Scientists from Zadar’s Archaeological Museum found luxury ceramics designed to make sugar near Pag, a Croatian island in the northern Adriatic Sea, confirming life has always been sweet on one of Croatia's breezier islands.
The site contains the remnants of either a pier or sunken cargo ship dating back to some time between the 14th and 16th centuries, around when new city of Pag was being
Post by Daud DedenPost by Daud DedenA> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzGiven the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Danielsthere, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Peter T. DanielsNo, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Hmm, that is the usual response from proponents of fringe theories, aka crackpots, who prefer to dismiss such inconvenient boundaries on their imagination.
Post by Daud DedenPost by Daud DedenExplain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that
Hehe, you always say that (so do the other crackpots), your ego seldom allows you to admit your ignorance.
and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel.
Both European ships and AmerIndian watercraft (excl. Mandan bull-boat) owe their existence to the original sago-rind canoe, which allowed forwardly directed propulsion, initially by hand-paddling. Coracles didn't (2 tied together could be paddled directionally, but inefficiently, exhausted the paddlers). Only Papuans knew the sustainable method of cane cultivation, which was later used to cultivate grain crops, (a foreign concept in the old & new worlds), along with the ground axe & adze (cf Una of Papua, Madgebembe cave of Australia 65ka) cf hodad/hoe.(d)adze.
Post by Daud DedenAs I suspected, your belief
You don't know my beliefs, but you repeatedly claim to. I've repeatedly stated that Papuans invented longboats/canoes, not boats. Again, coracles are boats, they displace and float on water, rafts float in water.
that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some period, which you have not specified.
I've preliminary stated a range between 45 & 25ka. Don't blame me for the lack of archaeologic support, I've never been to AustralAsia, Singapore was the closest I've been. Coracles are boats and were used widely throughout EurAsia, Papuans introduced longboats/canoes to EurAsia along with taro, yams(kao), bananas & sugar cane.
Post by Daud DedenPost by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzthe name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
Probably Xyanduatlachya: skin-in-lick(y), or close to it, though that was ~ 25ka.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
Much candy is dyed & flavored sugar.
Post by Daud DedenYou admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it.
Martians invade Antarctica, possibly.
Papuans brought sugar cane to EurAsia, plausibly and parsimoniously.
That would be: Papuans/Mbuabua/Mbabaram/Mamanwa. Anything is possible, but Dravidian & Indo-Aryan are Neolithic -Bronze agedb(agricultural, derived FROM Papuan cultivation) not Paleo-lithic. Australia had ground stone axes 65ka, long before EurAsia or Africa. Papua has indications of taro & sago cultivation ~ 40ka, sago processing requires adze-like pounding & scooping.
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Flies in the face of logical deduction & Parsimony. New term = derived from old term with shift in sound &/or meaning, localization.
Post by Daud DedenPost by Daud DedenNothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nztraceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
"Parsimony + Imagination are powerful tools when balanced" DD
Science requires balanced observation & testing.
Continuity shows the ancestral lineage of surviving life forms (and their communication systems).
Post by Daud DedenYou'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of what you take to be their principles to etymology.
Paleo-etymology is a subset of biology, the principles when applied to queries & hypotheses give rational explanatory boundaries.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Dedentraced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing.
You have nothing.
Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Are you referring to modern Papuan dialects or the original form? Recall: sago/taro <~ tsagro ~ !hxaro. Since sugar cane required chopping and peeling & often sieving & boiling, probably similar process & name, close to Xyandua(+tlachya/lick).
Post by Daud DedenOr "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here.
You are, and doing it inappropriately, since you are limited to written attestation & reconstruction in the absence of 50ka Papuan roots & cultural comprehension. In biology, it is rare that Parsimony is invalidated.
In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
I'm a Paleo-etymologist, not a language historian.
Post by Daud DedenI don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
Pre-history, not history, is my interest.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud DedenPost by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzFirst European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?
I really hate to give (or get) false answers.
---
Post by Daud DedenPost by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by Peter T. DanielsPost by Peter T. DanielsPost by Daud DedenPost by Daud Dedenultimately from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Dravidian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A peculiar use of "ultimately."
Given the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Daud Dedenthere, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
No, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
Post by Peter T. DanielsPost by Daud Dedenultimatzz,ely from Arabic qandi, from Persian qand "cane sugar," probably from Sanskrit khanda "piece (of sugar)," perhaps from Draviadian (compare Tamil kantu "candy," kattu "to harden, condense").
A> > > > aaaQaqQq pecq,uliar use of "ultimately."
Post by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by Peter T. DanielsGiven the chain of borrowing as listed
Post by Peter T. Danielsthere, normally we would say "ultimately perhaps from Dravidian."
Post by Daud DedenNo, since that would be illogical. Since sugar cane came from Papua, and could > only have been brought to India by Papuans,
No, that does not follow.
It does follow, based on Parsimony. Papuans were the first humans to discover & cultivate sugar cane, and trade & transport it, only they had the ultimately original name for it. Sanskrit, Dravidian, Persian & Arabic developed their terms later, borrowing and modifying this name, or less likely, using another term which did not refer to sugar cane but was applied to it. Either way, Papuans was the ultimate original tongue, no other.
You are totally confused. What we know is that sugar cane was first
cultivated in New Guinea. If you are getting all the other stuff
from "Parsimony" it is time to throw out that "principle".
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzExplain your claim, you know mine.
"Since tobacco came from America, it could only have been brought to
England by Amerindians."
Nice try, but not a parallel. Tobacco is Modern English, but not Old English nor Spanish pre-Columbus (who brought sugar cane to the new world). By then, long boats & canoes were common globally, but non-coracle long boats were invented in Papua. Tobacco was a culivated crop (the oldest in NW, originally smoldered in huts to repel mosquitoes), and was exchanged with Europeans for valuables, by AmerIndians.
Thank you, I know all that, and it has nothing to do with my perfectly
valid parallel. As I suspected, your belief that Papuans alone could have transported sugar cane from New Guinea to elsewhere does not follow from the fact that it was first cultivated there, but requires the additional postulate (believed AFAIK by nobody but you) that Papuans alone had boats at some
period, which you have not specified.
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by Peter T. Danielsthe name could not have been originally Dravidian or any EurAsian.
Of course it could.
Explain your claim, you know mine.
You are the one making "claims". I am just pointing out that they are
without foundation.
-
You claim it could have been originally Dravidian or EurAsian, whose speakers were originally unfamiliar with sugar cane (unless you think these speakers were Papuans migrating to India/EurAsia).
We are not arguing about what was the first name ever applied to sugar cane.
We are talking about the history of a word (or possibly two words -- I don't
know whether your claims are meant to apply to "sugar" or "candy" or both).
You admit above that it is entirely possible that Indians (Dravidians or
Indo-Aryans) applied a new term to sugar cane, replacing the original
word used by those from whom they originally got it. If the antecedent
of "sugar" or "candy" were such a new term, then it would be quite
correct to say that the word in question was originally Dravidian or Indo-Aryan.
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzNothing requires that the name we have now be
Post by b***@ihug.co.nztraceable all the way back to the origins of the thing.
Principles of Parsimony & Continuity.
-
Ah. The same ones that brought us *Xyuambuatla > everything?
-
They didn't, nor have I claimed so.
They seem to be an important part of your reasoning.
Post by Daud DedenYou'll understand that the rest of us do not consider these
"principles" valid.
-
"All of you" are free to consider anything. These principles are based on Biology, not invisible language organs and other fritteries.
I doubt that many biologists would endorse your application of
what you take to be their principles to etymology.
You might reasonably say "It would be nice" if the word could be
Post by Daud Dedentraced right back to "Papua".
-
Parsimony: simplest path is usually correct.
So what are the "paths" in this case? It is not a choice between
Papua > India direct vs. Papua > Japan > Tibet > India or some such.
We have a series of plausibly connected words reaching from Europe
to India. Beyond that we have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else has
mentioned a single Papuan word for sugar cane. There's not even
one "path", let alone two or more to compare.
Post by Daud DedenOr "The simplest etymology would
be one in which the same name is passed on from one language to
the next at every stage."
-
It is the base. Anything else requires more steps.
-
Unfortunately, the simplest etymology
is not necessarily the true one.
,-
It usually is.
I know you assume this in doing your "paleo-etymology",
but really it is not a safe principle in neo-etymology, which is what
we are doing here. In fact we've seen cases where your principle
requires you to deny even well-established facts of the history
of present day languages.
Post by Daud DedenI don't blame you for not knowing
this, since you know hardly anything about the real histories of
real languages.
-
There is only one human language, with 7,000 & 7,000,000,000 geographical/societal variants.
...about whose histories you know hardly anything.
But I don't blame you for not knowing this, since you know hardly anything about the ultimately original human language and why & how it developed.
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by Peter T. DanielsFirst European explorers called it 'vegetable honey'.
Which explorers were those?
If I'd recalled their names, I would have named them. You've read of them.
-
No, I don't think I have; but it's hard to be sure since you haven't
even made it clear what time you're talking about, or where they
were exploring.
-
Clue: They were not Papuans.
Clue: Sugar cane is a vegetable rich in sugars; sago is a vegetable rich in starch, Papuans cultivated both.
You really hate to give straight answers, don't you?