Hill-Tout's comparisons (Polynesia and NW Coast)
Yuri Kuchinsky
Greetings,
Analysis like this can only be conducted profitably by those with some
objectivity in them. These word parallels seem self-evident to me, but I
generally don't believe in miracles, and I don't expect that any of our
linguists will have anything good to say about them. Too many careers have
been made on the premises that will be overthrown by this reasearch.
Ross Clark has inspected this material a while back and dismissed it
arrogantly, with the vocal approval of his usual acolytes who never
bothered to look at it themselves. This is what happens when the blind are
leading the blind.
Any number of excuses can be found to fail to see that the same word
exists for "moon" in Tongan (mahina), and in Salishan (ma-hin). Just like
a hundred and one recenly posted obvious artistic parallels have failed to
impress the obviously biased posters whose minds about all this stuff had
been made up long ago. But that's life.
The following interesting linguistic parallels have already been
discussed, all-too-predictably not changing any minds.
GODS
Hawaii // NW Coast
Makua // Makwans
Kane-akwea // Kane Uakea
Kalana // Kalana
Possible correspondence:
Akea (father of Kane in Hawaii) // Akwea (part of name of Kane-akwea)
Ra/La (solar god in Polynesia) // na-la (sun)
GODDESS
Hai'i // Haia
---
Also, as supplied (along with the whole host of pretty close
anthropological parallels) by
Irving Goldman, THE MOUTH OF HEAVEN: AN INTRODUCTION TO KWAKIUTL RELIGIOUS
THOUGHT, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1975.
"The Kwakiutl do in fact reveal specific Polynesian traits in respect to
rank and kinship. The title _ate_, translated as "lord" seems cognate with
Polynesian _ati_ with a similar meaning; ... Also, with respect to
kinship, Kwakiutl and Polynesian societies have similar terms (-tsaya,
-taina) for younger siblings of the same sex." [p. 18]
(Ross Clark, the famous debunker, apparently found nothing wrong with
these.)
Myself, I'm interested primarily in advancing science, and in respecting
the evidence. Someone needs to say the obvious about the King who is not
wearing any clothes -- even if the Whole Court will continue to insist for
years to come that the King is still wearing his Wonderful and Resplendent
Robes.
So, my job is done. Now the all-too-predictable squeals of indignation
from turf-protecting academics can begin.
Regards,
Yuri.
---
HILL-TOUT ON LINGUISTIC SIMILARITIES BETWEEN NW COAST AND POLYNESIA
Charles Hill-Tout, _Oceanic Origin of the Kwakiutl-Nootka and Salish
Stocks of British Columbia and Fundamental Unity of Same, with Additional
Notes on the Dene.), Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., Section II, 187-231 (1898).
Hill-Tout devoted considerable time to studying Salishan and Wakashan
languages, and he published some pioneering works in this area. His
ethnographic papers on the Coast Salish have been recently re-published,
as edited by Ralph Maud.
After a general introduction, Hill-Tout offers about 30 comparison sets,
but these are large sets, and each one may include as many as 30 or 40
words on each side. Many of the Austronesian examples are drawn from
Tregear's _Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary_ (1891). Words from
Wakashan and Salishan languages and dialects are given for comparison.
Generally, the words in a given set are not all cognates, but represent
several different though related meanings. In each set more than one pair
of parallel words can be found, sometimes as many as four or more.
He usually offers some general comments for each set where he tries to
identify most likely word roots that may be shared in Polynesia and on NW
Coast.
According to Hill-Tout, both morphology and lexicography of Salish
languages agree substantially with those of the Malayo-Polynesian
(Austronesian). (p. 199)
He groups Kwakiutl and Nootka (both members of Wakashan family), and
Salishan languages together in his word sets.
According to Hill-Tout, Bilqula, a Salishan language, usually has the best
parallels to Polynesian languages, and this is evident from looking at his
sets.
So here are some of the words I've extracted from some of these word sets.
There are a lot more in there.
TOOTH:
Malay, gi gi Kwakiutl, gigi, kyiky
BELLY:
1. Tongan, alo 1. Sumas, alus
2. Sulu Is., koli 2. Bilq., kul
3. Maori, puhu 3. Kwakiutl, poa
STAR (general sense):
1. Tongan, mahina [moon] 1. Shew., ma-hin [moon]
2. Ahtiago, kohin 2. Thatl. and Sish., kuo-sen
LIGHT:
Tong., ma ma Ntlakap., ma ma
HOUSE:
Hawaiian, hale Sumas, lalem
SMALL:
Maori, iti-iti Bilq., kai-kte
SICKNESS:
Samoan, mai Sish., and Pent., mai
TO EAT:
Haw., hamu Kwakiutl, hama
TO COME:
Salayer, mai-ka Squam, mai-ka
FINGER:
Sulu Is., ko-ko-wana Kwakiutl, koa-koa-skyanae
STONE:
Maori, toko, teko Bil., tukught
EAR:
1. Guaham, talanha; 1. Ntlakap., tlana;
Morella, telina; Squam., kolan
San Cristoval, karina
2. Samoan, pese [to sing or shout]; 2. Kwakiutl, besbaya [an outcry]
Samoan, pia-pio
TONGUE (gen. s.):
1. Hawaiian, kala, kalaan 1. Snan., koel [to speak];
[to proclaim];
2. Maori, wa-wa-ro [sound] 2. Ntlakap., wawi [to cry]
WATER, RIVER, SEA (gen. s.):
1. Maori, wai [river] 1. Kwakiutl, wa [river]
2. Samoan, Tongan, galu [wave] 2. Kwakiutl, kulae [wave]
3. Samoan, su-su [sea] 3. Ntlak., zuk zuk [sea]
4. Malanta, kuai [water] 4. Thatl., kaea [water]
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
Ross Clark
>
> Greetings,
>
> Analysis like this can only be conducted profitably by those with some
> objectivity in them. These word parallels seem self-evident to me, but I
> generally don't believe in miracles, and I don't expect that any of our
> linguists will have anything good to say about them. Too many careers have
> been made on the premises that will be overthrown by this reasearch.
Yeh, right, I can see the email on my screen tomorrow: "Hill-Tout has
proved that Kwakiutl is Polynesian. You're history. Have your desk
cleared out before Kuchinsky arrives."
>
> Ross Clark has inspected this material a while back and dismissed it
> arrogantly, with the vocal approval of his usual acolytes who never
> bothered to look at it themselves. This is what happens when the blind are
> leading the blind.
>
> Any number of excuses can be found to fail to see that the same word
> exists for "moon" in Tongan (mahina), and in Salishan (ma-hin). Just like
> a hundred and one recenly posted obvious artistic parallels have failed to
> impress the obviously biased posters whose minds about all this stuff had
> been made up long ago. But that's life.
Well, Yuri, you've as much as told me that you won't pay any attention to
anything I say about this stuff. Thanks. That will save me the time and
trouble of writing detailed comments on it. Of course I know that in the
future (like starting tomorrow) you will be saying "Nobody has refuted
this evidence", etc etc. Can't be helped.
Meanwhile, if anybody has not seen my brief earlier comments on Hill-Tout
and Campbell, I can still email them a copy.
Ross Clark
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78gbcn$i1m$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>
>Greetings,
>
>Analysis like this can only be conducted profitably by those with some
>objectivity in them. These word parallels seem self-evident to me,
Yuri, I commend you courage in posting your excerpts from Hill-Tout. It was
not easy to do this and you show some effort. Let me show you rapidly why
H-T's work fails to merit the attention of people who have an objective
familiarity with modern linguistics. It is self-evident to them why your
word parallels prove nothing. It is not because we hate you, or are biased
against Indians, or any such nonsense, but because H-T's paper is useless.
Then let's talk about some of the steps you must undertake if you wish to
find tenable comparisons between Salishan and Austronesian.
H-T and Heyerdahl and you all fail because you search only for unsystematic
matches and stop looking -- and thinking -- once you have found some. That's
not what linguists do. This game has been played countless times in
linguistic history and linguists, since H-T's time, have learned better.
They've found out that anybody can play this game. It all depends on the
assumptions you plug in at the start.
E.g., you cite 22 ordinary word comparisons between Austronesian and 2
probably unrelated language families, Salishan and Wakashan. H-T wanted to
find some and he found what he wanted. But *I* want to find comparisons
between Austronesian and Indo-European instead. And within 90 minutes I can
find "Indo-European parallels" for 8 of the same words that H-T sniffs out
"NWC parallels" for. Want to bet we couldn't find more if we dug a little
longer?
>HILL-TOUT ON LINGUISTIC SIMILARITIES BETWEEN NW COAST AND POLYNESIA
>
>Charles Hill-Tout, _Oceanic Origin of the Kwakiutl-Nootka and Salish
>Stocks of British Columbia and Fundamental Unity of Same, with Additional
>Notes on the Dene.), Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., Section II, 187-231 (1898).
>
>BELLY:
>
>2. Sulu Is., koli 2. Bilq., kul
>
But I compare "koli" to German "Kolik"
>HOUSE:
>
>Hawaiian, hale Sumas, lalem
>
But I compare "hale" to German "Halle," Polish "chal-upka"
>SMALL:
>
>Maori, iti-iti Bilq., kai-kte
>
But I compare "iti-iti" to English "itty-bitty"
>TONGUE (gen. s.):
>
>1. Hawaiian, kala, kalaan 1. Snan., koel [to speak];
>[to proclaim];
>
But I compare "kalaan" to French "que langue" [what a tongue]
>2. Maori, wa-wa-ro [sound] 2. Ntlakap., wawi [to cry]
>
But I compare "wa-wa-ro" to French "oua-oua-ron" [bullfrog]
>WATER, RIVER, SEA (gen. s.):
>
>1. Maori, wai [river] 1. Kwakiutl, wa [river]
>
But I compare "wai" to English "Wye" [river name]
>3. Samoan, su-su [sea] 3. Ntlak., zuk zuk [sea]
>
But I compare "su-su" to Lithuanian "su-ras, su-ru-pis" [salty, river name]
>4. Malanta, kuai [water] 4. Thatl., kaea [water]
>
But I compare "kuai" to Latin "aquae" [water(s)]
90 minutes' work. Any fool can do what H-T did. If I wanted to pass 2 weeks
of my life sitting in a library carrel with a pile of Austronesian
dictionaries on one side and a pile of I-E dictionaries on another, it is
absolutely certain that I could come up, as H-T did, with hundreds of
"parallels" between one family and the other. Because my rules of study make
it easy to find what I am looking for. Any random comparison goes, between
any two languages, paying no attention to what is already known of the
history of those languages. My examples would *not* buttress an argument
that Polynesians were descended from I-E seafarers. They would *not* suggest
a relationship between the two families and every linguist would laugh at my
work in the same way you are enabling them now to laugh at H-T's.
That's why modern work must show *systematic correspondences*. H-T,
Heyerdahl and you have produced no systematic sound changes. Given the flaws
in your method, it would be impossible for you to do so even if they
existed. You don't know how to write sounds.
A FEW TIPS
(1) So your sole linguistics authority tells you, "Bilqula, a Salishan
language, usually has the best parallels to Polynesian languages." In that
case, you should set aside all his Wakashan examples for the time being and
work solely from Salishan languages. Because the Salishan-Wakashan
relationship is very unlikely, H-T's Wakashan-Austronesian parallels are
less likely to hold up. Go where H-T tells you the gold is, Yuri.
(2) Get good current dictionaries and grammars of several Salishan
languages, so that you can figure out what the words actually were that H-T
was trying to spell. His orthography is so primitive as to be useless.
Salishan languages are famous for an array of sounds that are as alien to
Polynesian as they are to English. You have to find a way to represent them
in writing and H-T, in 1898, had not yet developed one. All word comparisons
are pointless if you do not know how to show the sounds of the real words
for purposes of comparison.
(3) Familiarize yourself with Proto-Polynesian. This language is well worked
out. Use that for your comparisons with Salishan instead of random modern
languages. Modern languages do not show the state of Polynesian at the time
period you are looking at. But linguists can tell you what it is with a high
degree of likelihood. It is pointless to keep pointing to what a word in
Hawai'ian, Samoan, Marquesan etc. look like now, when your theory requires
that the ancestral form of all these tongues be the one that exhibits the
relationship.
(4) Quit looking for words that look alike -- your beloved "parallels" --
and seek instead to establish regular relationships between one group of
Austronesian words with the sound X and a group of potential cognates in
Salishan with the sound Y.
(5) Take a course. You cannot reinvent the science of linguistics by gazing
in the mirror and talking to yourself. You will need some of the concepts a
linguistics course can provide you with. In a classroom, you will need to
listen. Linguistics is about listening. If you cannot listen well to
linguists, linguists may conclude you cannot listen well to Polynesians or
American Indians or anybody else. Thus, your opinions or recommendations on
linguistic relationships would tend to be low-protein fare.
I hope you have fun with your project and take some satisfaction from it. If
you learn how to phrase your inquiry in a scientific manner, bring it back
to sci.lang and you will find people who can help you examine your material.
At the moment, all we can do is indicate to you that what you have shown so
far is useless for research purposes. In the meantime, we will continue to
employ the linguistic taxonomies that have passed, or at least attempted,
rigorous methodological tests. You can look them up if you want to know
state-of-the-art opinion on the relationships of Polynesian and (quite
separately) the relationships of NW Coast languages. The two groups have no
genetic affiliation.
Cheers,
Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Yuri Kuchinsky
<78hv7k$9ir$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org> a lot of usual shallow nonsense and
tripe, and then as follows,
> >BELLY:
> >
> >2. Sulu Is., koli 2. Bilq., kul
> But I compare "koli" to German "Kolik"
That's right, Tony, dear. And now, if you can show us how the Germans
manufacture their tapa-cloth, then you may actually have a point.
...
> >TONGUE (gen. s.):
> >
> >1. Hawaiian, kala, kalaan 1. Snan., koel [to speak];
> >[to proclaim];
> But I compare "kalaan" to French "que langue" [what a tongue]
So are you now saying the French make ocean going canoes in the same way
as the Kwakiutl? Because then you may actually have a point...
Otherwise your nonsense and tripe just remain this: nonsense and tripe,
Not very intelligent, and also extremely closed-minded.
Try again, pal.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=- Toronto -=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Sherry [Thomas Sheridan] is dull, naturally dull; but it must have
taken him a great deal of pains to become what we now see him. Such
an excess of stupidity, sir, is not in Nature -=O=- Samuel Johnson
Harlan Messinger
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78ih6r$9g5$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Anthony West <aaw...@critpath.org> wrote in article
><78hv7k$9ir$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org> a lot of usual shallow nonsense and
>tripe, and then as follows,
>
>> >
>> >2. Sulu Is., koli 2. Bilq., kul
>
>> But I compare "koli" to German "Kolik"
>
>manufacture their tapa-cloth, then you may actually have a point.
>
> ...
>
>> >
>> >1. Hawaiian, kala, kalaan 1. Snan., koel [to speak];
>> >[to proclaim];
>
>> But I compare "kalaan" to French "que langue" [what a tongue]
>
>as the Kwakiutl? Because then you may actually have a point...
>
>Otherwise your nonsense and tripe just remain this: nonsense and tripe,
>Not very intelligent, and also extremely closed-minded.
>
That's exactly his point, Yuri. As he explained clearly, Tony DOESN'T think
that these bits and pieces demonstrate a relationship between the language
families, for such reasons as those you've noted. And by the same token, the
impressionistic bits and pieces that you've come up with are also tripe and
nonsense, and your insistence that they are any more than that are likewise
not very intelligent and also extremely closed-minded.
Anthony West
Harlan Messinger wrote in message <78ikdp$s1u$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>
>Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78ih6r$9g5$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>>Anthony West <aaw...@critpath.org> wrote in article
>><78hv7k$9ir$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org> a lot of usual shallow nonsense and
>>tripe, and then as follows,
>>
>>> >
>>> >2. Sulu Is., koli 2. Bilq., kul
>>
>>> But I compare "koli" to German "Kolik"
>>
>>manufacture their tapa-cloth, then you may actually have a point.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> >
>>> >1. Hawaiian, kala, kalaan 1. Snan., koel [to speak];
>>> >[to proclaim];
>>
>>> But I compare "kalaan" to French "que langue" [what a tongue]
>>
>>as the Kwakiutl? Because then you may actually have a point...
>>
>>Otherwise your nonsense and tripe just remain this: nonsense and tripe,
>>Not very intelligent, and also extremely closed-minded.
>>
>
>That's exactly his point, Yuri. As he explained clearly, Tony DOESN'T think
>that these bits and pieces demonstrate a relationship between the language
>families, for such reasons as those you've noted. And by the same token,
the
>impressionistic bits and pieces that you've come up with are also tripe and
>nonsense, and your insistence that they are any more than that are likewise
>not very intelligent and also extremely closed-minded.
>
DO NOT CARE about your barkcloth and your canoes. They don't care if you and
Thor are right about barkcloth and canoes; they don't care if the rest of
the world is right about barkcloth and canoes. They care about linguistic
evidence.
You have none.
Regards,
Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Ilya R. Lapshin
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Anthony West <aaw...@critpath.org> wrote in article
> <78hv7k$9ir$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org> a lot of usual shallow nonsense and
> tripe, and then as follows,
>
> > >BELLY:
> > >
> > >2. Sulu Is., koli 2. Bilq., kul
>
> > But I compare "koli" to German "Kolik"
>
> That's right, Tony, dear. And now, if you can show us how the Germans
> manufacture their tapa-cloth, then you may actually have a point.
>
> ...
>
> > >TONGUE (gen. s.):
> > >
> > >1. Hawaiian, kala, kalaan 1. Snan., koel [to speak];
> > >[to proclaim];
>
> > But I compare "kalaan" to French "que langue" [what a tongue]
>
> So are you now saying the French make ocean going canoes in the same way
> as the Kwakiutl? Because then you may actually have a point...
>
> Otherwise your nonsense and tripe just remain this: nonsense and tripe,
> Not very intelligent, and also extremely closed-minded.
>
> Try again, pal.
>
> Yuri.
>
Yuri,
Is this is all in the Anthony West's post that you think
deserves your attention?
And also, could you please explain why Heyerdahl is so constantly
different in his opinions from the overwhelming majority of
the specialists in the fields he discusses?
Ilya
Yuri Kuchinsky
: The thing you have not yet grasped, Yuri, is that linguists, by definition,
: DO NOT CARE about your barkcloth and your canoes.
Only in your prejudiced one-track brain, Tony.
: They don't care if you and
: Thor are right about barkcloth and canoes; they don't care if the rest of
: the world is right about barkcloth and canoes. They care about linguistic
: evidence.
This is just in your Alice-In-Wonderland World, my poor confused friend
Tony. In real world, linguists pay attention to research in related
disciplines.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
You'd better beat it. You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi,
you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute
and a huff -=O=- Groucho Marx
Yuri Kuchinsky
: That's exactly his point, Yuri. As he explained clearly, Tony DOESN'T think
: that these bits and pieces demonstrate a relationship between the language
: families, for such reasons as those you've noted.
You're not making any sense, Harlan. Which reasons "I've noted"?
Do you always have such problems with expressing your thoughts?
: And by the same token, the
: impressionistic bits and pieces that you've come up with are also tripe and
: nonsense, and your insistence that they are any more than that are likewise
: not very intelligent and also extremely closed-minded.
You mean none of the evidence I've presented is valid? Is there something
there that might be valid? What about these artistic parallels? All a
mirage?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
-=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
Harlan Messinger
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78l0ct$r6t$8...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Harlan Messinger (zzzhmess...@zzzerolszzz.com) wrote on Mon, 25 Jan
1999 15:23:09 -0500:
>
>: That's exactly his point, Yuri. As he explained clearly, Tony DOESN'T
think
>: that these bits and pieces demonstrate a relationship between the
language
>: families, for such reasons as those you've noted.
>
>You're not making any sense, Harlan. Which reasons "I've noted"?
>
>Do you always have such problems with expressing your thoughts?
Do you always have such problems remembering what you've just gotten through
writing, without asking the person who responds to refresh your memory?
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78l0l9$r6t$9...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 1999
17:28:16 -0500:
>
[snip]
>This is just in your Alice-In-Wonderland World, my poor confused friend
>Tony. In real world, linguists pay attention to research in related
>disciplines.
>
not based on barkcloth. They are not based on canoes. The currently accepted
model of NWCoast linguistic affiliations is based on the study of languages.
By linguists.
Anyone who wants to know what it is can look it up.
Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <78ih6r$9g5$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net
: (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: > So are you now saying the French make ocean going canoes in the same way
: > as the Kwakiutl? Because then you may actually have a point...
: >
: > Otherwise your nonsense and tripe just remain this: nonsense and tripe,
: > Not very intelligent, and also extremely closed-minded.
: Is this is all in the Anthony West's post that you think
: deserves your attention?
Well, Ilya, Tony loves nothing more than to rant, to engage in repetitious
platitudes, and to spew hatred. Somewhere in what he writes there may be
some sensible things as well, but to look for them is quite a chore,
considering all the other prejudiced nonsense he posts.
: And also, could you please explain why Heyerdahl is so constantly
: different in his opinions from the overwhelming majority of
: the specialists in the fields he discusses?
Certainly Heyerdahl is not perfect, but I consider him as one of the very
few honest Polynesianists today. His writings are a breath of fresh air,
considering all the nonsense that prevails in the field. Imagine, all of
modern mainstream Polynesian scholarship is predicated on this very
strange idea that human migrations always go _against_ currents and winds.
They got it exactly ass backwards. I'd rather live in the real world.
Cheers,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
Doug Weller
GMT, yu...@globalserve.net said...
> Certainly Heyerdahl is not perfect, but I consider him as one of the very
> few honest Polynesianists today. His writings are a breath of fresh air,
>
Why this is a breath of fresh air to Yuri, who thinks that anyone who
challenges the idea that Native Americans invented these techniques, is a
mystery.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Page: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <78nks0$sbf$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 27 Jan 1999 18:11:12
: > Certainly Heyerdahl is not perfect, but I consider him as one of the very
: > few honest Polynesianists today. His writings are a breath of fresh air,
: And he thinks that the Hittites, etc., brought sailing techniques to SA.
Perhaps your inability to read led you to miss what I said above about
Heyerdahl not being perfect.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Doug Weller
GMT, yu...@globalserve.net said...
> Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote on Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:14:43 -0000:
> : In article <78nks0$sbf$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 27 Jan 1999 18:11:12
> : GMT, yu...@globalserve.net said...
> : > Certainly Heyerdahl is not perfect, but I consider him as one of the very
> : > few honest Polynesianists today. His writings are a breath of fresh air,
>
> : And he thinks that the Hittites, etc., brought sailing techniques to SA.
>
> Perhaps your inability to read led you to miss what I said above about
> Heyerdahl not being perfect.
>
Perhaps you inability to read (see, I can do it also) has led you to never
answer my question, repeated several time, that you let us know where you
agree and where you disagree with Heyerdahl? What are your criteria?
And you seem to miss the point entirely. When you disagree with others you
often call them racist, etc. But when Heyerdahl makes much more outrageous
statements, you simply say he's not perfect. Why are those who *doubt* that
South Americans colonised this and that in the Pacific racist, and yet
Heyerdahl, who definitely denies the abilities of Native Americans and
Polynesians, is simply 'not perfect'?
Doug
This post is, as are all my posts, copyright, and no one has permission to
reproduce them without my authorisation.
Anthony West
Doug Weller wrote in message ...
Since you appear to trust every single citation of specific fact in
Heyerdahl as utterly unimpeachable and precise beyond any possibility of
disagreement, your disagreements as far as I can see, are restricted to
interpretations of his data. Heyerdahl just reads his data one way, you
another.
Well, hmm. If Heyerdahl's so great at gathering all those data, then my
inclination would be to trust his interpretation of them over yours. Why is
yours better than his?
If Heyerdahl is 'not perfect,' as you say, on collecting data, where is he
not perfect? You rush so to point out the imperfections in other bodies of
data, that your opinion on Heyerdahl's imperfections -- considering how much
you've studied him -- should be highly valuable.
Regards,
Tony the Imperfect
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <78qbaj$rl9$4...@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 28 Jan 1999 18:46:43
: GMT, yu...@globalserve.net said...
: > Perhaps your inability to read led you to miss what I said above about
: > Heyerdahl not being perfect.
: Perhaps you inability to read (see, I can do it also) has led you to never
: answer my question, repeated several time, that you let us know where you
: agree and where you disagree with Heyerdahl? What are your criteria?
I've dealt with this already, but your memory is failing. I'm not
persuaded by a number of things Heyerdahl says. For example, Caucasoids in
Peru may well have been in America even before the rise of Old World
civilizations such as Hittite. Kennewick Man is evidence for this.
Many areas of early prehistory are too difficult to evaluate at this
stage. Heyerdahl may be right or he may be wrong. I claim the right to say
"I don't know" in many areas. I don't claim omniscience as you seem to.
Your approach is unscientific.
: And you seem to miss the point entirely. When you disagree with others you
: often call them racist, etc. But when Heyerdahl makes much more outrageous
: statements, you simply say he's not perfect. Why are those who *doubt* that
: South Americans colonised this and that in the Pacific racist, and yet
: Heyerdahl, who definitely denies the abilities of Native Americans and
: Polynesians, is simply 'not perfect'?
Only a total fool will really believe that Heyerdahl is racist. I don't
believe it for a second. This is just another smear from Doug Weller.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -O- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -O- Toronto
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Brian M. Scott
> I claim the right to say
> "I don't know" in many areas.
Apparently Yuri's a monopolist.
Brian M. Scott
Antonio
>> I claim the right to say
>> "I don't know" in many areas.
>
> Apparently Yuri's a monopolist.
But his Science is polymonist.
--
@NtOnju mArkS
Plant Systematics & Evolution
Mike Cleven
wrote:
>Harlan Messinger (zzzhmess...@zzzerolszzz.com) wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:23:09 -0500:
>
>: That's exactly his point, Yuri. As he explained clearly, Tony DOESN'T think
>: that these bits and pieces demonstrate a relationship between the language
>: families, for such reasons as those you've noted.
>
>You're not making any sense, Harlan. Which reasons "I've noted"?
>
>Do you always have such problems with expressing your thoughts?
>
>: And by the same token, the
>: impressionistic bits and pieces that you've come up with are also tripe and
>: nonsense, and your insistence that they are any more than that are likewise
>: not very intelligent and also extremely closed-minded.
>
>You mean none of the evidence I've presented is valid? Is there something
>there that might be valid? What about these artistic parallels? All a
>mirage?
Well, Yuri, you simply haven't presented any "evidence", especially
about the Kwakwa'kawakw and their neighbours. You've posted a bunch
of wild speculations, even a bunch of "this possibly existed" as if it
made it true. And the artistic parallels you claim exist simply
don't, no more than triangles or jagged lines could be "artistic
parallels".
- : ! ) (that's a protruding tongue).
Mike Cleven
http://members.home.net/ironmtn/
The thunderbolt steers all things.
- Herakleitos
Peter T. Daniels
reference for a few days ago?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Ross Clark
Yes. I mentioned the paper by Montler in a post in December. The
relevance of it is, unfortunately, likely to be lost on those who are
most in need of a more realistic perspective. :-)
Ross Clark
Kalani M.
RE: line, only to find out you do the same old thing with others in here.
Trying to impress everyone with what you know but simultaneously accusing
linguist of being the underminer and basically just being a fucking bitch.
Get a grip and grow up. If you want to prove your facts, fine. Stop bitching
by typing different subjects only to continue the same thing. I'm looking for
something interesting to read, but it all leads to the same thing. Yet
everyone else is so gullible to give in to this too.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: ... And the artistic parallels you claim exist
You're too clued out, Mikey. The artistic parallels exist not only because
I say so. They exist because dozens of art historians ALSO say so. See the
bibliography in Badner. And get informed.
: simply don't,
That's because you're blind. And what value should anyone put then on
anything you'd say about the linguistic parallels?
: no more than triangles or jagged lines could be "artistic
: parallels".
: - : ! ) (that's a protruding tongue).
Yes, you, clued out hypocrite. Read the sig, it was written expressly for
the likes of you.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
Yuri Kuchinsky
time for me to add a few more comments. I'm actually surprised that,
considering that this material puts the whole accepted linguistic history
of Polynesia on its ear, the vehemence of rejection by professionals was
not much more severe. I take this, i.e. the absense of really screaming
flames, as a compliment.
Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:32:22 -0500:
: That's why modern work must show *systematic correspondences*. H-T,
: Heyerdahl and you have produced no systematic sound changes.
This was what Tony, the main guardian of the linguistic dogma here, wrote
way back then. He was under the impression that I was not aware of this
stuff before. But he actually only highlighted his own clued out state.
Sure, in a comparison between two hypothetically distantly related
languages, the main thing to look for will be systematic sound changes.
They would indicate relatedness. But what we have here IS NOT two
hypothetically distantly related languages. What we have here is a very
special and unique situation. We have a whole lot of languages on one end,
in Polynesia, and we have even more languages, many of them still
insufficiently studied and understood, on the other end, on NW Coast.
So it is a situation sui generis, and any hasty and unthinking attempts to
deal with it (a la Tony West) will amount to no more than an indictment of
academic incompetence on the part of the hasty critic himself.
Logically, what is needed as the next step is to identify specific
languages which to compare, and this has not even been done yet. What has
been done so far, in my view, is only to indicate that something of
significance is happening with these comparisons.
Why is Tony talking about "sound changes" anyway? Is he blind? In many of
these cases the sounds in fact don't even seem to change at all! They are
the same sounds. What a goof!
I've given many examples of this already, and can give many more.
FIRE (general sense)
In Polynesia:
1. Rotto, hai
2. Mysol (coast), lap
On NW Coast:
1. Kwakiutl, hai
Snan., haiuk
2. Ntlakap, lap, or aap [sunset, evening]
---
And look at the negatives in the two areas.
NO, NOT -- Basic forms
In Polynesia:
I
Te
Oua
On NW Coast -- Same basic forms:
I
Te
Oua
Why should we even bother with sound changes at this preliminary stage of
investigation where the sounds in many cases have not even changed? Tony,
as usual, is putting the cart before the horse.
Only a logically based investigation can give justice to this problem.
These seemingly close similarities between the languages of these two
areas cannot be ignored by an objective investigator.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Doug Weller
yu...@globalserve.net said...
> Mike Cleven (iro...@bigfoot.com) wrote on Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:14:28 GMT:
>
> : ... And the artistic parallels you claim exist
>
> You're too clued out, Mikey. The artistic parallels exist not only because
> I say so. They exist because dozens of art historians ALSO say so. See the
> bibliography in Badner. And get informed.
>
authority, and Yuri claims that his opinion is as good as anyone elses. But if
Yuri wants to appeal to authority, that's ok.
Doug
Mike Cleven
wrote:
>Mike Cleven (iro...@bigfoot.com) wrote on Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:14:28 GMT:
>
>: ... And the artistic parallels you claim exist
>
>You're too clued out, Mikey. The artistic parallels exist not only because
>I say so. They exist because dozens of art historians ALSO say so. See the
>bibliography in Badner. And get informed.
>
>: simply don't,
>
>That's because you're blind. And what value should anyone put then on
>anything you'd say about the linguistic parallels?
I'm not blind, Yuri, and I've been around Pacific NW art since I first
opened my eyes. I've also had exposure to Polynesian art since I was
young (my mother's sister owned land on the big island of Hawaii, and
her husband was Hawaiian, so their house was full of the stuff). I've
also had wide exposure to African, Aztec, Egyptian, Celtic, Norse,
Chinese, Japanese, Australian, and a whole slew of other stuff. And
there's no more similarity between Pacific NW art and Polynesia than
there is between anything else.
Tongues are biological items, and the image and/or symbolism of the
protruding tongue occurs in many widely spread cultures, from the
statues of Kali in India to images of Bel in the Celtic realms and the
Sheila-na-gig from Ireland to Aizen-myoo in Japan, to the polite form
of greeting among the Inuit.
Your claim that there exists some kind of artistic parallel when, in
fact, there is none, is not borne out by your referring to someone
else's bibliography in a work that itself is not widely supported and
which, in fact, turns out to be nothing more than a badly-written
graduate thesis.
>
>: no more than triangles or jagged lines could be "artistic
>: parallels".
>
>: - : ! ) (that's a protruding tongue).
>
>Yes, you, clued out hypocrite. Read the sig, it was written expressly for
>the likes of you.
Cut it with the "yours" in your sig, then, Yuri, as it's a form of
politeness that's out of character with your habitual contempt for
people who point out the falsities in your thinking.
Mike Cleven
wrote:
>The discussion is this thread sort of petered out already, so perhaps it's
>time for me to add a few more comments. I'm actually surprised that,
>considering that this material puts the whole accepted linguistic history
>of Polynesia on its ear, the vehemence of rejection by professionals was
>not much more severe. I take this, i.e. the absense of really screaming
>flames, as a compliment.
It petered out because you were making claims about the Kwakiutl
(Kwakwa'kawakw) that were not true, and which you were unable to
prove, and because you kept on "reaching" by trying to drag the
Salishan into the matter and claiming that they were related when they
weren't. And you tried to invoke the pubic-hair-sun-snaring thing
even after it was shown that your source didn't mention a single tribe
that was anywhere near the Pacific NW.
The thread didn't peter out; your ideas were squelched. Now you're
trying to bring them forward again, as if stating them again would
make them true (which it won't).
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <794v13$7c$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 1999
09:32:22 -0500:
>
>: That's why modern work must show *systematic correspondences*. H-T,
>: Heyerdahl and you have produced no systematic sound changes.
>
>Sure, in a comparison between two hypothetically distantly related
>languages, the main thing to look for will be systematic sound changes.
>They would indicate relatedness. But what we have here IS NOT two
>hypothetically distantly related languages. What we have here is a very
>special and unique situation. We have a whole lot of languages on one end,
>in Polynesia, and we have even more languages, many of them still
>insufficiently studied and understood, on the other end, on NW Coast.
>
NW Coast languages are insufficiently studied and understood by you. As are
Polynesian languages. By you.
>So it is a situation sui generis, and any hasty and unthinking attempts to
>deal with it (a la Tony West) will amount to no more than an indictment of
>academic incompetence on the part of the hasty critic himself.
>
Yuri, examine what you have said. Slowly. "This situation is sui generis
BECAUSE:
(1) we have many languages in Polynesia
(2) also, we have many languages in the NW Coast
(3) THEREFORE, we don't need to pay any attention to linguistic method."
Sorry, another dud. The comparative method is NOT designed to compare just
one single language with another single language. It flourishes when large
numbers of languages are involved. That is precisely what the linguists who
have developed modern taxonomies have done. It is the exact opposite of "sui
generis."
>Logically, what is needed as the next step is to identify specific
>languages which to compare, and this has not even been done yet. What has
>been done so far, in my view, is only to indicate that something of
>significance is happening with these comparisons.
>
>Why is Tony talking about "sound changes" anyway? Is he blind? In many of
>these cases the sounds in fact don't even seem to change at all! They are
>the same sounds. What a goof!
>
[snip more odd examples]
You have again committed the most elementary error of comparative
linguistics. Several posters have been kind enough to explain it to you, and
I demonstrated a week ago in this thread that "sounds [that] don't seem to
change at all" can be found, on a random basis, between ANY two language
families (Indo-European and Austronesian was the example I chose). That's
why linguists don't do what you want them to do. They found out a long time
ago that it doesn't work. They will continue to employ their method. You can
learn it or not. If you don't no one will pay any attention to what you say
about linguistics. And why should they?
>Why should we even bother with sound changes at this preliminary stage of
>investigation where the sounds in many cases have not even changed? Tony,
>as usual, is putting the cart before the horse.
>
This is Monty Python for linguists.
>Only a logically based investigation can give justice to this problem.
>These seemingly close similarities between the languages of these two
>areas cannot be ignored by an objective investigator.
>
Neither, according to your reasoning, can the similarities between the
languages of the Pacific and the languages of Europe. After all, Yuri:
MAORI wa-wa-ro "sound"
FRENCH oua-oua-ron "bullfrog"
Ribbit!
Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Haole
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
(snip)
> That's because you're blind. And what value should anyone put then on
> anything you'd say about the linguistic parallels?
One need not have eyesight to be a good linguist...
-Haole, who just couldn't resist
--
Sainless steel and painted glass
Give me a pulse like a hammer and a mind to match
-OpIvy
Ross Clark
>
> The discussion is this thread sort of petered out already, so perhaps it's
> time for me to add a few more comments. I'm actually surprised that,
> considering that this material puts the whole accepted linguistic history
> of Polynesia on its ear, the vehemence of rejection by professionals was
> not much more severe. I take this, i.e. the absense of really screaming
> flames, as a compliment.
Yes, we know, Yuri: Nobody replied, so Yuri must be right.
And if somebody had replied, you would have paid no attention to what
they said anyway, and Yuri would still be right.
Do you think maybe that had something to do with why nobody much
replied?
It certainly did in my case, and I told you as much. When you presented
your data you said in effect "Ross Clark will not like this, but who
cares what he thinks, because he's a clued-out Eurocentric establishment
Polynesianist". Fine. I've had a couple hours for useful, interesting
work of my own instead of working, unpaid and ignored, for you.
>
> Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:32:22 -0500:
>
> : That's why modern work must show *systematic correspondences*. H-T,
> : Heyerdahl and you have produced no systematic sound changes.
>
> This was what Tony, the main guardian of the linguistic dogma here, wrote
> way back then. He was under the impression that I was not aware of this
> stuff before. But he actually only highlighted his own clued out state.
And now, having demonstrated his awesome mastery of archaeology, botany,
philosophy of science, and other fields, Yuri reveals that he is also an
expert on linguistics.
>
> Sure, in a comparison between two hypothetically distantly related
> languages, the main thing to look for will be systematic sound changes.
> They would indicate relatedness. But what we have here IS NOT two
> hypothetically distantly related languages. What we have here is a very
> special and unique situation. We have a whole lot of languages on one end,
> in Polynesia, and we have even more languages, many of them still
> insufficiently studied and understood, on the other end, on NW Coast.
>
> So it is a situation sui generis,
...and within half a dozen lines has revealed that he does not have the
slightest idea what he is talking about.
and any hasty and unthinking attempts to
> deal with it (a la Tony West) will amount to no more than an indictment of
> academic incompetence on the part of the hasty critic himself.
>
> Logically, what is needed as the next step is to identify specific
> languages which to compare, and this has not even been done yet. What has
> been done so far, in my view, is only to indicate that something of
> significance is happening with these comparisons.
>
> Why is Tony talking about "sound changes" anyway? Is he blind? In many of
> these cases the sounds in fact don't even seem to change at all! They are
> the same sounds. What a goof!
>
> I've given many examples of this already, and can give many more.
>
> FIRE (general sense)
>
> In Polynesia:
>
> 1. Rotto, hai
> 2. Mysol (coast), lap
Yuri, do you have any clue at all where "Rotto" and "Mysol" might be? Do
you actually think they are "in Polynesia"?
>
> On NW Coast:
>
> 1. Kwakiutl, hai
> Snan., haiuk
>
> 2. Ntlakap, lap, or aap [sunset, evening]
>
> ---
>
> And look at the negatives in the two areas.
>
> NO, NOT -- Basic forms
>
> In Polynesia:
>
> I
> Te
> Oua
>
> On NW Coast -- Same basic forms:
>
> I
> Te
> Oua
>
> Why should we even bother with sound changes at this preliminary stage of
> investigation where the sounds in many cases have not even changed?
Well yes, of course, why bother with comparative linguistics at all? The
languages must be identical! How could we have missed this?!
Yuri, as a linguist, you are fully worthy of your teacher. Thor must be
proud.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 1 Feb 1999 18:30:11 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >You're too clued out, Mikey. The artistic parallels exist not only because
: >I say so. They exist because dozens of art historians ALSO say so. See the
: >bibliography in Badner. And get informed.
: >
: >: simply don't,
: >
: >That's because you're blind. And what value should anyone put then on
: >anything you'd say about the linguistic parallels?
: I'm not blind, Yuri, and I've been around Pacific NW art since I first
: opened my eyes.
Which was never?
: I've also had exposure to Polynesian art since I was
: young (my mother's sister owned land on the big island of Hawaii, and
: her husband was Hawaiian, so their house was full of the stuff). I've
: also had wide exposure to African, Aztec, Egyptian, Celtic, Norse,
: Chinese, Japanese, Australian, and a whole slew of other stuff. And
: there's no more similarity between Pacific NW art and Polynesia than
: there is between anything else.
: Your claim
It's not "my claim", Mikey. Really, you're too slow-witted. You'll need to
deal with Levi-Strauss.
: that there exists some kind of artistic parallel when, in
: fact, there is none, is not borne out by your referring to someone
: else's bibliography in a work that itself is not widely supported and
: which, in fact, turns out to be nothing more than a badly-written
: graduate thesis.
I see. So the book Mikey has never read is all wrong, and all those art
experts and anthropologists are all wrong... because Mikey's aunt owns
some land in Hawaii???
Now, this is what I call science!
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 1 Feb 1999 19:24:19 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >The discussion is this thread sort of petered out already, so perhaps it's
: >time for me to add a few more comments. I'm actually surprised that,
: >considering that this material puts the whole accepted linguistic history
: >of Polynesia on its ear, the vehemence of rejection by professionals was
: >not much more severe. I take this, i.e. the absense of really screaming
: >flames, as a compliment.
: It petered out because you were making claims about the Kwakiutl
: (Kwakwa'kawakw) that were not true,
False.
: and which you were unable to
: prove,
False.
: and because you kept on "reaching" by trying to drag the
: Salishan into the matter and claiming that they were related when they
: weren't.
False.
: And you tried to invoke the pubic-hair-sun-snaring thing
: even after it was shown that your source didn't mention a single tribe
: that was anywhere near the Pacific NW.
False.
: The thread didn't peter out; your ideas were squelched.
False.
: Now you're
: trying to bring them forward again, as if stating them again would
: make them true (which it won't).
Hello, Mikey! Shake hands with reality, and see how it feels.
Yuri Kuchinsky
<795sia$9b9$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org>...
[Yuri:]
> >Why is Tony talking about "sound changes" anyway? Is he blind? In many of
> >these cases the sounds in fact don't even seem to change at all! They are
> >the same sounds. What a goof!
> You have again committed the most elementary error of comparative
> linguistics. Several posters have been kind enough to explain it to you, and
> I demonstrated a week ago in this thread that "sounds [that] don't seem to
> change at all" can be found, on a random basis, between ANY two language
> families (Indo-European and Austronesian was the example I chose).
More meaningless ranting from Tony. This is from the ignoramus who thinks
that "pharisee" does not mean "hypocrite" in English. Perhaps he missed
that meaning because he is himself the most notorious hypocrite?
> That's
> why linguists don't do what you want them to do. They found out a long time
> ago that it doesn't work.
Your brain doesn't work?
> They will continue to employ their method. You can
> learn it or not. If you don't no one will pay any attention to what you say
> about linguistics. And why should they?
>
> >Why should we even bother with sound changes at this preliminary stage of
> >investigation where the sounds in many cases have not even changed? Tony,
> >as usual, is putting the cart before the horse.
> >Only a logically based investigation can give justice to this problem.
> >These seemingly close similarities between the languages of these two
> >areas cannot be ignored by an objective investigator.
> Neither, according to your reasoning, can the similarities between the
> languages of the Pacific and the languages of Europe. After all, Yuri:
>
> MAORI wa-wa-ro "sound"
> FRENCH oua-oua-ron "bullfrog"
This is just a red herring of course. Since this argument implies that all
word similarities between any two languages are meaningless, one can use
this argument to prove that no connection whatsoever exists between any
two languages of the world.
Duh!
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <797c99$m82$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Anthony West <aaw...@critpath.org> wrote in article
><795sia$9b9$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org>...
>
>[Yuri:]
>> >Why is Tony talking about "sound changes" anyway? Is he blind? In many
of
>> >these cases the sounds in fact don't even seem to change at all! They
are
>> >the same sounds. What a goof!
>
>> You have again committed the most elementary error of comparative
>> linguistics. Several posters have been kind enough to explain it to you,
and
>> I demonstrated a week ago in this thread that "sounds [that] don't seem
to
>> change at all" can be found, on a random basis, between ANY two language
>> families (Indo-European and Austronesian was the example I chose).
>
>More meaningless ranting from Tony. This is from the ignoramus who thinks
>that "pharisee" does not mean "hypocrite" in English. Perhaps he missed
>that meaning because he is himself the most notorious hypocrite?
>
as a meaning of "Pharisee."
What you are calling "meaningless ranting" is, however, the method relied on
by all comparative linguists. You don't like it, I see. Then why are you
asking them for assistance?
>> That's
>> why linguists don't do what you want them to do. They found out a long
time
>> ago that it doesn't work.
>
>Your brain doesn't work?
>
It works like the brains of other linguists in this regard.
>> Neither, according to your reasoning, can the similarities between the
>> languages of the Pacific and the languages of Europe. After all, Yuri:
>>
>> MAORI wa-wa-ro "sound"
>> FRENCH oua-oua-ron "bullfrog"
>
>This is just a red herring of course. Since this argument implies that all
>word similarities between any two languages are meaningless, one can use
>this argument to prove that no connection whatsoever exists between any
>two languages of the world.
>
That is precisely the case. And that is precisely why linguistic
relationships are NEVER based on the kind of evidence you have thus far
dragged into this thread. You need to find methodical correspondences. You
have not produced any. Neither has anybody else -- thus the classificatory
scheme that prevails in linguistics today. If you wish to revise the scheme,
you'll need to produce material that impresses linguists, not material that
impresses yourself.
>Duh!
>
Precisely. And the only way you can avoid having to say "Duh!" so often, in
a linguistic discussion, is to study entry-level linguistics.
If you wish to explore the languages you are interested in more profitably,
you will need to acquaint yourself with the work of contemporary Salishan
experts -- people by whom these languages are not poorly understood. You
will also need to get abreast of contemporary Austronesian taxonomy. Any
attempts to align the two groups -- either genetically or by substrate or
other loan proccess -- will need to employ current knowledge.
Regards,
Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Mike Cleven
wrote:
>
>I see. So the book Mikey has never read is all wrong, and all those art
>experts and anthropologists are all wrong... because Mikey's aunt owns
>some land in Hawaii???
>
>Now, this is what I call science!
"All those" art experts, Yuri? The one with the thesis on tongues?
And which anthropologists? Heyerdahl? Get a grip, monkey........
Mike Cleven
wrote:
>Mike Cleven (iro...@bigfoot.com) wrote on Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:14:49 GMT:
>: On 1 Feb 1999 19:24:19 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>: wrote:
>
>: >The discussion is this thread sort of petered out already, so perhaps it's
>: >time for me to add a few more comments. I'm actually surprised that,
>: >considering that this material puts the whole accepted linguistic history
>: >of Polynesia on its ear, the vehemence of rejection by professionals was
>: >not much more severe. I take this, i.e. the absense of really screaming
>: >flames, as a compliment.
>
>: It petered out because you were making claims about the Kwakiutl
>: (Kwakwa'kawakw) that were not true,
>
>False.
True. None of the things you were claiming about the Kwakwala
language or Kwakwa'kawakw mythology were true. Not one.
>
>: and which you were unable to
>: prove,
>
>False.
True. You were unable to prove ANYTHING, Yuri. Repeating the same
wrong sources and the same bad examples didn't prove anything.
>: and because you kept on "reaching" by trying to drag the
>: Salishan into the matter and claiming that they were related when they
>: weren't.
>
>False.
TRUE. You DID try and drag the Salishan languages in, and you DID
claim that they're related to the Wakashan group. They're NOT.
(Belonging to the same "sprachbund" is not the same as being related)
>: And you tried to invoke the pubic-hair-sun-snaring thing
>: even after it was shown that your source didn't mention a single tribe
>: that was anywhere near the Pacific NW.
>
>False.
True. The reference you gave turned out to provide a list that had
nothing to do with the Pacific Northwest, and you yourself were unable
to cite anything concerning any sun-snaring myths on the Coast.
>: The thread didn't peter out; your ideas were squelched.
>
>False.
True. People got bored with repeating their denunciations of your
silly ideas.
>: Now you're
>: trying to bring them forward again, as if stating them again would
>: make them true (which it won't).
>
>Hello, Mikey! Shake hands with reality, and see how it feels.
Using the patronizing diminutive of my name only makes you look
childish, Yuri. But we already knew that you are an intellectual
two-year-old.
I know what reality is, Yuri, and I don't need any snooty nosed
armchair archaeologist from Toronto who's never even been to BC to
claim that he knows more than me. Is it the air in that town, or some
kind of pill you banana-brains take to make you feel superior to the
rest of the world?
hun...@sbu.ac.uk
> Anthony West <aaw...@critpath.org> wrote in article
> <795sia$9b9$1...@tensegrity.CritPath.Org>...
[concerning linguists]
> > They will continue to employ their method. You can
> > learn it or not. If you don't no one will pay any attention to what you say
> > about linguistics. And why should they?
> >
> > >Why should we even bother with sound changes at this preliminary stage of
> > >investigation where the sounds in many cases have not even changed? Tony,
> > >as usual, is putting the cart before the horse.
>
> > >Only a logically based investigation can give justice to this problem.
> > >These seemingly close similarities between the languages of these two
> > >areas cannot be ignored by an objective investigator.
>
> > Neither, according to your reasoning, can the similarities between the
> > languages of the Pacific and the languages of Europe. After all, Yuri:
> >
> > MAORI wa-wa-ro "sound"
> > FRENCH oua-oua-ron "bullfrog"
>
> This is just a red herring of course. Since this argument implies that all
> word similarities between any two languages are meaningless, one can use
> this argument to prove that no connection whatsoever exists between any
> two languages of the world.
>
> Duh!
>
> Yuri.
Duh! Duh!! Duh!!! Duh!!!! Duh!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!etc.etc.etc.
(Sorry - let myself down there)
Yuri, why must you - an intelligent talented person with interesting
things to say - let yourself down in this sort of way. You surely cannot
believe the piece of puerile logic (or illogic) you've just posted?
Surely you can't have misunderstood the point of Tony's examples? He is
not implying "that all word similarities between any two languages are
meaningless", only that those of the type of "wa-wa-ro/oua-oua-ron"
(which were prominent in earlier pre- or pseudo-scientific linguistics)
may be meaningless _if they are not backed up with consistent linguistic
connections between the languages concerned_.
This is where evidence of e.g._consistent_ sound correspondences are
valuable (e.g.Hawaiian k vs. Maori t, German pf vs. English p, German z
vs. English t, German h vs. English h, etc. - apologies to linguists for
oversimplification).
Thus you could not use Tony's argument "to prove that no connection
whatsoever exists between any two languages of the world". What you can
do is to show that, by themselves, similarities of the
wa-wa-ro/oua-oua-ron type, cannot scientifically be used to prove
anything.
A rough biological analogy: the fact that both dolphins and sharks have
dorsal fins cannot be used to prove that they are particularly closely
related. To point this out is not to imply that _all_ such similarities
are similarly meaningless e.g. the fact that both dolphins and humans
have lungs is much more meaningful, which is brought out when it is then
noted that both these organisms have warm blood, suckle their young etc.
The fact that, superficially, a dolphin looks more like a shark than
like a human, is a warning against lazy, simplistic biology. Similarly,
Tony's wa-wa-ro/oua-oua-ron examples are a warning against lazy,
simplistic linguistics.
Regards
Frank
Yuri Kuchinsky
<36bd5028....@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>...
> On 2 Feb 1999 17:05:37 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I see. So the book Mikey has never read is all wrong, and all those art
> >experts and anthropologists are all wrong... because Mikey's aunt owns
> >some land in Hawaii???
> >
> >Now, this is what I call science!
>
> "All those" art experts, Yuri? The one with the thesis on tongues?
No, you brainless dolt. Your ignorance is invincible. If you'd only read
the book, you would have seen the citations to dozens of art experts who
disagree with you. You're pathetic.
> And which anthropologists? Heyerdahl?
No, you brainless dolt. Levi-Strauss is just one of anthropologists who
disagree with you.
Why don't you save yourself some embarrassment and go play with other kids
now. This discussion here is for adults.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Mike Cleven
wrote:
>Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
><36bd5028....@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>...
>> On 2 Feb 1999 17:05:37 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I see. So the book Mikey has never read is all wrong, and all those art
>> >experts and anthropologists are all wrong... because Mikey's aunt owns
>> >some land in Hawaii???
>> >
>> >Now, this is what I call science!
>>
>> "All those" art experts, Yuri? The one with the thesis on tongues?
>
>No, you brainless dolt. Your ignorance is invincible. If you'd only read
>the book, you would have seen the citations to dozens of art experts who
>disagree with you. You're pathetic.
Have yiou read those "dozens of art experts", Yuri, or have you only
read the citations of them in this bibliography you're raving about?
The art experts HERE IN BC make NO MENTION of any connection to
Polynesian art styles and forms. More than likely the refs in the
bibliog you're talking about make no comment about it either; they're
just unrelated sources for the author of the thesis you're talking
about - which don't make such a comparison, but rather define
(separately) the styles in question. If there were "dozens of art
experts" who said that NW and Polynesian styles were related, this
would be dogma. It's not, and you're the brainless dolt.
>
>> And which anthropologists? Heyerdahl?
>
>No, you brainless dolt. Levi-Strauss is just one of anthropologists who
>disagree with you.
>
>Why don't you save yourself some embarrassment and go play with other kids
>now. This discussion here is for adults.
You're not an adult, Yuri, and you don't know ANYTHING about the
Northwest Coast, not languages, not art styles, NOTHING.
Doug Weller
1999 20:04:10 GMT, iro...@bigfoot.com said...
>
> Have yiou read those "dozens of art experts", Yuri, or have you only
> read the citations of them in this bibliography you're raving about?
> The art experts HERE IN BC make NO MENTION of any connection to
> Polynesian art styles and forms. More than likely the refs in the
> bibliog you're talking about make no comment about it either; they're
> just unrelated sources for the author of the thesis you're talking
> about - which don't make such a comparison, but rather define
> (separately) the styles in question.
>
checked. A prime example of this is Z Sitchin, whose books have huge
bibliographies, with many books cited that contradict him!
Real researchers check references.
Eva Kifri
: Has anyone looked at the 1996 discussion of Hill-Tout I posted the
: reference for a few days ago?
: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Somehow, I missed that. Could you post it again or send it to me via
email please?
thanks -eva
Eva Kifri
from Amazon.com.
It's proper title is 'Oceanic Origin of the Kwakiutl-Nootka and Salish
Stocks of British Columbia' .
It cost around $11 special ordered and took 10 days to arrive.
-eva
Peter T. Daniels
Montler, Timothy. "A Reconstruction of the Earlist Songish Text."
*Anthropological Linguistics* 38/3 (Fall 1996): 405-38.
Eva Kifri
: Montler, Timothy. "A Reconstruction of the Earlist Songish Text."
: *Anthropological Linguistics* 38/3 (Fall 1996): 405-38.
: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Thanks much. -eva