MK rote:

:In > Cluster User wrote:

:>MK wrote:

{examples deleted}

:Did you take this one well also...?

paradox's style is at times heated, but the points he raises
are valid, polat kaya's is not.

:>>to blow some hot air. Thus, I challenged him to provide
:>>an alternative list, with his own choice of arternative
:>>languages, and asked him to name which official Turkish
:>>scientist and study (or whatever it was) he was talking
:>>about...
:>
:>I don't blame him for not remembering the name of crackpots,

:Of course you wouldn't... :) Maybe you guys are "crackpots"
:yourselves too, how could one know...?

not worthy of an answer.

:>but they do exist, politically motivated ones too.

:I know many so-called "objective linguists" who are very
:much "politically driven" too, and I believe you are one
:of them...

everyone has political opinions, proposing idiotic theories
to justify political action is a different matter.

:>In the 80's the author of "erzurum agzInda osmanlIca kelimeler"
:>(perhaps "sozcUkler" - "ottoman words in erzurum speech") was
:>one of them, as can be seen from the title. the loanwords were
:>hardly the literary loans of the ottoman period, the attempt
:>was to show that kurdish - persian cognates were just that. I
:>too didn't bother to remeber the name of the author, and I am
:>not about to make a trip to turkey just for that.

:You had brought this up in a previous discussion with me
:also. I had asked you which words were you talking about
:and you had given a similar answer then too...

:The thing is, if it is important for you to bring such a
:garbage into a debate, then it should be important enough
:for you to remember it...! Otherwise it it nothing more

this is demagogry.

:than irrelevant bull-shit story based on your personal
:opinion...! 

I have given sufficient information for people to find the
book. I can even tell you it is found in most major turkish
university libraries.

:In the past, whenever I expressed my opinion about Turkish
:(admittedly), you labeled it as "linguistic nationalism"...

I have explained what is meant by it in this thread as well.
it means the movement to purge a language of what are deemed
"foreign" words.

:Next time you bring up this story, I will expect that you
:will also tell us what those words are specificly...! So

I have repeated it over and over again.

:that we can see what you are talking about beyond your mere
:opinion...

:...

:Then, why do you expect a "perfect, unrefutable Sumerian-
:Ural/Altaic word list" in a newsgroup to begin with...?

just that one has to remark at the mistakes in it.

:And why do you defend someone's empty, arrogant, irrelevant,
:trashy remarks, where one could simply say "hey, this list
:is just not good enough"...?

it started about with a comment that amounted to that.

:>>Why not stop trying to read between the lines, and take
:>>this for what it is...?
:>
:>I am only answering your post.

:But I don't think you see my point and neither do I think
:that you can... Because your "anti-linguistic nationalism"

no. besides, I expalined the philosophical foundations for it
are from german sources.

:pretension works only against Turks. When it comes to the

I didn't say so. besides, the "sun language theory" by itself
is not linguistic nationalism. in fact it function was to 
effectively put the breaks on "linguistic nationalsim" (since
all languages originally came from turkish, purging of loanwords
was unnecessary) without actually having to abandon it
ideologically. I explaiend this before.

:subject of creating one "Sun-Kurdish Language" out of many


:mutually unintelligible "*dialects*" (as you call them) in

reread my posts on the subject. I did not make, at least I
am sure I didn't insist, on a categorical statement like that. 
if you are interested, there is a thread in sci.lang about
the distinction between dialects and languages and what is
meant by "mutual intelligibility".

:order to create a global "Kurdish national identity", you
:are all for it...

 I didn't say that. in fact, I have told you that
ethnic identity and language are not always the same.

:...


after being bored by MK, sorry if I bored you with a reply.
it was just to set the record straight.

In > Cluster User wrote:

>In >,  says...
>
> let me put a disclaimer on my "improvements". I was merely going
> along with the fairly loose approach given by the list, I didn't
> claim I was endorsing all the claims made by the poster.

That's fine and neither have I... Although I made a humble
attempt to suggest some corrections, I also raised a few
questions for which I had no answers...

>> My comment was about people picking out the "father" word
>> and going wild with it to discharge whatever they were
>> holding in their chests ("Sun Languages Theory" and all
>> that irrelevant garbage...)
>
> even if the poster's claim is false, a discussion on why some
> people feel the need to pursue such claims is an interesting
> topic in itself.

Perhaps so... But, may be such claims should be discussed
as a separate topic by itself... Besides, I have not said
that their claims were false but found them irrelevant to
current topic...

>>>> "Are there, or are there not similarities between 
>>>> "the Sumerian and Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish and
>>>> "Mongolian words in the list that was posted...?"
>>>
>>> No. Which of course is competely irrelevant.
>>
>> Then, would you mind telling us why did you bother to
>> involve yourself with an irrelevant subject...? :)
>
> the examples and methodology of the list may be seriously
> flawed and thus irrelavant, but the discussion, even with
> a negative conclusion in the end, may not be.

It may be flawed but not irrelevant... The list contained
enough material relevant to the subject of the thread...
I agree with your last remark though (which is what I had
tried to convey in a different style)...

>>>> "Are there, or are there not similarities between 
>>>> "the Sumerian and Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish and
>>>> "Mongolian words in the list that was posted...?"
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Thank you, you made my day... :)
>
> however, the list does not prove a genetic relationship
> between uralic, altaic and sumerian.

This is a mild example of what I am objecting to in this
thread, that is arriving at conclusions that get ahead
of the discussion... I hadn't asked him whether the list
proved a genetic relationship and neither did he answer
"yes" to such a question. Can we just take things one
step at a time and try to ask more questions rather than
hurrying to give "case closing type" answers...?

>>> numbers (other linguists, please bear with...):
>>
>> Go ahead, knock yourself off... We are used to being patronized
>> by "linguists"... :)
>
> if you don't want to listen that's your problem.

Oh, I'm listenin alright... I just felt the comment
was unnecessary...

>> Now, could you please help us in a constructive way in
>> weeding out such "surface similarities" in the word-list
>> that is being discussed here...?
>
> regular sound changes and historic, genetic data, comparing
> grammer etc. 

I meant something a little more specific... Are you
making a blanket statement, that for example, after
looking at the list, you don't see any regular sound
changes at all...?

>> As to "fudging", it is true that there is some of that but
>> how does one avoid "fudging" in liguistics anyway...? Even
>> when ancient alphabets are decoded, how does one tell with
>
> decoding the alphabet amounts to establishing the sounds.
> reconstructions by comparative methods, looking how words
> have been borrowed from or into other languages, ........

I won't quote all of your explanations but I appreciate
your taking time to answer my question at legth...

>> please bear with "amateur" questions like this... :)
>
> what colud be elaborated more in the discussion is the relation
> of sumerian to the caucasian languages that are grouped with
> the hypothetical caucasian - dene superfamily and thus unrelated,
> unless at very very distant date to the hypothetical nostratic
> superfamily. I believe there is resemblance in the sumerian
> numeral system to the caucasian languages and to basque.

Of course, Basque is one of the "Sun Languages" too... :)
Joking aside, I think it would be interesting to see this
brought into the discussion by actually posting those
numeral systems, etc. if you could...

MK

Tudom, hogy latin szavakat többféleképpen szokás/lehet kiejteni.
 Ezen nincs is semmi csodálatos, hiszen olyan hatalmas területen és
 olyan sok évszázadon át beszéltek latinul, hogy ha még pontosan lehetne
 is tudni, hogy hogyan ejtették mondjuk Rómában vagy Hispániában a pun
 háborúk korában vagy a III. században a szavakat, nem lehetne
 eldönteni, hogy az eltérő kiejtések közül melyiket nevezzük jónak.

 Van egy kiejtés, ami - ha jól érzékelem -, Középeurópában terjedt el.
 A latin imákat, énekeket ugyan úgy hallja/hallotta az ember a legutóbbi
 időkig lengyel, német, szlovák vagy magyar szájból.

 Az olaszok sok latin szót másképp, olaszosan mondanak. Különösen
 feltünő a magas magánhangzók előtti cs-nek, illetve dzs-nek
 mondott c és g. Pl.: suscepit = szuszcsépit, resurget = rezurdzset stb.
 Amerikai lemezeken is ezt hallja az ember. Ezzel magyarázom, hogy
 mostanában nálunk is egyre terjed az ilyen kiejtés.

 Nem tartom jónak. Ha ez végleges, akkor ismét eltűnik egy kultúrális
 szinfolt, egy hagyomány. Uniformizáltabb, szegényebb lesz a világ.
 Persze látom, hogy nem ez a legkirívóbb eset :-(.

 Mi erről a véleményetek?

 Üdv,
 Miklós

 ====================================================================
 Pa'sztor Miklo's            | E-mail: 
 MTA SZTAKI/ASZI Budapest
 1132 V. Hugo u. 18-22       | Tel:  (36)-(1)-149-75-32
 ====================================================================