Pseudoscientific Language Comparison is a form of pseudoscience that seeks to establish historical connections between languages by pointing out similarities between them. While also comparative linguistics studies the historical relationships of languages, linguistic comparisons are considered pseudoscientific by linguists when they are not based on the established practices of comparative linguistics as well as the more general priniciples of the scientific method. Pseudoscientific language comparison is usually carried out by persons with little or no specialization in the field of comparative linguistics. It is by far the most widespread type of linguistic pseudoscience.
The most common method applied in pseudoscientific language comparisons is to search two or more languages for words that seem similar in their sound and meaning. While similarities of this kind often seem convincing to laypersons, there are two reasons why this kind of comparison is unreliable. First, the method applied is not well-defined: the criterion of similarity is subjective and thus not subject to verification or falsification, which is contrary to the principles of the scientific method. Second, the large size of all languages’ vocabulary makes it easy to find accidentally similar words between languages.
Because of its unreliability, the method of searching for random similarites is rejected by nearly all comparative linguists (but cf. mass lexical comparison, a recently introduced highly controversial method that operates on similarity). Instead of random similarities, comparative linguists use a technique called the comparative method to search for regular (i.e. recurring) correspondences between the languages’ phonology, grammar and core vocabulary in order to test hypotheses of relatedness.
Certain types of languages seem to attract far more attention in pseudoscientic comparisons than others. These include languages of ancient civilizations such as Egyptian, Etruscan and Sumerian, language isolates or near-isolates such as Basque, Japanese and Ainu, and languages that are unrelated to their geographical neighbors such as Hungarian.
The following criteria can be used to identify pseudoscientific language comparisons. The more of these criteria are matched, the more safely it can be concluded that the comparison in question is pseudoscientific:
Failure to apply the comparative method in order to demonstrate regular correspondences between the languages (see above).
Failure to present grammatical evidence for relatedness: claims are based exclusively on word comparisons, even though in comparative linguistics also grammatical evidence is required to confirm relatedness.
Arbitrary segmentation of compared forms: comparisons are based on the similarity of only a part of the words compared (usually the first syllable), whereas the rest of the word is ignored.
Disregard for the effects of morphology on word structure: uninflected root forms may be compared with fully inflected forms, or marked forms may be used in preference to lesser- or unmarked forms.
Failure to consider the possibility of borrowing. Neighboring languages may share much vocabulary and many grammatical features due to language contact, and adequate application of the comparative method is required to determine whether the similarities result from contact or from relatedness.
Relying on typological similarities between languages: the morphological type of the language is claimed to provide evidence for relatedness, but in comparative linguistics only material parallels are accepted as evidence of a historical connection.
Neglect of known history: present-day forms of words are used in comparisons, neglecting either the attested or the reconstructed history of the language in question.
Ignoring established results in favor of new, speculative hypotheses. For example, words already identified as loanwords are used to support remote linguistic connections.
Advocation of geographically far-fetched connections, such as comparing Finnish (in Finland) to Quechua (in Peru), or Basque (in Spain and France) to Ainu (in Japan). This criterion is only suggestive, though, as a long distance does not exclude the possibility of a relationship: English is demonstrably related to Hindi (in India), and Hawaiian to Malagasy (on Madagascar).
Advocation of fanciful historical scenarios on the basis of the purported linguistic findings, e.g. claims of unknown civilizations or ancient migrations across oceans.
Claims that the purported remote linguistic relationship is obvious and easy to perceive. A distant relationship between languages is usually not obvious on a superficial examination, and can only be uncovered via a successful application of the comparative method.
Failure to submit results to peer reviewed linguistic journals.
Assertation that criticism towards the theory is motivated by traditionalism, ideological factors or conspiracy on behalf of the linguistic community.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And we all know who on this board breaks all the rules above and makes pseudo-linguistic claims all the time! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ No need to mention any names! We all know who it is.
It's the person in here who proposes that the Dravidian languages of India are of African Saharan origin even though there are no Dravidian languages in Africa, and who claims that Berber (a true African Saharan language) originated in Arabia even though there are no Berber languages there. And who also claims that the Olmec languages of ancient Central America are also of African origin, and that the base language of Dravidian and Olmec is West African Mande!! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Linguistics, like its scientific counterparts, needs to be taken into account with cultural anthropology, archeology, and bio-anthropology, to reconstruct historic human social complexes and movements.
If taken as a standalone, can only lead to trouble.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Indeed, which is how we get African Olmecs, African Dravidians, and non African Berber! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Although the language may be flawed, hypotheses are usually starting points for dialogue and as an extension, proof. Language comes about based on social and "cultural" maturation so it is not far fetched for the ones who construct language to be the 'griot' (voices/leader/vision) generations removed from their ancestral homeland. They may have forgotten their language over time with the sepration from their group (immigrants to America as example).
The Englishman may not recognize the expression "Sup" (what is up? wassup? How are you today (formal) etc) in its various manifestations but its origins are based on english. As mentioned odd language out is Basque when comparted to Latin roots (Spain) but Finnish is in general vicinity, though removed has elements that may be a match. OR look at Romanian, in a Slavic socio-cultural milieu! What happened for that to take place? i.e. imposition of a latin language within a Slavic region.
Yes, I know many linguists go overboard to make a connenction but it has to be taken within context.
Dravidian language, based on Spencer Wells DNA trail does reflect a road from East Africa with the sea in sight to S. India and region haveing the same (actaully sharing, or a process where a new Haplotye takes form) familial pointers!
It is obvious there are no Dravidian languages (Tamil?) in Africa but the language developed per the new inhabitants sphere of cognitive and social experiences along the voyage!
Take a look at the development of the Korean language and their wish to be separate from their neighbours. They (artificially-maybe an incorrect term but!) created a language to be distinct and form theor own identity.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Linguistics, like its scientific counterparts, needs to be taken into account with cultural anthropology, archeology, and bio-anthropology, to reconstruct historic human social complexes and movements.
If taken as a standalone, can only lead to trouble.
^ Yep. You *must* reconcile and verify your linguistic data via other disciplines, otherwise, you end up spitting in the wind.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Although the language may be flawed, hypotheses are usually starting points for dialogue and as an extension, proof. Language comes about based on social and "cultural" maturation so it is not far fetched for the ones who construct language to be the 'griot' (voices/leader/vision) generations removed from their ancestral homeland. They may have forgotten their language over time with the sepration from their group (immigrants to America as example).
The Englishman may not recognize the expression "Sup" (what is up? wassup? How are you today (formal) etc) in its various manifestations but its origins are based on english. As mentioned odd language out is Basque when comparted to Latin roots (Spain) but Finnish is in general vicinity, though removed has elements that may be a match. OR look at Romanian, in a Slavic socio-cultural milieu! What happened for that to take place? i.e. imposition of a latin language within a Slavic region.
Yes, I know many linguists go overboard to make a connenction but it has to be taken within context.
Dravidian language, based on Spencer Wells DNA trail does reflect a road from East Africa with the sea in sight to S. India and region haveing the same (actaully sharing, or a process where a new Haplotye takes form) familial pointers!
It is obvious there are no Dravidian languages (Tamil?) in Africa but the language developed per the new inhabitants sphere of cognitive and social experiences along the voyage!
Take a look at the development of the Korean language and their wish to be separate from their neighbours. They (artificially-maybe an incorrect term but!) created a language to be distinct and form theor own identity.
Yazid, I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Based on Spencer Wells' DNA trail, aboriginal Australians are also the descendants of Africans and so is everyone else on earth. Of course language changes which is why all non-African languages are not at all closely related to languages in East Africa even though that is where all of these people originated!.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dravidian language, based on Spencer Wells DNA trail does reflect a road from East Africa with the sea in sight to S. India.
Sure, 70 thousand years ago as lineage M-168, common to most Africans and all non Africans.
This clade then diverged 40 thousand years ago - and gave rise to M-172 [R1], which then split into R1a [Dravidian] and R1b [European] 30 thousand years ago.
Which is why Dravidians - R1A,[and R2] are most closely related to Europeans [R1b], and *not* to Africans.
In Africa, meanwhile - M-168 - diverged into M96 [haplotype E, and from thence E1,E2] by 40 thousand years ago, and subsquent Pn2 clade precursor to E3a and E3b by 30 thousand years ago.
The underived Pn2 lineage is found only in Senegal and Ethiopia. The lineage split into E3b in East Africa in the paleolithic, and later split into E3a in West Africa in the holocene.
Bottom line
- no evidence of neolthic Africans in India. - no evidence of neolithic Indians in Africa.
Hmmm, perhaps that explains why there are no African languages in India, and no Indian languages in Africa?
Ahh, the joys of a multi-diciplinary approach;)
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes.
See the following....
The identification of the first hero of China, Hu Nak Kunte as a member of the Kunte clan of the Manding speakers of Africa is supported by the close relationship between the Manding languages and Chinese. - Clyde Winters, on the Mandingo origin of Chinese civilisation.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, not all linguistic analysis should be discredited. Using linguistic analysis to see what roots existed in proto-languages are useful in determining e.g. when agriculture existed in the area, what type of tools they had access to, the language speakers' environment, etc. Plus, some unexpected cognates in things that did not exist the shared proto-language (if the two languages are in the same language family) can be useful in determining points of cultural contact.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still, not all linguistic analysis should be discredited.
If you think the parent article is a critique of linguistics, you should re-read it.
The whole point is not to confuse the valid discipline of linguistics with the looney fraud often perpetuated in its name.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
that must be like voodoo scholarship where we find some neolithic peoples living in an area we know almost nothing about and imply that they created classical greek scholarship.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No, that would be and example of *trolls* who can't address the subject, and so attempt to change the subject with strawman arguments and red herings.
Still, we know it's the best you can do, so, no point in asking you to exceed your own limits, eh?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still, not all linguistic analysis should be discredited.
If you think the parent article is a critique of linguistics, you should re-read it.
The whole point is not to confuse the valid discipline of linguistics with the looney fraud often perpetuated in its name.
I'm not saying that's its point. I'm simply noting that to anyone who may have taken that from the article.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
As usual all the professor can do is blurt out red-herrings!
First of all, evidence has shown who these Neolithic people [Natufians] were and what their influence was. Such evidence has been presented on this board ad-nasium like here, here, here, here, and here. If you don't like any of the established FACTS based on the evidence, that's not our problem but YOURS, Hore.
And anyway, what you pointed out has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread which is about pseudo-linguistics. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think I like most of ya'll here on this forum. Now, I really don't care what people think, if Clyde Winters helped to decipher the Meroitic script, again that is quite an accomplishment! That being said, is it Dr. Winter's science that is flawed or his PHILOSOPHY? The fact is that I don't see anything deeply troubling about neither. But I am Afrocentric so perhaps that is why I see it that way. Others are not and that is fine. But the question still stands: is his science wrong or is his philosophy just too hard for some to swallow??????????? Salaam
P.S.-On the strength, to be fair to Dr. Winters, if you guys can decipher an ancient language from antiquity, then you have alot more basis for your criticism in my opinion. I try to keep a balance, but alot of what Dr. Winters is saying just appears to rub people wrong rather than being wrong in itself. If that is the case, then chew on the meat and spit out the bones, know what I mean? Ya'll keep building. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Can you confirm for us Winter's is to be properly credited with the decipherment of the Meroitic script?
Winters claims he submitted his work to Theophille Obenga but Obenga ignored it out of "jealously."
The language is still claimed in published literature to be undeciphered.
Winters role in this does not seem to be clear to anyone - other than Winters.
Linguistic pseudoscience - Asserts that criticism towards the theory is motivated by traditionalism, ideological factors or conspiracy on behalf of the linguistic community.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
From Nubia—the land of Kush—a language lost in history
- Krzysztof Grzymski, 2004
Apart from Egyptian hieroglyphics, the Meroitic writing system was the oldest in Africa. It was also in many ways superior to the Egyptian system. The people of Meroe reduced the multitude of hieroglyphic signs to 23 basic signs - an alphabet. Again, unlike the Egyptian system, this alphabet also included vowel sounds, a great improvement over the hieroglyphic system, as well as including a sign marking the division of words, an uncommon feature in ancient writing.
There are two kinds of Meroitic script: hieroglyphs, apparently adapted from Egypt's system, and the so-called "cursive" or demotic writing, which seems to be a distinctive Meroitic invention, though it may have been influenced by the Egyptian demotic.
The first person to publish Meroitic inscriptions was the French architect Gau, who visited Nubia in 1819, but it was not until the middle of the 19th century that serious interest in this mysterious script was aroused; at that time the German scholar Lepsius published a large number of Meroitic inscriptions in a major work called Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopen.
Although Lepsius predicted that decipherment would be easy, he was totally wrong. In 1982 -139 years after his prediction - scholars were still baffled by the Meroitic mystery. Even distinguished scholars have gone astray seeking to decipher Meroitic. Two eminent scholars, one in 1887 and another in 1910, published articles in which they claimed to have deciphered Meroitic language, only to be proven wrong; and one Egyptologist, in an otherwise enlightening article, read the inscriptions in the wrong direction, apparently because Meroitic hieroglyphs, unlike their Egyptian counterparts, must be read in the direction in which the figures face.
In 1909, Francis Llewellyn Griffith, an Egyptologist from Oxford University, recorded one breakthrough while with the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Nubia. Led by two British archeologists -Leonard Woolley, later immortalized by his excavations in Ur, and David Randall-MacIver, who later gained fame for his work in Italy and Zimbabwe - this expedition found a number of Meroitic funerary-offering tables and stelae. By careful analysis, Griffith was able to identify 23 signs of the Meroitic cursive script.
His next step was to compare them with Meroitic hieroglyphic characters - known mostly from "the inscriptions written on temple walls and columns - and with an unpublished funerary inscription in hieroglyphics that Lepsius had brought to Berlin. This was important because funerary texts usually repeated certain formulae at the beginning and end of each inscription. When Griffith compared what he had with Lepsius's find, he noticed that his cursive texts began invariably with the following cursive signs: (see graphics in original text )
and that the Berlin hieroglyphic inscription also began with two words: (see graphics in original text )
In comparing the two clusters, Griffith immediately realized that both the number of hieroglyphic signs and their order exactly paralleled the cursive text; by analyzing other groups of words, he was able to develop a list of cursive characters and their hieroglyphic equivalents - in sum, a short dictionary. This equivalency of individual signs as well as whole words also proved that he dealt with two different forms of script - but only one language.
Griffith's next step was to try and identify the phonetic value of each sign. He was helped in this task by another inscription discovered by Lepsius at Wad ben Naga, a site near Meroe. This inscription included the names of a king and a queen, written in both Egyptian and in Meroitic hieroglyphs, and Griffith, moving step by step, was able to compile a list of signs and their phonetic values. Noting a number of borrowings from Egyptian, he successfully identified several priestly and administrative titles, such as "envoy" or "ambassador," from the Meroitic "apote" or Egyptian "wpwTj."
Unfortunately, the number of loan words recognizable in Meroitic was quite small, as was the number of Meroitic words surviving in Nubian, a language still spoken in the middle Nile Valley. So, after Griffith died in 1934, this field of study was largely neglected for over 20 years.
In the 50’s, however, the international campaign to safeguard the monuments of Nubia reawakened interest in the Meroitic problem. The thrill of working on a still undeciphered language, in fact, fostered a sudden growth of Meroistics; in 1980, during a Meroitic conference in Berlin, some 80 scholars presented papers dealing with various aspects of Meroitic art, archeology and language. Today - in addition to traditional centers of Meroitic research like France, East Germany, Canada and The Sudan - representatives from the U.S.A., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and European countries are making substantial efforts in the field of Meroitic research.
What is needed, of course, is another Rosetta Stone, the bilingual tablet in three scripts found in Egypt; it enabled scholars to match a known language - Greek - with the undecipherable hieroglyphics, and the demotic script of Egypt. Professor Peter Shinnie, who for many years co-directed a joint Calgary-Khartoum expedition to Meroe, hopes that such an inscription will be found among the ruins of the ancient capital city. Another group of researchers has programmed an IBM computer in Paris to analyze all texts, as far as this can be done with an undeciphered language, and a professor in Berlin recently published a Meroitic grammar.
Until now, however, the solution to the Meroitic Mystery has eluded all the experts. Although the Meroitic scripts can be read, the language they are written in is still unknown, and until a related language is discovered, or an extensive bilingual inscription, progress will be slow. The challenge of the language of Meroe is still open .
I think I like most of ya'll here on this forum. Now, I really don't care what people think, if Clyde Winters helped to decipher the Meroitic script, again that is quite an accomplishment!...
LMFO So you actually believe Winter's claims that he "deciphered" Meroitic?!!
You are aware that Winter's studies on a long legible ancient language (Sumerian) has been a taken as a joke by his peers to say the least.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Can you confirm for us Winter's is to be properly credited with the decipherment of the Meroitic script?
Winters claims he submitted his work to Theophille Obenga but Obenga ignored it out of "jealously."
The language is still claimed in published literature to be undeciphered.
Winters role in this does not seem to be clear to anyone - other than Winters.
Linguistic pseudoscience - Asserts that criticism towards the theory is motivated by traditionalism, ideological factors or conspiracy on behalf of the linguistic community.
"Jealousy"?!! LMAO
Yes, I have noticed Winter's seemingly mistaken and oblivious comments. In another thread, he claimed that he presented a study to his peers about Manding-Olmec connections but that his peers were very "quiet" about it, and in another he said a school or some other academic program gave him permission to revise a history text book in which he was allowed to do the parts on history in the African continent but not about his (African) Dravidian India or (African) Shang China, for "some strange reason" as he doesn't know why he wasn't allowed any authority in these areas.
posted
King Scorpion, I advise you read the first post of this thread on the nature and tactics of pseudo-science so may get a better understanding of what I mean and how folks like Clyde get the stuff that at first glance may seem like they're right.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
And we all know who on this board breaks all the rules above and makes pseudo-linguistic claims all the time! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Yazid, I don't know what point you are trying to make. 
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic