I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean, located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic.
The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis would then become a fact supported by linguistics.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:12:20 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

> I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean, located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic.
> The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
> It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
> The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous

"famous"? New to me.

> Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis

Which is refuted here:

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

> would then become a fact supported by linguistics.

No, by typical AF fantasies.

Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
>for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,

Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
common family. So why look for even further relatives?

>located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic.
>The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
>It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
>The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis would then become a fact supported by linguistics.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 1:53:35 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
> >located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic.
> >The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
> >It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
> >The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis would then become a fact supported by linguistics.

Sapir included them as a branch of his Hokan-Siouan phylum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas#Sapir_(1929):_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica

Scroll down a bit to see that the Voegelins moved Muskogeon to
Macro-Algonquian.

Contemporary scholars have abandoned attempts at macro-grouping
(what Matisoff called "megalocomparison").

Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
> common family. So why look for even further relatives?

Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?

Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 13:55:16 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:12:20 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> > I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> > for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> > https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> > My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean, located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic..
> > The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
> > It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
> > The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous
> "famous"? New to me.

You always watch the wrong programs on TV...

> > Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis
> Which is refuted here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

No, it's not refuted,
it's just that present-day mainstream archeologists don't like the idea.

> > would then become a fact supported by linguistics.
> No, by typical AF fantasies.

Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
>> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
>> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
>> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
>
>Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?

If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.

On 2021-07-21 05:26:43 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:

> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
>> Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>>> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>> I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for
>>>> Academia.edu,
>>>> for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>>>> https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>>>> My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
>>> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
>>> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
>>
>> Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
>
> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
> believe this.

You have a naive idea of how Wikipedia works. Until I got to work on it
a year ago the article entitled "List of Biochemists" was incredibly
bad, and it was clear that no "serious scientist", as you put it, had
been anywhere near it for years, if ever.

> Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.

Nonsense. It may just mean that the article was put together by an
undergraduate student as a summer project.

Incidentally, _which_ Wikipedia article are you referring to?

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
> >
> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.

Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?

Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:28:50 +0200: Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> scribeva:

>On 2021-07-21 05:26:43 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:
>
>> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> <fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>
>>> Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>>>> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>>> I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for
>>>>> Academia.edu,
>>>>> for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>>>>> My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
>>>> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
>>>> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
>>>
>>> Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
>>
>> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
>> believe this.
>
>You have a naive idea of how Wikipedia works. Until I got to work on it
>a year ago the article entitled "List of Biochemists" was incredibly
>bad, and it was clear that no "serious scientist", as you put it, had
>been anywhere near it for years, if ever.
>
>> Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
>> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
>
>Nonsense. It may just mean that the article was put together by an
>undergraduate student as a summer project.
>
>Incidentally, _which_ Wikipedia article are you referring to?

Those about the Siouan and Muskogean language families, and their
member languages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siouan_languages#External_relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskogean_languages#Broader_relationships

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 13:55:16 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:12:20 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> > I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> > for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> > https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> > My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean, located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic..
> > The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
> > It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
> > The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous
> "famous"? New to me.
> > Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis
> Which is refuted here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
> > would then become a fact supported by linguistics.
> No, by typical AF fantasies.

I will give an example
*wal- "hawk"
It's attested in Basque belatz "hawk" and Caucasic Dargwa walwalc "hawk".
That's a clean Euskaro-Caucasic cognate.

Now this root is also attested in Norse valr "hawk" and Brythonic *walk- e.g Breton gwalc'h "hawk".
These are substratic words, bearing testimony to the fact Pre-IEan Europe spoke Euskaro-Caucasic.

Now, this root is also attested in Siouan as *waNwri "hawk"
What I have discovered is that Siouan nasal vowels stem from v+l not v+n as in French,
so *waNwri can be further retroevolved as *wal-wl-i "hawk"
A conspicuous feature of Siouan is that it does not seem to have /l/ in its inventory.
It's because *l has disappeared thanks to two changes: syllable-coda l > nasal vowel, syllable-onset l > r.

Muskogean seems to have lost nasal vowels, so that the picture is more blurred in that group.

On the whole, Siouan is rather conservative, and the level of phonetic erosion is moderate.

Le mercredi 21 juillet 2021 à 21:39:19 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:28:50 +0200: Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> scribeva:
> >On 2021-07-21 05:26:43 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:
> >
> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >>
> >>> Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >>>> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >>>>> I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for
> >>>>> Academia.edu,
> >>>>> for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> >>>>> My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
> >>>> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
> >>>> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
> >>>
> >>> Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
> >>
> >> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
> >> believe this.
> >
> >You have a naive idea of how Wikipedia works. Until I got to work on it
> >a year ago the article entitled "List of Biochemists" was incredibly
> >bad, and it was clear that no "serious scientist", as you put it, had
> >been anywhere near it for years, if ever.
> >
> >> Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
> >> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
> >
> >Nonsense. It may just mean that the article was put together by an
> >undergraduate student as a summer project.
> >
> >Incidentally, _which_ Wikipedia article are you referring to?
> Those about the Siouan and Muskogean language families, and their
> member languages.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siouan_languages#External_relations
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskogean_languages#Broader_relationships

The connection of Siouan and Yuchi seems pretty good,
I would be more prudent with Iroquoian.
Natchez seems indeed a possible member of this Solutrean group.

Some of the languages which Sapir lumped into Hokan may also belong to Solutrean
This issue would need more work.

Wed, 21 Jul 2021 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>
>> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
>> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
>> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
>> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
>> >
>> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
>> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
>> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
>> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
>
>Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?

Provided where, when?

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Thu, 22 Jul 2021 11:00:23 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Wed, 21 Jul 2021 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
><grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>>On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>
>>> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>>> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
>>> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>>> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>>> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
>>> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
>>> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
>>> >
>>> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
>>> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
>>> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
>>> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
>>
>>Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?
>
>Provided where, when?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas#Sapir_(1929):_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica>
No, I can't remember I looked it that, must have missed it.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 12:40:14 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 13:55:16 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:12:20 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> >
> > > I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> > > for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> > > https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> > > My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean, located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic.
> > > The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
> > > It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
> > > The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous
> > "famous"? New to me.
> > > Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis
> > Which is refuted here:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
> > > would then become a fact supported by linguistics.
> > No, by typical AF fantasies.
> I will give an example
> *wal- "hawk"
> It's attested in Basque belatz "hawk" and Caucasic Dargwa walwalc "hawk".
> That's a clean Euskaro-Caucasic cognate.
>
> Now this root is also attested in Norse valr "hawk" and Brythonic *walk- e.g Breton gwalc'h "hawk".
> These are substratic words, bearing testimony to the fact Pre-IEan Europe spoke Euskaro-Caucasic.

Do you understand the concepts "coincidence" and "borrowing"?

Do you have a dozen or so examples of b = w in Basque and Dargwa?
(There is no "Caucasic." There are three families in the Caucasus that
share a few typological properties but no overall relationship.)

> Now, this root is also attested in Siouan as *waNwri "hawk"
> What I have discovered is that Siouan nasal vowels stem from v+l not v+n as in French,
> so *waNwri can be further retroevolved as *wal-wl-i "hawk"
> A conspicuous feature of Siouan is that it does not seem to have /l/ in its inventory.
> It's because *l has disappeared thanks to two changes: syllable-coda l > nasal vowel, syllable-onset l > r.
>
> Muskogean seems to have lost nasal vowels, so that the picture is more blurred in that group.
>
> On the whole, Siouan is rather conservative, and the level of phonetic erosion is moderate.

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 21 Jul 2021 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> >> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> >> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> >> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
> >> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
> >> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
> >> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
> >> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
> >> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
> >> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
> >Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?
>
> Provided where, when?

A few inches up in this thread, blind-man.

Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:01:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Wed, 21 Jul 2021 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>> >> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
>> >> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
>> >> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>> >> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>> >> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
>> >> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
>> >> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
>> >> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
>> >> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
>> >> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
>> >> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
>> >Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?
>>
>> Provided where, when?
>
>A few inches up in this thread, blind-man.

The concept of inches is unknown to me, not being in Google Groups.

But meanwhile found.

OK, so Sapir thought Siouan and Muskogean are in a larger language
family. But he wrote that long ago, and he himself had his doubts.
Good to know that, thanks.

Anyway, if there is a relationship, it obviousy isn’t very obvious,
seeing that so many other didn’t find it. So as a basis of connecting
Basque and/or "Caucasian" to that, I still find it shaky, and you
probably do too.

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:58:53 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:01:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Wed, 21 Jul 2021 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> >> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> >> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> >> >> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> >> >> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> >> >> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
> >> >> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
> >> >> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
> >> >> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
> >> >> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
> >> >> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
> >> >> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
> >> >Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?
> >> Provided where, when?
> >A few inches up in this thread, blind-man.
>
> The concept of inches is unknown to me, not being in Google Groups.

You really shouldn't brag about ignorance. After all, I know what those
useless little measures called "centimeters" are.

> But meanwhile found.
>
> OK, so Sapir thought Siouan and Muskogean are in a larger language
> family. But he wrote that long ago, and he himself had his doubts.
> Good to know that, thanks.
>
> Anyway, if there is a relationship, it obviousy isn’t very obvious,
> seeing that so many other didn’t find it. So as a basis of connecting
> Basque and/or "Caucasian" to that, I still find it shaky, and you
> probably do too.

So you didn't even look below my link, where I noted how quickly
the Sapir suggestion was rejected -- as you could have seen by
looking further at the Wikiparticle.

Thu, 22 Jul 2021 08:16:49 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:58:53 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:01:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>> >On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Wed, 21 Jul 2021 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> >On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>> >> >> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> >> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
>> >> >> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
>> >> >> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>> >> >> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>> >> >> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
>> >> >> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
>> >> >> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
>> >> >> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
>> >> >> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
>> >> >> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
>> >> >> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
>> >> >Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?
>> >> Provided where, when?
>> >A few inches up in this thread, blind-man.
>>
>> The concept of inches is unknown to me, not being in Google Groups.
>
>You really shouldn't brag about ignorance. After all, I know what those
>useless little measures called "centimeters" are.

Some people don’t recognize irony when they see it. For years, I have
been routinely converting, checking and sometimes correcting feet,
inches, pounds per square inch (PSI), cubic feet per minute (CFM),
torques in pounds-feet, ounce-feet, ounce-inches, helped by Windows
utility Convert by Josh Madison.

>> But meanwhile found.
>>
>> OK, so Sapir thought Siouan and Muskogean are in a larger language
>> family. But he wrote that long ago, and he himself had his doubts.
>> Good to know that, thanks.
>>
>> Anyway, if there is a relationship, it obviousy isn’t very obvious,
>> seeing that so many other didn’t find it. So as a basis of connecting
>> Basque and/or "Caucasian" to that, I still find it shaky, and you
>> probably do too.
>
>So you didn't even look below my link, where I noted how quickly
>the Sapir suggestion was rejected -- as you could have seen by
>looking further at the Wikiparticle.

I did, and mentioned it in so many words.

As happens so often, we agree, but you refuse to admit it. Fine with
me. Do as you please.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 2:10:48 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 08:16:49 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:58:53 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:01:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Wed, 21 Jul 2021 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >> >On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> >> >> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> >> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >
> >> >> >> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> >> >> >> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> >> >> >> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> >> >> >> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
> >> >> >> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
> >> >> >> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
> >> >> >> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
> >> >> >> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
> >> >> >> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
> >> >> >> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
> >> >> >Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?
> >> >> Provided where, when?
> >> >A few inches up in this thread, blind-man.
> >>
> >> The concept of inches is unknown to me, not being in Google Groups.
> >
> >You really shouldn't brag about ignorance. After all, I know what those
> >useless little measures called "centimeters" are.
> Some people don’t recognize irony when they see it. For years, I have
> been routinely converting, checking and sometimes correcting feet,
> inches, pounds per square inch (PSI), cubic feet per minute (CFM),
> torques in pounds-feet, ounce-feet, ounce-inches, helped by Windows
> utility Convert by Josh Madison.
> >> But meanwhile found.
> >>
> >> OK, so Sapir thought Siouan and Muskogean are in a larger language
> >> family. But he wrote that long ago, and he himself had his doubts.
> >> Good to know that, thanks.
> >>
> >> Anyway, if there is a relationship, it obviousy isn’t very obvious,
> >> seeing that so many other didn’t find it. So as a basis of connecting
> >> Basque and/or "Caucasian" to that, I still find it shaky, and you
> >> probably do too.
> >
> >So you didn't even look below my link, where I noted how quickly
> >the Sapir suggestion was rejected -- as you could have seen by
> >looking further at the Wikiparticle.
> I did, and mentioned it in so many words.
>
> As happens so often, we agree, but you refuse to admit it. Fine with
> me. Do as you please.

Anyone who had actually looked at the Americanists' conclusions
could not have written "if there is a relationship."

Le jeudi 22 juillet 2021 à 15:58:53 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:01:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:00:25 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Wed, 21 Jul 2021 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> >> >Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 19:53:35 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> >> >> Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >
> >> >> >> >I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> >> >> >> >for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> >> >> >> >https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> >> >> >> >My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean,
> >> >> >> Wikipedia doesn't mention that even those are considered branches of a
> >> >> >> common family. So why look for even further relatives?
> >> >> >Do you mean that nobody has the right to try to improve what Wikipedia states?
> >> >> If Wikipedia doesn't mention it, there are no serieus scientists who
> >> >> believe this. Disputed family relationships are usually mentioned as
> >> >> such. No mention at all is quite suspicious.
> >> >Did you simply not look at the Wikilink I provided, referring to Sapir?
> >>
> >> Provided where, when?
> >
> >A few inches up in this thread, blind-man.
> The concept of inches is unknown to me, not being in Google Groups.
>
> But meanwhile found.
>
> OK, so Sapir thought Siouan and Muskogean are in a larger language
> family. But he wrote that long ago, and he himself had his doubts.
> Good to know that, thanks.
>
> Anyway, if there is a relationship, it obviousy isn’t very obvious,
> seeing that so many other didn’t find it. So as a basis of connecting
> Basque and/or "Caucasian" to that, I still find it shaky, and you
> probably do too.

Have you read my paper, before declaring it shaky ?

Le jeudi 22 juillet 2021 à 15:00:09 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 12:40:14 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 13:55:16 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:12:20 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > >
> > > > I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> > > > for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> > > > My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean, located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic.
> > > > The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
> > > > It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
> > > > The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous
> > > "famous"? New to me.
> > > > Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis
> > > Which is refuted here:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
> > > > would then become a fact supported by linguistics.
> > > No, by typical AF fantasies.
> > I will give an example
> > *wal- "hawk"
> > It's attested in Basque belatz "hawk" and Caucasic Dargwa walwalc "hawk".
> > That's a clean Euskaro-Caucasic cognate.
> >
> > Now this root is also attested in Norse valr "hawk" and Brythonic *walk- e.g Breton gwalc'h "hawk".
> > These are substratic words, bearing testimony to the fact Pre-IEan Europe spoke Euskaro-Caucasic.
> Do you understand the concepts "coincidence" and "borrowing"?

I know my trade.

>
> Do you have a dozen or so examples of b = w in Basque and Dargwa?

Are you aware that neither Basque nor Spanish distinguish b from w ?

> (There is no "Caucasic." There are three families in the Caucasus that
> share a few typological properties but no overall relationship.)

Competent people on the topic (not you of course) think that NW Caucasic, Nakh and NE Caucasic are related.
Of course, competent people on the topic (not you of course) do not lump Kartvelian into Caucasic.

Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 13:55:16 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:12:20 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> > I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
> > for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
> > https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
> > My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean, located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic..
> > The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
> > It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
> > The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous
> "famous"? New to me.
> > Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis
> Which is refuted here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
> > would then become a fact supported by linguistics.
> No, by typical AF fantasies.

I'd like to add what Basque teaches about Siouan and Muskogean.
If you look at the online database of Siouan, you can see that Siouan oddly seems to confuse the meanings "fingernail, claw" and "hand".
https://csd.clld.org/parameters/734#4/39.63/-93.31
Basque shows that the roots are not entirely homophonous: azkazal, azazkal (-zk-) ‘fingernail’ ~ eski (-sk-) ‘hand’
Now the root "hand" seems to be present in Muskogean: Alabama sakba ‘arm’
It's possible -ba is sak-ba is the same thing as the body-part prefix of Basque *b(e)-.
The genetic relationship I propose is no fantasy.

Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:08:12 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>Are you aware that neither Basque nor Spanish distinguish b from w ?

The <w> in Guadalajara /gwadala'xara/ is different from both /b/'s in
<la Bamba> ( /la'bamba/ = [la'Bamba].

Also <Chihuahua> /tSi'wawa/. That's not Chibaba, nor Chivava.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:03:54 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le mardi 20 juillet 2021 à 13:55:16 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:12:20 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>>
>> > I know some of the (active) members here have a strong dislike for Academia.edu,
>> > for your information, though, I've opened a session here:
>> > https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
>> > My claim is that Siouan and Muskogean, located east of the Mississipi River are close relatives of Basque and, more generally, of Euskaro-Caucasic.
>> > The paper surveys the basic vocabulary of Siouan (letters a to l).
>> > It is shown that Siouan contains lexical and morphological material that connects it to Euskaro-Caucasic and, more distantly to Nostratic in general. It would appear that Muskogean (and Yuchi) also belongs here.
>> > The discovery that Siouan is a close relative, if not a full member, of Euskaro-Caucasic has a direct bearing on the famous
>> "famous"? New to me.
>> > Solutrean hypothesis, as this hypothesis
>> Which is refuted here:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
>> > would then become a fact supported by linguistics.
>> No, by typical AF fantasies.
>
>I'd like to add what Basque teaches about Siouan and Muskogean.
>If you look at the online database of Siouan, you can see that Siouan oddly seems to confuse the meanings "fingernail, claw" and "hand".
>https://csd.clld.org/parameters/734#4/39.63/-93.31
>Basque shows that the roots are not entirely homophonous: azkazal, azazkal (-zk-) ‘fingernail’ ~ eski (-sk-) ‘hand’
>Now the root "hand" seems to be present in Muskogean: Alabama sakba ‘arm’
>It's possible -ba is sak-ba is the same thing as the body-part prefix of Basque *b(e)-.
>The genetic relationship I propose is no fantasy.

.... but is very likely to be coincidental. Unless you can show several
examples with the same patterns. Even then, the problem becomes that
similarities, including structural similarities, prove the language to
be unrelated rather than related. Because if they were related, the
relation would be so remote that you could no longer see such clear
resemblances.

At a certain time scale, somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years, the
difference between coincidence and remote relatedness becomes
impossible to detect with any amount of plausability. Hence any effort
is futile. Especially if the evidence comes from today’s languages
rather than also from much older material, as is the case with IE.

How much is known about proto-Basque?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com