Some Latin and Uto-Aztecan Correspondences

[_Symmachus]

You are all very kind. I hope it is all at least a little bit helpful in seeing the kinds of questions Stubbs' work needs to address.

It occurs to me that the main question to ask is: what does all this actually explain? Whether it is through contact or through genetic descent, we should remember that Stubbs' book is called Exploring the Explanatory Power of the Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan. Hansen has pointed out that in the few areas where Stubbs' theory has explanatory implications for Uto-Aztecan philology, other theories can account for the evidence without positing Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan. Section 6 of his book is the only section that specifically addresses the explanatory value of his theory for Uto-Aztecan philology; it comprises about 16 pages out of the 436 pages that my version has. What are the 400+ pages explaining then? Nothing really. They answer a question no one has asked—no one, at least, but those in search of a connection between the 7th century Near East and Meso-America. If you are in search of that connection, then all his rules for sound-change do is provide an explanatory bridge between Near Eastern languages and Proto-Uto-Aztecan; they explain only how selectively chosen bits of Near Eastern languages could have influenced Uto-Aztecan, but they do not demonstrate such influence. And in any case, like many a conspiracy theory the explanation is supported nothing but its own consistency, a consistency that contains numerous exceptions when it isn't manufactured outright through special pleading.

My guess is the response would be that mixed-language still doesn't cover it, and that his wording "infusion" etc. indicates he's picking up on a signal, but lets not pidgeon-hole it just yet and let the data speak for itself. The selling point is there is a lot of data picking up a correlation, and what could it mean?

If that's what's going on, it's very problematic in my opinion. Proof will be if clarifications on method aren't forthcoming, the arguments stay in the weeds (no that root objection could be debated) and continued emphasis on a mountain of "consistent data".

I agree with this, and I suspect it will soon join the ranks of the immortal pantheon of apologetic theories. There, the Sovereign Savior of Semitico-Egypto-Uto-Aztecan shall find her throne on the Divine Council of the Elizabethan Ghost Committee and assume her crown beneath the gaze of the Lord of Limited Geography, the Crescent Queen of Chiasmus, the Sacral Child of Small Population Theory, and the Numinous One of NHM. We are meant to worship the deities of this pantheon and accept their guidance as revealed to their priests in exile from their former shrine at the Maxwell Institute who await the Imminent Return of Holland the Conqueror—that day shall be a cataclysm of dismissals, firings, and shifting of budgetary priorities that shall summon the Spirit of Nibley from his Occultation! Though they be but humble farmsers, the Priests of Maxwell alone can help us encounter the mysterious sense of "truth" that vibrates in our bones when we contemplate the immortals of this pantheon. Far be it from us to profane the deities or harangue their priests through interrogation.

[_Dr LOD]

Here is a question that I didn't see addressed in the Mopologist work of Stubbs. Exactly when did this infusion of old world languages show up in the new world?

Most of what he seems to infer is that it is "Nephite" Meaning it came from Jerusalem about 600 BC or 2600 years ago. This would make sense in the fact that the languages he is trying to compare (Egyptian, Semitic, and Hebrew) at least existed in some form at the time. The only other would be Jaredite which has a timeline of about 4300 years ago, it would also have the problem of what language were they speaking at the time? I don't see Stubbs using the Adamic language "Pay Lay Ale" in his comparisons.

Looking things up in actual peer reviewed academic journals one can find that the timing of the events of diffusion of the Uto-Aztecan languages is way way off. in addition for the most part it continues to be academically accepted that the origin of the language groups is the US southwest about 4500 years ago, and not not of a Mesoamerican origin.


https://www.google.com/search?q=timeline+of+uto-aztecan&rlz=1C1GCEV_enUS851US851&oq=timeline+of+uto-aztecan&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.7207j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

As for linguistic evidence, Mesoamerican archaeologists often cite Swadesh’s glotto chronological figures for the Uto-Aztecan diversification,figures which more or less match carbon-14 dating for sites identified through ethno-historical records and settlement patterns with Nahuatl speakers, and which are therefore still accepted in spite of criticisms of the method. These figures place the diversification of the Uto-Aztecan family at 4500 to 4700 years ago, and within it, of Nahuatl at AD 600

So how does a diversification of the Uto-Aztecan or even the Proto language that Stubbs commonly refer to in his work happen with a language that he is saying came to somewhere in the Americas 2600 years ago when the actual diversification of the language took place long before this time?

I am highly suspicious of the work of Dr. Stubbs, he started this line of thinking way way before he even had a BS degree and it started as a gospel hobby. His degrees in linguistics came much later more as a way to finally pad his CV. He also has a huge lack of supporting archaeological and/or genetic evidence for his theories.

[_Kishkumen]

We are meant to worship the deities of this pantheon and accept their guidance as revealed to their priests in exile from their former shrine at the Maxwell Institute who await the Imminent Return of Holland the Conqueror—that day shall be a cataclysm of dismissals, firings, and shifting of budgetary priorities that shall summon the Spirit of Nibley from his Occultation!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Niblhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[_Dr Moore]

Why is it so difficult to combat trained, credentialed subject matter experts who seek to convince masses of untrained, uncredentialed that commonly held beliefs are buttressed by a synthesized presentation of studies from their highly technical field?

[_Symmachus]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Niblhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

I'm sure you meant "NiblhuJI," as we ought never omit the honorific suffix rightly owed our Master, but I must admit my blood ran cold when I saw this. I am but a lowly adjunct at Cassius, so shame upon me for addressing a noble reverend, but even I wouldn't commit the oaths and covenants of the Archaic Year Rite to writing, much less publicize them.

[_Physics Guy]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh ... R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

The Semitic borrowing is obvious here if we postulate final -t > -lw'nafh.

[Original quote redacted because I've heard naming calls.]

[_Kishkumen]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Niblhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

I'm sure you meant "NiblhuJI," as we ought never omit the honorific suffix rightly owed our Master, but I must admit my blood ran cold when I saw this. I am but a lowly adjunct at Cassius, so shame upon me for addressing a noble reverend, but even I wouldn't commit the oaths and covenants of the Archaic Year Rite to writing, much less publicize them.

medio tribunal sedem curulem et sedes effigiem Niblonis sustinebat. ad quam progressus Kishkumen, caesis ex more victimis, sublatum capiti diadema imagini subiecit, maximis apud cunctos animorum motibus, quos augebat insita adhuc oculis Cassianorum caedes aut obsidio.

[_Philo Sofee]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Niblhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

I'm sure you meant "NiblhuJI," as we ought never omit the honorific suffix rightly owed our Master, but I must admit my blood ran cold when I saw this. I am but a lowly adjunct at Cassius, so shame upon me for addressing a noble reverend, but even I wouldn't commit the oaths and covenants of the Archaic Year Rite to writing, much less publicize them.

Well, I mean you could, you would just have to hide it in a story such as Cervantes did with Don Quixote, and Rabelais did with Gargantua and Pantagruel, Shakespeare with Taming of the Shrew, and Venus and Adonis, Dante did with Paradise, Carroll did with Alice in Wonderland, etc. If you hide it in plain sight with analogy and metaphor you can reveal every secret of the heavens as has already been done. The bonus is you don't even need a Urim and Thummim to translate it, and you get to keep your head!

[_Gadianton]

"The Relationship between Genetic Relatedness and Borrowing
Here I must point out that borrowing *does* implicate the Comparative Historical Method. First, though, I must note that when one language borrows from another, there is a compulsory transformation of the loanword to accommodate the shared speech habits of the speakers of the receiving language. [See the Polynesian/IsiNdebele papers listed above as examples.]

Note that borrowing is comparable to the three rules of the Comparative Historical Method:

1. Finding Similarities Genetic Relatedness: Words that are cognates in sister languages are equivalent to the ancestral words from which they descend, having similar sounds and meanings.
Borrowing: Words in the donor language are equivalent to words in the receiving language, having similar sounds and meanings.

2. Reconstructing Genetic Relatedness: Based on cognates, ancestral forms are postulated from which the words of the daughter languages can be derived.
Borrowing: The words of the donor language are the words from which the receiving language can be derived.

3. Derivational Rules Genetic Relatedness: If results turn out to be valid, rules applied to the words of the ancestral form must correctly predict the sounds and the meanings of the words attested in the daughter languages.

Borrowing: If results turn out to be valid, rules applied to the words of the donor language must correctly predict the sounds and the meanings of the borrowed words of the receiving language.

My bottom line: if phonology worked to predict borrowing, then people would just do that and save themselves some work.

Since I only see possibilities in his first point, I will respond to his post starting with the conclusion and working backwards.

His summary: toss out of court. we know rules apply, we just have 27 different possible rules and don't know which one without more information.

point 3: toss out of court, see above.

point 2: "The words of the donor language are the words from which the receiving language can be derived" -- but is this "based on cognates...???" if not, how does it help Stubbs? Does Stubbs do anything else?

point 1: To the point that Symmachus makes, "the phonology of language A sets the limits of possible realizations for loanwords from language B, but it doesn't predict them": I advance an objection to Symmachus. Prepare to go down.

Suppose that Symmachus were to follow with something like, "how would you predict the realization of the -illa/o in flotilla, guerilla, and armadillo on the one hand against tortilla and quesadilla on the other?"

You don't. However, Suppose that my sound-shift rules find that tortilla and quesedilla are related to Aramaic. And suppose that in proto-UA reconstruction, we had an explanation for the other three, but not these two. Sure, depending on the time of contact, United Airlines could have had the sounds available, but it's possible that it didn't. And so this gap is filled by a possibility. Now, suppose that 12 other gaps like this one could be filled by Aramaic, but suppose those gaps couldn't be filled by Latin or any other language we try. Now also, suppose that our rules could predict guerilla, which we have an explanation for, and so we've got to be consistent, and point to the possibility that "Guerilla" is really Aramaic. Suppose that after filling 12 gaps, there are only two gaps left. Had there been 20 more gaps to fill, then we're a little more cautious, but with 2 gaps left, and let's say only 9 words of "collateral damage" like guerilla, then we conclude that since Aramaic solved more problems than it created, it's a very likely candidate.

Sure, the temptation to cheat is great, but suppose we don't cheat, and suppose our suggestions don't have the problems like "blish", then what could this mean?

[_Symmachus]

point 1: To the point that Symmachus makes, "the phonology of language A sets the limits of possible realizations for loanwords from language B, but it doesn't predict them": I advance an objection to Symmachus. Prepare to go down.

Suppose that Symmachus were to follow with something like, "how would you predict the realization of the -illa/o in flotilla, guerilla, and armadillo on the one hand against tortilla and quesadilla on the other?"

You don't. However, Suppose that my sound-shift rules find that tortilla and quesedilla are related to Aramaic. And suppose that in proto-UA reconstruction, we had an explanation for the other three, but not these two. Sure, depending on the time of contact, United Airlines could have had the sounds available, but it's possible that it didn't. And so this gap is filled by a possibility. Now, suppose that 12 other gaps like this one could be filled by Aramaic, but suppose those gaps couldn't be filled by Latin or any other language we try. Now also, suppose that our rules could predict guerilla, which we have an explanation for, and so we've got to be consistent, and point to the possibility that "Guerilla" is really Aramaic. Suppose that after filling 12 gaps, there are only two gaps left. Had there been 20 more gaps to fill, then we're a little more cautious, but with 2 gaps left, and let's say only 9 words of "collateral damage" like guerilla, then we conclude that since Aramaic solved more problems than it created, it's a very likely candidate.

Sure, the temptation to cheat is great, but suppose we don't cheat, and suppose our suggestions don't have the problems like "blish", then what could this mean?

I surrender.