Subject: Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
From: bhs@sprynet.com (Benjamin Swanson)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 00:10:04 GMT
On Fri, 01 Nov 1996 17:21:26 -0800, TJ wrote:
>Speaking of human remains...Remember the freeze-dried bronze-age man
>found in the Alps a few years back. PBS did a once over lightly special
>on him. I assume much of the research has been done, but where can I
>find an account of the 'findings' on this guy? Any good books out, or
>articles? With near-morbid fascination of the very old, tj
>
The Man in the Ice : The Discovery of a 5,000-Year-Old Body Reveals
the Secrets of the Stone Age, by Konrad Spindler
Also, check out the website below -- it's for the Institut für
Anatomie in Innsbruck where the gentleman in question currently
resides. There are a few articles in English, many more in German.
http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c5/c504
Subject: Historical Linguistics 101
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 05:37:08 GMT
petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <327B1625.3314@iceonline.com>,
>Satrap Szabo wrote:
>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>> Toch. A Toch. B Greek Sanskrit Gothic
>>> 4. s'twar s'twer tessares chatvaaras fidwor
>>This is cool.
>>My thoughts on this are that Greek seems to have heavy influence from
>>the Sanskrit direction. Although I have to wonder why the Greek adopted
>>an 'eight' so similar to both Tocharian and Sanskrit. How is it
>>proposed that the writers of ancient sanskrit had opportunity to
>>influence Greek culture? What basically happened to the early Indian
>>empire anyway?
> Mr. Szabo, why are you supposing convergence when divergence from
>some common language is a more plausible hypothesis?
Indeed.
>[..]
>4 quattuor chetyre
>[applying MCV's doubled-vowel convention for long vowels...]
[Having to use ASCII makes you do bizarre things...:-)]
Well, I'm afraid we're just going to have to have some of the HistLing
101 right here. Let's just take a fun number: 4.
Old Irish c e th i r
Welsh p e d w a r
Latin qu a tt u o r
Gothic f i d w o r
Old English f e o w e r
Lithuanian k e t u r i
Latvian ch e t r i
Old Slavonic ch e t y r e
Albanian k a t e" r
Greek t e tt a r e s
Armenian ch o r k
Avestan ch a th w aa r a
Sanskrit ch a t v a r a h
Tocharian A s' t w a r
Tocharian B s' t w e r
*Indo-European kw e t w o r e s
Hittite meiu
In the first place, the Hittite word has nothing to do with the others.
That tells us something about the vast gulf between Hittite and the
other IE languages. Hittite is Indo-European allright, but barely so
(that's why some people prefer to talk about Indo-Hittite).
The other languages all clearly have related forms for the numeral "4".
I have arranged the letters in such a manner that the individual fate of
the sounds composing IE *kwetwores becomes clearer. You can follow the
columns up and down and see the sound laws in action. Some comments:
*kw > p [Welsh, Germanic]
Irish is considered Q-Celtic, and Welsh P-Celtic. You can see why. In
Welsh, original *kw > /p/, while in the Oldest Irish (the Oghamic
incriptions) *kw was still /kw/. By the time of Old Irish proper, it
had become /k/ (written ). Germanic normally does not follow Welsh
in this (*kw becomes *hw, English ), but in the number four it does
(kw > p > f), doubtless due to the influence of "five" (*penkwe > *pempe
> *fimfe). It is interesting that Latin does just the opposite: there,
five becomes "quinque" by influence of "quattuor".
*kw > k > ch > s, before an e/i-sound [Latvian, Slav, Armenian,
Indo-Iranian, Tocharian]
Need I explain? It's happened in the Romance languages and in English
(kirk > church).
*kw > t [Greek]
Greek has the strangest development. Mycenaean still had /kw/, but the
later Greek dialects all went their own separate ways: you'll find /p/,
/k/, or /t/. In Attic (Athens) Greek, *kw > /t/ mostly before e and i,
/p/ before /a/ and /o/, and /k/ before /u/.
*t > tt, before w [Latin, Greek]
An interesting but quite common development, called assimilation. Latin
has already doubled the /t/, but the /w/ (written ) is still there.
Greek has dropped the /w/.
*t > th > dh > w/y > {zero} | {vowel} [Old English, Armenian]
Here we have a consonant becoming a vowel, as in OE feower < fedhwer, or
completely disappearing as in Armenian chork < cheyork < chedhork.
*-s > {zero} [all, except Greek, Armenian, Sanskrit]
In most languages, it's the whole final syllable that has dropped.
Balto-Slavic (and Iranian) have kept the vowel at least. In Sanskrit,
final -s becomes an aspiration, as happened in Mediaeval French and in
modern Andalusian and Latin American Spanish.
*-s > -k [Armenian]
This is a yet unresolved mystery.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: The Mystery of Pyramid
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 05:04:38 GMT
bstudio@mcs.net wrote:
>There may be more choices - where is the design trail. By
>this I mean where are the little pyramids. As a commercial
>artist I know that many good designs are the result of
>experiment and this must be the same in serious engineering.
The design trail exists. I know what the Egyptian one was, so let me
share that with you. The Egyptians built mastabas first. These were
tombs which were one story high and which had slightly sloping sides.
Then a genius, who was the architect for the royal tomb of his
generation, decided to put one mastaba on top of another. The result
was the step pyramid. The next few pyamids were built to the same
plan, except that the sides were filled in and a casing was put on the
outside creating the "classic" pyramid shape.
At least one of these has collapsed as a result of the casing being
removed centuries later. The result is a very odd shaped thing which
I understand originally had the "classic" shape.
At least one pyramid collapsed in ancient times resulting in a change
in plan for the pyramid being constructed at the time of the disaster.
The original step pyramid was built of small blocks. Over time the
blocks got bigger and so did the pyramids.
>There is more. How did the Egyptians transfer their results to
>the Yucatan and the Myans. Nobody seems to care how they, the Myans,
>did it.
The Egyptians didn't transfer their results to the Yucatan and the
Myans. They didn't transfer it to the Indonesians either. Or to the
Chinese. All of these groups developed the rocks piled up structures
by themselves. I've been told that a pyramid is a relatively easy
shape to engineer by people who's opinion I respect.
>I have a hard time understanding how early engineers could decide to
>build a pyramid, Egypt, with all the requirements that a decision like
>that takes. It has been estimated that an undertaking of that magnitude
>would be impossible today.
The idea that an undertaking of this magnitude would be impossible
today is an urban myth. Not knowing exactly how some other culture
did some wonderful piece of engineering doesn't mean the same thing as
not being able to do it ourselves if we wanted to. What you have to
realize is that no one WANTS to build a pyramid today. The Hoover
Dam, of course, or the Panama Canal, was another story.
Please remember that roughly 100 years ago we were building huge
canals without heavy earth moving equipment. Please remember that
Russian City folk (mostly women) built enormous earthwork defenses
during WW II using shovels and baskets to move the earth.
The engineering isn't the problem. Organizing the people is the
problem, but we (meaning ordinary humans) seem to manage to do
impossible things in every generation.
>My point is that the historical impact is just as important as trying
>to determine whether the builders used the wheel or a cord with knots.
Good point. Lets talk about the historical impact. What do you think
that was?
Personally I believe you can trace the economic health and illness of
the Old Kingdom in the size of these building projects. They got away
with doing pyramid building for several centuries, and finally they
ran out of "money" and they started getting smaller and they began to
be built mostly out of mud brick with a pretty, shiny limestone
facade. A few generations more and the Old Kingdom fell and a time of
chaos began.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: New encyclopedia
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 05:04:41 GMT
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>This may seem trivial amidst all the flames that are going on here, but I just
>received the announcement that the long awaited 5 volume Cambridge
>Encyclopedia of Archaeology has just been published. It is expensive,
>alas, and it is on old fashioned paper, not on line, but I hope that it will
>be available in libraries and that people may consult if from time to time
>before going on about gods being planets, pots being people, and all that.
Well, I've never gone on about gods being planets. Although I think
the Greek ones probably were. Kind of. More or less. But I do
think that people made the pots. And all that.
And I tend to find it interesting when the people who made the pots
seem to speak the wrong languages. Or maybe they were speaking the
right languages and making the wrong pots? I don't doubt that you
are right about the languages, but I would still like an expanation of
why those particular people were making those particular pots.
Now it would be interesting to see if that new set of books has an
explanation of both the language issue and the pot issue. Have you
seen it? Does it?
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Neandertal flute
From: lee@crl.com (Lee Thompson-Herbert)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 22:36:31 -0800
In article <55ef3t$fg7@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Gary Cruse wrote:
>In <3279CB8E.5CD@scn.org> Phillip Bigelow writes:
>>I heard it on NPR a couple days ago. Whatever it's
>>purpose was, it was well-crafted, with much detail.
>>"Slow-witted" hominids, huh? Yeah, right... :-)
>>
>
>
> Well, no. I downloaded at clari.news.photo
> gif of it. There is no detail. It is a piece
> of hollow bone maybe six inches long with
> two round holes in it.
Well-crafted would be a comment on how the instrument _plays_,
not any decoration on it. Flutes with 2 and 3 holes are still
played today for indian and british isles music. They're just
not as common as the 6 hole (timber) and keyed flutes.
When speaking of an instrument, _playability_ is the measure of
the craftsman. I've seen far too many "pretty" instruments that
are unplayable.
--
Lee M.Thompson-Herbert KD6WUR lee@crl.com
Member, Knights of Xenu (1995). Chaos Monger and Jill of All Trades.
"There are some people who will argue whether the flames are blue
or green, when the real question is that their arse is on fire."
Subject: Re: The Origins of the White Man
From: grooveyou@aol.com (GROOVE YOU)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 03:59:19 -0500
Frank Murray wrote: >
I'm having a difficult time deciding whether you're an ignorant black
racist or an ignorant white one, posing as black in ploy to convince
others that blacks are stupid...
on the chance that you are black, i'll point you towards p.k.
boateng's excellent letter in the october new african...he ends it
thus:
"As long as we take consolation from our appendage status, to
the extent that we cannot even manufacture the guns we need to
slaughter ourselves, our boast as Africans is empty. This is no
inferiority complex."
in short: don't confuse impotence with virtue...
frank < Frank you lost me with the Impotence with virtue line
.."But,"...since you like to quote author's...let me quote one , his name
is Michael Bradley....In his book the Iceman Inheritance on pages 226 he
argued that caucasoid ancestors and their modern caucasian descendants are
significantly more aggressive than other major genetic groups because of
their uniquely glacial evolution.Citing evidence from physical
anthropology primarily, I suggested that purely physical adaptations
demanded by survival under arctic conditions during the last (Wurm) Ice
Age in Europe conflicted with, and partly erased, previous adaptations
designed to obsorb and displace aggression. The result of this progressive
glacial adaptation was that Neanderthal-Caucasoids became increasingly
maladapted psychosexually, suffered extremes of psychosexual ambivalence
and frustration and expressed the resultant aggression to a greater extent
than peoples of other major genetic groups. And let me state that Michael
Bradley is caucasoid himself, also Sigmund Freud wrote a 12 page essay on
this same subject and I quote:..survival outside the stone age caves was
so brutal that the only respite from it were "perverse" sexual pleasures
within the caves where Ice Age men took their frustration, aggression and
fears out on their women. And to answer your first question, I am as black
as the sphinx and dont insult me by calling me anything else.
Subject: Re: Historical Linguistics 101
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:07:03 GMT
Saida wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>> Gothic f i d w o r
>> Old English f e o w e r Egyptian fdu
>I have taken the liberty of putting the Egyptian between the Gothic and
>the Old English. Hope you don't mind ;->
Nice try, but you can't slip it in just like that.
We had just established that the f- in "four" is not original, but an
irregularity, by analogy with "f-ive".
The Egyptian word /yifdaw/ (Coptic ) is to be related with Hausa
fud`u, maybe with Somali afur. We see that the f- is original, as far
as we can trace it, not, like in the English case, an irregular
development of *kw, by way of *p.
Now, if we were looking for a "Nostratic" link between Indo-European
*kwetwor- and an Afro-Asiatic language, Berber "4" would be a
much better bet (cf. also Etruscan "4").
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: new publications catalogue
From: edanien@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Elin Danien)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 12:14:59 GMT
UNiversity Museum Publications has just printed its new 1997-1998 complete
catalog with more than 340 titles on archaeology and anthropology. In
addition to our own publications, we distribute all the titles of the
Peabody Museum at Harvard and the Institute of Archaeology at UCLA along
with a selection of books from the Archaeological Institute of America, the
British School at Athens, Accordia Research Centre, World Art Books,
Archetype Books, Institute for the Study of Man, etc. We also have a
growing list of CD-ROMS and videos, and a small selection of unique gift
items from the University Museum Shop.
To receive a free copy of the catalogue you can email us at:
vellucci@sas.upenn.edu
or call us toll-free at:
800-306-1941
out side the United States call:
215-898-4124
or fax us at:
215-898-0657
or write to us at:
University Museum Publications
33rd and Spruce Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19104
To see the full catalogue on-line, point your browser to:
http:/www.upenn.edu/museum_pubs/Museum_Pubs.html
Karen B. Vellucci
Managing Editor
Subject: Re: Where do the roots of Germanic and Celtic words come from? was: Arabic Loan Words (was Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology)
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 13:21:22 GMT
In article <55e03p$knj@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article <54iqsb$3le@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>>
>>>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:...snip...
>
>>>Mallory's book which you are reading (or have read) tries to find
>>>answers to these questions. Renfrew's book too. I think they are
>>>both right on some counts and wrong on others. Renfrews book
>>>("Archaeology and Language") carries the subtitle: "The Puzzle of
>>>Indo-European Origins". This is most appropriate.
>
>>The more I read, the more questions I have...:)
>
>>I snipped most of the previous discussion because basically
>>I agreed with everything you said. Perhaps I might just tack
>>on something more besides.
>
>>One thing which arises as a question is whether or not
>>there was something which caused people to be more dependent
>>on language. My first guess is that civilization and the
>>increased number of interactions with other people in urban
>>areas had something to do with it.
>
>>This points to an advanced development of language as we know it
>>after c 7000 BC
>
>>If language evolved in Urban areas, what caused it to be
>>widely diffused in somewhat similar forms probably had
>>something to do with increased mobility due to the
>>domestication of the horse and widespread use of boats.
>
>>This points to increased diffusion of language as we know it
>>after c 3000 BC
>
>Language did not evolve in urban areas, I don't think so.
An urban area has been defined by sociologists as a place
where too many people are trying to do too many things in
too small a geographical area. The key contrast with non
urban areas is the number of interactions.
>All human populations have language, be they hunter-gatherers,
>pastoralists,farmers, city-dwellers or net-citizens.
Having spent some time on my own among others in a place
where another language was spoken and where there was no
person who spoke both languages to translate it was my
experience that no great vocabulary is required to make
oneself understood.
> In fact, it can be argued that the immediate "evolutionary"
>benefit of language is much stronger in the case of a band
>of a few dozen hunter-gatherers (allowing them to communicate
>exactly about short and long term survival strategies) than
>in a city with thousands of inhabitants, where it is possible
>to survive without barely speaking a word.
It seems reasonable to allow a certain amount of interaction,
such as hunting in packs, can be achieved at a non verbal
level of language, Grunts, barks, howls, yelps, whoops,
whimpers, screams, laughs, moans, etc; along with some
facial contortions and body language suffice.
What requires language is communication with strangers
on a daily basis. Hunters, pastoralists, farmers and
isolated bands of nomads had no great frequency of
interaction with strangers.
The greatest impetus for the advancement of language is
politics. Political power is based on the ability to
persuade others. Trade would be one example of the
successful diplomatic repurcussions of politics;
the other side of the coin would be war, which is
generally caused by a failure to communicate at
some level.
In a patriarchal tribal setting of hunters, pastoralists,
farmers and isolated bands of nomads, one stong man can
rule by force of personal will.
In an urban enviornment law and order are very necessary concepts.
People who want to rule in such an enviornment need a system of
communications whereby they can make themselves understood among
many separate factions with different agendas.
>The rise of kingdoms and empires associated with urbanisation
>did indeed have an effect on the increased diffusion of
>certain languages, at the expense of others.
>
>>A second question is the affect of diet on language. Diet
>>may affect the relative levels of two nerve hormones
>>nor-epinepherine and serotonin.
>
>Sorry, I wouldn't know much about that...
>
>>As the level of serotonin rises people tend to become more self
>>actualizing. This group of people contains individuals who do
>>not fear to act without waiting to build consensus and who seek
>>freedom in a state of being without limits.
>
>Well, I suffer from high serotonin levels myself, apparently (they give
>me terrible facial migraines). I didn't know there were benefits to it
>as well. Thanks for the info.
>
>>I have seen you elsewhere express an intrest in following this
>>back through Summarian and Akkadian. I would join you but I am
>>somewhat frustrated at the obscurity of some of the reference
>>material. Here, Hallorans Summerian and Akkadian pages seem to
>>provide much useful information. I don't understand why Piotr,
>>as a supposed expert in these matters, objects so strongly to
>>people trying to find whatever information they can on the net.
>
>>Isn't some information, whether all the i's are dotted and all
>>the t's are crossed, better than none at all?
>
>Well, I'm torn here. I agree that some information is better than none,
>even if it's not entirely correct (and as long as there is no willful
>attempt to distort the known facts, which is certainly not the case with
>John Halloran's list). On the other hand, when it comes to language, I
>*do* get irritated if all the i's are not dotted and t's crossed. I
>suppose it is because I *am* an expert (albeit outside of Academia).
I guess I am advocating the one room schoolhouse approach here.
The teacher doesn't have time to prepare a separate lesson for
each of here students at all their respective levels so what
happens is the older kids teach the younger ones.
Here on the net we have a similar situation. If we are flexible
enough to allow that what we are able to find at this stage may
not be exactly correct, it may still help us get a step up to
where exactly correct is possible.
When Piotr puts up his own Summerian Akkadian pages with not
only as much useful information as the seagoat, but also his
absolute certification that it is correct in every regard. I
agree that will be a fine and useful thing to see.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: The Coming of the Greeks
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 15:26:46 GMT
Satrap Szabo wrote:
>At any rate, I don't suppose any of you linguists actually ever try to
>*apply* any of your wonderful knowledge to trying to solve the cultural
>diffusion problems... Do you? Would any of you venture a personal
>opinion/guess/feeling explaining the spread of language from Sanskrit
>westward?
Eastward to Sanskrit would be more in line with current views.
>How about the same for IE arrival in Greece? When would this
>have been, IYO?
When? Linguistics is rather good at relative dating (e.g. we know that
in Sanskrit "catvaras" the change from e>a was more recent than the
change from k>c: ketwor- > cetwor- > catwar-; we know that Tocharian
can't be Alexander's Greek because s- had become -h in Greek, etc.), but
it's no good at absolute dating, I'm afraid. We haven't stumbled on the
linguistic C-14 yet.
As to Greece, the answer from the linguistic evidence is: before 1300
BC, when the first Greek texts were written. Working back from there,
it's the archaeologists job to find evidence for immigration/invasion/
discontinuity, unfortunately not exactly archaeology's strongest point.
Current candidates are the transition from Early Helladic II/III, c.
2200 BC, or the transition from Late Neolithic/Early Helladic I, c. 3000
BC. Renfrew's notion of an Early Neolithic Proto-Greek, c. 7000 BC, is
linguistically absurd, as it fails to explain the abundant similarities
between Greek and Sanskrit, which suggest that the Proto-Armeno-Greeks
were in close contact with the Proto-Indo-Iranians until relatively
recently, somewhere North of Greece and near the S. Russian steppe.
Another datum from linguistics (toponymy to be exact), is that there
seem to have already been Indo-Europeans in Greece _before_ the Greeks,
as indicated i.a. by the name Parnassos (connected with Hittite and
Luwian parna- "house", and the Luwian adjectival ending -assa). We also
know, from inscriptions found on Lemnos, that a language similar to
Etruscan was spoken.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Afanasievo - Andronovo
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 14:27:05 GMT
In article <55e042$kod@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article <557nfm$8s3@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>>>A fourth or third millennium date is where the linguistic evidence tells
>>>us to look.
>
>>For the emergence of language as language yes.
>
>No, for the split of Tocharian from Proto-Indoeuropean.
I don't see why we can't assign a very late date, c 300 BC to
this. Explain to me again why it takes a long time for a language
to change and why a major movement of peoples from an advanced
technological area into a less advanced area would not result
in immediate injections of technical jargon into the language
of the less advanced area.
In support of that we have seen very recent languages,
such as pidgeon english, arise as the result of an incursion of
one culture into the domain of another. Saudi arabic is also
full of oil slang as are most other areas where SOTE jargon
is pervasive.
> The split-off of Anatolian (Hittite and related languages)
>must be put even earlier.
It can't be much earlier than the 4th millenium BC. Prior to
that organization is by household, family, tribe and clan
and so is language.
Isolated tribes who see another neighboring tribe
from perhaps 50 miles away once a year at a gathering,
probably had rather more differences than similarities in
their speech when compared to the speech of tribes which
lived thousands of miles away.
Transportation is a major factor here. Prior to the 3rd and 4th
millenia BC people rarely went any farther from home than they
could walk in a day. If they did they would have been cut off
from family and friends and if discovered by strangers very
likely killed or enslaved.
Nomadic tribes and pastorialists might on some rare occasion
encounter another band but there was unlikely to have been the
sort of repeated regular interaction necessary to transmit language.
Only as people begin to trade up and down rivers do they come
to repeatedly pass thru the same settled areas and thus have
interactions with the same people on a regualr basis.
>
>>>>Then Mallory associates the Afanaseivo with a region to the
>>>>northeast of lake Baykal...
>>>
>>>??????? Are you confusing Lake Balkhash with Lake Baykal?
>
>>Lake Balgash kol is located to the north of modern Kyrgyzstan
>>and is shaped like the letter "C". Lake Baykal (Baikal) is
>>35 geographic degrees to the east. (The National Geographic
>>map uses the Russian spelling)
>
>Which doesn't change the fact that the location of the Afanasievo
>culture, the headwaters of the Yenisei, Irtysh and Ob rivers, the Altai
>and Sayan mountains, whatever you want to call it, is to the north-east
>of lake Balkhash, and to the _west_ of the Bajkalskoe Ozero (Russian
>Akademija Nauk transliteration). They do look and sound vaguely
>similar.
The location of the Afanaseivo culture is along about a fifty mile
stretch of the Yenisey river.
This portion of the Yenisey is along the 95th degree of longitude.
The Balgash kol is about 75 degrees of longitude and lake Baykal
is about 105 degrees. Each degree is roughly 69 miles so twenty
degrees is about 1380 miles. In between the two is the Altai
mountain range which would be no easier to cross than a desert.
>>Can you explain to me how a culture spreads across 5200 miles
>>and maintains any homogeneity c 2000 BC?
>
>Easily. As Renfrew entitled his review of Mallory's "In Search of the
>Indo-Europeans": "They ride horses don't they?".
It isn't just the ability to cross from one end of the
steppes to the other in a man's lifetime, it is the
infrastructure to support such a crossing.
Take for example the Lewis and Clark expedition which crossed
the American west from the Mississippi up the Missouri to the
Columbia. Here we had the region crossed by men who had access
to domesticated horses but made nuch of their journey by water
to allow them to carry with them some supplies.
The region was soon thereafter settled and colonized by the
Plains Indians who, using the horse managed to control territories
of several hundred miles across, greatly in excess of the territory
they had controlled without the horse. I will grant you this.
It was still not a homogeneous territory under the control of
any one language and were it settled coast to coast by one
group of people speaking one language, (which is still not
really the case even today), it would still be only about
half the extent of territory Mallory proposes for the
Andronovov.
North America was not immediately settled or colonized by Europeans
west of the Mississippi. It required the railroads to do that.
>
>>>I'm sorry. The linguistic similarities between Greek and
>>>Sanskrit are much, much greater than those between Greek and Tocharian,
>
>>Actually Mallory, in his note 14, says differently.
>
>Note 12. "Here I follow Pedersen, Crossland, Adrados, Gamkrelidze and
>Ivanov, and others, who regard Tocharian as an archaic peripheral
>dialect. There are, however, many who would associate Tocharian much
>more closely with languages such as Germanic or Greek. [D.Q. Adams sees
>Tocharian as closest to Germanic, etc.]"
>
>I dispute Mallory's assertion that "many" would see Tocharian as closer
>to Germanic or Greek. This is clearly a minority view. I had never
>heard of it previously, although I had seen theories about a link
>between Tocharian and the Baltic languages.
>
>Just to give a sample of Tocharian compared with Greek, Sanskrit and
>Germanic, let's take the numbers again:
>
> Toch. A Toch. B Greek Sanskrit Gothic
>1. sas she hen eekas ains
>2. wu wi duoo dvaa(u) twai
>3. tre trai treis trayas thriis
>4. s'twar s'twer tessares chatvaaras fidwor
>5. pa"n~ pis' pente pan~cha fimf
>6. sha"k shkas heks shash sehs
>7. shpa"t shukt hepta sapta sibun
>8. oka"t okt oktoo asht.aa(u) ahtoo
>9. n~u n~u ennea nava niun
>10. s'a:k s'ak deka das'a tehun
>
>Tocharian can't be Greek, because it maintains initial s- in the words
>for "1", "6" and "7", where Greek has s- > h-. And that happened *way*
>before Alexander: it had already happened in Mycenaean/Linear B, 1500
>BC.
I see much more similarity than difference. What I see is a clear
relation which seems unlikely to be due to independent invention,
there is a connection.
On possibility is as you assume, that there was a common Indo
European heritage from which both split off which had an initial
"s" in its words some long time ago but that while Greek changed
the other branch did not.
Let's accept this premise but add something more on besides.
Suppose that when Greek Indo European speakers who had dropped
the initial s returned to the area, the other branch adopted
Greek words but pronounced them in the way they were familiar
with using the initial "s".
> Exit your theory of a Greek-Tocharian connection dating from c. 400
>BC. Sometimes historical linguistics is almost an exact science!
Exit immediately obvious solutions and look at the situation less
simplistically. You say the languages are similar except for the
initial "s">"h"...
I would suggest that what has changed once can change back.
The difference between pronouncing "I say its shush" and you say
"it's hush" illustrates the point
>
>It's not Indo-Iranian, because Tocharian maintains k where Sanskrit has
>sh/s', in "8" and "10".
>
>It's not Germanic either, given the complete absence of "Grimm" p>f,
>t>th, k>h in "3", "5", "6", "8", "10".
I think we are missing the forest for the trees. The language is
clearly a part of the larger group, all are related by more
similarities than differences.
>
>Tocharian stands completely alone in merging IE *d, *t and *dh into /t/,
>in dropping most case endings and replacing them with new ones, in the
>way it makes its plurals, in its verbal system, and in its vocabulary.
>In short, and without going into the minute details, it looks very much
>as if it split off from the other languages very early on.
It looks to me as if a comparison of Old English with modern English
would find a greater range of differences.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
From: myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 22:56:32 -0500
In article , David Weinstein
wrote:
>In article <5573ab$9st@news.ptd.net>, Ed Conrad
>writes
>>
>>The WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
>>a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
>>between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
>>
>>It means man -- in almost our present form but considerably larger --
>>had existed on earth multi-million years before the initial emergence
>>of the earliest cat-size, monkey-like primate which science texbooks
>>have long proclaimed to be our most distant ancestor.
>>
>>A color photo of the skull, with one side protruding from the boulder,
>>can now be seen in all its intriguing magnificence at
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skulla.jpg
>>
>>The photograph is a direct link from
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>>where photos of other Carboniferous fossils, also found between coal
>>veins, can be viewed.
>>
>>Meanwhile, another photo -- comparing the petrified human cranium
>>in the boulder with a modern human skull -- can be seen at
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skullb.jpg
>>
>>
>>l
>>
>>
> How in the hell can this be possible? The most advanced life
>back then weren't even vertebrates. This is either a very stupid,
>pointless hoax, either for advancement or a joke, or else a case of
>seriously bad practise of science, with no regard to the proper
>scientific method. Surely thios cannot be true.
Oh, just to correct one error in your post-- although Conrad is a
dimwit who doesn't have a clue, it is not true that there were no
vertebrates in the Carboniferous. There were lots of fish and amphibians.
--
Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: Historical Linguistics 101
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 10:17:25 -0600
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> >Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >> Gothic f i d w o r
> >> Old English f e o w e r Egyptian fdu
>
> >I have taken the liberty of putting the Egyptian between the Gothic and
> >the Old English. Hope you don't mind ;->
>
> Nice try, but you can't slip it in just like that.
> We had just established that the f- in "four" is not original, but an
> irregularity, by analogy with "f-ive".
How do you guys KNOW this stuff? ;-)
>
> The Egyptian word /yifdaw/ (Coptic ) is to be related with Hausa
> fud`u, maybe with Somali afur. We see that the f- is original, as far
> as we can trace it, not, like in the English case, an irregular
> development of *kw, by way of *p.
Okay, Miguel, but I don't think your transliteration of /yifdaw/ is
quite on the mark. The *reed* in the beginning of words is a strange
thing. According to the Coptic versions of Egyptian words starting with
"i", we've to to notice that probably the sound associated with it
varied. The Egyptian "father" or "it" comes out "eiot" in Coptic,
indicating that the "i" in "it" was not so brief. In "ifdu", the Coptic
"ftow" makes one think that probably the *reed* sound was very short and
so Egyptologists have tended to write it "fdu".
>
> Now, if we were looking for a "Nostratic" link between Indo-European
> *kwetwor- and an Afro-Asiatic language, Berber "4" would be a
> much better bet (cf. also Etruscan "4").
It seems odd to me that while the Egyptian six, seven and eight,
"sisu", "sefek" and "kemenu" are somewhat like their Hebrew
counterparts, "shesh", "sheva" and "shemoneh", our English "six" and
"seven" seem to hang in there with them.
Subject: Tomb of Alexander is Siwa? Egyptian gvt steps in
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 17:06:23 GMT
This item came up on Reuters newswire last week. I thought it might be
interesting to members of this group.
Is Egyptian government beginning to tighten up restrictions on foreign
archaeologists? Some parties seem concerned about this...
Best,
Yuri.
---------------
From Nando Times. Copyright Nando Times. Posted for educational purposes
only.
**********
* EGYPT SUSPENDS 'ALEXANDER THE GREAT' EXCAVATION
CAIRO - The Egyptian authorities have suspended excavations by the
controversial Greek archaeologist who announced last year that she
had found the long-lost tomb of Alexander the Great near Siwa oasis
in northwestern Egypt.
The suspension is part of an overall review of foreign archaeological
missions by the newly apppointed head of the state's Supreme Council
of Antiquities.
But the council has singled out the private mission led by Greek
archaeologist Liana Souvaltzi for immediate suspension, pending
expert assessment of its work.
The council said in a statement available on Tuesday that a committee
would examine the Siwa site and study the architectural features that
Souvaltzi's team has uncovered.
It gave no reasons but other foreign archaeologists said it was
clearly linked to her apparently premature announcement in January
1995 that she had identified the tomb of Alexander, who died in
Babylon in Mesopotamia in 323 BC.
An official Greek team of experts went to Siwa to investigate her
claim and decided that the centrepieces of her argument, three
crumbling tablets covered in Greek inscriptions, dated from a
different era.
The council's statement said the new chairman, Ali Hassan, insisted
that foreign archaeological missions must abide by the Egyptian
government's regulations.
The regulations require that mission leaders be competent
archaeologists, that they be present at the excavation site and that
they restore whatever they discover.
The head of one large archaeological institute said he did not think
it would affect what he called serious missions.
"They were obviously suspicious about the Greek lady because of her
claims. But I have been assured that all the well-established
missions are not affected," he added.
But the cultural attache at a Western embassy said he interpreted the
review as the start of restrictions on foreign archaeology. "Ali
Hassan is of the view that very rarely will permission be granted to
foreign missions," added the attache, who asked not be named.
The council statement quoted Ali Hassan as saying the work of the
foreign missions was important and essential. The chairman himself
was not available to comment on Tuesday.
Archaeologists said Souvaltzi has recently resumed her excavation
work, which is privately financed, but it was not clear what progress
she had made.
The three tablets were found in a grave similar to the burial site in
Macedonia of Alexander's assassinated father Philip II. The grave
lies about 20 km (12 miles) west of Siwa.
Most historians believe that Alexander, who died in Babylon after
conquering much of the ancient Persian empire, was buried in the
Egyptian Mediterranean city of Alexandria.
But he did visit Siwa in 331 BC and in the local temple to the
pharaonic god Amun he was proclaimed to be the god's son.
________________________________________________________________
Copyright © 1996 Nando.net
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: Tomb of Alexander is Siwa? Egyptian gvt steps in
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 17:06:23 GMT
This item came up on Reuters newswire last week. I thought it might be
interesting to members of this group.
Is Egyptian government beginning to tighten up restrictions on foreign
archaeologists? Some parties seem concerned about this...
Best,
Yuri.
---------------
From Nando Times. Copyright Nando Times. Posted for educational purposes
only.
**********
* EGYPT SUSPENDS 'ALEXANDER THE GREAT' EXCAVATION
CAIRO - The Egyptian authorities have suspended excavations by the
controversial Greek archaeologist who announced last year that she
had found the long-lost tomb of Alexander the Great near Siwa oasis
in northwestern Egypt.
The suspension is part of an overall review of foreign archaeological
missions by the newly apppointed head of the state's Supreme Council
of Antiquities.
But the council has singled out the private mission led by Greek
archaeologist Liana Souvaltzi for immediate suspension, pending
expert assessment of its work.
The council said in a statement available on Tuesday that a committee
would examine the Siwa site and study the architectural features that
Souvaltzi's team has uncovered.
It gave no reasons but other foreign archaeologists said it was
clearly linked to her apparently premature announcement in January
1995 that she had identified the tomb of Alexander, who died in
Babylon in Mesopotamia in 323 BC.
An official Greek team of experts went to Siwa to investigate her
claim and decided that the centrepieces of her argument, three
crumbling tablets covered in Greek inscriptions, dated from a
different era.
The council's statement said the new chairman, Ali Hassan, insisted
that foreign archaeological missions must abide by the Egyptian
government's regulations.
The regulations require that mission leaders be competent
archaeologists, that they be present at the excavation site and that
they restore whatever they discover.
The head of one large archaeological institute said he did not think
it would affect what he called serious missions.
"They were obviously suspicious about the Greek lady because of her
claims. But I have been assured that all the well-established
missions are not affected," he added.
But the cultural attache at a Western embassy said he interpreted the
review as the start of restrictions on foreign archaeology. "Ali
Hassan is of the view that very rarely will permission be granted to
foreign missions," added the attache, who asked not be named.
The council statement quoted Ali Hassan as saying the work of the
foreign missions was important and essential. The chairman himself
was not available to comment on Tuesday.
Archaeologists said Souvaltzi has recently resumed her excavation
work, which is privately financed, but it was not clear what progress
she had made.
The three tablets were found in a grave similar to the burial site in
Macedonia of Alexander's assassinated father Philip II. The grave
lies about 20 km (12 miles) west of Siwa.
Most historians believe that Alexander, who died in Babylon after
conquering much of the ancient Persian empire, was buried in the
Egyptian Mediterranean city of Alexandria.
But he did visit Siwa in 331 BC and in the local temple to the
pharaonic god Amun he was proclaimed to be the god's son.
________________________________________________________________
Copyright © 1996 Nando.net
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: Books, Was: Where do the roots of Germanic and Celtic words come from?
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 16:49:55 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>I guess I am advocating the one room schoolhouse approach here.
>The teacher doesn't have time to prepare a separate lesson for
>each of here students at all their respective levels so what
>happens is the older kids teach the younger ones.
>Here on the net we have a similar situation. If we are flexible
>enough to allow that what we are able to find at this stage may
>not be exactly correct, it may still help us get a step up to
>where exactly correct is possible.
When I first started lurking on sci.archaeology there was a flamewar
going on about books for general readers. The person who started the
thread wondered why there didn't seem to be any entry level books,
written for adults (and not for 3rd graders), or any mid-level books
that don't take it for granted that the readers were already experts
in the subject. We never managed to discuss that question. I can't
remember where the flamwar actually took us, but the people who
objected to the idea never understood the original question. So, lets
try it again.
What I find really interesting is that the popular archaeology
magazines (BAR, KMT and Archaeology, for example) seem to be filling
this market for up-to-date information about archaeology for general
readers that the pros didn't even recognize was there. And, I've
noticed that the books are beginning to flow once again. I was able
to purchase an up-to-date basic book on Archaeology this year, which
was probably originally intended as a text book for an introductory
class, from an ordinary source.
I think that sci.archaeology as a one room schoolhouse for adults is
an interesting idea. Surely it has become obvious that there are more
of us here who are interested in the subject, but don't make our
living at it, than there are pros. I've certainly gotten an education
during the last (approximately) two years. So I guess we are teaching
one another.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: New encyclopedia
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 18:16:54 GMT
On Sat, 2 Nov 1996 20:33:51, piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
wrote:
>This may seem trivial amidst all the flames that are going on here, but I just
>received the announcement that the long awaited 5 volume Cambridge
>Encyclopedia of Archaeology has just been published. It is expensive,
>alas, and it is on old fashioned paper, not on line, but I hope that it will
>be available in libraries and that people may consult if from time to time
>before going on about gods being planets, pots being people, and all that.
yes...precisely the sort of thing that should be freely available on
line...but, i suspect that if it does come so, it'll be on a pay per
view basis, as is the oed...any idea what figure cambridge would
require (or oxford for the oed) to release it to the public domain on
the net??...i've no feel for how many copies they expect to sell at
$500/set or what percentage of that figure goes to cover continuing
production costs...but it seems to me that a fund could be put
together to bring all of the world's finest general reference works to
the net...
frank
Subject: Re: PUBLIC: note the evil spirit in deaf men (and deaf women)
From: woody@alumni.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:16:11 -0800
In article <327B79A6.4F95@wi.net>, Eliyehowah wrote:
> I note that you ignore my signature referring to John so that you
> can induce a greater dispruption with the use of Jesus' name.
> Where am I likened to Jesus. Rather **YOU** bitch are being likened
> to the killers of Jesus. So go to war. Many a men kill whole cities to
> please the ruling bitch.
[rest deleted]
If you wish to save the world in the name of the Holy Word and of
the Saviour Jesus Christ, you really need to tone the language
down a little bit.
I seem to recall something about turning the other cheek. And something
about catching more flies with honey instead of vinegar. And I also seem
to recall that Jesus said something like:
1. Take heed that ye do not do your alms before
men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no
reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not
sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites
do in the synagogues and in the streets, that
they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you,
They have their rward.
3. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left
hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4. That thine alms may be in secret: and thy
Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward
thee openly.
5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as
the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing
in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets,
that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you,
They have their reward.
6. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy
Father which is in secret; and they Father which
seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the
heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard
for their much speaking.
8. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your
father knoweth what things ye have need of, before
ye ask him.
9. After this manner therefore pray ye: "Our Father
which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven.
11. "Give us this day our daily bread.
12. "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors.
13. "And lead us not into temptation but deliver us
from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever. Amen."
14. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your
heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses.
Matthew 6:1-15
Let me also add that temptation is not only the temptation of the flesh,
but also the temptation of the spirit for vanity in all things: even
in the vanity of one who things he is holier than thou.
As I posted before, please reread the Word you find so holy before you
try to shove that word down our throats.
And try to tone your future posts down--you do not serve your purpose
if you cannot heed the words of the Saviour.
- Bill
--
William Edward Woody | In Phase Consulting
1545 Ard Eevin Avenue | Multimedia Graphics Technology
Glendale, CA 91202 | Macintosh and Microsoft Windows Development
Subject: Re: Afanasievo - Andronovo
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 20:39:42 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <55e042$kod@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <557nfm$8s3@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>>>>Then Mallory associates the Afanaseivo with a region to the
>>>>>northeast of lake Baykal...
>>>>
>>>>??????? Are you confusing Lake Balkhash with Lake Baykal?
>>
>>>Lake Balgash kol is located to the north of modern Kyrgyzstan
>>>and is shaped like the letter "C". Lake Baykal (Baikal) is
>>>35 geographic degrees to the east. (The National Geographic
>>>map uses the Russian spelling)
>>
>>Which doesn't change the fact that the location of the Afanasievo
>>culture, the headwaters of the Yenisei, Irtysh and Ob rivers, the Altai
>>and Sayan mountains, whatever you want to call it, is to the north-east
>>of lake Balkhash, and to the _west_ of the Bajkalskoe Ozero (Russian
>>Akademija Nauk transliteration). They do look and sound vaguely
>>similar.
>The location of the Afanaseivo culture is along about a fifty mile
>stretch of the Yenisey river.
>This portion of the Yenisey is along the 95th degree of longitude.
>The Balgash kol is about 75 degrees of longitude and lake Baykal
>is about 105 degrees. Each degree is roughly 69 miles so twenty
>degrees is about 1380 miles. In between the two is the Altai
>mountain range which would be no easier to cross than a desert.
A rather convoluted way of admitting that, yes, the Afanasievo is to the
north-east of Lake Balkhash, and to the west of Lake Baykal.
>>Tocharian can't be Greek, because it maintains initial s- in the words
>>for "1", "6" and "7", where Greek has s- > h-. And that happened *way*
>>before Alexander: it had already happened in Mycenaean/Linear B, 1500
>>BC.
>I see much more similarity than difference. What I see is a clear
>relation which seems unlikely to be due to independent invention,
>there is a connection.
Well, yes. We know that since 1786.
>On possibility is as you assume, that there was a common Indo
>European heritage from which both split off which had an initial
>"s" in its words some long time ago but that while Greek changed
>the other branch did not.
>Let's accept this premise but add something more on besides.
>Suppose that when Greek Indo European speakers who had dropped
>the initial s returned to the area, the other branch adopted
>Greek words but pronounced them in the way they were familiar
>with using the initial "s".
>[...] You say the languages are similar except for the
>initial "s">"h"...
>I would suggest that what has changed once can change back.
This is completely wrong for many reasons:
1) Language change has entropy: most things that change *could* change
back, but they *don't*. Besides, the change of h- back to s- is
extremely unlikely in and of itself.
2) Tocharian and Greek are both IE languages, and there's a clear
similarity, but other than that there are many differences as well. The
s- > h- thing is only one of thousands of little and larger differences.
3) To circumvent problem (1), you say that the Proto-Tocharians,
speaking an s-keeping variety of IE, adopted the Greek words but stuck
the s's back in place. Ever heard of Occam's razor? If this is true,
then what do we need the Greeks for, quite apart from the linguistic
impossibilities? The whole point is, the precise reason why linguists
and archaeologists worry so much about the Tocharians is exactly this:
what the hell was a non-Iranian Indo-European people doing there that
far to the east? Whether they adopted a few words from the Bactrian
Greeks is completely irrelevant against that big question.
>>It's not Germanic either, given the complete absence of "Grimm" p>f,
>>t>th, k>h in "3", "5", "6", "8", "10".
>I think we are missing the forest for the trees. The language is
>clearly a part of the larger group, all are related by more
>similarities than differences.
I was taking the forest for granted, I know it very well. I'm just
saying that you can see some trees standing in a cluster, and some that
are standing more isolated in the forest. Some trees look young, some
are worn by the elements. Some are beeches, some are oaks.
In the English tree there is a nest of new born pigeons.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: Historical Linguistics 101
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 22:48:11 GMT
In article <55hqmf$586@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>Saida wrote:
>
>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>> Gothic f i d w o r
>>> Old English f e o w e r Egyptian fdu
>
>>I have taken the liberty of putting the Egyptian between the Gothic and
>>the Old English. Hope you don't mind ;->
>
>Nice try, but you can't slip it in just like that.
>We had just established that the f- in "four" is not original, but an
>irregularity, by analogy with "f-ive".
I don't see that that is established at all. What I see is the
equivalent of a Roman Numeral approach; the equivalent of IV.
The f being Egyptian horned snake Gardiner I9 which seems to
be used as the preposition "of" to give a "part of five",
five less one.
That is at least how the numbers seem to work in Egyptian.
You have one, then a second, then a third. Four is then
given as five less one.
>
>The Egyptian word /yifdaw/ (Coptic ) is to be related with Hausa
>fud`u, maybe with Somali afur. We see that the f- is original, as far
>as we can trace it, not, like in the English case, an irregular
>development of *kw, by way of *p.
The "f" is original and it fits perfectly.
>
>Now, if we were looking for a "Nostratic" link between Indo-European
>*kwetwor- and an Afro-Asiatic language, Berber "4" would be a
>much better bet (cf. also Etruscan "4").
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: The Coming of the Greeks
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 23:28:55 GMT
In article <55i9tf$j45@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>Satrap Szabo wrote:
>
>>At any rate, I don't suppose any of you linguists actually ever try to
>>*apply* any of your wonderful knowledge to trying to solve the cultural
>>diffusion problems... Do you? Would any of you venture a personal
>>opinion/guess/feeling explaining the spread of language from Sanskrit
>>westward?
>
>Eastward to Sanskrit would be more in line with current views.
>
>>How about the same for IE arrival in Greece? When would this
>>have been, IYO?
>
>When? Linguistics is rather good at relative dating (e.g. we know that
>in Sanskrit "catvaras" the change from e>a was more recent than the
>change from k>c: ketwor- > cetwor- > catwar-; we know that Tocharian
>can't be Alexander's Greek because s- had become -h in Greek, etc.), but
>it's no good at absolute dating, I'm afraid. We haven't stumbled on the
>linguistic C-14 yet.
Ok, call me stubborn but I see the progression back and forth
as almost effortless, begining with q
In many languages "q" has the sound of "k", or "c"
Quadesh and Kadesh for example,
Abquaq pronounced Abcake.
q becomes k; quoran, koran
q becomes c el Qahira; Cairo
k becomes c Karnak; Cairo
k becomes kh; Karnak; Khartoum
kh becomes ch; Khufu; Cheops
Kh becomes h; khartoum; hadramat
ch becomes sh; chinook; shine
sh becomes su, should; sugar
>
>As to Greece, the answer from the linguistic evidence is: before 1300
>BC, when the first Greek texts were written.
1285 BC battle of Kadesh, 1200 BC seige of Troy,
1200 BC emergence of Phoenicians.
> Working back from there,
>it's the archaeologists job to find evidence for immigration/invasion/
>discontinuity, unfortunately not exactly archaeology's strongest point.
The period c 1200 BC is a major point of transition, but so is the
500 year period preceeding that date. Prior to c 1628 BC the focus is
on Mesopotamia and Egypt. After that date things get worked up a bit.
>Current candidates are the transition from
>Early Helladic II/III, c.2200 BC, or the transition from
>Late Neolithic/Early Helladic I, c. 3000 BC.
If you say that c 3000 BC a language exists which later becomes Greek
I think it is reasonable to note that after c 3000 BC we also have the
emergence of sea people and maritime trade.
> Renfrew's notion of an Early Neolithic Proto-Greek, c. 7000 BC, is
>linguistically absurd, as it fails to explain the abundant similarities
>between Greek and Sanskrit, which suggest that the Proto-Armeno-Greeks
>were in close contact with the Proto-Indo-Iranians until relatively
>recently, somewhere North of Greece and near the S. Russian steppe.
A more reasonable explanation is that increased mobility is associated
with more regular and repeated interactions and the diffusion of a
systematic approach to language after c 3000 BC
>Another datum from linguistics (toponymy to be exact), is that there
>seem to have already been Indo-Europeans in Greece _before_ the Greeks,
>as indicated i.a. by the name Parnassos (connected with Hittite and
>Luwian parna- "house", and the Luwian adjectival ending -assa). We also
>know, from inscriptions found on Lemnos, that a language similar to
>Etruscan was spoken.
What is the evidence for this prior to written language?
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Neandertal flute
From: m.levi@ix.netcom.com(M.Levi)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 23:38:02 GMT
In <55hehf$faj@crl2.crl.com> lee@crl.com (Lee Thompson-Herbert) writes:
>
>In article <55ef3t$fg7@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Gary Cruse wrote:
>>In <3279CB8E.5CD@scn.org> Phillip Bigelow writes:
>>>I heard it on NPR a couple days ago. Whatever it's
>>>purpose was, it was well-crafted, with much detail.
>>>"Slow-witted" hominids, huh? Yeah, right... :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, no. I downloaded at clari.news.photo
>> gif of it. There is no detail. It is a piece
>> of hollow bone maybe six inches long with
>> two round holes in it.
>
>Well-crafted would be a comment on how the instrument _plays_,
>not any decoration on it. Flutes with 2 and 3 holes are still
>played today for indian and british isles music. They're just
>not as common as the 6 hole (timber) and keyed flutes.
>
>When speaking of an instrument, _playability_ is the measure of
>the craftsman. I've seen far too many "pretty" instruments that
>are unplayable.
From what I could make of the somewhat fuzzy picture printed in the
daily newspaper, the artifact is only a piece of a flute, broken on
both ends. You can see part of a round indentation on either side of
the break, so the flute seems to have had at least four holes, possibly
more.
Kate
Subject: Re: The Mystery of Pyramid
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 00:56:36 GMT
In article <32900099.29075878@news.demon.co.uk>, dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>On Sat, 02 Nov 96 16:50:53 PDT, bstudio@mcs.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I have a hard time understanding how early engineers could decide to
>>build a pyramid, Egypt, with all the requirements that a decision like
>>that takes. It has been estimated that an undertaking of that magnitude
>>would be impossible today.
>Second time today I've seen this nonsense. Who is this that claims we
>couldn't build a pyramid?
It might be politically impossible, but not technically.
>
The politics involved were at least as impressive as the technology.
Has politics changed all that much since the time of the Pharohs?
I don't think so. All politics is local really. Let's take a look.
In my book it remains a pyramid scheme par excellence.
It would be no fun to be king without any followers.
What is it that kept them all in line?
What is it that keeps them all in line today?
For every candidate running for office in Tuesdays election there
is a small army of supporters trading some significant amounts of
labor in expectation of some return on their investment.
In addition to the people doing maildrops door to door, standing
on corners doing visibilities and putting labels on envelopes,
there are long lists of unions, PACS and COPES contributing cash,
there are reporters writing flac and there are lawyers retained
to hobble the opposition.
In the US the statewide candidates pay for the support of the
candidates at the district level with endorsements. The party
machines provide an impressive amount of organized muscle, lists
of lawns you can put a sign on, lists of PACS and COPES who want
to send you money, lists of registered voters and phone banks to
call them. In return the district level candidates run the wards.
The local party committees start their preparations months in advance.
There are breakfasts, houseparties, festivals, walks, events, receptions
speeches and parades. Every candidate has to survive primaries and then
the general election.
Throw a few independents into the mix for good measure
or if you prefer, just to stir things up.
Now imagine putting all that together with no phones, no soccer moms,
no station wagons full of signs, no fax machine and no Klinko copy.
I think the political organization which built the pyramids of Egypt
deserves more than a casual glance.
steve
Subject: Pedra Pintada or Pedra Furada?
From: "Joseph A. Nordstrom"
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 21:05:42 -0800
I am interested in visiting an archaelogical site in Brazil, which I
believe was recently discovered or announced, which contains indications
of human habitation from over 10,000 years ago. I have been asking
around in the Brazil newsgroup, and have received responses about sites
named Pedra Furada and Pedra Pintada. I have also gotten responses
placing the site in any of five or six different states in Brazil. I
just recently thought to ask in this newsgroup.
If anyone has any information concerning the name and location of the
site, I would greatly appreciate a response. I lived in Brazil for
almost ten years and speak Portuguese well, and will be travelling with
my brother who has visited several archaeological sites, although not in
South America.
Please respond by e-mail to jnord@hal-pc.org. If you are using Netscape
or a similar tool, just click here ==> mailto:jnord@hal-pc.org