Re: More Etymology!

On Feb 12, 11:03 am, "Franz Gnaedinger" <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



What is this distinction you are trying to make between "hieroglyph"
and "pictogram"?

_Klaus Schmidt_ makes this distinction,

I don't have Klaus Schmidt here to ask.

I asked _you_.

and it seems
plausible to me.

What is the distinction that seems plausible to you?

Consider the Narmer palette, covered
with pictograms, and then there is writing in a small field
on top: the name of Narmer given in hieroglyphs.

Then you are using a strange definition of "pictogram."

You say that the bit that can be read /nar mer/ is "writing" because
it is "hieroglyphs"?

Now, then, you must define both "writing" and "hieroglyphs," as well
as "pictogram."

But your "Magdalenian hypothesis" has no basis in reality. Quite aside
from the absurdity of a human language having derivational morphology
based on "permutations" of phonemes, EVEN IF you "Magdalenian" were a
conceivable stage of pre-proto-Indo-European, what relevance would it
have to people at GT, thousands of years earlier than and thousands of
km away from any place there might have been speakers of PPIE?

From my vantage point, _your_ idea about language
deserves the predicate 'absurd'. You believe that
animals got no language, and early language could
not possibly be discerned from modern language.
This means language arose with humans, and was
ever the same, right from begin, in principle from
the first day onward. So there was no language in,
say, March 20, 147 592 BP, and there was language
on the following day, March 21, 147 592 BP ... In
my view, language is a basic feature of life, present
on every level of life, different on every level, early
human language can't have been the same, and if
I concocted an early language that were the same
as a modern language I had failed right from the
begin.

I left in that entire pointless paragraph to show that you still don't
have the slightest idea what I or your more persistent critics are
talking about, and how when we raise the crucial objections, you
simply ignore them.

We are NOT TALKING ABOUT 147,592 BP; we are talking about the
Magdalenian Period, for which you have reconstructed a linguistic
system that you posit as an ancestor to Indo-European. We are talking
about a period when human language was already as evolved as it was
going to get, when the human speech ability was identical to what it
is today. (Even evolution understands "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it.")

As for Göbekli Tepe: I explained myself a lot
of times before, but you don't read me, as you say
your own self. The Franco-Cantabrian space was
a refugium in the last Ice Age, the Magdalenian era
ended 12,000 years ago, people wandered northward
and eastward, following the retiring animals, and would
have reached the Eurasian steppes and Anatolia some
time later. The first temples of Göbekli Tepe were built
11,600 years ago, So Göbekli Tepe, in my opinion,
answers the unsolved question about the abrupt end
of Magdalenian art. And further questions about the
origins of Iran, Mesopotamia, and Egypt.

You are completely incapable of explaining how a language you posit
for Franco-Cantabria before 12,000 could be identical to the language
you posit for GT half a millennium later (never mind the spurious
specificity of your dates), and how that one language could be
ancestral to Indo-European, thousands of years later and thousands
more km away.

Evidently you are your own killrater. Normally, masochists do not
complain of the punishments they inflict on themselves.

Google introduced rating, and Google certainly
watches what happens with rating in the groups.

What is your evidence that it "certainly" does anything of the sort?

When they look out for the most rated author,
they'll find me and will look into my case. So I can
reach them and tell them my mind. Hello Mr. Google,
Mrs. Google, Ms. Google: rating has no place in the
sciences, all that counts are the better arguments.

You assert that again and again, yet you never offer an argument in
support of your approach.

Rating confirms the mainstream, while making it hard
for new ideas with a potential. What is the use of
archiving terabytes of epigonal stuff, things that have
been said much better in plenty of books and papers?
When will you introduce a facitlity that rewards
innovative posters? Yours truly, Franz Gnaedinger.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More Etymology!
    ... Yes, google lies. ... Pictures represent, say, animals. ... of your understanding of language. ... Magdalenian Period, for which you have reconstructed a linguistic ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Moderating and netiquet whiners hurting interest in Perl
    ... >> So you do indeed know little about Usenet. ... There is no way Google can ... >> They do the language even less favor, so crap ahead, please. ... > that you only want "Perl" questions (and nothing about what it's ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Anyone willing to trade multi-lingual dictionary databases?
    ... Because some language has position each word completely different from ... I doubt how can nowadays Google foreign language do? ... I am a Windows Automated Robot Script Programmer ... search engine request list of search terms in their ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: Google and Python
    ... Also, at Google I'm specifically "Uber Tech Lead, Production ... to various software projects that are part of our "deep infrastructure", ... and our general philosophy there is "Python where we can, ... I meant the choice of scripting language was ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: secondary air system
    ... I didnt watch much buffy, liked it, just didnt seem to be around when it was ... >>>own style and behaviour, including language. ... For new meanings of words ... > I found that article with Google. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.vw.aircooled)
Quantcast