<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 25/07/2013 14:52, Geoffrey Caveney a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFhKorUc6nQB92mv-iEhZSrzPaX+HMybcF8u6oM_MYzgDqZ0vg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">In my comparison of Haida and Proto-Miwok, I
compare a form meaning 'liver' to another form meaning 'liver',
a form meaning 'bone' to another form meaning 'bone', 'my' to
'I', 'black' to 'black', 'night' to 'night', 'one' to 'one',
etc. Also, all of the forms I compare have closely matching
initial and final consonants.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>In your comparison of Uralic and Costanoan, you compare a
form meaning 'water' to a form meaning 'to spit', a form
meaning 'to eat' to a form meaning 'soup', a form meaning
'tongue' to a form meaning 'taste, smell', a form meaning
'cloud' to a form meaning 'dew', a form meaning 'green' to a
form meaning 'yellow', and so on. You also compare forms with
such discrepant consonants as <i>sai </i>and <i>ange</i>, <i>lawan
</i>and <i>njeHl</i>, <i>qapam </i>and <i>kadwa</i>, <i>lalak
</i>and <i>kark</i>, and so on.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would rather have a dozen solid comparisons than 100
shaky comparisons.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
***<br>
<br>
Well, I think we need to put the discussion back on the right track.<br>
I could just as well spit ten lines of bad words on your approach.<br>
There's no "and so on", "shaky" and similar knee-jerk emotional
trash.<br>
I suggest you avoid that kind of language: this is neither a law
court, nor a dog pit.<br>
<br>
Of course you selected those words that may be most debatable.<br>
And it's also possible that you find them debatable because you are
not competent about Uralic reconstruction...<br>
Besides Chimariko is qaapam with a long vowel, which is perfectly
coherent with the lost of d when compared to Saami gadpe.<br>
As exemplified in my paper, there's a widespread tendency to
simplify clusters.<br>
In addition I cited Uralic preforms as per the UEW for conveniency,
this does not mean they are correct, as a matter of fact, I tend to
think most are false, and my work on Cal-Uralic precisely aims at a
better reconstruction of PU. This is one of the underlying targets
of the paper.<br>
<br>
Besides your claim that you operate with one to one comparisons is
obviously false:<br>
<br>
Haida tl'ak'úl 'liver' ; Proto-Miwok *kylla 'liver'<br>
Haida skuj 'bone' ; Proto-Eastern Miwok *kyč(:)yč- 'bone'<br>
(Lake Miwok kúlum may or may not be related at all, so I don't
believe it's necessary to restrict the comparison to the limited
Proto-Miwok reconstruction *ky...)<br>
Haida -gan 'my' ; Proto-Miwok *kánni 'I'<br>
Haida hlGahl 'black' ; Proto-Miwok *kul... 'black'<br>
Haida Gáal 'night' ; Proto-Miwok *kawy:l 'night'<br>
Haida sGwáansang 'one' ; Proto-Miwok *keng:... 'one'<br>
S. Haida k'aw 'cold' ; Proto-Miwok *ky(:)w(e)... 'cold'<br>
<br>
So we have three different phonemes of Haida: k', g, G, all
collapsed into Miwok *k<br>
besides k is skuj is not initial, j is not a likely comparandum of
c^, etc.<br>
Miwok y is Haida u in two items but Haida a in another one...<br>
Haida a(a) is a or u or e or y(:) ...<br>
<br>
Try to be more objective with your own work and open-minded with
that of other people...<br>
<br>
I'm not saying that there's nothing intriguing or interesting in
what you wrote before.<br>
For example it's interesting to note that we have:<br>
- Miwok s^ynte "eye"<br>
- Costanoan simme "eye"<br>
- Uralic südme "eye"<br>
This case goes against your proposal of a Haida word with X as
initial.<br>
<br>
A.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFhKorUc6nQB92mv-iEhZSrzPaX+HMybcF8u6oM_MYzgDqZ0vg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Geoffrey Caveney</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM,
Arnaud <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Le
25/07/2013 13:00, Ryan Denzer-King a écrit :
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The evidence I am finding shows substantially more
comparisons between Haida and Miwok than between Haida
and Costanoan. My tentative hypothesis right now is
that, surprisingly, Miwok and Haida are even more
closely related than Miwok and Costanoan are.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Please read this recent paper of mine:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://english.fullerton.edu/publications/cln/clncurrentissue/Fournet_UralicCostanoan.pdf"
target="_blank">http://english.fullerton.edu/publications/cln/clncurrentissue/Fournet_UralicCostanoan.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Best<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
A.<br>
</font></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>