Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
she is wonderful. she really has the fluid, magical style of crankdom down.
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
All of her conclusions are like some six degrees of Kevin Bacon shit
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Another gem from Octaviano, which he posted on the Substratumlanguages mailing list yesterday:
Apparently, Celtic and Eteocretan were spoken in ancient Urartu (NE Turkey/Armenia around 600 BC, basically)!Octaviano wrote: In the Eteocretan-Greek bilingual Dreros I inscription () there're the forms isalabre, isaluria, which have tentatively translated as 'goat chesse' (*isa- 'goat' and *labre 'chesse') in an attempt to match the extant Greek text. However, by a fortunate chance I've just come the name of an Urartian city (in Assyrian sources): Ispilibria, Ispilabria, Ispallure, whose similarity to the Eteocretan forms is striking if the latter had p > 0 as in Celtic. In fact, -bria, -bre are two common evolution of Celtic -briga 'fortress' in Hispano-Celtic.
So I think we've got a compound of two roots: *spil- /*spal- >Ispil-, Is(p)al- and *-briga > -bria/-uria, -bre/-ure, respectively non-IE and Celtic.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
-
- Smeric
- Posts: 1258
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
- Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Those Celts sure got around!WeepingElf wrote:Apparently, Celtic and Eteocretan were spoken in ancient Urartu (NE Turkey/Armenia around 600 BC, basically)!
I wonder how often is he laughed out of conlang and linguistics groups?
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Evidently not often enough.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
One must note that Octaviano has improved his social skills since he was banned from the ZBB and the Nostratic-L mailing list. He is now quite polite, no longer accuses those who criticize his methodology and his hypotheses of ad hominem attacks, etc. However, his hypotheses are as potty as ever and also remain permanently unclear because he never lays them out in a way that one understands what he really means; and trying to argue with him is still futile as he constantly dodges questions and refuses to give evidence; also, of course, he still hasn't grasped the notion of regular sound correspondences.
Another fruitless debate with Octaviano that happened about a year ago is preserved for posterity here.
Another fruitless debate with Octaviano that happened about a year ago is preserved for posterity here.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Here's another find, this time not from Octaviano, but from a similar crank: Uralic has relatives in California!
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
- marconatrix
- Lebom
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:29 pm
- Location: Kernow
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
They did make it to Angora ... but what has that to do with the price of cheese?Bristel wrote:Those Celts sure got around!WeepingElf wrote:Apparently, Celtic and Eteocretan were spoken in ancient Urartu (NE Turkey/Armenia around 600 BC, basically)!
OMG it's HIM!I wonder how often is he laughed out of conlang and linguistics groups?
Kyn nag ov den skentel pur ...
-
- Smeric
- Posts: 1258
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
- Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Not getting where you're going with this, marconatrix...
I'm not Octaviano. THANK GOD.
And if you meant "it's him" as in "it's him, he's banned everywhere", then yes, I imagine that he is.
I'm not Octaviano. THANK GOD.
And if you meant "it's him" as in "it's him, he's banned everywhere", then yes, I imagine that he is.
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Some linguists have strange ideas about language evolution. Basically they are saying that proto languages don't exist and there is only language contact and mixing.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Which is, BTW, precisely what Octaviano thinks about Indo-European.gach wrote:Some linguists have strange ideas about language evolution. Basically they are saying that proto languages don't exist and there is only language contact and mixing.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
- marconatrix
- Lebom
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:29 pm
- Location: Kernow
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Actually I don't think this is quackery, so maybe it deserves a new thread, still what do you all think of this? To me it makes about as much sense as anything else and seems to be looking for causes etc.
http://www.academia.edu/2944128/Indo-Eu ... ion_Cycles
http://www.academia.edu/2944128/Indo-Eu ... ion_Cycles
Kyn nag ov den skentel pur ...
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
First impression: It is not quackery at all, but a plausible hypothesis that is at least worthy of discussion. Thank you for sharing it!marconatrix wrote:Actually I don't think this is quackery, so maybe it deserves a new thread, still what do you all think of this? To me it makes about as much sense as anything else and seems to be looking for causes etc.
http://www.academia.edu/2944128/Indo-Eu ... ion_Cycles
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
- marconatrix
- Lebom
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:29 pm
- Location: Kernow
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
If it's worth discussing, then someone please start a thread in the appropriate forum.
Kyn nag ov den skentel pur ...
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
I found this a few minutes ago. It's a paper that connects Niger-Congo and Basque.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Looks like they're throwing in Etruscan too.
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Clıck wrote:I found this a few minutes ago. It's a paper that connects Niger-Congo and Basque.
Because we all know how the traditional way of counting to two among primitive peoples is to point once to each breast.Unsung genius GJK Campbell-Dunn wrote:The word "two" bi, bi-ga, bi-da in Basque relates to Bantu bili "two" (Johnston 1919 - 22 : 32), and ultimately to Niger-Congo bi "breasts"
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Is This How Our Ancestors Sounded? Linguist Recreates Proto-Indo-European Language
I don't know how much this qualifies to be in this thread, but the "news" is that a professor recorded himself speaking his own reconstruction of PIE. The real gold is to be found in the comments. Who knew there were PIE deniers?
I don't know how much this qualifies to be in this thread, but the "news" is that a professor recorded himself speaking his own reconstruction of PIE. The real gold is to be found in the comments. Who knew there were PIE deniers?
I have a JD and a Masters in Psychology; admittedly, I have no academic degree or expertise in linguistics. However, I do know the difference between theories and facts; for better or worse, one of my pet peeves is when academics or scientists put forth their theories as factual or supported by empirical evidence. One need not know squat about the comparative method, employed as a means to arrive at a THEORETICAL language based on the features of at least two similar languages, to discern the difference between assumptions and facts. Those are the last keystrokes I'm wasting on this now boring and frivolous topic.
an addition: What about Celtic? I studied Irish and I feel nothing Celtic at all in the language. Obviously I am not an expert and cannot read the script that has been written although it looks suspiciously like Urdu. I would love to see the language put into the Roman alphabet just so that it may be analyzed more easily by laymen such as myself
Um, no. I'm sure they did not sound like that. First of all, anyone who has traveled in tribal areas of the world knows that the manner of speech is very much influenced by gender. A deep voice and a masculine delivery are required for a man. ...something this guy did not master before attempting to approximate this theorized ancient language.
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
You can find deniers of everything, there are even some poor bastards who are denying climate change. I find the sort of denialism you see here rather charming.patiku wrote:Who knew there were PIE deniers?
Heh, clearly the supposed femininity of the record is the most blatant academic error here.Um, no. I'm sure they did not sound like that. First of all, anyone who has traveled in tribal areas of the world knows that the manner of speech is very much influenced by gender. A deep voice and a masculine delivery are required for a man. ...something this guy did not master before attempting to approximate this theorized ancient language.
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
obligatory
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Another one I found kind of funny is:patiku wrote:Is This How Our Ancestors Sounded? Linguist Recreates Proto-Indo-European Language
I don't know how much this qualifies to be in this thread, but the "news" is that a professor recorded himself speaking his own reconstruction of PIE. The real gold is to be found in the comments. Who knew there were PIE deniers?
...
Followed later (same commenter):If you're interested in a guaranteed academic failure which cannot be disproved, this is "research" a perfect target.
I just have one question, thought: "How does one replicate a spoken language, unheard for thousands of years, one which has never been written?"
Sure some other academician has embarked on the equally doomed quest and made up a written version of a language which was never written (nor heard). Is that a rational basis to "recreate" the spoken version of this fantasy language?
Boys, if you can create this "work" from thin air, I can only be thankful that you haven't undertaken the study of actual, verifiable history. I can only imagine the hash you'd make of THAT.
It's always fun to see people who haven't really looked at how a given discipline works and then state that it "isn't science". I think it might even beet geneticists trying their hand at linguistics.Another supposed analysis gone completely wrong through lack of evidence.
I adhere to the scientific method almost exclusively. That is why such crackpottery is repubnant (mis-spelling intended) to me.
As stated by another commenter (ksher), "The written lines you see are transcriptions of what PIE might have sounded like" You DO see where this defense goes wrong don't you. The words "may have sounded like" are quite telling of wingnuttery when applied to a language that has never been written nor heard spoken ... that is, any attempt at replication is nothing but a simple guess.
Certainly no one would dare believe that this attempt is the result of science.
I think there's a fairly good point in there somewhere, but it doesn't seem to have been well thought out
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
They have a slight truth, that language reconstruction is inherently not unquestionably provable without texts being discovered, but their conclusion of "so you should never try" makes me wish to drop heavy weights on their heads.sangi39 wrote:Another one I found kind of funny is:patiku wrote:Is This How Our Ancestors Sounded? Linguist Recreates Proto-Indo-European Language
I don't know how much this qualifies to be in this thread, but the "news" is that a professor recorded himself speaking his own reconstruction of PIE. The real gold is to be found in the comments. Who knew there were PIE deniers?
...
Followed later (same commenter):If you're interested in a guaranteed academic failure which cannot be disproved, this is "research" a perfect target.
I just have one question, thought: "How does one replicate a spoken language, unheard for thousands of years, one which has never been written?"
Sure some other academician has embarked on the equally doomed quest and made up a written version of a language which was never written (nor heard). Is that a rational basis to "recreate" the spoken version of this fantasy language?
Boys, if you can create this "work" from thin air, I can only be thankful that you haven't undertaken the study of actual, verifiable history. I can only imagine the hash you'd make of THAT.
It's always fun to see people who haven't really looked at how a given discipline works and then state that it "isn't science". I think it might even beet geneticists trying their hand at linguistics.Another supposed analysis gone completely wrong through lack of evidence.
I adhere to the scientific method almost exclusively. That is why such crackpottery is repubnant (mis-spelling intended) to me.
As stated by another commenter (ksher), "The written lines you see are transcriptions of what PIE might have sounded like" You DO see where this defense goes wrong don't you. The words "may have sounded like" are quite telling of wingnuttery when applied to a language that has never been written nor heard spoken ... that is, any attempt at replication is nothing but a simple guess.
Certainly no one would dare believe that this attempt is the result of science.
I think there's a fairly good point in there somewhere, but it doesn't seem to have been well thought out
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Not surprising: everyone has relatives in California Was Octaviano the one who claimed that all languages come from Basque?WeepingElf wrote:Here's another find, this time not from Octaviano, but from a similar crank: Uralic has relatives in California!
For fun, someone with a sufficently well-developed conlang should write it up in a suitably academic format and style and try to pass it off as a real language, and see who's fooled. The results might be surprising.
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
Not quite, he's not Edo Nyland level crazy. He did, however, claim that Basque was related to a unified North-Caucasian family in a Vasco-Caucasian superfamily, which once covered Old Europe, and that basically every word in Indo-European language without a proper etymology is actually a VC substrate loan.araceli wrote: Was Octaviano the one who claimed that all languages come from Basque?
His attempts at proving this involve the worst kind of chance resemblance between items. And finally, the "North Caucasian" that he used was that 'reconstructed' by the (in)famous S. Starostin.
Last edited by Morrígan on Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- ol bofosh
- Smeric
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:30 pm
- Location: tʰæ.ɹʷˠə.ˈgɜʉ̯.nɜ kʰæ.tə.ˈlɜʉ̯.nʲɜ spɛ̝ɪ̯n ˈjʏː.ɹəʔp
Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
I was going to object, but then I thought my girlfriend's godmother lives there (stretches the term "relative" a bit, but it's the best I have).araceli wrote:Not surprising: everyone has relatives in California
It was about time I changed this.