Chomsky vindicated!! New [interstitial = conversation = language??] organ found.

[Daud Deden]

Scientists say they've found a new human organ
Katie Langin 28.3.18

Your body is lined with a network of fluid-filled cavities, (until now)
unknown to science.
The team that made that discovery thinks the cavities qualify as a new
human organ:
the "interstitium".
<https://www.livescience.com/62128-interstitium-organ.html>
<https://www.livescience.com/62128-interstitium-organ.html>,>

It was spotted when they looked at live human tissue with a new imaging
technique.
Previous methods have mostly looked at dead tissue, drained of fluid, so
the cavities weren't visible.
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23062-6>

---

:):)

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden
Scientists say they've found a new human organ
Katie Langin 28.3.18
Your body is lined with a network of fluid-filled cavities, (until now)
unknown to science.
The team that made that discovery thinks the cavities qualify as a new
the "interstitium".
<https://www.livescience.com/62128-interstitium-organ.html>
<https://www.livescience.com/62128-interstitium-organ.html>,>
It was spotted when they looked at live human tissue with a new imaging
technique.
Previous methods have mostly looked at dead tissue, drained of fluid, so
the cavities weren't visible.
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23062-6>

You are making a joke?

[Adam Funk]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden
Scientists say they've found a new human organ
Katie Langin 28.3.18
Your body is lined with a network of fluid-filled cavities, (until now)
unknown to science.
The team that made that discovery thinks the cavities qualify as a new
the "interstitium".
<https://www.livescience.com/62128-interstitium-organ.html>
<https://www.livescience.com/62128-interstitium-organ.html>,>
It was spotted when they looked at live human tissue with a new imaging
technique.
Previous methods have mostly looked at dead tissue, drained of fluid, so
the cavities weren't visible.
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23062-6>

You are making a joke?

I think so.

[Daud Deden]

Merely noting a recent discovery of fluid channels in humans. I doubt any members of the forum would detect the humor anyway.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Daud Deden
Merely noting a recent discovery of fluid channels in humans. I doubt any members of the forum would detect the humor anyway.

No one would find an equation of "interstitial" with "conversation" the
least bit amusing.

[Daud Deden]

Not Chomskyites, anyway. :):)

[Daud Deden]

"If everyone is thinking alike, then no-one is thinking". BFranklin.

"If everyone is talking alike, then the top priority is on linking rather than thinking". DDeden


Re. The Runaway Species, by Brandt & Eagleman

And a new article on Homo vs. Pan fight or flight responses I posted at Sci.Anthropology.paleo.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden
Merely noting a recent discovery of fluid channels in humans. I doubt any members of the forum would detect the humor anyway.

No one would find an equation of "interstitial" with "conversation" the
least bit amusing.

I think DD finds Chomsky's ideas about as likely as the discovery of a new "organ". I'm not sure about the "interstitium", but IMO Chomsky's ideas (just like e.g. Freud's) should be forgotten asap.



Speech & language origins are not so mysterious IMO if we consider the possible biological preadaptations, see convergences in other animals in the evolution of:
- duetting (dialog in human speech),
- voluntary breathing (voluntary sounds),
- vocal learning (imitating sounds),
- brain enlargement (arbitrary meaning of sounds),
- suction feeding (production of consonants).

Google:
"Speech originS 2017 Verhaegen"

[Daud Deden]

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden
Merely noting a recent discovery of fluid channels in humans. I doubt any members of the forum would detect the humor anyway.

No one would find an equation of "interstitial" with "conversation" the
least bit amusing.

I think DD finds Chomsky's ideas about as likely as the discovery of a new "organ". I'm not sure about the "interstitium", but IMO Chomsky's ideas (just like e.g. Freud's) should be forgotten asap.
- duetting (dialog in human speech),
- voluntary breathing (voluntary sounds),
- vocal learning (imitating sounds),
- brain enlargement (arbitrary meaning of sounds),
- suction feeding (production of consonants).
"Speech originS 2017 Verhaegen"

---

Thanks MV, indeed. At least Freud studied neurology before drifting into psychology, I don't think Chomsky bothered.

Although Linguist Daniel Everett follows father (lingual) and son (endurance running) Lieberman in his interpretation of Homo erectus having language, and claims H.e sailed the seas, he does well in other aspects of human evolution. (He formerly worked linguistically in the Amazon with the Piraha H & G people.)
---

Extra credit: https://www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-Invention/product-reviews/0871407957/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&sortBy=recent#RWXTN8CL196B5

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Merely noting a recent discovery of fluid channels in humans. I doubt any members of the forum would detect the humor anyway. DD

No one would find an equation of "interstitial" with "conversation" the
least bit amusing.

I think DD finds Chomsky's ideas about as likely as the discovery of a new "organ". I'm not sure about the "interstitium", but IMO Chomsky's ideas (just like e.g. Freud's) should be forgotten asap.
- duetting (dialog in human speech),
- voluntary breathing (voluntary sounds),
- vocal learning (imitating sounds),
- brain enlargement (arbitrary meaning of sounds),
- suction feeding (production of consonants).
Google "Speech originS 2017 Verhaegen"

Thanks MV, indeed. At least Freud studied neurology before drifting into psychology, I don't think Chomsky bothered.

Yes, Chomsky didn't even bother to study different languages.

Post by Daud Deden
Although Linguist Daniel Everett follows father (lingual) and son (endurance running) Lieberman in his interpretation of Homo erectus having language, and claims H.e sailed the seas, he does well in other aspects of human evolution. (He formerly worked linguistically in the Amazon with the Piraha H & G people.)

Thanks, I didn't know.

H.erectus didn't sail the seas, but swam the seas (or at least the coastal waters): their originally-littoral (incl. shallow-diving) adaptations are obvious:
pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, intercontinental diaspora, island colonization, brain enlargement (seafood) etc.

Did H.erectus speak?
Unlikely IMO. If they had spoken, technology had developed earlier I'd think.
FWIW, I now think that "freeing" the airways allowed human speech = the shift from diving to wading (erectus->sapiens).
Google "aquatic ape theory 2017 made easy".

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Daud Deden

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Merely noting a recent discovery of fluid channels in humans. I doubt any members of the forum would detect the humor anyway. DD

No one would find an equation of "interstitial" with "conversation" the
least bit amusing.

I think DD finds Chomsky's ideas about as likely as the discovery of a new "organ". I'm not sure about the "interstitium", but IMO Chomsky's ideas (just like e.g. Freud's) should be forgotten asap.
- duetting (dialog in human speech),
- voluntary breathing (voluntary sounds),
- vocal learning (imitating sounds),
- brain enlargement (arbitrary meaning of sounds),
- suction feeding (production of consonants).
Google "Speech originS 2017 Verhaegen"

Thanks MV, indeed. At least Freud studied neurology before drifting into psychology, I don't think Chomsky bothered.

Yes, Chomsky didn't even bother to study different languages.

Not entirely true. He studied enough Hebrew to write a master's thesis
on it.

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Daud Deden
Although Linguist Daniel Everett follows father (lingual) and son (endurance running) Lieberman in his interpretation of Homo erectus having language, and claims H.e sailed the seas, he does well in other aspects of human evolution. (He formerly worked linguistically in the Amazon with the Piraha H & G people.)

Thanks, I didn't know.
pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, intercontinental diaspora, island colonization, brain enlargement (seafood) etc.
Did H.erectus speak?
Unlikely IMO. If they had spoken, technology had developed earlier I'd think.
FWIW, I now think that "freeing" the airways allowed human speech = the shift from diving to wading (erectus->sapiens).
Google "aquatic ape theory 2017 made easy".

[Daud Deden]

Post by l***@gmail.com
Yes, Chomsky didn't even bother to study different languages.

Not entirely true. He studied enough Hebrew to write a master's thesis
on it.
---

Yes, and surely understood Yiddish. The apparent disinterest in learning language outside his familiar linguistic domain is what concerned me.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by l***@gmail.com
Yes, Chomsky didn't even bother to study different languages.

Not entirely true. He studied enough Hebrew to write a master's thesis
on it.
---
Yes, and surely understood Yiddish. The apparent disinterest in learning language outside his familiar linguistic domain is what concerned me.

"Surely"? What do you know about the interwar Jewish community of Philadelphia?

[Daud Deden]

"Surely"? What do you know about the interwar Jewish community of Philadelphia?
---

Only that I recall reading that he was familiar with Yiddish, though it didn't give his level of expertise.

Arabic & Hebrew are different houses in the same hood, when other languages are compared they are very close.

[Daud Deden]

DKleinecke
- show quoted text -
The linguistic cousins of the Surui were the dominant language
family in lowland Amazonia. We don't know to what extent the Tupi
speakers of today are blood descendants of the Tupi speakers of
the day when proto-Tupi was spoken - maybe 5000 BCE.

The notion they are of Melanesian ancestry is ridiculous.
---

I refer to the clear genetic traces of Melanesian-Andaman in the Surui & 2 other groups in Brazil, as described in the article. I haven't mentioned their linguistic relationships. Tupi may have roots in ancestral M-A, but I make no claims on that, having no data to compare.

I do note that Dan Everett's book on language origin mentioned that Pirahã (Brazil) and Riau (Indonesia) share some characteristics unknown in other languages. That may be due to chance, but common descent shouldn't be ruled out without proper investigation.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

[ ... ]
I do note that Dan Everett's book on language origin mentioned that Pirah
ã (Brazil) and Riau (Indonesia) share some characteristics unknown in
other languages. That may be due to chance, but common descent shouldn't be
ruled out without proper investigation.

Can we assume that "proper investigation" is the sort of random
association that you do?

[Daud Deden]

That may be due to chance, but common descent shouldn't be

Post by Daud Deden
ruled out without proper investigation.

---
Can we assume that "proper investigation" is the sort of random
association that you do?
-- athel
---

I guess I've been unkillfiled, bud?
{How sweet it is!}

Association of terms that share some similar sounds and/or meanings (deliberately including perceived contextual changes due to environmental divergence eg arid vs humid) is basic to Paleo-etymology, and is certainly permissible across language 'families'.

I don't know about 'random association' though, did you make that up?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

That may be due to chance, but common descent shouldn't be> ruled out
without proper investigation.---
Can we assume that "proper investigation" is the sort of
randomassociation that you do?
-- athel---
I guess I've been unkillfiled, bud?

I don't remember that you were ever killfiled, though the temptation
was there. I emptied my killfile a few weeks ago and have added only
one name since, a particularly obnoxious person at alt.usage.english
who doesn't post here. (Not the Colonel, who is obnoxious enough, but
whose posts are easy to skip without reading.)

{How sweet it is!}
Association of terms that share some similar sounds and/or meanings
(deliberately including perceived contextual changes due to
environmental divergence eg arid vs humid) is basic to Paleo-etymology,
and is certainly permissible across language 'families'.
I don't know about 'random association' though, did you make that up?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Surely"? What do you know about the interwar Jewish community of Philadelphia?
---
Only that I recall reading that he was familiar with Yiddish, though it didn't give his level of expertise.

Every European Jew is "familiar with" Yiddish. That doesn't make them
speakers of it.

Perhaps you're confusing him with his mentor Zellig Harris, who was born
Over There (present-day Belarus, IIRC) and was brought to Philadelphia
as a toddler, whose home language was Yiddish.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Arabic & Hebrew are different houses in the same hood, when other languages are compared they are very close.

They are structurally close (not so close as e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic),
but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination mutually comprehensible;
and when Chomsky was studying Arabic there was no thought of seriously
studying what were called the "dialects" of Arabic (i.e. the vernacular
Arabic languages).

Last weekend I heard an anecdote of Yona Sabar, a linguist at UCLA
(presumably retired now; I haven't seen him in quite a while), a native
speaker of the Aramaic of Zakho. The speaker played for him a tape of
the Aramaic of a nearby town just over a border, and he said, "That's
not Aramaic, that must be Kurdish!" -- showing how far apart neighboring
varieties of the "same" language have grown over a few hundred years.
Another Aramaicist-linguist friend of mine has mentioned that there is
more variety within the sub-sub-family North East Neo-Aramaic (NENA)
than among all the vernacular/colloquieal varieties of Arabic.

English's closest relative is said to be Frisian. They are not mutually
comprehensible, which is the closest linguistics comes to calling two
varieties "different languages" (because "a language" is a political,
not a linguistic, concept).

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

[ ... ]
Arabic & Hebrew are different houses in the same hood, when other
languages are compared they are very close.

They are structurally close (not so close as e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic),
but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination mutually comprehensible;

Can Arabic speakers identify the topic Hebrew speakers are discussing,
without understanding any details, or are they too far apart from that?
I have a Maltese friend who can tell what the Tunisian and Libyan
students in her department are talking about (sometimes things they
wouldn't want her to know they were discussing), but can't follow their
conversations in detail. I suspect that they know nothing about Malta
and have no idea that Maltese is related to Tunisian Arabic.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and when Chomsky was studying Arabic there was no thought of seriously
studying what were called the "dialects" of Arabic (i.e. the vernacular
Arabic languages).
Last weekend I heard an anecdote of Yona Sabar, a linguist at UCLA
(presumably retired now; I haven't seen him in quite a while), a native
speaker of the Aramaic of Zakho. The speaker played for him a tape of
the Aramaic of a nearby town just over a border, and he said, "That's
not Aramaic, that must be Kurdish!" -- showing how far apart neighboring
varieties of the "same" language have grown over a few hundred years.
Another Aramaicist-linguist friend of mine has mentioned that there is
more variety within the sub-sub-family North East Neo-Aramaic (NENA)
than among all the vernacular/colloquieal varieties of Arabic.
English's closest relative is said to be Frisian. They are not mutually
comprehensible, which is the closest linguistics comes to calling two
varieties "different languages" (because "a language" is a political,
not a linguistic, concept).

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden
Arabic & Hebrew are different houses in the same hood, when other
languages are compared they are very close.

They are structurally close (not so close as e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic),
but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination mutually comprehensible;

Remember Lee Sau Dan (or was he only in sci.lang), who said he could get
the gist of a Japanese newspaper article by just looking at the characters
but could not grasp the details of the content.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Can Arabic speakers identify the topic Hebrew speakers are discussing,
without understanding any details, or are they too far apart from that?

It seems unlikely, because Hebrew has had enough sound changes that the
consonant system is rather different. OTOH, it's said that Finns understand
Estonian better than vice versa, because Finnish has changed more so that
Estonian seems to "preserve earlier forms."

But the shapes of words are different because stress patterns are different,
and of course the two languages have borrowed from different sources so
vocabulary will differ more than just in inherited lexical items (as in
e.g. Heb. _harag_ vs. Aram./Arab. _qatal_ 'kill').

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I have a Maltese friend who can tell what the Tunisian and Libyan
students in her department are talking about (sometimes things they
wouldn't want her to know they were discussing), but can't follow their
conversations in detail. I suspect that they know nothing about Malta
and have no idea that Maltese is related to Tunisian Arabic.

Until 1810, it was assumed that Maltese was a living relic of Phoenician
(Punic) (mostly because no one could read the few remnants of Phoenician
that had been discovered, before 1764), but then Wilhelm Gesenius (1786-
1842) -- yes, the fellow for whom the standard grammar and dictionary
are still named -- showed that Maltese was Arabic and not Phoenician. It
seems to have been his first publication.

Versuch ueber die maltesische Sprache zur Beurtheilung der neulich
wiederhohlten Behauptung dass sie ein Ueberrest der altpunische sey,
und als Beytrag zur arabischen Dialektologie (Leipzig: Vogel, 1810)

Cf. Jean-Jacques Barthélemy, R
éflexions sur quelques monuments
Phéniciens, et sur les Alphabets qui en résultent. Mémoires de
l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 30 (1764), 405-26.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and when Chomsky was studying Arabic there was no thought of seriously
studying what were called the "dialects" of Arabic (i.e. the vernacular
Arabic languages).
Last weekend I heard an anecdote of Yona Sabar, a linguist at UCLA
(presumably retired now; I haven't seen him in quite a while), a native
speaker of the Aramaic of Zakho. The speaker played for him a tape of
the Aramaic of a nearby town just over a border, and he said, "That's
not Aramaic, that must be Kurdish!" -- showing how far apart neighboring
varieties of the "same" language have grown over a few hundred years.
Another Aramaicist-linguist friend of mine has mentioned that there is
more variety within the sub-sub-family North East Neo-Aramaic (NENA)
than among all the vernacular/colloquieal varieties of Arabic.
English's closest relative is said to be Frisian. They are not mutually
comprehensible, which is the closest linguistics comes to calling two
varieties "different languages" (because "a language" is a political,
not a linguistic, concept).

[Daud Deden]

PTD: "OTOH, it's said that Finns understand
Estonian better than vice versa, because Finnish has changed more so that
Estonian seems to "preserve earlier forms."

But the shapes of words are different because stress patterns are different, ..."
---

Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO.

I'd say many factors are involved in word 'shape' differentiation, stress patterns are more important in monotonic tongues.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden
Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO.

That Hungarian and Finnish were related was known even before
Indo-European was recognized - around 1750.

[Daud Deden]

DK: Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO.
That Hungarian and Finnish were related was known even before
Indo-European was recognized - around 1750.
---

Which ignores the point.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden
Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO.

That Hungarian and Finnish were related was known even before
Indo-European was recognized - around 1750.

Even slightly before that, for example Strahlenberg in the 1720s, though he separated the Finno-Ugric and Samoyed in two different "Tatar" groups.
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Daud Deden
PTD: "OTOH, it's said that Finns understand
Estonian better than vice versa, because Finnish has changed more so that
Estonian seems to "preserve earlier forms."
But the shapes of words are different because stress patterns are different, ..."

That sentence refers to Hebrew and Arabic, not to Estonian and Finnish.

Post by Daud Deden
Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO.

That's your opinion only because you do not understand the Comparative Method
-- which is in fact what Greenberg (and thus he) operates within.

Post by Daud Deden
I'd say many factors are involved in word 'shape' differentiation, stress patterns are more important in monotonic tongues.

I don't know what that means or is supposed to mean.

[Daud Deden]

Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO.
---
That's your opinion only because you do not understand the Comparative Method
-- which is in fact what Greenberg (and thus he) operates within.
---

That is your opinion because you do not understand what I said.

Of course they use the Comparative Method, the only really effective one at that level, and of course they were heavily criticized for it by the usual suspects in the same fashion Wegener the weatherman was criticized by many geologists for publicizing continental drift. Again, just a matter of perspective, which you don't detect because it requires going beyond your comfortable "knowable" boundaries.

[Daud Deden]

Corrected:
DD: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "
DK: "That Hungarian and Finnish were related was known even before
Indo-European was recognized - around 1750."
---

Which ignores the point.
Ruhlen showed via comparative data that Yukagir is related to Hungarian, Finnish & Estonian.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden
DD: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "
DK: "That Hungarian and Finnish were related was known even before
Indo-European was recognized - around 1750."
---
Which ignores the point.
Ruhlen showed via comparative data that Yukagir is related to Hungarian, Finnish & Estonian.

The hypothesis of a Uralic-Yukaghir reclationship has been around at
least since the 1930s. It was supported by the leading Uralist
Collinder (1940 et seq.), but is still not considered proven.
I don't think Ruhlen played any important role in this long
discussion.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Daud Deden
DD: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "
DK: "That Hungarian and Finnish were related was known even before
Indo-European was recognized - around 1750."
---
Which ignores the point.
Ruhlen showed via comparative data that Yukagir is related to Hungarian, Finnish & Estonian.

The hypothesis of a Uralic-Yukaghir reclationship has been around at
least since the 1930s. It was supported by the leading Uralist
Collinder (1940 et seq.), but is still not considered proven.
I don't think Ruhlen played any important role in this long
discussion.

Greenberg and Ruhlen never proved anything. They are frauds, good at marketizing their garbage in the mass medias but unable to achieve anything concrete.
A.

[Daud Deden]

Greenberg and Ruhlen never proved anything. They are frauds, good at marketizing their garbage in the mass medias but unable to achieve anything concrete.
A.
---
Tacadac.
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Daud Deden
DD: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "
DK: "That Hungarian and Finnish were related was known even before
Indo-European was recognized - around 1750."
---
Which ignores the point.
Ruhlen showed via comparative data that Yukagir is related to Hungarian, Finnish & Estonian.

No, that was a suggestion of the Uralicist Collinder. Do you not know
how to use Google?

[Daud Deden]

"Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion', nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.

Do you know how to read?

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Daud Deden
"Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion', nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.
Do you know how to read?

PTD never reads what people write, I suspect he does not even read what he himself writes, which enables him to be self-contradictory at free will.
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Daud Deden
"Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion', nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.
Do you know how to read?

PTD never reads what people write, I suspect he does not even read what he himself writes, which enables him to be self-contradictory at free will.

Talk about contradiction oneself! At 3:12 am (my time), AF wrote in
response to DD's "Ruhlen showed":

"Greenberg and Ruhlen never proved anything. They are frauds, good at marketizing their garbage in the mass medias but unable to achieve anything concrete."

Two minutes later, in response to my saying the same thing politely,
AF wrote what you see above. Either AF "thinks" that Ruhlen showed
something, or he doesn't. He took both positions near-simultaneously.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden
"Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion',

Did someone accuse you of using those words? What's the point?

Post by Daud Deden
nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.

Well, I think your statement could be read as implying that he
proved it.
But's let's try another reading. Let's say that you, in your innocence
of comparative linguistics, had never before heard the suggestion that
these languages were related. You read something by Ruhlen where
he said so, and maybe presented some evidence. And since it doesn't
take much to convince you that words are related, you found him convincing.
Yes, I think then you could very well say something like the quoted sentence
above.

Post by Daud Deden
Do you know how to read?

[Daud Deden]

Ant, Grow up.
A., Shut up.
P., A. learned simultaneous contradiction from you.
Rd, gesundheit!

Ross, you're lost.

Dd: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "

Post by Daud Deden
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion',

Did someone accuse you of using those words? What's the point?

I also did not use 'support'.

Post by Daud Deden
nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.

-
Well, I think your statement could be read as implying that he proved it.
-
Only in desperation.
-

But's let's try another reading. Let's say that you, in your innocence
of comparative linguistics,
-
Not even wrong. The rest of your screed deleted out of mercy to the forum members.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden
Ant, Grow up.
A., Shut up.
P., A. learned simultaneous contradiction from you.
Rd, gesundheit!
Ross, you're lost.
Dd: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "

Post by Daud Deden
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion',

Did someone accuse you of using those words? What's the point?
I also did not use 'support'.

Post by Daud Deden
nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.

-
Well, I think your statement could be read as implying that he proved it.
-
Only in desperation.

That's the way I read it and I don't think any one else
would read it differently. I thought it was a little bit
of stupidity that wasn't worth commenting on.

[Daud Deden]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden
Ant, Grow up.
A., Shut up.
P., A. learned simultaneous contradiction from you.
Rd, gesundheit!
Ross, you're lost.
Dd: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "

Post by Daud Deden
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion',

Did someone accuse you of using those words? What's the point?
I also did not use 'support'.

Post by Daud Deden
nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.

-
Well, I think your statement could be read as implying that he proved it.
-
Only in desperation.

That's the way I read it

Exactly. It is not what I wrote and not what I meant.

Sort of like you saying "You think...", a form of linguistic projectile vomitry, nothing more, which you and some others here are so fond of.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden
Ant, Grow up.
A., Shut up.
P., A. learned simultaneous contradiction from you.
Rd, gesundheit!
Ross, you're lost.
Dd: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "

Post by Daud Deden
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion',

Did someone accuse you of using those words? What's the point?
I also did not use 'support'.

Post by Daud Deden
nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.

-
Well, I think your statement could be read as implying that he proved it.
-
Only in desperation.

That's the way I read it

Exactly. It is not what I wrote and not what I meant.
Sort of like you saying "You think...", a form of linguistic projectile vomitry, nothing more, which you and some others here are so fond of.

Beam and mote.

[Daud Deden]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Daud Deden
Ant, Grow up.
A., Shut up.
P., A. learned simultaneous contradiction from you.
Rd, gesundheit!
Ross, you're lost.
Dd: "Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in a very convincing way IMO. "

Post by Daud Deden
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion',

Did someone accuse you of using those words? What's the point?
I also did not use 'support'.

Post by Daud Deden
nor did I imply that Ruhlen discovered the connection.

-
Well, I think your statement could be read as implying that he proved it.
-
Only in desperation.

That's the way I read it

Exactly. It is not what I wrote and not what I meant.
Sort of like you saying "You think...", a form of linguistic projectile vomitry, nothing more, which you and some others here are so fond of.

Beam and mote.

5 Thou hypocrite...

First get the bullet out, buddy.

Then preach all you like.

[Daud Deden]

Google+
Calendar
Web
more
Re: Chomsky vindicated!! New [interstitial = conversation = language??] organ found.
R
Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:55:20 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> scribeva: >English's closest relative is said to be Frisian. True...

DDeden
to me
0 minutes agoDetails


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DDeden <***@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 28 April 2018
Subject: Re: Chomsky vindicated!! New [interstitial = conversation = language??] organ found.

Post by l***@gmail.com
pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, intercontinental diaspora, island colonization, brain enlargement (seafood) etc.
Did H.erectus speak?
Unlikely IMO. If they had spoken, technology had developed earlier I'd think.
FWIW, I now think that "freeing" the airways allowed human speech = the shift from diving to wading (erectus->sapiens).
Google "aquatic ape theory 2017 made easy".
---
I won't go into the agreements and disagreements about that. I will be glad to attribute one factor about AMHs which comes from my study of Hardy-Morgan-Verhaegen hypotheses: I was able to determine that AmerIndians followed bison herds along Beringia, but the Melanesian-Andaman derived Surui et al of Brazil came by the Pacific coast, not in Beringia and not following the Equatorial counter-current.

That's a lot of "determining" there! It's heading off-topic, but it would
be interesting to know how you determined some of these things,
like:

-followed buffalo herds...
-Melanesian-Andaman derived
-came by Pacific coast...

Don't suppose you published any of these determinations? Did you
inform anyone else, or are we the first?
---



Icon 1 posted 22 January, 2018 03:19 PM Profile for DD'eDeN Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
Papuans in Brazil 11.5ka

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full new article

11.5ka Luzia et. al. at Lagoa Santa Karst rockshelters, unique morphology.

Near region of the "Melanesian" genetic trace:
(from 2015)http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
-

Luzia et al ancestors were from a SEAsian-Papuan group that used bark-canoes (from Sago palm processing) riding the north Pacific Gyre of the warm-water Kuroshio current going up the Pacific coast when Beringia blocked today's cold Arctic current, northeastward-eastward (south of Beringia) then southward to California & Honduras to the equator where they met the northflowing Antarctic current and landed. AmerIndians arrived later from Mexico, their journey had begun earlier in Siberia. DD

[António Marques]

Post by Daud Deden
"Ruhlen showed how Yukagir & Hungarian related to Estonian & Finnish in
a very convincing way IMO. "
-
I did not use the words 'suggestion' nor 'discussion', nor did I imply
that Ruhlen discovered the connection.
Do you know how to read?

Everyone here knows how to read. Unfortunately, you don’t know how to
write. Do you not notice NO ONE writes the way you do? Do you not notice
that, barring the odd clerical error, everyone here follows quite simple
conventions that unambiguously tell what is quoted, what isn’t, who said
what and often when?
It doesn’t help that your content isn’t... straightforward... to begin
with. The need to follow presentational conventions - or, if insisting on
an ad hoc system, at least making it information-preserving - becomes all
the greater.

[António Marques]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden
Arabic & Hebrew are different houses in the same hood, when other
languages are compared they are very close.

They are structurally close (not so close as e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic),
but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination mutually comprehensible;

Remember Lee Sau Dan (or was he only in sci.lang), who said he could get
the gist of a Japanese newspaper article by just looking at the characters
but could not grasp the details of the content.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Can Arabic speakers identify the topic Hebrew speakers are discussing,
without understanding any details, or are they too far apart from that?

It seems unlikely, because Hebrew has had enough sound changes that the
consonant system is rather different. OTOH, it's said that Finns understand
Estonian better than vice versa, because Finnish has changed more so that
Estonian seems to "preserve earlier forms."

Also Afrikaans speakers have a harder time understanding Dutch than the
reverse, because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:57:41 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques
Also Afrikaans speakers have a harder time understanding Dutch than the
reverse,

Reading or listening? Listening to Afrikaans and understanding it, can
be quite challenging. Reading it however is easy.

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as? Never heard of that. Dutch hardly has any inflections
anymore, and they never express anything that could also be done with
a preposition. You may be confusing Dutch and German.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:57:41 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques
Also Afrikaans speakers have a harder time understanding Dutch than the
reverse,

Reading or listening? Listening to Afrikaans and understanding it, can
be quite challenging. Reading it however is easy.

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as?

Verbs are one. Words with variants are another.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Never heard of that.

Being Dutch you’re on the easy end. You take your inflections for granted
and may not even notice that they’re simply alien to Afrikaans speakers.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Dutch hardly has any inflections
anymore, and they never express anything that could also be done with
a preposition. You may be confusing Dutch and German.

I may what? What sense would that make? How would I introduce an exotic
such as Afrikaans if I was really thinking of something well known as
Dutch/German?

It’s true that the Afrikaans/Dutch argument may apply just as well to
Dutch/German, but being a more distant relationship and having other types
of differences I didn’t even think of it.

Conversely, applying your own reasoning above, German hardly has any
inflection anymore. The difference is that now you’re on the hard end of it
- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker, whereas the reverse is not true by
any means.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by António Marques
- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker,

If they can get past the insane spelling.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 26 Apr 2018 04:26:56 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker,

If they can get past the insane spelling.

Of Dutch or German? :)

Yes, well Dutch is insanelier spelled than English, that much is true.
Although strangely, I never found English spelling particularly
difficult, I sort of learnt it playenderwise.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 04:26:56 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by António Marques
- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker,

If they can get past the insane spelling.

Of Dutch or German? :)

I don't find anything irrational about German spelling. It nicely balances
phonemic with morphophonemic features, and there aren't any weird diphthongs,
although you do have to be able to recognize the occasional French borrowing.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Yes, well Dutch is insanelier spelled than English, that much is true.
Although strangely, I never found English spelling particularly
difficult, I sort of learnt it playenderwise.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 28 Apr 2018 06:13:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 04:26:56 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker,

If they can get past the insane spelling.

Of Dutch or German? :)

I don't find anything irrational about German spelling. It nicely balances
phonemic with morphophonemic features,

So does the Dutch spelling, although with slightly different rules.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and there aren't any weird diphthongs,

??

Post by Peter T. Daniels
although you do have to be able to recognize the occasional French borrowing.

Same in Dutch.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Yes, well Dutch is insanelier spelled than English, that much is true.
Although strangely, I never found English spelling particularly
difficult, I sort of learnt it playenderwise.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 04:26:56 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker,

If they can get past the insane spelling.

Of Dutch or German? :)
Yes, well Dutch is insanelier spelled than English, that much is true.
Although strangely, I never found English spelling particularly
difficult, I sort of learnt it playenderwise.

Let’s just say German is a Velazquez and Dutch is a Picasso.

English maybe a Dali.

[Daud Deden]

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 04:26:56 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by António Marques
- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker,

If they can get past the insane spelling.

Of Dutch or German? :)
Yes, well Dutch is insanelier spelled than English, that much is true.
Although strangely, I never found English spelling particularly
difficult, I sort of learnt it playenderwise.

Let’s just say German is a Velazquez and Dutch is a Picasso.
English maybe a Dali.

---

Not bad at all, ant, not bad at all.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as?

Verbs are one. Words with variants are another.

Verbs are conjugated, not inflected. And all adjectives get an -e
inflection in Dutch, except the neutre gender with an indefinite
article or none at all. That hardly making word order freeer.

Leuk kind. Leuke vrouw. Leuke man.
Een leuk kind. Een leuke vrouw.
Het leuke kind. De leuke vrouw.
Leuke kinderen en leuke vrouwen.

It's that simple.

I'd think the rules for word order are exactly the same in Afrikaans
and Dutch.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as?

Verbs are one. Words with variants are another.

Verbs are conjugated, not inflected.

Verb inflection is called "conjugation."
Noun inflection is called "declension."

[DKleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as?

Verbs are one. Words with variants are another.

Verbs are conjugated, not inflected.

Verb inflection is called "conjugation."
Noun inflection is called "declension."

And adjective/adverb inflection is called?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as?

Verbs are one. Words with variants are another.

Verbs are conjugated, not inflected.

Verb inflection is called "conjugation."
Noun inflection is called "declension."

And adjective/adverb inflection is called?

In Latin, adjectives are a kind of noun. In Hebrew, adjectives are a kind of verb.

Does any language have a third set of inflections for modifiers?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:28:38 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Verb inflection is called "conjugation."
Noun inflection is called "declension."

And adjective/adverb inflection is called?

In Latin, adjectives are a kind of noun. In Hebrew, adjectives are a kind of verb.

Interesting.

It seems in Hungarian, family names are adjectives. They are before
first names, like adjectives are before nouns, and first names are
inflected while last names are not. The accusative of Orbán Viktor is
Orbán Viktort. Soros György becomes Soros Györgyöt.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does any language have a third set of inflections for modifiers?

Hungarian I think has prepositions inflected for case.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:28:38 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Verb inflection is called "conjugation."
Noun inflection is called "declension."

And adjective/adverb inflection is called?

In Latin, adjectives are a kind of noun. In Hebrew, adjectives are a kind of verb.

Interesting.
It seems in Hungarian, family names are adjectives. They are before
first names, like adjectives are before nouns, and first names are
inflected while last names are not. The accusative of Orbán Viktor is
Orbán Viktort. Soros György becomes Soros Györgyöt.

Are prenominal adjectives not inflected?

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does any language have a third set of inflections for modifiers?

Hungarian I think has prepositions inflected for case.

But are the endings different from those on nouns?

What cases would you inflect prepositions for?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 30 Apr 2018 04:28:33 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
It seems in Hungarian, family names are adjectives. They are before
first names, like adjectives are before nouns, and first names are
inflected while last names are not. The accusative of Orbán Viktor is
Orbán Viktort. Soros György becomes Soros Györgyöt.

Are prenominal adjectives not inflected?

If by that you mean: normal adjectives, which are also before the
nouns they belong to, the answer is: no. So that's why I think
surnames in Hungarian are in fact adjectives, with the meaning
"belonging to the family ....".

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 30 Apr 2018 04:28:33 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Hungarian I think has prepositions inflected for case.

But are the endings different from those on nouns?
What cases would you inflect prepositions for?

In fact it's bit more complicated.
(Source: Hungarian Verbs and Essentials of Grammar, Miklós Törkenczy,
©1997).

For example, nek/nak is a case ending applicable to nouns, which
expresses the dative, translatable to English as 'to, for'. So Éva is
a woman's name, Évának means 'for/to Eva'. (The final vowel becomes
long and clear, which makes the situation easier to recognize. To me
at least. Also true of final -e.)

Those case endings (of which there are about 20, sometimes referred to
as 20 cases, which makes it seems harder than it really is) can
themselves be inflected with possesive endings. Ház = house, házom =
my house (noun + possessive ending), nekem = for me (case ending +
possessive ending).

Then there are postpositions, such as mögött = behind (there are some
30 others). The possessive endings can also be attached to those, so
that mögöttem = behind me, mögötted = behind you, etc.

All of this seems rather strange from an IE point of view, but if you
lay off that prejudice, it's actually quite logical.

The possessive endings somewhat resemble the verb endings for the same
persons in some conjugations.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Those case endings (of which there are about 20, sometimes referred to
as 20 cases, which makes it seems harder than it really is) can
themselves be inflected with possesive endings. Ház = house, házom =
my house (noun + possessive ending), nekem = for me (case ending +
possessive ending).

In a later chapter, nekem etc. is presented as the dative case of
personal pronoune én = I. Also makes sense. But it looks less regular.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 04:28:33 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Hungarian I think has prepositions inflected for case.

But are the endings different from those on nouns?
What cases would you inflect prepositions for?

In fact it's bit more complicated.
(Source: Hungarian Verbs and Essentials of Grammar, Miklós Törkenczy,
©1997).
For example, nek/nak is a case ending applicable to nouns, which
expresses the dative, translatable to English as 'to, for'. So Éva is
a woman's name, Évának means 'for/to Eva'. (The final vowel becomes
long and clear, which makes the situation easier to recognize. To me
at least. Also true of final -e.)
Those case endings (of which there are about 20, sometimes referred to
as 20 cases, which makes it seems harder than it really is) can
themselves be inflected with possesive endings. Ház = house, házom =
my house (noun + possessive ending), nekem = for me (case ending +
possessive ending).
Then there are postpositions, such as mögött = behind (there are some
30 others). The possessive endings can also be attached to those, so
that mögöttem = behind me, mögötted = behind you, etc.
All of this seems rather strange from an IE point of view, but if you
lay off that prejudice, it's actually quite logical.
The possessive endings somewhat resemble the verb endings for the same
persons in some conjugations.

What's strange is calling personal pronouns on prepositions "inflections" or "possessives." Hungarian in that feature behaves exactly like a
Semitic language. Hebrew lii 'to me', ***@ka 'to thee (m.)', lak 'to thee (f.)', etc.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as?

Verbs are one. Words with variants are another.

Verbs are conjugated, not inflected.

Verb inflection is called "conjugation."

That sounds completely bizarre. in + peel.skin = with + yoked. Interesting.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Noun inflection is called "declension."

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 28 Apr 2018 05:50:17 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as?

Verbs are one. Words with variants are another.

Verbs are conjugated, not inflected.

Verb inflection is called "conjugation."
Noun inflection is called "declension."

OK! I got that wrong, thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Dutch hardly has any inflections
anymore, and they never express anything that could also be done with
a preposition. You may be confusing Dutch and German.

I may what? What sense would that make? How would I introduce an exotic
such as Afrikaans if I was really thinking of something well known as
Dutch/German?

Yes, I thought it was rather unlikely myself too. But if you say some
language has freeer word order because it has inflection, you could
only be thinking of German, not Dutch.

(German word order isn't very free either, by the way.)

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques
Conversely, applying your own reasoning above, German hardly has any
inflection anymore.

A lot more than Dutch, anyhow.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

The difference is that now you’re on the hard end of it
- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker, whereas the reverse is not true by
any means.

Dutch people with no formal German can have a conversation with
Germans who know no Dutch at all, and they will understand each other
in both directions. The spoken languages are mutually intelligeable to
a very large extent. That is, avoiding complicated literary words and
stepping over some false friends, of course.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

The difference is that now you’re on the hard end of it
- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker, whereas the reverse is not true by
any means.

Dutch people with no formal German can have a conversation with
Germans who know no Dutch at all, and they will understand each other
in both directions. The spoken languages are mutually intelligeable to
a very large extent. That is, avoiding complicated literary words and
stepping over some false friends, of course.

That’s not my experience. German speakers have a very hard time with Dutch
pronunciation, not unlike the Spanish do with Portuguese.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:24:17 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

The difference is that now you?re on the hard end of it
- I?d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker, whereas the reverse is not true by
any means.

Dutch people with no formal German can have a conversation with
Germans who know no Dutch at all, and they will understand each other
in both directions. The spoken languages are mutually intelligeable to
a very large extent. That is, avoiding complicated literary words and
stepping over some false friends, of course.

That’s not my experience. German speakers have a very hard time with Dutch
pronunciation,

Doing it is hard, but understanding too? That would amaze me.

not unlike the Spanish do with Portuguese.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques
The difference is that now you’re on the hard end of it
- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker, whereas the reverse is not true by
any means.

Dutch people with no formal German can have a conversation with
Germans who know no Dutch at all, and they will understand each other
in both directions. The spoken languages are mutually intelligeable to
a very large extent. That is, avoiding complicated literary words and
stepping over some false friends, of course.

Yes, António, Ruud is correct IMO: Dutch & German are about equally understandable mutually (although my children & those of my German nephew speak English with each other), but Dutch grammar is easier to learn for a German than v.v. I can easily read German (it looks a bit like archaic Dutch), but not speak it correctly, mostly because of the rather complicated declension.

[António Marques]

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques
The difference is that now you’re on the hard end of it
- I’d say 95% of a Dutch text are readily understandable to a
linguistically-minded German speaker, whereas the reverse is not true by
any means.

Dutch people with no formal German can have a conversation with
Germans who know no Dutch at all, and they will understand each other
in both directions. The spoken languages are mutually intelligeable to
a very large extent. That is, avoiding complicated literary words and
stepping over some false friends, of course.

Yes, António, Ruud is correct IMO: Dutch & German are about equally
understandable mutually (although my children & those of my German nephew
speak English with each other), but Dutch grammar is easier to learn for
a German than v.v. I can easily read German (it looks a bit like archaic
Dutch), but not speak it correctly, mostly because of the rather complicated declension.

Are you saying that spoken German and Dutch are mutually
intelligible? (That requires more than speaking simple sent n es very
slowly). That’s not what Germans tell me.

Being Dutch, how do you know how Dutch sounds to Germans?

And how do you know how Dutch sounds to Afrikaans speakers?

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by António Marques
Also Afrikaans speakers have a harder time understanding Dutch than the
reverse,

Reading or listening? Listening to Afrikaans and understanding it, can
be quite challenging. Reading it however is easy.

Post by António Marques
because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

Such as? Never heard of that. Dutch hardly has any inflections
anymore, and they never express anything that could also be done with
a preposition. You may be confusing Dutch and German. --Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Yes. --marc

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by António Marques
Also Afrikaans speakers have a harder time understanding Dutch than the
reverse, because whereas Dutch relies on inflections that have been lost in
Afrikaans, Afrikaans has replaced them with stricter word order and
prepositions which are understandable even when not natural in Dutch.

If we speak slowly, they can +-easily understand us & v.v.
I'd think Afrikaans speakers have less difficulties, because Dutch is more "complete" (Du>Afr.: rust>rus, plaats>plaas, geef>gee etc.).
In writing, I think they have even less problems in understanding Dutch.
But perhaps speaking Afrikaans (die) is a bit simpler than speaking Dutch (e.g. definite article "die" for Dutch "de" or "het").

Lewe en sterwe is swewe en swerwe oor blydskap se wolke en see van die smart.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by l***@gmail.com
I'd think Afrikaans speakers have less difficulties, because Dutch is
more "complete" (Du>Afr.: rust>rus, plaats>plaas, geef>gee etc.).

Moreover, at least the first two of those examples are not unheard of
in colloquial spoken Dutch either. Not where I learnt to talk, anyway.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by l***@gmail.com
Lewe en sterwe is swewe en swerwe oor blydskap se wolke en see van die smart.

In colloquial spoken Dutch (expect that we use that construction with
ze/se only with persons):
Leve en sterve is zweve en zwerve over blijdschap se wolke en zee van
de smart.

In official Dutch orthography:
Leven en steven is zweven en zwerven over de blijdschap z'n wolken en
de zee van de smart.

But I'm not sure of what it means, really, although all the words are
familiar and clear. Or did I misinterpret anything? Zee?

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by l***@gmail.com
Lewe en sterwe is swewe en swerwe oor blydskap se wolke en see van die smart.

In colloquial spoken Dutch (expect that we use that construction with
Leve en sterve is zweve en zwerve over blijdschap se wolke en zee van
de smart.
Leven en sterven is zweven en zwerven over de blijdschap z'n wolken en
de zee van de smart.
But I'm not sure of what it means, really, although all the words are
familiar and clear. Or did I misinterpret anything? Zee?

The rest of the poem:
iets van die vuurvlieg, iets van die ster,
en stilte en dood lê weerskant soos die horison daar ver.

In Dutch:
iets van de vuurvlieg, iets van de ster,
en stilte en dood liggen aan weerskanten, zoals die horizont daar ver.
It's Wortspielerei, but it means something like:
life is a laugh & a tear, unpredictable, but ending in death.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Arabic & Hebrew are different houses in the same hood, when other> >>
languages are compared they are very close.

They are structurally close (not so close as e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic),
but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination mutually comprehensible;

Remember Lee Sau Dan (or was he only in sci.lang), who said he could
getthe gist of a Japanese newspaper article by just looking at the
characters
but could not grasp the details of the content.

Can Arabic speakers identify the topic Hebrew speakers are discussing,>
without understanding any details, or are they too far apart from that?

It seems unlikely, because Hebrew has had enough sound changes that
theconsonant system is rather different. OTOH, it's said that Finns
understand
Estonian better than vice versa, because Finnish has changed more so that
Estonian seems to "preserve earlier forms."

That's what Estonians have told me. I don't I know any Finns -- not
now, anyway. Many years ago in England I had a Finnish neighbour whose
English was so good that it sounded like a native accent that I hadn't
heard before: she tended to make her long vowels a litle too long,
otherwise perfect.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
But the shapes of words are different because stress patterns are different,
and of course the two languages have borrowed from different sources
sovocabulary will differ more than just in inherited lexical items (as
ine.g. Heb. _harag_ vs. Aram./Arab. _qatal_ 'kill').

I have a Maltese friend who can tell what the Tunisian and Libyan>
students in her department are talking about (sometimes things they>
wouldn't want her to know they were discussing), but can't follow
their> conversations in detail. I suspect that they know nothing about
Malta> and have no idea that Maltese is related to Tunisian Arabic.

Until 1810, it was assumed that Maltese was a living relic of
Phoenician(Punic) (mostly because no one could read the few remnants of
Phoenicianthat had been discovered, before 1764), but then Wilhelm
Gesenius (1786-
1842) -- yes, the fellow for whom the standard grammar and
dictionaryare still named -- showed that Maltese was Arabic and not
Phoenician. Itseems to have been his first publication.
Versuch ueber die maltesische Sprache zur Beurtheilung der
neulichwiederhohlten Behauptung dass sie ein Ueberrest der altpunische
sey,und als Beytrag zur arabischen Dialektologie (Leipzig: Vogel, 1810)
Cf. Jean-Jacques Barthélemy, R
éflexions sur quelques monumentsPhéniciens, et sur les Alphabets qui
en résultent. Mémoires del'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles
Lettres 30 (1764), 405-26.

...

Post by Peter T. Daniels
--

athel

[Daud Deden]

Peter, that is very interesting, thanks.

[António Marques]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Surely"? What do you know about the interwar Jewish community of Philadelphia?
---
Only that I recall reading that he was familiar with Yiddish, though it
didn't give his level of expertise.

Every European Jew is "familiar with" Yiddish. That doesn't make them
speakers of it.
Perhaps you're confusing him with his mentor Zellig Harris, who was born
Over There (present-day Belarus, IIRC) and was brought to Philadelphia
as a toddler, whose home language was Yiddish.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Arabic & Hebrew are different houses in the same hood, when other
languages are compared they are very close.

They are structurally close (not so close as e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic),
but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination mutually comprehensible;
and when Chomsky was studying Arabic there was no thought of seriously
studying what were called the "dialects" of Arabic (i.e. the vernacular
Arabic languages).
Last weekend I heard an anecdote of Yona Sabar, a linguist at UCLA
(presumably retired now; I haven't seen him in quite a while), a native
speaker of the Aramaic of Zakho. The speaker played for him a tape of
the Aramaic of a nearby town just over a border, and he said, "That's
not Aramaic, that must be Kurdish!" -- showing how far apart neighboring
varieties of the "same" language have grown over a few hundred years.

Sometimes a single divergence in some feature of the phonetics, which
doesn’t even make it into writing, such as a systemic vowel shift, can
completely break intelligibility.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Another Aramaicist-linguist friend of mine has mentioned that there is
more variety within the sub-sub-family North East Neo-Aramaic (NENA)
than among all the vernacular/colloquieal varieties of Arabic.
English's closest relative is said to be Frisian. They are not mutually
comprehensible, which is the closest linguistics comes to calling two
varieties "different languages" (because "a language" is a political,
not a linguistic, concept).

The Semitic languages being apparently so similar also relies on the fact
that we’re looking at very old varieties - Akkadian and Phoenician as they
were 3000 years ago, Ancient Hebrew 2500 years, Classical Arabic 1300.
Modern forms of those languages, which we only have for Arabic, would have
diverged a lot more, as appears to be the case with Aramaic. Ge’ez is also
very old.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by António Marques
The Semitic languages being apparently so similar also relies on the fact
that we’re looking at very old varieties

Quite true --

Post by António Marques
- Akkadian and Phoenician as they
were 3000 years ago, Ancient Hebrew 2500 years, Classical Arabic 1300.

But your dates are a bit off. Old Akkadian is mid-3rd millennium, i.e. ca.
2500 BCE (Eblaite not much later, Mari not much later than that, Old Assyrian
ca. 1900); Phoenician ca. 1000 or a little later; Hebrew ca. 950; Aramaic 966; South Arabian ca. 700; Arabic 4th-5th c. CE

Post by António Marques
Modern forms of those languages, which we only have for Arabic, would have
diverged a lot more, as appears to be the case with Aramaic. Ge’ez is also
very old.

1st c. CE, vocalized since mid-4th c.

[António Marques]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by António Marques
The Semitic languages being apparently so similar also relies on the fact
that we’re looking at very old varieties

Quite true --

Post by António Marques
- Akkadian and Phoenician as they
were 3000 years ago, Ancient Hebrew 2500 years, Classical Arabic 1300.

But your dates are a bit off.

And what’s worse is that I knew I was being careless but counted on someone
coming forward to provide the correct information. I thank you for that and
apologise to the group. I hope it’s not an empty apology.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Old Akkadian is mid-3rd millennium, i.e. ca.
2500 BCE (Eblaite not much later, Mari not much later than that, Old Assyrian
ca. 1900); Phoenician ca. 1000 or a little later; Hebrew ca. 950; Aramaic
966; South Arabian ca. 700; Arabic 4th-5th c. CE

Post by António Marques
Modern forms of those languages, which we only have for Arabic, would have
diverged a lot more, as appears to be the case with Aramaic. Ge’ez is also
very old.

1st c. CE, vocalized since mid-4th c.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:57:40 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques
Sometimes a single divergence in some feature of the phonetics, which
doesn’t even make it into writing, such as a systemic vowel shift, can
completely break intelligibility.

At first, but not on subsequent attempt.

I heard music in a Brabantish dialect a few months ago, and didn't
understand a word. After listening more often, and appreciating the
jokes, I now understand virtually everything and see that isn't really
so different from my own Dutch.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:57:40 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques
Sometimes a single divergence in some feature of the phonetics, which
doesn’t even make it into writing, such as a systemic vowel shift, can
completely break intelligibility.

At first, but not on subsequent attempt.
I heard music in a Brabantish dialect a few months ago, and didn't
understand a word. After listening more often, and appreciating the
jokes, I now understand virtually everything and see that isn't really
so different from my own Dutch.

That’s true, but it does require some training and can fade a bit if left
unused for long.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Surely"? What do you know about the interwar Jewish community of Philadelphia?
---
Only that I recall reading that he was familiar with Yiddish, though it didn't give his level of expertise.

Every European Jew is "familiar with" Yiddish. That doesn't make them
speakers of it.

No, thousands of French Jews are from North-Africa and they are not familiar at all with Yiddish.
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Surely"? What do you know about the interwar Jewish community of Philadelphia?
Only that I recall reading that he was familiar with Yiddish, though it didn't give his level of expertise.

Every European Jew is "familiar with" Yiddish. That doesn't make them
speakers of it.

No, thousands of French Jews are from North-Africa and they are not familiar at all with Yiddish.

Oh, all of a sudden you call people from not-France "French" because it
suits your nastiness?

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Surely"? What do you know about the interwar Jewish community of Philadelphia?
Only that I recall reading that he was familiar with Yiddish, though it didn't give his level of expertise.

Every European Jew is "familiar with" Yiddish. That doesn't make them
speakers of it.

No, thousands of French Jews are from North-Africa and they are not familiar at all with Yiddish.

Oh, all of a sudden you call people from not-France "French" because it
suits your nastiness?

No, these people are just French.
Try to get out of your American shithole and learn something about the world.
A.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:55:20 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
English's closest relative is said to be Frisian.

True.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
They are not mutually
comprehensible, which is the closest linguistics comes to calling two
varieties "different languages" (because "a language" is a political,
not a linguistic, concept).

Frisian has ondergone strong influence from Dutch.

What makes it more confusing is that there are actually two kinds of
Frisian, one of them Stadsfries ("City Frisian"), which is spoken, as
the name suggests, in Frisian cities, including the capital Ljouwert
(Dutch: Leeuwarden).

These two varieties are often confused or regarded as one, however
linguists agree that Stadsfries is actually a _Hollandish_ dialect, so
in fact more a variety of Dutch than of Frisian. Real Frisian is only
still spoken in rural areas.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

"Surely"? What do you know about the interwar Jewish community of Philadelphia? ---
Only that I recall reading that he was familiar with Yiddish, though it didn't give his level of expertise.

Every European Jew is "familiar with" Yiddish. That doesn't make them
speakers of it.
Perhaps you're confusing him with his mentor Zellig Harris, who was born
Over There (present-day Belarus, IIRC) and was brought to Philadelphia
as a toddler, whose home language was Yiddish.

Arabic & Hebrew are different houses in the same hood, when other languages are compared they are very close.

They are structurally close (not so close as e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic),
but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination mutually comprehensible;
and when Chomsky was studying Arabic there was no thought of seriously
studying what were called the "dialects" of Arabic (i.e. the vernacular
Arabic languages).
Last weekend I heard an anecdote of Yona Sabar, a linguist at UCLA
(presumably retired now; I haven't seen him in quite a while), a native
speaker of the Aramaic of Zakho. The speaker played for him a tape of
the Aramaic of a nearby town just over a border, and he said, "That's
not Aramaic, that must be Kurdish!" -- showing how far apart neighboring
varieties of the "same" language have grown over a few hundred years.
Another Aramaicist-linguist friend of mine has mentioned that there is
more variety within the sub-sub-family North East Neo-Aramaic (NENA)
than among all the vernacular/colloquieal varieties of Arabic.
English's closest relative is said to be Frisian. They are not mutually
comprehensible, which is the closest linguistics comes to calling two
varieties "different languages" (because "a language" is a political,
not a linguistic, concept).

Thanks. FWIW, I read somewhere that the Angles were a Frisian offshoot (split c.500 AD). And if Kamal Salibi's "Israel in Arabia" theory is correct (I think so), Hebrew & Arabic might have split c.500 BC.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by l***@gmail.com
Thanks. FWIW, I read somewhere that the Angles were a Frisian offshoot (split c.500 AD). And if Kamal Salibi's "Israel in Arabia" theory is correct

It isn't.

Post by l***@gmail.com
(I think so), Hebrew & Arabic might have split c.500 BC.

Kindly show how that fits the facts of Northwest Semitic historical
phonology.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by l***@gmail.com
Thanks. FWIW, I read somewhere that the Angles were a Frisian offshoot (split c.500 AD). And if Kamal Salibi's "Israel in Arabia" theory is correct

Tha is just BS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It isn't.

Post by l***@gmail.com
(I think so), Hebrew & Arabic might have split c.500 BC.

Kindly show how that fits the facts of Northwest Semitic historical
phonology.

The Arabo-Canaanite theory is no longer accepted. Certain similarities
such as the definite article are thought to be areal features.

Arabic is placed in the Ancient North Arabian continuum of Central
Semitic betwen Sayhadic (Sabaic) and NW Semitic from the latest
discussions I have had.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by l***@gmail.com
Thanks. FWIW, I read somewhere that the Angles were a Frisian offshoot (split c.500 AD). And if Kamal Salibi's "Israel in Arabia" theory is correct

It isn't.

Says who?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by l***@gmail.com
(I think so), Hebrew & Arabic might have split c.500 BC.

Kindly show how that fits the facts of Northwest Semitic historical
phonology.

Later influences, as always: Danish influances on English, Brabantic influences on Hollandic, Duthc influences on Frisian...?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by l***@gmail.com
Yes, Chomsky didn't even bother to study different languages.

Not entirely true. He studied enough Hebrew to write a master's thesis
on it.

He studied Classical Arabic with the two greatest Arabists of the twentieth
century, Giorgio Levi della Vida (who was a refugee at Penn during the War)
and Franz Rosenthal (who stopped off at Penn on the way to Yale). I wish I
had known that when Franz was alive and reminiscing!

I asked Chomsky whether he read the Hebrew and Arabic press when doing his
political stuff. He said he used to but not any more.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by l***@gmail.com
Yes, Chomsky didn't even bother to study different languages.

Not entirely true. He studied enough Hebrew to write a master's thesis
on it.

He studied Classical Arabic with the two greatest Arabists of the twentieth
century, Giorgio Levi della Vida (who was a refugee at Penn during the War)
and Franz Rosenthal (who stopped off at Penn on the way to Yale). I wish I
had known that when Franz was alive and reminiscing!
I asked Chomsky whether he read the Hebrew and Arabic press when doing his
political stuff. He said he used to but not any more.

OK, thanks.

[Daud Deden]

H.erectus didn't sail the seas, but swam the seas (or at least the coastal waters): their originally-littoral (incl. shallow-diving) adaptations are obvious:
pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, intercontinental diaspora, island colonization, brain enlargement (seafood) etc.

Did H.erectus speak?
Unlikely IMO. If they had spoken, technology had developed earlier I'd think.
FWIW, I now think that "freeing" the airways allowed human speech = the shift from diving to wading (erectus->sapiens).
Google "aquatic ape theory 2017 made easy".
---

I won't go into the agreements and disagreements about that. I will be glad to attribute one factor about AMHs which comes from my study of Hardy-Morgan-Verhaegen hypotheses: I was able to determine that AmerIndians followed bison herds along Beringia, but the Melanesian-Andaman derived Surui et al of Brazil came by the Pacific coast, not in Beringia and not following the Equatorial counter-current.

[DKleinecke]

Post by l***@gmail.com
pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, intercontinental diaspora, island colonization, brain enlargement (seafood) etc.
Did H.erectus speak?
Unlikely IMO. If they had spoken, technology had developed earlier I'd think.
FWIW, I now think that "freeing" the airways allowed human speech = the shift from diving to wading (erectus->sapiens).
Google "aquatic ape theory 2017 made easy".
---
I won't go into the agreements and disagreements about that. I will be glad to attribute one factor about AMHs which comes from my study of Hardy-Morgan-Verhaegen hypotheses: I was able to determine that AmerIndians followed bison herds along Beringia, but the Melanesian-Andaman derived Surui et al of Brazil came by the Pacific coast, not in Beringia and not following the Equatorial counter-current.

The Surui language is said to be a Tupi language (I have
no personal experience with Surui). If so it is a strange
choice of substitute for Tupi. Tupi languages are found in
much of Amazonian lowlands especially in the south and east.
Topologically the Tupi languages seem similar to Maipuran,
Cariban and a half dozen other language families. Historic
linguists have written many articles about connections
among the South American language families but none have
been accepted by the community of SA historic linguists.

[Daud Deden]

DK: "If so it is a strange
choice of substitute for Tupi."
---

I don't understand the sentence. Presumably ancestral Surui et al was spoken before the AmerInd population arrived, by small bands of Hunter-gatherers(morphologically & genetically Melanesian), and except for a few isolated pockets of survivors within Amazonia, were swamped by AmerInd speakers who had transited Beringia.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Daud Deden
DK: "If so it is a strange
choice of substitute for Tupi."
---
I don't understand the sentence. Presumably ancestral Surui et al was spoken before the AmerInd population arrived, by small bands of Hunter-gatherers(morphologically & genetically Melanesian), and except for a few isolated pockets of survivors within Amazonia, were swamped by AmerInd speakers who had transited Beringia.

The linguistic cousins of the Surui were the dominant language
family in lowland Amazonia. We don't know to what extent the Tupi
speakers of today are blood descendants of the Tupi speakers of
the day when proto-Tupi was spoken - maybe 5000 BCE.

The notion they are of Melanesian ancestry is ridiculous.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by l***@gmail.com
pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, intercontinental diaspora, island colonization, brain enlargement (seafood) etc.
Did H.erectus speak?
Unlikely IMO. If they had spoken, technology had developed earlier I'd think.
FWIW, I now think that "freeing" the airways allowed human speech = the shift from diving to wading (erectus->sapiens).
Google "aquatic ape theory 2017 made easy".
---
I won't go into the agreements and disagreements about that. I will be glad to attribute one factor about AMHs which comes from my study of Hardy-Morgan-Verhaegen hypotheses: I was able to determine that AmerIndians followed bison herds along Beringia, but the Melanesian-Andaman derived Surui et al of Brazil came by the Pacific coast, not in Beringia and not following the Equatorial counter-current.

That's a lot of "determining" there! It's heading off-topic, but it would
be interesting to know how you determined some of these things,
like:

-followed buffalo herds...
-Melanesian-Andaman derived
-came by Pacific coast...

Don't suppose you published any of these determinations? Did you
inform anyone else, or are we the first?

[Daud Deden]

That's a lot of "determining" there! It's heading off-topic, but it would
be interesting to know how you determined some of these things,
like:

-followed buffalo herds...

I wrote in brief. Siberian bison arrived with Beringians/proto-AmerIndians; naive American bison soon went extinct, replaced by wary Siberian bison which multiplied.

-Melanesian-Andaman derived

Genetic analysis article of Surui et al, Morphologic analysis of Luzia et al. Recently dated 18.5ka age of camp at Monte Verde, chaw of seaweed far inland, possible route to Brazil.

-came by Pacific coast...

Pacific Arctic currents blocked by Beringia dam, northern Pacific was warmer, placid and 'small' due to exposed continental shelves = 110m drop in sea level. From approx. South China Sea, tropical currents flowed north to Beringia then east then south to California (Kelp highway), then to equator, where they may have split up or settled. Later AmerIndians may have pushed them deeper into the forests.
---

Don't suppose you published any of these determinations?
---
Not formally. I write wherever I happen to be.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by l***@gmail.com
pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, intercontinental diaspora, island colonization, brain enlargement (seafood) etc.
Did H.erectus speak?
Unlikely IMO. If they had spoken, technology had developed earlier I'd think.
FWIW, I now think that "freeing" the airways allowed human speech = the shift from diving to wading (erectus->sapiens).
Google "aquatic ape theory 2017 made easy".
---
I won't go into the agreements and disagreements about that. I will be glad to attribute one factor about AMHs which comes from my study of Hardy-Morgan-Verhaegen hypotheses: I was able to determine that AmerIndians followed bison herds along Beringia, but the Melanesian-Andaman derived Surui et al of Brazil came by the Pacific coast, not in Beringia and not following the Equatorial counter-current.

And I won't agree or disagree with that... :-)
Note my ideas are quite different from Hardy's & Morgan's, who thought our human "aquatic phase" happened >10 & >5 Ma resp. (IMO early-Pleistocene dispersal of archaic Homo along the coasts of Africa & southern Eurasia), and that our 1st step toward it was wading (IMO it was >18 Ma: from arboreal to aquarboreal: from branches to flooded forest).