eye"
NWC *bla
NEC *b-xWiL (<- my reconstruction;
Starostin's North Caucasian *?wil?i)
Ingush bwarjg
Avar ber
Andi hark?u
Lak ja
Bezhita h�re, Gunzib hare
Khinalug pil
>'horse' : breton "marc'h", german "M�hre", mongolian "morin" (that >got
>loaned into russian), chinese "maeX < a/mra?", tibetan "mrang", >etc...
>'dog' : IE kuunos, chinese "khwenX < a/khw[i,e]n?"
>'leaf' : Chinese "yep < b/lep", Vietnamese la/ (<AA la?), WT lo-ma
>These "lookalikes" are surely words that got loaned from unknowned
>sources. Substratum ? Adstratum ? Bien malin qui pourrait le dire.
'Tet chuis bien "malin" mais... Chinese "khwenX" which is definitely
borrowed from an IndoEuropean language but can't be IE proper (IndoEuropean
*kwen-). The word can be traced right back from IE to Nostratic *ka-huni
(Bomhard 652. k[h]uwan-/k[h]uw@... "dog") and is a perfect example to
demonstrate the evolution of ProtoSteppe's penultimate stress accent to that
of IE's. Of course, there is always the possibility that ProtoSteppe (the
precursor to Altaic, Uralic-Yukaghir, IndoEtruscan...) was in contact with
early SinoTibetan and thus the supplier of some of the above words?
>On the contrary, they want to prove that chinese is related to TB, >thai
>and miao-yao in order to justify their colonialist policies.
Nonetheless, all the more disturbing when you yourself admit it and fail to
raise an eyebrow. Free thought can be found elsewhere other than China et
al.
> > SINGULAR PLURAL
> > 1 ni, ti tLu
> > 2 ngu Lu
> > 3 i, di, mu, wa, ci...
>
>You seems to have a clearer picture of Dene-Caucasian than I have of
>TB. I think comparative linguistics requires to work slowly, the >worst
>thing to do is to rush and put words together. You american >people want to
>do things to quickly. Be patient, anyway nobody cares >about linguistics.
First, I'm not American. I'm Canadian. Perhaps you non-NorthAmerican folk
have a tendency towards offensive stereotyping? :P And besides, I for one,
do care about linguistics and I didn't come up with this in "haste" nor are
the connections I make all too unevident. I prefer to have at least some
theory to explain the similarities I see rather than absolutely no theory at
all.
Babies learn from birth to generalize the information they receive and form
regular patterns in it (for instance, saying "worser" or "badder" instead of
"worse", etc) and it is how they learn so quickly. Of course, they
eventually learn the occasional deviations from the general rules, but
imagine how confused a baby would be if he didn't generalize the world
around him into simple rules at all! But this is the present confused state
of linguistics, where theories like STAN and North Caucasian can go unabated
just because there is a reference and degree behind them without any
emphasis placed on reasoning nor on attaining a broader, general picture
needed to get any good grasp whatsoever on reconstructive linguistics.
>The reason I like STAN is that it fits well with archeological >evidence
There's your problem: "archaeological". Maybe you should be saying
"linguistical". Alright, I can't take anymore. So far I've listed the
following misanalyses on your part:
1. You're denying the well established and justified SinoTibetan
theory in support of no relationship at all or maybe with much
pleading and indecision a direct relationship to AN without
any explanation as to the origins of the _majority_ of the
etyma and grammatical elements found in Chinese that would
otherwise be ascribed to SinoTibetan in the first place,
2. You follow theories created by linguists trapped in
freespeechless countries and those whose theories one should
be most vigile about when adopting them,
3. You show vague and scarce attestations of this STAN that are
quite frankly, much more sketchy than Starostin's North
Caucasian using, among other things, only ONE example of
the infamous voiceless lateral which we all know can be used
for deceptive purposes to connect almost any phoneme unless
there is solid regular correspondance and firm attestation in
the respective language families,
3. You make overtly dillusional and hasty assertions about the
lack of existence of something (as in ProtoTurkic's "seven")
that simply cannot as of yet be reconstructed to your liking but
certainly doesn't and cannot disprove its existence in order to
found your flippant claim that previous cultures couldn't count
this high,
4. and finally, you use archaeology as a crutch for an already
sickly AN connection that starves for proper linguistic
analysis.
Is there anything more you care to convey in opposition to yourself?
>whereas wheat was imported from occident by IE / "altaic" peoples.
Ah, maybe there's more... Erh, beg pardon, tongzhi, but we _are_ talking
_after_ 3500 BCE right? IndoEuropean speakers themselves had no direct
contact with SinoTibetan, I hope you will agree.
By the way, that we have an Austronesian word for "rice" doesn't really say
anything other than an interesting borrowing between Austronesian and
SinoTibetan or Chinese itself. I would like to see alot of grammatical
connections before I'm convinced that we should talk of Chinese as more
Austronesian than SinoTibetan. I'm not seeing this yet.
>What archeological evidence are there for Dene-caucasian ?
My research is linguistical _first and foremost_ and that's the way it will
stay, with archaeological research being only a non-requisite support to my
theory. Your research is in the wrong places, digging up bones that can't
speak. Have fun with the corpses.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________