I’m not an archeologist and have no expertise on this topic. I find it fascinating though. As I understand it all Native American populations are believed to have descended from one founding population, or maybe that’s now open to debate (don’t pounce on me please; I don’t know enough to have an opinion). I’ve also read, however, that Native American languages, as a group are among the most diverse on the planet, more so than those of many other geographical groups, though I recall reading that Native Paupa/New Guenie (sorry about the misspelling; I’m on my phone and can’t conveniently look it up) languages are the most diverse. So, how does this linguistic diversity come about with but one founding population within a few millenia? Just curious, and hope someone here can clarify this.

There's considerable debate (with little being "settled" conclusively) about the time origins (and how many groups came when)of the people(s) who first settled the Americas. As the other thread clearly shows. That applies to languages as well.

When it comes to languages, the origins questions are similar:

"In American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America (1997), Lyle Campbell lists several hypotheses for the historical origins of Amerindian languages.

1. A single, one-language migration (not widely accepted)
2. A few linguistically distinct migrations (favored by Edward Sapir)
3. Multiple migrations
4. Multilingual migrations (single migration with multiple languages)
5. The influx of already diversified but related languages from the Old World
6. Extinction of Old World linguistic relatives (while the New World ones survived)
7. Migration along the Pacific coast instead of by the Bering Strait

Roger Blench (2008) has advocated the theory of multiple migrations along the Pacific coast of peoples from northeastern Asia, who already spoke diverse languages. These proliferated in the New World."

At any rate, it's fairly well accepted that the relative isolation of groups of peoples after their arrival fostered the rapid diversification of languages. Unlike the "old world," where groups that spoke different languages had frequent contact with other nearby groups, which tends to move languages closer together through sharing words, the Native American peoples were often widely separated and rather isolated, which tends to move languages further apart.

Yes. The estimates and hypothesis are all over the map on this.

The Kootenai language is a complete head scratcher.

Richard and I agree on something...

>>The estimates and hypothesis are all over the map on this.

Actually, there's quite a bit we do agree on:

>There were no such people as Jaredites, Nephites, or Lamanites...

The ancestors of today's Native Americans did come from Central Siberia/Mongolia...

Years ago--in the last century no less--when I first started posting on RFM, nobody had found a "linguistic connection" between Asian languages and Native American ones. This has changed...

https://vimeo.com/17584504

Wow, I'm going to have trouble pronouncing Dr. Vajda's last name...

The Ket Language is clearly related to Athabaskan languages; according to current views, the people who spoke this language were "latecomers" to cross into North Americans; we find the connection is between Navajo and Apache. They are known as the Yeniseian. There were already other Amerindian populations here prior to their arrival...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2018 09:52PM by SL Cabbie.

I guess Richard isn't a "narcissist" anymore.

The Ket-Athabascan connection is not a new theory but rather a century old. What is new is better analysis behind it.

It isn't clear, either, that the latter derived from the former. Some experts (Baynesians) think the evidence suggests a back-migration from Beringia into Asia.

The word isn't "analysis"; the words are "proof and evidence."

Don't expect LW to offer any factual documentation for those hypothetical claims (the word is "hypothesis," honest, not theory).

The "evidence" has always been there. What is different is that Vadja addressed similarities that were first noticed in the 1920s, did more thorough analysis, and reached a more plausible conclusion.

Did you know about the work on the topic in the early 20th century? Did you know about the research on the Ket-Athabaskan connection done in the middle 1990s? Because your statement that "nobody had found a 'linguistic connection' between Asian languages and Native American ones" when you first graced RfM in the late 1990s would seem to belie those facts. Have you read the literature on language super-families, some of which also asserted connections with the Yenisei region?

Are you familiar with Baynesian analysis? It appears that you are not, since you don't seem to understand that the Yenisei group probably came from Beringia to Central Asia and not the other way around.

I note that you have a master's degree in a related field. That is admirable, but that and a smattering of psychology do not entitle you to dismiss your rivals as "narcissists." Nor do they establish you as an expert, especially when you misuse and mis-date sources and are unfamiliar with vast swathes of research on the topic.

Perhaps you want to revert to the assertion that there are no authorities, so you have to be your own authority. You know, the participation trophy theory of scholarship.





*Edited to add: On rereading your earlier post, I see that you in fact do NOT have a degree in a field related to archaeology or linguistics. My bad.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2018 01:26AM by Lot's Wife.

You do have an obvious passion for offering up straw man arguments and lighting them with a match in order to proclaim victory for the forces of enlightenment.

/cognitive therapist voice on

The reference I made was to a supremely competent archaeologist, Anna C. Roosevelt, who summarized the state of the debate/discussion as it relates to the that subject. She rejects Monte Verde's legitimacy, and notes there is now solid evidence for pre-Clovis presence in this hemisphere. I was merely the reporter on that one, and for you to challenge it (especially since your credentials in this field are non-existent) is simply another of the follies you repeatedly subject us to.

There's also an attempt at "generalization" that is pretty pathological.

The were three typos I can't correct, and one should've read "no solid evidence for a pre-Clovis presence."

/Cabdriver Philosopher Voice On

Well, the correction will also serve to fill this redundant thread...

That's funny, Cabbie.

Your post above--you know, the one whose time stamp is "July 19, 2018 09:46PM"--was about the proposed Dené–Yenisei connection and had nothing to do with Clovis. I addressed that linguistic relationship. Now you claim that my doing so was creating a "straw man?"

Help me out here. Other than the usual self-congratulation, where in your post did you discuss anything but the linguistic evidence for the Central Asian-Native American relationship?


/confused student voice off



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2018 01:04AM by Lot's Wife.

There you go again... Tossing out another straw man argument and disingenuously trying to shift attention away from your "because I said so" claims (Cue up the Beatles: "Here come ol' Flattop")

I've posted about Siberian/Native American connections for a lot longer than you've been hassling people on RFM, honest.

I had the pleasure of e-mailing Simon Southerton the news of Eske Willerslev sequencing the mitDNA of Kennewick Man--shown to be hg X2a--and I brought up the "Anzick Clovis Child" whose DNA showed he belonged to a population ancestral to known Native American populations.

You've tried to "stick with an offense," and I'll concede, your attempts are offensive.

Now how about offering some actual support/evidence for you claims? We're still waiting...

I really did teach expository writing, and it's clear you would've had a tough time in one of my classes.

Let's see what substantive arguments you are offering. . .


> There you go again... Tossing out another straw
> man argument and disingenuously trying to shift
> attention away from your "because I said so"
> claims (Cue up the Beatles: "Here come ol'
> Flattop")


There is no argument in there.



---------------------

> I've posted about Siberian/Native American
> connections for a lot longer than you've been
> hassling people on RFM, honest.


Irrelevant.



--------------



> I had the pleasure of e-mailing Simon Southerton
> the news of Eske Willerslev sequencing the mitDNA
> of Kennewick Man--shown to be hg X2a--and I
> brought up the "Anzick Clovis Child" whose DNA
> showed he belonged to a population ancestral to
> known Native American populations.


Appeal to authority.



----------------
>
> You've tried to "stick with an offense," and I'll
> concede, your attempts are offensive.


Irrelevant.


------------

> Now how about offering some actual
> support/evidence for you claims? We're still
> waiting...


Nope, no argument in there.


----------------
>
> I really did teach expository writing, and it's
> clear you would've had a tough time in one of my
> classes.


Congratulations. You must feel very proud.

>>Don't expect LW to offer any factual documentation...

Q.E.D.

Still waiting for some links/etc. to support her claim...

What claim is that?

I asked if you knew that the linguistic connection was first mooted a century ago; and I asked if you were familiar with the Baynesian analysis.

You seem unwilling to answer those questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2018 10:45PM by Lot's Wife.

>>I asked if you knew that the linguistic connection was first mooted a century ago...

Had to "cheat" on that one and look up the word "moot" used as a verb (I knew it was an adjective, of course, usually meaning "irrelevent"). Never mind that superfluous subordinate conjunction; I would've just used the blue pencil on that one...

v: raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).

That's pretty ambiguous. Vajda offered some solid linguistic proof, and you've unsuccessfully tried to denigrate his work. I'm still asking for references--you're looking at a D- right now, and that's being generous--for that claim there was a linguistic connection specifically between the Ket People and Native Americans that dated to a hundred years ago, and you've presented it as a reality...

In poker terms, I've been "all in" for quite a while, and you're just prolonging your little dance/game before you fold your hand. The phrase "walking back" is also apropos.

Jules Verne spoke of space travel, but it wasn't until the Sputnik and NASA programs made it an actual reality that it left the realm of imagination and entered that of reality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2018 01:25PM by SL Cabbie.

please address your scare quotes. And don't write "stet."

You begin by mischaracterizing what I wrote about Vajda:


> Vajda offered some solid
> linguistic proof, and you've unsuccessfully tried
> to denigrate his work.


No, I never denigrated Vajda's work. I denigrated your work, if that word makes any sense in this context.

--------------------------------


> I'm still asking for
> references. . . for that claim there was a
> linguistic connection specifically between the Ket
> People and Native Americans that dated to a
> hundred years ago, and you'v presented it as a
> reality...


You put that incorrectly. I did not state that there "was a specific linguistic connection . . . that dated to a hundred years ago." The linguistic connection dates to several thousand years ago.

What is roughly one hundred years old, if not more, is the observation of linguistic similarities between the Yeniseian and Na-Dene language groups and the proposal that they are related. But why don't you know that? Vajda mentions it in some of his publications as well as in your favored medium, Youtube videos.

There was also a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the middle 1990s--I believe it was on language super-families--that described the proposed linguistic connection. Vajda addressed that in one of his papers as well. . .

One gets the sneaking suspicion that you have not actually read Vajda. Is that true, Cabbie? Is he, like advanced analytical techniques and the probable back-migration of Yeniseian peoples and languages, something that is easier to posture over than to study?



----------------------


>
> In poker terms, I've been "all in" for quite a
> while, and you're just prolonging your little
> dance/game before you fold your hand. The phrase
> "walking back" is also apropos.


I take it that the avoidance of mixed metaphors was not a topic you emphasized when teaching remedial English.



----------------------

>
> Jules Verne spoke of space travel, but it wasn't
> until the Sputnik and NASA programs made it an
> actual reality that it left the realm of
> imagination and entered that of reality.


That's just stupid.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2018 07:17AM by Lot's Wife.

Sheesh! The only thing I did was post a link to Vajda's work, period.

I did, in other threads, accurately report that the "Existence of Pre-Clovis People" was still a matter of debate, and I linked Anna C. Roosevelt as one who addressed that issue and held that POV.

#having trouble minding my manners at these obvous personal attacks

BTW, we're still waitng for some links supporting those claims, whether to peer-reviewed articles or actual books...

Anybody seen the missing links?

/crickets



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2018 08:01PM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:


> I did, in other threads, accurately report that
> the "Existence of Pre-Clovis People" was still a
> matter of debate. . .

No, time and again you said that there were no pre-Clovis people and that Richard and I were "narcissistic" for disagreeing with you on that point. It now appears, however, that your stance is changing towards recognition that the Clovis-first model is under siege and the pre-Clovis view is approaching consensus.

I would add that adjusting your opinion when confronted by the superior evidence that is emerging from the field--if that is what you are doing--is worthy of respect. That is how it is supposed to happen.


-------------------

>. . . I linked Anna C. Roosevelt
> as one who addressed that issue and held that
> POV.

Your citation to Roosevelt saying that there is no consensus on the Clovis/pre-Clovis debate dated to 2001. That was 17 years ago. It is unreasonable to intimate that her views have not been affected by the considerable discoveries and analysis that have taken place since then.


-------------------

> #having trouble minding my manners at these obvous
> personal attacks

I have replied to you in kind: nothing more. That nonsense about your being an expert in psychology and qualified to diagnose others was not wise argumentative technique; nor was your constant harping about your credentials as a teacher and the metaphorical wielding of your blue correction pen. Dialogue stems from evidence and logic, not pomposity and poorly-crafted insults.


--------------------

> BTW, we're still waitng for some links supporting
> those claims, whether to peer-reviewed articles or
> actual books...

I am not going to do your work for you.

If you had read Vajda's publications, or even watched all of his Youtube videos, you would know something about the 1920s discussion of the linguistic connections between Native America and Central Asia. If you had perused his writings, you would likewise know about the articles that were published on the Dene-Yeniseian relationship in the late 1990s and be familiar with the work in 2010-2014 on the probable back-migration of the Yeniseian peoples from Beringia into Asia.

If you are truly "all in," as you assert, you don't need me to lead you by the hand. You can read Vajda and follow the footnotes, or you can google the terms I have used in this thread and find the sources. No one is hiding the ball.


---------------


>/crickets

You produced a link to a single Youtube video. On the basis of a limited understanding of that video, you have argued copiously and intemperately. Now you ask me to go back and tell you what you should have read in order to engage in an informed dialogue even though the answers are only a few keystrokes away.

Do your own work.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2018 06:11AM by Lot's Wife.

See Lot's Wife Fashion a Distorted Argument (known as a Straw Man).

See Lot's Wife set fire to that creation and proclaim victory for the forces of enlightenment...

See Lot's Wife make herself look dishonest with the following:

>Your citation to Roosevelt saying that there is no consensus on the Clovis/pre-Clovis debate dated to 2001. That was 17 years ago. It is unreasonable to intimate that her views have not been affected by the considerable discoveries and analysis that have taken place since then.

See Cabbie produce a link to a 2012 video of Dr. Roosevelt speaking to the same subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-uoAWywOE&t=4661s

See Cabbie quote extensively from Stuart Fiedel's work that also challenged Monte Verde's legitmacy...

See Cabbie get ready to produce a whole lot of authentic science information from peer-reviewed sources and offer it as reporting of the current state of the debate on the origins of the ancestors of today's Native Americans.

(And unlike many who try to foist their beliefs on others, I'll simply put what I've found out there but remain willing to call others on their manipulations. I give people the right to "do their own thinking"; two "ex-Mormons" I respect greatly--actually they're both still on church rolls--spoke of how important developing that ability was. One is Will Bagley, and the other is my old man, the retired rocket scientist)

See Cabbie give geography lessons even though he's only a former English teacher... And throw in a bit of meteorology as well...

Anyway, apologies for the delays; I've been busy elsewhere with some family stuff, some other "Ex-mormon support" stuff for a friend, some job stuff that's really annoying.

And a moment of silence for "Col. Thomas Kane"; if you're somewhat new to RFM, I hope there's an old-timer around to tell that story. I had some help back then, and I've got some help now as well.

Honest, folks, I know we cabbies have real trouble with road rage and minding our manners, but I'm doing my best to try to stay polite.

I don't understand your need continually to double down on a losing argument. But I guess there is something in those recesses that compels you to broadcast your insecurities for all to observe.

Let's go through your arguments.

--------------------



SL Cabbie Wrote that Lot's Wife is making "herself look dishonest with the following:"

> >Your citation to Roosevelt saying that there is
> no consensus on the Clovis/pre-Clovis debate dated
> to 2001. That was 17 years ago.

That made me look dishonest, Cabbie?

On July 16, 2018 you quoted Elaine Dewar's 2001 "Bones" to the effect that Roosevelt said "There are no authorities. You're going to have to be the authority."

A serious academic would have looked at the footnotes and cited Roosevelt herself, but that would probably have been too much trouble. What matters is that your 2001 book really was a 2001 book; and that truly was 17 years ago.

So there's no dishonesty there.

---------------



SL Cabbie writes:

> See Cabbie produce a link to a 2012 video of Dr.
> Roosevelt speaking to the same subject.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-uoAWywOE&t=4661
> s

Fascinating. You cite a 2012 source now to intimate that you cited it in the previous thread when, as we both know, you did no such thing.

---------------



SL Cabbie writes:

> See Cabbie quote extensively from Stuart Fiedel's
> work that also challenged Monte Verde's
> legitmacy...

You conspicuously haven't done that yet.

But your statement does bring up an important point about Fiedel's work and also about the aforementioned 2012 video of Roosevelt. What point, you ask? That both of them are about Monte Verde, which was not the topic at hand. The topic of the previous thread was Gault, and that of this thread was the linguistic connection to the old world. You appear to be avoiding discussion of subjects about which you know relatively little by pretending we were talking about something you think you know better.

To win an argument--nay, to participate meaningfully in a conversation--you need to address the subjects under discussion and not just throw sand in the air and hope no one notices.

------------



> See Cabbie get ready to produce a whole lot of
> authentic science information from peer-reviewed
> sources and offer it as reporting of the current
> state of the debate on the origins of the
> ancestors of today's Native Americans.

Well, I confess that your threat has me trembling in my heels. Will the "whole lot" of sources you plan to batter me with be more Youtube videos or dare one hope for an actual peer-reviewed study? Will they be relevant to Gault, the Yeniseian languages, or the pre-Clovis debate?

Or do you intend to stick with Youtube videos and Monte Verde?

----------------



> I give people the right to "do
> their own thinking. . ."

Do you, Cabbie?

-----------



> two "ex-Mormons" I respect
> greatly--actually they're both still on church
> rolls--spoke of how important developing that
> ability was. One is Will Bagley, and the other is
> my old man, the retired rocket scientist)

Appeal to authority.

In this case, to authorities on completely unrelated topics. Could you perhaps refer to Stephen King? I like Stephen King.

--------------



> See Cabbie give geography lessons even though he's
> only a former English teacher... And throw in a
> bit of meteorology as well...

Cabbie's shoulder joints are remarkably flexible.

----------------


> And a moment of silence for "Col. Thomas Kane"; if
> you're somewhat new to RFM, I hope there's an
> old-timer around to tell that story. I had some
> help back then, and I've got some help now as
> well.

Rather than invoking the names of the deceased, you should seek help from the living. Otherwise it's just talismanic chanting

-----------------



> Honest, folks, I know we cabbies have real trouble
> with road rage and minding our manners, but I'm
> doing my best to try to stay polite.

Don't put yourself out on my behalf. Truth be told, I am not really trembling in my heels. I have grown inured to your accusations of narcissism and dishonesty and fear your anger no more than your intellect.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2018 04:47AM by Lot's Wife.

Gosh, Cabbie, you're stealing material shamelessly. I just got off the phone with a fellow hackster and declined a breakfast invitation. I heard that story from him years ago, and the dispatcher who first uttered it was a local legend...

Got anything factual besides the personal attacks? I keep warning people about getting into a swearing contest with a cabdriver, and they persist even though they do most of the swearing.

Gotta hand it to LW; Mormons speak "in tongues"; she speaks in clichés...

Stole a shot from Beth below with that "appeal to authority" crapola. That's another example of a "straw man fetish," honest.

It also plugged up the ol' bullchip filter.

Stand by, folks, I'll give a nice scholarly accounting--despite the Denial C. Peterson act I'm being subjected to--and an overview of the subject.

If you want to keep this thread on the top of the list for all to see, go ahead. It's masochistic, but to each his own.



------------------

> Gosh, Cabbie, you're stealing material
> shamelessly. I just got off the phone with a
> fellow hackster and declined a breakfast
> invitation. I heard that story from him years ago,
> and the dispatcher who first uttered it was a
> local legend...

I am glad you have friends.



---------------

> Got anything factual besides the personal attacks?

Lots of facts, as evident in my posts in this and the last thread.

Have you read the Vajda you cited yet?



-------------

> I keep warning people about getting into a
> swearing contest with a cabdriver, and they
> persist even though they do most of the swearing.

We are not in a "swearing contest." We are in a debate over an academic topic. But if you feel more comfortable cursing, go ahead. Use your words.



-----------------
>
> Gotta hand it to LW; Mormons speak "in tongues";
> she speaks in clichés...
>
> Stole a shot from Beth below with that "appeal to
> authority" crapola. That's another example of a
> "straw man fetish," honest.

If you look very carefully at the posting dates and times, you'll see that I accused you of "appeal to authority" before Beth did. But this time you are mistaken by only a day or two whereas in your Roosevelt reference you missed the mark by 17 years, so I guess we are making progress of a sort.



------------

> Stand by, folks, I'll give a nice scholarly
> accounting--despite the Denial C. Peterson act I'm
> being subjected to--and an overview of the
> subject.

You are such a TEASE. You have been promising a "scholarly accounting" for weeks, nay months. Will you deliver?

I hate a man who can't deliver.

/remedial writing teacher's voice back on

And I gotta love the way LW upholds her "Hypocritic Oath" (stole that one from Alan Alda) with this one:

>>If you look very carefully at the posting dates and times, you'll see that I accused you of "appeal to authority"...

Says the individual who spoke so fondly of "Richard the Bad's" writings and tried to attack my claims with them...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, I'm going to have trouble pronouncing Dr.
> Vajda's last name...

The "j" is silent. So it's like "Vada."

:)

VEYE-Dih...

SLC
Not trying to provoke anything, just hoping to get this thread filled so I don't have to go to my AA sponsor and confess all my anger issues...

Thank you so much for your responses and the reference. I’ve been wondering about this for a long time. I will follow-up w/reading.

Obviously the Tower of Babel was in Albuquerque.


The Jaredites bobbed around Lake Powell for a while instead of across the vast ocean--hell, they were sealed up in their barges tight like like unto a dish--they didn't know they only traveled 100 miles....


Hey, it's as good as anything Joe Smith came up with.

Like the Isrealites wandering in the wilderness: 40 years to cover a distance for which an overnight bag would have sufficed.

I went and read the previous thread and realized that I missed a really, really, REALLLLY good time.

Please keep it going, but let's leave Kerry out of it. Please? It's not an homage to a departed loved one, and he really hated name dropping.

Personally, I think Kerry's ghost is watching this drama closely... Your statement is about your grief, and that's understandable; however there are other POV's.

I've certainly got some "metaphysical beliefs" that aren't typical of ex-Mormons...

And if I check out of this place at some point and someone is speaking highly of something I said, I hope I'm somewhere I'll be able to appreciate it.

If not, well...

/cabdriver philosopher voice off



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2018 12:25AM by SL Cabbie.

to a dead man.

Good on you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2018 12:25AM by Beth.

Meanwhile, native peoples claim they've always been here.