tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2556295101390554342..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: “Mismodelling Indo-European Origins” TalkDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34471486405348297942013-01-23T07:57:34.845+02:002013-01-23T07:57:34.845+02:00In most areas of science, this would be regarded a...<i>In most areas of science, this would be regarded as a rogue and extremely desperate talk. It is acceptable that you spend a few minutes criticizing opponents, but largely, you need to provide your own evidence and research.<br /><br /><br />You simply cannot criticize a new, rapidly-evolving and improving model just based on its trivial, known shortcomings. Such a thing is ludicrous and paints a truly bad picture of the talk presenters.</i><br /><br /><br />Exactly this was also my observation. They might be true in some points but I desperately waited for any evidences they would provide us but all I saw was critics based on their assumptions<br /><br />Kurtihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15370578131814705759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70521204079768073212013-01-23T07:54:15.300+02:002013-01-23T07:54:15.300+02:00What I consider a shame is that they based most i...What I consider a shame is that they based most if not all of their arguments on possibilities and their own believes and assumpatations, listened and waited in vain for any evidences they would provide in support for their hypothesis and all I got was arrogant appearing talks of two linguists and their opinions.Kurtihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15370578131814705759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5561410050539602542013-01-14T14:57:46.130+02:002013-01-14T14:57:46.130+02:00@ Eurologist:
Except for you, I've never rea...@ Eurologist: <br /><br />Except for you, I've never read anything hinting to a particular closeness of proto-iranian with PIE (it seems to go against what I have read actually). <br />Can you provide a source for this (if possible something readable on the internet).wagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13582568982610797947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62519533718285311402013-01-05T13:18:33.138+02:002013-01-05T13:18:33.138+02:00Depending on detailed assumptions, NW Anatolia and...<i>Depending on detailed assumptions, NW Anatolia and much of the Pontic might have been "diffusionally close", as close as or closer than the Aegean and NW Anatolia.</i><br /><br />AK,<br /><br />I totally agree - which is why I have hypothesized both above and before about a trans-Pontic Sprachbund - which could resolve a number of problems; among them, the long hiatus before some of the branching, and the anachronistic closeness of Proto-Iranian to PIE.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-49423469840132050202013-01-03T20:11:16.347+02:002013-01-03T20:11:16.347+02:00I find it disturbing that none of the discussion h...I find it disturbing that none of the discussion here refers to the role of advection,or the referenced Davison <i>et al.</i> paper (http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~n0072132/NeolithicWaterways.pdf). Although Davison <i>et al.</i> study the role of the Danube and Rhine in the spread of agriculture, a similar role might well apply to PIE origins for the Pontic rivers and the coastlines of the Black and Caspian seas. Depending on detailed assumptions, NW Anatolia and much of the Pontic might have been "diffusionally close", as close as or closer than the Aegean and NW Anatolia.<br /><br />I'll also point out that the assumption that PIE started in one location and spread out is totally unwarranted. It might well have actually originated as a "lingua franca" spoken along a distributed network of trade routes, both land and water-borne.<br /><br />IIRC some scholars have found traces of an early "isolating" substratum, which could have derived from a creole used by speakers of a number of different, variously related, languages associated with such a distributed trade network.<br /><br />I'm not proposing any specific alternative here, just trying to show that the current scenarios are far too limited, based on unwarranted "simplifying" assumptions.AKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6526798490632585912013-01-01T16:44:25.712+02:002013-01-01T16:44:25.712+02:00n/a,
I still have not seen any arguments at all w...n/a,<br /><br />I still have not seen any arguments at all with intellectual merit from you. Statements like:<br /><br /><i>you have no idea...<br /><br />I was mocking you, dude...<br /><br />I have no respect for you...<br /><br />It was a throwaway comment making fun of your hypocrisy...</i><br /><br />...in addition to those I listed above leave me and most anyone else with only one plausible impression: you are not actually here to contribute to the discussion -- but you are here due to a mind set or condition that is better dealt with elsewhere.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84554662948597600302013-01-01T13:42:38.960+02:002013-01-01T13:42:38.960+02:00Mr Dienekes,
Please change in my previous post, th...Mr Dienekes,<br />Please change in my previous post, the <br />http://ifotki.info/11/f1e140363b05267821edf133dc0af7dd4f6726131418339.jpg.html<br /><br />to <br />http://f11.ifotki.info/org/f1e140363b05267821edf133dc0af7dd4f6726131418339.jpg<br /><br />and change the http://ifotki.info/11/5a641171e9f1c5b8d4bb9294a2675e094f6726131420034.jpg.html<br /><br />to http://f11.ifotki.info/org/5a641171e9f1c5b8d4bb9294a2675e094f6726131420034.jpgGeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11539198765353016467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20434148524598950722013-01-01T02:11:13.620+02:002013-01-01T02:11:13.620+02:00Western Nostratic ("Indo-Kartvelian", IE...Western Nostratic ("Indo-Kartvelian", IE + Afrasiatic + Kartvelian)<br /><br />Yakhontov comparisons of proto-languages<br />http://ifotki.info/11/f1e140363b05267821edf133dc0af7dd4f6726131418339.jpg.html<br /><br /><br />I compiled reverse table of Yakhontov comparisons (PHYLIP data)<br /><br />7<br />modal 0 50 50 50 50 50 50<br />Altayan 50 0 83 69 72 66 69<br />Dravidian 50 83 0 89 89 89 83<br />IndoEurope 50 69 89 0 69 58 75<br />Kartvelian 50 72 89 69 0 52 80<br />SemitHamit 50 66 89 58 52 0 75<br />Uralian 50 69 83 75 80 75 0<br /><br />The result<br />http://ifotki.info/11/5a641171e9f1c5b8d4bb9294a2675e094f6726131420034.jpg.html<br /><br />Polaco graphics <br />http://s54.radikal.ru/i146/1212/3b/e3fa8e9991d5.png<br />Some IE people are close to Kartvels and to Afrasiats, I puted them all in a red circle.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11539198765353016467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82023124063052087312012-12-31T22:14:35.157+02:002012-12-31T22:14:35.157+02:00"That is a gross understatement of the achiev..."That is a gross understatement of the achievements and accuracy of Bayesian statistical computations in genetics."<br /><br />Demonstrating again you have no idea how Bayesian or other statistical methods actually work. Obviously, the accuracy and precision attainable with such methods will depend on the nature and amount of data one has to work with, the question one wants to answer, and the details of the analysis actually performed.<br /><br />It's not a slight against "the achievements and accuracy of Bayesian statistical computations in genetics" but merely statement of a basic fact that goes without saying to anyone passingly conversant with these tools to point out that even when applied to genetic data, you will rarely get or expect "the" correct answer. You will get a more or less useful approximation of what actually happened. <br /><br />My contention is that Gray and Atkinson's results are far to the less useful side. The estimates of error they report (internal to their model and choice of data) don't begin to capture the numerous other likely and potential sources of error, and the true level of uncertainty renders their model useless for discriminating between the Steppe hypothesis and the 1987 Colin Renfrew fantasy model.<br /><br />One of the few ways they could begin to prove otherwise is to show that their model performs well where there is actual ground truth in the form of direct historical evidence. It doesn't, so we're going to need more than your say-so that the results magically get more accurate the less subject they are to confirmation. Repeating the word "trivial" is not an argument that will make this issue go away.<br /><br />If they were serious, I'd also expect them to put together independent data sets for the same languages (other types of word lists, etc.) and compare the resulting trees. I'm confident the results of such an exercise would remove any doubt the trees they're building are dramatically less accurate and precise than their internal estimates of error/certainty would indicate. Again, to the point of uselessness in distinguishing between IE origins 6000 years ago vs. 9000 years ago. They could also, for example, attempt to show their geographic results are robust to locating the Indo-Iranian homeland correctly (on the steppe), but I don't see them doing this.<br /><br /><br />"They make no claim in the paper that they are differentiating between different IE origin models"<br /><br />Could have fooled me: "test these hypotheses. We found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin."<br /><br /><br />"They even state that Kurgan expansion may have played a role."<br /><br />A passing acknowledgment that the Anatolian Neolithic model doesn't actually make sense doesn't make up for the other 95% of the paper, or the abstract, or the press coverage. Renfrew similarly later attempted to incorporate steppe dispersals as an important part of his model. This was not out of charity to historical linguists. It's because the Anatolian Neolithic model has never worked.<br /><br /><br />"The accepted plural for the newly-evolved English noun is ad hominems"<br /><br />I was mocking you, dude -- not commenting on your grammar. You whine about "ad hominem" when I briefly let it be known I have no respect for you then go on in the same thread to fill entire posts with odd/inept speculation about my mental state. It was a throwaway comment making fun of your hypocrisy with respect to your pseudo-rational wannabe science nerd-ism. To be clear: none of this actually matters and your posts display about the same level of reasoning with or without name calling. <br /><br /><br />nuadha,<br /><br />I don't have a problem with you. You seem to be interested in learning, not playing pretend senior internet scientist dress-up. I'll reply when I get around to it. Trolling won't speed that up.<br /><br />n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34606661501906784922012-12-31T19:52:23.576+02:002012-12-31T19:52:23.576+02:00Scripts, words, grammar and Genetics. where to dra...Scripts, words, grammar and Genetics. where to draw the line for Indo European question. <br /><br />Drawing Inferences based on speech and words not applicable to other.<br /><br />Hope somebody does similar research for all Language isolates and non Indo European languages in the same regions and it provides some clue.<br /><br />How much Indo European is Greek?. really?<br /><br />IN case of Persian they picked Semitic script to Avestan script. Is it regression or progress? Neither. People /societies just go with the flow. Does it complies with Authors model?. I doubt it. Just applying the authors model to all Iranian dialects will make it fall flat. These models cherry pick the popular concepts, root words etc.<br /><br />That is like saying Gangnam popularity will make society Korean,<br /><br />Indo European root word spread also depends on centuries of commercial and cultural links and popularity. They may not answer all genetic questions..South Central Haplohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00916788636469000041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28725055147937139692012-12-31T16:04:39.342+02:002012-12-31T16:04:39.342+02:00""""""Slumbery said....""""""Slumbery said... The Erzya population can be quite old there, but we do not know when they got R1a1a and even if they had it (quite possibly) from very old times, they did not conquer Europe, IE did. """"""""<br />R1a1a in Europe conquered only north eastern part, Huns(Hungars) conquered this part. And Hungarian language is there. <br />Ptolemy 2nd century. Between the Basternae(Germanic) and the Rhoxolani(Azov sea) are the Chuni(Huns)<br />http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/3/5*.html<br /><br />Huns<br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Huns_empire.png<br /><br />R1a1a map+ Huns and White Huns(White Chions, Hephthalites)<br />http://s016.radikal.ru/i335/1104/49/4a87a0e0d2a3.jpg<br /><br />In Asia<br />White Huns(White Chions, Hephthalites)<br />http://s48.radikal.ru/i121/1104/b8/0ad90ef0d935.jpg<br /><br />+ Chionites(Xionites, Huna) + Red Chions(Red Huns,Kidarites) + Black Chions(Black Huns) + Celestial Chions(Celestial Huns) + Ouarkhonitai(Avars)+ Alchon <br />+ Xiongnu<br />Title: A Western Eurasian Male(R1a1) Is Found in 2000-Year-Old Elite Xiongnu Cemetery in Northeast Mongolia. Author(s): Kim K, Brenner CH, Mair VH, et al.<br />Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 142 Issue: 3 Pages: 429-440 Published: JUL 2010Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11539198765353016467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6515966558922681782012-12-31T10:03:39.695+02:002012-12-31T10:03:39.695+02:00Dienekes said-
''I suspect the former will...Dienekes said-<br />''I suspect the former will be the case, but it will nonetheless be interesting to see how the different parties coming from archaeology and linguistics will react to the (archaeo)genetic avalanche that will doubtlessly provide us with new information about the prehistoric past.'' <br />Dienekes and all the other folks let me tell you that unless a comprehensive aDNA map of the dark ages (around 2000b.c) emerges including the areas of South-Central Asia to the Steppes and from Anatolia to the south central Europe with central asia, the riddle will not be solved!.<br />stay well and happy 2013.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52187509285899096632012-12-31T05:35:48.867+02:002012-12-31T05:35:48.867+02:00Unknown,
"How long, for example, did it take ...Unknown,<br />"How long, for example, did it take for the hypothetical Proto-European language to turn into German? If you go by historical rates of sound changes in written German (say, medieval to modern), what mathematical rate of change do you get? And how does that apply to the gap between PIE and historical German?"<br /><br />You have chosen the standard example that discredts slavish trust in this mathematicla model. Englsih and German experienced sound changes at diffenrnet rates, and Icelandi c exprienced almost noe, in the last 1,000 years.<br /><br />"Part of the definition of “cognate” words is that they have the same meaning."<br /><br />This is simplistic to the point of falsehood.<br /><br />You appear to be criticizing a discipline oyu do not understand. Are you a physicist by chance? They have a reputation in linguistics for doing this all the time.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187836541591828806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31800002157253669752012-12-31T04:07:12.000+02:002012-12-31T04:07:12.000+02:00@n/a
Since you're being wo brash atm, tell me ...@n/a<br />Since you're being wo brash atm, tell me what you think of me and my contributions?princenuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02165977957244158593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4932447684681671162012-12-31T03:00:01.181+02:002012-12-31T03:00:01.181+02:00Technically, “Indo-Europeans” are anyone who speak...Technically, “Indo-Europeans” are anyone who speaks an Indo-European language.<br /><br />The notion that there was a “tribe” of Indo-Europeans or more properly Proto-Indo-Europeans comes only from reconstruction of a hypothetical language by linguists using the comparative method. This reconstructed language comes from comparing words in the various Indo-European languages and assuming sound changes based on “systematic correspondence” that go back to an original parent language.<br /><br />No matter how accurate that reconstruction is, it can tell us very little about who spoke the language and where.<br /><br />Some scholars have used the comparative method to conjecture about the religious beliefs of these hypothetical “Proto-Indo-Europeans.” But just as Christianity crossed borders and languages, there is really no way to know if specific religious or cultural matters were somehow attached to these early speakers or were part of religious movements that spread on their own before or after that language was spoken.<br /><br />The method of reconstruction means that Proto-Indo-European, the reconstructed language, is treated as an isolate. There are no postulated sister languages to PIE. There is no English to PIE’s Dutch. There is no Portuguese to PIE’s Spanish. <br /><br />But we do know that Proto-Indo-European had to come from somewhere. It was not invented or fall from the sky full-blown. So there is no context because whatever sister languages or mother languages existed have apparently disappeared beyond trace.<br /><br />So though the language of these Proto-Indo-European speakers may have been spoken in many different contexts. If the language began to spread at some axis of roads, waterways, trade routes -- at some depot of horse ranchers and cattle traders and wagoneers and warriors for hire -- some town out of the American West or the Far East -- then maybe the Proto-Indo-European language was spoken by many different types of people, different genetics, different belief -- BEFORE it spread.<br /><br />The fact is that the model of steppes horsemen has never really resulted in a permanent spread of a dominant language. Mongolian did not spread due to the raids of the Mongols. What the Mongols did do is contribute to the spread of Chinese and Arabic. The same for the Huns. If we include the Maygars and the Turks, they created only pockets today surrounded by unrelated languages. <br /><br />The success story in eastern Europe is the Slavic languages. Given that most historians don’t even identify these speakers before 500 AD, the enigma of the spread of those languages might shed more light on the spread of Indo-European languages than any steppes horsemen.<br /><br />The same might be said of the spread of American English to schools in China, Japan, Russia and Finland.<br /><br />For all we know, the people who originally spoke Proto-Indo-European died out long ago, leaving no genetic trace. <br /><br />A diversity of genetics and cultures might have been the main characteristic of Indo-European as soon as it began to spread.<br /><br />And that might have been its real strength.LivoniaGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05589404219598229067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27485094476862994192012-12-31T02:18:26.631+02:002012-12-31T02:18:26.631+02:00@Unknown
Quote- “strong allegiance that the histo...@Unknown<br /><br />Quote- “strong allegiance that the historical linguistics community has to the whole “Steppes” theory”<br /><br />That's not correct, for two reasons. First, many mainstream linguists have worked and still work with other PIE Urheimat models (Balkans, Bactria, Baltic, Armenia) – although, after 200 years of research, the Steppes model does seem the most likely one in light of the accumulated evidence. And the “new” evidence put forth by this paper is just not convincing enough to change that. <br /><br />A more important point, however, is that the main disagreement here is NOT about specific conclusions of the model, but about its methodology. So much so that serious linguists who reject the Steppes model never get the same level of backlash.<br /><br />I agree with eurologist n one thing: what we are witnessing is effectively a fight about the future of the field – issues such as methods and interdisciplinarity – and not about PIE, so your assessment that this somewhat parochial issue is what actually matters is inaccurate, I think. <br /><br />Historical linguistics as we know it will survive just fine without a Steppes model for PIE. <br /><br />On the other hand, a move toward more quantitative methods would be quite significant. <br /><br />Though, TBH, this is already happening anyway, only gradually, so the real issue here is that Atkinson et al. have gone a bit too far and thrown the baby out with the bathwater.<br /><br /><br />Quote- “To my knowledge, no historical linguist has ever even attempted to establish the rate of sound changes...”<br /><br />It's not so much the rate of sound changes that really matters in this case, but rather the rate of lexical replacement. And, yes, attempts at determining that have been going on since the 1950s, and the misgivings of linguists today derive precisely from the failure of those models.tewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03905555876122154861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51266179300095429302012-12-31T00:58:07.902+02:002012-12-31T00:58:07.902+02:00I think the main problems with understanding the o...I think the main problems with understanding the origins of Indo-European tribes are these:<br /><br />1- Indo-Europeans' genetic structures reveal patterns displaying ~multiple origins, chronologically rooted. ie, ~Some of the more ancient components of their genomes, particularly some of their mtDNA, may indeed have originated in the Caucasus or Anatolia -- but certainly not all of it. A relatively large percentage of their yDNA is Asian or African. There also seem to be certain genetic markers entirely peculiar to Indo-Europeans. It is problematic, especially in view of the fact that Genetics still hasn't adequately answered certain basic questions, such as whether or not the 'Out of Africa' theory can actually be proven correct.<br /><br />2- Their multiple origins is reflected in their broad, complex range of languages and dialects. I do believe however, that knowledge about the histories of those languages should provide important clues to the puzzle.<br /><br />3- It is further reflected in their social and political histories, much of which has been documented fairly well. Somehow the three disciplines need to be integrated, in order to produce a more complete picture.<br /><br />(Languages, genetics, political / social histories... And I'm sure there are other disciplines, like archeology and so forth, which might contribute to solving the problem. The point being that no single aspect of the subject can adequately shed enough light on it to present a clear enough picture.)shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70464144459275301952012-12-30T21:46:16.435+02:002012-12-30T21:46:16.435+02:00The video represents the strong allegiance that th...The video represents the strong allegiance that the historical linguistics community has to the whole “Steppes” theory. <br /><br />I won’t go into all that’s causing this rather emotional loyalty, but part of it is simply self-defense.<br /><br />Historical linguistics has been at family tree-building for longer than biology. But particularly modern computer DNA analysis of descent in organisms has been overwhelming in its success. And it has been very difficult for linguists to do the same thing with their data, which they’ve collected for very many years.<br /><br />The most important reason for this failure is that linguists have no real way to connect language change (sound changes in “related” words, cognates) to time in pre-history (that is, before writing.) <br /><br />How long, for example, did it take for the hypothetical Proto-European language to turn into German? If you go by historical rates of sound changes in written German (say, medieval to modern), what mathematical rate of change do you get? And how does that apply to the gap between PIE and historical German?<br /><br />Some linguists will say languages change at different rates and no statistically valid rate of change can be given. This, of course, is unacceptable without demonstration. To my knowledge, no historical linguist has ever even attempted to establish the rate of sound changes in recorded Indo-European languages. That would be a prerequisite to making such a statement.<br /><br />So, linguists are left to making links between linguistic “cognates” and extra-linguistic archaeological data. Part of the definition of “cognate” words is that they have the same meaning. So, of course, the original Proto-European word for the wheel HAD to mean wheel, or else it would not a cognate. In this circular definition, words don’t change meaning in the 3000 years between that 4500 BC date and the first appearance of the word in writing. And all subsequent uses of the “wheel word” for something circular or round are metaphorical. <br /><br />There’s the further argument that the wheel is part of a kit of wagon words. Needless to say none of these words can be justified as being neologisms. The same thing can be done with the English words for a computer and its parts and not one of the words is a neologism. <br /><br />The word “computer” itself, for example, appeared in English more than 400 years ago and probably well before that in French.<br /><br />Historical linguistics has gotten itself into a fine mess with this Indo-European origins thing, no matter how much they feverishly promote it. And they don’t seem to be able find a rational way out of it.LivoniaGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05589404219598229067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33441649291547919962012-12-30T20:06:14.963+02:002012-12-30T20:06:14.963+02:00George
"And Andro-Phagi=Mord-Hvar=Mordva.&quo...George<br /><i>"And Andro-Phagi=Mord-Hvar=Mordva."</i><br /><br />I find this etymology rather forced and unlikely, also unnecessary for the point, because even if it were true, it still would not add anything to the primary question about R1a1a in IE or non IE. <br /><br />The Erzya population can be quite old there, but we do not know when they got R1a1a and even if they had it (quite possibly) from very old times, they did not conquer Europe, IE did. <br /><br />Slumberyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139930329199925111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56046796150302509872012-12-30T18:38:28.107+02:002012-12-30T18:38:28.107+02:00Given the lack of indication or willingness of n/a...Given the lack of indication or willingness of <b>n/a</b> to participate in an actual intellectual discourse, this may be my last response to this recent internet noise:<br /><br />@ n/a:<br /><br />There is no denying your verbiage "has method." Nevertheless:<br /><br />"your effeminate idea," "twits like you," "disgustingly effeminate," "You're a fucking twit" are not mainstream intellectual or argumentative responses. Perhaps you suffer from Tourette syndrom, in which case I suggest you seek medical assistance. <br /><br />Further, exclamations like:<br /><br /><i>your opinions are not important</i><br /><br /><i>Your contributions are on about the same level as those of "Annie Mouse". Read some of her comments. This is how you come off to other people. </i><br /><br /><i>disgustingly effeminate</i><br /><br /><i>consider you a twit</i><br /><br />...have similarly no intellectual merit, and further raise the suspicion that it is only the lack of the aforementioned that makes you steep this low. Finally:<br /><br /><i>Also: "ad hominem"! </i><br /><br />The accepted plural for the newly-evolved English <b>noun</b> is ad hominems - as much as it pains me.<br /><br /><i>I don't think anyone here was under the impression I was trying to "intimidate" you.</i><br /><br />And I know <i>for certain</i> the majority was - based on the feedback I got. And my estimate is that you are perfectly aware of the psychological reasons for your need of excessive cursing (e.g., anger, frustration) and your rhetorical reasons for oozing insults (facing cognitive dissonance; attempts at intimidation out of self-exasperation).eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17356887154582851032012-12-30T16:06:53.379+02:002012-12-30T16:06:53.379+02:00continued:
Straw men:
I'm afraid your effemi...continued:<br /><br /><b>Straw men:</b><br /><br /><i>I'm afraid your effeminate [sic] idea of proper protocol has no bearing on actual science.</i><br /><br />Of course not. But proper protocol insures that the actual science is taken seriously, that the scientists are taken seriously, that they may have a shot at a career -- and provides an opportunity that the community <i>may</i> support both the science and the scientists. That is the way the real world and funding work. The presenters of this talk are doing a disservice to themselves, to their argument, and to the community.<br /><br /><i>Your insistence that Gray and Atkinson are being unfairly "blasted" and need protection remains disgustingly effeminate [sic]. </i><br /><br />Of course they should not be protected from criticism - I have criticized them myself.<br /><br /><i>your belief that Gray and Atkinson should be free to pronounce as they wish on science/history without facing criticism.</i><br /><br />Again, not so - I have criticized them myself, and of course they should face criticism - just like anyone else.<br /><br /><i>it's up to Gray and Atkinson to demonstrate they have something useful to contribute.</i><br /><br />Of course - no one is arguing against that.<br /><br /><i>Whatever shortcomings they may acknowledge, they claim to be able to discriminate between different models of IE origins, while having failed to demonstrate their techniques have anything like the accuracy or precision needed to do so. </i><br /><br />In their paper, the authors provide the results of numerous different model calculations. <i>All of them,</i> with a variety of differing assumptions and model parameters, lead to Anatolia as the origin. They make no claim in the paper that they are differentiating between different IE origin models - they just were doing the best ("state-of-the-art") that they could do at the time, which is better than what anyone else has done to date, and show the results. <br /><br />Am I convinced? No. I think for almost all of Europe, the most likely origin of IE is in the densely populated, rich cities of the western Pontic that had 1,000 years of contact with the much less numerous nomads of the steppes. I don't know how that relates to Anatolia or further East, other than that I could very well imagine a trans-Pontic Sprachbund early on (which could also explain the long hiatus before further branching). Are there sensationalist science stories in the media? You bet there are.<br /><br /><i>That I find your desire to shut down debate in the name of "science" disgustingly effeminate [sic] and consider you a twit [sic] are simply facts</i><br /><br />I have no desire to shut down debate, quite the opposite - I am obviously and clearly trying to enable an <i>actual</i> debate and to guide those misguided about the process. And, yours as anyone's opinions is not fact, even before proven wrong.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60771328090412998542012-12-30T16:04:36.895+02:002012-12-30T16:04:36.895+02:00You've failed to respond to any of my actual p...<i>You've failed to respond to any of my actual points.</i><br /><br />n/a,<br />Given the way you presented yourself here, it did not dawn on me you were actually seeking a serious discussion. <br /><br />The way I see it, outside your insults, you have primarily repeated known, trivial criticism, made several incorrect points, and otherwise presented straw men:<br /><br /><br /><b>Trivial points:</b><br /><br /><i>...the first question a serious person would ask is how closely Gray and Atkinson's attempts at reconstruction recapitulate recent/known linguistic history.</i><br /><br />They address much of that themselves. But, as I stated when the paper first came out, and also above, yes - there are criticisms. However, when you get to the past 2,000 years and the fringe, errors accumulate based on the imperfections of the input and model (some of which may or may not be resolvable). More importantly, you are looking at the portion (time line) between the vast majority of the data input and today - which simply is not the goal of the paper, and as such, its accuracy cannot be judged based on that (but the lack of quality of input during that time frame can be). The goal of the paper is working in the opposite direction. I and likely most everyone else agrees that the input in the past ~3,000 years can and should be much improved, e.g., with solidly reconstructed language and known localizations and timings (Celtic, proto-Germanic, proto-Slavic). <br /><br /><i>it's up to Gray and Atkinson to demonstrate they have something useful to contribute. </i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br /><br /><b>False Points:</b><br /><br /><i>Gray and Atkinson's "innovation" is insisting that Bayesian phylogenetics with limited and sometimes questionable inputs of data can produce highly accurate and precise readouts of linguistic history that supercede all previous linguistic and archaeological knowledge.</i><br /><br />Incorrect. They have stated numerous, serious limitations openly and often (e.g., no early Celtic input --> they miss Celtic in much of W and SW Europe). Also, they are actually making use of "previous linguistic and archaeological knowledge" in the model. And their result of an Anatolian origin is completely mainstream within the 3-5 or more different models of IE origin - it does not supersede anything. They even state that Kurgan expansion may have played a role.<br /><br /><i>For genetics, where there's an explosion of data with comparatively few human analysts and little or no historical context, such results are useful, being often the best we have until additional data and further refinements of models appear.<br /><br />...applying similar techniques to genetic data, one can often expect at best a rough approximation of the truth....</i><br /><br />That is a gross understatement of the achievements and accuracy of Bayesian statistical computations in genetics.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58044335892754620742012-12-30T08:13:30.438+02:002012-12-30T08:13:30.438+02:00@Annie
quote:"I suspect the authors would be...@Annie<br /><br />quote:"I suspect the authors would be grateful for criticism which allows them to refine the model."<br /><br /><br />Alas, I'm not so sure. Atkinson did reply personally to Asya and Martin in the Geocurrents blog, and basically evaded every point raised by them.<br /> <br />The response to his comment, with a link to it, can be found here: http://geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/response-to-quentin-d-atkinsontewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03905555876122154861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5038795580125076202012-12-29T23:17:00.460+02:002012-12-29T23:17:00.460+02:00Annie Mouse,
I'm sure you're above averag...Annie Mouse,<br /><br />I'm sure you're above average in intelligence in an absolute sense, but you're incredibly dim-witted relative to how you apparently rate your abilities. Your self-satisfaction and the overblown importance you accord your semi-informed blathering on things you don't understand is grating. It makes no difference if on any particular topic you happen to approach a point of view I agree with or not. Develop an appropriate level of humility. <br /><br />unfortunate pseudonym,<br /><br />Bizarre post. Also: "ad hominem"! That I find your desire to shut down debate in the name of "science" disgustingly effeminate and consider you a twit are simply facts, which I felt like relaying. I don't think anyone here was under the impression I was trying to "intimidate" you. Meanwhile, I'm not seeing an argument from you, aside from your belief that Gray and Atkinson should be free to pronounce as they wish on science/history without facing criticism. You've failed to respond to any of my actual points.<br />n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13872482776540968982012-12-29T15:44:30.013+02:002012-12-29T15:44:30.013+02:00I don't have time to moderate, so everyone sto...I don't have time to moderate, so everyone stop talking about each other and talk about the topic, please.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.com