--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...> wrote:
> the origin of language is a discouraged topic ??

   I ASK ALL THE OTHERS MODERATORS TO CHECK AGAIN IF "THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE" IS
A DISCOURAED TOPIC!

   THE LANGUAGE COULD APPEARS AS RECENT AS 40,000 Years ago ONLY....SO WE ARE AT
ONLY about 3 TIMES MORE THE PIE-AGE  (7000-5000 BC)



> Since the present discussion has produced nothing pertinent to
> Cybalist and is rapidly degenerating, I am declaring it closed.
>
> Brian M. Scott
> Moderator
>
   Brian is degenerated due to Dvaid not due to me. Please check my postings to
see who switch the TOPIC....

   Marius

I think name Diegis can be related to Lithuanianian word DIEGTI, meaning TO
IMPLANT, TO TWINGE.

Aigius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

[...]

> The Phonetic Changes of  Proto-Romanian, Proto-Albanian and Dacian
> (even few words were preserved: city names, plant names, rivers
> names etc....) ARE VERY CLOSED, I WILL SAY IDENTICAL

> As one example:
>    Dacian Diegis ('The Fervent One') could well reflect e/accented > ye of the
PIE dHegWH- 'to burn'

>    Albanian djeg 'to burn' reflects again e/accented > ye from the
> same root

>    Proto-Romanian reflects e/accented > ye is also reflected in
>        Romanian fier as from Latin ferrum

[Excess quoted matter deleted. -BMS]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
Tacitus, Germania, 44
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/tacitus/005.php
'Beyond the Lygians dwell the Gothones, under the rule of a King;
and thence held in subjection somewhat stricter than the other
German nations, yet not so strict as to extinguish all their
liberty.
...
To wealth also, amongst them, great veneration is paid, and thence a single
ruler governs them, without all restriction of power, and exacting unlimited
obedience. Neither here, as amongst other nations of Germany, are arms used
indifferently by all, but shut up and warded under the care of a particular
keeper, who in truth too is always a slave: since from all sudden invasions and
attacks from their foes, the ocean protects them: besides that armed bands, when
they are not employed, grow easily debauched and tumultuous. The truth is, it
suits not the interest of an arbitrary Prince, to trust the care and power of
arms either with a nobleman or with a freeman, or indeed with any man above the
condition of a slave.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_Culture
(ie. the Goths)
'No weapons or tools are found in Willenberg Wielbark culture graves, unlike the
Przeworsk culture for which it was typical to give the dead such gifts. Instead,
the artifacts found are mostly ornaments and costumes, although a few graves
have shown spurs, these being the only warrior attributes found.'

By which I wanted to imply that the presence of weapons in graves also depended
on how safe the leaders felt.


Torsten

Tacitus, Germania, 44
'Beyond the Lygians dwell the Gothones, under the rule of a King; and thence
held in subjection somewhat stricter than the other German nations, yet not so
strict as to extinguish all their liberty.
...
To wealth also, amongst them, great veneration is paid, and thence a single
ruler governs them, without all restriction of power, and exacting unlimited
obedience. Neither here, as amongst other nations of Germany, are arms used
indifferently by all, but shut up and warded under the care of a particular
keeper, who in truth too is always a slave: since from all sudden invasions and
attacks from their foes, the ocean protects them: besides that armed bands, when
they are not employed, grow easily debauched and tumultuous. The truth is, it
suits not the interest of an arbitrary Prince, to trust the care and power of
arms either with a nobleman or with a freeman, or indeed with any man above the
condition of a slave.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_Culture
(ie. the Goths)
'No weapons or tools are found in Willenberg Wielbark culture graves, unlike the
Przeworsk culture for which it was typical to give the dead such gifts. Instead,
the artifacts found are mostly ornaments and costumes, although a few graves
have shown spurs, these being the only warrior attributes found.'


Torsten

http://bartoszkontny.pradzieje.pl/index_pl.php?content=time_of_war_01
etc


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

[...]

> P.S> : and by the way, what you need to do is to present yourself
> too :
>      What studies do you have?
>      Who your parents are?
>      From where they come?
>      What is your country of origin?
>      What jobs you and your family have?
>      What you are doing for living?
>      I ask this to see who offense here somebody else....

This is blatantly both off-topic and irrelevant.  And as David
has pointed out, the origin of language is a discouraged topic.
Since the present discussion has produced nothing pertinent to
Cybalist and is rapidly degenerating, I am declaring it closed.

Brian M. Scott
Moderator

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...> wrote:
>
> David
>

   I think that the Life (Genom) was created by a Creator (doesn't matter his
Origin).

   You need to offense, Newton too, because he thought the same thing.
together with a long list of Schoolars.

   NASA currently tries to find traces regarding the extraterrestrial origin of
Earth Life.

   The Times of "Abiotic Soup' are faraway.....this is 1950 stuff...

   I cannot than smile when I see you, so sure, thinking that the DNA Creation is
a "big mistake"...
   I bet that you cannot say even how the Transcription from DNA to mRNA
works....
   BUT if is better for you to think, that the Life DNA Program was created "from
Sand and Carbon by the Blowing of the Winds and the Waters" ....than up to you:
I will not offend you for your own faith.
BUT why are you so nervous and intolerrant : if somebody else think that the DNA
is a creation?

   David , you were agressive again, when somebody is not in line with your
anarhistic-internationalistic-ateistic ideology: suddenly you become nervous and
you rapidly switch to some personal offenses ....that is for sure a very poor
action...
   Seems that you do not like to use arguments....that are ouside your own
ideology.

   But I'm not upset....each one with his own fate...

  I quoted different aspects on the FOXP2 gene based on some very good articles.

   A simple question shows to everybody here that the design of the
vocal-learning artifact, was ready in teh Genome Program before the LIVE-SWITCH
: if the artifact switched by the FOXP2 gene wasn't already coded there, how,
the evolution of the Pieces of this Artifact related to the 116 Genes could
happen only inside 0.5 N generations from ZERO to the new functionality?  When
we have 6mil years from mouse to apes there was only a mutation in the FOXP2
gene?

  Could you imagine that the ACCIDENTAL CHANGES in 116 genes and in that one that
SWITCH THEM.....could generate a Vocal-Learning artifact?

I CANNOT.

I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT IF I THROW STONES CONTINUOSLY ON A BLACK&WHITE TV-SET THAT
TTV-SET CAN BE TRASNFORMED IN A FUNCTIONAL COLOUR HD TV-SET in 1mil year or 6mil
years later....

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT THAT TV SET WILL BE DESTROYED.


To give you another breaking-news example:

http://nature-and-science.kikil.com/2009/11/worms-turned-into-hermaphrodites/
Worms turned into hermaphrodites
=================================
Ronald Ellis, a biologist from the University of Medicine and Dentistry New
Jersey in the US, who led the research, said that most big evolutionary changes
within species happened too long ago to study at the genetic level.

�gBut this dramatic change happened fairly recently and in a group of animals
that we know a lot about�c that�fs why we�Œre studying it to find out how
complex traits are created,�h he told BBC News.

Dr Ellis said it was exciting to discover that, by lowering the activity of just
two genetic pathways he and his team were able to �gtake what should have been a
female animal and turn it into a cell fertile hermaphrodite�h.

The two genes the researchers �gtweaked�h were one involved in making sperm and
another involved in activating them.

�gThese were small changes to the activity of genetic pathways THAT ALREADY
EXISTED,�h said Dr Ellis.

===================================================================
�gSO THE PIECES WERE ALREADY IN PLACE,
===================================================================
they just had to be altered so they worked in a slightly new way.�h



Some simple rules from here:
============================
a) the Artifact-Design is completely ready inside the DNA before ANY
LIVE-SWITCH....the LIVE-SWITCH triggers the Darwinian Selection operating
Customizations on that Artifact

b) If the Genetic Program BUILD ALSO NEW ARTIFACTS - and I think that it does
--> THAN THIS BUILDING IS DONE PREVIOUSLY TO ANY LIVE-SWITCH
(as in any good project)

c) If the Genetic Program BUILD ALSO ARTIFACTS - and I think that it does - the
Power of this Program is even Stronger...


Marius


P.S> : and by the way, what you need to do is to present yourself too :
      What studies do you have?
      Who your parents are?
      From where they come?
      What is your country of origin?
      What jobs you and your family have?
      What you are doing for living?
      I ask this to see who offense here somebody else....

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > --- 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.er- 'to fly':
Georg. [p.er-] 'to fly';
Megr. [p.ar-];
Svan p.er-.

Verb stem. In Georgian and Zan it can now be found in reduplications. Cf. Georg.
p.ep.ela- 'butterfly' (< *p.erp.el-) and Megr. parpalua- 'to move quickly'. In
Svan the stem is present in its unbound form: action noun li-p.er 'to fly' (cf.
p.er-n-i 'he flies', ne-p.r- 'bird'). The stem has a tangible onomatopoeic
character. Cf. PIE *per- 'to fly' (Pokorny 1959: 817) and similar forms in many
other languages. || ÈSKJa: 152.'

> > '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.'
>
> You are referring Lat. <pa:pilio:> to *palpal-, then?  What about
> Ital. <farfalla> and its numerous dialectal variants?  Similar
> phonetic shape for 'butterfly' words does not necessarily imply
> common origin, when different phonemes are reflected.

Ernout-Meillet:
'pa:pilio:, -o:nis: m.:
1° papillon;
2° à l'époque impériale "tente, pavillon"
(à cause de la ressemblance des rideaux qui le fermaient avec les   ailes du
papillon).
Depuis Ovide. M.L. 6211.
Celt.: irl. pupal; britt. pebyll "tente";
germ.: néerl. pepel;
gr. papulíon:n.
Dérivé: pa:piliunculus  (Tert.).
Cf. les mots germaniques te1s que v. sax. fi:foldara "papillon".
Terme expressif sans étymologie claire.

> > > > 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. ;-)
>
> If Skt. reflects the original accent, Gmc. *apan- inherited from a
> /k/-less form is impossible.  Monkeys are not native to Germany
> anyhow, so Celtic intermediacy makes good sense.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> A grandiose scenario indeed, but I can hardly grasp such matters.
> I like to work on the level of individual words and groups of
> words.  Sweeping panoramic views are best left to others.

I know. Just want to point out:

' Unlike the word for 'sister', we have no means of
   analysing the name for 'brother', apart from isolating
   the final -ter itself, as in the case of 'mother'
   and 'father'. But we can offer no explanation for the
   root *bhra:-. It is useless to connect it with
   the root *bher- of Latin fero because we know
   of no use of the forms of this root which would lead
   to the sense of 'brother'. We are not in a position
   to interpret *bhra:ter any more than we can
   *p&ter and ma:ter. All three are inherited
   from the most ancient stock of Indo-European.'

and

' *hipaR              "opposite side of a river"

   dipag               "other side, opposite side"       Mansaka
   dehipag             "the opposite side of
                        a canyon or valley"              Manobo
   difar               "the other side, in the sense
                        of the side facing the speaker"  Tiruray
   'ifar               "to cross over to the other side
                       (as of a river or street)"
   se'ifar tamuk       "to negotiate formally
                        the terms of a brideprice"
   dipah               "opposite bank of a river"        Mukah
   dipah               "opposite bank of a river"        Kayan (Baluy)
   dipar               "opposite side"                   Kelabit
   dipah               "either of the sides of a river"  Uma Juman

   "It thus seems likely that the dual divisions of
    Proto-Malayo-Polynesian society were at least traditionally,
    if not physically, associated with settlements on
    either side of a river" (R. Blust) '



Torsten

Somehow that IE root, which seemed to play a role in the name of the Bastarnae,
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/10334
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/12006
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/49779
etc, migrated to the Caucasus too:

Georgij A. Klimov
Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages
'Common Kartvelian(?) *band- 'to interweave, plait':
Georg. band- 'to interweave, plait';
Megr. bond-; Svan ba:nd- 'to darn, patch up'(?).

According to S. Orbeliani, the Georgian derivative band-ul- denotes a kind of
bast shoe. At present the base in its initial meaning occurs in Xevs. dialect,
whereas in Gur. it means an incoherent talk (cf. G^onT.i 1984: 53). The
Megrelian cognate is represented by the nouns bond- 'suspended bridge (wattled
with living plants)' and bondul- 'seine'. The Svan stem may, however, be a
simplification of a Georgian borrowing blandva- 'to patch up'.
|| Georgian, Megrelian: Illic^-Svityc^ (1971: 194).


Georgian-Zan *bandG- 'to twist, tie together':
Georg. bandG- 'to interlace';
Megr. bondG- 'to net, spin, web'.

Apparently the verb stem does not occur in Old Georgian texts. Cf. the Georgian
dialectal (Imer.) noun correlate bandy- 'cobweb' and the Megrelian action noun
bondGua- alongside gobondGil- 'cobweb' (literally past participle 'interlaced').
The Laz equivalent is probably lost. Note a special similarity to Indo-Aryan
bandh- 'to tie' (< PIE *bhendh-).
|| Z^Genti (1940: 225). Cf. Fähnrich (1982: 34).'

It seems the -G- is not a suffix in Kartvelian, since Klimov chose not to merge
the two entries. Considering their phonetic and semantic similarity the two must
be related by derivation, but then in a non-Kartvelian language . So it might be
a loan.


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> 1.     David you have the eyes BUT you cannot see....

Marius, you have a brain, but, like all the faithful, you use
it only selectively.

> 2.    The Darwinian Selection is a Valid Theory ...in the sense
> that a DNA modification trigerred by the genetic program "is
> tested" against the Environmental conditions...
>      The DNA changes are trigerred in different ways....and
> random choices to trigger the Result of a Good Selection when
> the selection criteria are knwon, represent one option to trigger
> a selection.
>      This theory it becomes a Mathemathical One either, so is
> well formalized today.
>      BUT RANDOM ALTERNATIVE AND RANDOM CHOICE IS SOMETHING
> DIFFERENT THAN AN ACCIDENT....seems that for many, the difference
> here is not obvious.
>
> 3.    Accidental Random Changes 'will never write' a DNA Program
> ...or even a Computer One.....
>       If you think that the life apparition and the life evolution
> is trigerred by a Program that has appearred and next was improved
> 'ONLY by accidental changes' ....so only by the BLOW OF THE WIND...
> then up to you....
>
> SUCH A THINKING: IS 'A STRANGE RELIGION' I WILL SAY ...BUT I HAVE
> NOTHING AGAINST : IS A FREE WORLD (when is free).....BUT IS JUST
> ANOTHER TYPE OF ATEISM....

Your understanding of biological evolution is pathetic, but
of course straw men are much easier to knock down than real
ones, aren't they, Marius?

Thank you, however, for putting your stirring Declaration of
Faith into a permanent and easily accessible form for future
reference.  You shall hereafter always have a more difficult
task trying to deny your true pseudoscientific agenda on this
list.

> 4.   For me the DNA is a Complex Program, a Wonderfull Creation
>      And a Creator has been created it.
>      I don't know if this Creator was the first or the last, in
> a long succession of Creators....or he was really the First...
>       But this is secondary: The Life has had a Creator.
>
>       And the Proof for the Creator is under our eyes : is the
> Genetic Program :
>
>    ==> And This Genetic Program arrived in Humans to a stage
> where:  "The Created Ones started to arrive to Understand how
> They were Created"....

Amen, brother!  There is no god beside Zalmoxis, and Marius
is his prophet!

>     (I have a Diploma in Computer Science and trust me that this
> is still an impossible Program, is impossible even to imagine it,
> for our Times......you need to see first how complex electronic
> circuits are needed ONLY to add two numbers....)

How ridiculous (or shall we call it an "idiocy") to imagine
that a degree in computer science gives one authority to
lecture on questions biological.  Though the like is nothing
new to cybalist, which list has seen more than one like the
engineer Hajji-Murat Hubey pretending to have the last word
on linguistics due to his standing in a so-called "hard"
science.

>   Open your eyes here and see that this is Really a MIRACLE where :
>       "The Created Ones started to arrive to Understand how They
> were Created"....
>     THIS MIRACLE is Greater than ANY MIRACLE written in ANY
> RELIGION BOOK of ANY HUMAN CULTURE.....
>     AND WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS NOT A RELIGION : IS SCIENCE...and
> his name is GENETIC
>
>    But of course you are free to think: 'that all these were
> created ONLY by the BLOW OF THE WIND'...
>
>     I mean that the Same Program gave you, the Neural Circuits...
> to allow you to think like this too....:)...another Miracle isn't
> it?

No, there are no such things as miracles, and human neural
networks and the thought they produce make complete sense
in the context of weak and strong force, gravity, magnetism,
etc.

> Marius
>
>
> P.S. I will not answer on the Protochronism Topic because is not
> in the topic of this thread.  The Topic here is the 'Origin of
> the Human Language'

The topic is the Origin of Human Language, is it?  I guess
then that you've never read "How to Behave on Cybalist", at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/files/Administrative ,
where it says (emphasis added):

"Since this list is devoted to Indo-European studies,
THE DISCUSSION OF extraneous or too general topics (e.g.
other language families, THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE, long-
range comparison etc.) WILL BE DISCOURAGED. There are
other lists where subjects like general linguistic,
Nostratic studies, anthropology, etc., may be discussed
more profitably."

> So please calm down...and check the Topic when you Post urls....

It's you who needs to calm down, Mr. All-Caps, and who
needs to check "How to Behave on Cybalist" before you
post.

> You need however to imagine a country occupied by the Russian
> Army, a Red Army that also imposed an International Cultural
> Ideology of the Communism :

I don't need to imagine any such thing.  It's completely
irrelevant to the matter of your ignorance about biology
and science, Marius, which is MY topic.

> the Proletcultism and not only...
>      Many People were killed during this occupation...
>      Many others stayed almost all their live (20-30 years) in
> Prisons
>      That Country under Russian Occupation has tried to recuperate
> little by his own National Culture, in different ways (exagerated
> or not, true or false)....when it still was under a Russian
> Occupation.
>     Did your family were occupied by the Red Army?
>     Whoever wrote that article on Wikipedia about the Romanian
> Protochronism either doesn't know,  either doesn't like to present
> the Red Army Cultural impact in Romania...

It doesn't matter in the least, because the mere fact that
one's been the victim of an occupation, or any other evil,
doesn't makes his idiocy any less objectionable.

If you're truly so scarred by your experiences that you're
incapable of rationality, then please excuse yourself from
the table.

>     I need to present myself who am I, because somehow I was
> accused:
>     I finalized my University Studies in Computer Science in
> 1990 --> 6 months after Ceausescu's failure: so I have no link
> with the Protochronism ...
>      But also I don't see the things in Black & White paradigms
> as you like to present them...

Oh yes, much better to present matters solely in terms of
"idiocy" or "non-idiocy", with Marius as sole arbiter of
which is which.

>     My mother has a University Degree in 'Romanian Literature
> and Romanian Linguistic' and was Teacher all his life in a
> Town In Transylvannia were I was born too, together with my 2
> brothers.
>     My father has a University Degree in Mathematics and has
> work all his life after a short stage as Teacher In Mathematics,
> in an IT Center

I'm not sure what you want us to make of this information
about your parents, but let me see if I can try:

Is your contention that, just as the mating of a jackass
with a mare produces a mule, a hybrid, so the mating of a
male mathematician with a female teacher with a degree in
literature and linguistics can be relied upon to produce
a master biologist?

It seems to me that in your case the latter union has in
fact, strangely, only produced instead one half of the
former.

In any case you're no biologist, master or otherwise, and
are in no position to call the conclusions of legitimate
biologists "idiocy", Marius.

>     They hardly arrive to sustain in Universities their three
> children.

I can't make sense of this one.  Can anybody interpret it
for me?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> If your intention was to 'propose' an equivalence between
>
> Protochronism and the Thesis asserting that the "Romanians are
> Romanized Dacians" than for sure you are wrong....

"For sure", eh?

> The Thesis that "The Romanians are (mainly) Romanized Dacians"
> is a Valid Model : I would say that it has the Greatest
> Probability to be True, among all the exiting Models proposed
> r 'The Origin of Romanians'
>
> The main argument is the following one:

[BLAH, BLAH, BLAH]

> So I consider  The Thesis that "The Romanians are (mainly)
> Romanized Dacians" as a Valid One from a Scientific Point of View.

And yet, after how many years on this list, have you failed to
convince any legitimate linguist of your belief?

Oh, but I forgot that, like all biologists, all linguists are
idiots, with Marius alone brilliant and/or brave enough to see
the truth, which attitude is the hallmark of true crackpots
everywhere.

> If this for you means Protochronism (even there is no link and
> a long distance from one to another) than in this sense : I
> onfirm that I am Protochronist...

Yes, and you've now confirmed that you're also a Creationist,
with Creationism being, as I've noted, an even greater idiocy
than Protochronism.

Moreover you're stunningly obnoxious, Marius, otherwise I'd
likely never even bother responding to you.

David

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:
> -----------------
>
> Actually, "Darwiniam Evolutionism based only 'on Random Mutations' " is indeed
a studity (and an oxymoron)- but Darwiniam Evolutionism based on Random
Mutations AND Natural Selection is another matter entirely.
>
> Ned Smith
>

    I still cannot see the Result based on what you are saying because:

     You need First:
A.    --> a DNA-Program inside a Living Organism that
=============================================================
B.    --> could generates or suffers Random Mutations inside it.
       --> in order  to 'can decide' based on the Environment 'answers'
('Survivals')  what are the Best Choices

The Valid-Darwinism started from B.

Marius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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 ,
>
> David


If your intention was to 'propose' an equivalence between

Protochronism and the Thesis asserting that the "Romanians are Romanized
Dacians" than for sure you are wrong....


The Thesis that "The Romanians are (mainly) Romanized Dacians" is a Valid Model
: I would say that it has the Greatest Probability to be True, among all the
exiting Models proposed for 'The Origin of Romanians'

The main argument is the following one:

The Phonetic Changes of  Proto-Romanian, Proto-Albanian and Dacian (even few
words were preserved: city names, plant names, rivers names etc....) ARE VERY
CLOSED, I WILL SAY IDENTICAL

As one example:
    Dacian Diegis ('The Fervent One') could well reflect e/accented > ye of the
PIE dHegWH- 'to burn'

    Albanian djeg 'to burn' reflects again e/accented > ye from the same root

    Proto-Romanian reflects e/accented > ye is also reflected in
        Romanian fier as from Latin ferrum

Similar with this example: There are at least 20 others identical phonetic
transformations leading us to a Phonetical Identity not far away from the time
when The Romans enters in the Balkan Peninsula...

Practically there is no contradiction related to ANY EXISTING PHONETIC CHANGE
beween Dacian, Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian...for the indicated timeframe.

So I consider  The Thesis that "The Romanians are (mainly) Romanized Dacians" as
a Valid One from a Scientific Point of View.

If this for you means Protochronism (even there is no link and a long distance
from one to another) than in this sense : I confirm that I am Protochronist...

Marius

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


1.     David you have the eyes BUT you cannot see....

2.    The Darwinian Selection is a Valid Theory ...in the sense that a DNA
modification trigerred by the genetic program "is tested" against the
Environmental conditions...
      The DNA changes are trigerred in different ways....and random choices to
trigger the Result of a Good Selection when the selection criteria are knwon,
represent one option to trigger a selection.
      This theory it becomes a Mathemathical One either, so is well formalized
today.
      BUT RANDOM ALTERNATIVE AND RANDOM CHOICE IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN AN
ACCIDENT....seems that for many, the difference here is not obvious.


3.    Accidental Random Changes 'will never write' a DNA Program ...or even a
Computer One.....
       If you think that the life apparition and the life evolution is trigerred
by a Program that has appearred and next was improved 'ONLY by accidental
changes' ....so only by the BLOW OF THE WIND...then up to you....

SUCH A THINKING: IS 'A STRANGE RELIGION' I WILL SAY ...BUT I HAVE NOTHING
AGAINST : IS A FREE WORLD (when is free).....BUT IS JUST ANOTHER TYPE OF
ATEISM....


4.   For me the DNA is a Complex Program, a Wonderfull Creation
      And a Creator has been created it.
      I don't know if this Creator was the first or the last, in a long
succession of Creators....or he was really the First...
       But this is secondary: The Life has had a Creator.

       And the Proof for the Creator is under our eyes : is the Genetic Program :

    ==> And This Genetic Program arrived in Humans to a stage where:  "The
Created Ones started to arrive to Understand how They were Created"....
     (I have a Diploma in Computer Science and trust me that this is still an
impossible Program, is impossible even to imagine it, for our Times......you
need to see first how complex electronic circuits are needed ONLY to add two
numbers....)

   Open your eyes here and see that this is Really a MIRACLE where :
       "The Created Ones started to arrive to Understand how They were
Created"....
     THIS MIRACLE is Greater than ANY MIRACLE written in ANY RELIGION BOOK of ANY
HUMAN CULTURE.....
     AND WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS NOT A RELIGION : IS SCIENCE...and his name is
GENETIC

    But of course you are free to think: 'that all these were created ONLY by the
BLOW OF THE WIND'...

     I mean that the Same Program gave you, the Neural Circuits...to allow you to
think like this too....:)...another Miracle isn't it?

Marius




P.S. I will not answer on the Protochronism Topic because is not in the topic of
this thread.  The Topic here is the 'Origin of the Human Language'
So please calm down...and check the Topic when you Post urls....
You need however to imagine a country occupied by the Russian Army, a Red Army
that also imposed an International Cultural Ideology of the Communism : the
Proletcultism and not only...
      Many People were killed during this occupation...
      Many others stayed almost all their live (20-30 years) in Prisons
      That Country under Russian Occupation has tried to recuperate little by his
own National Culture, in different ways (exagerated or not, true or
false)....when it still was under a Russian Occupation.
     Did your family were occupied by the Red Army?
     Whoever wrote that article on Wikipedia about the Romanian Protochronism
either doesn't know,  either doesn't like to present the Red Army Cultural
impact in Romania...

     I need to present myself who am I, because somehow I was accused:
     I finalized my University Studies in Computer Science in 1990 --> 6 months
after Ceausescu's failure: so I have no link with the Protochronism ...
      But also I don't see the things in Black & White paradigms as you like to
present them...
     My mother has a University Degree in 'Romanian Literature and Romanian
Linguistic' and was Teacher all his life in a Town In Transylvannia were I was
born too, together with my 2 brothers.
     My father has a University Degree in Mathematics and has work all his life
after a short stage as Teacher In Mathematics, in an IT Center
     Both are retreated now.
     They hardly arrive to sustain in Universities their three children.

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

You are referring Lat. <pa:pilio:> to *palpal-, then?  What about Ital.
<farfalla> and its numerous dialectal variants?  Similar phonetic shape for
'butterfly' words does not necessarily imply common origin, when different
phonemes are reflected.

> > > 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. ;-)

If Skt. reflects the original accent, Gmc. *apan- inherited from a /k/-less form
is impossible.  Monkeys are not native to Germany anyhow, so Celtic intermediacy
makes good sense.

> > > 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.

A grandiose scenario indeed, but I can hardly grasp such matters.  I like to
work on the level of individual words and groups of words.  Sweeping panoramic
views are best left to others.

DGK

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

Actually, "Darwiniam Evolutionism based only 'on Random Mutations' " is indeed a
studity (and an oxymoron)- but Darwiniam Evolutionism based on Random Mutations
AND Natural Selection is another matter entirely.

Ned Smith

--- 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