This looks similar to Colin Renfrew's PIE origin hypothesis.
How do linguists view it?

Millet farmers living 9000 years ago in what is now north-east China
may have spoken a proto-Transeurasian language that gave rise to
Japanese, Turkish and other modern tongues
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2296962-origins-of-japanese-and-turkish-language-family-traced-back-9000-years/

On 15/11/2021 2:26 p.m., Dingbat wrote:
> This looks similar to Colin Renfrew's PIE origin hypothesis.
> How do linguists view it?

Another agriculture-driven language family spread theory. And more MPI
stuff. Might be right.

> Millet farmers living 9000 years ago in what is now north-east China
> may have spoken a proto-Transeurasian language that gave rise to
> Japanese, Turkish and other modern tongues
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2296962-origins-of-japanese-and-turkish-language-family-traced-back-9000-years/

The article doesn't mention that "Transeurasian" is a new name (about
five years old) for what had been known for the previous century or so
as "Altaic". That's the macro-version, including Korean and Japanese.
Doesn't seem like a great idea -- likely to be confused with
"Eurasiatic" (Greenberg's macro-Nostratic), which is far more inclusive.

Wikipedia seems to have a pretty up-to-date account of the new
proposals, including what linguists and others have thought about them.

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

Le lundi 15 novembre 2021 à 03:45:28 UTC+1, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
> On 15/11/2021 2:26 p.m., Dingbat wrote:
> > This looks similar to Colin Renfrew's PIE origin hypothesis.
> > How do linguists view it?

> Another agriculture-driven language family spread theory. And more MPI
> stuff. Might be right.
It's kindof fashionable to try to tie macro-families and Neolithic processes,
but it might just be that: i.e fashionable.
IMO this link fails in a number of cases, noticeably Afrasian.

> > Millet farmers living 9000 years ago in what is now north-east China
> > may have spoken a proto-Transeurasian language that gave rise to
> > Japanese, Turkish and other modern tongues
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2296962-origins-of-japanese-and-turkish-language-family-traced-back-9000-years/
> The article doesn't mention that "Transeurasian" is a new name (about
> five years old) for what had been known for the previous century or so
> as "Altaic". That's the macro-version, including Korean and Japanese.
> Doesn't seem like a great idea -- likely to be confused with
> "Eurasiatic" (Greenberg's macro-Nostratic), which is far more inclusive.

yes, this rebranding seems to be designed to exorcize a number of problems and harsh controversies about "Altaic" itself, as if these problems and controversies were no longer there, blocking the way.
As criticized by Stefan Georg, the rebranding as "Transeurasian" is quite unacceptable and inadequate. To begin with, Altaic has little to do with Europe, no matter what you include in Altaic.
In other words, this rebranding as "Transeurasian" is the grab-em-all maxi-Altaic approach.
Such a dating as 9,000 yrs ago is quite shallow and more or less the same as PIE (Anatolian+Post-Anatolian).
It must be underlined that IEan languages clearly share a bulk of vocabulary and morphology, that makes cognacy undebatable.
On the contrary, it is quite obvious that "Altaic" languages fail to show a similar bulk of acceptable cognates in great numbers.
Incidentally, it can be noted that PIE *k^uon, NE Caucasic *xwaj, Basque txa-kur-, substratic Germanic *kurr- share an areal word *k^u for "dog" (with specific suffixes in each branch), even though these languages are **not** closely related.
It can be noted that this version of "Altaic" which would obviously be much, much younger than the ancestor of PIE, NWC, Basque, etc does **not** have a shared word for "dog". This may just be one word among many others, but this simple fact casts considerable doubt on the idea that the last common ancestor of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japanese would be only 9,000 years old.
The absence of a shared word for "dog" suggests that the last shared ancestor must date back to 15-20,000 years ago at the very least.
In other words the existence of a "Transeurasian" "family" and its dating as low as 9,000 yrs ago are non-sequitur.
Personally, I believe that patient and modest work on Mongolic+Tungusic+Yukaghir would be fruitful, but serious work on reduced perimeters is not fashionable...
The same thing is true for Finno-Permic, Ugric and Samoyedic. These three subfamilies do **not** have a shared word for "dog", which casts serious doubts on very low datings for Uralic about 5,000 years ago.
>
> Wikipedia seems to have a pretty up-to-date account of the new
> proposals, including what linguists and others have thought about them.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 10:40:23 AM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le lundi 15 novembre 2021 à 03:45:28 UTC+1, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
> > On 15/11/2021 2:26 p.m., Dingbat wrote:
> > > This looks similar to Colin Renfrew's PIE origin hypothesis.
> > > How do linguists view it?
>
> > Another agriculture-driven language family spread theory. And more MPI
> > stuff. Might be right.
> It's kindof fashionable to try to tie macro-families and Neolithic processes,
> but it might just be that: i.e fashionable.
> IMO this link fails in a number of cases, noticeably Afrasian.
> > > Millet farmers living 9000 years ago in what is now north-east China
> > > may have spoken a proto-Transeurasian language that gave rise to
> > > Japanese, Turkish and other modern tongues
> > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2296962-origins-of-japanese-and-turkish-language-family-traced-back-9000-years/
> > The article doesn't mention that "Transeurasian" is a new name (about
> > five years old) for what had been known for the previous century or so
> > as "Altaic". That's the macro-version, including Korean and Japanese.
> > Doesn't seem like a great idea -- likely to be confused with
> > "Eurasiatic" (Greenberg's macro-Nostratic), which is far more inclusive..
> yes, this rebranding seems to be designed to exorcize a number of problems and harsh controversies about "Altaic" itself, as if these problems and controversies were no longer there, blocking the way.
> As criticized by Stefan Georg, the rebranding as "Transeurasian" is quite unacceptable and inadequate. To begin with, Altaic has little to do with Europe, no matter what you include in Altaic.
> In other words, this rebranding as "Transeurasian" is the grab-em-all maxi-Altaic approach.
> Such a dating as 9,000 yrs ago is quite shallow and more or less the same as PIE (Anatolian+Post-Anatolian).
> It must be underlined that IEan languages clearly share a bulk of vocabulary and morphology, that makes cognacy undebatable.
> On the contrary, it is quite obvious that "Altaic" languages fail to show a similar bulk of acceptable cognates in great numbers.
> Incidentally, it can be noted that PIE *k^uon, NE Caucasic *xwaj, Basque txa-kur-, substratic Germanic *kurr- share an areal word *k^u for "dog" (with specific suffixes in each branch), even though these languages are **not** closely related.
> It can be noted that this version of "Altaic" which would obviously be much, much younger than the ancestor of PIE, NWC, Basque, etc does **not** have a shared word for "dog". This may just be one word among many others, but this simple fact casts considerable doubt on the idea that the last common ancestor of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japanese would be only 9,000 years old.
> The absence of a shared word for "dog" suggests that the last shared ancestor must date back to 15-20,000 years ago at the very least.
> In other words the existence of a "Transeurasian" "family" and its dating as low as 9,000 yrs ago are non-sequitur.
> Personally, I believe that patient and modest work on Mongolic+Tungusic+Yukaghir would be fruitful, but serious work on reduced perimeters is not fashionable...
> The same thing is true for Finno-Permic, Ugric and Samoyedic. These three subfamilies do **not** have a shared word for "dog", which casts serious doubts on very low datings for Uralic about 5,000 years ago.
> >
> > Wikipedia seems to have a pretty up-to-date account of the new
> > proposals, including what linguists and others have thought about them.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages
- To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.

A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
-- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
wolves by then at all.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> wolves by then at all.

fuckhead big bad linguist hasn't heard of onomatopoeia.

what he gains from constantly spouting lies,misinformation,bile etc. is not clear.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> wolves by then at all.

In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.

kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:

> > > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo.. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> > A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> > -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> > a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> > more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> > dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> > wolves by then at all.
>
> In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
>
> kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn

Domestication of wolves (i.e., dogs) is much later than that.

They're in the fossil record. Your "domeshields" are not.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> > > A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> > > -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> > > a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> > > more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> > > dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> > > wolves by then at all.
> >
> > In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> > Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
> >
> > kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> Domestication of wolves (i.e., dogs) is much later than that.
Obviously humans carried & pulled their shelter materials before they domesticated animals.

> They're in the fossil record. Your "domeshields" are not.
If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it. If you reject the continuum of arboreal ape bowl nests to domeshields to dome huts to rectangular housing, you will be less knowledgeable than if you accepted it..

Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
>> wolves by then at all.
>
>In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.

Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.

>Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
>Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
>
>kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn

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

Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
>> wolves by then at all.
>
>In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
>Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
>
>kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn

The real story is much more interesting, complicated, and uncertain,
than what you suggest:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/w%C4%BA%CC%A5k%CA%B7os

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/kalb-

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

Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:18 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:
>If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it.

Three hurrays for Daudian science. This is really a breathtaking
breakthrough.

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

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:44:50 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> >> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> >> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> >> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> >> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> >> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> >> wolves by then at all.
> >
> >In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> >Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
> >
> >kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> The real story is much more interesting, complicated, and uncertain,
> than what you suggest:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/w%C4%BA%CC%A5k%CA%B7os
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/kalb-
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Howl wail call keleb whelp wolf khœhwœlœpœ(s) lupus/lobo

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:18 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it.
> Three hurrays for Daudian science. This is really a breathtaking
> breakthrough.
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

If you only compare the few bones fossilized and found, you will get little useful information, because most context depends on ecology, living specimens, soft tissue, genetics, etc.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:26:47 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> >> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> >> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> >> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> >> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> >> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> >> wolves by then at all.
> >
> >In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog..
> Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.
> >Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> >Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
> >
> >kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

But trekdier includes animals that are pulled on a trace/leash/lead like these children's dog, horse, lion toys: https://www.vrolijkspeelgoed.nl/djeco-baby-pull-trekdier-paard.html

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:01:59 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:44:50 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> > <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> > >> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> > >> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> > >> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> > >> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> > >> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> > >> wolves by then at all.
> > >
> > >In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> > >Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
> > >
> > >kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> > The real story is much more interesting, complicated, and uncertain,
> > than what you suggest:
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/w%C4%BA%CC%A5k%CA%B7os
> >
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/kalb-
> > --
> > Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
> Howl wail call keleb whelp wolf khœhwœlœpœ(s) lupus/lobo
Hail/yell hello heil health/hale/hare(dying cry?)

Sun, 21 Nov 2021 06:11:44 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:26:47 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
>> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
>> >> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
>> >> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
>> >> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
>> >> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
>> >> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
>> >> wolves by then at all.
>> >
>> >In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.
>> Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.
>> >Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
>> >Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
>> >
>> >kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
>> --
>> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
>
>But

Why but? What is the contradiction?

> trekdier includes animals that are pulled on a trace/leash/lead like these children's dog, horse, lion toys: https://www.vrolijkspeelgoed.nl/djeco-baby-pull-trekdier-paard.html

Somebody has to do the trekking. If not the beast, then the child. Or
both, in a tug of war.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:06:36 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:18 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> > <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:

> > >If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it.
> > Three hurrays for Daudian science. This is really a breathtaking
> > breakthrough.
>
> If you only compare the few bones fossilized and found, you will get little useful information, because most context depends on ecology, living specimens, soft tissue, genetics, etc.

Have you ever excavated a midden?

Have you ever read an archeological site report?

Sun, 21 Nov 2021 06:00:03 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
>> The real story is much more interesting, complicated, and uncertain,
>> than what you suggest:
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/w%C4%BA%CC%A5k%CA%B7os
>>
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/kalb-
>> --
>> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
>
>Howl wail call keleb whelp wolf khœhwœlœpœ(s) lupus/lobo

Of course. If that keeps you happy, why not. Ignorance is bliss.

On 2021-11-20 14:58, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
>>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
>>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
>>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
>>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
>>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
>>> wolves by then at all.
>>
>> In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
>> Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
>>
>> kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
>
> Domestication of wolves (i.e., dogs) is much later than that.

As is the domestication of horses, camels, llamas etc.

André

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

On 2021-11-20 18:50, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
>>>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
>>>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
>>>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
>>>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
>>>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
>>>> wolves by then at all.
>>>
>>> In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
>>> Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
>>>
>>> kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
>> Domestication of wolves (i.e., dogs) is much later than that.
> Obviously humans carried & pulled their shelter materials before they domesticated animals.
>
>> They're in the fossil record. Your "domeshields" are not.
> If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it. If you reject the continuum of arboreal ape bowl nests to domeshields to dome huts to rectangular housing, you will be less knowledgeable than if you accepted it.

Scientists pay attention to (among many other things) the fossil record,
not the "fossil record", whatever that might be.

But then I suppose it is much easier to just make stuff up than to
actually rely on evidence.

André

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

On 2021-11-21, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:

>>In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.
>
> Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.

German "Zugtier". English "draft animal". Typically used as a
shortcut for "horse or ox or donkey", i.e., the animals (historically)
used for this purpose in Europe.

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

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:07:00 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 21 Nov 2021 06:11:44 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
> >On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:26:47 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:22:57 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> >> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> >On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> >> >> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> >> >> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> >> >> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> >> >> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> >> >> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> >> >> wolves by then at all.
> >> >
> >> >In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.
> >> Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.
> >> >Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> >> >Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
> >> >
> >> >kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> >> --
> >> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
> >
> >But
> Why but? What is the contradiction?

Misatim does not mean animal that is pulled.

> > trekdier includes animals that are pulled on a trace/leash/lead like these children's dog, horse, lion toys: https://www.vrolijkspeelgoed.nl/djeco-baby-pull-trekdier-paard.html
> Somebody has to do the trekking. If not the beast, then the child. Or
> both, in a tug of war.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 11:30:07 AM UTC-5, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2021-11-21, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
> >>In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog.
> >
> > Dutch has such a word too: trekdier.
> German "Zugtier". English "draft animal". Typically used as a
> shortcut for "horse or ox or donkey", i.e., the animals (historically)
> used for this purpose in Europe.
>
> --
> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

Drawing an infant from the womb long preceded any animals that pulled.

XyuamMBUATLACHyah bua/birth + tlach/trek/drawn/draft/take/tlaca@Azt: take-touch

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:56:57 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-20 18:50, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:44:04 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> To pin everything on a single word comparative is not very useful imo. Dogs in different cultures in different technological stages are likely to have had different designations: herder, hunter, comestible, guardian; each serve distinct roles with distinct names, not the otherwise expected generic dog or canid.
> >>>> A few specific breeds have names based on their usefulness to people
> >>>> -- shepherd, pointer. The term for 'dog' as a whole would not have such
> >>>> a "meaning" other than designating the species. Dog breeds are a lot
> >>>> more recent than dogs. Your beloved "domeshield" people did not know
> >>>> dogs that had been bred for specific functions, if they had even domesticated
> >>>> wolves by then at all.
> >>>
> >>> In one Cree dialect, misatim means 'animal that pulls', historically referring to dogs that pulled travoix. AFAIK they have no word for generic dog. Their dogs were not especially bred for pulling.
> >>> Domeshields were likely used as portable hand-carried shelters between 5ma and 100ka, transforming into more permanent huts and/or transportable tents eg. chuum, tipi, lavu, some of which (enlarged) were pulled or carried by dogs, camels, horses, llamas etc.
> >>>
> >>> kelab@Hbr ~ lobo@Spn
> >> Domestication of wolves (i.e., dogs) is much later than that.
> > Obviously humans carried & pulled their shelter materials before they domesticated animals.
> >
> >> They're in the fossil record. Your "domeshields" are not.
> > If you adhere strictly and blindly to the "fossil record" regarding human evolution you will be less knowledgeable than if you ignored it. If you reject the continuum of arboreal ape bowl nests to domeshields to dome huts to rectangular housing, you will be less knowledgeable than if you accepted it.
> Scientists pay attention to (among many other things) the fossil record,
> not the "fossil record", whatever that might be.
Too complex for you.
> But then I suppose it is much easier to just make stuff up than to
> actually rely on evidence.
> André

You mean interpretation by others rather than interpretation by oneself. Which surprises me not a bit.
>
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.