Unmundisto wrote:Anyway, I'm not claiming that the Japanese/Tupi word-similarities prove that the words in question are common-ancestor survivals. But I'm saying that it isn't a terribly important issue either.
If by "issue" you mean the hypothesis of a common origin for Tupian and Japonic, then I agree with you. But I'm addressing the larger issue, which is one of properly evaluating arguments according to the evidence presented for them--not only in historical linguistics but also in the scientific endeavour in general.
Ah, so we're a defender of science. But if you're referring to your linked-to mathematical demonstration, then I remind you that it isn't a "proof" (to use your word) regarding the Japanese/Tupi instance. How often our Internet Defenders of Science turn out to just be ill-mannered common net-abusing pseudoscientists.
'
And that absolutely does matter. Because otherwise it leads to conclusions like this:Unmundisto wrote:No, I haven't checked the OP's information. As I said, one of your objections is that such checking would need to be done, to verify the information, and I don't deny that. But in the initial posting, the word-similarities are remarkable.
That conclusion is simply not justified by the evidence presented.
I said that the similarities were remarkable--remarkablly close. I didn't say that they were conclusive. "Remarkable" and "Conclusive" are two different words, and don't have the same meaning. Remarkable similiarities needn't be conclusive in their import. You're still confusing word-meanings.
You do not know enough Tupi to judge whether the words listed are (a) actually attested; (b) accurately cited; or (c) mean something even close to what the Japanese words next to them mean.
A silly statement, because I clealy said the closeness of the meanings and sounds would need checking.
[For that matter, I'm also willing to bet you don't know enough Japanese to evaluate whether the definitions which John and Cumberbatch have given are accurate either.
As I said before, I'd already said that the closeness of the meanings and the sounds, of the paired words, would need checking.
You're looking at this list through doubly blind eyes and seeing only what you want to see.]
I made it clear that I wasn't taking a position on the common origin of the paired words. So it isn't entirely clear what beliefs of mine Linguoboy is referring to.
Unmundisto wrote:"Impressive" is a subjective term. And subjectively, I think anyone who would even consider applying it to short, dubious list like this is very easily impressed.
One thing I like about Unilang is its absence of flamewarrior behavior; well almost. Try to limit yourself to the topic, as opposed to exprssion of your opinions of those with whom you disagree.
One thing I like about Unilang is that posters are generally well informed about languages and linguistics. We can't have everything we want from this thread, can we?
Yeah that's what I was referring to: Linguoboy feels a need to evaluate and express his opinion of those with whom he disagrees.
Linguoboy wants to imply that I've been making mis-statements that result from a lack of information about languages and linguistics. But, like other typical common flamewarriors and internet-abusers, Linguoboy forgot to specify the mis-statements, and how they result from some particular specified incorrect beliefs about languages or linguistics. It's easier to just do blanket, vague, unspecified and sloppy attempt at criticism.
I've participated in Internet discussions and debates before, on various subjects not including language, and I'm quite familiar with common net-abusers and their usual behaviors. So I'm not saying that I'm surprised to encounger another Internet abuser on the Internet. But I must admit that it's a bit disappointing to find that typical example of flamewarror-behavior here at Unilang, which seemed to be relatively free of it. I'd spoken of Unilang's "absence of flamewarrior behavior", but now I'm going to have to retract what I said then.
I've clarified that I don't make claims regarding a common origin of the OP's word-pairs.
I've said a number of things that make it clear that I don't claim to be a linguist. I haven't made claims about qualifications of mine. Therefore, Linguoboy's point in challenging my qualifications (of which I've claimed none) is unclear. ...except that common net-abusers need to criticize.
Maybe Linbuoboy is just saying that I shouldn't participate here, because I'm not a linguist, or am not expert enough. Just in case he's representatively speaking for the others at this website, I'll quit participating here. After I post this message, I'll cancel my membership at this website.
But another good reason to quit participating here is just because, for any forum-topic, there's no need or justificiation for participants to devote their postings to their opinions of other participants. Decorum matters, regarding the matter of whether or not a forum is worthwhile, and whether we like being there and are inclined to return.
Unmundisto
United States (United States)