WeepingElf's Europic thread

[Octaviano]

I didn't really want to suggest this, but can we just ban this asshole?

This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!

[Kereb]

Yeah, GoatMan ... after Octaviano has shown us so much data and proof, after he's presented a case that would convince any reasonable person ... after he's replied so coherently and respectfully to everyone's questions, you want to BAN HIM because his theory shakes your narrow little world view?

Maaaaaan. So scared to think outside your little box.

WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! LOOK AT WHAT OCTAVIANO HAS BEEN SHOWING US ALL SO CLEARLY!

I think at this point, banning Octaviano would show that we're weak and illogical and hate people who disagree with us.

[WeepingElf]

Well, genetics tell us (see for example Oppenheimer's Out of Eden. The peopling of the world) there were two different colonizations of Europe during the Upper Paleolithic. The second one (related to the Gravettian culture) was made precisely from Central Asia, so it could be associated with the spread of Paleo-European.

Genetics tells us nothing about languages. There are just too many cases where people adopt a new language from their neighbours and abandon the language they learned from their parents. Also, projecting Altaic back to the Upper Paleolithic is ridiculous. Which rabbit will be the next you'll pull out of your hat? Neanderthal languages? You sound just like one of those nutty long-range comparativists, who, by comparing dictionaries and flouting regular sound correspondendes, come up with fantastic language family trees reaching back into the days when Homo sapiens set first foot on the area discussed. Convince us that you aren't that kind of crank.

Also, I fail to see what bearing such castles in the air should have on the topic of this thread. A distant (Mesolithic) relationship between IE and Altaic makes more sense to me than an Upper Paleolithic Altaic substratum language in Central Europe. But the lexical resemblances between Altaic and Northwestern IE are actually so few that they can be dismissed as chance resemblances.

I disagree. The sound correspondences I've found are those expected from an Altaic language, specifically one close to Turkic. IMHO, Paleo-European was the westernmost branch of Altaic next to Turkic.

Show, don't tell. Show us that there are recurring regular sound correspondences in dozens of words. The burden of proof is on you.

Don't be stupid. There're indeed regular sound correspondences but no in "dozens of words" as the corpus is small. How many times must I told you that?

How many times must we tell you to show us the evidence you have?

Other scholars have reacted on these problems by assuming that hal- is from PIE *kel- 'slope', whose o-grade would yield *hal- in Germanic (and actually attested in German Halde 'heap')

This root is actually represented in Basque garai 'high' and (g)al- in compounds.

Maybe, but it doesn't have any relevance here. To me, it looks like a chance resemblance, nothing else. Neither the sounds nor the meanings are close enough to make the correspondence meaningful.

but that hypothesis fails to take into account the close association of this element with salt production. No, hal- means 'salt', but must be from a prehistoric language, probably a language related to Indo-European and spoken in Neolithic times.

You should demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the root hal- in these toponyms specifically means 'salt'. Using your own words, "the burden of proof is on you".

If there are about a dozen (or more) places in Central Europe which contain the element hal- in their names, and all of them are ones where salt is (or was) produced, isn't that evidence enough that hal- means 'salt'?

[Morrígan]

I didn't really want to suggest this, but can we just ban this asshole?

This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!

No, Oct, your shoddy methodology, complete lack of decorum (which is perhaps a poor indictment coming from me), and your tacit refusal to defend your own hypothesis are outrageous.

It is the consensus of the people involved in your shambling threads that you have presented insufficient evidence to support your hypothesis, and yet you keep going on and on, ignore the advice given to you, and simply blunder forward, completely unaware of what you are doing wrong, while you simultaneously impugn historical linguists as blinded by orthodoxy, and promote yourself as a bold, clever, inventive thinker who, of all linguistics in the world, is the only one smart enough to see the truth.

You have made extraordinary claims, failed to support them, and have claimed knowledge of things which you could not possibly have, and generally just fail at historical linguistics, valid reasoning, good argumentation, and science in general.

You, Octaviano, are a terrible linguist, and you just go back to being a software engineer, until you have learned to recognize good methodology, good reasoning, and until you learn how to present evidence in support of your thesis.

I think at this point, banning Octaviano would show that we're weak and illogical and hate people who disagree with us.

Yeah, I'm afraid you are probably right.

[Kereb]

Ad hominem! Ad hominem!

Octaviano's theory looks better by the minute.


EDIT: You know what might be cool? Delete this thread back to WeepingElf's first post, and let's talk about that, without Octaviano.

[Octaviano]

A distant (Mesolithic) relationship between IE and Altaic makes more sense to me than an Upper Paleolithic Altaic substratum language in Central Europe.

Possible, but I don't have any evidence for a genetical relationship between IE and Altaic. Even in that case, their common ancestor can't possibly be Mesolithic but very much older.

But the lexical resemblances between Altaic and Northwestern IE are actually so few that they can be dismissed as chance resemblances.

I'm sure they aren't so. There're "so few" simply because they're substrate loanwords.

This root is actually represented in Basque garai 'high' and (g)al- in compounds.

Maybe, but it doesn't have any relevance here. To me, it looks like a chance resemblance, nothing else. Neither the sounds nor the meanings are close enough to make the correspondence meaningful.

I was referring to IE *kelH1-.

You should demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the root hal- in these toponyms specifically means 'salt'. Using your own words, "the burden of proof is on you".

If there are about a dozen (or more) places in Central Europe which contain the element hal- in their names, and all of them are ones where salt is (or was) produced, isn't that evidence enough that hal- means 'salt'?

This looks like a good start point.

[Miekko]

I am fairly convinced I haven't insulted you even once yet, but, you know, I'd be interested in seeing the rest of the corpus of evidence you have.

[Morrígan]

I'm sure they aren't so. There're "so few" simply because they're substrate loanwords.

Yeah Oct, we get it. They are loanwords; this is a hard problem. But you can't make statements that these aren't chance resemblances unless you are ready to back them up with evidence. And if all you have is one or two words, then you can't possibly be sure because two words is insufficient to demonstrate higher-than-chance probabilities of the words being related.

[Octaviano]

This is Jörg's thread, not mine.

[Xephyr]

Who?

[Radius Solis]

What's weak or illogical about doing something about those who repeatedly insist on thrusting incendiary arguments into other people's barely-related threads? Or whatever other corrective action, so long as it works. Perhaps a moderator-enforced restriction of Vasco-Caucasian topics to the appropriately named thread, at least for a while, would do the job.

But if such behavior gets a free pass just to avoid the appearance of intolerance of dissent, someone's fucked in the head.

[Octaviano]

I'm sure they aren't so. There're "so few" simply because they're substrate loanwords.

Yeah Oct, we get it. They are loanwords; this is a hard problem. But you can't make statements that these aren't chance resemblances unless you are ready to back them up with evidence. And if all you have is one or two words, then you can't possibly be sure because two words is insufficient to demonstrate higher-than-chance probabilities of the words being related.

OK, but even in such a small corpus, I think chance resemblance, although still possible, is unlikely because there're good phonetical and semantical correspondences.

My own estimate is from every, say, 10 matches, 7-8 will be correct and 2-3 due to chance resemblance.

[Kereb]

What's weak or illogical about doing something about those who repeatedly insist on thrusting incendiary arguments into other people's barely-related threads?

Really, Radius? Do we need sarcasm tags for rillz? I mean I even went so far as to use the word 'sheeple'.

[Octaviano]

What's weak or illogical about doing something about those who repeatedly insist on thrusting incendiary arguments into other people's barely-related threads?

Raducioiu, it's not me who "thrusts incendiary arguments into other people's barely-related threads" but people who're chasing/bullying me whenever I post something.

Or whatever other corrective action, so long as it works. Perhaps a moderator-enforced restriction of Vasco-Caucasian topics to the appropriately named thread, at least for a while, would do the job.

I think you're smart enough to realize there're more topics around than the one calle "Vasco-Caucasian". In fact, it's ages since I posted anything about that.

[WeepingElf]

A distant (Mesolithic) relationship between IE and Altaic makes more sense to me than an Upper Paleolithic Altaic substratum language in Central Europe.

Possible, but I don't have any evidence for a genetical relationship between IE and Altaic. Even in that case, their common ancestor can't possibly be Mesolithic but very much older.

I don't claim that they are related. I just said that I consider a relationship more likely than an Altaic language in Central Europe. Indeed, the best hypothesis in this case is chance resemblance.

But the lexical resemblances between Altaic and Northwestern IE are actually so few that they can be dismissed as chance resemblances.

I'm sure they aren't so. There're "so few" simply because they're substrate loanwords.

If they are so few, you won't be able to prove that we are not dealing with chance resemblances; and indeed, chance resemblance is more likely than borrowing from a language family that is found many thousand kilometres away.

This root is actually represented in Basque garai 'high' and (g)al- in compounds.

Maybe, but it doesn't have any relevance here. To me, it looks like a chance resemblance, nothing else. Neither the sounds nor the meanings are close enough to make the correspondence meaningful.

I was referring to IE *kelH1-.

So as far as I know you, you will claim that root as a borrowing from Vasco-Caucasian, right? This is not relevant to the topic of this thread.

You should demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the root hal- in these toponyms specifically means 'salt'. Using your own words, "the burden of proof is on you".

If there are about a dozen (or more) places in Central Europe which contain the element hal- in their names, and all of them are ones where salt is (or was) produced, isn't that evidence enough that hal- means 'salt'?

This looks like a good start point.

Thanks. You can learn to accept arguments of others if you just want to. Of course, I don't know for sure that hal- means 'salt', but if it is as closely associated with salt production as it is, that is the most obvious hypothesis.

[Octaviano]

A distant (Mesolithic) relationship between IE and Altaic makes more sense to me than an Upper Paleolithic Altaic substratum language in Central Europe.

Possible, but I don't have any evidence for a genetical relationship between IE and Altaic. Even in that case, their common ancestor can't possibly be Mesolithic but very much older.

I don't claim that they are related. I just said that I consider a relationship more likely than an Altaic language in Central Europe. Indeed, the best hypothesis in this case is chance resemblance.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

I'm sure they aren't so. There're "so few" simply because they're substrate loanwords.

If they are so few, you won't be able to prove that we are not dealing with chance resemblances; and indeed, chance resemblance is more likely than borrowing from a language family that is found many thousand kilometres away.

Actually, Turkey isn't so far (in fact, the Otoman Empire occupied parts of the Balkans until World War I). But this is irrelevant to the matter.

So as far as I know you, you will claim that root as a borrowing from Vasco-Caucasian, right?

No, I didn't say that.

Thanks. You can learn to accept arguments of others if you just want to.

What a pity you couldn't do the same

Of course, I don't know for sure that hal- means 'salt', but if it is as closely associated with salt production as it is, that is the most obvious hypothesis.

"Obvious" is always a dangerous word in historical linguistics.

[Miekko]

Actually, Turkey isn't so far (in fact, the Otoman Empire occupied parts of the Balkans until World War I). But this is irrelevant to the matter.

But we know that the turks got into that area in historical times, and from central Asia. At the relevant time, the distance was bigger.

[Octaviano]

But we know that the turks got into that area in historical times, and from central Asia. At the relevant time, the distance was bigger.

Do you know which languages were spoken in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe?

[WeepingElf]

A distant (Mesolithic) relationship between IE and Altaic makes more sense to me than an Upper Paleolithic Altaic substratum language in Central Europe.

Possible, but I don't have any evidence for a genetical relationship between IE and Altaic. Even in that case, their common ancestor can't possibly be Mesolithic but very much older.

I don't claim that they are related. I just said that I consider a relationship more likely than an Altaic language in Central Europe. Indeed, the best hypothesis in this case is chance resemblance.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

It is your right to disagree. But it is my equal right to disagree with you.

I'm sure they aren't so. There're "so few" simply because they're substrate loanwords.

If they are so few, you won't be able to prove that we are not dealing with chance resemblances; and indeed, chance resemblance is more likely than borrowing from a language family that is found many thousand kilometres away.

Actually, Turkey isn't so far (in fact, the Otoman Empire occupied parts of the Balkans until World War I). But this is irrelevant to the matter.

Indeed, Turkey isn't far, but as you say, it is irrelevant as it constitutes a late expansion of Altaic.

So as far as I know you, you will claim that root as a borrowing from Vasco-Caucasian, right?

No, I didn't say that.

I never said you said that; it was only what I expected to happen next, judging from what I have seen of you in the past. Anyway, it doesn't really matter here.

Thanks. You can learn to accept arguments of others if you just want to.

What a pity you couldn't do the same

Oh, I have learned a lot over time, and I take all criticism of my hypothesis seriously. It is just that so far, most of your arguments failed to convince me because you did not provide sufficient evidence to back them up. I did, for instance, take the argument that the Hittite word for 'wheel' is unrelated to that found in several non-Anatolian IE languages seriously, and am no longer sure that the divergence of Anatolian must have been after the invention of the wheel. But so far you haven't shown me convincing evidence that the Old European hydronymy was Mesolithic rather than Neolithic, which, after all, is the main point of disagreement between us two.

Of course, I don't know for sure that hal- means 'salt', but if it is as closely associated with salt production as it is, that is the most obvious hypothesis.

"Obvious" is always a dangerous word in historical linguistics.

Sure. Indeed, I simply chose the wrong word; I meant plausible.

[Octaviano]

But so far you haven't shown me convincing evidence that the Old European hydronymy was Mesolithic rather than Neolithic, which, after all, is the main point of disagreement between us two.

Exactly, and there's still no convincing evidence it was Neolithic rather than Mesolithic, so this is an undecidable problem to me.

[Miekko]

But we know that the turks got into that area in historical times, and from central Asia. At the relevant time, the distance was bigger.

Do you know which languages were spoken in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe?

no, but MODERN Turkey, which you use as proof, is irrelevant to Meso- and neolithic Europe.

[WeepingElf]

But so far you haven't shown me convincing evidence that the Old European hydronymy was Mesolithic rather than Neolithic, which, after all, is the main point of disagreement between us two.

Exactly, and there's still no convincing evidence it was Neolithic rather than Mesolithic, so this is an undecidable problem to me.

Well, let's agree to disagree then. I am going to investigate these matters further, and see what evidence there is for which time period. I have stated the reasons why I consider a Neolithic origin of the Old European hydronymy more likely (the presumable lack of linguistic homogenity of Central and Western Europe in the Mesolithic, the salt-word), but I admit that so far, I cannot prove that the OEH is Neolithic.

[Octaviano]

no, but MODERN Turkey, which you use as proof, is irrelevant to Meso- and neolithic Europe.

Did you read my former statement: ... but this is IRRELEVANT to the subject.? I mentioned Turkey because Jörg said Altaic is thousands of kilometers away.

The evidence for an Altaic language once spoken in NW Europe is to be found in substrate loanwords.

[CaesarVincens]

The evidence for an Altaic language once spoken in NW Europe is to be found in substrate loanwords.

Do you see how this is a circular argument? And I mean that as a completely serious question.

You say that proto-Altaic is shown to be in NW Europe by its loans, and the loans can be proto-Altaic because it exists in NW Europe.

In other words, if proto-Altaic wasn't in NW Europe, the loans couldn't be proto-Altaic. Thus, your argument sounds like "But it was, so they are."

[Miekko]

no, but MODERN Turkey, which you use as proof, is irrelevant to Meso- and neolithic Europe.

Did you read my former statement: ... but this is IRRELEVANT to the subject.? I mentioned Turkey because Jörg said Altaic is thousands of kilometers away.

so why did you bring Turkey up? Any *beyond reasonable doubt* attested languages of those that are supposed to belong to Altaic in the first place were thousands of kilometers away at that point.

The evidence for an Altaic language once spoken in NW Europe is to be found in substrate loanwords.

Yeah, given some wishful thinking at this point. You haven't much shown that evidence to us, you know.