On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
>
> > Indeed, caution is necessary.
>
> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.
- My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.

On 24/11/2021 3:05 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, caution is necessary.
>>
>> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
>> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
>> André
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>> service.
> -
> My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.

So why do you waste your time with us hopeless cases? Why aren't you out
there presenting your work to some normal humans -- especially those
evolutionary theorists who have gone so horribly wrong?

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 9:33:58 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 24/11/2021 3:05 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>
> >>> Indeed, caution is necessary.
> >>
> >> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
> >> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
> >> André
> >>
> >> --
> >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >> service.
> > -
> > My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.
> So why do you waste your time with us hopeless cases? Why aren't you out
> there presenting your work to some normal humans -- especially those
> evolutionary theorists who have gone so horribly wrong?

My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer) view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown. I do not invest my time criticizing other hypotheses, I just correct them and refocus on my work, eg. Endurance hunting routinely by very-dense-boned Homo erectus after savannah ungulates or Homo erectus routinely sleeping in water like dolphins or sea otters have no biological basis, whereas Homo erectus routinely sleeping in the proposed precursors to dome huts conforms to post-hominoid behaviour and to human technological and linguistic evolution.
I rarely state that Neo-etymologists are wrong, but often that they work with such recent data (historic, agricultural-based, hierarchical-structured societal records) while ignoring obvious and important biological/ecological information that their resulting books and articles have little value overall (wrt the human species, and not just some regional population).

On 24/11/2021 8:18 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 9:33:58 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On 24/11/2021 3:05 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, caution is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
>>>> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>> service.
>>> -
>>> My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.
>> So why do you waste your time with us hopeless cases? Why aren't you out
>> there presenting your work to some normal humans -- especially those
>> evolutionary theorists who have gone so horribly wrong?
>
> My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer) view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown.

You've just told the linguists they are not normal humans. I guess that
explains why they don't gain this new view. They become aware of your
ideas, but they do not accept them. So you think there are other people
reading you here besides the half a dozen who have replied to you, and
those ones get the message?

I do not invest my time criticizing other hypotheses, I just correct
them and refocus on my work, eg. Endurance hunting routinely by
very-dense-boned Homo erectus after savannah ungulates or Homo erectus
routinely sleeping in water like dolphins or sea otters have no
biological basis,

So you say. By "correcting" I guess you just mean you say they are
wrong. But your failure to engage with all those other people proposing
biologically unfounded theories seems like a strange way to do science.

whereas Homo erectus routinely sleeping in the proposed precursors to
dome huts conforms to post-hominoid behaviour and to human technological
and linguistic evolution.

> I rarely state that Neo-etymologists are wrong, but often that they work with such recent data (historic, agricultural-based, hierarchical-structured societal records) while ignoring obvious and important biological/ecological information that their resulting books and articles have little value overall (wrt the human species, and not just some regional population).

Most of the books written by neo-etymologists are about (the languages
of) regional populations, not the human species as a whole. Not
surprising that you should find them of little value. Surprising (again)
that you should hang out in a newsgroup populated by such people, and
carp at them for not doing what you like to do.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:26:53 AM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 24/11/2021 8:18 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 9:33:58 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >> On 24/11/2021 3:05 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Indeed, caution is necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
> >>>> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
> >>>> André
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >>>> service.
> >>> -
> >>> My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages.. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.
> >> So why do you waste your time with us hopeless cases? Why aren't you out
> >> there presenting your work to some normal humans -- especially those
> >> evolutionary theorists who have gone so horribly wrong?
> >
> > My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer) view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown.
> You've just told the linguists they are not normal humans.

Nope. Please reread what I actually wrote.

I guess that
> explains why they don't gain this new view.
They become aware of your
> ideas, but they do not accept them.

Why do you say that? Has someone told you that they do not accept that ancient humans slept safely in covering shelters?

So you think there are other people
> reading you here besides the half a dozen who have replied to you, and
> those ones get the message?

Sci.lang is about the science of human language. People interested in that subject are welcome to read my posts.

> I do not invest my time criticizing other hypotheses, I just correct
> them and refocus on my work, eg. Endurance hunting routinely by
> very-dense-boned Homo erectus after savannah ungulates or Homo erectus
> routinely sleeping in water like dolphins or sea otters have no
> biological basis,
> So you say.

As my research clearly indicates.

By "correcting" I guess you just mean you say they are
> wrong.

I say they lack data to determine the actual course of human evolution.

But your failure to engage with all those other people proposing
> biologically unfounded theories seems like a strange way to do science.

Failure? Surely you jest. I've engaged a great many times.

> whereas Homo erectus routinely sleeping in the proposed precursors to
> dome huts conforms to post-hominoid behaviour and to human technological
> and linguistic evolution.
>
> > I rarely state that Neo-etymologists are wrong, but often that they work with such recent data (historic, agricultural-based, hierarchical-structured societal records) while ignoring obvious and important biological/ecological information that their resulting books and articles have little value overall (wrt the human species, and not just some regional population).
> Most of the books written by neo-etymologists are about (the languages
> of) regional populations, not the human species as a whole.

Exactly my point. I address the human species.

Not
> surprising that you should find them of little value.

They have their place, as I have mine.

Surprising (again)
> that you should hang out in a newsgroup populated by such people, and
> carp at them for not doing what you like to do.

You have confused my responding to unmerited criticism with my research on human evolution including language evolution, specifically the invention of compound words.

On 25/11/2021 2:12 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:26:53 AM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On 24/11/2021 8:18 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 9:33:58 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2021 3:05 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, caution is necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
>>>>>> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>>>> service.
>>>>> -
>>>>> My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.
>>>> So why do you waste your time with us hopeless cases? Why aren't you out
>>>> there presenting your work to some normal humans -- especially those
>>>> evolutionary theorists who have gone so horribly wrong?
>>>
>>> My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer) view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown.
>> You've just told the linguists they are not normal humans.
>
> Nope. Please reread what I actually wrote.

I read it just fine. What part of it do you want to fudge? Substitute
"neo-etymologists" for "linguists"?

> I guess that
>> explains why they don't gain this new view.
> They become aware of your
>> ideas, but they do not accept them.
>
> Why do you say that? Has someone told you that they do not accept that ancient humans slept safely in covering shelters?

That's hardly the sum of your ideas, even without including the language
stuff.

> So you think there are other people
>> reading you here besides the half a dozen who have replied to you, and
>> those ones get the message?
>
> Sci.lang is about the science of human language. People interested in that subject are welcome to read my posts.

Once you post them, it's not up to you who reads them. The fact is that
on sci.lang hardly anybody does.

>> I do not invest my time criticizing other hypotheses, I just correct
>> them and refocus on my work, eg. Endurance hunting routinely by
>> very-dense-boned Homo erectus after savannah ungulates or Homo erectus
>> routinely sleeping in water like dolphins or sea otters have no
>> biological basis,
>> So you say.
>
> As my research clearly indicates.
>
> By "correcting" I guess you just mean you say they are
>> wrong.
>
> I say they lack data to determine the actual course of human evolution.
>
> But your failure to engage with all those other people proposing
>> biologically unfounded theories seems like a strange way to do science.
>
> Failure? Surely you jest. I've engaged a great many times.

Really? Where and with whom? Published anything?

>> whereas Homo erectus routinely sleeping in the proposed precursors to
>> dome huts conforms to post-hominoid behaviour and to human technological
>> and linguistic evolution.
>>
>>> I rarely state that Neo-etymologists are wrong, but often that they work with such recent data (historic, agricultural-based, hierarchical-structured societal records) while ignoring obvious and important biological/ecological information that their resulting books and articles have little value overall (wrt the human species, and not just some regional population).
>> Most of the books written by neo-etymologists are about (the languages
>> of) regional populations, not the human species as a whole.
>
> Exactly my point. I address the human species.

So your posture of judging these books and finding them wanting is a bit
false. They were never intended to be contributions to paleo-etymology.

> Not
>> surprising that you should find them of little value.
>
> They have their place, as I have mine.
>
> Surprising (again)
>> that you should hang out in a newsgroup populated by such people, and
>> carp at them for not doing what you like to do.
>
> You have confused my responding to unmerited criticism with my research on human evolution including language evolution, specifically the invention of compound words.

Well, "unmerited" criticism is all you're likely to get from those
cubicle-bound neo-etymologists. Why would you expect otherwise.

By the way, I'm surprised to learn that "invention of compound words" is
a research topic of yours. Is it something you've done elsewhere, or are
we meant to find it in what you've written here? Could you give an example?

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 10:06:19 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 2:12 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:26:53 AM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >> On 24/11/2021 8:18 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 9:33:58 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>>> On 24/11/2021 3:05 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Indeed, caution is necessary.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
> >>>>>> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
> >>>>>> André
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >>>>>> service.
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.
> >>>> So why do you waste your time with us hopeless cases? Why aren't you out
> >>>> there presenting your work to some normal humans -- especially those
> >>>> evolutionary theorists who have gone so horribly wrong?
> >>>
> >>> My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer) view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown.
> >> You've just told the linguists they are not normal humans.
> >
> > Nope. Please reread what I actually wrote.
> I read it just fine.
Then rethink your response.
What part of it do you want to fudge? Substitute
> "neo-etymologists" for "linguists"?
Accuracy is important in science. Pedantic whining less so.
> > I guess that
> >> explains why they don't gain this new view.
> > They become aware of your
> >> ideas, but they do not accept them.
> >
> > Why do you say that? Has someone told you that they do not accept that ancient humans slept safely in covering shelters?
> That's hardly the sum of your ideas, even without including the language
> stuff.
You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep? How did their sleeping habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > So you think there are other people
> >> reading you here besides the half a dozen who have replied to you, and
> >> those ones get the message?
> >
> > Sci.lang is about the science of human language. People interested in that subject are welcome to read my posts.
> Once you post them, it's not up to you who reads them. The fact is that
> on sci.lang hardly anybody does.
All my posts are regularly read and will be available to future readers interested in the science of language.

> >> I do not invest my time criticizing other hypotheses, I just correct
> >> them and refocus on my work, eg. Endurance hunting routinely by
> >> very-dense-boned Homo erectus after savannah ungulates or Homo erectus
> >> routinely sleeping in water like dolphins or sea otters have no
> >> biological basis,
> >> So you say.
> >
> > As my research clearly indicates.
> >
> > By "correcting" I guess you just mean you say they are
> >> wrong.
> >
> > I say they lack data to determine the actual course of human evolution.
> >
> > But your failure to engage with all those other people proposing
> >> biologically unfounded theories seems like a strange way to do science..
> >
> > Failure? Surely you jest. I've engaged a great many times.
> Really? Where and with whom? Published anything?
Yes. Lots of people on the internet. Why would I publish a paper on such an engagement?
> >> whereas Homo erectus routinely sleeping in the proposed precursors to
> >> dome huts conforms to post-hominoid behaviour and to human technological
> >> and linguistic evolution.
> >>
> >>> I rarely state that Neo-etymologists are wrong, but often that they work with such recent data (historic, agricultural-based, hierarchical-structured societal records) while ignoring obvious and important biological/ecological information that their resulting books and articles have little value overall (wrt the human species, and not just some regional population).
> >> Most of the books written by neo-etymologists are about (the languages
> >> of) regional populations, not the human species as a whole.
> >
> > Exactly my point. I address the human species.
> So your posture of judging these books and finding them wanting is a bit
> false. They were never intended to be contributions to paleo-etymology.
> > Not
> >> surprising that you should find them of little value.
> >
> > They have their place, as I have mine.
> >
> > Surprising (again)
> >> that you should hang out in a newsgroup populated by such people, and
> >> carp at them for not doing what you like to do.
> >
> > You have confused my responding to unmerited criticism with my research on human evolution including language evolution, specifically the invention of compound words.
> Well, "unmerited" criticism is all you're likely to get from those
> cubicle-bound neo-etymologists.
No, there is well-reasoned criticism, which is welcome. Then there is mud-slinging for egocentric purposes, making rich manure for time-wasting foolish arguments, but sterile territory for Paleo-etymology.
Why would you expect otherwise.
>
> By the way, I'm surprised to learn that "invention of compound words" is
> a research topic of yours.
Since my first posts at Sci.lang about the Paleo-etymology keywords. You have "forgotten" our discussions. That no longer surprises me.
Is it something you've done elsewhere, or are
> we meant to find it in what you've written here? Could you give an example?
Search 'compound word Paleo-etymology' perhaps?

Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:18:16 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:
>My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human
>able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer)
>view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown.

No. All you write (largely without explanation, just suggesting
things) is based on superficial resemblance between words in often
unrelated laguages. One of the first lessons of etymology is that that
is not something to go by.

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

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 3:25:02 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:18:16 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human
> >able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer)
> >view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown.
> No.
Are all Dutch people so enviouss of scientific initiative, or am I just lucky to have you as a favorite reader?

All you write (largely without explanation, just suggesting
> things) is based on superficial resemblance between words in often
> unrelated laguages. One of the first lessons of etymology is that that
> is not something to go by.
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
You never change your tune! Yet the world changes around you.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:

> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?

Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
wouldn't protect them from predators.)

> How did their sleeping
> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?

Not at all.

If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
be visible in modern language.

Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
language typology. Also no success.

Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in

Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S.V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold. maps. 41 cm.
Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5

(It's slightly too recent to be in Google Books, but it seems to have
been reprinted in 1977.)

Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > How did their sleeping
> > habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> Not at all.
>
> If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
> the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
> be visible in modern language.
>
> Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
> between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
> between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
> never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
> number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
>
> They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
> language typology. Also no success.
>
> Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in
>
> Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
> Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S..V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
> Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
> Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold. maps.. 41 cm.
> Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5

Beautiful maps here
https://archive.org/details/SprachenfamilienSprachkreiseDerErdeAtlas1926/mode/2up

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > > respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > > else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> > Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> > wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > > How did their sleeping
> > > habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > Not at all.
> >
> > If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
> > the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
> > be visible in modern language.
> >
> > Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
> > between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
> > between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
> > never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
> > number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> >
> > They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
> > language typology. Also no success.
> >
> > Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in
> >
> > Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
> > Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S.V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
> > Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
> > Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold. maps. 41 cm.
> > Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5
> Beautiful maps here
> https://archive.org/details/SprachenfamilienSprachkreiseDerErdeAtlas1926/mode/2up

Google Books doesn't know about that!

I don't remember how I was able to remove it from the Northwestern U
library, but I made color copies at Kinko's for something like $1 apiece
and return it the same day.

AbeBooks lists a number of copies, both of the reprint and of the original,
for not a huge price. It looks like some include the Atlas, some don't;
when the Atlas is offered separately, it's for about twice as much as
the book.

On 2021-11-25 11:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
>>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
>>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
>>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
>>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
>>>> How did their sleeping
>>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>> If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
>>> the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
>>> be visible in modern language.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
>>> between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
>>> between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
>>> never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
>>> number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
>>>
>>> They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
>>> language typology. Also no success.
>>>
>>> Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in
>>>
>>> Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
>>> Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S.V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
>>> Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
>>> Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold. maps. 41 cm.
>>> Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5
>> Beautiful maps here
>> https://archive.org/details/SprachenfamilienSprachkreiseDerErdeAtlas1926/mode/2up
>
> Google Books doesn't know about that!

I can't comment on the selection, but in general materials at
archive.org are higher quality scans than those on google books.

André

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

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-11-25 11:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> >> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> >>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> >>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> >>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> >>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> >>>> How did their sleeping
> >>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> >>> Not at all.
> >>>
> >>> If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
> >>> the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
> >>> be visible in modern language.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
> >>> between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
> >>> between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
> >>> never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
> >>> number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> >>>
> >>> They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
> >>> language typology. Also no success.
> >>>
> >>> Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in
> >>>
> >>> Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
> >>> Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S.V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
> >>> Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
> >>> Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold. maps. 41 cm.
> >>> Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5
> >> Beautiful maps here
> >> https://archive.org/details/SprachenfamilienSprachkreiseDerErdeAtlas1926/mode/2up
> >
> > Google Books doesn't know about that!
> I can't comment on the selection, but in general materials at
> archive.org are higher quality scans than those on google books.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.
Note: no responses regarding sleep safety, but sudden interest in maps.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:16:44 PM UTC-8, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > On 2021-11-25 11:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > >> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail..com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > >>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > >>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> > >>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> > >>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > >>>> How did their sleeping
> > >>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > >>> Not at all.
> > >>>
> > >>> If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
> > >>> the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
> > >>> be visible in modern language.
> > >>>
> > >>> Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
> > >>> between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
> > >>> between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
> > >>> never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
> > >>> number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> > >>>
> > >>> They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
> > >>> language typology. Also no success.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in
> > >>>
> > >>> Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
> > >>> Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S.V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
> > >>> Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
> > >>> Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold.. maps. 41 cm.
> > >>> Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5
> > >> Beautiful maps here
> > >> https://archive.org/details/SprachenfamilienSprachkreiseDerErdeAtlas1926/mode/2up
> > >
> > > Google Books doesn't know about that!
> > I can't comment on the selection, but in general materials at
> > archive.org are higher quality scans than those on google books.
> > André
> >
> > --
> > To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> > service.
> Note: no responses regarding sleep safety, but sudden interest in maps.

I stopped reading your posts when you declined to explain what your
operating instructions were. I gather from other people's comments
that you still haven't explained. You might get a better response if you
paused in your relentless search for proto-cognates and explained how
you were using them.

I understand your fixation on sleeping gear on your discovery (which I
deduce to have happened) that sleeping arrangements around the world
shared what looked like a common vocabulary.

On 25/11/2021 6:19 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 10:06:19 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On 25/11/2021 2:12 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:26:53 AM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:18 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 9:33:58 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 3:05 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed, caution is necessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
>>>>>>>> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.
>>>>>> So why do you waste your time with us hopeless cases? Why aren't you out
>>>>>> there presenting your work to some normal humans -- especially those
>>>>>> evolutionary theorists who have gone so horribly wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer) view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown.
>>>> You've just told the linguists they are not normal humans.
>>>
>>> Nope. Please reread what I actually wrote.
>> I read it just fine.
> Then rethink your response.
> What part of it do you want to fudge? Substitute
>> "neo-etymologists" for "linguists"?
> Accuracy is important in science. Pedantic whining less so.
>>> I guess that
>>>> explains why they don't gain this new view.
>>> They become aware of your
>>>> ideas, but they do not accept them.
>>>
>>> Why do you say that? Has someone told you that they do not accept that ancient humans slept safely in covering shelters?
>> That's hardly the sum of your ideas, even without including the language
>> stuff.
> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep? How did their sleeping habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
>>> So you think there are other people
>>>> reading you here besides the half a dozen who have replied to you, and
>>>> those ones get the message?
>>>
>>> Sci.lang is about the science of human language. People interested in that subject are welcome to read my posts.
>> Once you post them, it's not up to you who reads them. The fact is that
>> on sci.lang hardly anybody does.
> All my posts are regularly read and will be available to future readers interested in the science of language.
>
>>>> I do not invest my time criticizing other hypotheses, I just correct
>>>> them and refocus on my work, eg. Endurance hunting routinely by
>>>> very-dense-boned Homo erectus after savannah ungulates or Homo erectus
>>>> routinely sleeping in water like dolphins or sea otters have no
>>>> biological basis,
>>>> So you say.
>>>
>>> As my research clearly indicates.
>>>
>>> By "correcting" I guess you just mean you say they are
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> I say they lack data to determine the actual course of human evolution.
>>>
>>> But your failure to engage with all those other people proposing
>>>> biologically unfounded theories seems like a strange way to do science.
>>>
>>> Failure? Surely you jest. I've engaged a great many times.
>> Really? Where and with whom? Published anything?
> Yes. Lots of people on the internet. Why would I publish a paper on such an engagement?

Because that's what scientists normally do. Publishing is part of the
engagement. You have a theory, I have a different theory, here's why I
think mine's better. Most actual science is not done on internet
discussion groups.

As far as the sleeping is concerned, it's not my field. I don't even
know what other theories there are. You've mentioned a couple, just to
scoff at them. I wouldn't mind seeing a more serious engagement.

What your respondents here do not find credible are your
paleo-etymologies -- the strings of "related" present-day words are not
adequate evidence for your ancient vocables, and the connection between
the latter and the sleeping/domeshield theory is quite unclear.

>>>> whereas Homo erectus routinely sleeping in the proposed precursors to
>>>> dome huts conforms to post-hominoid behaviour and to human technological
>>>> and linguistic evolution.
>>>>
>>>>> I rarely state that Neo-etymologists are wrong, but often that they work with such recent data (historic, agricultural-based, hierarchical-structured societal records) while ignoring obvious and important biological/ecological information that their resulting books and articles have little value overall (wrt the human species, and not just some regional population).
>>>> Most of the books written by neo-etymologists are about (the languages
>>>> of) regional populations, not the human species as a whole.
>>>
>>> Exactly my point. I address the human species.
>> So your posture of judging these books and finding them wanting is a bit
>> false. They were never intended to be contributions to paleo-etymology.
>>> Not
>>>> surprising that you should find them of little value.
>>>
>>> They have their place, as I have mine.
>>>
>>> Surprising (again)
>>>> that you should hang out in a newsgroup populated by such people, and
>>>> carp at them for not doing what you like to do.
>>>
>>> You have confused my responding to unmerited criticism with my research on human evolution including language evolution, specifically the invention of compound words.
>> Well, "unmerited" criticism is all you're likely to get from those
>> cubicle-bound neo-etymologists.
> No, there is well-reasoned criticism, which is welcome. Then there is mud-slinging for egocentric purposes, making rich manure for time-wasting foolish arguments, but sterile territory for Paleo-etymology.
> Why would you expect otherwise.
>>
>> By the way, I'm surprised to learn that "invention of compound words" is
>> a research topic of yours.
> Since my first posts at Sci.lang about the Paleo-etymology keywords. You have "forgotten" our discussions. That no longer surprises me.
> Is it something you've done elsewhere, or are
>> we meant to find it in what you've written here? Could you give an example?
> Search 'compound word Paleo-etymology' perhaps?

Googling that leads to a lot of information about the etymology of the
(Eng < Greek) prefix "paleo-" plus one or two of your sci.lang posts.
Searching within sci.lang brings up still more. I don't see anything
suggesting that "invention of compound words" was one of your research
topics. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the expression
from the rest of us? An example would help.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:02:41 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:16:44 PM UTC-8, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > > On 2021-11-25 11:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > > >> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:

> > > >>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > > >>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > > >>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> > > >>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> > > >>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > > >>>> How did their sleeping
> > > >>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > > >>> Not at all.
> > > >>> If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
> > > >>> the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
> > > >>> be visible in modern language.
> > > >>> Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
> > > >>> between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
> > > >>> between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
> > > >>> never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
> > > >>> number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> > > >>> They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
> > > >>> language typology. Also no success.
> > > >>> Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in
> > > >>> Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
> > > >>> Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S.V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
> > > >>> Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
> > > >>> Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold. maps. 41 cm.
> > > >>> Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5
> > > >> Beautiful maps here
> > > >> https://archive.org/details/SprachenfamilienSprachkreiseDerErdeAtlas1926/mode/2up
> > > > Google Books doesn't know about that!
> > > I can't comment on the selection, but in general materials at
> > > archive.org are higher quality scans than those on google books.
> > Note: no responses regarding sleep safety, but sudden interest in maps.

(If you had actually looked at the maps, you would have seen ones
trying to coordinate climate and language features, and culture and
language features, in world maps of various grammatical phenomena.)
> I stopped reading your posts when you declined to explain what your
> operating instructions were. I gather from other people's comments
> that you still haven't explained. You might get a better response if you
> paused in your relentless search for proto-cognates and explained how
> you were using them.
>
> I understand your fixation on sleeping gear on your discovery (which I
> deduce to have happened) that sleeping arrangements around the world
> shared what looked like a common vocabulary.

Incidentally, preserved above is my reply to his "sleep" question, the
one he says no one answered. What he means is, no one gives the
answer he wants to see.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:02:41 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:16:44 PM UTC-8, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > > On 2021-11-25 11:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > > >> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > > >>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > > >>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> > > >>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> > > >>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > > >>>> How did their sleeping
> > > >>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > > >>> Not at all.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
> > > >>> the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
> > > >>> be visible in modern language.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
> > > >>> between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
> > > >>> between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
> > > >>> never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
> > > >>> number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
> > > >>> language typology. Also no success.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
> > > >>> Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S.V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
> > > >>> Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
> > > >>> Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold. maps. 41 cm.
> > > >>> Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5
> > > >> Beautiful maps here
> > > >> https://archive.org/details/SprachenfamilienSprachkreiseDerErdeAtlas1926/mode/2up
> > > >
> > > > Google Books doesn't know about that!
> > > I can't comment on the selection, but in general materials at
> > > archive.org are higher quality scans than those on google books.
> > > André
> > >
> > > --
> > > To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> > > service.
> > Note: no responses regarding sleep safety, but sudden interest in maps.
> I stopped reading your posts

You have slept better, undoubtedly.

when you declined to explain what your
> operating instructions were. I gather from other people's comments
> that you still haven't explained. You might get a better response if you
> paused in your relentless search for proto-cognates and explained how
> you were using them.
>
> I understand your fixation on sleeping gear on your discovery (which I
> deduce to have happened) that sleeping arrangements around the world
> shared what looked like a common vocabulary.
I research.

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 5:35:50 AM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 6:19 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 10:06:19 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >> On 25/11/2021 2:12 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:26:53 AM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>>> On 24/11/2021 8:18 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 9:33:58 PM UTC-5, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>>>>> On 24/11/2021 3:05 p.m., Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2021-11-22 16:58, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, caution is necessary.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A rather odd comment coming from one who is willing to connect any two
> >>>>>>>> words with even the remotest resemblance, real or imagined.
> >>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >>>>>>>> service.
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>> My caution is undetectable to neo-etymologists in their cubicle cages. To anyone else (ie. normal humans), it is obvious that I apply stringent standards of parsimony to my claims of relationship in Paleo-etymology, paleo-architecture, etc. To do elsewise would be a waste of my time, a luxury I cannot afford.
> >>>>>> So why do you waste your time with us hopeless cases? Why aren't you out
> >>>>>> there presenting your work to some normal humans -- especially those
> >>>>>> evolutionary theorists who have gone so horribly wrong?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My caution is undetectable, my work in progress is not. Any human able to read my posts at Sci.lang gains a new (and imo clearer) view of ancient human prehistory otherwise unwritten and largely unknown.
> >>>> You've just told the linguists they are not normal humans.
> >>>
> >>> Nope. Please reread what I actually wrote.
> >> I read it just fine.
> > Then rethink your response.
> > What part of it do you want to fudge? Substitute
> >> "neo-etymologists" for "linguists"?
> > Accuracy is important in science. Pedantic whining less so.
> >>> I guess that
> >>>> explains why they don't gain this new view.
> >>> They become aware of your
> >>>> ideas, but they do not accept them.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you say that? Has someone told you that they do not accept that ancient humans slept safely in covering shelters?
> >> That's hardly the sum of your ideas, even without including the language
> >> stuff.
> > You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep? How did their sleeping habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> >>> So you think there are other people
> >>>> reading you here besides the half a dozen who have replied to you, and
> >>>> those ones get the message?
> >>>
> >>> Sci.lang is about the science of human language. People interested in that subject are welcome to read my posts.
> >> Once you post them, it's not up to you who reads them. The fact is that
> >> on sci.lang hardly anybody does.
> > All my posts are regularly read and will be available to future readers interested in the science of language.
> >
> >>>> I do not invest my time criticizing other hypotheses, I just correct
> >>>> them and refocus on my work, eg. Endurance hunting routinely by
> >>>> very-dense-boned Homo erectus after savannah ungulates or Homo erectus
> >>>> routinely sleeping in water like dolphins or sea otters have no
> >>>> biological basis,
> >>>> So you say.
> >>>
> >>> As my research clearly indicates.
> >>>
> >>> By "correcting" I guess you just mean you say they are
> >>>> wrong.
> >>>
> >>> I say they lack data to determine the actual course of human evolution.
> >>>
> >>> But your failure to engage with all those other people proposing
> >>>> biologically unfounded theories seems like a strange way to do science.
> >>>
> >>> Failure? Surely you jest. I've engaged a great many times.
> >> Really? Where and with whom? Published anything?
> > Yes. Lots of people on the internet. Why would I publish a paper on such an engagement?
> Because that's what scientists normally do. Publishing is part of the
> engagement. You have a theory, I have a different theory, here's why I
> think mine's better. Most actual science is not done on internet
> discussion groups.
>
> As far as the sleeping is concerned, it's not my field. I don't even
> know what other theories there are. You've mentioned a couple, just to
> scoff at them. I wouldn't mind seeing a more serious engagement.
>
> What your respondents here do not find credible are your
> paleo-etymologies -- the strings of "related" present-day words are not
> adequate evidence for your ancient vocables, and the connection between
> the latter and the sleeping/domeshield theory is quite unclear.
> >>>> whereas Homo erectus routinely sleeping in the proposed precursors to
> >>>> dome huts conforms to post-hominoid behaviour and to human technological
> >>>> and linguistic evolution.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I rarely state that Neo-etymologists are wrong, but often that they work with such recent data (historic, agricultural-based, hierarchical-structured societal records) while ignoring obvious and important biological/ecological information that their resulting books and articles have little value overall (wrt the human species, and not just some regional population)..
> >>>> Most of the books written by neo-etymologists are about (the languages
> >>>> of) regional populations, not the human species as a whole.
> >>>
> >>> Exactly my point. I address the human species.
> >> So your posture of judging these books and finding them wanting is a bit
> >> false. They were never intended to be contributions to paleo-etymology..
> >>> Not
> >>>> surprising that you should find them of little value.
> >>>
> >>> They have their place, as I have mine.
> >>>
> >>> Surprising (again)
> >>>> that you should hang out in a newsgroup populated by such people, and
> >>>> carp at them for not doing what you like to do.
> >>>
> >>> You have confused my responding to unmerited criticism with my research on human evolution including language evolution, specifically the invention of compound words.
> >> Well, "unmerited" criticism is all you're likely to get from those
> >> cubicle-bound neo-etymologists.
> > No, there is well-reasoned criticism, which is welcome. Then there is mud-slinging for egocentric purposes, making rich manure for time-wasting foolish arguments, but sterile territory for Paleo-etymology.
> > Why would you expect otherwise.
> >>
> >> By the way, I'm surprised to learn that "invention of compound words" is
> >> a research topic of yours.
> > Since my first posts at Sci.lang about the Paleo-etymology keywords. You have "forgotten" our discussions. That no longer surprises me.
> > Is it something you've done elsewhere, or are
> >> we meant to find it in what you've written here? Could you give an example?
> > Search 'compound word Paleo-etymology' perhaps?
> Googling that leads to a lot of information about the etymology of the
> (Eng < Greek) prefix "paleo-" plus one or two of your sci.lang posts.
> Searching within sci.lang brings up still more. I don't see anything
> suggesting that "invention of compound words" was one of your research
> topics. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the expression
> from the rest of us? An example would help.
Safe Sleep where?

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 12:23:03 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:02:41 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:16:44 PM UTC-8, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> > > > On 2021-11-25 11:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > > > >> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > > > >>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > > > >>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> > > > >>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> > > > >>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > > > >>>> How did their sleeping
> > > > >>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > > > >>> Not at all.
> > > > >>> If your approach were correct, and if modern language is essentially
> > > > >>> the same as your posited language, then something similar ought to
> > > > >>> be visible in modern language.
> > > > >>> Unfortunately for you, differences so presumably fundamental as
> > > > >>> between "hunter-gatherer" societies and agricultural societies, or
> > > > >>> between (over the past 5000+ years) rural and urban societies, have
> > > > >>> never been identified -- and such searches were the obsession of any
> > > > >>> number of (racist) ethnologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> > > > >>> They also looked for correlations between climate/habitat and
> > > > >>> language typology. Also no success.
> > > > >>> Do you read German? If so, you can find all the data gathered in
> > > > >>> Author Schmidt, Wilhelm, 1868-1954.
> > > > >>> Title Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, von P.W. Schmidt, S.V.D. Mit einem Atlas von 14 Karten in Lithographie.
> > > > >>> Published Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1926.
> > > > >>> Description xvi, 595, [1] p. 20 cm. and atlas of XIV (i.e. 13) fold. maps. 41 cm.
> > > > >>> Series Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek ... 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek ... 5
> > > > >> Beautiful maps here
> > > > >> https://archive.org/details/SprachenfamilienSprachkreiseDerErdeAtlas1926/mode/2up
> > > > > Google Books doesn't know about that!
> > > > I can't comment on the selection, but in general materials at
> > > > archive.org are higher quality scans than those on google books.
> > > Note: no responses regarding sleep safety, but sudden interest in maps.
> (If you had actually looked at the maps, you would have seen ones
> trying to coordinate climate and language features, and culture and
> language features, in world maps of various grammatical phenomena.)
> > I stopped reading your posts when you declined to explain what your
> > operating instructions were. I gather from other people's comments
> > that you still haven't explained. You might get a better response if you
> > paused in your relentless search for proto-cognates and explained how
> > you were using them.
> >
> > I understand your fixation on sleeping gear on your discovery (which I
> > deduce to have happened) that sleeping arrangements around the world
> > shared what looked like a common vocabulary.
> Incidentally, preserved above is my reply to his "sleep" question, the
> one he says no one answered. What he means is, no one gives the
> answer he wants to see.
Safe sleep where?

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 6:11:21 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 12:23:03 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > >> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > > > > >>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > > > > >>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> > > > > >>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> > > > > >>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > > > > >>>> How did their sleeping
> > > > > >>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > > > > >>> Not at all.
> > Incidentally, preserved above is my reply to his "sleep" question, the
> > one he says no one answered. What he means is, no one gives the
> > answer he wants to see.
> Safe sleep where?

Not a language question. Maybe there's an anthropology or primatology
group you can pester.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 6:11:21 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 12:23:03 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > >> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > > >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud.....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > > > > > >>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > > > > > >>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> > > > > > >>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> > > > > > >>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > > > > > >>>> How did their sleeping
> > > > > > >>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > > > > > >>> Not at all.
> > > Incidentally, preserved above is my reply to his "sleep" question, the
> > > one he says no one answered. What he means is, no one gives the
> > > answer he wants to see.
> > Safe sleep where?
> Not a language question.

Safe sleep enabled complex language development, so an essential question.

Maybe there's an anthropology or primatology
> group you can pester.
Maybe or maybe not. Or maybe. Or maybe not. Or... maybe Piddle T Diddle just doesn't give a damn about language evolution. What is absolutely certain is that the human language could only have evolved in complex social situations where safe sleep was obligatory, and that the local nocturnal environment was secure.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 6:11:21 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 12:23:03 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > > > >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud.....@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > > > >>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
> > > > > > > >>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
> > > > > > > >>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
> > > > > > > >>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
> > > > > > > >>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
> > > > > > > >>>> How did their sleeping
> > > > > > > >>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
> > > > > > > >>> Not at all.
> > > > Incidentally, preserved above is my reply to his "sleep" question, the
> > > > one he says no one answered. What he means is, no one gives the
> > > > answer he wants to see.
> > > Safe sleep where?
> > Not a language question.
> Safe sleep enabled complex language development, so an essential question..
> Maybe there's an anthropology or primatology
> > group you can pester.
>
> Maybe or maybe not. Or maybe. Or maybe not. Or... maybe Piddle T Diddle just doesn't give a damn about language evolution.

Peter Thomas Daniels doesn't give a damn about crackpot notions and
"domeshields" and prefers to read speculation on language origins that
are actually based in facts of present-day language; of biological evolution;
and of archeological, paleontological, and anthropological investigation.

> What is absolutely certain is that the human language could only have evolved in complex social situations where safe sleep was obligatory, and that the local nocturnal environment was secure.

Begging the question (using the phrase correctly): what sort of "complex
social situations"? If you think your cockamamie "domeshields" are a
better explanation than all the ones that have been suggested by responsible
scholars, then you need to show why it is preferable to each and every one
of those. What falsifiable predictions does it make that are superior to any
of the others' predictions?

Several thousand species of mammals have managed to evolve not
only without language, but also without "domeshields."

On 2021-11-27 14:40, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 6:11:21 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 12:23:03 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2021 à 16:49:51 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:19:39 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You should by now realize that it is at the core. Almost nobody dares to
>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the question, yet are quite willing to jabber on about anything
>>>>>>>>>>> else. Where did human ancestors safely sleep?
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe they took shelter from rain, maybe they didn't. (Your "domeshields"
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't protect them from predators.)
>>>>>>>>>>> How did their sleeping
>>>>>>>>>>> habits and habitat affect the evolution of language?
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>> Incidentally, preserved above is my reply to his "sleep" question, the
>>>> one he says no one answered. What he means is, no one gives the
>>>> answer he wants to see.
>>> Safe sleep where?
>> Not a language question.
>
> Safe sleep enabled complex language development, so an essential question.

How exactly would 'safe sleep' enable complex language development?

Language is much more useful when people are awake than when asleep.
When people talk in their sleep it rarely serves any sort of
communicative or social function.

André

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

El dia dijous, 18 de novembre de 2021 a les 16:40:23 UTC+1, Arnaud Fournet va escriure:
>
> 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.

Not exactly, while Basque and substratal Germanic could be related, the Caucasian word is a Wanderwort which reached to Tibeto-Burman as well as Sinitic and IE, although with a different suffix. But the ultimate source would be Uralic: *koje 'man, person' > Caucasian *χχHweje 'dog' and *koj-ra 'male (dog, man)' > Caucasian *χχHwej-rV 'dog' (oblique stem).