...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
West Africans discovered America before Columbus
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [I have also shown that in relation to comparive linguistic we look for regular correspondence, especially in relation to the consonants. I have proven throughout this debate you don't know anything about comparative linguistics. as a result , I will leave you in your ignorance. . [/qb][/QUOTE]Still avoiding the issue of the non-existing glottal dtop in Mande and its crucial importance in Mayan languages. A blast from the past 1998. Scott and Carrasquer Vidal are professional linguists [QUOTE]From: scott@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology Subject: Re: New Olmec Religion Site Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 19:03:13 GMT Organization: Cleveland State University On 24 Jan 1998 17:37:21 GMT, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) wrote: [snips] >Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (mcv@wxs.nl) wrote: >: On 23 Jan 1998 00:08:53 GMT, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. >: Winters) wrote: >: >Moreover, your comments about >: >ka'an and kan does not invalidate any of my arguments. The fact remains that in comparative linguistics we >: We? I most strongly object! >: >look for regular correspondence between letters and >: >sounds to prove correspondence. >: [b]I rest my case. This is so wrong, I don't even know how to begin to >: explain in how many different ways this sentence proves that Mr. >: Winters hasn't got the foggiest notion of comparative linguistics, or >: any kind of linguistics at all.[/b] The terms "letters" and "sounds" have >: not been used naively like this since the 19th century. >: "Correspondences between letters and sounds" is most definitely not >: what we're looking for in comparative linguistics. We don't "look for >: correspondences to prove correspondences", that doesn't make any kind >: of rational sense, let alone linguistical sense... >This is nonsense. No, it's a simple statement of fact. > There is a relationship between Mayan and Mande languages >which is proven through the use of comparative and historical methods. > Linguistic evidence is the most convicing data supporting a >Mande relationship with the Maya, and the Mande origin of Olmec >culture. In that case the theory is in serious trouble. > A basic objective of the comparative linguist is to isolate >words with common or similar meanings that have systematic >consonantal agreement with little regards for the location and/or >type of vowels. That's a bit of an overstatement. > Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance >of consonants at certain locations in words having similar >meanings and representing similar speech sounds. Not necessarily; what are the 'similar speech sounds' in English <furrow> and Welsh <rhych>, which are cognate? > An examination of Mayan and Mande homophones indicate >striking similarity. There is a connection between Malinke- >Bambara and Yucatec homonyms for 'high, sky and serpent'. > In Malinke-Bambara the word Ka and Kan means 'serpent, upon >high,and sky'. Then why do you give these words as <sa> in your table below? > In Yucatec we find that can/kan and caan/kaan >means ' serpent and heaven'. Bernard has already pointed out (with documentation) that 'sky' is <ka'an>, which has three consonants, not two. > Often we find that Mande words beginning with /s/, appear as >/c/ in the Mayan languages. For example, Malinke Bambara, the >word sa means 'sell, to buy and market'. This is related to Mayan >con 'to sell', and can 'serpent'. For example we have >Mayan Malinke-Bambara >can serpent sa >con to sell sa, san >can heaven, sky sa At least one entry here, the last on the Maya side, is wrong. > In these examples we see regular correspondence between the >Mayan /c/ and Malinke-Bambara /s/. And does this correspondence hold up elsewhere?[b] What in Malinke-Bambara corresponds to the glottal stop in <ka'an>?[/b] Brian M. Scott %%%%%%% From: gkeyes6988@aol.com (GKeyes6988) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology Subject: Re: Mande and Mayan Connections Date: 25 Jan 1998 23:33:57 GMT Clyde Winters wrote <snip> (: Winters claims that the Yucatec Maya word for “mother” is “naal” which : does not exist in Yucatec Maya according to the Cordemex dictionary. The : term for mother is: : p. 545 na’ or naa’ (glottal stop and strong pronounciation) which is still : quite different from a simple “na” (Winters) ..This is false there is no difference between na' and na. [b]This is the equivalent of saying there is no difference between English "to"and "top", "be" and "bet" or "do" and "dog". The glottal stop is a consonant-- not one that's important in English, but which is important indeed in Mayan. Again, it seems that the key to Mr. Winter's comparisons is not knowing much about Mayan or linguistics.[/b] %%%%%%% From: Akan@pizlink.net (Akan Ifriqiya) Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.archaeology Subject: Re: Mande and Mayan Connections Date: 26 Jan 1998 08:27:02 GMT In article <6agu1n$cuv$1@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu says... > >Benjamin H. Diebold (benjamin.diebold@yale.edu) wrote: >: In article <6aemlc$qe$1@artemis.it.luc.edu>, cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu >: (Clyde A. Winters) wrote: SNIP >: > This is false there is no difference between na' and na. > >: Hello? > >: I don't know much about linguistics, but when I start dropping my glottal >: stops in Arabic, people stop understanding me (even more than usual). >: Winters absolutely has to be wrong here; he's simply imposing his own >: cultural paradigm on this linguistic argument. > > >For comparison purposes we don't have to refer to the pronunciation of >the word unless we are reconstructing the Proto-Language. > >C.A. Winters [b]What? Sahibi, the glottal stop is an integral part of the word, it is not some mere artefact of pronounciation! In arabic, as in other languages using the glottal, if you don't use the glottal, you have an utterly *different* word! Like na's versus na?s (where ? is the ain and ' is the glottal or hamza).[/b] What rubbish statements are you proposing here? Ramira Naka[/QUOTE]Twelve years later. Clyde continues to make the same mistakes and demonstrate linguistic ignorance and he never admit errors. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3