Here we see the link between ***@Iroquois: village/containment and ***@Malay: have/contain/bear and ***@Malay: container and ***@Malay: village.
gan'ā***@Huron: village > canada
In Mbuti, a camp = campfire = apa.
(It may be impossible for Neo-etymologists to recognize.)
--
Post by Daud DedenReply posted
To have, hold, contain
Apr 10me
Apr 10Hen Hanna
not sure what you're getting at, but ....
Apr 10Ruud Harmsen
Apr 10me
= a containment of people
Apr 10me
Apr 10me
tong barrel, cask
Apr 10Ymir
Apr 11me
- (Con)tenir -
Thanks for telling us more things we know. You can daisy-chain in English "camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of
Apr 11me
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
Apr 11Ymir
Apr 11me
On perspective and methodology: One can determine the exact number of water drops contained in a beaker, then extrapolate to determine the a
Apr 11me
- I liberate sense with my method, Ruud. -
Apr 11me
Xyuambuatla etc. -
Apr 11Ymir
Apr 11Ruud Harmsen
- hide quoted text -
Post by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nztong barrel, cask
-
(Con)tenir
-
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzkampung village, residential area
= hamlet
but not camp, which you couldn't resist daisy-chaining in
-
Ross: camp -> hamlet -> village-> city. The hamlet was earlier a camp; the city a village. London, Tokyo, KL are just settled camps/containments.
Thanks for telling us more things we know.
Apparently, Ross is a plurality. I thought it was some guy in New Zealand.
You
can daisy-chain in English
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nz"camp" if you want. You just can't claim that it's the meaning of "kampung".
-
-
Post by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzkanastron wicker basket; earthenware vessel, dish
to have
tenir hold, contenir contain
I didn't check the word. Habitat, habilis, habeus corpus, when I get time.
My [? ??] was meant to ask why you put a question mark on it. I thought
it was a well known word.
I didn't know if habere linked with habit/inhabit.
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzSo what is the point of all this?
To see if the words have a common ancestry.
And once you've put them all together, how do you "see if"?
Comparing to keyword.
What's keyword?
-
I've been referring the paleo-keyword Xyambotla/Xyuambuatlachya/Ndjambuangdualua/Xyuambuatla etc. for years.
...without ever telling us: "This is what I call a keyword".
I've referred to "the paleo-keyword Xyambuatla" many times at many places on the net, but only recently here.
Post by Daud DedenEtc.? How many are there? Are they actually words? In what language?
-
Ross, quantification, words & languages are modern concepts, right?
Depends what you mean by "modern" and "concepts".
But you're a modern person. Since the keyword(s) is/are your discovery,
you ought to be able to tell us how many you've discovered. Or have
you discovered a big squish of them, which can't be separated and counted,
and in which new ones might be discovered at any time?
The keyword's pronunciation depends on locale & time period, so naturally there is variation.
You don't have to get all fussy about any technical definition of "word".
You call them "keywords", so unless you're being deliberately misleading,
you think they are words, i.e. sequences of vocal sounds that had a meaning,
that people spoke at some time in the past.
I've been clear. You simply do not like to hear.
And you don't have to fuss about knowing how many languages there are,
or naming them. A rough time frame for when these words were used would
be better than nothing.
100ka - today.
Post by Daud DedenSo you compare the real words with (one or more) keyword(s), which
you have derived by some mysterious process ("reflection" as you say
elsewhere).
As I suggested a while ago, your conclusions are already in place.
-
You continue to misunderstand. I had no idea that avoir & habere were connected to Xyuambuatla until I compared them in response to Andre's request.
So things might have turned out differently? Suppose you encounter a word
that is not connected to Xyuambuatla -- what's your next step?
Semitic languages tend to permutate them, otherwise most words I've examined follow the order, as I've shown here numerous times.
Post by Daud DedenThe
strings of words are not evidence, but things that you assume _must_
be derived from one of your keywords.
-
No, Ross. Actually I doubted it. Why? Because they are very generalized verbs. As opposed to eg. Shine, sieve, bottle. Specialized terms tend to be easier to examine.
-
And since there seem to be no
particular constraints on "derivation", it might just as well be "kampong"
as "kampung". Hence the sloppiness.
-
Nguambuang.ualua/kampong.
What does that mean?
Concave structure/stand + ualua is one interpretation.
Post by Daud Deden- show quoted text -
Where's the fiction in this?
Post by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzThe fact that the sound or meaning may not match exactly 100% doesn't change
that.
It most certainly does. My numeral matches were phonetically and semantically
exact. Relaxing the criteria for a match multiplies the number of chance
resemblances.
-
Needles are still exceedingly rare in haystacks, even if you multiply millions of haystacks (and include rusty nails).
Hence the inappropriateness of your analogy.
-
To you perhaps.
To any rational observer. Relaxing the criteria, in any case, is not
equivalent to multiplying the number of haystacks, but to broadening
the definition of "needle", which makes them much easier to find.
Only if they are there.
Post by Daud DedenPost by b***@ihug.co.nzPost by b***@ihug.co.nzSo your questioning amounts to saying "Well, maybe they all have a
common origin." Not very interesting unless you offer some evidence.
-
Evidence is open to interpretation.
We could talk about interpretation if there was any evidence. You just
look at your words and say "They must be related."
-
I ask, rather, and listen, rather than pre-judging based on other's opinions.
As do I. So who do you ask? And what do they answer? And exactly
how does your mysterious "listening" tell you they are related?
- show quoted text -
So it's a private exercise, with its own standards of "effectiveness"? But
you just can't keep from sharing it with the rest of us?
-
First you complain that I don't share, then you complain that I share. What next, Ross?
Don't be silly. I complain that you present us with the results of your
research, in a form largely unintelligible to us, yet show no interest
in explaining the method by which you have arrived at these results, or
even making the results themselves more understandable to others. What's
the point? Is it just that our being baffled gives you a feeling of
superior wisdom?
See "On perception".