Re: Barrow Boy gibberish...
From: Floyd L. Davidson (floyd_at_barrow.com)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:31:35 -0800
Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>> Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote:
>> >"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>> >> >> but they are
>> >> >> most definitely *not* Inuit, by any definition.
>> >> Hmmm... If you objected above, but not this, then you must
>> >> think that the Unangam are not at all related to the Inuit.
>> >Simple really - even you INITIALLY said Aleut are not Inuits!! Why the
>> >sudden 180 degree about face?
>> Where is there any about face. I said the Unangam are not
>> Inuit. They aren't! I said they are related... and they are!
>If they are related, they are the same - and they are not. Further to
So if you are related to your sister, and that makes you the same???
I don't think so Seppo. It just don't happen that way!
>that you mouth hollow words without anything to back it up. I want to
>see the DNA study you rely on.
Well, you've *already* posted a reference to the one that G Horvat
quoted. Wasn't wasn't that good enough?
>Further to that - not only is the above correct but you AGAIN show a
>inability to comprehend the language - "related to" appears to have a
>secret private meaning to you - one that alters at the drop of a hat
>too! Of course ALL people are "related"..... that is the Inuits to the
>Bantu... the Aleuts to the Koori... the average Yank to the Afghani
>and even to Osama bin Laden!!
Speaking of "secret private meanings", yours is no longer a
secret, but it certainly is private! *Nobody* else would have
thought to twist the meaning in quite that way Seppo. You are
one Hell of a Word Weasel. That is downright impressive. Any
10 year old would be proud of you!
>> You've posted, in another article, a reference to an article
>> where G Horvat presented significant DNA information, all of
>> which clearly indicated a high degree of relation between the
>> Unangam and Eskimos.
>You resort to gibberish again - deliberately to obfuscate your
>ignorance. It just doesn't measure up to something one can actually
Yeah, that's the trouble with well defined facts. They are
danged hard for you to get around. Here is your URL,
The data presented concerning Aleut DNA is very convincing.
>Oh and YES I pointed to what YOU claimed "doesn't exist" -
>and I have also just finished dealing with another article where you
>resorted to outright forgery. I'm not alone to note this tendency of
>yours. Eric has had reason to question your integrity as well.
That "outright forgery" was quoting you, *directly*. That's a
strange thing to call a forgery, but par for the course for
Seppo the Word Weasel.
It's a fact that I did not remember the conversation with G
Horvat about that. However, it still does not prove what you
claim it does. The MtDNA studies certainly does *indicate* that
there is a closer relationship to Alaskan Eskimos than to
earlier Greenlandic Eskimos... but when you read what they say,
it doesn't sound very definite at all. The sample was too small
(and it turns out they are not even sure the "Dorset" remains
were actually Dorset), and there were very clearly exceptions
found (the Sadlermiut DNA).
The most telling part of it is that they calculated that it
indicates a group of from 200 to 400 people were the origin of
the DNA variation which distinguished a difference. You might
also have noticed, if you read it carefully, that the Dorset DNA
samples were not from Greenland, but from the Hudson Bay region
Basically, the study is very interesting, and it adds to our
knowledge. But it does not provide any real evidence one way or
the other. The researchers did find a way that it can match
their pet theory. They did not deny that it could also match
the opposing theory too. In fact, for numbers of migrants
larger or smaller than the 200-400 indicated, it didn't match
>Your words carry no weight anymore. Prove your claims with decent
>sources - not misrepresented generalisations from an unrelated
Say, Seppo, you sniveling low life ermine... when are *you*
going to post anything that proves a what you say? Seems I do
that on a regular basis, and you do it rarely. Plus you weasel
on word meanings for *everything* you post.
>> >> How do you explain the fact that they speak conjugate languages,
>> >I suggest you look up the meaning of "conjugate" in a good dictionary
>> >- then translate your gibberish to English.
>> Hee hee, Seppo has a good point there! The word I meant to use
>> is "cognate", not "conjugate".
>> Sorry for the confusion.
>If only you would be as honest with the remainder.....
Ah, but I *am always* willing to learn, and to admit when I've
said something wrong and have then learned better.
It isn't hard. You ought to try it...
>> >> and that there are only three such languages (Unangam, Yupik,
>> >> and Inuit). Note that two of the three are Eskimo languages.
>> >> You'll have a really difficult time claiming they aren't all
>> >> from the same gene pool...
>> >That is another load of CROCK! What we see is another nutter claiming
>> >the existence of a "language gene"..... what a NUTTER!
>> Oh, a load of crock eh? Danged. Every linguist who has ever
>> looked at the Proto-Eskimo/Aleut language group says it is true
>> though! And as noted, G Horvat has posted plenty of DNA
>> evidence which all suggested that the linguistic studies are
>So prove it!
Oh, ye of sooooo little faith. Do I ever say anything that
can't be supported with authority?
That URL cites Tony Woodbury (a linguist who studied Yup'ik
Eskimo languages). But of course he didn't do the original
research. His colleagues at the University of Alaska Fairbanks
did. Larry Kaplan, Michael Fortesque and Steve Jacobson
published "Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates" in
1994. They basically put nearly 10 years into a project to
reconstruct the Proto-Eskimo language as it existed
approximately 2000 year BP.
"As a reasonable estimate, one could suggest that our
reconstructed PE [Proto-Eskimo] belongs to a period some time
around two thousand years ago, whereas hypothetical PE-A
[Proto-Eskimo/Aleut] would belong to a period of one to two
thousand years earlier than that (cf. Drummand 1987 and
Fortescue 1985). PI [Proto-Inuit] can be dated to around a
thousand years ago in North Alaska, about the same time as the
linguistic ancestor of Alaskan Yupik moved down onto the
Alaska Peninsula and the Gulf of Alaska. The extension of
Canadian and Greenlandic south from the High Arctic to
Labrador and southern Greenland (along both coasts) took place
gradually over the following centuries. Aleut is believed to
have been spoken on the Aleutian Archipelago for at least
three thousand years. ... Eskimo has been spoken on the
Chukchi Peninsula for at least two thousand years, with
Sirenikski possibly representing a first wave of arrivals from
what is believed to be the point of origin of Eskimo culture
on the Alaskan side of Bering Straits."
From the Introduction, page XI, of "Comparative Eskimo
Let me translate that for you Seppo. What they are saying is
that prior to 3000-4000 years ago, all of those Eskimo people
were a single group and spoke a single language. As they
migrated greater distances from the point of origin for Eskimo
culture, the of course evolved differently. Somewhere around
3000-4000 the Aleut became distinct (and eventually evolved into
a culture so different that it is not properly considered to be
an Eskimo culture anymore). That made it two groups, the Unangam
(Aleut) and the Eskimos. At about 1000 years ago, the Eskimo group
splintered also. But neither of them have evolved into something
that is not distinctly Eskimo. So today we basically have two
branches of Eskimo (culture, language and peoples), all *very*
*closely* related. The Unangam are also related, but instead of
being twins, they are more like a 1st cousin.
Now, it happens that those particular linguists just happen to
be the most significant Eskimo language linguists (along with
Irene Reed and Michael Krauss, both of whom preceded Larry Kaplan
as the head of the Alaska Native Language Center at UAF).
But they are not the only linguists who have reached essentially
the same conclusions. Every linguists who has looked at Eskimo
languages has said the same thing. You no doubt have heard of
the "Greenburg hypothesis"... which says *exactly* what you
say no linguist says, and is based on linguistics.
>> Unlike the relationship between various Eskimo peoples and the
>> branch called Dorset Eskimo, there is a *huge* volume of
>> evidence that modern Unangam, Yupik, and Inuit peoples are all
>> derived from a single gene pool.
>So prove it! You will become famous.... or is it "infamous" going
>against DNA and craniometric studies ..... but hey of course you can
>PROVE it to be true as you claim.... right here, right now!
I just don't think that is going to make me famous. It has,
however, made at least Greenburg famous!
>> The Unangam are thought to
>> have separated about 3-4000 years BP, and the split between
>> Yupik and Inuit is thought to have occurred 1-2000 years ago.
>> Much of the evidence is derived from linguistics, but
>> archaeological studies agree, and more recently DNA studies have
>> also added to the list.
>...and all you have to do now is prove your cases..... simple
>really..... I'd like to see that!
Oh ye of so little faith (or knowledge). I'm sure this came as
a big surprise to you. But some of those linguists have been
friends of the family for more than 30 years... so none of this
is exactly new information for me.
-- FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) email@example.com