Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:04:27 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>Have you read my paper, before declaring it shaky ?

No, couldn't reach it, there were hurdles.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:18:54 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:04:27 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
><fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>Have you read my paper, before declaring it shaky ?
>
>No, couldn't reach it, there were hurdles.

https://www.academia.edu/s/548cbf5453
Academia asks me to login with either Google or Facebook. I'd rather
not, because it will result in an endless stream of unsollicited
e-mails again, like the previous time. I don't want that.

Moreover, I know nothing about Basque, and nothing about Native
American languages. My comments were about comparitive linguistics in
general.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Do AF the courtesy of assuming he already knows all of that. He may be
right, he may be wrong, but it will be on grounds other than those.

Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 12:18:16 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:03:54 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@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.

I don't believe in that theory.

>
> 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.

That's an idiotic dogma !

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.

I disagree !

>
> How much is known about proto-Basque?

We are lucky to have plenty of dialects.

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:12:14 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 12:18:16 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:03:54 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> <fournet...@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.
>
>I don't believe in that theory.

Ah, you don't believe in gradual language change. Very smart.
>> 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.
>
>That's an idiotic dogma !

Not a dogma, just common sense, and observable fact. That the
relatedness of IE languages is not doubted by anyone, relies strongly
on the fact that in addition to the modern languages, we have Latin,
Greek, Gothic, Sanskrit, Old Armenian, Avestan, etc.

> 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.
>
>I disagree !
>
>>
>> How much is known about proto-Basque?
>
>We are lucky to have plenty of dialects.

Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 19:25:18 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:12:14 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
> >Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 12:18:16 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:03:54 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> <fournet...@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.
> >
> >I don't believe in that theory.
> Ah, you don't believe in gradual language change. Very smart.

This is not what I wrote and think.

> >> 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.
> >
> >That's an idiotic dogma !
> Not a dogma, just common sense, and observable fact. That the
> relatedness of IE languages is not doubted by anyone, relies strongly
> on the fact that in addition to the modern languages, we have Latin,
> Greek, Gothic, Sanskrit, Old Armenian, Avestan, etc.

No, it's not observable fact, just an idiotic preconceived dogma.

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 19:25:18 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:12:14 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>
>> >Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 12:18:16 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> >> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:03:54 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >> <fournet...@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.
>> >
>> >I don't believe in that theory.
>> Ah, you don't believe in gradual language change. Very smart.
>
>This is not what I wrote and think.

But it is my sincere interpretation and impression of what you wrote.

>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >That's an idiotic dogma !
>> Not a dogma, just common sense, and observable fact. That the
>> relatedness of IE languages is not doubted by anyone, relies strongly
>> on the fact that in addition to the modern languages, we have Latin,
>> Greek, Gothic, Sanskrit, Old Armenian, Avestan, etc.
>
>No, it's not observable fact, just an idiotic preconceived dogma.

So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?

For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
are available.

Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 22:11:28 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
> >Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 19:25:18 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:12:14 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >>
> >> >Le vendredi 23 juillet 2021 à 12:18:16 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> >> >> Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:03:54 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> <fournet...@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.
> >> >
> >> >I don't believe in that theory.
> >> Ah, you don't believe in gradual language change. Very smart.
> >
> >This is not what I wrote and think.
> But it is my sincere interpretation and impression of what you wrote.
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >That's an idiotic dogma !
> >> Not a dogma, just common sense, and observable fact. That the
> >> relatedness of IE languages is not doubted by anyone, relies strongly
> >> on the fact that in addition to the modern languages, we have Latin,
> >> Greek, Gothic, Sanskrit, Old Armenian, Avestan, etc.
> >
> >No, it's not observable fact, just an idiotic preconceived dogma.
> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?

From the practical point of view, we have to do with what we have.
One of the issues is that macro-comparison is very often described by people who have no experience in it. It's a bit like asking a communist to explain Latin mass. People like Lyle Campbell or Alexander Vovin, I call obscurantist nihilist shitheads. Those toxic idiots keep sneering and telling that everything is impossible, blablabla. They do not even understand that world cognates exist. They have no idea how macro-comparison should be done. Etc.
Anyway, some questions are always the same:
Q1. what to think of the segmental stability of the language, as regards syllable-onset, syllable-coda, vocalism?
Q2. what to think of the work already done on the language or family?
In the case of Siouan, we can answer "fairly good" to both questions.
On the whole Siouan is rather conservative, it has syllable-coda attrition, but not to the point where information is entirely lost.
Vocalism is quite stable. Laryngeals are still there, which is rare.
Proto-Siouan as presented in the online Siouan database is quite acceptable as is.
Muskogean seems to be a fast-evolving family, it's much more altered segmentally than Siouan, as far as I see it.
Basque is a bit tricky, but the comparison with Siouan and Caucasic shows that most of my ideas and hypotheses about Basque sound laws are correct.

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>
>For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>are available.

Counted by type or by token?

Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:10:11 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>obscurantist nihilist shitheads. Those toxic idiots

I never understand why you aren't more popular than you are.

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:10:11 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>They do not even understand that world cognates exist.

What is a "world cognate"? Are those the snapshots of the work of Daud
Deden, that he presents here every day?

Le samedi 24 juillet 2021 à 09:54:02 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:10:11 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >They do not even understand that world cognates exist.
> What is a "world cognate"?

Words that seem to have an extraordinary extension.
For example the word "lip" *ɬap or the word "eagle" *ǩudh
These words can be found from Europe to Australia, from Bantu to Quechuan.

Are those the snapshots of the work of Daud
> Deden, that he presents here every day?
He's a child...

Le samedi 24 juillet 2021 à 09:49:48 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:10:11 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >obscurantist nihilist shitheads. Those toxic idiots
> I never understand why you aren't more popular than you are.

I don't understand it either ! (smile)

On 2021-07-23, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:

>>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.

You can even have a sequence /bw/, e.g. buitre /'bwitre/, 'vulture'.

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

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
> >> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
> >For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> >are available.
>
> Counted by type or by token?

What sense does that make in counting language families?

> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?

IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
where the comparative method was invented.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:54:02 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:10:11 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >They do not even understand that world cognates exist.
>
> What is a "world cognate"? Are those the snapshots of the work of Daud
> Deden, that he presents here every day?

Presumably the 14 items once fantasized by Merritt Ruhlen.

Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
>> >> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>> >> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>> >For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>> >are available.
>>
>> Counted by type or by token?
>
>What sense does that make in counting language families?

I'm thinking in languages within families.

Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
makes a lot difference.

If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
statement to be true.

>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
>
>IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
>where the comparative method was invented.

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

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >> >> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >> >> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
> >> >> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
> >> >For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> >> >are available.
> >> Counted by type or by token?
> >What sense does that make in counting language families?
> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>
> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
> makes a lot difference.
>
> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
> statement to be true.

Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?

> >> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
> >
> >IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
> >where the comparative method was invented.

Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
>>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>> are available.
>>>> Counted by type or by token?
>>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
>> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>>
>> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
>> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
>> makes a lot difference.
>>
>> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
>> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
>> statement to be true.
>
> Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?

To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:

>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>> are available.

>>>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
>>>
>>>IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
>>>where the comparative method was invented.

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

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>
>>>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>>>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>>> are available.
>>>>> Counted by type or by token?
>>>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
>>> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>>>
>>> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
>>> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
>>> makes a lot difference.
>>>
>>> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
>>> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
>>> statement to be true.
>>
>> Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
>
> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:

To determine that nearly all have only modern data, a multitude of them
that have only modern data should count as only one?

>
>>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>>> are available.
>
>>>>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
>>>>
>>>> IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
>>>> where the comparative method was invented.
>

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >>>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >>>>>On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> >>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

> >>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
> >>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
> >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> >>>>> are available.
> >>>> Counted by type or by token?
> >>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
> >> I'm thinking in languages within families.
> >> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
> >> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
> >> makes a lot difference.
> >> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
> >> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
> >> statement to be true.
> > Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
>
> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:

??? Are you under the impression that _any_ of the 1000-ish languages
of the island of Papua (both the PNG side and the Indonesia side) have
any written records earlier than those of the first missionaries or explorers
who encountered them????

I also doubt that you have any idea of how many families they can be
assigned within, no matter what the degree of likelihood.

> >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> >>>>> are available.
> >>>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
> >>>IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
> >>>where the comparative method was invented.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:26:09 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> > >On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> > >>>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > >>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> > >>>>>On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > >>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
> > >>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
> > >>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
> > >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> > >>>>> are available.
> > >>>> Counted by type or by token?
> > >>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
> > >> I'm thinking in languages within families.
> > >> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
> > >> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
> > >> makes a lot difference.
> > >> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
> > >> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
> > >> statement to be true.
> > > Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
> >
> > To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
> ??? Are you under the impression that _any_ of the 1000-ish languages
> of the island of Papua (both the PNG side and the Indonesia side) have
> any written records earlier than those of the first missionaries or explorers
> who encountered them????
>
> I also doubt that you have any idea of how many families they can be
> assigned within, no matter what the degree of likelihood.
> > >>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
> > >>>>> are available.
> > >>>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
> > >>>IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
> > >>>where the comparative method was invented.

Now that we can rea Mayan we have New World records back to before 500 CE.
I haven't kept up and don't know exactly how useful old Maya is or what has been
done recently. But the time depth is as great as for many Old World languages.

On 2021-07-24 17:15, DKleinecke wrote:

> Now that we can rea Mayan we have New World records back to before 500 CE.
> I haven't kept up and don't know exactly how useful old Maya is or what has been
> done recently. But the time depth is as great as for many Old World languages.

Maya (apart, perhaps, from the numerical system) would not have been
decipherable without knowledge of the modern Mayan languages.

Similarly, for all of those language for which written records exist,
most of what we know about them is based on modern languages.

While we may have lots of written records for Latin, Greek, Egyptian,
etc., we don't have tape-recordings to tell us what these languages
sounded like, and assigning any sort of phonological content to written
records would be pretty much impossible absent knowledge of their modern
descendants.

Even Sanskrit, one of the few ancient languages for which we have not
only written records, but also fairly detailed phonological descriptions
written by its contemporaries, couldn't have be interpreted in absence
of modern languages. A phonological description isn't much use without
some way of confirming that one's interpretation of its terminology is
reasonable, and that requires knowledge of related, currently spoken,
languages.

Written records can provide useful material to *supplement* comparative
reconstruction, but they aren't much use on their own.

André

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

Sat, 24 Jul 2021 22:05:04 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
<antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:

>Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:11:02 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:46:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:31:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>
>>>>>>>> So only modern languages should have been considered when assessing
>>>>>>>> Indo-European? Or what IS your view on that?
>>>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>>>> are available.
>>>>>> Counted by type or by token?
>>>>> What sense does that make in counting language families?
>>>> I'm thinking in languages within families.
>>>>
>>>> Just counting language names, one by one, or counting by number of
>>>> speakers, size of retained corpus, geographical spread, etc. That
>>>> makes a lot difference.
>>>>
>>>> If all the languages of New Guinea have one 'vote', and Latin and
>>>> Greek each have one, too, that makes it a lot easier for your
>>>> statement to be true.
>>>
>>> Why would 1000-ish languages have "one vote," whatever a "vote" is here?
>>
>> To determine what is "nearly all language families", quote:
>
>To determine that nearly all have only modern data, a multitude of them
>that have only modern data should count as only one?

If you don’t get, you don’t get it. I give up any efforts to explain
now.
>>>>>>> For nearly all the language families in the world, _only_ modern data
>>>>>>> are available.
>>
>>>>>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean?
>>>>>
>>>>> IE and Semitic are the sole exceptions. They just happened to be
>>>>> where the comparative method was invented.
>>
>
>