--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> P.S. I would say again, what I'm thinking for a long time:
> That the Darwiniam Evolutionism based only 'on Random
> Mutations' is a stupidity...

If you think THAT is a stupidity, check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism ,

and, for greater stupidity still, check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism .

David

It turns out that this mysterious /a/ for /e/ in the Northern Substrate (hm, vel
sim.) that Douglas and I discussed and which Udolph mentioned for Slavic river
names, actually has that above name.

Henning Andersen
Slavic and the Indo-European Migrations, in
Language Contacts in Prehistory,
ed. Henning Andersen,
pp 62-64

'2.4    Word-initial laryngeals
The regular reflexes of initial laryngeal + *e in Slavic and Baltic are PS, PB
e- for PIE *h1e- and PS, PB a- for *h2e- and *h3e-. However, in a number of
lexemes Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic have irregular reflexes of such initial
sequences. There are two cases to consider.

2.4.1 Rozwadowski's Change. In a number of lexemes, Proto-Slavic and/or
Proto-Baltic have initial e- or doublets with initial e- || a- for PIE *h2e- and
*h3e-, a peculiarity first described by Rozwadowski (1915). See Table 6.

It must be mentioned that both language groups have had a change in recent
prehistory (perhaps around the beginning of our era) of initial e- to a- with
characteristic geographical distributions of the reflexes, disturbed, however,
by the Slavic territorial expansion as well as by the westward displacement of
the Lithuanians (cf. Section 2.2). The reflexes of this recent change are: in
Slavic, mainly o- in Russian, otherwise commonly o- in central dialects, je- in
peripheral Slavic dialects; in Baltic, mainly a- in Old Prussian, in eastern
Lithuanian dialects a-, elsewhere in Lithuanian and in Latvian, e-). Although
the recent changes obscure the reflexes of the proto-language initials somewhat,
the distinction between PS and PB e- and a- is clear enough, and it is clear as
well that the recent changes affected PS, PB e- from *h1e- and from *h2e- and
*h3e- on equal terms (Andersen 1996:88-112).

Remarkably, most of the examples of Rozwadowski's Change show morphological
differences between the Slavic and Baltic languages. Consider the difference
between PS al-k-u-ti- and PB el-k-u:-n-e:- "elbow", both apparently sharing one
layer of derivation and then diverging. Or consider the difference between PS
el-i-x-a:- || al-i-x-a:- and PB el-s-ni- || al-s-ni- "alder", where the
morphological difference provided different environments for the Ruki Change.

Or note the different ablaut grades in PS el-au-a- || al-au-a- and PB el-u-a- ||
al-u-a- "tin", or the sat&m and centum (pre-sat&m) reflexes of PIE *k^ in PS
es-e-ti-"rack" and PB ek-e-ti-a:- "harrow". All these differences must have
developed subsequent to Rozwadowski's Change. If one assumes the contrary, it is
impossible to understand why a change in a word-initial vowel would have
affected predominantly (actually seven out of eleven) synonymous lexemes with
morphologically distinct by-forms in different (ante-)Slavic-Baltic dialects
while leaving dozens of other lexemes with initial PS, PB a- untouched. The
morphological differences clearly go back to before the Sat&m Change (cf.
"harrow") and the Ruki Change (cf. "alder") and remind one of the morphological
differences among the centum (pre-sat&m) accessions mentioned in Section 2.1.2.
One can conclude, then, that Rozwadowski's Change is older than the dialectal
differentiation reflected in these morphological differences.

Even more remarkable, considering the early date of the change, is this: if the
Rozwadowski lexemes are plotted on a virtual map - assuming the same
geographical disposition of (pre-)Latvian, (pre-)Lithuanian and Common Slavic as
at the beginning of our era - one can discern (or construe) spatial relations
among the e- || a- reflexes which, if they are not a mirage, amount to a pale
reflection of the change's extension in a central region of a presumable
ante-Slavic-Baltic dialect continuum. In Slavic, the e- doublets in PS elaua-
and erila-, which are limited to one language each, may have been northern
before the migrations, that is, contiguous to Baltic (or quasi-Baltic) dialects
with e-. Otherwise a- variants occur mostly in western Slavic dialects; in
Baltic, there are more a- doublets in Latvian than in Lithuanian, and more in
Old Prussian than in the East Baltic languages (Andersen 1996:99-101).

This virtual geographical difference is similar to the differences in the
distribution of lexical doublets with velar and sibilant reflexes of PIE *k^,
*g^(h) (Section 2.1.2), where a central area represented by Lithuanian shows a
greater concentration of discrepant dorsals than the peripheral areas to the
north (Latvian) and south (Common Slavic).

There is no way of accounting for Rozwadowski's Change as a purely phonological
change in pre-Slavic and pre-Baltic (Andersen 1996:103). But of course the
discrepant PS, PB e- forms may reflect a regular change in some
ante-Slavic-Baltic dialect. If they are to be understood as intrusions, as their
geographical distribution suggests, there are several possible interpretations.
The most likely seems to be that (i) the e- forms reflect substratum dialects
with a markedly different realization of open vowels than the prevailing
dialects. If the substratum had, say, e [è] vs. a [a], but the prevailing
dialect e [æ] vs. a [o], individual substratum forms with a [a] might have been
interpreted by speakers of the prevailing dialect as having e [æ]. Or (ii)
perhaps they reflect a substratum that after the loss of laryngeals had merged
its low vowels in [æ]. In such a situation, substratum variants without the
(initial) vowel distinctions might easily intrude into the tradition of the
prevailing dialect. (See further Andersen 1996:111-112.) Be this as it may, the
fact of the change and the pale reflection of its apparent geographical
distribution are data that point to a distant ante-Slavic-Baltic substratum.

...

PS al-k-u-ti- "elbow", LCS olkUtI, R lokot'.
PB el-k-u:-n-e:- ||  al-k-u:-n-e:- "elbow", OPr. alkunis, La. è,lkuons, Li.
alkú:ne., d. elkú:ne.. PIE *hxh3-el-.
Cf. Skt. aratní-, Av. ar&thna-, Gr. o:léne:, o:llon, Lat. ulna (*olena:), OIr.
uílen, Go. aleina, OHG elina.

PS el-au-a- || al-au-a- "lead (Pb)", Bg. o. elav(o), elsewhere *o-: R olovo.
PB e:l-u-a- || a:l-u-a, OPr. elwas 'tin', alwis "lead", La. al^vs "tin", Li.
álvas "idem".

PS elix-a:- || al-i-x-a:- "alder", R ol'xa, SC jels^a, d. jelha.
PB el-s-ni- ||  al-s-ni- ||  al-is-ni- "alder", OPr. alisknas («Abskande»), La.
àlksna, Li. e~lksnis, alìksnis.
Ante-IE *al(V)s-.
Cf. Mac. álidza (Hesych.), Lat. ulnus (*alisnos), OHG elira, Gm. Erle, ON o,lr,
jo,lstr "willow", Fr. alise "rowanberry" (< Gaul. *alisia).

PS epsa:- || apsa:- "aspen Populus tremula", R osa, osina. PB ep(u)s^e:- ||
apse-, OPr abse, La. apse, Li. ãpus^e, e~pus^e (contaminated with pus^ìs
"pine"). Ante-IE (?) *asp-.
Cf. OHG aspa.

PS erila- || arila- "eagle"
LS jerjol/, elsewhere *o-: R orël. PB erelia-, OPr. arelie, La. èrglis, Li.
ere~lis. PIE *h3er-. Cf. Go. ara, Eng. erne, Gk. órnis "bird", Hitt. haras^,
haranas^ "eagle".

PS esera:- "prickly stuff, P d. jesiora "fish bone".
PB es^eria- || as^eria- "perch Perca fluvialis", La. asers, Li. es^ery~s. PIE
*h2ek^-er-o-.
Cf. OHG ahira, Gm. Ähre, Eng. ear (of grain), PIE *h2ek^-er-a:-. Slavic and
Baltic have a- in the underlying adjective and all other derivatives: OCS ostrU
"pointed", Li. astrùs "idem". PS eseti-, P d. jesiec´ "grain sieve", R oset'
"grain rack". PB eketia:- "harrow", OPr. aketes, La. ece:s^as, Li. ake.´c^ios,
d. eke.´c^ios.
PIE *h2ek^-.
Cf. OHG egida, Lat. occa (< *oteka: < *oketa:), Gk. oksina (Hesych.).

Table 6: PS, PB e- for PIE *h2e-, *h3e-'

It is interesting that the PB and PS "lead(Pb), etc" word seems to have the same
relationship to the South and West word for the same metals
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36844
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36854
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36874
as the Northern "apple" words have to Latin ma:lum etc.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64469

Should a common "lead(PB), etc" be reconstructed *aNlau- instead?


Torsten

------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiment:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I.  Geschwind's team engineered lines of brain cells in which they could turn
FOXP2 on and off, and measure what happened to other genes as they did so.

II.  Then they did the same thing with brain cells into which the human version
of FOXP2 had been replaced with its chimpanzee counterpart.

III.  Armed with a list of genes linked to FOXP2 in both species or just one,
the researchers then measured the activity levels of those genes in brain tissue
samples from humans and chimps.

IV.  This revealed 116 genes connected only to the human version of FOXP2 ,
which indeed appears to have accumulated many new functions in humans.
(61->switch-on ; 55->switch-off ) see:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2009/11/foxp2activation.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------


"We were able to identify a network of genes connected to FOXP2," said
Geschwind.

"Maybe this will give us an entry into to the broader view of what's going on.
We won't just study one gene, but the whole biological network related to
language.
FOXP2 is the window, but the network is going to be the story."


"We found that the targets of the gene are not only involved in brain function.
Some of them are involved in the development of non-nervous system tissue and
cranial structures involved in speech production.
That's remarkable," said Gerschwind.


"Now that we have these targets, we can ask what each of them does," said
Geschwind, who envisions running the same type of experiment with the new genes,
and using brain imaging techniques to connect their activity with neurological
function.

"Because this identified pathways and networks, there are a bunch of directions
to go in," said Geschwind.

url: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/language-genes/

Marius


P.S. I would say again, what I'm thinking for a long time: That the Darwiniam
Evolutionism based only 'on Random Mutations' is a stupidity...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 1:04:22 PM on Thursday, November 12, 2009, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> - a claim that needs some actual evidence for it.
>
> > No. 'Evidence for' doesn't exist.
>
> You're confusing _evidence_for_ with _proof_of_.  It's the
> latter that doesn't exist, not the former.  Or you're
> misunderstanding 'evidence for' as 'evidence *exclusively*
> for'.

One of Popper's demands on theories is that they should be as extensive as
possible, ie. 'predict' as many facts as possible (vel sim.). That means I can
do without 'evidence for', so I avoid the implication of necessity implied in
that.

>
> [...]
>
> >>>>>>> Forget predictive power in a historical science. Any
> >>>>>>> prediction a theory makes we already know, unless we
> >>>>>>> discover new material like Hittite, and that's very
> >>>>>>> rare.
>
> >>>>>> Maybe with Indo-European. There are still plenty of
> >>>>>> understudied languages in the world which may or may
> >>>>>> not provide us with data that fits our reconstruction
> >>>>>> of, say, Proto-Uralic.
>
> >>>>> True, but it's pseudo-prediction in principle.
>
> No more than a physical prediction that can't (yet) be
> tested.

If it can't, it's worthless.

> >>>> We can predict the *discovery* of new lexeme sets that
> >>>> fit our soundlaws, if you want to nitpick about
> >>>> chronology.
>
> >>> OK, sage, predict the appearance of the next Hittite.
>
> >> Nice strawman.
>
> > That was no strawman. I meant you.
>
> If you really don't see that it's a straw man, John's
> wasting his time.

If you can't see ... no strawman ... waste time ... zzzz...

> >> Read again what I wrote, please.
>
> > I just did, and it still doesn't make sense.
>
> >> More rigorously:
>
> > Yes, please.
>
> >> a linguistic reconstruction (or just the relevant regular
> >> correspondences, actually) predicts that, when scholars
> >> further study a language of the same family that has not
> >> been studied to full detail (but still to sufficient
> >> detail that soundlaws for that particular language have
> >> been estabilish'd), they will discover lexemes that can
> >> be connected to lexemes in other languages of the family
> >> in accordance with the soundlaws of the reconstruction.
>
> > That's a definition. But exactly those lexemes may have
> > been dropped from the languages in question, in which case
> > your prediction fails when it shouldn't. So: fail.
>
> And in the physical sciences the conditions that you need in
> order to test a particular prediction may not be achievable.

In which case the prediction is worthless.

> [...]
>
> >> Likewise, except close to 100% of the time. (I do have
> >> one pretty good theory, but it requires assuming that
> >> you're at least half of the time either immune to logic,
> >> or trolling.)
>
> He's deliberately provocative at times, but I don't think
> that he's trolling even when he's just spewing snotty
> comments instead of addressing content.  He's sincere
> enough, I think -- a lot like the OIT folks, actually, in
> his refusal to recognize evidence against his core tenets
> (e.g., by deliberately refusing to learn enough to evaluate
> it, as in the case of medieval historiography and manuscript
> studies, a technique with the added virtue of letting him
> accuse everyone else of prejudice) and his lack of
> understanding of scientific methodology.

I've had enough of this. It's my contention that in what you call 'medieval
historiography and manuscript studies', the unspoken premise is that whatever
those chronicler's can't reflect a spoken tradition, and that that premise is
taken on faith and never questioned. Now if you think you know something that I
am consciously refusing to acknowledge, why don't you tell us what it is so we
all know instead of your ad hominems? And you can't use the excuse that Torsten
is too dumb to understand your arcane knowledge, there are all the others who
would like to know.


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 1.  Hodge notes (p. 246) that the Egyptian consonant
> > > transcribed /3/ actually had the phonetic value [l] in the Old
> > > and Middle Kingdoms.  We thus have Egy. <p-l> 'fly up',
> > > <n-p-l-p-l> 'flutter' which can reasonably be compared with
> > > Hausa <filfilwàà> 'fluttering', Ometo <pal-> 'fly', and
> > > Cushitic *pal- 'flutter'.  (Semantically close, though not
> > > mentioned by Hodge, is Semitic *p-l-t, Arabic <falata> 'flee,
> > > escape', and perhaps Sem. *p-l-s, Ge`ez <falasa> 'emigrate'.)
> > > Also, Egy. <p-r-t> 'fruit' can reasonably be compared with Sem.
> > > *pary- 'id.' (Hebrew <pri:>).  But there is no basis for
> > > relating this 'fruit' root to the 'fly' root, simply because
> > > fruit flies like bananas.  Hodge attempts to bridge these
> > > senses with Egy. <p-r-?> 'go out', High East Cushitic *ful-
> > > 'id.', and Sem. *-prur- 'flee'.  But the presumed relation
> > > between <p-r-?> and *ful- contradicts that already assumed
> > > between Egy. <p-l> and Cush. *pal-, and throwing in *-prur-
> > > helps nothing.  Likewise, connecting Chadic *p-r 'fly, jump'
> > > with Cush. *par- 'id.' and Berber *f-r-f-r 'fly' (Touareg
> > > <fereret> 'take flight') makes good sense, but including these
> > > with Egy. <p-l> and the rest assumes an arbitrary
> > > r/l-alternation.  That seems to be the heart of the problem
> > > with this sort of research.  To me it appears that Hodge has
> > > conflated three distinct AA roots:
> > >
> > > 1a.  *p-l 'fly', frequentative *p-l-p-l 'flutter', in Egy.,
> > > Chad., Omot., and Cush., possibly in Semitic 'move swiftly'
> > > with root-extensions.
> > >
> > > 1b.  *p-r 'jump, take flight', freq. *p-r-p-r 'fly', in Ber.,
> > > Chad., and Cush.
> > >
> > > 1c.  *p-r 'fruit', with nominal suffixation (not
> > > root-extensions) in Egy. and Sem.
> > >
> > > The other words listed here by Hodge have only gratuitous
> > > similarity.  His inclusion of IE *per- 'fly' (actually 'pass
> > > over'), *per- 'forward', *per- 'bear offspring', and *pel-
> > > 'thrust' is too silly for comment.
> >
> > French papillon.
>
> What about it?

p-p-l-. Cf

Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages
'CK. *p.erp.er- 'butterfly':
Georg. p.ep.el-a- 'butterfly';
Megr. parpal(ia)-, papralia-; Laz parpal-;
Svan p.ep.el, p.ärp.old, p.ärp.änd.

Possibly dates from the Common Kartvelian stage. The word is formed by
reduplicating the verb stem *p.er- 'to fly'. It occurs in Old Georgian (p.ep.eli
igi okrojsaj 'a gold butterfly' Lev. 8.9). The final a of the Georgian form is a
recent evaluation affix. The same must be said on the word-final -ia of the
Megrelian cognate. The unusual replacement of p. by p in Zan may be ascribed to
the onomatopoeic character of the verb stem. Analogies of the latter are
available also in the Svan forms.'



> > I'm afraid I have done something even more impressionistic
> > http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Op.html
>
> All those water-words with labials, and what happened to Gmc.
> *apan- from Gaul. *abona 'water-sprite'?  Did the poor monkey drown
> in all the confusion?

Nah, it has a variant with initial *k- (Gr. ke:~pos, Skt. kapí), so naturally it
didn't belong here. ;-)

> > http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Opr.html
> >
> > It seems the confusion has even wider boundaries.
>
> Yes, that seems like hyper-Hodgeism, and the point of stacking up
> such a mountain of glosses escapes me, unless you are a pharmacist
> trying to increase sales of eye drops.

I thought something is wrong with the traditional idea of two world centers of
development working independently, one Middle East, the other Far East. We need
a mechanism for tying them together, other than the overland route through
Russia. Malayo-Polynesian trade networks in the Indian Ocean would fit the bill
(I was inspired by Oppenheimer's 'Eden in the East'
http://tinyurl.com/yc5xfa9
). Note that the dispersion of this *(a)bh/p-l/r- root in Austronesian is at
least as large as it is in IE and Semitic.

With such a large semantic spread we need to find its startpoint; I believe its
something about a river, its two sides, getting across it, the division of the
two banks between the principle of life and death, moieties assigned to either
bank in such a society etc. And the date would around the invention of
agriculture, and the Wörter would be of those Sachen which were entailed by this
new technology.


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > 1.  Hodge notes (p. 246) that the Egyptian consonant transcribed
> > /3/ actually had the phonetic value [l] in the Old and Middle
> > Kingdoms.  We thus have Egy. <p-l> 'fly up', <n-p-l-p-l> 'flutter'
> > which can reasonably be compared with Hausa <filfilwàà>
> > 'fluttering', Ometo <pal-> 'fly', and Cushitic *pal- 'flutter'.
> > (Semantically close, though not mentioned by Hodge, is Semitic
> > *p-l-t, Arabic <falata> 'flee, escape', and perhaps Sem. *p-l-s,
> > Ge`ez <falasa> 'emigrate'.)  Also, Egy. <p-r-t> 'fruit' can
> > reasonably be compared with Sem. *pary- 'id.' (Hebrew <pri:>).  But
> > there is no basis for relating this 'fruit' root to the 'fly' root,
> > simply because fruit flies like bananas.  Hodge attempts to bridge
> > these senses with Egy. <p-r-?> 'go out', High East Cushitic *ful-
> > 'id.', and Sem. *-prur- 'flee'.  But the presumed relation between
> > <p-r-?> and *ful- contradicts that already assumed between Egy.
> > <p-l> and Cush. *pal-, and throwing in *-prur- helps nothing.
> > Likewise, connecting Chadic *p-r 'fly, jump' with Cush. *par- 'id.'
> > and Berber *f-r-f-r 'fly' (Touareg <fereret> 'take flight') makes
> > good sense, but including these with Egy. <p-l> and the rest
> > assumes an arbitrary r/l-alternation.  That seems to be the heart
> > of the problem with this sort of research.  To me it appears that
> > Hodge has conflated three distinct AA roots:
> >
> > 1a.  *p-l 'fly', frequentative *p-l-p-l 'flutter', in Egy., Chad.,
> > Omot., and Cush., possibly in Semitic 'move swiftly' with
> > root-extensions.
> >
> > 1b.  *p-r 'jump, take flight', freq. *p-r-p-r 'fly', in Ber.,
> > Chad., and Cush.
> >
> > 1c.  *p-r 'fruit', with nominal suffixation (not root-extensions)
> > in Egy. and Sem.
> >
> > The other words listed here by Hodge have only gratuitous
> > similarity.  His inclusion of IE *per- 'fly' (actually 'pass
> > over'), *per- 'forward', *per- 'bear offspring', and *pel- 'thrust'
> > is too silly for comment.
>
> French papillon.

What about it?

> I'm afraid I have done something even more impressionistic
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Op.html

All those water-words with labials, and what happened to Gmc. *apan- from Gaul.
*abona 'water-sprite'?  Did the poor monkey drown in all the confusion?

> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Opr.html
>
> It seems the confusion has even wider boundaries.

Yes, that seems like hyper-Hodgeism, and the point of stacking up such a
mountain of glosses escapes me, unless you are a pharmacist trying to increase
sales of eye drops.

DGK

At 1:04:22 PM on Thursday, November 12, 2009, Torsten wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

[...]

>> - a claim that needs some actual evidence for it.

> No. 'Evidence for' doesn't exist.

You're confusing _evidence_for_ with _proof_of_.  It's the
latter that doesn't exist, not the former.  Or you're
misunderstanding 'evidence for' as 'evidence *exclusively*
for'.

[...]

>>>>>>> Forget predictive power in a historical science. Any
>>>>>>> prediction a theory makes we already know, unless we
>>>>>>> discover new material like Hittite, and that's very
>>>>>>> rare.

>>>>>> Maybe with Indo-European. There are still plenty of
>>>>>> understudied languages in the world which may or may
>>>>>> not provide us with data that fits our reconstruction
>>>>>> of, say, Proto-Uralic.

>>>>> True, but it's pseudo-prediction in principle.

No more than a physical prediction that can't (yet) be
tested.

>>>> We can predict the *discovery* of new lexeme sets that
>>>> fit our soundlaws, if you want to nitpick about
>>>> chronology.

>>> OK, sage, predict the appearance of the next Hittite.

>> Nice strawman.

> That was no strawman. I meant you.

If you really don't see that it's a straw man, John's
wasting his time.

>> Read again what I wrote, please.

> I just did, and it still doesn't make sense.

>> More rigorously:

> Yes, please.

>> a linguistic reconstruction (or just the relevant regular
>> correspondences, actually) predicts that, when scholars
>> further study a language of the same family that has not
>> been studied to full detail (but still to sufficient
>> detail that soundlaws for that particular language have
>> been estabilish'd), they will discover lexemes that can
>> be connected to lexemes in other languages of the family
>> in accordance with the soundlaws of the reconstruction.

> That's a definition. But exactly those lexemes may have
> been dropped from the languages in question, in which case
> your prediction fails when it shouldn't. So: fail.

And in the physical sciences the conditions that you need in
order to test a particular prediction may not be achievable.

[...]

>> Likewise, except close to 100% of the time. (I do have
>> one pretty good theory, but it requires assuming that
>> you're at least half of the time either immune to logic,
>> or trolling.)

He's deliberately provocative at times, but I don't think
that he's trolling even when he's just spewing snotty
comments instead of addressing content.  He's sincere
enough, I think -- a lot like the OIT folks, actually, in
his refusal to recognize evidence against his core tenets
(e.g., by deliberately refusing to learn enough to evaluate
it, as in the case of medieval historiography and manuscript
studies, a technique with the added virtue of letting him
accuse everyone else of prejudice) and his lack of
understanding of scientific methodology.

Brian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > > In order to explain these alleged doublets as AA loanwords,
> > > > you need either two distinct branches of AA with divergent
> > > > treatment of Old PAA stops,
> >
> > > Carleton Hodge has a list of examples of that, but I forgot in
> > > what book.
> >
> > The article is available at
> > <http://tinyurl.com/ya74m9v> .
>
> Hodge's methodology leaves a great deal to be desired.  What he
> recognizes as "an unsatisfactory state of affairs" involving
> "problems in the establishment of regular sound correspondences" in
> Afro-Asiatic, between AA and Indo-European, and beyond (p. 237) is
> not remedied by his approach.  Indeed, such problems as there are
> become even worse.
>
> It is astounding that the following (p. 250) even got published,
> unless the reviewers were on Valium:
>
> "Note.  IE /w/ corresponding to other /b/ is normal ...  There are
> sporadic survivals of /b/ (Skt. <balam> 'strength'), and there are
> conditioned survivals.  An example of the latter is the /b/ of Lat.
> <bis> 'twice' from **dbis, where cluster simplification results in
> Gk. <dis> and Lat. <bis>.  The alternate Latin form <dwis> shows
> that ordinary Indo-European /b/ alternates with /w/.  LL [Livlakh,
> i.e. Indo-Afro-Asiatic] **b is the source of both AAs /b/ and IE
> /b/w/, and the scarcity of /b/'s as reconstructed for Proto-
> Indo-European is due to the general shift to /w/.  ..."
>
> If this sort of poppycock were posted to Cybalist, its author would
> quickly be laughed out of the forum.  We all know that Lat. <bis>
> and Grk. <dís> are perfectly regular reflexes of IE *dwís.  The
> Dvenos vase and archaisms like <Dvelonai> (S.C. de Bacch.) show
> that the Latin shift /dw/ > /b/ occurred in historical times.
> Hodge has misrepresented a secure Latin protoform as a synchronic
> "alternate form" in order to justify his ludicrous **dbis by
> circular argument.  Moreover, the claim of a "general shift to /w/"
> to account for the scarcity of IE /b/ merely doubles the trouble,
> since the "sporadic" survivals of original /b/ remain unexplained.
> Anyone attempting long-range comparisons which include
> Indo-European should first acquire enough IE background to avoid
> such farcical fumbling.
>
> The list of 32 sets of comparanda, which Hodge calls "core
> vocabulary related etyma" (pp. 240-5), consists of a mishmash of
> good AA comparanda (pronouns, body parts, basic verbs and nouns),
> bad AA comparanda (arbitrarily justified conflation of vaguely
> similar forms), and with few exceptions ugly IE pseudo-comparanda.
> The latter were supposedly collected from Szemerényi, an
> astonishingly bizarre choice for AA-IE comparative work, since Sz.
> was one of the least laryngeal-friendly IEists of the second half
> of the last century.  Here I will briefly comment on the sets which
> contain good comparanda for more than two AA branches.
>
> 1.  Hodge notes (p. 246) that the Egyptian consonant transcribed
> /3/ actually had the phonetic value [l] in the Old and Middle
> Kingdoms.  We thus have Egy. <p-l> 'fly up', <n-p-l-p-l> 'flutter'
> which can reasonably be compared with Hausa <filfilwàà>
> 'fluttering', Ometo <pal-> 'fly', and Cushitic *pal- 'flutter'.
> (Semantically close, though not mentioned by Hodge, is Semitic
> *p-l-t, Arabic <falata> 'flee, escape', and perhaps Sem. *p-l-s,
> Ge`ez <falasa> 'emigrate'.)  Also, Egy. <p-r-t> 'fruit' can
> reasonably be compared with Sem. *pary- 'id.' (Hebrew <pri:>).  But
> there is no basis for relating this 'fruit' root to the 'fly' root,
> simply because fruit flies like bananas.  Hodge attempts to bridge
> these senses with Egy. <p-r-?> 'go out', High East Cushitic *ful-
> 'id.', and Sem. *-prur- 'flee'.  But the presumed relation between
> <p-r-?> and *ful- contradicts that already assumed between Egy.
> <p-l> and Cush. *pal-, and throwing in *-prur- helps nothing.
> Likewise, connecting Chadic *p-r 'fly, jump' with Cush. *par- 'id.'
> and Berber *f-r-f-r 'fly' (Touareg <fereret> 'take flight') makes
> good sense, but including these with Egy. <p-l> and the rest
> assumes an arbitrary r/l-alternation.  That seems to be the heart
> of the problem with this sort of research.  To me it appears that
> Hodge has conflated three distinct AA roots:
>
> 1a.  *p-l 'fly', frequentative *p-l-p-l 'flutter', in Egy., Chad.,
> Omot., and Cush., possibly in Semitic 'move swiftly' with
> root-extensions.
>
> 1b.  *p-r 'jump, take flight', freq. *p-r-p-r 'fly', in Ber.,
> Chad., and Cush.
>
> 1c.  *p-r 'fruit', with nominal suffixation (not root-extensions)
> in Egy. and Sem.
>
> The other words listed here by Hodge have only gratuitous
> similarity.  His inclusion of IE *per- 'fly' (actually 'pass
> over'), *per- 'forward', *per- 'bear offspring', and *pel- 'thrust'
> is too silly for comment.

French papillon.

I'm afraid I have done something even more impressionistic
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Op.html
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Opr.html

It seems the confusion has even wider boundaries.


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:
>
> > since words are assigned to a substrate by definition, you can't
> > disprove their membership.
> >
> > What should be disprovable is the actual existence of this
> > artificially defined substrate.
>
> So by "assigned to substrate" you mean nothing more than "has a
> specific phonetic shape", then.

Mnja, I was trying to define in more rigorous terms what Schrijver, Kuhn and
others are doing when they set up a substrate for a set of languages.

> I think *that* may be our problem here.

I don't have a problem and I don't know what yours is.

> What "assigned to substrate" usually means is the much stronger
> claim of "is a loan from some extinct language"

True.

> - a claim that needs some actual evidence for it.

No. 'Evidence for' doesn't exist.

> And having some phonetical shape is not sufficient evidence, if
> said phonetical shape is also possible in vocabulary deriving from
> other sorces.

See above.

> Furthermore: if we have to disproov the existence of the substrate
> (or, "the substrate being an actual language", using the Torsten
> definition of "substrate")

I'll have to disown that claim, I am interpreting the deeds of others.

> as a whole, that leaves no room for one word of similar shape to be
> a loan from an extinct language and another of similar shape to
> have a different origin.

Not true, there's plenty of space for alternative theories.

> This model is fundamentally flaw'd, since words of similar shape
> CAN occur without them having a common origin.

No it's not, it just has competition.

> > > Would you mean that having cognates in related languages counts
> > > as counterevidence of being a loan?
> >
> > Counterevidence of it being a loan to that language at that
> > particular time, yes.
>
> Can we then agree that *kunta, *kënta and *kan-ta are all distinct
> and inherited from Proto-Uralic?

No.

> > > > > > Forget predictive power in a historical science. Any
> > > > > > prediction a theory makes we already know, unless we
> > > > > > discover new material like Hittite, and that's very rare.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe with Indo-European. There are still plenty of
> > > > > understudied languages in the world which may or may not
> > > > > provide us with data that fits our reconstruction of, say,
> > > > > Proto-Uralic.
> > > >
> > > > True, but it's pseudo-prediction in principle.
> > >
> > > We can predict the *discovery* of new lexeme sets that fit our
> > > soundlaws, if you want to nitpick about chronology.
> >
> > OK, sage, predict the appearance of the next Hittite.
>
> Nice strawman.

That was no strawman. I meant you.

> Read again what I wrote, please.

I just did, and it still doesn't make sense.

> More rigorously:

Yes, please.

> a linguistic reconstruction (or just the relevant
> regular correspondences, actually) predicts that, when scholars
> further study a language of the same family that has not been
> studied to full detail (but still to sufficient detail that
> soundlaws for that particular language have been estabilish'd),
> they will discover lexemes that can be connected to lexemes in
> other languages of the family in accordance with the soundlaws of
> the reconstruction.

That's a definition. But exactly those lexemes may have been dropped from the
languages in question, in which case your prediction fails when it shouldn't.
So: fail.


> > > > We have to come up with some criterion for the historic
> > > > sciences which doesn't involve prediction.
> > >
> > > I hear regularity of sound change works pretty well.
> > >
> > It does, but it's not prediction.
>
> And you just said we need to come up with a criterion that doesn't
> involve prediction. I just can't win here, can I?

How do you yourself feel you're doing?
>
> > > > > > > "tree stump" is the kind of concept even stone-age
> > > > > > > hunter gatherers can be expected to have in their
> > > > > > > vocabulary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But they can't be expected not to replace by a new word
> > > > > > from some prestigious new technology.
>
> > > The Samic reflex means "roots". No association with hunting
> > > storages - which they still use (eg. http://tinyurl.com/yjfmtak)
> >
> > So the technology came to the Saami after it had ceased being
> > associated with a tree stump. Why is that a problem?
>
> Because you have no evidence that the hunting storage is that new a
> technology for the Sami, and because you now require the completely
> unnecessary assumption that some ancestors of the Sami stopped
> using hunting storages for a while, until it was reintroduced for
> them later.

No, only that they improved the technology and so decided to give it a new name.

> It is much simpler to assume that "hunting storage" is a semantic
> innovation in Ob-Ugric for an old technology.

Not than assuming it is a semantic innovation in Saamic for an old technology.

> Especially since you have not even attempted to identify your
> mysterious hunting-storage-introductors.

I don't have to. BTW what do you think of Old Japanese *kati "side" (this might
interest Douglas)?


> > > You keep talking about "prestigious new technology" without any
> > > evidence of who, where, and when. Until you have, it remains an
> > > assumption.
> >
> > It remains an assumption that it was once new?
>
> Are you playing dumb?

I was trying to avoid the inference that you were.

> Everything was once new, but you're making assumptions about the
> date of origin of this technology with regards to the dates of
> Proto-Uralic or Proto-Samic. You can't date things to any arbitrary
> date you'd like without evidence.

I don't think I've done that.


> > It is sometimes difficult for me to understand the way you think.
>
> Likewise, except close to 100% of the time.
> (I do have one pretty good theory, but it requires assuming that
> you're at least half of the time either immune to logic, or
> trolling.)

I have several theories that necessitates assuming that my opponents are at
least half of the time either immune to logic, or trolling, but I try to replace
them with theories that assume they are trying to act rationally.


Torsten

> since words are assigned to a substrate by definition, you can't disprove
their membership.
>
> What should be disprovable is the actual existence of this artificially
defined substrate.

So by "assigned to substrate" you mean nothing more than "has a specific
phonetic shape", then. I think *that* may be our problem here. What "assigned to
substrate" usually means is the much stronger claim of "is a loan from some
extinct language" - a claim that needs some actual evidence for it. And having
some phonetical shape is not sufficient evidence, if said phonetical shape is
also possible in vocabulary deriving from other sorces.

Furthermore: if we have to disproov the existence of the substrate (or, "the
substrate being an actual language", using the Torsten definition of
"substrate") as a whole, that leaves no room for one word of similar shape to be
a loan from an extinct language and another of similar shape to have a different
origin. This model is fundamentally flaw'd, since words of similar shape CAN
occur without them having a common origin.


> > Would you mean that having cognates in related languages counts
> > as counterevidence of being a loan?
>
> Counterevidence of it being a loan to that language at that particular time,
yes.

Can we then agree that *kunta, *kënta and *kan-ta are all distinct and inherited
from Proto-Uralic?


> > > > > Forget predictive power in a historical science. Any
> > > > > prediction a theory makes we already know, unless we
> > > > > discover new material like Hittite, and that's very rare.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe with Indo-European. There are still plenty of
> > > > understudied languages in the world which may or may not
> > > > provide us with data that fits our reconstruction of, say,
> > > > Proto-Uralic.
> > >
> > > True, but it's pseudo-prediction in principle.
> >
> > We can predict the *discovery* of new lexeme sets that fit our
> > soundlaws, if you want to nitpick about chronology.
>
> OK, sage, predict the appearance of the next Hittite.

Nice strawman. Read again what I wrote, please.

More rigorously: a linguistic reconstruction (or just the relevant regular
correspondences, actually) predicts that, when scholars further study a language
of the same family that has not been studied to full detail (but still to
sufficient detail that soundlaws for that particular language have been
estabilish'd), they will discover lexemes that can be connected to lexemes in
other languages of the family in accordance with the soundlaws of the
reconstruction.


> > > We have to come up with some criterion for the historic
> > > sciences which doesn't involve prediction.
> >
> > I hear regularity of sound change works pretty well.
> >
> It does, but it's not prediction.

And you just said we need to come up with a criterion that doesn't involve
prediction. I just can't win here, can I?


> > > > > > "tree stump" is the kind of concept even stone-age hunter
> > > > > > gatherers can be expected to have in their vocabulary.
> > > > >
> > > > > But they can't be expected not to replace by a new word from
> > > > > some prestigious new technology.

> > The Samic reflex means "roots". No association with hunting
> > storages - which they still use (eg. http://tinyurl.com/yjfmtak)
>
> So the technology came to the Saami after it had ceased being associated with
a tree stump. Why is that a problem?

Because you have no evidence that the hunting storage is that new a technology
for the Sami, and because you now require the completely unnecessary assumption
that some ancestors of the Sami stopped using hunting storages for a while,
until it was reintroduced for them later.

It is much simpler to assume that "hunting storage" is a semantic innovation in
Ob-Ugric for an old technology. Especially since you have not even attempted to
identify your mysterious hunting-storage-introductors.


> > You keep talking about "prestigious new technology" without any
> > evidence of who, where, and when. Until you have, it remains an
> > assumption.
>
> It remains an assumption that it was once new?

Are you playing dumb? Everything was once new, but you're making assumptions
about the date of origin of this technology with regards to the dates of
Proto-Uralic or Proto-Samic. You can't date things to any arbitrary date you'd
like without evidence.


> It is sometimes difficult for me to understand the way you think.

Likewise, except close to 100% of the time.
(I do have one pretty good theory, but it requires assuming that you're at least
half of the time either immune to logic, or trolling.)

John Vertical

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, patrick cuadrado <dicoceltique@> wrote:
> >
> > hello
> >  
> > may be connect with a celtic gladiator with armor called KRUPELLARI
>
> Ernout Meillet:
> 'crup(p)ella:rius, -i: m.: gladiateur bardé de fer. Mot celtique cité par
Tacite, A.3,43, adducuntur a Sacrouiro e seruitiis gladiaturae destinati quibus
more gentico continuum ferri tegimen: crupellarios uocant, inferendis ictibus
inhabiles, accipiendis  impenetrabiles.
>
> The most common translation I find is:
> "In addition were some slaves who were being trained for gladiators, clad
after the national fashion in a complete covering of steel. They were called
crupellarii, and though they were ill-adapted for inflicting wounds, they were
impenetrable to them." But I can't get that n. n./a. 'continuum ferri tegimen'
to fit ino the construction.

Supply <est> or <erat>; <quibus> is dative of possession.

quibus more gentico continuum ferri tegimen erat 'to whom, after the national
fashion, a continuous covering of iron belonged'

DGK

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > > In order to explain these alleged doublets as AA loanwords, you
> > > need either two distinct branches of AA with divergent treatment of
> > > Old PAA stops,
>
> > Carleton Hodge has a list of examples of that, but I forgot in what book.
>
> The article is available at
<http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(202)The%20implications%20of%20lislakh%20for%20no\
stratic.pdf> .

Hodge's methodology leaves a great deal to be desired.  What he recognizes as
"an unsatisfactory state of affairs" involving "problems in the establishment of
regular sound correspondences" in Afro-Asiatic, between AA and Indo-European,
and beyond (p. 237) is not remedied by his approach.  Indeed, such problems as
there are become even worse.

It is astounding that the following (p. 250) even got published, unless the
reviewers were on Valium:

"Note.  IE /w/ corresponding to other /b/ is normal ...  There are sporadic
survivals of /b/ (Skt. <balam> 'strength'), and there are conditioned survivals.
An example of the latter is the /b/ of Lat. <bis> 'twice' from **dbis, where
cluster simplification results in Gk. <dis> and Lat. <bis>.  The alternate Latin
form <dwis> shows that ordinary Indo-European /b/ alternates with /w/.  LL
[Livlakh, i.e. Indo-Afro-Asiatic] **b is the source of both AAs /b/ and IE
/b/w/, and the scarcity of /b/'s as reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European is due
to the general shift to /w/.  ..."

If this sort of poppycock were posted to Cybalist, its author would quickly be
laughed out of the forum.  We all know that Lat. <bis> and Grk. <dís> are
perfectly regular reflexes of IE *dwís.  The Dvenos vase and archaisms like
<Dvelonai> (S.C. de Bacch.) show that the Latin shift /dw/ > /b/ occurred in
historical times.  Hodge has misrepresented a secure Latin protoform as a
synchronic "alternate form" in order to justify his ludicrous **dbis by circular
argument.  Moreover, the claim of a "general shift to /w/" to account for the
scarcity of IE /b/ merely doubles the trouble, since the "sporadic" survivals of
original /b/ remain unexplained.  Anyone attempting long-range comparisons which
include Indo-European should first acquire enough IE background to avoid such
farcical fumbling.

The list of 32 sets of comparanda, which Hodge calls "core vocabulary related
etyma" (pp. 240-5), consists of a mishmash of good AA comparanda (pronouns, body
parts, basic verbs and nouns), bad AA comparanda (arbitrarily justified
conflation of vaguely similar forms), and with few exceptions ugly IE
pseudo-comparanda.  The latter were supposedly collected from Szemerényi, an
astonishingly bizarre choice for AA-IE comparative work, since Sz. was one of
the least laryngeal-friendly IEists of the second half of the last century. 
Here I will briefly comment on the sets which contain good comparanda for more
than two AA branches.

1.  Hodge notes (p. 246) that the Egyptian consonant transcribed /3/ actually
had the phonetic value [l] in the Old and Middle Kingdoms.  We thus have Egy.
<p-l> 'fly up', <n-p-l-p-l> 'flutter' which can reasonably be compared with
Hausa <filfilwàà> 'fluttering', Ometo <pal-> 'fly', and Cushitic *pal-
'flutter'.  (Semantically close, though not mentioned by Hodge, is Semitic
*p-l-t, Arabic <falata> 'flee, escape', and perhaps Sem. *p-l-s, Ge`ez <falasa>
'emigrate'.)  Also, Egy. <p-r-t> 'fruit' can reasonably be compared with Sem.
*pary- 'id.' (Hebrew <pri:>).  But there is no basis for relating this 'fruit'
root to the 'fly' root, simply because fruit flies like bananas.  Hodge attempts
to bridge these senses with Egy. <p-r-?> 'go out', High East Cushitic *ful-
'id.', and Sem. *-prur- 'flee'.  But the presumed relation between <p-r-?> and
*ful- contradicts that already assumed between Egy. <p-l> and Cush. *pal-, and
throwing in *-prur- helps nothing.  Likewise, connecting Chadic *p-r 'fly, jump'
with Cush. *par- 'id.' and Berber *f-r-f-r 'fly' (Touareg <fereret> 'take
flight') makes good sense, but including these with Egy. <p-l> and the rest
assumes an arbitrary r/l-alternation.  That seems to be the heart of the problem
with this sort of research.  To me it appears that Hodge has conflated three
distinct AA roots:

1a.  *p-l 'fly', frequentative *p-l-p-l 'flutter', in Egy., Chad., Omot., and
Cush., possibly in Semitic 'move swiftly' with root-extensions.

1b.  *p-r 'jump, take flight', freq. *p-r-p-r 'fly', in Ber., Chad., and Cush.

1c.  *p-r 'fruit', with nominal suffixation (not root-extensions) in Egy. and
Sem.

The other words listed here by Hodge have only gratuitous similarity.  His
inclusion of IE *per- 'fly' (actually 'pass over'), *per- 'forward', *per- 'bear
offspring', and *pel- 'thrust' is too silly for comment.

3.  Second singular pronouns (absent from Omotic).  Not disputed as inherited
from AA.  Other than the easily explained assibilation of the Egyptian feminine,
all have */k/, which should warn researchers against arbitrarily adding
glottalization or other features in selected AA groups in order to manufacture
pseudo-cognates.

5.  Egy. <b-n-w-t> 'sandstone', Sem. *?abn- 'stone' (Heb. <?even>, cf. <ba:na:h>
'build'), Tam. <bnu> 'build', etc.  Probably an AA verbal root *b-n 'build' with
old preformative (implemental?) */?/ in Sem. and Cush.  Citing IE *wer- 'heavy'
(actually *(s)wer-) makes no sense whatsoever, not even under the false
assumption of earlier **ber-.

10.  Egy. <n-g-b> 'turn aside', Ge`ez <gabbaba> 'be bent', Afar. <gu:b> 'id.',
Omot. *gub? 'knee'.  Not bad as an AA set, but Hodge's citation of IE *ge:u-
'bend' is purely gratuitous.  It requires a laryngeal leaving no corresponding
trace in AA at all.

11.  Egy. <n-f-t> 'breath' (Coptic <nif(e)>), Tou. <unfas> 'id.', Cush. *nAp-
'id.', Sem. *?anp- 'nose' (Heb. <?af>), etc.  Again, not bad as an AA set, but
including IE *pneu- 'breathe' requires arbitrary metathesis, which fails the
laugh test.

14.  Sem. *baraq- 'lightning' (Heb. <ba:ra:q>), Omot. *b-r-k? 'id.', Cush.
*bark? 'flash'.  Not bad, but Egy. <b-l-q> 'bright' and Chad. *b[H]-l 'burn' do
not belong here, nor does IE *bHereg- 'shine'.  Since he has no actual
soundlaws, Hodge could equally well have cited IE *bHelg- 'flash', which has in
fact produced a 'lightning' word, Lat. <fulgur>.

16.  Egy. <s-n-w-y> 'two' (Copt. <snau>, fem. <sn.te>), Sem. *T-n-y 'id.' (Heb.
<s^nayim>, fem. <s^tayim>), Ber. *si:n 'id.', Chad. *s-r 'id.'  Hodge suggests
comparing with IE *sen(i)- 'apart' (Lat. <sine> 'without', OE <sundor> 'apart',
etc.).  Finally a plausible AA-IE comparandum!

17.  Egy. <s-n> 'smell', Ber. *s-n 'know', Chad. *sun@ 'nose', Omot. *sint?-
'id.', etc.  An interesting group.  Hodge wants to connect with IE *sent- 'head
for, go, feel', requiring an IE root-extension (or retention of an old dental
only in IE and Omotic).  Another AA-IE proposal worth considering, and a
possible connection with Pre-Germanic substrate as well, given all the Germanic
'nose' words in *sn-.

21.  Third plural pronouns (again absent from Omotic).  Again undisputed AA, and
again the stable consonantism should warn against arbitrary substitutions with
other words.

22.  Egy. <s-n> 'whatever is signified by the ARROWHEAD hieroglyph', Sem.
*s^inn- 'tooth' (Heb. <s^e:n>, <s^inn->), Chad. *san- 'id.', etc.  A good AA
set, but Hodge's inclusion of IE *ser- 'sickle' (actually *serp-) is useless.

24.  Egy. <?-n-b>, <?-l-b> 'heart', Sem. *libb- 'id.' (Heb. <le:v>, <libb->),
Chad. *l-b 'belly', Galila <liBa> 'id.', and Cush. *l-b- 'chest' make a
reasonable set.  Ber. *wilih 'heart' and IE *reuto- 'intestines' have no
business here.  The Egy. form with /n/ is probably older, and this nasal has
been lateralized in the other AA branches.

25.  Egy. <n-s> 'tongue' (Copt. <las>), Sem. *lis^a:n 'id.' (Heb. <los^o:n>,
Aramaic <lis^s^a:n>), etc.  Here again Egy. has the old nasal, elsewhere
lateralized as later in Coptic.

27.  Egy. <m-w> 'water' (Copt. <moou>, Suidas <môu>), Sem. *ma:y- 'id.' (Heb.
<mayim>, <me:->, <mo:->), Cush. *ma?- 'be wet', IE *ma:- 'damp'.  The cited Ber.
and Chad. forms do not belong here.  Since the IE form is actually *meh2- (as
Hodge should have known), this is a very important long-range gloss.

28.  Interrogative pronouns.  The Omotic form cited obviously does not belong
here.

29.  Egy. <m-w-t> 'die' (Copt. <mou>), Chad. *m-w-t 'id.', Sem. *mawt- 'death'
(Heb. <mowet>), etc.  A good AA set.

Now, the obvious remedy for problems with AA sound-correspondences is to discard
the problematic forms from the cognate-sets, as I have done above. 
Unfortunately Hodge retains a hodgepodge of vaguely similar forms along with the
good comparanda.  This insistence on inclusion, this philological greed, this
obsessive-compulsive hoarding of lexemes, is what motivates Hodge's "consonant
ablaut hypothesis", a hopelessly jumbled mishmash of miscellaneous forms. 
Instead of carefully selecting plausible AA-IE comparanda (above only 16, 17,
and 27), he lumps together everything bearing the slightest conceivable phonetic
and semantic resemblance, and the plague spreads from his AA to his IE.  Thus
under his proto-root *p-l (p. 253) he includes IE *(s)pel- 'split', *per-
'forward', *bHel- 'bloom', *bHre(u)- 'sprout', *bHen- 'break', *mel- 'limb',
*men- 'project', and Hittite <panniya-> 'drive away', as well as a similar
assortment of AA forms.  "There is no attempt at a complete inventory of forms
known to be from this root."  Indeed!  It is not hard to see that any language
could be reduced to one or two dozen proto-roots this way.  This is no longer
historical linguistics at all.  It is the mindless sorting of linguistic roots
into buckets on the basis of gross phonology, with no attention paid to
historical plausibility, and having no scientific value whatsoever.

> Of course, sporadic examples are common - consider the English doublets _cage_
and _gaol_ (the second word does have a suffix), _Tyson_ and _Dyson_, and,
allegedly, _plonk_ and _blank_.

Yes, the whole fox/vixen thing, and my pet peeve is that too many scholars
project recently formed doublets back to a distant proto-stage, or use bogus
doublets (and multiplets) to infer phantom oscillation.

DGK

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > This is what Gol/a,b has to say in The origins of the Slavs
> > > about  the origin of the etnonym of the Croatians
>
> > > My contention is that PSl. *XUrvat- // *Xorvat- (a consonantal
> > > stem!) was derived from a common noun *xUrvU // *xorvU 'armor'
> > > (primarily 'horn-armor'), which should be treated as a
> > > prehistorical loanword from Germc. *hurwa- // *harwa-,
>
> > >  We can even hypothesize that the borrowing of the Germc.
> > > *hurwa- 'horn-armor' took place somewhere in the sub-Carpathian
> > > region, and that its source was the PGermc. dialect of the
> > > Bastarnians, who dwelt along the eastern Carpathians in the
> > > first to third centuries A.D.
>
> ****GK: The Bastarnians disappear from the area some two hundred years before
the arrival of the Slavs.****
>
>
> > Note that this horn-armor is attributed to the Sarmatians by
> > Ammianus Marcellinus.
>
> ***GK: The Slavs contacted Sarmatians independently. There is no
> reason why they should have borrowed this term from Bastarnians or
> any other Germanic folk. OTOH a borrowing in Avar times is
> historically much more plausible, esp. since Golomb's linguistic
> analyses are weak and unconvincing, and his historical hypothesis
> simply incompetent.****
> >
> > > Now this unknown Germanic language would have been the
> > > para-Germanic Bastarnian. If true, those Croatians were in
> > > contact with Germanic-speakers early. So why shouldn't they be
> > > Ariovistus' Charudes?
> > >
> > > One thing puzzled me about the story of Ariovistus giving away
> > > free land to some tribe who had done nothing to win it.
> > > Perhaps they were just too lazy to work the land and let
> > > Charudes/Croatians colonize the land for them, in return for
> > > their products?
>
> ****GK: As long as Golomb's silly hypothesis is around, why not
> try something even sillier?****
> >
> > Another attempt at the name:
> > Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit
> > 'krabban m. Krebs, Krabbe.
> > an. krabbi m. Krabbe;
> > ags. crabba m. (engl. crab),
> > nnd. krabbe.
> > Dazu
> > ahd. chrepaz(o), crebiz,
> > mhd. krebez, krebz,
> > nhd. Krebs, mnd. krevet, kreft.
> > Aus krabita(n).
> > Vgl. von der Nebenwurzel (s)kar(a)b
> > gr. kárabos Krebs, Käfer und
> > *skarabaios (lat. scarabaeus) Käfer.'
> >
> > If this is NWBlock, *xraBi-þ- would have been the corresponding
> > Germanic word. Calling scale armor clad people lobsters makes
> > sense.
>
> ****GK: Especially since there is no "Popperian" counter-proof to
> the intensifying downward spiral of sillinesses.****
> >
> >

According to this compendium of lingustic reasoning of the last two hundred
years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gwXJsWHupg
*xurvat- has a sort of woody quality about it, whereas 'silly' (eeeek!) is
dreadfully tinny (cf. 'litterbin').


Torsten

> As I understand it, defects in the FOXP2 gene in modern humans lead to
>defects in syntax use, not to neuro-muscular problems in the vocal tract

   It affect both: the persons have grammatical difficulties and also issues with
their oro-facial movements.....

Marius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@> wrote:
> >
> > SO THE LANGUAGE DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM MANUAL GESTURES!
>
> How so? As I understand it, defects in the FOXP2 gene in modern humans lead to
defects in syntax use, not to neuro-muscular problems in the vocal tract. And
the advantages to social animals from increased communiction ability would
accrue for both vocal or manual communication systems. So the data would be
consistent with either a hypothesis of vocal origins only, or of a vocal system
evolving from a syntax-using gestural system.
>
> Ned Smith
>


Because a VOCAL-LEARNING system appeared in a transition period: when smaller
groups needs to unite in bigger groups for time to time (for survival reasons) :
this means that a VOCAL-LEARNING system appeared to enable a complex
communication across some relatively large distances.....where you cannot see
well, or not at all, the other groups (including their gestures)

Marius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, patrick cuadrado <dicoceltique@...> wrote:
>
> hello
>  
> may be connect with a celtic gladiator with armor called KRUPELLARI

Ernout Meillet:
'crup(p)ella:rius, -i: m.: gladiateur bardé de fer. Mot celtique cité par
Tacite, A.3,43, adducuntur a Sacrouiro e seruitiis gladiaturae destinati quibus
more gentico continuum ferri tegimen: crupellarios uocant, inferendis ictibus
inhabiles, accipiendis  impenetrabiles.

The most common translation I find is:
"In addition were some slaves who were being trained for gladiators, clad after
the national fashion in a complete covering of steel. They were called
crupellarii, and though they were ill-adapted for inflicting wounds, they were
impenetrable to them." But I can't get that n. n./a. 'continuum ferri tegimen'
to fit ino the construction.


On the subject, Grimm has:
'HARNISCH, m. 1) lorica, ferrea tunica.
a) herkunft, form und geschlecht des Wortes. harnisch ist erst gegen das 13.
jahrhundert, das einheimische geserwe rüstung verdrängend, in die deutsche
spräche aus den romanischen eingedrungen:
ital. arnese,
span. portug. provenz. arnes,
franz. harnois, harnais, älter harnas.
auch in diesen sprachen hat das wort seine heimal nicht, sondern ist nach der
allgemeinen annahme keltischen ursprungs, auf
kymr. haiarn,
altbret. hoiarn,
ir. iaran eisen
zurückzuführen, wovon ein
kymr. haiarnaez eisengeräte, aus dem sich möglicherweise zuerst das
engl. harness, danach die romanischen formen gebildet hätten (Diez 1, 33). das
deutsche übernimmt das wort in verschiedenen formen: überwiegend ist zunächst
harnasch, eine form die noch Stieles aufführt; daraus schwächt sich ab das uns
seit dem 15. jahrhundert geläufigere harnisch arma voc. inc. theut. i l'. das
noch weiter in harnsch (Stieler 774) zurückgeht, ein umgelauletes hernisch arma
Dief. 48° ist selten, ebenso wie die dem franz. zunächst sich anschlieszende
form harnas, harnis: harnisz arma Dief. das., die in harnist, harnascht
verläuft: du magst auch wol ein zweifach pflaster auf einandern schlagen mit
dicken lumpen gestrichen, so werden dieselben also hart auf einandern, dasz es
stehet wie ein harnist. Würtz pract. der wundarzn. (1612) 174;
armarium harnaschtkamer Dief. 49a;
harnesthendschu:ch manicae Maaler 212c.
das spätere nordisch nimmt das wort mit umdeutschung als fem. in der form
hardneskja auf. das geschleckt schwankt im mhd. zwischen masc. und neutr.:
im ist der schilt unz an die hant
vil nach verhouwen gar,
sîn harnasch aller bluotvar.   Erec 1184;
ich stach im durch sin harnasch gar
und durch den hals die lanzen min.
frauendienst 278, 14;'


>  
> > > Another attempt at the name:
> > > Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit
> > > 'krabban m. Krebs, Krabbe.
> > > an. krabbi m. Krabbe;
> > > ags. crabba m. (engl. crab),
> > > nnd. krabbe.
> > > Dazu
> > > ahd. chrepaz(o), crebiz,
> > > mhd. krebez, krebz,
> > > nhd. Krebs, mnd. krevet, kreft.
> > > Aus krabita(n).
> > > Vgl. von der Nebenwurzel (s)kar(a)b
> > > gr. kárabos Krebs, Käfer und
> > > *skarabaios (lat. scarabaeus) Käfer.'
> > >
> > > If this is NWBlock, *xraBi-þ- would have been the corresponding
> > > Germanic word. Calling scale armor clad people lobsters makes
> > > sense.


Cf. Engl. hornet, Latin crabro "hornet" etc.


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> SO THE LANGUAGE DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM MANUAL GESTURES!

How so? As I understand it, defects in the FOXP2 gene in modern humans lead to
defects in syntax use, not to neuro-muscular problems in the vocal tract. And
the advantages to social animals from increased communiction ability would
accrue for both vocal or manual communication systems. So the data would be
consistent with either a hypothesis of vocal origins only, or of a vocal system
evolving from a syntax-using gestural system.

Ned Smith


>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@> wrote:
> >
> > > ---------------> It was a time of a mixed organization for Humans
> > >      a) the territory of a single Human Family was preserved and remained
large
> > >      b) but the Humans Families needed to meet together, from time to
time, finally in order to can survive  --> this means --> in order to succeed in
some delicate operations:
> > >          - hunting (maybe the humans became hunters only at this moment
too: remember one FOXP2 mutation is shared with the Carnivores) and
> > >          - to can defend together against different natural enemies.
> >
> >
> >
> > A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM COULD APPEAR
> > -------------------------------------
> >       --> IN THE TRANSITION PERIOD: FROM A FAMILY GROUP TO A LARGER LIVING
GROUP
> >       --> IN A SITUATION, WHERE THE FAMILIES ARE STILL SEPARATED ONE FROM
THE OTHERS, BY RELATIVELY BIG DISTANCES
> >       --> BUT THEY NEED TO REUNITE IN LARGER-LIVING-GROUPS FROM TIME-TO-TIME
DUE TO A STRONG SURIVAL PRESSURE (predators, foods)
> >       --> AND THEN, THEY SEPARATE AGAIN, COMING BACK INSIDE THEIR FAMILY
AREAL
> >
> >
> > PLEASE READ THE COST AND BENEFITS OF LARGER-LEAVING-GROUPS
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W-UQNoxMONwC&pg=PA199&dq=Cetacean+societies:+\
Group+Living+Connor#v=onepage&q=Cetacean%20societies%3A%20Group%20Living%20Conno\
r&f=false
> >
>

>
> > > We can even hypothesize that the borrowing of the Germc.
> > > *hurwa- 'horn-armor' took place somewhere in the sub-Carpathian
> > > region, and that its source was the PGermc. dialect of the
> > > Bastarnians, who dwelt along the eastern Carpathians in the
> > > first to third centuries A.D.
>
> GK: The Bastarnians disappear from the area some two hundred years before the
arrival of the Slavs.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Bastarnae
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Slavs

Tell me where these are wrong then.

****GK: Shchukin is almost certainly right as to the issue of Slavic
ethnogenesis, and more than certainly wrong as to the extent of Bastarnian
settlement in Eastern Europe. The early Bastarnians of the interior are
identifiable with the Poeneshti-Lukashovka culture between the Carpathians and
the Dnister river (which is where Strabo, Pliny and Ptolemy have them). They
disappear by the time of Diocletian. There is no evidence of an early frontier
with the Slavs.*****

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I won't rain on your Paradebeispiel; it seems a reasonable
> > > enough way of explaining verb-classes with nasal infixation.
> > > But I don't see how a similar mechanism could account for the
> > > diversity of PIE root-extensions.  To me they look like
> > > postfixes corresponding to old postpositions; this explains the
> > > difficulty in pinning down their original semantic force.
> > > Possibly *-m 'toward' is identical with the animate accusative
> > > marker.
> >
> > if -m extensions means "from there to here"
> > *gWem-  "to go, from there to here"
> >
> > and -h2-extension means "from here (back?) to there" ?
> >
> > *gWeh2- 'to move away, go' ==> "to go from here to there"
> > *sneh2- 'to float, swim' ==> "to float from here to there"
>
> And perhaps the /l/-extension means 'to a place out of sight',
> related to the root of Lat. <ultra:> 'beyond', OL <olle> 'that
> yonder', etc.??
>
> *steh2- 'to place upright there, to stand up there'
> *stel- 'to place upright out of sight' > 'to send away'
>
> I need to look for some other examples.
>

That *l- thing is not an adjective.
I was think of things like *gl-énd- "look", cf. *gl-á-s "amber; eye", where the
extension look loke an IE participle suffix (traditionally of the type noun ->
adj., I'd have to claim it was of type noun-> noun).


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > This is what Gol/a,b has to say in The origins of the Slavs
> > > about the origin of the etnonym of the Croatians
>
> > > My contention is that PSl. *XUrvat- // *Xorvat- (a consonantal
> > > stem!) was derived from a common noun *xUrvU // *xorvU 'armor'
> > > (primarily 'horn-armor'), which should be treated as a
> > > prehistorical loanword from Germc. *hurwa- // *harwa-,
>
> > >  We can even hypothesize that the borrowing of the Germc.
> > > *hurwa- 'horn-armor' took place somewhere in the sub-Carpathian
> > > region, and that its source was the PGermc. dialect of the
> > > Bastarnians, who dwelt along the eastern Carpathians in the
> > > first to third centuries A.D.
>
> ****GK: The Bastarnians disappear from the area some two hundred years before
the arrival of the Slavs.****

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs

Tell me where these are wrong then.

>
> > Note that this horn-armor is attributed to the Sarmatians by
> > Ammianus Marcellinus.
>
> ***GK: The Slavs contacted Sarmatians independently. There is no
> reason why they should have borrowed this term from Bastarnians or
> any other Germanic folk. OTOH a borrowing in Avar times is
> historically much more plausible,

Actually, whereas Avestan has spirantization of unvoiced stops before
consonants, Ossetian has it everywhere (AFAIK, but other people know that better
than me), which means the loan might also have taken place through some Iranian
steppe language.

> esp. since Golomb's linguistic
> analyses are weak and unconvincing, and his historical hypothesis
> simply incompetent.****

You'll have to argue that. Don't forget that whereas in archaeology a culture
may be made up of components from several ancestors, in linguistics a language
has only one main predecessor. This is because because people keep speaking, no
matter how destroyed their material culture gets.


> > > Now this unknown Germanic language would have been the
> > > para-Germanic Bastarnian. If true, those Croatians were in
> > > contact with Germanic-speakers early. So why shouldn't they be
> > > Ariovistus' Charudes?
> > >
> > > One thing puzzled me about the story of Ariovistus giving away
> > > free land to some tribe who had done nothing to win it. Perhaps
> > > they were just too lazy to work the land and let
> > > Charudes/Croatians colonize the land for them, in return for
> > > their products?
>
> ****GK: As long as Golomb's silly hypothesis is around, why not try
> something even sillier?****

Did you have something factual you wanted to say?

> > Another attempt at the name:
> > Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit
> > 'krabban m. Krebs, Krabbe.
> > an. krabbi m. Krabbe;
> > ags. crabba m. (engl. crab),
> > nnd. krabbe.
> > Dazu
> > ahd. chrepaz(o), crebiz,
> > mhd. krebez, krebz,
> > nhd. Krebs, mnd. krevet, kreft.
> > Aus krabita(n).
> > Vgl. von der Nebenwurzel (s)kar(a)b
> > gr. kárabos Krebs, Käfer und
> > *skarabaios (lat. scarabaeus) Käfer.'
> >
> > If this is NWBlock, *xraBi-þ- would have been the corresponding
> > Germanic word. Calling scale armor clad people lobsters makes
> > sense.

That -þ- suffix is unusual in Germanic, AFAIK. The only other example I'm aware
of is *xal-iþ-.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64637
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64804
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64959

If it's might be from some substrate's version of PIE *-et- denoting ethnicity,
the crab word may be the transferred sense, not the "Croat" one.

>
> ****GK: Especially since there is no "Popperian" counter-proof to
> the intensifying downward spiral of sillinesses.****

There rarely is in historical sciences. Instead you'll have to do with Occam.



Torsten

> > This is what Gol/a,b has to say in The origins of the Slavs about
> > the origin of the etnonym of the Croatians

> > My contention is that PSl. *XUrvat- // *Xorvat- (a consonantal
> > stem!) was derived from a common noun *xUrvU // *xorvU 'armor'
> > (primarily 'horn-armor'), which should be treated as a
> > prehistorical loanword from Germc. *hurwa- // *harwa-,

  We can even hypothesize that the borrowing of the Germc.
> > *hurwa- 'horn-armor' took place somewhere in the sub-Carpathian
> > region, and that its source was the PGermc. dialect of the
> > Bastarnians, who dwelt along the eastern Carpathians in the first
> > to third centuries A.D.

****GK: The Bastarnians disappear from the area some two hundred years before
the arrival of the Slavs.****


> Note that this horn-armor is attributed to the Sarmatians by Ammianus
Marcellinus.

***GK: The Slavs contacted Sarmatians independently. There is no reason why they
should have borrowed this term from Bastarnians or any other Germanic folk. OTOH
a borrowing in Avar times is historically much more plausible, esp. since
Golomb's linguistic analyses are weak and unconvincing, and his historical
hypothesis simply incompetent.****
>
> > Now this unknown Germanic language would have been the para-Germanic
> > Bastarnian. If true, those Croatians were in contact with
> > Germanic-speakers early. So why shouldn't they be Ariovistus'
> > Charudes?
> >
> > One thing puzzled me about the story of Ariovistus giving away free
> > land to some tribe who had done nothing to win it. Perhaps they were
> > just too lazy to work the land and let Charudes/Croatians colonize
> > the land for them, in return for their products?

****GK: As long as Golomb's silly hypothesis is around, why not try something
even sillier?****
>
> Another attempt at the name:
> Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit
> 'krabban m. Krebs, Krabbe.
> an. krabbi m. Krabbe;
> ags. crabba m. (engl. crab),
> nnd. krabbe.
> Dazu
> ahd. chrepaz(o), crebiz,
> mhd. krebez, krebz,
> nhd. Krebs, mnd. krevet, kreft.
> Aus krabita(n).
> Vgl. von der Nebenwurzel (s)kar(a)b
> gr. kárabos Krebs, Käfer und
> *skarabaios (lat. scarabaeus) Käfer.'
>
> If this is NWBlock, *xraBi-þ- would have been the corresponding Germanic word.
Calling scale armor clad people lobsters makes sense.

****GK: Especially since there is no "Popperian" counter-proof to the
intensifying downward spiral of sillinesses.****
>
>
> Torsten
>

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > I won't rain on your Paradebeispiel; it seems a reasonable enough way of
explaining verb-classes with nasal infixation.  But I don't see how a similar
mechanism could account for the diversity of PIE root-extensions.  To me they
look like postfixes corresponding to old postpositions; this explains the
difficulty in pinning down their original semantic force.  Possibly *-m 'toward'
is identical with the animate accusative marker.
>
> if -m extensions means "from there to here"
> *gWem-  "to go, from there to here"
>
> and -h2-extension means "from here (back?) to there" ?
>
> *gWeh2- 'to move away, go' ==> "to go from here to there"
> *sneh2- 'to float, swim' ==> "to float from here to there"

And perhaps the /l/-extension means 'to a place out of sight', related to the
root of Lat. <ultra:> 'beyond', OL <olle> 'that yonder', etc.??

*steh2- 'to place upright there, to stand up there'
*stel- 'to place upright out of sight' > 'to send away'

I need to look for some other examples.

DGK

SO THE LANGUAGE DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM MANUAL GESTURES!


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> > ---------------> It was a time of a mixed organization for Humans
> >      a) the territory of a single Human Family was preserved and remained
large
> >      b) but the Humans Families needed to meet together, from time to time,
finally in order to can survive  --> this means --> in order to succeed in some
delicate operations:
> >          - hunting (maybe the humans became hunters only at this moment too:
remember one FOXP2 mutation is shared with the Carnivores) and
> >          - to can defend together against different natural enemies.
>
>
>
> A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM COULD APPEAR
> -------------------------------------
>       --> IN THE TRANSITION PERIOD: FROM A FAMILY GROUP TO A LARGER LIVING
GROUP
>       --> IN A SITUATION, WHERE THE FAMILIES ARE STILL SEPARATED ONE FROM THE
OTHERS, BY RELATIVELY BIG DISTANCES
>       --> BUT THEY NEED TO REUNITE IN LARGER-LIVING-GROUPS FROM TIME-TO-TIME
DUE TO A STRONG SURIVAL PRESSURE (predators, foods)
>       --> AND THEN, THEY SEPARATE AGAIN, COMING BACK INSIDE THEIR FAMILY AREAL
>
>
> PLEASE READ THE COST AND BENEFITS OF LARGER-LEAVING-GROUPS
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W-UQNoxMONwC&pg=PA199&dq=Cetacean+societies:+\
Group+Living+Connor#v=onepage&q=Cetacean%20societies%3A%20Group%20Living%20Conno\
r&f=false
>

> ---------------> It was a time of a mixed organization for Humans
>      a) the territory of a single Human Family was preserved and remained
large
>      b) but the Humans Families needed to meet together, from time to time,
finally in order to can survive  --> this means --> in order to succeed in some
delicate operations:
>          - hunting (maybe the humans became hunters only at this moment too:
remember one FOXP2 mutation is shared with the Carnivores) and
>          - to can defend together against different natural enemies.



A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM COULD APPEAR
-------------------------------------
       --> IN THE TRANSITION PERIOD: FROM A FAMILY GROUP TO A LARGER LIVING GROUP
       --> IN A SITUATION, WHERE THE FAMILIES ARE STILL SEPARATED ONE FROM THE
OTHERS, BY RELATIVELY BIG DISTANCES
       --> BUT THEY NEED TO REUNITE IN LARGER-LIVING-GROUPS FROM TIME-TO-TIME DUE
TO A STRONG SURIVAL PRESSURE (predators, foods)
       --> AND THEN, THEY SEPARATE AGAIN, COMING BACK INSIDE THEIR FAMILY AREAL


PLEASE READ THE COST AND BENEFITS OF LARGER-LEAVING-GROUPS
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W-UQNoxMONwC&pg=PA199&dq=Cetacean+societies:+\
Group+Living+Connor#v=onepage&q=Cetacean%20societies%3A%20Group%20Living%20Conno\
r&f=false

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> > I NEED TO COMPLE MYSELF because I think that this is the right direction:
> >
> > 1.- the humans were in that times grouped in small families
> > 2.- each family has a relative large territory under his ownership (in
relation with his size)
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ==> so they were grouped, somehow, like the Lions Families are grouped today
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     - but in contradiction with the strength of one Lion Family the Human
Family has at that Moment in Time ====> SOME BIG ISSUES TO SURVIVE IN THIS
ORGANIZATION
> >
> >      -> either the food started to be rare and very hard to be procured by
the force of a Single Family, either the natural enemies of the Humans in that
areal, started to be so many and so strong that a Human Family cannot fight
against them, by his own....even all these things happened together that is
usually the case when the natural ressources started to miss in one areal......
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     ==> SO THE SINGLE WAY FOR HUMANS TO SURVIVE IN THIS CONTEXT WAS TO ALLOW
ONE FAMILY TO START TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER FAMILIES SITUATED IN DIFFERENT
TERRITORIES.
> >     ==> BUT BECAUSE OF THE TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION->ISOLATION OF THESE
FAMILIES A COMPLEX COMMUNICATION SYSTEM HAS BECOME REALLY NECESSARY TO APPEAR,
IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE COMMUNICATION ACROSS RELATIVELY LARGE DISTANCES, SO
ACCROSS DIFFERENT TERRITORIES OWNED BY DIFFERENT FAMILIES
> > =====================================================================
> > THIS WAS THE NEED THAT REQUESTED THE APPEARENCE OF A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM
IN HUMANS
> > =====================================================================
> >
> > ---------------> It was a time of a mixed organization for Humans
> >      a) the territory of a single Human Family was preserved and remained
large
> >      b) but the Humans Families needed to meet together, from time to time,
finally in order to can survive  --> this means --> in order to succeed in some
delicate operations:
> >          - hunting (maybe the humans became hunters only at this moment too:
remember one FOXP2 mutation is shared with the Carnivores) and
> >          - to can defend together against different natural enemies.
> >
>
>
>
> I have just found this article that is in line with my above model:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.biology-online.org/articles/elephants_imitate_sounds_form.html
>
> "It is exciting to see that African savannah elephants follow a pattern we've
seen in other terrestrial and aquatic species capable of vocal learning, "Tyack
said. "Vocal learning should also occur in other species where long-lived social
bonds are based on individual relationships and
> =====================================================================
> "where members of a group separate and reunite over time."
> =====================================================================
>
> SO WHERE THE HUMAN FAMILY OF THAT TIMES
>      -- separate (on the Family Territorial Areal)
> and
>      -- reunite (during the hunting and to fight against natural enemies) over
time
>
>
> Marius
>

http://elephantvoices.wildlifedirect.org/files/2008/01/elephants-capable-of-voca\
l-learning-1822.pdf

> I NEED TO COMPLE MYSELF because I think that this is the right direction:
>
> 1.- the humans were in that times grouped in small families
> 2.- each family has a relative large territory under his ownership (in
relation with his size)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ==> so they were grouped, somehow, like the Lions Families are grouped today
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     - but in contradiction with the strength of one Lion Family the Human
Family has at that Moment in Time ====> SOME BIG ISSUES TO SURVIVE IN THIS
ORGANIZATION
>
>      -> either the food started to be rare and very hard to be procured by the
force of a Single Family, either the natural enemies of the Humans in that
areal, started to be so many and so strong that a Human Family cannot fight
against them, by his own....even all these things happened together that is
usually the case when the natural ressources started to miss in one areal......
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     ==> SO THE SINGLE WAY FOR HUMANS TO SURVIVE IN THIS CONTEXT WAS TO ALLOW
ONE FAMILY TO START TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER FAMILIES SITUATED IN DIFFERENT
TERRITORIES.
>     ==> BUT BECAUSE OF THE TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION->ISOLATION OF THESE
FAMILIES A COMPLEX COMMUNICATION SYSTEM HAS BECOME REALLY NECESSARY TO APPEAR,
IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE COMMUNICATION ACROSS RELATIVELY LARGE DISTANCES, SO
ACCROSS DIFFERENT TERRITORIES OWNED BY DIFFERENT FAMILIES
> =====================================================================
> THIS WAS THE NEED THAT REQUESTED THE APPEARENCE OF A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM IN
HUMANS
> =====================================================================
>
> ---------------> It was a time of a mixed organization for Humans
>      a) the territory of a single Human Family was preserved and remained
large
>      b) but the Humans Families needed to meet together, from time to time,
finally in order to can survive  --> this means --> in order to succeed in some
delicate operations:
>          - hunting (maybe the humans became hunters only at this moment too:
remember one FOXP2 mutation is shared with the Carnivores) and
>          - to can defend together against different natural enemies.
>



I have just found this article that is in line with my above model:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.biology-online.org/articles/elephants_imitate_sounds_form.html

"It is exciting to see that African savannah elephants follow a pattern we've
seen in other terrestrial and aquatic species capable of vocal learning, "Tyack
said. "Vocal learning should also occur in other species where long-lived social
bonds are based on individual relationships and
=====================================================================
"where members of a group separate and reunite over time."
=====================================================================

SO WHERE THE HUMAN FAMILY OF THAT TIMES
      -- separate (on the Family Territorial Areal)
and
      -- reunite (during the hunting and to fight against natural enemies) over
time


Marius

> Sooner the <Darwinian Selection> played its Role:
>  and the answer was YES : THE HUMAN NEEDS A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM --> the YES
answer were the answer of the environment : the changes in FOXP2 gene were
rapidly propagated and fixed in all the human population --> THAT ONES POSSESING
A WAY TO LEARN AND TO TRANSMIT LEARNED-SOUNDS HAS HAD AN ENORMOUS SURVIVAL
ADVANTAGE AGAINST THAT ONES THAT DIDN'T POSSES IT (--> the Nature is crude in
relation with the individuals that NEED TO DIE)
>

  So IT WAS A VERY SAD MOMENT IN THE HUMAN HISTORY:

  ---> WHEN SOME-HUMANS COULD-UNDERSTAND THE LEARNED-SOUNDS <'The LION! THE
LION!'> or <'Run!Run!'> and SOME-OTHER-HUMANS NOT....

   YOU COULD REALLY SEE WHAT DRAMA WAS -> AND HOW SOME OF THEM RAPIDLY DIED
BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OTHERS SAID ...
(AND THEY COULDN'T UNDERSTAND --> only because they DO NOT HAVE 2 small changes
on the positions 303 and 325 inside their FOXP2 gene)

  Marius

P.S. : So you need to understand why others cannot understand sometimes...

>or the Human were Grouped in Small Groups (families?) at that time, and these
>small groups were obliged to cooperate anong them in hunting and not only due
to
>some restrictive conditions....but they were separated by huge distances --in
>large steppes...so in order to initiate contacts ,to can organize the hunting,
>to signal the ennemies, to meet for mating, they needed to generate a complex
>vocalisation system to be used across large distances...

>Marius


I NEED TO COMPLE MYSELF because I think that this is the right direction:

1.- the humans were in that times grouped in small families
2.- each family has a relative large territory under his ownership (in relation
with his size)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
==> so they were grouped, somehow, like the Lions Families are grouped today
---------------------------------------------------------------------
     - but in contradiction with the strength of one Lion Family the Human Family
has at that Moment in Time ====> SOME BIG ISSUES TO SURVIVE IN THIS ORGANIZATION

      -> either the food started to be rare and very hard to be procured by the
force of a Single Family, either the natural enemies of the Humans in that
areal, started to be so many and so strong that a Human Family cannot fight
against them, by his own....even all these things happened together that is
usually the case when the natural ressources started to miss in one areal......
---------------------------------------------------------------------
     ==> SO THE SINGLE WAY FOR HUMANS TO SURVIVE IN THIS CONTEXT WAS TO ALLOW ONE
FAMILY TO START TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER FAMILIES SITUATED IN DIFFERENT
TERRITORIES.
     ==> BUT BECAUSE OF THE TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION->ISOLATION OF THESE FAMILIES
A COMPLEX COMMUNICATION SYSTEM HAS BECOME REALLY NECESSARY TO APPEAR, IN ORDER
TO FACILITATE THE COMMUNICATION ACROSS RELATIVELY LARGE DISTANCES, SO ACCROSS
DIFFERENT TERRITORIES OWNED BY DIFFERENT FAMILIES
=====================================================================
THIS WAS THE NEED THAT REQUESTED THE APPEARENCE OF A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM IN
HUMANS
=====================================================================

---------------> It was a time of a mixed organization for Humans
      a) the territory of a single Human Family was preserved and remained large
      b) but the Humans Families needed to meet together, from time to time,
finally in order to can survive  --> this means --> in order to succeed in some
delicate operations:
          - hunting (maybe the humans became hunters only at this moment too:
remember one FOXP2 mutation is shared with the Carnivores) and
          - to can defend together against different natural enemies.

===>>>>>>>>>>>>> IN THIS CRITICAL MOMENT FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE, THE
HUMAN GENETIC SYSTEM DECIDED TO PUT THE QUESTION :

"DO THE HUMANS NEED A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM?" --> this was implemented by
trigerring in one or few individuals (spermatogenesis?), in the FOXP2 gene, the
2 genetic changes, allowing to the existing artifact (-> 'the vocal-learning
system') to appears in that individuals.....

Sooner the <Darwinian Selection> played its Role:
  and the answer was YES : THE HUMAN NEEDS A VOCAL-LEARNING SYSTEM --> the YES
answer were the answer of the environment : the changes in FOXP2 gene were
rapidly propagated and fixed in all the human population --> THAT ONES POSSESING
A WAY TO LEARN AND TO TRANSMIT LEARNED-SOUNDS HAS HAD AN ENORMOUS SURVIVAL
ADVANTAGE AGAINST THAT ONES THAT DIDN'T POSSES IT (--> the Nature is crude in
relation with the nindividuals that NEED TO DIE)


As a Result: The groups of Human Families, possesing now a vocal-learning
system, started to cooperate and to synchronize them better and better ....

So it seems that you need to be really down in order to can really go up....

Also the huge territorial ownership possesed by each Single Human Family started
to dimish and to dissapear for some Humans.....
(you can see where this stuation arrived today : a Human Family is forced to
leave in 100sqm or even less :))

If Marx will be here, he will say that this was the moment of the Appereance of
the First Human Social Organization outside the inherited model of the Human
Family....


Marius


P.S. I think that at least, this is a common-sense scenario -- in comparison
with a 'Knowledge-Niche' postulated by some.....etc....

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>     3.d  The LAST QUESTION THAT I CANNOT ANSWER IS THE FOLLOWING:
>    WHAT HUMAN NEED TRIGERRED THE NEED OF A VOCAL-LEARNING ARTIFACT?
>
>     FOR THE Echolocating-BATS is clear : THEY NEED TO EAT...AND THEY FIND
THEIR PREY BASED ON THIS......
>     FOR THE SINGING BIRDS WAS IMPORTANT TO REFINE THEY SEXUAL-SELECTION
MECHANISMS
>     FOR THE WHALES AND DOLPHINS THIS WAS DUE TO THE LARGE DISTANCES INSIDE THE
OCEANS..... THAT MADE HARD TO MEET EACH OTHERS...WITHOUT A GOOD VOCALISATION
SYSTEM....
>
>    BUT FOR THE FIRST HUMANS?
>        a) were they isolated in some innacesible landings were they couldn't
see each others? huge forests? Rocky mountains? etc....so they really needs to
improve their VOCAL ARTIFACT SYSTEM in order to can meeet each other , in order
to can hunt together (see that, one of that changes is shared with the
CARNIVORES -- this cannot be 'by chance')
>
>      So I Think that: The Environment at that stage was one that didn't allow
Humans to see each other, and to coordinate very easy each other in the
nature.....even their eyes were good enough for this....
>
>      And because there are 2 changes maybe we are talking about 2 different
NEEDS ....
>      - ONE NEED WAS FOR SURE RELATED TO THE HUNTING PROCESS BECAUSE IS SHARED
WITH THE CARNIVORES......BUT THE OTHER ONE? THE UNIQUE ONE?
> to be used for what? inside some Huge forests? or inside some Rocky mountains?
>
> Marius
>

or the Human were Grouped in Small Groups (families?) at that time, and these
small groups were obliged to cooperate anong them in hunting and not only due to
some restrictive conditions....but they were separated but huge distances --in
large steppes...so in order to initiate contacts ,to can organize the hunting,
to signal the ennemies, to meet for mating, they needed to generate a complex
vocalisation system to be used across large distances...

Marius