Subject:      Re: Polynesia - S. America language links
From:         yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1997/11/06
Message-ID:   <63st19$8s6$1@news.trends.ca>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology,
		sci.lang,sci.anthropology


Jacques Guy ([22]j.guy@trl.telstra.com.au) wrote:
: John Atkinson wrote:
:
: > If she's thinking about possible common genetic origin, why is she
: > looking at Polynesian, rather than proto-Austronesian, its
: > well-established ancestor?
:
: Let me guess... Polynesian is closest to the common ancestor,
: that's what! Austronesian developed from Polynesian by:
:
: 1. phonological enrichment
: 2. accretion, e.g. ika -> ikan, manu -> manuk

Let's see, Jacques, and John... Chapter 9 in M. Key's book: "Proto
Polynesian and Comments on Austronesian".

        ...

: > If she gets only 350 "resemblances" comparing the several dozen
: > (admittedly quite closely related) Polynesian languages with half a
: > dozen highly divergent American language families which have been
: > separated for many thousand years (so any pair of them share hardly any
: > recognizable common words), then she's hardly been trying.  By pure
: > chance, she should be able to get many more than this (depending on how
: > she defines "resemblance").

May I remind you that I quoted her previously as saying:

"The possibilities of finding more resemblances have not been
exhausted..."

And she continues in that same passage:

"...but this is a sample of a selected word list. This -- along with my
previous publications on intercontinental connections -- should be
considered as working lists, to be corrected and refined by specialists
in the respective areas." (p. 39)

Obviously, in this very obscure and neglected area of study where most
other researchers fear to tread, she feels that she chose appropriate
procedure and methodology. One has to start somewhere... If you gentlemen
think a better methodology for this sort of research should have been
followed, please specify.

: You're right there. Either:
:
: 1. that is gross incompetence

Perhaps you, Jacques, (I know you're a very competent linguist, and I've
read with interest some of your research on your webpage when I was
searching for info about rongorongo) have even better linguistic
credentials than she? If so, please specify.

: Or:
:
: 2. there have been contacts between Polynesians and Amerindians
: and they have decided to make their languages as different as
: possible from each other.

The contacts between ancient Polynesians and Amerindians are not in
question any longer. I have posted enough archaeological research in
sci.arch to demonstrate that the earliest Easter Island civilisation had
strong links with S. America.

Nobody ever tries to make their languages different or the same, but of
course you know this...

: I leave you to guess which hypothesis I favour.
:
: Mmmmm.... readers of sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, sci.archaeology, and
: sci.anthropology probably won't
: make head or tail of my posting. Well, let them
: turn to DejaNews and see what I have posted on sci.lang

I have turned to DejaNews already but I have not seen your other article
there. Did you post it under the same thread name? Perhaps you should
cross-post it to sci.arch in any case?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- [23]http://www.io.org/~yuku

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
   _________________________________________________________________


Click here to go one level up in the directory.