Re: Paleo-etymology

[Dingbat]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 5:07:47 PM UTC+5:30, Daud Deden wrote:
> https://googleweblight.com/i?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDreidel&geid=NSTNR
>
>
> According to some scholars, the dreidel developed from an Irish or English top introduced into Germany known as a teetotum
>
> In German this came to be called a trendel,
>
> The Yiddish word dreydl comes from the word dreyen ("to turn", compare to drehen, meaning the same in German). The Hebrew word sevivon comes from the Semitic root sbb ("to turn") Hayyim Nahman Bialik used a different word, kirkar (from the root krkr – "to spin")
>
> Trendel@Grm: spinning top
> Dreydl@Yid: to turn
> Krkr@Hbr: to spin

I've also seen gilgul.

In Hebrew, the word gilgul means "cycle" or "wheel"
https://g.co/kgs/NAXsXa

Looks similar to circle, and kirkar too looks similar.

> Tletl@Azt: firedrill
> Pintal@Mly: spin twist fiber
> Gasing@Mly: spinning top

[Daud Deden]

The Hebrew term Gilgal most likely means "circle of stones".

[Daud Deden]

Guling, bamboo wife, dakimakura, Dutch wife, body pillow, bolster pillow

A long pillow or woven bamboo tube that is hugged by side-sleepers, common in Asia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_wife

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 12:43:29 AM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:

> The Hebrew term Gilgal most likely means "circle of stones".

Evidence?

[Daud Deden]

Pasted from wikipedia Gilgal,

with reference: Kotter, Wade R. (1990). "Gilgal (Place)". In David Noel Freedman, ed., Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Volume 2, p. 1022-1024

[Daud Deden]

Is there an etymological link between ancient bowl boat & the paleo-keyword?

Xyuambhuatlachyah (arid)
Njuambuangdualua (humid)

Kufa gufa qupha kippa chanupa Sem
Kuphos cup kom Eur
Arigolu parical perisal Ind
Co(pha)racle curragh Ire
Kayak umiak Inn
Kudru kowa Tib
Mongolu mongulu Mbu (dome)

Xyu(am)bhua(r/tl)uaqua(+l)(u/o)

Interestingly, aqua & (k)ekwelo appear at end, perhaps equal/level, possibly from word for water container, which like pot & hut is waterproof.

[Daud Deden]

Possibly, Namakwa (land east of kalahari) is from njuambuangdua

[Daud Deden]

On Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 10:11:37 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:

> Is there an etymological link between ancient bowl boat & the paleo-keyword?
>
> Xyuambhuatlachyah (arid)
> Njuambuangdualua (humid)
>

> (K/g/q)upha TEBA kippa chanupa Sem
SUPH/reed-sedge P.APYRUS(?) Egp
> Kuphos cup kom Eur
> Arigolu parical perisal TOPI Ind

> Co(pha)racle curragh Ire
> Kayak umiak Inn
> Kudru kowa Tib
> Mongolu mongulu Mbu (dome)
>
> Xyu(am)bhua(r/tl)uaqua(+l)(u/o)
>

> Interestingly, aqua & (k)ekwelo appear at end, perhaps equal/level, possibly from word for water container (.qualo ~ gallon), which like pot & hut is waterproof, and at the front: !hxaro (ostrich eggshell canteen water assurance exchange).
Probably linked, Chinese gulu dome/bowl/circle as a laundry basin which women used as coracles to trade with British ships in the bays.

[Daud Deden]

I hadn't known, but likely these are cognate:

Bed pit bottom, perhaps via .bhuat. which suggests vat.


bed (n.)
Old English bedd "bed, couch, resting place; garden plot," from Proto-Germanic *badja- "sleeping place dug in the ground" (source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon bed, Middle Dutch bedde, Old Norse beðr, Old High German betti, German Bett, Gothic badi "bed"), sometimes said to be from PIE root *bhedh- "to dig, pierce" (source also of Hittite beda- "to pierce, prick," Greek bothyros "pit," Latin fossa "ditch," Lithuanian bedu, besti "to dig," Breton bez "grave"

pit (n.1)
Old English pytt (Kentish *pet), "natural or man-made depression in the ground, water hole, well; grave," from Proto-Germanic *putt- "pool, puddle" (source also of Old Frisian pet, Old Saxon putti, Old Norse pyttr, Middle Dutch putte, Dutch put, Old High German pfuzza, German Pfütze "pool, puddle"), an early borrowing from Latin puteus "well, pit, shaft"

bottom (n.)
Old English botm, bodan "ground, soil, foundation, lowest or deepest part of anything," from Proto-Germanic *buthm- (source also of Old Frisian boden "soil," Old Norse botn, Dutch bodem, Old High German bodam, German Boden "ground, earth, soil"). This is perhaps from PIE root *bhudhno- "bottom" (source also of Sanskrit budhnah, Avestan buna- "bottom," Greek pythmen "foundation," Latin fundus "bottom, piece of land, farm," Old Irish bond "sole of the foot".


vat (n.)
c. 1200, large tub or cistern, "especially one for holding liquors in an immature state" [Century Dictionary], southern variant (see V) of Old English fæt "container, vat," from Proto-Germanic *fatan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Norse fat, Old Frisian fet, Middle Dutch, Dutch vat, Old High German faz, German faß), from PIE root *ped- (2) "container" (source also of Lithuanian puodas "pot".

[Daud Deden]

peat (n.)
"partly decomposed vegetable matter abundant in moist regions of northern Europe," where, especially in Ireland, it was an important source of fuel, c. 1200 in Scottish Latin, of unknown origin

Boat? Vessel vase vat buatl butler portal mb.water

boat (n.) Open vessel to cross water
Old English bat, from Proto-Germanic *bait- (source also of Old Norse batr, Dutch boot, German Boot),
French bateau "boat", Spanish batel, Italian battello, Medieval Latin batellus. Of serving vessels resembling a boat, by 1680s.
Bwato@Chichewa@Lake of flame: boat

[Daud Deden]

On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 3:09:35 AM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 2:12:45 AM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > I hadn't known, but likely these are cognate:
> >
> > Bed pit bottom, perhaps via .bhuat. which suggests vat.
> >
> >
> > bed (n.)
> > Old English bedd "bed, couch, resting place; garden plot," from Proto-Germanic *badja- "sleeping place dug in the ground" (source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon bed, Middle Dutch bedde, Old Norse beðr, Old High German betti, German Bett, Gothic badi "bed"), sometimes said to be from PIE root *bhedh- "to dig, pierce" (source also of Hittite beda- "to pierce, prick," Greek bothyros "pit," Latin fossa "ditch," Lithuanian bedu, besti "to dig," Breton bez "grave"
> >
> > pit (n.1)
> > Old English pytt (Kentish *pet), "natural or man-made depression in the ground, water hole, well; grave," from Proto-Germanic *putt- "pool, puddle" (source also of Old Frisian pet, Old Saxon putti, Old Norse pyttr, Middle Dutch putte, Dutch put, Old High German pfuzza, German Pfütze "pool, puddle"), an early borrowing from Latin puteus "well, pit, shaft"
> >
> > bottom (n.)
> > Old English botm, bodan "ground, soil, foundation, lowest or deepest part of anything," from Proto-Germanic *buthm- (source also of Old Frisian boden "soil," Old Norse botn, Dutch bodem, Old High German bodam, German Boden "ground, earth, soil"). This is perhaps from PIE root *bhudhno- "bottom" (source also of Sanskrit budhnah, Avestan buna- "bottom," Greek pythmen "foundation," Latin fundus "bottom, piece of land, farm," Old Irish bond "sole of the foot".
> >
> >
> > vat (n.)
> > c. 1200, large tub or cistern, "especially one for holding liquors in an immature state" [Century Dictionary], southern variant (see V) of Old English fæt "container, vat," from Proto-Germanic *fatan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Norse fat, Old Frisian fet, Middle Dutch, Dutch vat, Old High German faz, German faß), from PIE root *ped- (2) "container" (source also of Lithuanian puodas "pot".
>
> peat

> "partly decomposed vegetable matter abundant in moist regions of northern Europe," where, especially in Ireland, it was an important source of fuel, c. 1200 in Scottish Latin, of unknown origin
>
> Boat? Vessel vase vat buatl butler portal mb.water
>
> boat (n.) Open vessel to cross water
> Old English bat, from Proto-Germanic *bait- (source also of Old Norse batr, Dutch boot, German Boot),
> French bateau "boat", Spanish batel, Italian battello, Medieval Latin batellus. Of serving vessels resembling a boat, by 1680s.
> Bwato@Chichewa@Lake of flame: boat

Butler buticula/bottle

The modern role of the butler has evolved from earlier roles that were generally concerned with the care and serving of alcoholic beverages.

Ancient through medieval eras Edit
From ancient through medieval times, alcoholic beverages were chiefly stored first in earthenware vessels, then later in wooden barrels, rather than in glass bottles; these containers would have been an important part of a household's possessions. The care of these assets was therefore generally reserved for trusted slaves, although the job could also go to free persons because of heredity-based class lines or the inheritance of trades.

The biblical book of Genesis contains a reference to a role precursive to modern butlers. The early Hebrew Joseph interpreted a dream of Pharaoh's שקה (shaqah) (literally "to give to drink"), which is most often translated into English as "chief butler" or "chief cup-bearer".[4]

In ancient Greece and Rome, it was nearly always slaves who were charged with the care and service of wine, while during the Medieval Era the pincerna filled the role within the noble court. The English word "butler" itself comes from the Middle English word bo(u)teler (and several other forms), from Anglo-Norman buteler, itself from Old Norman butelier, corresponding to Old French botellier ("bottle bearer"), Modern French bouteiller, and before that from Medieval Latin butticula. The modern English "butler" thus relates both to bottles and casks.


A pincerna depicted in service to a noble court during the Medieval Era.
Eventually the European butler emerged as a middle-ranking member of the servants of a great house, in charge of the buttery (originally a storeroom for "butts" of liquor, although the term later came to mean a general storeroom or pantry).[5] While this is so for household butlers, those with the same title but in service to the Crown enjoyed a position of administrative power and were only minimally involved with various stores

[Ross Clark]

Possibly related to Persian saghi 'cup-bearer'(one possible source of
H.H.Munro's pen name "Saki")?

This page merely wonders:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/277381/what-is-the-english-equivalent-of-the-persian-word-saghi-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%82%DB%8C

but I'm sure I've seen a more satisfactory etymology somewhere.

Yusuf will probably know.

[Daud Deden]

Thanks, I was unaware of shaqa and saki (aside from Japanese).
Might link with !hxaro (water cup exchange, fermentable, drink storage), and from xyua(mbuatl)achya / shaq(u)a, the middle mbuatl/bottle lost due to aridity, and possibly paralleling both liquor and lac/leche.

[Daud Deden]

Crucible of chromium steel 11thC cupbearer metallurgical

Chromium Crucible Steel was First Made in Persia, Archaeologists Say
Sep 23, 2020 by News Staff / Source
« Previous| Next »
An international team of archaeologists from University College London, the Cyprus Institute and the University of Cambridge has analyzed finds from the 11th-century CE archaeological site of Chahak in southern Iran and found evidence for the intentional and regular addition of the chromium mineral chromite to the crucible charge, resulting in steel containing around 1 wt% chromium.

Crucible slag adhering to the interior of a crucible sherd. Image credit: Alipour et al, doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105224.
Crucible slag adhering to the interior of a crucible sherd. Image credit: Alipour et al, doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105224.

For more than a century, evidence for the production of crucible steel in Central and Southern Asia, prior to the European Industrial Revolution, has fascinated and challenged material scientists, historians and archaeologists.

At the same time, chromium-alloyed stainless steel was developed in the early 20th century, building upon 19th century experiments with low chromium steel.

“Our research provides the first evidence of the deliberate addition of a chromium mineral within steel production. We believe this was a Persian phenomenon,” said lead author Dr. Rahil Alipour, a researcher in the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

“This research not only delivers the earliest known evidence for the production of chromium steel dating back as early as the 11th century CE, but also provides a chemical tracer that could aid the identification of crucible steel artifacts in museums or archaeological collections back to their origin in Chahak, or the Chahak tradition.”

Chahak is described in a number of historical manuscripts dating from the 12th to 19th century CE as a once famous steel production center, and is the only known archaeological site within Iran’s borders with evidence of crucible steel making.

While Chahak is registered as a site of archaeological importance, the exact location of crucible steel production in Iran remained a mystery and difficult to locate today, given numerous villages in Iran are named Chahak.

The manuscript ‘Kitab al-Jamahir fi Marifah al-Jawahir’ (‘The Book Most Comprehensive in Knowledge on Precious Stones’, 10th-11th-century CE) written by the Persian polymath Abu-Rayhan Biruni, was of particular importance to the scientists given it provided the only known crucible steel making recipe.

Dr. Alipour and colleagues argue that the mysterious compound ‘rusakhtaj’ from Biruni’s recipe refers to the mineral chromite.

They also used radiocarbon dating of a number of charcoal pieces retrieved from within a crucible slag and a smithing slag found at the archaeological site of Chahak in southern Iran to date the industry to the 11th to 12th century CE.

Crucially, scanning electron microscopy technique enabled them to identify remains of chromite.

They also detected 1-2 wt% of chromium in steel particles preserved in the crucible slags, demonstrating that the chromite ore did form chromium steel alloy — a process that we do not see used again until the late 19th and early 20th century.

“In a 13th century Persian manuscript, Chahak steel was noted for its fine and exquisite patterns, but its swords were also brittle, hence they lost their market value,” said Professor Thilo Rehren, an archaeologist in the Institute of Archaeology at University College London and the Cyprus Institute.

“Today the site is a small modest village, which prior to being identified as a site of archaeological interest, was only known for its agriculture.”

The researchers believe it marks a distinct Persian crucible steel-making tradition — separate from the more widely known Central Asian methods in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan — for the production of low-chromium (around 1 wt%) steel.

“The process of identification can be quite long and complicated and this is for several reasons,” said Professor Marcos Martinon-Torres, an archaeologist in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge.

“Firstly, the language and the terms used to record technological processes or materials may not be used anymore, or their meaning and attribution may be different from those used in the modern science.”

“Additionally, writing was restricted to social elites, rather than the individual that actually carried out the craft, which may have led to errors or omissions in the text.”

The findings were published online in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

_____

Rahil Alipour et al. Chromium crucible steel was first made in Persia. Journal of Archaeological Science, published online September 23, 2020; doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105224

[Daud Deden]

Sea People hieroglyphs, Ashkelon

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335724464_Rediscovered_Luwian_Hieroglyphic_Inscriptions_from_Western_Asia_Minor

[Daud Deden]

Oldest letter C/camel/gimel letter proto-script? 13k mammoth tusk with engraved camels in Siberia

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/engraved-mammoth-tusk-tom-river-08887.html

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 7:57:48 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:

From Arabic sāqī

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Active participle of saqä سقى "to give someone something to drink" Classical Arabic ساقٍ sāq-in الساقي al-sāqī

[Daud Deden]

Xyua(mbuatl)achy suck.le

[Daud Deden]

Human language evolution & SRGAP2

SRGAP2 and the gradual evolution of the modern human language faculty
Pedro Tiago Martins, Maties Marí & Cedric Boeckx 2018
Journal of Language Evolution 3: 67–78
https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzx020

In this article, we examine a new source of evidence that draws on data from archaic human genomes to support the hypothesis that vocal learning in Homo preceded the emergence of anatomically modern humans.
We build our claim on the evolutionary history of the SLIT-ROBO GTPase 2 gene (SRGAP2).
The SLIT-ROBO molecular pathway has been shown to have an important role in the context of vocal learning.
The relevance of the SRGAP2 gene duplication in the emergence of some aspect of language has not gone completely unnoticed,
but recent results now allow us to articulate a mechanistic hypothesis of its role in the context of axon guidance:
SRGAP2C (a duplication of SRGAP2 crucially also found in Neanderthals & Denisovans, but not in extant mammals) inhibits the ancestral SRGAP2A, which in turn modulates the axon guidance function of the SLIT-ROBO molecular pathway.
This, we claim, could have contributed to the establishment of the critical cortico-laryngeal connection of the vocal learning circuit.
Our conclusions support the idea that complex vocal learning could already have been part of the arsenal of some of our extinct ancestors

[Daud Deden]

OT: Guess who's got Covid19?

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump test positive for Covid-19
By Kevin Liptak, Kaitlan Collins, Betsy Klein, Jim Acosta and Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Updated 6:11 AM EDT, Fri October 02, 2020

(CNN)President Donald Trump announced early Friday that he and his wife both tested positive for the coronavirus, an extraordinary development coming months into a global pandemic and in the final stretch of his reelection campaign in which he has flouted experts' guidance on preventing the disease's spread.

[Arnaud Fournet]

You can be tested positive, and be in fact a sound individual.
The tests often absurdly detect people as positive who recovered from Covid some time ago, or more.
To be tested positive (which in fact is nothing but shere garbage) has nothing to do with being a patient of it.
That's what the shiatta-merdia want to sell but it's false.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 2 Oct 2020 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>To be tested positive (which in fact is nothing but shere garbage) has nothing to do with being a patient of it.

Arnaud Fournet is a conspiracy believer. In other words: one of those
fools.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 7:38:23 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 2 Oct 2020 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >To be tested positive (which in fact is nothing but shere garbage) has nothing to do with being a patient of it.
>
> Arnaud Fournet is a conspiracy believer. In other words: one of those
> fools.

His English deteriorates badly when he starts on a rightwing rant.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 2 Oct 2020 06:55:28 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

A return to his inner self.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 2 Oct 2020 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le vendredi 2 octobre 2020 12:35:31 UTC+2, Daud Deden a écrit :
>> OT: Guess who's got Covid19?
>>
>> President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump test positive for Covid-19
>> By Kevin Liptak, Kaitlan Collins, Betsy Klein, Jim Acosta and Paul LeBlanc, CNN
>> Updated 6:11 AM EDT, Fri October 02, 2020
>>
>> (CNN)President Donald Trump announced early Friday that he and his wife both tested positive for the coronavirus, an extraordinary development coming months into a global pandemic and in the final stretch of his reelection campaign in which he has flouted experts' guidance on preventing the disease's spread.
>
>You can be tested positive, and be in fact a sound individual.

Healthy. Sound (cognate with Dutch gezond and German gesund) is also a
valid word, but used in a rather figurative sense. Like a sound
judgment of the situation.

>The tests often absurdly detect people as positive who recovered from Covid some time ago, or more.
>To be tested positive (which in fact is nothing but shere garbage) has nothing to do with being a patient of it.
>That's what the shiatta-merdia want to sell but it's false.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le vendredi 2 octobre 2020 13:38:23 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Fri, 2 Oct 2020 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >To be tested positive (which in fact is nothing but shere garbage) has nothing to do with being a patient of it.
>
> Arnaud Fournet is a conspiracy believer. In other words: one of those
> fools.

There's no conspiracy.
What I wrote is basic medical knowledge.
Tests are useless and inaccurate.
Try to learn something, I beg you...

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 2 Oct 2020 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >You can be tested positive, and be in fact a sound individual.

you can test positive

> Healthy. Sound (cognate with Dutch gezond and German gesund) is also a
> valid word, but used in a rather figurative sense. Like a sound
> judgment of the situation.

A sound mind in a sound body. is about as close to literal as
the expressions get.

[Daud Deden]

Soun.d ~ san.it(y/ize) ~ whole/well/hale/sihat@Mly: healthy
gesund@Grm: health
gezond@Dut: health

[wugi]

Op 3/10/2020 om 2:58 schreef Daud Deden:

't Is zonde van je tijd, "it's sin of your time", a waste of (your) time ;)

A sound scape of sound.


--

guido wugi

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:31:32 +0200: wugi <br...@wugi.be> scribeva:

A sound soundscape of sound. All our Netscape belong to us. (landscape
is a Dutch borrowing).

[Daud Deden]

The root of the protestant work ethic...

A sign of the times

[Daud Deden]

-ship
word-forming element meaning "quality, condition; act, power, skill; office, position; relation between," Middle English -schipe, from Old English -sciepe, Anglian -scip "state, condition of being," from Proto-Germanic *-skepi- (cognates: Old Norse -skapr, Danish -skab, Old Frisian -skip, Dutch -schap, German -schaft), from *skap- "to create, ordain, appoint," from PIE root *(s)kep-, forming words meaning "to cut, scrape, hack" (see shape (v.)).

s.haft s.hav.e x.yambua.(tlachyah)
land-scraper land-shaver lawn-siev.er (possible link to buffalo patties?)
lawnskeeper

[Daud Deden]

Xyuambuatlachyah lick lact leche tacky/sticky/touchy/take (mother's milk)/tlaca@Azt: take/ambil@Mly: take

Njambuangdualua
njama.ndu(r/l)a@Mbuti: thicket.inter
Dri.unk/d.ra.in/en.drown/en.drench/under/

[Daud Deden]

Pita-ru@Yandruwandha, Austl: flatbread ngardu flour pounding
[Cf Mbuti pounding of nuts & bark cloth]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:44:14 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> Tamwai@Tayap: sago flatbread
> Naan@Indic-Persian: flatbread
> Pan@Frc: bread
> Pizza@Itl: flatbread
> Pita@Hbr: flatbread
> Roti@Indic: flatbread
> Torta@Spn: flatbread
> Ninda@Sum: bread
>
> náng@Chn: a kind of flatbread
>
> The Persian word nān 'bread' is attested in Middle Persian as n'n 'bread, food', which is of Iranian origin, and is a cognate with Parthian ngn, Kurdish nan, Balochi nagan, Sogdian nγn-, and Pashto nəγan 'bread'.
>
>
> naan", meaning flat bread, goes back to PIE "neogw", having the sense of "naked, unclothed", via Old Persian *nagna, also meaning "unclothed". Naan bread was apparently so called because of its beige skinlike colour and due to the probability that, at least originally, it was eaten as is, without any kind of "dressing": plain naked bread, so to speak. Another explanation of the name is that it was baked uncovered, without ashes being placed on it.
>
> Compare OP "nagna" with Avestan "magna", Sanskrit "nagnà", all meaning "naked, unadorned".
>
> The Hittite form of the word for bread was "ninda"
>
> It's also worth noting Skt. nagnáhu- 'yeast', which Mayrhofer, EWAiA, II, 6, regards as an Iranian loanword
>
...[cont'd at P-E & Cave Shelters 2019]

[Daud Deden]

Origin of 'liana', woody vine, from 18th C French, liane, from West Indian French, first use 1796. Did it derive from 'bind, sheave, hay stook, or did it come from a native term for a local forest vine? Could it have referred to the twining around tree trunks? Does liane mean 'to coil around' in French?

Lianas often get self-knotted into tangles. These liana tangles in tall rainforest trees are sought by titi monkeys for their sleeping quarters.
Unlike all other primates with saber-like canine teeth, titi monkeys and humans share the trait of small canine teeth. I suggest this is because both dwell in protective shelters where predators could not access them, so other factors (diet, metabolism) caused an evolutionary reduction in canine size.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/liana

From French liane, influenced by lien (“link, bond”). The word comes from the western dialects of West Indian French.

-




On Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 11:27:23 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 5:07:47 PM UTC+5:30, Daud Deden wrote:
> > https://googleweblight.com/i?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDreidel&geid=NSTNR
> >
> >
> > According to some scholars, the dreidel developed from an Irish or English top introduced into Germany known as a teetotum
> >
> > In German this came to be called a trendel,
> >
> > The Yiddish word dreydl comes from the word dreyen ("to turn", compare to drehen, meaning the same in German). The Hebrew word sevivon comes from the Semitic root sbb ("to turn") Hayyim Nahman Bialik used a different word, kirkar (from the root krkr – "to spin")
> >
> > Trendel@Grm: spinning top
> > Dreydl@Yid: to turn
> > Krkr@Hbr: to spin
>
> I've also seen gilgul.
>
> In Hebrew, the word gilgul means "cycle" or "wheel"
> https://g.co/kgs/NAXsXa
>
> Looks similar to circle, and kirkar too looks similar.
>
> > Tletl@Azt: firedrill
> > Pintal@Mly: spin twist fiber
> > Gasing@Mly: spinning top

[Daud Deden]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 10:50:56 AM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> Origin of 'liana', woody vine, from 18th C French, liane, from West Indian French, first use 1796. Did it derive from 'bind, sheave, hay stook, or did it come from a native term for a local forest vine? Could it have referred to the twining around tree trunks? Does liane mean 'to coil around' in French?
>
> Lianas often get self-knotted into tangles. These liana tangles in tall rainforest trees are sought by titi monkeys for their sleeping quarters.
> Unlike all other primates with saber-like canine teeth, titi monkeys and humans share the trait of small canine teeth. I suggest this is because both dwell in protective shelters where predators could not access them, so other factors (diet, metabolism) caused an evolutionary reduction in canine size.
>
> https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/liana
>
> From French liane, influenced by lien (“link, bond”). The word comes from the western dialects of West Indian French.
>
> -

Charles Darwin in his Voyage of the Beagle wrote on the tangled bank and the profusion of lianas and epiphytes in the tropical forest, but made no mention of the similarity of the titi or human refuge.

https://beagleproject-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/beagleproject.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/a-tangle-of-lianas-and-epiphytes/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16026874089825&amp_ct=1602687614022&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fbeagleproject.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2F10%2Fa-tangle-of-lianas-and-epiphytes%2F

[Daud Deden]

Lexical remnants of a substrate language presumably spoken on the Denali territory before the Athabaskan radiation ca. 2000 – 3000 cal yr BP show similarity with the ChukotkoKamchatkan language family. This suggests that this substrate pre-Athabaskan language could be a member of the hypothetical Chukotko-Kamchatkan–Nivkh linguistic clade. There is also evidence for a distant relationship between the latter clade on the Asian side and Salishan and Algic language families in North America. Since the Nivkh speakers are prominent present-day representatives of the ARB gene pool, it is possible that these linguistic traces reflect the Pleistocene gene flow revealed in this study between the ARB cluster and Ancient Beringians.

Dispatchesfromturtleislandblog

[Daud Deden]

Jacques Coulardeau invited you to participate in the comments on his paper "ISAPL 8th Circ. 12th Cong 2021."

Applied Linguistics is crucial in the present situation due to COVID-19. How can communication, oral, written, virtual, real, and any other form of direct, in absentia and in praesentia communication go on and even deepen?

To view the paper and comments, please follow the link below:

Join Session

Thanks,
The Academia.edu Team

[Daud Deden]

Texting < text < texere@Ltn: weave

[Daud Deden]

Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.

More than 2/3 of the world's language(s) use similar sounds for common words.

Blasi et al, Sound-meaning association biases... PNAS 113 10818 2016

[Daud Deden]

Apes taking turns

Hylobatids & Homo take turns in vocalizing (song/speech), while great apes instead take turns gesturally but not vocally.

Gibbons sing but don't talk.
Humans talk and sing.

Talking appears to be a human version of great ape gesturing combined with the nuance of gibbon song, cf tonal speech.

Its massive advantage over gesturing was in distance & darkness. Speech within huts and between them gives inhabitants both visual-physical privacy and acoustic publicity.

Taking turns is critical to conversation.

[Ross Clark]

On 20/10/2020 4:28 a.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.

Don't want to argue about the exact figures, but something like this has
been well known for many, many years.

> More than 2/3 of the world's language(s) use similar sounds for common words.

If I'm remembering this paper aright, when you look at exactly what they
mean by this, it amounts to very little.

[Daud Deden]

Yes, just a reminder.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le lundi 19 octobre 2020 17:28:19 UTC+2, Daud Deden a écrit :
> Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.

It's rather 80% of our speech is made up of just 20 words.

[Daud Deden]

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 6:01:16 PM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le lundi 19 octobre 2020 17:28:19 UTC+2, Daud Deden a écrit :
> > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>
> It's rather 80% of our speech is made up of just 20 words.

In French, perhaps...

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.

I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
than English.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[António Marques]

Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>
> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
> than English.
>

All of Scottish Gaelic speech is made up of only 18 letters!

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:

> On 20/10/2020 4:28 a.m., Daud Deden wrote:

> > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>
> Don't want to argue about the exact figures, but something like this has
> been well known for many, many years.
>
> > More than 2/3 of the world's language(s) use similar sounds for common words.
>
> If I'm remembering this paper aright, when you look at exactly what they
> mean by this, it amounts to very little.

PNAS is one of the general-science journals that appears to have no
referees within linguistics at all. It's where you put stuff that no
responsible journal will accept (like *Science* and *Nature*).

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:30:08 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>
> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
> than English.

I hate the term "pro-drop." It makes it sound like "pro"s are the
norm and "drop"ping them is anomalous, whereas all it means is that
Chomsky thinks every language is identical to English with a few
kludges grafted on (see the Principles and Parameters approach,
clearly set out in Mark Baker, The Atoms of Language [2003]).

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:43:40 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<na...@mips.inka.de> scribeva:

>On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>
>I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
>a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
>than English.

And no prepositions, but more inflections!

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 20 Oct 2020 06:48:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

Null-subject. Que non es le mesme cosa, proque il ha anque
null-object.

https://rudhar.com/writings/Pessoa/HoraDiab/tradh1ia.htm#NullSubject

[Jack Heitman]

Can you provide a link to an article for this information?

Also, does this feed into Nostratic theory?

[Ross Clark]

On 20/10/2020 11:43 p.m., Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>
> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
> than English.

Yes, but I would expect the overall pattern to be the same -- assuming
we adjusted the terms to count clitics and affixes rather than just
"words". We would have a logarithmic distribution with a small number of
highly recurrent morphemes accounting for a lot of spoken text.

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I hate the term "pro-drop." It makes it sound like "pro"s are the
> norm and "drop"ping them is anomalous, whereas all it means is that
> Chomsky thinks every language is identical to English with a few
> kludges grafted on (see the Principles and Parameters approach,

Being unburdened by any understanding of syntactic theory, I keep
wondering if "pro-drop" is even a usefal classification. So you
have languages like English that use explicit subject pronouns and
lack distinctive personal endings. And then you have languages
like Spanish that drop overt subject pronouns, but encode exactly
the same information in verbal endings. Where's the fundamental
difference? And even the distinction itself becomes awfully blurry
once subject pronouns cliticize to the verb. Would French become
a pro-drop language if we simply changed the spelling and treated
subject pronouns as verb affixes?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 4:30:06 PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I hate the term "pro-drop." It makes it sound like "pro"s are the
> > norm and "drop"ping them is anomalous, whereas all it means is that
> > Chomsky thinks every language is identical to English with a few
> > kludges grafted on (see the Principles and Parameters approach,
>
> Being unburdened by any understanding of syntactic theory, I keep

> wondering if "pro-drop" is even a useful classification. So you

Search me! (What an old-fashioned expression.)

> have languages like English that use explicit subject pronouns and
> lack distinctive personal endings. And then you have languages
> like Spanish that drop overt subject pronouns, but encode exactly
> the same information in verbal endings. Where's the fundamental
> difference? And even the distinction itself becomes awfully blurry
> once subject pronouns cliticize to the verb. Would French become
> a pro-drop language if we simply changed the spelling and treated
> subject pronouns as verb affixes?

(See Hall's 1948 French: A Structural Sketch. It makes no reference
whatsoever to the orthography.)

Like I said, the basic Chomskyan position is that because language
is innate, there must be some core set of features underlying all
language, so you might as well study your own language since it
will express those features just as well as every other language.

Then you catalog how every other language differs from your own,
and that's all the stuff the infant has to acquire in its first
few months.

See Baker's Atoms of Language. (Really. It's quite readable --
at least for the first several chapters, until he starts trying
to deal with languages that are more and more unlike English.)

***
I'm putting a chapter into my book on writing (systems) in the
brain. So now I'm reading all about eye movement studies (which
are done by psychologists). They are all about fixations on
"words." I have yet to find one of them that says what they
mean by "word." They'd probably think a "clitic" is something
naughty that nice psychologists don't talk about in front of
undergraduates.

[Helmut Richter]

Indeed, this is my favorite example (posted here in another thread half a year
ago, there a bit shorter):

I find that French and Swahili have very similar verb forms (despite of being
in no way related languages): verb stem near the end and lots of prefixes for
fitting the word into the sentence (monospaced font required):

fr: le pain qu' il m' a donné

DEF "bread" WHICH HE TO-ME PAST "give"

sw: (ule) mkate a li o ni pa

(DEF) "bread" HE PAST WHICH TO-ME "give"

In Swahili spelling, we have "(ule) mkate alionipa", where the DEF[initeness]
is only marked if not obvious by the context. Had French the same spelling
rule that an affix is not surrounded by spaces, we would have had "le pain
quilmadonné". As far as I know there are also Bantu languages with "French"
spelling, i.e. separately written prefixes.

Which of the languages is pro-drop? Is that dependent on the spelling?

Moreover there is another similarity, by mere coincidence of course: Both
have stressed pronouns for persons, for instance fr: moi and sw: mimi for
emphasised 1st person singular:

fr: moi, je lui ai donné le pain.
sw: mimi nimempa mkate.

or French in Swahili spelling, i.e. with attached prefixes:

moi, jeluiaidonne le pain.

Now, we see the pro-drop property of *both* languages is exactly identical:
They both have pronouns for 1st person singular (fr: moi, sw: mimi) and they
both have a morphological 1st person singular verb prefix (fr: je-, sw: ni-).
The prefix is never dropped, the pronoun is regularly dropped except for
emphasis.

--
Helmut Richter

[Ross Clark]

For example:
I took one page of text in Bella Coola (Nuxalk, a Salishan language of
British Columbia)
It consisted of 32 orthographic words. Only two words recurred on the
page, so it would take a much larger corpus to build up a statistically
meaningful pattern.
But if we break it down into morphemes (as the editors have helpfully
done)...
The page contains 98 morpheme tokens representing 45 types.
Of these, just seven account for 34 tokens, or roughly 1/3 of the total.
They are (with editors' glosses and rough English equivalent):
ti/ta/tu Nonproximal (~the/a)
aw they
s Derivation (~that)
tXw Distal (~there)
s he, it
ʔaɫ Prep (at, on)
kw Quotative (they say)

About the same kind of "words" you would find in the Top 10 in any
language, I think.

[Daud Deden]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 12:50:35 PM UTC-4, Jack Heitman wrote:
> On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 9:28:19 AM UTC-6, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
> >
> > More than 2/3 of the world's language(s) use similar sounds for common words.
> >
> > Blasi et al, Sound-meaning association biases... PNAS 113 10818 2016
>
> Can you provide a link to an article for this information?

It took me 10 seconds to google it. Next time, you google it.

Blasi et al, Sound-meaning association biases... PNAS 113 10818 2016

> Also, does this feed into Nostratic theory?

I don't know, I don't care, this is the Paleo-etymology thread, the study of ancient words and their evolution within the human language. Linguists cannot fathom such a thing, so they swerve off into Linguistics gibberish such as pro-drop etc. I doubt you have any interest in Paleo-etymology, since it is not a subdivision of Linguistics, but rather, a study within Biology: Homo sapiens communication.

[Arnaud Fournet]

yes, French has developed a kind of prefixal agglutinative patterns.

This was one of my objections to Vajda's fraudulent theory about Yenisseian and Na-Dene.
There's absolutely nothing exceptional about having prefixal agglutinative patterns for verbs like in Sumerian, Yenisseian and Na-Dene.
French invented that in the last centuries out of Latin.
It's a typological feature, not a genetic feature.

[Adam Funk]

On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:30:08 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>>
>> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
>> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
>> than English.

ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.

> I hate the term "pro-drop." It makes it sound like "pro"s are the
> norm and "drop"ping them is anomalous, whereas all it means is that
> Chomsky thinks every language is identical to English with a few
> kludges grafted on (see the Principles and Parameters approach,
> clearly set out in Mark Baker, The Atoms of Language [2003]).

How about "pro-free"?


--
Radiation! Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about
it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad
for you. Pernicious nonsense! ---J Frank Parnell

[Adam Funk]

On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> I'm putting a chapter into my book on writing (systems) in the
> brain. So now I'm reading all about eye movement studies (which
> are done by psychologists). They are all about fixations on
> "words." I have yet to find one of them that says what they
> mean by "word." They'd probably think a "clitic" is something
> naughty that nice psychologists don't talk about in front of
> undergraduates.

If they're talking specifically about reading, "word" probably means
"thing separated by spaces or punctuation from the things around it".


--
[Those cookbooks] seem to consider _everything_ a leftover, which you
must do something with. For instance, cake. This is like telling you
what to do with your leftover whisky. ---Peg Bracken

[Peter T. Daniels]

(a) Learn something about what you're kvetching about.

(b) Once again, this is not "your" thread, and if anything you should
be welcoming the appearance of someone who entertains (even for a
moment) the notion of a discoverable Nostratic, which is a time-
honored attempt along your weird "paleo-etymology" track.

(c) Since you admit that you don't do linguistics, find a newsgroup
that isn't about linguistics to fill up with your fantasies.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:30:08 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> >> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
> >> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
> >> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
> >> than English.
>
> ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
> analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.

Zipf enunciated a tautology. I have no idea why it so fascinated
a few people for a few years.

It's like the "discovered" "law" that the part of a reference list
with the lower numbers is used more often than the part with the
higher numbers. It's a tautology. (Which, incidentally, won't work
for an alphabetized list -- whatever alphabetical order you use.)

> > I hate the term "pro-drop." It makes it sound like "pro"s are the
> > norm and "drop"ping them is anomalous, whereas all it means is that
> > Chomsky thinks every language is identical to English with a few
> > kludges grafted on (see the Principles and Parameters approach,
> > clearly set out in Mark Baker, The Atoms of Language [2003]).
>
> How about "pro-free"?

What's the opposite/alternative?

[António Marques]

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:30:08 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>>>> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
>>>> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
>>>> than English.
>>
>> ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
>> analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.
>
> Zipf enunciated a tautology. I have no idea why it so fascinated
> a few people for a few years.
>
> It's like the "discovered" "law" that the part of a reference list
> with the lower numbers is used more often than the part with the
> higher numbers. It's a tautology. (Which, incidentally, won't work
> for an alphabetized list -- whatever alphabetical order you use.)

I imagine that the 'law' simply amounts to 'some entries are more used than
others'.

>>> I hate the term "pro-drop." It makes it sound like "pro"s are the
>>> norm and "drop"ping them is anomalous, whereas all it means is that
>>> Chomsky thinks every language is identical to English with a few
>>> kludges grafted on (see the Principles and Parameters approach,
>>> clearly set out in Mark Baker, The Atoms of Language [2003]).
>>
>> How about "pro-free"?
>
> What's the opposite/alternative?
>

The opposite of 'pro-free' would be 'socialist', as is obvious.

[Adam Funk]

On 2020-10-21, António Marques wrote:

> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:30:08 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>>> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>>>>> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
>>>>> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
>>>>> than English.
>>>
>>> ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
>>> analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.
>>
>> Zipf enunciated a tautology. I have no idea why it so fascinated
>> a few people for a few years.
>>
>> It's like the "discovered" "law" that the part of a reference list
>> with the lower numbers is used more often than the part with the
>> higher numbers. It's a tautology. (Which, incidentally, won't work
>> for an alphabetized list -- whatever alphabetical order you use.)
>
> I imagine that the 'law' simply amounts to 'some entries are more used than
> others'.

There's more detail to it than that:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law#Definition>
& it has practical applications such as detecting fraudulent
accounting.


--
I'm after rebellion --- I'll settle for lies.

[Adam Funk]

On 2020-10-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:30:08 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> >> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>> >> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
>> >> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
>> >> than English.
>>
>> ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
>> analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.
>
> Zipf enunciated a tautology. I have no idea why it so fascinated
> a few people for a few years.

Not really. It's interesting & useful to know that certain phenomena
tend to match particular distributions. So you expect some things to
follow a Gaussian one, some a Poisson, some a Zipf, &c., & it affects
the interpretation & choice of statistics.

> It's like the "discovered" "law" that the part of a reference list
> with the lower numbers is used more often than the part with the
> higher numbers. It's a tautology. (Which, incidentally, won't work
> for an alphabetized list -- whatever alphabetical order you use.)
>
>> > I hate the term "pro-drop." It makes it sound like "pro"s are the
>> > norm and "drop"ping them is anomalous, whereas all it means is that
>> > Chomsky thinks every language is identical to English with a few
>> > kludges grafted on (see the Principles and Parameters approach,
>> > clearly set out in Mark Baker, The Atoms of Language [2003]).
>>
>> How about "pro-free"?
>
> What's the opposite/alternative?

--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. ---David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2020-10-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:

> >> ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
> >> analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.
> > Zipf enunciated a tautology. I have no idea why it so fascinated
> > a few people for a few years.
>
> Not really. It's interesting & useful to know that certain phenomena
> tend to match particular distributions. So you expect some things to
> follow a Gaussian one, some a Poisson, some a Zipf, &c., & it affects
> the interpretation & choice of statistics.

Zipf published two books. The first one, the one that supposedly
deals with vocabulary, says that more frequent words are used
more frequently. The second one apparently had some use in statistics.

[Daud Deden]

https://www.livescience.com/amp/new-salivary-gland.html

Did this behind-the-nose salivary gland have effects upon speech evolution?

[Daud Deden]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 8:28:40 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 12:50:35 PM UTC-4, Jack Heitman wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 9:28:19 AM UTC-6, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
> > > >
> > > > More than 2/3 of the world's language(s) use similar sounds for common words.
> > > >
> > > > Blasi et al, Sound-meaning association biases... PNAS 113 10818 2016
> > >
> > > Can you provide a link to an article for this information?
> >
> > It took me 10 seconds to google it. Next time, you google it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Blasi et al, Sound-meaning association biases... PNAS 113 10818 2016
> >
> > > Also, does this feed into Nostratic theory?
> >
> > I don't know, I don't care, this is the Paleo-etymology thread, the study of ancient words and their evolution within the human language. Linguists cannot fathom such a thing, so they swerve off into Linguistics gibberish such as pro-drop etc. I doubt you have any interest in Paleo-etymology, since it is not a subdivision of Linguistics, but rather, a study within Biology: Homo sapiens communication.
>
> (a) Learn something about what you're kvetching about.

What language are you speaking?

> (b) Once again, this is not "your" thread,

So I must remain silent before my superiors? Were you born stupid or did you acquire it? Stop trolling.

and if anything you should
> be welcoming the appearance of someone who entertains (even for a
> moment) the notion of a discoverable Nostratic, which is a time-
> honored attempt along your weird "paleo-etymology" track.

Nostratic is irrelevant to Paleo-etymology, that should be obvious even to you.

> (c) Since you admit that you don't do linguistics, find a newsgroup
> that isn't about linguistics to fill up with your fantasies.

Sci.lang is about language, not about linguistics.


There is one human language, I study the words of it and their evolution. You have difficulties with that. Start a thread on that & quit trolling a thread you are incompetent to evaluate or participate in without extreme bias.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 21 Oct 2020 05:32:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2020-10-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:30:08 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> >> On 2020-10-19, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
>> >> I'd think that, say, a pro-drop language without articles and with
>> >> a zero copula would have very different statistics in this respect
>> >> than English.
>>
>> ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
>> analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.
>
>Zipf enunciated a tautology. I have no idea why it so fascinated
>a few people for a few years.
>
>It's like the "discovered" "law" that the part of a reference list
>with the lower numbers is used more often than the part with the
>higher numbers. It's a tautology. (Which, incidentally, won't work
>for an alphabetized list -- whatever alphabetical order you use.)

It's not as easy as you suggest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf%27s_law#Statistical_explanation

[Ymir]

Benford's law and Zipf's law aren't the same thing. They both have to do
with probability distributions, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Zipf's law isn't quite a tautology as Peter claims since he offers some
attempt at quantifying it, but it is pretty close to being one.

Benford's law expresses something considerably less obvious than Zipf's
law which at least some reasonably numerate people find initially
counterintuitive.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mercredi 21 octobre 2020 16:23:29 UTC+2, Daud Deden a écrit :
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 8:28:40 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 12:50:35 PM UTC-4, Jack Heitman wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 9:28:19 AM UTC-6, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Around 25% of our speech is made up of just 25 words.
> > > > >
> > > > > More than 2/3 of the world's language(s) use similar sounds for common words.
> > > > >
> > > > > Blasi et al, Sound-meaning association biases... PNAS 113 10818 2016
> > > >
> > > > Can you provide a link to an article for this information?
> > >
> > > It took me 10 seconds to google it. Next time, you google it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Blasi et al, Sound-meaning association biases... PNAS 113 10818 2016
> > >
> > > > Also, does this feed into Nostratic theory?
> > >
> > > I don't know, I don't care, this is the Paleo-etymology thread, the study of ancient words and their evolution within the human language. Linguists cannot fathom such a thing, so they swerve off into Linguistics gibberish such as pro-drop etc. I doubt you have any interest in Paleo-etymology, since it is not a subdivision of Linguistics, but rather, a study within Biology: Homo sapiens communication.
> >
> > (a) Learn something about what you're kvetching about.
>
> What language are you speaking?
>
> > (b) Once again, this is not "your" thread,
>
> So I must remain silent before my superiors? Were you born stupid or did you acquire it? Stop trolling.
>
> and if anything you should
> > be welcoming the appearance of someone who entertains (even for a
> > moment) the notion of a discoverable Nostratic, which is a time-
> > honored attempt along your weird "paleo-etymology" track.
>
> Nostratic is irrelevant to Paleo-etymology, that should be obvious even to you.

everything seems to be irrelevant to your pseudo-etymological vagrancies.

[Adam Funk]

I know. I was just pointing out that they are both more detailed than
just "X is more common than Y".

> Zipf's law isn't quite a tautology as Peter claims since he offers some
> attempt at quantifying it, but it is pretty close to being one.
>
> Benford's law expresses something considerably less obvious than Zipf's
> law which at least some reasonably numerate people find initially
> counterintuitive.
>
> André
>


--

Everybody says sex is obscene. The only true obscenity
is war. ---Henry Miller

[Adam Funk]

You don't really like mathematics, do you?


--
They do (play, that is), and nobody gets killed, but Metallic K.O. is
the only rock album I know where you can actually hear hurled beer
bottles breaking against guitar strings. ---Lester Bangs

[Peter T. Daniels]

That's why I said "is like" and not "is."

> Zipf's law isn't quite a tautology as Peter claims since he offers some
> attempt at quantifying it, but it is pretty close to being one.
>
> Benford's law expresses something considerably less obvious than Zipf's
> law which at least some reasonably numerate people find initially
> counterintuitive.

What's hard to understand about the fact that lists have fewer things
than there are numbers? Of course the earlier numbers get used more
often than the later numbers. You don't reach the 90th item anywhere
near as often as the 10th item. That reasonably numerate people find
this counterintuitive is their problem: they're looking at trees
rather than forests.

Unlike, as I said, letters.

The English list of letter frequency starts E T A O I N S H R D L U.

The biggest section of an English dictionary is S, not A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 11:15:05 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2020-10-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> On 2020-10-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:

> >> >> ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
> >> >> analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.
> >> > Zipf enunciated a tautology. I have no idea why it so fascinated
> >> > a few people for a few years.
> >> Not really. It's interesting & useful to know that certain phenomena
> >> tend to match particular distributions. So you expect some things to
> >> follow a Gaussian one, some a Poisson, some a Zipf, &c., & it affects
> >> the interpretation & choice of statistics.
> > Zipf published two books. The first one, the one that supposedly
> > deals with vocabulary, says that more frequent words are used
> > more frequently. The second one apparently had some use in statistics.
>
> You don't really like mathematics, do you?

Are you equating math with statistics?

[Peter T. Daniels]

I think you mean vagaries.

[Arnaud Fournet]

No, I wrote and meant vagrancies.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Then I think the word does not mean what you think it means.

[Ymir]

I don't recall you even mentioning Benford. I thought it was Adam. But
now I see where you discuss 'reference lists', which may be an oblique
reference to Benford, but not an appropriate one (see below).

>> Zipf's law isn't quite a tautology as Peter claims since he offers some
>> attempt at quantifying it, but it is pretty close to being one.
>>
>> Benford's law expresses something considerably less obvious than Zipf's
>> law which at least some reasonably numerate people find initially
>> counterintuitive.
>
> What's hard to understand about the fact that lists have fewer things
> than there are numbers? Of course the earlier numbers get used more
> often than the later numbers. You don't reach the 90th item anywhere
> near as often as the 10th item. That reasonably numerate people find
> this counterintuitive is their problem: they're looking at trees
> rather than forests.

I think you misunderstand what Benford's law says, or its underlying
rationale. It isn't about lists; it's about quantities in the natural
world. In numbers which refer to measures of quantity the digit one will
be far more common than the digit 9 with other digits occurring at
frequencies between these two. This won't hold for numbers which don't
represent quantities, such as phone numbers or zip codes or library
catalog numbers (or made-up number on tax returns, which is why the IRS
cares about this).

This is because natural world values tend to increase geometrically
rather than linearly. A jump from 1 to 2 or 10000 to 20000 represents a
100% increase, whereas a jump from 8 to 9 or 80000 to 90000 represents
only an 11% increase. So a quantity will tend to increase more slowly
(in terms of units, not %-change) when in the 1xxxxx's than when in the
9xxxxx's.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I assumed that "Benford" is the name of the observation that the
early parts of numerically arranged reference books get more wear
than the later parts. Did Adam misle me?

> >> Zipf's law isn't quite a tautology as Peter claims since he offers some
> >> attempt at quantifying it, but it is pretty close to being one.
> >>
> >> Benford's law expresses something considerably less obvious than Zipf's
> >> law which at least some reasonably numerate people find initially
> >> counterintuitive.
> > What's hard to understand about the fact that lists have fewer things
> > than there are numbers? Of course the earlier numbers get used more
> > often than the later numbers. You don't reach the 90th item anywhere
> > near as often as the 10th item. That reasonably numerate people find
> > this counterintuitive is their problem: they're looking at trees
> > rather than forests.
>
> I think you misunderstand what Benford's law says, or its underlying
> rationale. It isn't about lists; it's about quantities in the natural
> world. In numbers which refer to measures of quantity the digit one will
> be far more common than the digit 9 with other digits occurring at
> frequencies between these two. This won't hold for numbers which don't
> represent quantities, such as phone numbers or zip codes or library
> catalog numbers (or made-up number on tax returns, which is why the IRS
> cares about this).

That makes the tautology even clearer. You can't get to numbers
starting with higher digits until you've been through the ones
starting with lower digits.

> This is because natural world values tend to increase geometrically
> rather than linearly. A jump from 1 to 2 or 10000 to 20000 represents a
> 100% increase, whereas a jump from 8 to 9 or 80000 to 90000 represents
> only an 11% increase. So a quantity will tend to increase more slowly
> (in terms of units, not %-change) when in the 1xxxxx's than when in the
> 9xxxxx's.

I guess mathematicians would rather see something in a complicated
way than in a simple way.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:00:53 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
scribeva:

>On 2020-10-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2020-10-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 4:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>>> >> ISTR reading somewhere that every written language that has been
>>> >> analysed for a Zipf distribution complies approximately.
>>> > Zipf enunciated a tautology. I have no idea why it so fascinated
>>> > a few people for a few years.
>>>
>>> Not really. It's interesting & useful to know that certain phenomena
>>> tend to match particular distributions. So you expect some things to
>>> follow a Gaussian one, some a Poisson, some a Zipf, &c., & it affects
>>> the interpretation & choice of statistics.
>>
>> Zipf published two books. The first one, the one that supposedly
>> deals with vocabulary, says that more frequent words are used
>> more frequently. The second one apparently had some use in statistics.
>
>You don't really like mathematics, do you?

And physics. Peter T. Daniels is an alpha scholar, not beta.

I am both, and gamma, and omega for that matter.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[André G. Isaak]

You may possibly be misremembering the actual observation. Benford's
observation was that the lower numbers were more frequently used in
books of logarithms, not in numerically arranged reference books. We
would not expect his law to hold for the latter since those numbers
don't represent quantities.

>>>> Zipf's law isn't quite a tautology as Peter claims since he offers some
>>>> attempt at quantifying it, but it is pretty close to being one.
>>>>
>>>> Benford's law expresses something considerably less obvious than Zipf's
>>>> law which at least some reasonably numerate people find initially
>>>> counterintuitive.
>>> What's hard to understand about the fact that lists have fewer things
>>> than there are numbers? Of course the earlier numbers get used more
>>> often than the later numbers. You don't reach the 90th item anywhere
>>> near as often as the 10th item. That reasonably numerate people find
>>> this counterintuitive is their problem: they're looking at trees
>>> rather than forests.
>>
>> I think you misunderstand what Benford's law says, or its underlying
>> rationale. It isn't about lists; it's about quantities in the natural
>> world. In numbers which refer to measures of quantity the digit one will
>> be far more common than the digit 9 with other digits occurring at
>> frequencies between these two. This won't hold for numbers which don't
>> represent quantities, such as phone numbers or zip codes or library
>> catalog numbers (or made-up number on tax returns, which is why the IRS
>> cares about this).
>
> That makes the tautology even clearer. You can't get to numbers
> starting with higher digits until you've been through the ones
> starting with lower digits.

There's nothing tautological about it. If you have a range of quantities
ranging from 1 to 5 digits longs, the the 10's, 100's, and 10,000's will
all be more common than the 90's, 900's, or 9,000's. It isn't that
lower-valued numbers will be more common than higher valued ones. There
are more numbers between 9000 and 9999 than there are between 100 and
199, but we expect the latter to be more common than the former. And we
expect the numbers between 1000 and 1999 to be more common than those
between 900 and 999. It has nothing to do with 'getting though' lower
ranges of numbers.

And, as I pointed out, natural quantities tend to obey this law, but
phone numbers, zip codes, etc. do not. It is a property of certain
natural phenomena, not of numbers (though it does have a mathematical
explanation)

This is very different from Zipf who essentially notes that the top
items in a list arranged by frequency will be more frequent than the
lower ones. That's tautological (he does make some quantitative claims,
but they aren't particularly interesting).

[Daud Deden]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

What language are you speaking and why are you doing it in a Paleo-etymology thread?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 3:52:46 PM UTC-4, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2020-10-21 13:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:08:27 PM UTC-4, Ymir wrote:
> >> On 2020-10-21 10:55, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 10:35:11 AM UTC-4, Ymir wrote:

> >>>> Benford's law and Zipf's law aren't the same thing. They both have to do
> >>>> with probability distributions, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
> >>> That's why I said "is like" and not "is."
> >> I don't recall you even mentioning Benford. I thought it was Adam. But
> >> now I see where you discuss 'reference lists', which may be an oblique
> >> reference to Benford, but not an appropriate one (see below).
> > I assumed that "Benford" is the name of the observation that the
> > early parts of numerically arranged reference books get more wear
> > than the later parts. Did Adam misle me?
>
> You may possibly be misremembering the actual observation. Benford's
> observation was that the lower numbers were more frequently used in
> books of logarithms, not in numerically arranged reference books. We
> would not expect his law to hold for the latter since those numbers
> don't represent quantities.

I don't know what "numerically arranged reference books" means. It
would work for any series that's numbered sequentially.

[Ymir]

I had assumed it meant organized by library call number. But even if it
referred to numbered series, there's no reason to think Benford's law
would hold. Given (e.g.) a 12-volume reference on World History from
antiquity to the present there's no reason to assume the lower numbered
volumes would be more used than the higher numbered ones (regardless of
whether these were organized chronologically, geographically, or by some
other means).

[Peter T. Daniels]

What _are_ you talking about??

The volumes of an an encyclopedia aren't arranged by number. Usually
they're arranged alphabetically, sometimes topically, and chopped
into pieces that it's convenient to handle.

[Ymir]

Did I say encyclopaedia? No, I said a multi-volume reference on world
history. Volumes of such works frequently have both a number and a
title. E.g. _Volume 1: The Ancient World_ or _Volume 12: World War II to
the Present.

Benford's law does not dictate that any one volume should be more used
than any other any more than it claims that phone numbers with 1 are
more common than those with 9. It does, however, apply to a wide variety
of natural phenomena in which the digit 1 is far more common than 9.
That it applies to some things and not others means there is nothing
tautological about it.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Apparently, you understand about none of the lexemes in this sentence.

[Daud Deden]

Such a waste. It is so simple to start a new thread about statistics etc. but the cowards lack the courage, instead parasitizing Paleo-etymology, deliberately contaminating a healthy thread topic with viral spam.

[Daud Deden]

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> Texting < text < texere@Ltn: weave

Genghis Khan (title) Temujin
Genghis probably derived from chin@Mgl: strong-willed
Turkish followers called him Tengis
tengis@Turkish: ocean
dalai@Mongol: sea
Zhenhai@Chn: true ocean
Attila@Hng: ocean (derived)
Uighurs called him dalai khan= ocean ruler or bilge kol= ocean of wisdom
Khan named his people Mongol, no etymology known.

Uighurs had had a Manichean empire in Mongolia before converting to islam.

[António Marques]

It kind of does. It's (one) plain language explanation of why natural
quantities tend follow the rule whereas others don't. Natural quantities
start at a given offset and then have to grow continuously (a river can
become gradually longer, but very rarely will it become significantly
longer at once), and for any given phenomenon there is a point beyond which
growth diminishes. That will tend to make lower first digits more frequent
regardless of the base used.
Then there's the fact that quantities don't actually have to follow the
rule that closely in order to be considered as following the rule. It does
end up becoming a little tautological when saying that quantities which
follow the rule, follow the rule (although the observation itself that some
types of quantities do follow such a rule is interesting).

[Peter T. Daniels]

Since you read so carelessly, I don't think I'll continue this.

They -- whatever you want to call these reference works you have
fixated on -- are arranged TOPICALLY, not numerically.

As I said.

> Benford's law does not dictate that any one volume should be more used
> than any other any more than it claims that phone numbers with 1 are
> more common than those with 9. It does, however, apply to a wide variety
> of natural phenomena in which the digit 1 is far more common than 9.
> That it applies to some things and not others means there is nothing
> tautological about it.

It says that things with lower numbers are more frequent than things
with higher numbers.

That's because smaller groups of things are more usual than larger
groups of things.

That is tautological.

And it has nothing to do with being logarithmic. He just happened
to notice it there first.

[Ymir]

No, it doesn't. It says that things beginning with 1 are more common
than things beginning with 9, regardless of the number of digits
involved. A number beginning with 1 can be either larger or smaller than
one beginning with 9. E.g. 1,000 > 900 > 100.

> That's because smaller groups of things are more usual than larger
> groups of things.

It isn't about the number of things. It is about *measurements*. As a
concrete example, if you were to take the mass of every object in the
universe from the smallest grains of dust to massive galaxies, Benford's
law states that you expect around 30% of those masses to begin with the
digit 1 and only about 5% to begin with the number 9. Importantly, this
will hold regardless of what unit of mass you use.

> That is tautological.

There's nothing tautological about it. You simply aren't understanding
it correctly.

André

> And it has nothing to do with being logarithmic. He just happened
> to notice it there first.
>

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 9:31:56 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > Texting < text < texere@Ltn: weave
>
> Genghis Khan (title) Temujin

IIRC this is a Chinese rendering of Temürčin, IIRC in Chinese it becomes "The Greatest Man in the World". Here -jin is Chınese ren "man"

Turko-Mongol témür "iron" + Mongol -čin (Turkic -či) denoting a doer, an agent, i.e. "Smith"

More latter.

[Daud Deden]

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:47:50 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 9:31:56 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > Texting < text < texere@Ltn: weave
> >
> > Genghis Khan (title) Temujin
>
> IIRC this is a Chinese rendering of Temürčin, IIRC in Chinese it becomes "The Greatest Man in the World". Here -jin is Chınese ren "man"
>
> Turko-Mongol témür "iron" + Mongol -čin (Turkic -či) denoting a doer, an agent, i.e. "Smith"
>
> More latter.

Thanks. My source is: Genghis Khan and the quest for God, by Jack Weatherford, author of other books on him.
https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/books/review/genghis-khan-quest-for-god-jack-weatherford.amp.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16033966996337&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F12%2F09%2Fbooks%2Freview%2Fgenghis-khan-quest-for-god-jack-weatherford.html

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:59:59 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:47:50 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 9:31:56 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > > Texting < text < texere@Ltn: weave
> > >
> > > Genghis Khan (title) Temujin
> >
> > IIRC this is a Chinese rendering of Temürčin, IIRC in Chinese it becomes "The Greatest Man in the World". Here -jin is Chınese ren "man"
> >
> > Turko-Mongol témür "iron" + Mongol -čin (Turkic -či) denoting a doer, an agent, i.e. "Smith"
> >
> > More latter.
>
>
> Thanks. My source is: Genghis Khan and the quest for God, by Jack Weatherford, author of other books on him.

He may be an good anthropologist or historian but he is not a scholar of Turkic and Mongolian linguistics

[Daud Deden]

On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 12:10:21 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:59:59 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:47:50 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 9:31:56 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > > > Texting < text < texere@Ltn: weave
> > > >

> > > > Genghis Khan (title) Temujin (name)

> > >
> > > IIRC this is a Chinese rendering of Temürčin, IIRC in Chinese it becomes "The Greatest Man in the World". Here -jin is Chınese ren "man"
> > >
> > > Turko-Mongol témür "iron" + Mongol -čin (Turkic -či) denoting a doer, an agent, i.e. "Smith"
> > >
> > > More latter.
> >
> >
> > Thanks. My source is: Genghis Khan and the quest for God, by Jack Weatherford, author of other books on him.
>
> He may be an good anthropologist or historian but he is not a scholar of Turkic and Mongolian linguistics

I agree, but note the change I made on Temujin.