Re: Paleo-eskimo were building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago.

From: Floyd L. Davidson (floyd_at_barrow.com)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:10:02 -0800

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>I contacted a person who is likely to be accepted as an authority in
>>
>>"Likely to be"???
>>
>>>the fiedl in the hope that his pronouncement might settle the matter
>>>one way or the other. I had hoped to receive a reply by now.

Still no answer yet... :-(

>>What you will find is that almost all of them have preferred the
>>term "Eskimo" to "Inuit", which has caused virtually all of them
>>at one time or another to write something indicating why their
>>use is different than what many people commonly hear in
>>practice. None of them say that the common practice is wrong,
>>like you do. Here is an example, by Larry Kaplan:
>>
>> http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html
>
>Jeez!
>
>You are a ding-bat!!

Well, I guess it is nasty of me to have posted anything quite
that complex.

>The last sentence confirms my original objection:
>
> " ... particularly because "Inuit" refers only to the Inupiat of
> northern Alaska, the Inuit of Canada, and the Kalaallit of
> Greenland, and is not a word in the Yupik languages of
> Alaska and Siberia".
>
>See that? "Kalaallit of Greenland". Google for them and you will
>find that they keep popping up as e.g. 'The Inuits (Kalaallit) of
>Greenland'.

Yes, that is indeed a *very* good description of the definition
you have been using. It is the one that I normally use. It is
well understood in Alaska. And if Larry Kaplan didn't know that
half the world doesn't even know why he uses that definition,
much less agree with him, he would not have posted that
statement on their web page. But he knows full well that *most*
people don't use the definition that he does. And clearly he is
*not* saying they are wrong. He is merely pointing out why he
uses the other definition in his technical writing (which is
mostly aimed at Alaskans).

If you don't understand what I'm saying, just forget it. It's
just too complex for you.

>>And in the other direction, some linguists are instead changing
>>the way they describe the language group, to conform to common
>>usage: naming it Inuit-Aleut rather than Eskimo-Aleut. That of
>>course de facto denies your entire claim that Inuit can never be
>>used to mean all Eskimos. However, a search for the phrase on
>>google shows 454 hits for "Inuit-Aleut".
>>
>>Here is an example of its use by a linguist:
>>
>> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0404c&L=conlang&F=&S=&P=23291
>
>This says nothing relevant to your criticism of my original remark. In
>fact, 'inuit' only turns up in conjunction as in 'inuit-aleut'.

Bull***. That simply is not true. But it is interesting that
rather than adopt the same direction that the ANLC has taken,
others have decided to make the broader application of "Inuit"
universal. Even to the point of changing the term Eskimo-Aleut
which is used to describe a language that is at least 4000 years
old, to be Inuit-Aleut. Clearly they are saying that Inuit
people and language existed 4000 years ago!

I guess that logic is a bit too complex for you too.

>>Here's a set of definitions us by the U.S. Department of Health
>>and Human Services, and among them you want to look at "Inuit"
>>and "Aleut",
>>
>> http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/wtw-grants-eval98/tribal02/glossary.htm
>
>They only mention 'inuit' in relation to Alaska. This can have nothing
>to do with my comment about the inuit of Greenland.

Of course if the Eskimos in Alaska 4000 years ago where Inuit,
you do realize that also means the Eskimos in Greenland 4000
years ago were also Inuit. They were the same people.

These logic examples that have more than two steps are
difficult, aren't they!

>>And here, again, are other authoritative web sites I've posted
>>previously that use the term Inuit in exactly the way you claim
>>is wrong:
>>
>> http://www.inuit.org
>> http://www.sila.dk
>> http://www.natmus.gl
>>
>>Here's a fascinating example of both right and wrong. This
>>web page has more mistakes per paragraph than I am going to
>>bother to count. But, they list a whole raft of linguists
>>and their works, and they don't find any fault with the use
>>of "Inuit" in the way you say is wrong.
>>
>> http://www.lib.umt.edu/guide/lang/inualeuh.htm
>
>They don't say much about the US Patent ofice either. But so what?

They don't say *anything* about the US Patent Office. But they
*do* use the term "Inuit" many times... *thirty-six* times as a
matter of fact.

These leaps of logic that require you to understand two things
at once and relate them, sure are hard Eric!

>>Now, once again, you need to put up or shut up.
>
>I don't think so. You have put up such a cloud of rubbish that I may
>no longer be obliged to defend against your criticism. Nevertheless, I
>shall continue to pursue my presently evasive expert.

You are *never* obligated to make such a fool of yourself with
these attempts "to defend" yourself.

How many experts do you need to explain this to you? 

-- 
FloydL. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com
Quantcast