[tied] Re: 'Dog' revisited

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

> Ehrm, probably yes. I think my language center is asleep, I still
> have problems with understanding what you are saying. I seems

you're

> saying that if we assume the dog had no kwon tag, and instead we
> ascribe all the the *k-n-, *k-r-, *k-l- and *k-t- roots arose
> indepently by chance, then there's no problem anymore?

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.
(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.

> > > > However, whether any group deserves the description "the
> traders"
> > > at
> > > > that time has not been established.
> > > >
> > > Do you know when that title will be officially awarded?
> >
> > No I don't- and my point was that you should not take it upon
> > yourself to award the title without evidence to justify it.
> >
>
> I do that on the basis of the connection made by the Austronesian
> scholar Robert Blust who sees a connection between the words

for "the

> other bank of a river" and words for negotiating a dowry for a

bride

> (see in
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Opr.html
>
> ), from which he draws the conclusion that Austronesian societies
> originally were organised in moieties on either side of a river.

Paul

> Manansala assures me that it is still the case in the Philippines,
> that you try to marry across the river (and also that the two sides
> of the river are associated with life and death, respectively).

Now,

> if crossing the river (and 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 + unproven sociological
speculation + the theoretical possibility of 100 mile canoe trips =
evidence that Austronesian sailors traded dogs from Taiwan to Europe
c. 10,000-12,500 BCE (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?)

> > > > > Since the perceived common root for a canine term in many
> > > > different
> > > > > > language groups is probably illusory anyhow,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think so. Here are Orël & Stolbova's "dog"-words for
> > > > Hamito-
> > > > > Semitic:
> > > > >
> > > > > HSED 917: *ger- "dog, cub"
> > > > > HSED 1425: *kan- "dog"
> > > > > HSED 1434: *ka[ya]r- "dog"
> > > > > HSED 1498: *kun- "dog"
> > > > > HSED 1511: *küHen- "dog"
> > > > > HSED 1521: *kV(w|y)Vl- "dog, wolf"
> > > > >
> > > > > This looks like a several times borrowed word.
> > > >
> > > > If so, it would only show a borrowing (or common ancestry)
> > between
> > > > PAA and PIE, not a chain stretching across Eurasia.
> > > >
> > > PFU *küjna (by memory). I'll go check.
> >
> > If the PAA, PIE and PFU words do all have a common origin

wouldn't

> > the Nostratic hypothesis be a simpler explanation than a

hypothesis

> > of long distance ocean travel from SE Asia to the PFU homeland?
> >
>
> 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? 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?

Regards,
Ned