Haida related to Miwok, not Na-Dene?

[Arnaud]

Le 25/07/2013 14:52, Geoffrey Caveney a écrit :
> 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.
>
> 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 /sai /and /ange/, /lawan /and 
> /njeHl/, /qapam /and /kadwa/, /lalak /and /kark/, and so on.
>
> I would rather have a dozen solid comparisons than 100 shaky comparisons.
***

Well, I think we need to put the discussion back on the right track.
I could just as well spit ten lines of bad words on your approach.
There's no "and so on", "shaky" and similar knee-jerk emotional trash.
I suggest you avoid that kind of language: this is neither a law court, 
nor a dog pit.

Of course you selected those words that may be most debatable.
And it's also possible that you find them debatable because you are not 
competent about Uralic reconstruction...
Besides Chimariko is qaapam with a long vowel, which is perfectly 
coherent with the lost of d when compared to Saami gadpe.
As exemplified in my paper, there's a widespread tendency to simplify 
clusters.
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.

Besides your claim that you operate with one to one comparisons is 
obviously false:

Haida tl'ak'úl 'liver' ; Proto-Miwok *kylla 'liver'
Haida skuj 'bone' ; Proto-Eastern Miwok *kyc((:)yc(- 'bone'
(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...)
Haida -gan 'my' ; Proto-Miwok *kánni 'I'
Haida hlGahl 'black' ; Proto-Miwok *kul... 'black'
Haida Gáal 'night' ; Proto-Miwok *kawy:l 'night'
Haida sGwáansang 'one' ; Proto-Miwok *keng:... 'one'
S. Haida k'aw 'cold' ; Proto-Miwok *ky(:)w(e)... 'cold'

So we have three different phonemes of Haida: k', g, G, all collapsed 
into Miwok *k
besides k is skuj is not initial, j is not a likely comparandum of c^, etc.
Miwok y is Haida u in two items but Haida a in another one...
Haida a(a) is a or u or e or y(:) ...

Try to be more objective with your own work and open-minded with that of 
other people...

I'm not saying that there's nothing intriguing or interesting in what 
you wrote before.
For example it's interesting to note that we have:
- Miwok s^ynte "eye"
- Costanoan simme "eye"
- Uralic südme "eye"
This case goes against your proposal of a Haida word with X as initial.

A.







>
> Geoffrey Caveney
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Arnaud <fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr 
> <mailto:fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr>> wrote:
>
>     Le 25/07/2013 13:00, Ryan Denzer-King a écrit :
>
>         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.
>
>
>     Please read this recent paper of mine:
>     http://english.fullerton.edu/publications/cln/clncurrentissue/Fournet_UralicCostanoan.pdf
>
>     Best
>
>     A.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/athapbasckan-l/attachments/20130725/db71896e/attachment.htm>