April 14, 2026

Eastern Steppe culture in Northwest America: Breaking precious copper decorated sheets for potlatches and funerals

Although I've established that the Japonic language family belongs to the broader Dene-Yeniseian family, which presently spans Siberia to the American Southwest, I had no idea what the time-frame for this relationship was, when first exploring the matter.

But upon further investigation of linguistic, mythological, and ritual relationships, I've not only uncovered further shared shibboleths, but determined that their common-ness lasted up through fairly recent times. Their common ancestor was not from 10, 20, or 100-thousand years ago. Not every element of their cultures dates back to the exact same time-period. Still, the earliest shared cultural ancestor they have goes back no earlier than 2000 BC. And in some cases the shared ancestor only goes back to between 500 BC and 300 or so AD. They could have been in lingering contact with each other through the 1st millennium AD.

This totally blows up the notion that the culture of the New World was either brought with long-distance migration from the Old World on the order of 10s of thousands of years ago, or that it evolved only in the New World after that initial wave of migration. For some New World cultures, that's true. But for others, who speak Na-Dene languages, their bodies and haplogroups may have come over 10,000 years ago, but their present-day culture did not, nor did it evolve solely in situ after settling into the Americas. There was a transmission of Siberian culture from the Old World starting as early as 2000 BC and perhaps lasting through 500 AD.

This is a great illustration of the non-correlation between genes and culture, or between migration of bodies and migration of culture. Cultural forms can spread by contagion, from one adjacent group to the next, and so on in a chain. Group A transmits it to group B, B transmits it to C, and then C to D. The fact that it is present in A, B, C, and D does NOT show that it began with A and then A migrated through all the intervening regions, leaving it behind them at each stop. In fact, it doesn't imply that A has migrated at all -- maybe they had contact with B (without, however, migrating to replace B, just interacting with neighbors), but not C, D, or any further link in the chain. And contagion is a far faster transmission process than migration of one spreader group to all regions affected -- as the phenomenon of epidemic diseases shows.

That's not to say that cultural forms spread just like epidemic diseases -- the key difference is how "susceptible" one group is to the cultural influence of another. Pathogens don't care about cultural groups or which other groups they choose as role models vs. groups they shun / avoid. Cultural transmission is not necessarily transitive either, unlike diseases -- in some cases, A influences B, and B influences C, but C rejects the influence of A (directly). In such a case, B acts as a gatekeeper between A and C, a role that does not show up in epidemic disease transmission. This is where all of the real art-and-science of cultural transmission happens -- just saying it can spread from one adjacent group to the next is not very surprising, it's what relationships must be in place for the transmission to take place, and when it will stop.

With that big-picture in mind, let's now look at some shared cultural shibboleths in Northwest America and cultures of the Eastern Steppe, including the off-shoot that wound up in Glorious Nippon. Some of these examples are from the comments in the previous post, some are ones I discovered just in the past few days.

I'm going to try breaking these up into smaller, more digestible separate posts, instead of having a long string of 250 comments on a single post.

* * *


First, we'll start with ritual. An earlier post demonstrated that ancient Japan (starting sometime before 300 AD) shared a cultural shibboleth with the Xiongnu and the Pazyryk cultures of the Eastern Steppe (and Silla, in Korea) -- breaking precious bronze mirrors as a funeral rite, and burying them as grave goods. See that post for all the details, which begin in the 3rd section.

For the time-frame, this ritual began in the mid-1st millennium BC (Pazyryk) and lasted through the mid-1st millennium AD (Kofun-era Japan). After then, the practice seems to have faded away...

But not in Northwest America, where a strikingly similar ritual lasted up through the conquest of the frontier by the Americans. Perhaps in the Old World, gradual sedentarization and civilizing influences from China led to the abandonment of this Eastern Steppe barbarian ritual, while in Northwest America there never was a sedentary mega-state civilizing influence until the white man showed up. They certainly were not in the cultural orbit of the Aztec, Maya, or Inca empires. So perhaps the Mongolians and Japanese would still be practicing this funeral rite, if there had been no China for them to interact with...

Metallurgy was never widespread in North America before European colonization. But there was a limited amount of iron and copper production in the Northwest, where the raw material was sourced from Alaska. We'll get to the mythical or not-so-mythical legend behind that, when we look at myths!

But after they began working with copper, various groups in Northwest America, not only those speaking Na-Dene languages, began to practice a ritual of breaking precious copper ceremonial shields, sometimes as part of a funeral, although sometimes as part of a potlatch. In both occasions, though, the broken fragments were buried somehow -- either under the ground or tossed into the sea, where they sank to a watery grave.

In both occasions, the "coppers" or copper shields were not very utilitarian, they were symbols of status and wealth and perhaps a connection to the supernatural and to ancestral lineages. They were decorated as art-works. They were owned and traded as decorative status symbols, with some degree of otherworldly power -- just like those bronze mirrors in the Eastern Steppe.

The main difference in the New World ritual is the shape -- they are beaten smooth and are between half a foot to several feet in length, like the Old World round mirrors, but they take the form of a T-shaped shield (again, not used as an actual shield in battle). And the adornments are also local patterns. So there was some degree of syncreticization between the Old World ritual and existing Northwest American arts-and-crafts traditions.

They don't seem to be treated as magical for their ability to collect and reflect light, as though they were mini-suns, like they were in the Old World, where they played into the solar cult of the Eastern Steppe.

We can't tell if their use at potlatches is different from their Old World context, which was funerals -- perhaps the only difference is when potlatches were held in the Old World, like mainly during a funeral, whereas in Northwest America, potlatches were held outside of funeral contexts as well. But in both cases, their breaking and burial can be viewed as a form of conspicuous wealth destruction, as an honest signal of the large amount of wealth held by the leader. In this way, it's no different from human and animal sacrifice, on the same occasions (potlatch and/or funeral) -- it's the sacrifice of precious objects, which only a wealthy household owns.

However, it's not just a vague conceptual similarity like "sacrificing precious objects" -- they are made of copper, beaten smooth into a sheet, adorned as decorative objects, used in a ceremonial context rather than a valuable object that sees real-world use, and their method of sacrifice is the same -- breaking into fragments.

Most inclusion of precious objects in a funeral or other ceremony does NOT involve breaking them or rendering them worthless as utilitarian objects, or even as decorative objects. Indeed, if they were just decorative objects made from copper, they would not seem so similar to the Eastern Steppe versions -- it's the fact that they're ceremonially sacrificed by fragmentation that jumped out at me when reading about them.

All these unnecessary / arbitrary points of similarity show that it is a shared shibboleth, not just independent variations on a universal theme.

This New World ritual goes back no further than the mid-1st millennium BC, when it is observed among the Pazyryk culture in the Eastern Steppe. It was still practiced in Japan during the early Medieval era. When was it transmitted into the Pacific Northwest? Sometime after the prerequisite adoption of copper metallurgy, which was more limited regionally and occurred later in the New World.

I'm guessing sometime at the twilight of its use in Japan, or just afterwards -- when the Siberian transmitters would have still been familiar with the ritual, but since it was no longer de rigueur in Siberia, it was not emphasized as strictly to the New World adopters. It was likely transmitted by the same Siberians who taught the New Worlders about copper in general -- "Y'know, this isn't just utilitarian stuff. Where we come from, we beat it into sheets, decorate it, and break it into fragments during major ceremonies like a funeral. You guys should do that, too!"

Maybe they specifically said to make it into a round mirror, and the New Worlders said that wasn't as relevant to their local culture, and made them into shield-like shapes instead. Or maybe since the ritual was fading away in Siberia, the Siberian transmitters didn't insist on every element being preserved -- what the hell, the ritual was dying out anyway, just give them the basic understanding, which is that copper is valuable, it can be beaten into a smooth canvas for artwork, and this valuable object can be broken into fragments for a major ceremony like a funeral.

I doubt it was too much later after it died in the Old World, since hardly anyone would still remember it in order to pass it on. Probably not 1000 AD. But also not too early, since it only began in 500 BC, and it required use of copper or bronze. So perhaps more like 300 to 700 AD, though after being transmitted, lasting right up through the "present" (closing of the American frontier circa 1900). Pacific Northwest natives never had to worry what a civilization like China might think about them sacrificing people, animals, and precious mirrors, well after the Dark Ages...

187 comments:

  1. Marine gave a great karaoke performance, with classics as well as recent hits. She kept saying, "Let's sing oldies, to make teenagers cry". ^_^

    As always with Marine, I learned a new classic Japanese song -- "Nagori Yuki" by Iruka, from the good ol' Sad Seventies. It has a very Carpenters-like fusion of folk music, a jazz-y / funky bass, and a plaintive female vocal singing about love.

    So far, the only other Hololive girl to sing it is Noel, several years ago. It would really suit Irys, who loves the Carpenters. ^_^

    And Marine has sung it many times -- it's clearly a favorite of hers, and I can see why. Her rich, honey-dripping voice really adds something to the original. It's not her usual seductive, sexy voice... it sounds more like a nuturing lullaby from a pretty babysitter. The high level of resonance is not for va-va-voom seduction, but like a cat purring -- to calm and soothe and reassure.

    I really love when Marine lets this side of her personality show, the role of "cat purring on your lap, in order to soothe and comfort you".

    And as someone who is easily possessed by the spirit of the music, she really gets into the performance. She's doesn't get stage-fright. So, even if that is not her usual personality, it's a secret part of her, and she can easily turn it up to the max by being possessed by a song that has that personality in it.

    Of course, when the song is seductive, then Marine can also become possessed by *that* spirit as well, and her resonant voice does sound like a seductive cat in heat, hehe. But she's not faking it just for clicks -- it's a real side of her personality, and she can't help but become possessed by the spirit of the music, no matter what it is.

    Speaking of "Ihojin" again, Marine performed that in a duet with Azki during her concert that was made in the "Showa TV concert shot on video" style. I'm so glad that someone who is as popular as Marine is using that role to preserve the classics of Japanese culture, and make them cool to newer younger audiences, as well as drawing in older audiences.

    Every girl in Hololive who preserves the classics, whether it's songs or movies or TV series or video games, is part of the team effort to keep Japanese culture alive. Culture doesn't keep itself alive, and is not transmitted passively by genes -- it needs to be actively transmitted, every single generation after the other, or it dies.

    Living in the collapsing American Empire that is demolishing its own culture, it's a relief to see that *some* wonderful cultures are continuing to preserve themselves, and not with a groan as though it's a chore that must be done, but with an enthusiastic smile cuz it's fun and exciting and awesome.

    It's no surprise that Americans, from all walks of life, are jealous of Glorious Nippon... ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Ainu / Emishi belong to the Uralo-Siberian sphere, for all sorts of cultural shibboleths, including perhaps their language. This will require a separate post with details, but just as a preview of the main topic, here's the proposed mega-family of languages that includes Uralic, Yukaghir, Eskaleut, and maybe / maybe-not Chukotko-Kamchatkan:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fortescue#Uralo-Siberian_languages

    I've found enough evidence to put the Ainu language family into this mega-family -- whether or not they're closely related by linguistic ancestry, and/or part of a heavy region of contact, and/or switching / conversion from one family to another while bringing over linguistic baggage from their previous language.

    But as I said about Japonic and Yeniseian and Na-Dene, and Indo-European languages vs. Indo-Euro cultural shibboleths, language is not the most diagnostic domain of culture in order to see who shares a cultural ancestor. People change their languages more than they change other parts of their cultural shibboleths. Still, it's worth adding to the entire picture by looking at language.

    The other domains of culture where the Ainu / Emishi resemble and must share a cultural ancestor with the other groups in the Uralo-Siberian sphere, are myth / religion, the bear cult rituals, clothing, and geometric patterns / designs for adornment.

    Phenotypically, they have rounder / spherical skulls, narrower eyes, less prominent nasal bridge / wide nostrils, although unlike SE Asians who share those traits, the Uralo-Siberians are hairier. They're also tall.

    So in the Japanese islands, there was a collision of two expanding cultures:

    First, the Wa, representing the Eastern Steppe sphere (along with Na-Dene and Yeniseian), who entered Japan from Korea / the west, associated with the Yayoi and Kofun periods in Japan.

    Second, the Emishi (later evolving into the Ainu), representing the Arctic Siberian sphere (along with other Uralo-Siberian cultures), who entered Japan from the north, associated with the Jomon period in Japan -- especially the Late / Final Jomon periods, in the 1st millennium BC. The earlier Jomon periods going back to 3, 4, 5, 10,000 BC, may not belong to the Uralo-Siberian mega-culture. But when the distinctive dogu style of statues show up in Japan, that's for sure Uralo-Siberian.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Therefore, the Uralo-Siberian culture may have arrived somewhat earlier than the Wa-Dene-Yeniseian culture, but not by very much. The U-S culture landed in the north and migrated south and west, while the W-D-Y culture landed in the west and migrated east and north. In the middle of Honshu, they collided with each other, and fought over who would rule Japan. The Wa won over the Emishi, and assimilated the losing side into a new fusion culture -- the Yamato.

    As I suggested earlier, I think "Yamato" has an Ainu etymology, meaning "chestnut father", as in the lord or provider or patron over the chestnut groves, which are crucial to the ecology of Central Japan where the Yamato court was born, and whose fruits -- Japanese chestnuts -- remain an iconic food item of Glorious Nippon still to this day.

    The Emishi who did not want to assimilate, doubled-back to the north and held out in Tohoku for awhile, before migrating further north into Hokkaido, Sakhalin, the Kurils, etc., joining a Medieval Okhotsk culture, and becoming a somewhat new culture, the Ainu.

    And although the Yamato society took part in a cultural and genetic fusion of the previously separate populations, there is still a more Wa flavor to the Western half of Japan, and a more Emishi flavor to the Eastern half.

    There are far more Emishi / Ainu place-names and loanwords in Eastern Japan, the location of the mythical Sanzu no Kawa is supposed to be in Tohoku, and Eastern Japanese are taller, with rounder faces, narrower eyes, and less prominent noses. Probably less lactose-tolerant as well.

    In Western Japan, there are fewer Ainu words, mythical locations linked to Wa-Dene-Yeniseian myths (like where Yamato Takeru was guided by a white wolf guardian spirit), and the Western Japanese are shorter, with taller faces, larger eyes, with more prominent / angular noses. More lactose-tolerant.

    This is just an overview, but I have to write some of it down right away before I forget it! This will take me away from my usual focus on Wa, Na-Dene, and Yeniseian, but will circle back to my focus on Uralic! Good thing I spent so much time studying Uralic while discovering the Uralic origins of the Scythians and neighboring groups of Herodotus' time! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  4. To clarify the significance, it's already known that there was a culturally and genetically different population in Japan before the Yayoi period, and that the Wa came from the Asian mainland.

    What I've done is to show which precise cultures in the broader region sent an off-shoot into Glorious Nippon. The Wa were not just any ol' group of mainland Asians, they were from the Eastern Steppe, and spoke a language related to Yeniseian and Na-Dene.

    What I'll show coming up, is that the Emishi / Ainu were not a cultural isolate, whose culture had evolved in Japan since forever -- but that they, too, were a cultural off-shoot of mainland Asia. And definitely *not* Southeast Asian, lol. Unlike the Wa, their roots came from further to the north, part of the Arctic culture rather than the Steppe culture. And if their language is related to any others, it's Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, or Eskaleut.

    The big picture is that there have been two mega-cultures in NE Asia for a very long time -- the Arctic one and the Steppe one. They have collided many times in various places, sometimes one replacing the other, sometimes leading to a fusion.

    Both sent off-shoots into the New World -- the Steppe sent Na-Dene, whose speakers generally remain sub-Arctic in residence, and the Arctic sent Eskaleut, whose speakers remain Arctic in residence. These two sides have been enemies forever in the New World.

    And both sent off-shoots into Japan -- the Steppe sent the Wa, who settled mostly into Western Japan, and the Arctic sent the Emishi / Ainu, who settled mostly into Eastern Japan. They used to be enemies, but they formed a fusion led by the victorious Wa, with the unassimilated Emishi retreating northward to remain culturally Arctic rather than get Steppe-ified.

    And on the mainland of Asia, they clashed along their border that lies between the Steppe and the Arctic, usually forming a fusion -- like Turkic and Mongolic seemingly having both a Uralic and a Yeniseian parent. Or former Yeniseian speakers converting to Uralic language (Samoyedic).

    Linguistically, on the mainland, the Arctic was victorious. In Japan, the Steppe was victorious. In the New World, they have not resolved their hostilities and have carved out separate regions of major linguistic expansion -- the Arctic vs. the sub-Arctic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A nice display of both phenotypes of Japanese, in the singing duo Aming. Takako Okamura on the left, representing the Wa from the Steppe, and Haruko Kato on the right, representing the Emishi from the Arctic:

    https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/takako-okamura-and-haruko-kato-of-singer-duo-amin-during-news-photo/1077481278

    Kato has some Wa traits as well, but shows more of the Emishi roots, whereas Okamura looks like she just dismounted from her horse after riding in from Mongolia or Kazakhstan. Taller skull, larger eyes, more angular and prominent nose, bunny-rabbit overbite, furry eyebrows (almost a unibrow), and much shorter than her partner (hard to see in this pic where they're sitting down).

    At least Okamura is from Aichi, which is right on the border between Western and Eastern Japan. IDK where Kato is from, but possibly Aichi as well.

    The stereotype in Japan is that girls from Kansai are the hottest -- maybe due to them having more of a Steppe look than an Arctic look. Those striking high-relief features. The Steppe people did migrate throughout Japan and Hokkaido, but they are more concentrated in the Western half.

    My grandmother was from Southern Hokkaido, but she was a Steppe descendant -- short stature, tall head, large eyes, angular nose, milk-drinker. By now, Steppe people have settled Hokkaido as well, they're just not as frequent there compared to Kansai or Kyushu.

    Anyway, the only Hololive girls to sing a song by Aming during karaoke are the turbo-weebs Fuwamoco, who sang the group's #1 hit "Matsu wa" from the early '80s. At least, they're the only ones with a clip of it on YouTube.

    Okamura had a long solo career after Aming broke up in the mid-'80s, but so far no girl in Hololive has sung one of her solo songs. They're pretty good, too, in the easy listening / adult contemporary / new age / world music / singer-songrwiter genres. Hard to sum her up with one label -- but who doesn't love an enigmatic woman? Especially one with such striking features? She matured into a real babe, with the sharp features of a baddie but the tender voice of a romantic. Image search her name to see for yourself... ^_^

    Maybe the Koronator could cover one of her songs -- like "Yume wo Akiramenaide", which means "don't give up your dreams". She could subtly alter the first word to match her brand -- "Yubi wo Akiramenaide", or "don't give up your finger", since she's always joking about stealing a finger away from her fans. She likes mixing meme-y ironic humor with sincere heartfelt songs like that, so it would be right up her alley! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  6. Celebrating this sudden BLAST of chilly air by opening all the windows, and BLASTING some sublime tunes while Arctic gusts rush all around me! I even sang along to a few of them, loud enough for the neighbors to hear! (1, 3, and 7) Noise complaints? Not if the music is awesome, iconic, and the singer is good! ^_^

    Steal his playlist --

    1. "Return to Innocence" by Engima

    2. "Sadeness" by Engima

    3. "Come Undone" by Duran Duran

    4. "Pictures of You" by the Cure

    5. "Secret" by OMD

    6. "Maid of Orleans" by OMD

    7. "Avalon" by Roxy Music

    Thank God for this relief from 80-degree weather. My tiger-bear and I are going to get SO cuddly tonight! We already had a nice cuddly nap together around 5, but it's definitely going to be a wool blanket + body heat sleep-time tonight!

    He's having a blast himself, sitting at the open windows and getting to see and hear and sniff all the wondrous gifts that the wind is bringing him. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hmmm, curioser and curioser... perhaps Ainu, although Uralic, has a Wa-Dene-Yeniseian kind of layer underneath it. But not Japonic -- maybe another region where Dene-Yeniseian-like languages used to be spoken, way way way back when...

    First, Ainu is confirmed Uralic -- I have pages of notes, after researching over the weekend.

    But one key area where I couldn't find any Uralic cognates was personal pronouns. These are never borrowed, and are some of the most stubborn words to carry over, even after switching / converting languages. OK, so maybe they look like someone else's pronouns nearby -- but they're not like Uralic, Yukaghir, Eskaleut, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, or Nivkh.

    However, they look somewhat like the Proto-Japonic pronouns -- except they look even more like Na-Dene and Yeniseian, which Wa / Japonic is sister to. So they're not a result of "recent" contact with Japonic speakers during the Yayoi period and afterward.

    So I don't think there was a Wa / Japonic language spoken before the Uralic language that became Emishi and later Ainu. But it did belong to the same family as Wa / Japonic, i.e. Dene-Yeniseian. And yet it's not a clear copy-paste of Yeniseian or Na-Dene.

    Perhaps it was Na-Dene or Yeniseian, but the intervening centuries and several language conversions / heavy contact with Japanese, have obscured what used to be clearly Dene or Yeniseian.

    Or perhaps it was a distinct 4th branch of the family -- Yeniseian in the West, Na-Dene in the Northeast, Wa / Japonic in the Southeast, and... Jomon or whatever, due east of the Steppe. Note that the northernmost tip of Sakhalin island is due east of the passage through the Altai-Sayan Mountains, lying south of Lake Baikal, and at the same latitude as most of the Amur River region.

    That would have been well before 500 BC -- maybe 1500 BC, in Sakhalin, Hokkaido, Eastern Honshu.

    Then sometime in the 1st millennium BC, there's an abrupt change in culture and language -- the spread of the Arctic mega-culture, and its language family, Uralic. Call this language Emishi -- mostly Uralic, but its speakers formerly spoke a Dene-Yeniseian-type language (what I'm calling Jomon, or maybe Early Jomon). Because personal pronouns are stubborn to change, Emishi was lexically Uralic except for retaining Dene-Yeniseian-type personal pronouns.

    Later, toward the end of the 1st millennium BC, the Wa speakers show up and inaugurate the Yayoi period in Japan. They bring the Emishi speakers *back into* contact with Wa-Dene-Yeniseian, and reinforce their Dene-Yeniseian pronouns, as well as converting large numbers of Emishi speakers to Japonic.

    Some of these Emishi do not want to convert, so they flee to the north and settle into Tohoku, Hokkaido, Sakhalin, the Kuril islands, and become part of the Okhotsk culture. They give up whatever degree of bilingualism they had with Japonic, and start becoming monolingual in Emishi all over again, only now it's evolved to the state where it's Proto-Ainu.

    And yet, all that time, those Dene-Yeniseian pronouns have remained, cuz those kinds of words are so hard to get rid of and swap in an entirely new set.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not as certain of this part of the story -- it's a lot farther back, with far less evidence to base it on. And yet, how else do Ainu personal pronouns resemble nobody else's except for Wa-Dene-Yeniseian? If Ainu or Emishi was a Wa-Dene-Yeniseian language, then it's no mystery -- they share personal pronouns and much of the rest of their language with that family.

    But the rest of their language -- morphology, phonology, syntax, and most of the lexicon -- does *not* look Wa-Dene-Yeniseian. It looks Uralic. That stubborn core of the language, personal pronouns, likely reveals the pre-Uralic history of those islands. There may be very few other traces of that language in the Ainu lexicon, but pronouns are very stubborn, and they're a core part of the lexicon.

    How ironic that, after switching from Wa-Dene-Yeniseian to Uralic, they should come under such heavy Wa influence after all! Most of them switched back to Wa-Dene-Yeniseian (Japanese), except for the hold-outs who fled north toward Hokkaido. But those Wa-Dene-Yeniseian pronouns could not be so easily scrubbed out from their linguistic history, and provide a faint yet keen glimmer into their far-distant cultural origins!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another cultural shibboleth shared by Japanese and Yeniseians -- both identify as "people of the daylight", as part of their solar cult. All sorts of cultures worship the sun -- what's so unique? Well, not everybody who worships the sun refers to themselves as "people" or "children" of the "daylight", as opposed to "the sun".

    For example, Persians -- or maybe only the diasporoids -- refer to themselves as "children of the sun", harking back to their fire-worshiping Zoroastrian past. But they say "sun", not "daylight".

    But several Yeniseian-speaking groups, like the Ket and their neighbors the Yug, refer to themselves as "people of the daylight".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BA

    For example, the Ket endonym was "Kə́nasked", where the final element "ked" means "people". The first element, "Kə́n" means "light, bright". The entire name does not mean that their physical bodies are bright, glittering, etc. -- it means they are the people of light-ness, brightness, glittering-ness -- i.e., the daylight.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%8A%CA%BC%D0%BD

    The word for "light, bright" does not contain a morpheme based on their word for "sun", which is "ii", so this name is even further removed from names based on "sun".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Yeniseian/x%CA%B7aj

    ReplyDelete
  10. In Japan, they do identify with a phrase containing the word for "sun", like "asahi", where "asa" means "morning" and "hi" means "sun" (from P-J "pi"). And we say that as well -- Land of the Rising Sun.

    And yet, their main goddess in Shinto, back to the earliest Japanese texts, is named "Amaterasu", where "ama" refers to the sky or heavens, not the sun, and "terasu" from the verb for "to shine" -- not based on "pi / hi" = "sun". It means "Shining-in-the-heavens", without referring to the sun per se.

    In fact, she was also known by a simpler and earlier name, "Hirume", and she was linguistically paired with a boy named "Hiruko", the first-born but malformed child of the creator gods Izanagi and Izanami, who cast out that child since it lacked bones and couldn't stand on its own.

    Notice that both names share the phrase "hiru", and that the suffix "me" is a generic word for a female, and "ko" is a generic word for a son or boy. But what does "hiru" mean?

    Due to some bizarre historical taboo, nobody has plainly connected the dots here. But you don't have to be a cliff-dwelling sage to figure this one out -- I'm just the first one to plainly speak this truth, while others refuse to, for some reason.

    In the sources cited by Wiktionary for "hiru" in the names "Hiruko" and "Hirume", the assumption is that "hi" means "sun" and "ru" is an otherwise rare / unattested variant of the also rare genitive particle "ro". So, the names mean "girl / daughter of the sun" and "boy / son of the sun".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%9B%AD%E5%AD%90

    But why assume a rare variant of a rare word, for "ru"? There is a far simpler explanation -- that "hiru", or "piru" in the OJ form in which it was originally written, is that exact same word from P-J -- "piru", which means "daylight" or "daytime", and is contrasted with "yoru" = "night-time".

    This is morphologically simpler, with "hi" and "ru" attaching to form a single word "hiru", and either "me" or "ko" attaching to that pair. "hi + ru + ko" has 3 elements with no grouping / nesting. And it's a more likely choice of words, not involving a rare variant of a rare word. And the interpretation is scarcely different -- they mean "daylight daughter" and "daylight son".

    So now the connection to the Yeniseians is complete, referring to themselves not as simply people or children of "the sun" -- but of "the daylight". Unlike Yeniseian, Japanese does include the morpheme for "sun" inside the word for "daylight / daytime". But because it's hiding inside of a larger / nested phrase, "hiru", the connotation of "sun" is still pretty weak -- the main meaning is "daylight / daytime", and you'd have to think a bit, consciously, to think of the "sun".

    This must be the origin of later focus in Tengrism, also from the Eastern Steppe, on the eternal blue sky. It's not really about a sky god, or the sky personified as a god, as in the case of Proto-Indo-European religion / mythology. It's about the sun shining clearly through on a cloudless day -- when the skies are blue, and it's daytime rather than nighttime. But although it's part of a solar cult, the reference to the sun per se is indirect and hidden. It's primarily about the bright, shining daylight.

    Yeniseians, Huns, Turks, and Glorious Nippon -- all children of the daylight in a great big happy Eastern Steppe family. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  11. Technically, "piru / hiru" refers to an interval of time during the 24-hour cycle -- noon, midday, etc., as opposed to "yoru" which is the evening, night-time, etc. It doesn't have an overt morpheme relating to "shine", like the Yeniseian phrase does, or like the Japanese name "Amaterasu" does.

    But what else are they possibly talking about, by contrasting "hiru" with other times of the day like "yoru"? The most salient thing that changes in the environment during the 24-hour cycle is the amount of light shining down from the sky. And "hiru" means "midday", when the most light is shining down.

    The connection to "the sun" is a bit further removed -- you can clearly chart the course of the sun over the course of the light part of the day. And during midday, it's at its peak in the sky.

    But that's not the main sensory impression we have of the 24-hour cycle -- it's the amount of light shining down, wherever it may be coming from. We are far less attuned to the position of the sun in the sky per se. You don't want to chart it too accurately anyway -- you'll hurt your eyes!

    So the time-word "midday" is semantically interchangeable with "daylight" in this context, and does not involve the sun per se, only the amount of light shining down during noontime.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also, think about who their implied opposition is -- is it "children of the moon", or "children of the night"? And even for the latter, is "night" so oppositional due to a different celestial body being in the sky, or cuz it's really dark? It's about the brightness level falling, not the changing of the guard in celestial luminary bodies.

    If they base their identity on the sun per se, then maybe their enemies are those who base it on the moon. But if it's about brightness shining down from the heavens, then they may very well worship the moon as well, just to a lesser extent since it's not quite so bright nor as reliable. And indeed they do worship the moon to a lesser extent, not treating it like some rival to their precious sun.

    Morphologically, Yeniseian, Na-Dene, and Wa / Japonic treated the "moon" as the "night-sun", since they were grateful for this "source of celestial shining brilliance during the otherwise dark part of the 24-hour cycle".

    It's straightforward for Dene-Yeniseian, and earlier I showed how "tukui" is a fossilized form of "night-sun" in the ancient history of the Wa language, not from the later Proto-Japonic stage. You can tell since the strategy to resolve the difficult labialized velar consonant was not to turn it into a labial stop, as in the "p" in P-J "pi", but to split its features into 2 phonemes, a velar stop and a rounded vowel, namely the "ku" in "tukui".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ainu has the Indo-Euro word for "wolf"! I just have to share this one treasure now, before offering up the entire trove to the gods in the near future. And it's not just a "wow, that's neat" factoid, it actually resolves an open question in the reconstruction of Proto-Ainu!

    Well, first I figured out that Ainu belongs to the Uralic family -- either as a yet-unnoticed branch stemming from P-U and being sister to P-Samoyedic, P-Ugric, etc., or as a far-eastern sister to P-U itself. I went on the hunt for cognates between Ainu and P-U or as far back in Uralic as I could find.

    The first major attempt to reconstruct Proto-Ainu was Vovin 1993, and in it there are 2 unusual phonemes -- what he writes as "g" (voiced velar FRICATIVE), and "hd" (some weird back consonant). In recent work on P-A, Alonso de la Fuente has outlined 2 scenarios that these consonants could be. See his chapter in Bugaeva's Handbook of the Ainu Language (2022).

    In scenario 1, "hd" was actually "kʷ" and "g" was "w".

    In scenario 2, "hd" was "w" and "g" was "s".

    Well, I found a lot more Uralic cognates using scenario 1, for both phonemes. The "hd" words turn up cognates if it's "kʷ", and the "g" words turn up cognates if it's "w". Hardly any cognates turn up if these sounds are "w" and "s", as in 2.

    One of those "g" words is (simplifying the transcription), "gorkeu" = "wolf" in P-A. Most modern Ainu dialects pronounce it "horkew".

    Since "g" is actually "w", this makes it "workeu". Aside from the final "u" that I don't understand, this immediately and obviously jumps out as borrowed from the Proto-Indo-Iranian word for "wolf", which is "wrkas", and "wrkah" by the time it's P-Iranian. The telltale sign is the "r", which used to be "l" in Proto-Indo-European and all other daughter's version of this word, like English "wolf". But the entire Indo-Iranian branch lost "l" and changed it to "r" way back in the Proto-II stage.

    Several Uralic languages have borrowed this P-II word, which as I showed last year is behind the Slavic word for "wolfman" -- "vurkolak". That's cuz Proto-Slavic speakers used to be Uralic speakers, namely the Scythians and other neighboring groups from NE Europe and the Pontic-Caspian Steppe during Herodotus' time. It at least made it into the Mordvinic branch of Uralic, and that's the branch (especially Erzya) that most closely matches Scythian.

    And who can forget my discovery that "vampire" is Uralic, meaning "soul-biter / soul-feeder"? As a lifelong fan of the Gothic, I'm still proud of myself for that one. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  14. In the eastern branch of Uralic, Proto-Samoyedic borrowed it as "wərkə", but changed the meaning to another taboo / totem wild beast, "bear":

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Samoyedic/w%C9%99rk%C9%99

    Since the P-II donor form has no vowel between the "w" and "r", the inserted vowel in the borrowing languages remains underspecified / generic. In all but one of the Samoyedic descendants, the vowel is back / round, mostly "o" though one case of "u", surely due to the rounding influence of the preceding "w".

    So, it's no surprise at all to see it being borrowed as "workeu" in Proto-Ainu, or more likely during its much earlier stage, which I call Emishi, when they would have been on the Asian mainland and in contact with either P-II itself, or with Samoyedic speakers who they could have borrowed it from second-hand.

    However, given that it means "wolf" instead of "bear" in Ainu, they likely got it directly from P-II. How else would they know to change it from "bear" to "wolf", if they got it from Samoyedic? Unlikely.

    Possibly they also got it second-hand from a further-west Uralic group, like whoever borrowed the word into "vurkolak" (e.g. Mordvinic). But that strains credulity as well -- Emishi / Ainu is as far east as you can get in the Old World, so it's more likely they got it from an eastern source. If not Samoyedic, due to the semantic double-change required, then from the Indo-Iranians themselves, right as they smacked into the Altai-Sayan region and its horse-riding nomads, and took a sharp turn due south, never to return to the chaotic Steppe ever again.

    This would have been at a later date, since the P-II form has a final "s", while P-Iranian has final "h", and "h" is easier to lose or turn into a vowel / glide place-holder, as in "workeu".

    Is it possible that they borrowed it 2nd-hand from Samoyedic, but before the meaning was altered to "bear"? Well, it means "bear" way back in Proto-Samoyedic, when it was borrowed, so that possibility seems to be ruled out.

    That means that the homeland of Proto-Emishi was not in any Pacific island, but on the Asian mainland, and close enough to the Altai-Sayan region that they could pick up this word from the Indo-Iranians before they made a bee-line away from Mongolia. As far as we know, Indo-Iranian loans never made it east of that mountain pass -- only if the word was borrowed near there, and then spread by the borrowers further to the east.

    That's what must have happened here. The Emishi speakers used to live near the southern part of Lake Baikal, they picked up this loan from Indo-Iranians on their final leg of their eastward trek across the Steppe, and later the Emishi migrated or spread their language due east, ultimately being spoken in Sakhalin, Hokkaido, and Eastern Honshu, while vanishing from the mainland.

    How else did they get this Indo-Iranian word for "wolf"?!

    This I-I word was not borrowed into Na-Dene, Yeniseian, or Wa / Japonic, BTW, so it reflects the Uralic-speaking stage of the Emishi, not their distant Wa-Dene-Yeniseian prehistory (judging from their personal pronouns), nor their later heavily Wa-influenced stage due to Japanese.

    Fascinating stuff, isn't it?! ^_^ That's why you gladly and regularly take a break from your soul-crushing doom-scrolling and politicized bullshit to visit the Cliffs of Wisdom in the ruins of the blogosphere...

    Glad I can keep you from killing yourself out of boredom for another week, hehe.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ainu uses the Uralic number system, where 8 and 9 are derived from 2 and 1, respectively. It actually goes further and derives 6 and 7 from 4 and 3, as well.

    All the Finno-Ugric branches do this for 8 and 9, although not Samoyedic, which has its own system. In Finno-Ugric, 8 and 9 are only derived from 2 and 1 -- they don't include a morpheme for 10, as though to say "2 to 10" or "1 to 10", in the way we say it's "quarter to 2" for 1:45. They do have an extra morpheme or two as a suffix, meaning something along the lines of "remaining" until you're finished counting on your two hands.

    This seems to be true for Ainu also, where 8 and 9 don't have the word for 10 in them, seemingly anyway. Just a suffix or two.

    But the Ainu words for 6 and 7 actually *do* have the word for 10, with no connecting morphemes between them. So, 6 is just "4 10", and 7 is "3 10".

    AFAICT, no other language families count this way for numbers under 10. Latin did at some point for 18 and 19 (2 from 20 and 1 from 20), but they had a word for 20 in there. The Finno-Ugric system doesn't include the end-point number, it just says "2 remaining / left / toward", and so does Ainu.

    I spent all day tracking these things down, including looking at Indo-European. It's a pretty tricky to keep track of who borrowed what from whom -- and was it the abstract template or system, or was it particular words, or both?

    Lots more to say in a bit. Just want to cement the linguistic and cultural link between Uralic and Ainu in yet another domain, and that they don't just share these systems, they are the only ones who do. They share a cultural and linguistic ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As for particular words, rather than the system of counting, Ainu has some Uralic cognates, although it seems like they're only the milestone ones, like 10 and 20. They don't share 1, 2, 3, or 4 with Uralic.

    Well, even in Uralic, Samoyedic has almost completely different words from Finno-Ugric, and only shares a milestone word -- 5 in F-U is 10 in S (from P-U "witte" or "wixte"), and I think 20 in Ainu ("wot"). In Ainu, 10 is "kʷan" ("hdan" in Vovin), perhaps related to "kümmen(-ne)" = 10, from P-Finnic and P-Mordvinic, where the rounding on "kʷ" corresponds to the rounded vowel in "kü".

    If anything, I think Ainu borrowed 1, 2, and 3 from.... Proto-Indo-European. Not Indo-Iranian, not Tocharian, some real early-ass stage of Indo-European.

    In Ainu, 1 is "sine", but "s" before "i" alternates with "h", and in general "h" could have been "w" earlier on, due to Ainu's "w" -> "h" sound change (Alonso de la Fuente). So it's possible that "sine" used to be "wine" -- like P-IE "h₁óynos", where the "y" turned into "i", and the sequence "oi" was rendered as "wi" (typical), and the confusing laryngeal ignored by Ainu, as it is in Uralic.

    In Ainu, 2 is "tu" -- just like "dwóh₁" from P-IE, except there's no voicing in Ainu, just like in Uralic. So "d" -> "t", and either the "w" or "o" or both become "u".

    In Ainu, 3 is "re" -- just like "tréyes" / "tri" from P-IE, except initial clusters are banned in Ainu, just like in Uralic. So keep the consonant closest to the main vowel and junk the further-away one.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The only gap is with 4 -- but I've uncovered widespread tetraphobia, or fear / taboo about the number 4, far outside of the standard zone centered on China. Well, Ainu would be included in the East Asian zone of tetraphobia. But all sorts of Indo-Euro languages taboo-altered the first consonant

    And even the P-IE word itself is suspicious -- "kʷetwóres", which has too many syllables to be a basic word. P-IE wants 1-syllable words, beginning and ending with a consonant, ideally. So "kʷet" could work as a base, but not the whole word. I doubt that either, though, since this complex word is probably a circumlocution to avoid the no-no number -- it doesn't have a secret word for 4 in it, it's based on some euphemism like "lucky victory" or something, IDK exactly.

    Ainu has three forms of 4, two related and one distinct. The standalone number is "ine", while the combining form inside the word for 6 is just "i". There's a phrase for quarters, as in fractions, "pon emko", where "emko" means "piece, fragment, part", so "pon" must mean 4.

    I'm guessing this "pon" is closer to the original Ainu / Emishi word, since it's inside a complex phrase, and as we know, taboo / banned words are easier to hide inside complex phrases, rather than exposed in the open as standalone words.

    Where might "pon" come from? I'm guessing again it's borrowed from I-E, just like 1, 2, and 3.

    Many daughter langauges' alteration of P-IE "kʷetwóres" change the "kʷ" to "p". Now, I'm assuming that way back when, Ainu / Emishi had "kʷ", so why didn't they borrow it as is? Maybe they didn't have this sound at the time of borrowing -- too late or too early, IDK enough about Ainu linguistic history right now. Or if they had, it would've sounded too similar to the P-A word for "to be bad", "kʷen" ("hden" in Vovin).

    Or maybe Ainu also taboo-deformed that sound, just like the bona fide I-E languages did, due to tetraphobia. "OK, we'll borrow this word from you... but it's inherently evil, so just let us break it a little first, all right, there we go, it can't hurt us now..."

    The "o" comes from either the rounding of the 1st consonant, or the medial "w" and/or "o".

    I can't explain the final "n", other than an irregular change of the "r" for some reason.

    The other alternative is that Ainu borrowed the P-IE word for 5 instead, which is "pénkʷe", and since that's a milestone word that they already had semantically in Ainu ("aski", based on "aske" = "hand", semantically similar to the etymology of the P-IE word). So they changed its meaning to fill the vacuum left by the taboo surrounding 4.

    That accounts for the "p" and "n", while the "e" vowel changed to a rounded one at the same height, "o", under the rounding influence of nearby "kʷ".

    That's a much better phonetic derivation, and the semantic shift isn't too hard to understand either. So I'll go with that for now.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not only does this further establish Ainu's Uralic ancestry, it reveals some very early contact with a very early form of Indo-European -- pointing yet again to Ainu / Emishi origins being closer to the Altai-Sayan region and the southern shores of Lake Baikal, not entirely indigenous to the Japanese islands.

    Thanks to Peyrot, we know that the Tocharians were a fusion from a mostly Samoyedic local group converting to I-E based on visitors from the West, who were P-IE speakers, not Indo-Iranians or a late group like that. It was in the Altai-Sayan region, and then the Tocharians headed further east, unlike true Indo-Euros who never made it through that mountain pass, and wound their way down into the Tarim Basin.

    Well, Ainu / Emishi contact with Proto-Indo-Euro speakers would have happened in the same place around the same time. It's just another example of an Eastern Uralic group meeting an early eastward off-shoot of the Yamnaya-type people.

    Since the Ainu word for "wolf" has "r" instead of "l", we know they hung around long enough to meet Indo-Iranians. But these Indo-Euro numbers in Ainu look even older than Indo-Iranian, since the II word for 1 lost the nasal. So the Emishi / Ainu were hanging around there for quite some time, and headed eastward toward the Amur River and ultimately the Northern Pacific islands after picking up the II word for "wolf".

    That wasn't in the 1st millennium AD or anything -- but it was more recent than everyone thinks, which is that the Emishi / Ainu / Etc. are an entirely indigenous, native cultural development. They're not -- somebody could have been there before the Uralic culture, but they either converted to the Uralic culture, and/or got demographically replaced by them, if the aborigines were hunter-gatherers, and the Uralic speakers had a more advanced subsistence mode.

    By the time they're battling the Yamato in the mid-1st millennium AD, the Emishi are horse-riding archers. They weren't exclusively sea-faring hunter-gatherers, like the picture of the Ainu these days. They had a badass Steppe element in the good ol' days -- but after they were conquered by the Yamato, they joined them, since they were also horse-riding archers from the Steppe.

    It seems like only the hunter-gatherer types among the Emishi decided to remain culturally apart from the Wa / Yamato / Nippon, even fleeing further north, where they ran into more small-scale hunter-gatherers around the Sea of Okhotsk, not another group of horse-riding agro-pastoralists.

    And like I said before, perhaps even the pre-Uralic group in the Japanese islands spoke a Wa-Dene-Yeniseian language, strange as that sounds.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But it would be no different from the history of the Hungarians -- they began as Uralics, like all Northeast Europeans during Herodotus' time. Then around 500 AD they switched to Indo-Euro speaking, and Slavic was born. But then less than 500 years later, they get invaded by Uralic-speaking nomads, and they switch languages again -- but now returning BACK to Uralic all over again! Their Slavic phase lasted less than half a millennium, hehe.

    But the branches of Uralic were different -- the Southwestern branch of Uralic is Mordvinic, and that's what the Scythians spoke. Probably that's what the ancient ancestors of the Hungarians spoke. When the Magyars invaded them later on, they converted to the Ugric branch of Uralic, a whole different branch, albeit in the same family.

    That could have happened in Japan. The natives started out perhaps as their own 4th branch of Wa-Dene-Yeniseian(-Early Jomon). Then they convert to Uralic when the Emishi show up, and Ainu remains Uralic. But most of them convert to Japanese after invasion by the Wa, so they wind up speaking Wa-Dene-Yeniseian all over again -- but in a different branch, Wa / Japonic, not whatever their earlier distinct branch was.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Last crucial detail: those suffixes that derive 8 and 9 from 2 and 1, in Finno-Ugric, are either "-ksa" or "ksan".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/kakteksa

    If it's "san", that's also the same suffix as in Ainu for 8 and 9 -- but not 6 and 7, which have an overt word for 10, not just suffixes.

    Ainu 9 is "sinepesan", and 8 is "tupesan", from "sine" and "tu". The "-p" or "-e" suffix could correspond semantically to the "-k-" suffix in Finno-Ugric, although obviously they're phonetically different (unless both descend from "kʷ"...)

    But after that suffix, it's "san" in both cases -- phonetically identical to their counterpart in Finno-Ugric. They're cognates!

    Vovin tries to stick the word for 10 in there instead ("hdan" in his writing, "kʷan" in my choice among Alonso de la Fuente's 2 scenarios, and "wan" in the modern Ainu dialects). That is on analogy with the words for 6 and 7, which *do* have "wan" instead of "san", and do not have the "-pe" suffix, only "iwan" and "arawan".

    So perhaps the Ainu words for 8 and 9, with final suffix "-san", are fossilized forms from the very old suffix that they share with Finno-Ugric. This explains why it's only 8 and 9 -- those are the only numbers that Finno-Ugric derives in this "X remaining" way.

    When Ainu took this logic further, to derive 6 and 7 from 4 and 3, it had no inherited forms from elsewhere in the Uralic family, unlike for 8 and 9's suffix. So they made it explicit this time -- 6 is "4 10" and 7 is "3 10", with no connecting affixes whatsoever, a morphological simplification over the old template that they share with Finno-Ugric.

    That's why Ainu has 2 different pairs of subtractive number words -- 8 and 9 reflect the Proto-Uralic or very old Uralic form, with one or more suffixes and no overt word for 10, while 6 and 7 reflect the later Ainu-specific branch's attempt to extend the subtractive method to the other numbers between the milestones of 5 and 10. But since they were doing this on-the-fly, they didn't have all those funky, fossilized suffixes to inherit, and they just stuck two numbers together to derive a third number, more like a brute-force compound than a derivation using suffixes.

    But that doesn't deny the cognate status of those suffixes for 8 and 9, between Ainu and Finno-Ugric! Too many shibboleth-y similarities for them to be coined independently -- and remember, Ainu speakers and Finnish or Erzya speakers have never been in contact with each other. Ergo, they share a common ancestor! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  21. Some final details on Ainu & Uralic numerals. Now that I've seen subtractive number systems everywhere, I actually think the Ainu word for 4 is based on the word for 1 -- semantically, "1 left / remaining / toward the milestone".

    Since 1 is "wine", 4 = "ine" can be derived from it by alteration, namely deleting the first consonant, which is already a weak consonant, as a glide. Or if 1 had already shifted to "hine", same thing -- initial "h" is pretty weak, easy to delete.

    As we'll see later, I don't think it's likely to have a pair of derived numerals on the same side of the "one hand" milestone divide. 1 and 4 appear too close together in sequence, that it'd be confusing to derive 4 from 1. But if it's on the other hand, on the other side of the 5 milestone, then deriving 9 from 1 isn't so confusing.

    But in this case, there's been a major alteration to 1, by removing its initial consonant -- now it's not quite so similar-sounding, and less likely to confuse you while counting on a single hand, to express 4.

    Tetraphobia shows up even more when 4 is used to express 6, as "4 10", where "ine" gets whittled down to just "i" (in "iwan"). Ainu was clearly not afraid of deleting segments or entire syllables to generate variant forms of numerals.

    This use of "wine" to generate "ine" (getting 4 from 1), happened after the original Ainu / Emishi word for 4, "pon", was erased due to tetraphobia. A sign that this was a late event is that it doesn't have the suffixes like "-pe" or some other endpoint like "san". This is an analytic rather than synthetic strategy, just like the word for 6 and 7 having no affixes, just a root-root compound "4 10" and "3 10". Analytic stages of language tend to happen later, and multiple layers of affixation is a sign of earlier history.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Finally, modern Ainu 20 = "hot" came from P-A "wot", which I said was cognate with P-U "witte / wixte". I favor the P-U form being "wixte", since that introduces some rounding near the 1st vowel, especially if "x" is actually labialized as "xʷ". Here's a recent attempt to simplify derivations from P-U into the daughter branches, by proposing "xʷ" as a phoneme in P-U, as the realization of the mystery back consonant "x".

    https://www.academia.edu/164962051/The_case_for_a_labialized_velar_fricative_xw_in_Proto_Uralic_draft_version_1

    The meaning of the P-U word seems to be "closing the hand into a fist", since it sounds similar to verbs related to grasping, holding, carrying, etc., which involve curling your fingers and thumb around whatever you're seizing, carrying, etc.

    The main suspects here both have "x" -- "wixe" = "to bring, to take somewhere, to drag, to pull, etc." and "wexe" = "to take, to grasp". IDK what the suffix "-t-" means to go from those verbs to the numeral noun meaning "closed fist".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/wixe-

    In the Finno-Ugric branches, "wixte" means 5, but in P-Samoyedic it was shifted to mean 10 -- perhaps thinking of "seizing with 2 hands" instead of just 1. Or based on counting to 10 on just one hand, by counting all 5 fingers in one order, then reversing that order to go from 6 to 10, which is a common way to count in East Asia. So the "fist"-based number was actually 10, not 5.

    In Ainu, this was shifted further to mean 20, a new milestone, but a natural end-point as well. Maybe counting on both hands, each time going forwards and backwards a la East Asia, so that both hands being closed in order to seize, carry, etc., happened at 20.

    That opened up room for the 5 milestone in Ainu to be based on the simpler noun "hand", not necessarily a closed fist, a carrying type of hand. That's where 5 = "aski" comes from, "aske" = "hand" (not necessarily closed or curling the fingers or thumb).

    If you start counting with both hands closed, then at 5, one of your hands is open -- so you definitely don't want to say "fist", but the generic word for "hand", which we assume is with the fingers and thumb open. Then you reverse the order to get a closed fist on 10, then repeat this process on the other hand, so that 15 has the other hand open, and reversing the order yet again on that hand, at 20 both hands are closed into a fist again -- which is where the "seize / grasp / fist" word comes in.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Major mystery solved for numerals in Indo-Euro, Uralic, Semitic, and Kartvelian! I wasn't even planning on going outside of Ainu, but once I saw it had adopted P-IE numerals, I figured I might as well snoop around there as well. And holy moly, did I stumble down a secret passageway! Good thing I brought my torch... ^_^

    This is all about the P-IE word for 4, which as I said is way too many syllables to be a basic original word. Probably a circumlocution to avoid the old word, which was replaced due to tetraphobia.

    First, what others before have intuited, discovered, and argued, and then my solving of the puzzle.

    The P-IE word for 8 is "oḱtṓw", and its long "o" vowel and "w" hint that it has a dual suffix, meaning "two of something". What is the singular form? From P-IE morphophonology, it must be "oḱto", and semantically it must refer to "four" somehow.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/o%E1%B8%B1t%E1%B9%93w

    But where does this word relating to 4 come from? It has been systematically erased in all daughter languages, and taboo-replaced by the circumlocution "kʷetwóres".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7etw%C3%B3res

    So does it mean anything in native P-IE roots? Or was it a borrowing? And if so, from where? And where did *that* language get it from -- did they borrow it? (if so, from whom?), or did they coin it themselves (if so, what does it mean in their native roots?).

    You see, the main problem is that 4 is not a primitive numeral in any language -- they have 1, 2, and "many". Maybe logarithmic milestones to mark orders of magnitude, like 5, 10, 20, 100, 10000, etc. But no language has words for fine-scale, precise integers between 1 and 10. Even though 1 and 2 are primitive, and 5 and 10 may be milestones, that still leaves 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

    Somebody has to coin new words for these non-primitive numbers, and they must have mneumonic value -- so they are easily understood and catch on in that language. From there, maybe they get loaned into other languages, whether the borrowers understand the original etymologies or not.

    So in looking at who borrowed what from whom, the buck has to stop somewhere with an original coinage of a non-primitive number, with a clear etymology in the language that coined it. Or it traces back to a primitive number, but used in a new way -- like expressing non-primitive 4 by means of primitive 1 (with the mneumonic being "1 to the milestone").

    Nobody has put these pieces together yet, as they span so many language families and involve trying to reduce everything to primitive numbers, which is not intuitive to us since we take all these integer words for granted. But believe me, it wouldn't been TOTALLY intuitive to people in 2000 BC!

    So let's dust off this magic carpet and explore this whole new world of numeral words! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  24. My key original insight is that ancient languages expressed non-primitive 4 by means of primitive 1, meaning "1 to the milestone". No one has figured that out -- but in fairness to them, sometimes the word for 1 is borrowed from another language. That way, it doesn't create confusion *within* a single language -- you don't express 4 by means of your own primitive word for 1, but by a borrowed word for 1. Or, as I showed with Ainu, by notably altering your own word for 1.

    By borrowing someone else's word for 1, you don't have to use a complex mneumonic like "this is the finger that sticks out the most" (which is how 3 was coined for P-IE, referring to the middle finger, which is 3rd in sequence if you start with the pinky finger).

    And who exactly is borrowing all these number words anyway? And what for? It's not hunter-gatherer societies, nor small-scale chiefdoms -- it's sedentary civilizations, with centers for commerce, taxation, currency, scales that measure things being bought and sold, how many slaves you want, court astronomers counting the number of days in the week or month, and so on. That is where the need for fine-scale integers between 1 and 10 come from.

    And in such environments, there's likely to be a polyglot group of people, who buy, sell, and trade across national and linguistic borders. The everyday masses of these language families may rarely encounter people who speak foreign languages. But in the places where precise measurements are needed, it's very likely to attract a multi-ethnic group of buyers, sellers, patrons, specialists, and so on.

    In such environments, they can share their primitive number words -- "In my language, 1 and 2 are bla and bloo." "Ah, interesting, in my language, 1 and 2 are da and doo." Well now, each language has already covered the primitive numbers of 1 and 2, and they each have their own milestone word for 5, which is probably related to hand, fist, grasp, seize, etc. But now they can express the non-primitive numbers 3 and 4 by borrowing each other's words for the primitive 1 and 2. Namely, use the loans for 1 and 2 to express 4 and 3 in your native language.

    So the first guy's language would express 1 through 5 as:

    bla, bloo, doo, da, hand-word

    And the second guy's language would express 1 through 5 as:

    da, doo, bloo, bla, hand-word

    Then if they need to extend this logic to cover non-primitive 6 through 9, they probably need to wait awhile for 1 through 5 to regularize and get familiar. After that, they can simply express 6 through 9 as 4 through 1, perhaps with an affix to mean "until / to / toward / remaining / left", like Ainu and Uralic 9 being 1 with affixes, or perhaps including an overt word for 10, like Ainu 6 being the compound "4 10".

    Hypothetically, this generates words for all non-primitive numbers, without the need to coin anything by referring to some trait it has, or how it's used in daily life, etc. The only source of new-ness is borrowing from another language -- and even then, from their *primitive* words for just 1 and 2.

    The only coined words are the milestones 5 and 10 (and maybe 20), which are very intuitive -- hand, fist, end, etc. That's the easy part, coining a word for 4 or 7 or 9 is the hard part. So why coin it? Commercial types are not exactly poets known for their insightful figures of speech -- just buying and selling and haggling.

    And how fitting that these primitive number words are traded between the parties, just like bartering! ^_^ Both come out of the deal with the highly valuable non-primitive number words, and all without having to wrinkle their money-grubbing brain to come up with a figure of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  25. That's not to say that non-primitive numerals cannot be loaned -- only that, it is not necessary, and we should try to look at simpler strategies before considering complex ones. Unless the answer is obvious -- like how P-IE borrowed their word for 7 from one of the languages spoken in the Cradle of Civilization, such as Semitic or Hurrian.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/sept%E1%B8%BF%CC%A5

    That's a useful heuristic -- civilizations and networks of civilizations probably coined non-primitive numerals using figures of speech, whereas small-scale and semi-nomadic societies likely borrowed them from civilization rather than coining them on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  26. OK, so where does the original Indo-Euro word for 4 come from? Well well well, how perfectly everything falls into place when you have the right perspective! That's why I dwell up here in the sublime cliffside, after all -- there's no view like the one up here! ^_^

    With the insight that 4 can be expressed as 1, we look for a word for 1 in Indo-European... and find nothing. There are two words, but neither are remotely like "oḱto", the supposed pre-replacement word for 4 -- they're "h₁óynos" and "sḗm".

    But in the international marketplace of word-bartering, Proto-Uralic has just what you're looking for, stranger! Step right on up, lookie here and marvel at our own primitive word for 1, which won't confuse your Indo-European ears when used to express 4!

    It's "ükte"!

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/%C3%BCkte

    Now is that a perfect match for "oḱto" or what?! Round vowel, not low, only backed since P-IE doesn't have front-round vowels. In the Uralic descendants, there's variation between high and low vowels, so "o" is not surprising. Also, P-IE wants only "e" and "o" as vowels, whereas high vowels "i" and "u" are more likely allophonic variants of the glides "y" and "w". And there's no glide in the P-U word, so don't use a high vowel when borrowing -- make it "o".

    Perhaps the original "k" was shifted a bit forward to palatovelar "ḱ" in order to preserve the front-ness of the preceding vowel, so that info didn't get totally lost.

    The "t" is fine.

    And the final vowel could have been preserved as "e" as well -- we don't have access to it, only the dual-ized form for 8, and the dual uses a suffix, which could have obscured the final "e" of the singular form. Or it was originally borrowed with final "e" altered to "o" since final "o" sounds more typical of P-IE nouns vs. final "e".

    Eureka! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  27. Now, the connection to Proto-Kartvelian (Georgian's family). They have a similar word, and it's still used as 4, as in the supposed old P-IE word. It shows the opposite order for the 2 consonants, so whoever borrowed it used metathesis. It's "otxo":

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Kartvelian/otxo-

    If you knew nothing about subtractive counting to derive non-primitive numbers from primitive numbers, and knew nothing about Proto-Uralic, you would just notice the similarity between the Indo-Euro and Kartvelian words, and couldn't tell who borrowed it from whom.

    But again, the buck has to stop somewhere with these number words -- either a primitive number is arrived at, or a coinage using native roots.

    If we assume I-E borrowed it from Kartvelian, the buck doesn't stop there. In P-K, this word means 4, and that's not primitive. And as far as anyone can tell -- and they've looked at this similarity for well over 100 years -- there is no etymology using native Kartvelian roots that can explain why their word for 4 has this phonetic form.

    Before I solved this mystery, though, the other side could say the same thing. If Kartvelian borrowed it from I-E, it's still a non-primitive number in I-E, and there is no convincing etymology for it using native I-E roots (it's a horrible I-E native word, beginning with a vowel).

    If there are no native etymologies on either side, it means neither one of them coined it. It must be borrowed, or involve borrowing -- both from the same donor, or one borrowed it from the donor and the other borrowed it second-hand.

    And that's where Uralic comes along and saves the day, once again for ancient linguistics! You really can't understand jackshit about the ancient world, yes even in NE Europe like with the Scythians, without having a decent understanding of the Uralosphere. Even today they stretch all over the place -- including Ainu! But it was far more extensive southward in the BC millennia.

    It makes perfect sense to say I-E borrowed the Uralic word for 1, used to express 4 in I-E with no confusion from their own native I-E word for 1. And the phonetic match is perfect -- no metathesis involved. The only metathesis involved is between I-E and Kartvelian, which means Kartvelian borrowed the I-E word, since there's no plausible source of Kartvelian borrowing it from outside of I-E.

    If we assumed that I-E borrowed it from Kartvelian, the metathesis would make sense -- but then it would be a totally unexplained coincidence that this I-E word, metathesized from Kartvelian, just so happens to match the Uralic word for 1 -- after applying metathesis -- and that 1 and 4 are related to each other in subtractive counting.

    To eliminate the coincidence, it must be that I-E borrowed 1 from Uralic, with no major alterations, and then Kartvelian borrowed it from I-E with a notable metathesis.

    Also, geographically I-E is in between Uralic and Kartvelian, which is a Southern Caucasus family.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Finally, the Semitic connection, and did the erased I-E word leave any traces in I-E somehwere?

    There is a claim owing to Henning 1948, who studied measurement words in the ancient Iranian language Avestan, that there's a descendant of P-IE "oḱto" in Avestan, namely "ašti". This is a unit of length, it doesn't mean "4" by itself. It refers to the breadth of the hand across the palm -- so for all we know, it doesn't involve a numeral at all, just a body part word like "palm" or something. But he interprets it to mean "the span across 4 fingers", in order to make the connection between that word and P-IE "oḱtṓw" = 8.

    Nothing in my solving of this mystery hinges on the outcome of this matter, about Avestan "ašti". That word only relates to whether or not the mass-erasure of P-IE "oḱto" was 100% effective, or left a faint survivor somewhere. It doesn't relate to the source of the P-IE word for 4 -- was it borrowed or coined, if borrowed from whom, if coined with what etymology, etc.

    But since I wandered down one secret passageway, I figured I might as well wander down another and unearth that one's treasure too -- to share with the world, of course, not horde it all to myself. ^_^

    I actually think this is from a different source, a loan from Semitic. In Proto-Semitic, "1" is "ʕašt-" -- that first consonant is the voiced pharyngeal fricative, which begins the word for "Arabic".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/%CA%95a%C5%A1t-

    The phonetic alteration from this word to the Avestan one is trivial -- the uber-Saharo-Arabian sound "ʕ" is simply deleted by Indo-Euro speakers, as it is when we say "Arabic". Every other sound is retained exactly, and the final "i" in Avestan could have come from the original final vowel, which varies across the potential donors, but includes a high-front vowel in Akkadian, which is likely where they got it from.

    Akkadian is East Semitic, closest to ancient Iran, it was used for civilizations and empires (Babylonia, Assyrian Empire), and would have been in contact with Avestan at least in international commercial or political / diplomatic contexts.

    Although the phonetic derivation is 100% for the Avestan word being a loan from Semitic, it does carry a tiny semantic wrinkle -- namely, borrowing 1 in order to express 4 natively. But as shown way back in P-IE (and later, in Ainu), this is a natural strategy, including for speakers of I-E languages. Avestan simply repeated what their P-IE ancestors did, only borrowing 1 from Semitic rather than Uralic.

    Neither theory assumes that "ašti" meant the cardinal number 4 in Avestan -- it's only attested as a unit of measurement, which may relate to the width of 4 fingers. Given the connection to measurement, I'm inclined to think it sprung up in an international mercantile context, not inheriting an otherwise wiped-out word from P-IE.

    Realistically, though, the Semitic word has a more natural semantic value for Avestan "ašti" -- it did not refer to 4 in Avestan, but to 1, just like in the donor language, and was simply used to mean "1 palm-width" or "1 hand wide". It's a unit, not a grouping-of-4.

    So I reject that the Avestan word has anything to do with 4 anyway, it's just 1 all the way down, not "1 used to express 4".

    But just in the remote case that it does relate to 4, it's a borrowing from Semitic, not an inheritance from P-IE.

    Semitic to the rescue, yet again in the ancient Cradle of Civilization! And that concludes the magic carpet ride for tonight... ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  29. More on Uralic subtractive counting and loans from Indo-Euro, and vice versa. First, when P-IE borrowed the Uralic word for 1, in order to express 4, it's possible that they were also told about its role in the Uralic word for 9, derived from 1.

    Maybe the Uralics said that the word could be borrowed with the meaning of "1 until", just like their existing word for 9, so the Indo-Euros didn't have to re-invent this wheel. They simply borrowed the Uralic word with the meaning of "1 until" rather than "1 per se".

    And since any suffixes expressing the "until, toward, remaining, etc." were in a foreign family, they didn't borrow importing those as well. If they intended to borrow the Uralic word for 9, then they would probably have borrowed the whole thing, with suffixes and all, since they're just interested in "9 per se". But they weren't doing that, they just heard about how Uralics use 1 to express 9, so the Indo-Euros figured, why don't we do that to express 4? Mind if we borrow your word for 1, meaning "1 until"? Thanks!

    Second, it's possible that Finno-Ugric (not including Samoyedic) later borrowed the P-IE replacement word for 4, "kʷetwóres". This would have had to wait until P-IE replaced their Uralic-inspired word for 4. But since Samoyedic isn't part of this trend, it does show that it's a later development in Uralic.

    In F-U, 6 is "kutte" -- suspiciously like "kʷetwóres", with Uralified phonotactics. There's no "kʷ", so preserve the rounding by rounding the following vowel, either "o" or "u" -- since there's a nearby glide "w", which exerts more of a "u" than an "o" influence, go with "u". There's the "ku-".

    The "t" is fine.

    The "w" after the "t" is not allowed in Uralic. Medial "w" either has to be intervocalic, or the 1st of a sequence, with only 3 exceptions -- and to match the traits of "w", none of these follows a stop or a voiceless consonant ("kodwa", "käďwä", "tälwä" -- "d" is fricative and voiced, "l" is continuant and voiced).

    So just geminate the 1st member of the sequence, for "-tt-" instead of awkward "-tw-".

    P-U words want to be 2 syllables with no consonants word-final, so pick a final vowel -- looks like the "e" from the final syllable of "kʷetwóres". At least in this case, the strategy was keep the first and last syllables' vowels, to capture its overall shape from one end to the other, and delete the internal vowels.

    Semantically, Uralic borrowed some other family's word for 4, with the meaning of "4 until" in their own -- i.e., to express 6.

    Interestingly, Samoyedic likely borrowed the I-E word for 4 on their own, but to mean 4 rather than 6.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Samoyedic/t%C3%A4tt%C9%99

    It was a later borrowing, not from P-IE but possibly Tokharian. That makes sense -- by the time P-IE replaced its Uralic-inspired word for 4, with a native circumlocution, Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric had begun to diverge from each other. As it turns out, each side borrowed an Indo-Euro word for 4 -- but not at exactly the same time, from the same proto vs. branch language, and not with the same meaning (4 per se vs. 4 until).

    I told you this stuff gets tricky to track down!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sempiternal Semitic Springtime! Now for subtractive number words in Semitic, Egyptian, and other Saharo-Arabian branches.

    Having learned about 8 in P-IE having a dual suffix, and therefore being based on "a pair of 4's", I turned my attention to Semitic -- and BINGO, 8 also has a dual suffix! It's "ṯamāniy", where that long "a" with or without the following "n" (as in Arabic) looks like a dual suffix. The final "-iy" is just a generic suffix like an adjective, so don't worry about that too much.

    I thought, "Eureka! That must mean that Semitic used to have a word for 4 that was 'ṯam', and then they stuck the dual suffix on it, to generate a new word for 8, just like P-IE!"

    And in Egyptian, there's a similar-looking word for 8, "ḫa-ma-an", with another long "a" vowel followed by "n" after the 1st element "Cam".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/%E1%B9%AFam%C4%81niy-

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%B8%ABmnw#Egyptian

    The 1st element now begins with "ḫ", but maybe that corresponds to "ṯ" in Semitic. The Semitic sound is like English "th" in "thin", and the Egyptian sound is either velar or uvular fricative, voiceless. Those are at polar opposite ends of the mouth, which made me think of the realignment of the sibilants in Spanish -- there were too many sibilants and affricates all bunched together in the center of the mouth, so the strategy was to send some of them far forward in the mouth, like "th", and send others way back into the throat, like "x" or really uvular "X" in Iberian Spanish.

    So maybe these both reflect a voiceless fricative that was in the center of the mouth, and due to too many sibilants and affricates -- and emphatic consonants -- in the center, Egyptian sent it toward one extreme (back), while Semitic sent it toward the other extreme (front).

    I thought it would be like "sam" or "sham". And whaddaya know...

    In Cushitic (the branch that includes Somali), which did not pursue the polarizing strategy, this word retained its consonant being in the center. In Proto-Cushitic, there's a number word transcribed as "lama" but phonetically more like "ɬama", with a voiceless lateral fricative. That's just what I was thinking of!

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Cushitic_reconstructions

    But it turns out this does not refer to 4, as I was expecting. In fact it means 2 -- and it is the word bearing the dual suffix, that final "a". What is this word the dual of? Probably "finger", which is "lom" and may be analyzed as "law-m". That's the only way to make these words in Cushitic connect.

    I can't tell if Egyptian and Semitic borrowed this Cushitic number word, and then their native sound changes altered it into beginning with "ḫ" for Egyptian and "ṯ" in Semitic -- or if they had their own cognate of this word, which has since vanished or remains obscure at any rate, and applied their sound changes to their own cognate of the Cushitic word.

    It seems like they borrowed it from Cushitic, since its dual suffix is present in all 3 words, whereas Egyptian's dual suffix is "y" (more like an "i" vowel, not "a").

    After borrowing the Cushitic word for 2 (with the Cushitic dual suffix intact), both Egyptian and Cushitic employed this word for 2 to express 8. That means Egyptian and Semitic are using subtractive counting -- expressing 8 via 2, perhaps with some suffix like the generic adjective suffix in Semitic, as though to say it's "2-ish", that is not quite 2, not "2 per se".

    Well, it can't mean a pair of something -- that would trigger the dual suffix, not the cardinal number relating to 2. So it must mean "2 until / toward / remaining", i.e., 3 or 8. In context, when Semitic and Egyptian already have words for 3, it must be 8.

    ReplyDelete
  31. *both Egyptian & Semitic employed...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cushitic is a wonderful help here, cuz it's proto-language only has numerals from 1 to 5, not 6 to 9 (it does have milestone 10). So we can rule out this word meaning "2 until", i.e. 8, in P-C. There are no words at all for 8 in P-C. Egyptian and Semitic borrowed it, and applied their own reasoning to make it "2 until", since it only meant "2 per se" in Cushitic.

    I said the Egyptian dual not being "a" but "y" means Egyptian likely borrowed it from Cushitic... but perhaps way way way back when this word existed in Proto-Saharo-Arabian, it came with a dual suffix based on "a", which was retained in Cushitic and Semitic, while Egyptian innovated a new vowel.

    But it's really not that important how exactly it got into Egyptian and Semitic -- perhaps from a native root in the parent proto-language, P-SA, or perhaps borrowed from a sister branch, Cushitic. That's not really across language families, like with Uralic and Indo-European, so I don't think it bears on the matter of borrowing numbers that sound totally strange, unintelligible, and meaningless, across language families.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Another Saharo-Arabian numeral mystery solved, thanks to Cushitic. It's 4 to express 6, or "4 until" -- that can never mean "4 until 5," since what kind of deranged freak would say "4 until" to mean 1?! That's the most fundamental number word in any language! No, "4 until" can only mean 6.

    Anyway, P-C has a word for 4, "salc", which cannot be primitive, since nobody's word for 4 is. But I'm not interested right now in where this came from. I want to see what it looks like in the other Saharo-Arabian branches.

    Well, in Egyptian, Semitic, Berber, and Chadic, its cognates mean 6, i.e. "4 until".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sjsw#Egyptian

    We can't assume that just cuz there are 4 branches on one side, and 1 branch on the other, that the majority reflects to old ancestral state. That is impossible in this case -- that would imply using a word for 6 to express 4. But remember, P-C doesn't have *any* words for 6-9, whether native or borrowed, whether using this mneumonic or that one!

    And even in languages that do have 6-9, don't you think they already have a word for 4? Unless you wanted to replace 4 due to tetraphobia, and then use 6 to replace it. But that involves too many Uno reverse cards about "until until until..." There is no way in the world anyone would express 4 by means of 6.

    So what's more likely is that in the 4 branches that do have numerals between 5 and 10, they employed an old word from 1-4 to express a number between 5 and 10. But having two doublets among numbers 1 to 9, can sound a little funny, and confusing if there are no affixes to clarify "no, not the number per se, but that number UNTIL, or that number-ISH".

    So rather than keep the original numeral from 1-4, they replace it, and keep the member of the doublet that has been generated in the 6-9 range. Still, it seems like 4 is most likely to get replaced, so I think tetraphobia is at work here.

    Unlike the case with 2 to express 8, the various words for 6 in Egyptian, Semitic, Berber, and Chadic are not close copies of the P-C cognate. True, they could have borrowed a single donor, and applied their own distinct sound changes on it. But they're pretty wild for that to be true. More likely, each language had a cognate of this word for 4, inherited from P-SA, and that's what they applied their sound changes to.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Formally, when using X to express Y subtractively, X must be less than the next milestone after Y.

    The reason is, you don't want to burden your brain too much with calculations, while it's learning these number words. The further you have to count backwards, the more it hurts the brain. Pick the milestone that's closest to the number you want to express, and count backwards from there.

    Imagine having 1, 5, 10, and 20 as milestones, but expressing 3 as 17 or 17-ish or bizarro 17!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Naturally, I'm going to claim that 7 is derived from 3! Here are the cognates for 7 in Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber:

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/%C5%A1ab%CA%95-

    Turning to good ol' Proto-Cushitic, there's a word for 3 that's variously reconstructed as "sazħ", "saK", or "sedeh".

    This isn't quite as straightforward phonetically, although the semantics are perfect (adapting "3 per se" to "3 until", i.e. 7).

    The "sazħ" form has the proper 1st and 2nd sounds (with the known sound change of Semitic making "s" into "š").

    The final one is nearly the same as in Semitic, but with Semitic voicing it -- perhaps on analogy with Semitic's replacement word for 4, as well as 9, also ending in the voiced pharyngeal fricative ("ʔarbaʕ" and "tišʕ"). Or it was already voiced in Semitic's reflex of the P-SA ancestor.

    The only real problem is Cushitic "z" corresponding to "b" in Semitic (and "f" in Egyptian and "b" in Berber). The others have a labial-involved consonant, which is a stop or fricative, but Cushitic has an alveolar sibilant. The voicing matches Semitic and Berber, but not Egyptian.

    IDK why it's "z", but we'll just chalk that up to the difficulties of reconstructing numerals for the proto-stages of any branch in Saharo-Arabian, including the Proto of the whole family. Given the examples of 4 to express 6 and 2 to express 8, it's pretty safe to assume this is another example, where 3 is expressing 7, and only Cushitic retains a reflex of the original 3 word (or an easily identifiable reflex, at any rate).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Finally, 1 used to express 9. First, a wrinkle: although there are several similar words for 9, in a Chadic language it actually means 7.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ps%E1%B8%8Fw#Egyptian

    Whether additive or subtractive, 7 and 9 can't rely on the same number. 7 is 2 away from 5 and 3 away from 10, so it would adapt 2 or 3. 9 is 4 away from 5 and 1 away from 10, so it would adapt 5 or 1. No common numbers between them, so this can't be using the "X to express Y" method, whether additive or subtractive.

    How *can* 7 and 9 coincide on the same word? If the method of counting is on the hands, and you fill up one hand before moving to the next (rather than 4 fingers, 4 fingers, 1 thumb, 1 thumb). 7 and 9 both lie on the 2nd hand.

    The natural place to start counting is either end of the hand -- thumb or pinky finger. If you start with the pinky, then 9 lands on the pointer finger. If you start at the other end, the thumb, then 7 lands on the pointer finger.

    So probably these cognates relate to the pointer finger, whatever the allusion is (pointing, signing, shaking, wagging, stabbing, poking, etc.).

    Is this a reference to the number 1? By assumption here, it's not the finger you start counting in sequence on, but the thumb or pinky.

    But perhaps it's a much earlier reference to holding up just 1 finger in the air to mean 1. Which finger would you extend? Probably the pointer finger. So maybe there is a circuitous route to this being an example of using 1 to express 9 after all (for the languages where this means 9, not 7).

    Then in comes Cushitic to the rescue -- there's a word for 1 that's "laħ / liħ". Not about the pointer finger necessarily (or maybe it is, deriving from "lom / law-m"), but a cardinal number.

    It has the same final "ħ" as we saw with 3 / 7, and again the Semitic word has it voiced, for the same reason.

    The "l" is an alveolar and not a stop, and if it were a lateral fricative, even closer to the "š" in Semitic (which in P-SA would've been alveolar "s").

    The "i" vowel is shared.

    The only problem is what's the initial "t" doing in Semitic? Maybe it's attaching to its cognate of Cushitic "laħ / liħ", but interpreted more as a verb than a noun / adjective. And the "t" prefix for verbs plays a medio-passive role -- reflexive, reciprocal, that kind of thing. Some kind of mirroring involved -- perhaps to suggest that this 1 is really a mirror-image 1, where there's only 1 left, or where the pointer finger is the only finger left on the two hands. That is, using "mirror-reflected 1" to express 9.

    That's my best guess, but I think this example counts as subtractive counting words as well. And only thanks to Cushitic can we make sense of all this craziness! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  37. What was the psychology behind subtractive counting? I think it makes better sense to call it "complimentary" counting or "reflected" counting, and that it was concrete rather than abstract. Prehistoric people were not math nerds, they were as physical and concrete as possible.

    So, it's not like they were looking toward the next milestone and counting their way backward from there to get to the number in question. For 7, they weren't looking to 10 and counting backwards 3 steps. Counting backward hurts your brain.

    And in a major hint, these systems DO NOT extend this logic to the 6-9 words above 10, 20, 30, etc. They don't express 28 as "2 toward 30". Perhaps some of the 11-19 words, like Latin 18 and 19, but that's rare, and non-existent above 20. For these higher numbers, they use an additive system -- 28 is "20 and 8", where 8 may be hiding an expression for "2 toward 10", since that's below the 10 threshold.

    So it only applies to the numbers you can count on your one or two own hands -- or in rare cases, if you re-use both hands in a forward-then-reverse sequence, which could cover cases like Latin 18 and 19. But nobody re-uses their hands a 3rd time.

    And it begins with the words for 3 and 4, based on just 1-hand counting. When the counting goes above the 5 threshold, the same logic is applied to the 6-9 numbers.

    Ready for it? When you're counting your fingers, you "use" each finger one at a time. It doesn't matter what the convention is -- if you start with them extended, then they are "used" by curling them down. If you start with a closed fist, they are "used" by extending them. It also doesn't matter which finger is chosen for the first in sequence, that's an arbitrary convention.

    Well then, after a finger is "used", some are still left "free", assuming you're below the next milestone (5 / hand-word). The abstract way to represent their relationship is that the milestone equals the number of used plus the number of free, in other words "free" = "milestone" - "used".

    But prehistoric people were concrete, not abstract. They were looking down at their hand as it changed shape while counting. They were struggling to come up with a word for 4, and then someone noticed that when 4 fingers had changed their shape, that left 1 finger unchanged. So why not refer to the state of the hand after counting 4 steps, by referring to the 1 finger left in its original position? Eureka!

    Likewise, the state of the hand after counting 3, has 2 fingers left in original position. That takes care of the non-primitive numbers 3 and 4.

    For 6-9, the same logic applies. The state of the hands after counting 6 has 4 fingers unchanged, 7 has 3 unchanged, 8 has 2 unchanged, and 9 has 1 unchanged. Assuming you already have words for 1-4 -- which you ought to by the time you're coming up with words for 6-9 -- then you're gravy, baby!

    No abstract variables, no equations, no subtraction operations required! Oh, thank God -- I thought we were going to have to do MATH, and solve EQUATIONS... instead, we get to keep everything nice and physical and intuitive, like our brains prefer it! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  38. On the linguistic side, that means a morpheme about "remaining" does not mean anticipating the next milestone on the number-line, and counting backward from there. It means number of fingers on the hand "remaining" in their original position.

    This view of it being complimentary, reflexive, reciprocal -- two groups interacting with each other, the used and the free -- also fits the initial "t" in the Semitic word for 9, based on 1. It's a medio-passive, reflexive, reciprocal prefix, which means there are two parties involved, and somehow they're doing something to each other, or one party is doing something to itself, in an inter-related and mutual way.

    That doesn't mean that this will become a regular, productive, across-the-board process. None of the single-digit non-primitive numbers shows a perfectly regular morphological process, in any language. But using a medio-passive / reciprocal affix is a natural solution, so it may be one of those varied strategies.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Final thought on whether Cushitic loaned some of its 1-4 words into the other branches, vs. them being cognates inherited from P-SA. It sounds crazy to propose that Cushitic, of all branches, was the source of these loans -- they're certainly not the most culturally influential among themselves, Semitic, and Egyptian. And they're about on par with Berber. They're only more influential than Omotic.

    But recall the context where these precise integer words arise -- international trade, commerce, taxation, tribute by / from one society to another, and so on.

    There were extensive trade routes around the Red Sea during the 3rd millennium BC and later, involving various regions south of Egypt in Africa, down to the Horn of Africa. Nubia, Kush, the C-Group Culture, the Land of Punt -- some or all of these could have spoken a Cushitic language as their primary language, or as one of several in a polygot commercial setting.

    And they were prestigious societies, with lots of trading, kingdoms not just tribal chiefdoms, and in the case of Punt, mythologically (or truthfully?) treated as the "Land of God" that their own Egyptian royalty originally came from.

    So when Egypt is trading with Punt, they need integer words. Arabian traders and merchants on the eastern side of the shared Red Sea, also need integer words to trade with Cushitic speakers in Punt.

    It looks less like traders flowed in the other direction, from Punt or Horn of Africa way up into Egypt or deep into Arabia. More so, outsiders traveled to Punt and the Horn. And when in Rome, do as Romans -- and speak as Romans. The people of Punt were the gatekeepers over their highly valued resources, so if you wanted to get your royal Egyptian hands on their myrrh, ebony, and baboons (yes, an exotic prestige pet, who were even mummified by the Egyptians, that's how highly they were valued), then you had to deal with Punt people in their own language.

    And since Proto-Cushitic doesn't have numerals from 6-9, they had only 1-4 to utilize anyway. It was the perfect situation to force other branches of Saharo-Arabian to adopt Cushitic words for 1-4, in order to derive their own words for 6-9.

    Those spices and resins from the Horn of Africa were quite powerful motivators, not just cuz they produced a pleasant heady effect, but they were used in sacred temple rituals, much like incense in Christian churches. And all you need to do to communicate with the gatekeepers of those resources, is adopt and adapt their words for 1-4? Sold! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  40. Looking closer into Cushitic words for 3, in order to see if we can't get a better fit to Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber words for 7. The problem is that 2nd consonant being "z" in the supposed reconstruction of P-C, vs. "b" in Semitic and Berber, and "f" in Egyptian. Looks like it should be "b", then Egyptian devoiced it and fricativized it. But it should labial, at any rate.

    There's no solid reconstruction of P-C, so let's look at each language's numerals in the branch:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushitic_languages#Numerals

    The Central members DO have a labial consonant, a labialized uvular or velar, some stops and some fricatives, and in one case, a uvular preceded by a round vowel, which could have absorbed an earlier labialization on the consonant.

    If this reflects a back fricative with labialization, that makes an easier link to the problematic members with the medial sibilant, which are in the Eastern region. The original sound lost its labialization, and fronted to alveolar position, while maintaining its fricative manner, which is not such a radical change.

    There are other problematic members with medial "d", but that could be a hardening of earlier "z", which reduces them to the case of medial "z".

    And in fact, one of these Eastern languages DOES have a labial, not a "d" or "z" -- El Molo has "p", and the same initial consonant and 2 vowels that its neighbors have. In this case, it resolved the labialized velar by turning it into a primary labial consonant, and a stop at that. Perhaps this same strategy was employed by Berber, Semitic, and Egyptian, from an earlier labialized velar.

    In the Southern region, all of them have a labial. It's mostly "tam", where the initial "t" may be a hardening of initial "s" that the others have. And "m" retains the labialization of the labialized velar, although making it nasal is a bit funny, but it still works. Dahalo has "kʼaba", with medial "b" as hoped for, and a different hardening of initial "s" into "k'", unusual.

    I don't have all the precise correspondences and sound changes worked out, but this seems to be more than enough evidence to conclude that Proto-Cushitic 3 has a medial labial and initial voiceless sibilant. Probably a final voiceless pharyngeal fricative, retained in Eastern members but lost elsewhere.

    That's more than enough to suppose that this P-C word for 3 is cognate with, or perhaps was loaned into, the Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber branches to derive their words for 7.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I risk losing the lovely lady section of my audience if math takes over my subject matter, so that's why it's important to make it also about psychology, and keeping it simple and concrete. I should have worked in a reference to moms teaching babies their words for numbers by counting on their cute stubby little handsies, as part of cultural transmission. ^_^

    I really do value the girls who lurk here, it's rare for there to be mixed-sex spaces anywhere these days, including online. I don't really do it on purpose, as though to lure them in to a place they'd otherwise be given the ick by. They just find something intriguing about me, and online it's not even due to having a hot tutor like in IRL.

    That's not to brag, just stating the facts. Girls find something about my quirky personality and childlike wonder-stricken mind, that they enjoy being in my company, even if it's just lurking. If I had to guess, I think they're drawn to a man who hasn't had the vigor crushed out of him. Manly vigor, childlike wonder, IDK exactly what mix of traits it is -- but something inspiring and energizing, not someone who's going to be a downer or a drain on them.

    You have to find something you're motivated, inspired, and energized by, and devote yourself to it -- and the girly onlookers will notice your passion, and be intrigued by it. Girls don't like being tricked or baited into paying attention to a guy, they want it to happen naturally, and -- at least in their minds -- without the guy noticing them back at first.

    Or perhaps ever, if they just want to lurk and be a Platonic kind of secret admirer... hehe. I don't mind if you just want to watch, I'll pretend I don't notice you back, if that would make you feel uncovered and frighten you away. ^_^

    I know, I shouldn't say this out loud, to preserve the immersion. But every once in awhile, it's worth exploring the quirks of human psychology like this, especially when all the online dIsCouRsE about the sexes is just man-hating and girl-hating slopaganda.

    In our dystopian hellscape, only in the abandoned ruins of the blogosphere can a safe space be preserved for the people-likers. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  42. Also, I dedicate this little piece of scholarship to Aicha, my foxy babe study-buddy from discrete math in college, who was from Morocco and spoke Arabic (well, she spoke Moroccan, if you know what I mean), but said her ancestry was part Berber. And she was a real quant, a computer science major (I was linguistics).

    I dedicated my post on the imperial ethnogenesis of Moroccan culture to her, among a few other Moroccan babes I've known IRL or online over the years.

    She left quite the impression, very silent and mysterious but quick-witted and always thinking or feeling something... just not letting it bubble over into her outward behavior. I enjoy the bubbly extraverted type of girl, but it's intriguing to find the rare species of them whose natural personality is dark, quiet, and mysterious. Not emo / angsty / stay-away-from-me, just... tantalizingly mysterious. A riddle begging to be solved -- as an explorer and detective, I just can't resist that type of girl! ^_^

    I really miss our homework sessions... someone who felt out-of-my-league yet down-to-earth and who was inviting me close... I don't think guys and girls have relationships like that anymore, not for awhile. This was y2k, after social antagonism had already begun, but before it had become so widespread and intense. There were still pockets of the '80s John Hughes harmony of the sexes to be found in y2k, all the more poignantly felt and appreciated at the time, since you could already feel the social harmony slipping away.

    ReplyDelete
  43. More on Proto-Cushitic and Saharo-Arabian, on the basis of numerals. First, I'm convinced that the 1-4 loans into the other branches came from Proto-Cushitic. If they were inherited from P-SA, then each branch's own words for 1-4 would look like their own words for 6-9. But they don't -- their 6-9 words look more like P-C words for 1-4.

    E.g., 7 in Berber, Egyptian, and Semitic begins with "s". So does 3 in Cushitic. But 3 in those other branches begins with "k", "X", and "th", respectively. The 2nd consonant in the other branches for 7 is labial, as is the 2nd consonant in 3 for Cushitic. But the 2nd consonant in the Berber and Semitic words for 3 is liquid ("r" and "l"), although Egyptian 3 does have a labial as the 2nd. And the 3rd consonant in 7 for Egyptian and Semitic is pharyngeal (Berber deleted the 3rd consonant altogether), just like the 3rd consonant in 3 in Cushitic. But the Egyptian and Semitic words for 3 have a final consonant that is "t" and "th", respectively.

    So, the word for 7 in Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber relied on Cushitic 3 -- not their own 3 -- as the basis for deriving a "complimentary 3" word, i.e. 7.

    Otherwise, you'd have to assume that the P-SA reflexes in each branch, which resemble the P-C reflex, were used to derive 6-9 words in each branch, without any borrowing across branches. And then later some branch-specific sound changes affected only the 1-4 words in each branch, leaving the 6-9 words relatively untouched, and possibly some of the 1-4 words were replaced (like 4 in Semitic). That's how the the 6-9 words look similar across branches, but not so much the 1-4 words, and why within a branch, 1-4 doesn't look so similar to 6-9.

    But sound changes affect all words, not just "numerals from 1-4, and excepting numerals from 6-9". It's not a morpheme or word-level change, in which case the derived 6-9 words could be hiding out inside a complex form, if there were affixes or something. However, sound changes like "change the lateral fricative to s" is not a morpheme or word-level change, so this doesn't apply. A word-level change like "replace this word with that word" would work, but not sub-morpheme segmental sound changes. And the 6-9 words don't all have affixes or other morphological complexity to disguise the old 1-4 words hiding out inside them. So that doesn't apply.

    Why they all borrowed from Cushitic instead of using their own / borrowing from some other branch, is up for discussion. But that they did, is not. It seems like the most desired exotic goods were under control of Cushitic speakers, not Egyptian, Semitic, or Berber speakers. Spices, resins, incense, tropical woods, pet baboons -- quite the incentive to use the numerals of the gatekeepers!

    And they borrowed the Cushitic words *after* their own branches had already begun altering the inherited P-SA words for 1-4, which is why within a branch it's harder to see the connection between 1-4 and 6-9. But the recently borrowed loans from Cushitic had not had nearly as much time to diverge, hence they appear very similar across branches. The 6-9 numerals were "recently" derived, vs. the origin and speciation of the entire Saharo-Arabian family, where the 1-4 words came from, and that's why 1-4 look less similar across branches than 6-9.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Also, I've figured out a better way to derive 9 from 1, although the semantic logic is the same. The phonology is a bit different than I assumed at first glance. The other branches' still derived their words for 9 from the P-Cushitic word for 1, but it doesn't involve that medio-passive prefix in Semitic like I thought.

    First, Egyptian 9 is "psḏw", which has an extra 1st consonant, making it harder to see the connection with 9 in Semitic ("tišʕ") and Berber ("tẓa"). What is this extra "p" at the beginning in Egyptian? It's an anaphoric demonstrative determiner, a way of referring back to something already mentioned, but not like a pronoun, more like "the aforementioned..."

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/p%EA%9C%A3

    Specifically, it's the singular masculine form (like Egyptian numerals in general), and "proximal to the spoken of". Well, sure, when you're counting on your hands, and you get to 9, with 1 finger left in the original position, you express 9 by referring to 1 -- which has already been mentioned (the first word you spoke while counting), and the 9 fingers used are proximal to the 1 finger left in original position. It's not about distance to the speaker, but to what "the aforementioned..." thing is. In this case, fingers on the hand.

    That confirms that the word for 9 was referring back to another number-word, and therefore using complimentary counting for 6-9, rather than any other way of coining number words.

    Semitic 9 has a small wrinkle, too, which is that it has 3 consonants instead of 2, but by comparing with Egyptian and Berber, it's clear that the sequence of 2 consonants, "šʕ", corresponds to a single emphatic consonant. It was probably voiced, like Egyptian and Berber, and when splitting into 2 separate consonants, the voicing went along with the "ʕ" only, since voicelessness is the unmarked state for langauges in general, and especially for Saharo-Arabian, where the sibilants of P-SA want to be voiceless. So, the "š" in "tišʕ" just represents "dummy sibilant", after the pharyngealization had been separated into a new 3rd consonant of the word.

    BTW, Egyptian "ḏ" is an affricate, not a stop, so this consonant of the word for 9 has a sibilant feature just like in Berber and Semitic.

    As for the 1st consonant of 9 in these languages, it varies between "s" in Egyptian and "t" in Semitic and Berber. That suggests it's resolving an affricate that no longer existed in these three languages, but did in the language they're all borrowing from.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This leads to a much better reconstruction of 1 in P-Cushitic, as well as explain the words for 9 in Berber, Egyptian, and Semitic. Previously, there were several reconstructions for 1 -- and it's not surprising for there to be two words for 1, like based on "alone" and "whole, together, unified". But more than that, means you might be missing a common form shared by some of them.

    So I'm ignoring the previous reconstructions, and going back to the source languages themselves. Reminder:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushitic_languages#Numerals

    Previously, there were 2 reconstructions, based on the "l" words and the "t" words, and none on the "m" words -- but they're clearly there, and require one of their own. I think the "m" words, something like "mato", are a different sense for expressing 1. IDK what it is, but it's not related to the "t" and "l" words, and not related to the words for 9 in the other branches of Saharo-Arabian, so I ignore them here. I'm ignoring the pair of examples like "inik", which don't seem related either.

    We're looking for a P-C word for 1 with aspects of "t" and "s", an affricate. And the Cushitic words have "t" and "l" -- but the attested "l" is often a descendant of "ɬ", the voiceless lateral fricative, which has had its manner altered to approximant to give "l". So, the first consonant of P-C 1 must have been "tɬ".

    When hearing this affricate that may have existed in P-SA but was no longer present in Berber, Egyptian, or Semitic, Berber and Semitic retained the "t", while Egyptian retained the "ɬ", though centralizing its airflow into "s" (and preserving the fricative manner and voicelessness).

    This also explains the unity of the words within Cushitic -- the "t" words preserve the "t", and the "l" words preserve the "ɬ" (while changing manner to approximant -- not the same change to it as in Egyptian, but why should it be, this is Cushitic).

    ReplyDelete
  46. As for the 2nd consonant, we expect something pharyngeal or emphatic, voiced, and fricative or affricate more than a stop.

    Note that in the Northern branch of Cushitic, the 1-3 words show metathesis of the 2-consonantal root, for some reason. So its word for 1, "ɡaːl", reflects "l" 1st and "g" 2nd in the P-C root.

    The "t" words have a 2nd consonant that is "ʔ" (glottal stop), "k", "kk", either "g" or "q", and "kʷ" (if "vattukʷe" has a prefix "va" and the "t" word). Most vowels after the 2nd consonant are round, including the contracted forms that remove the 1st syllable, like "kow". This suggests a labialized velar or uvular stop.

    The "l" words have a 2nd consonant that is "g", "xʷ", "w", "ɢ" (uvular), "ɣ", and "ŋ". This also suggests a labialized velar or uvular consonant. Softening stops to fricatives is more likely than the reverse. And in the descendants, there's a match between the manner of the 1st and 2nd consonants, although that doesn't help much since the P-C 1st consonant is an affricate, with both stop and fricative features. And since pharyngealization may be in the mix, where the voiced pharyngeal is a fricative, that could be where the frication is coming from, not the primary consonant.

    The presence of uvulars suggests it was that, and sometimes fronted to velar, since backing from velar to uvular is less likely. But maybe uvular is just reflecting a mix of velar consonant + pharyngealization (further back).

    Voicing... given the possibility of an emphatic, the voiced pharyngeal fricative could be in the mix, as a 2nd-ary feature, and that's where the voicing is coming from.

    There seems to be voicing harmony in the two classes, where the "t" words prefer a voiceless 2nd C, while the "l" words prefer a voiced 2nd C. If this voice-matching existed in the P-C ancestor, then since "tɬ" is voiceless, so should the 2nd C be. Hard to know if that did exist in the ancestor, though.

    Maybe further internal investigation would clarify these problems, but since I've made the external connection to the other branches of S-A borrowing P-C words for 1-4, in their own words for 6-9, I'll rely on that. Remember, these borrowings are fairly "recent" in the family, and that's why the borrowings look so similar to each other.

    For example, there's no general agreement about the correspondences across the branches of S-A regarding the emphatic consonants, which are at play here.

    Based on all 3 borrowings being voiced, I'll assume the P-C donor was voiced.

    Based on 2 borrowings being fricatives and 1 being an affricate, but none being a stop, I'll assume the P-C donor was a fricative.

    So that makes it "ɣʷ", but with pharyngealization -- either as a 2nd-ary feature, or as a 3rd consonant with no vowel between it and preceding "ɣʷ". That would make the P-C word for 1 tri-consonantal after all.

    The borrowers de-labialized it, since they have labialized fricatives, perhaps only labialized stops. They combined the velar fricative + pharyngeal into an emphatic consonant, but moved it forward where emphatics existed in their branches, like the coronal region. Then Semitic split it into the 2 separate components.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Do you have any thoughts as to whether that Cushitic m-t root for "1" has any link with either the Egyptian root for "10" or the Semitic root for "100"?

    ReplyDelete
  48. *borrowers did NOT have labialized fricatives.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Reconstructing 2 in P-C is a lot easier. It's "ɬaŋʷa".

    The 2nd C is reflected in "ŋ", "m", "k" / "kk" (hardening of "ŋ"), and "b", all involving nasal / labial / velar.

    The 1st C is almost always "l", and "n" in 2 cases, perhaps a nasal-matching quirk of them, since their 2nd C is "m".

    The Southern languages show hardening in the coronal region, meaning they reflect earlier "ʃ" from "ɬ". They de-labialized the 2nd C, fronted "ŋ" to coronal position, and hardened it into either "d" or "r" -- perhaps reflecting earlier retroflex "d", a hardening of retroflex "n", from P-C "ŋ".

    When the 3 other branches borrowed this P-C word for 2 to express their own word for 8, they centralized the airflow of the 1st C, giving "s". None had labialized nasals, so for the 2nd C, they made labialization into a primary place feature, with Egyptian maintaining nasal manner (giving "m"), and Berber and Semitic hardening it into a stop (giving "b").

    As for the 3rd consonant in Egyptian, this looks like the suffix "-nw", which is a numeral suffix used to derive the ordinal from the cardinal numbers, for 2-9.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-nw

    IDK what the exact sense is for applying this to the Cushitic loan, but it's clearly modifying it so it's not just plain ol' 2, and the suffix is unique to numerals, not any ol' word class. It gives it a "secondary sense" meaning, like ordinals being secondary to cardinals. It says "this word is a derivative of another number word", showing again that this was complimentary counting, not coining entirely new words for 6-9.

    I assume something cognate or borrowed from Egyptian, in Semitic, which also has the "n" and a long vowel after the Cushitic loan of 2. As usual, Berber deleted this 3rd consonant, if they used it to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  50. P-C 3 takes more work, but its consonants are "s-W-ħ", where "W" is some back labialized consonant that we'll figure out.

    The 1st C is "s" or "ʃ" (or in the Northern branch, with metathesis of root consonants, it's "h", a debuccalization of "s"). Since the Southern languages harden coronals, and they have turned it into "t" rather than "tʃ", it must be "s".

    The 3rd C is either deleted, "ħ", "h", "x", or "ʔ". More likely to start very back and move forward, and to lose rather than gain pharyngealization. So it's "ħ". Voicelessness does not reflect final-devoicing, since some have a vowel after the 3rd C.

    The 2nd C is reflected in "m", "p", "b", "xʷ", "qʷ", "ɢ", "ɣʷ", "s" / "ss", "z" / "zz", "d" / "dd". Clearly a labialized velar (the uvulars, as in Cushitic 1, probably reflect the 3rd C's pharyngeal feature glomming onto the 2nd C, since the uvular forms don't have a 3rd C).

    As for voicing, the only one with "p" seems to have voiceless obstruents as a rule, compared to other languages in its Eastern region. So that could reduce to "b". There are both voiced and voiceless sibilants, but only voiced coronal stops, which are a hardening of a sibilant (itself a fronting of the velar). So that sibilant was "z", and "s" is a de-voicing of it, while "d" is a hardening of it. The "s" is restricted regionally to the East Highlands, while the "z" is found in multiple regions (East Dullay, East Konsoid, East Arboroid). So the East Highlands dialect innovated. The "d" is widespread as well. The velar / uvular ones come in voiced and voiceless, so no help there. Overall, looks like it was voiced.

    As for manner, there's already a fricative but not a stop, among velar voiced labialized. And since the fronted version is a sibilant, more likely that it came from a fricative to begin with. Softening a velar stop when moving it forward is possible, but usually takes an affricate manner, not directly to sibilant. And that's usually motivated by a following front vowel. Here, the velar is labialized, meaning when it loses labialization, it'll be followed by a back vowel if anything. Less likely to palatalize. So, probably fricative to begin with.

    That makes the 3-consonantal root of the P-C word for 3, "s-ɣʷ-ħ". The 1st vowel is front and mainly "a", sometimes "e", and rarely "i". Something low-to-mid. In the Central languages, where labialization still exists, the 2nd V is not rounded and is always "a". It's "a" or "e" in the other regions, and only "o" or "u" due to absorbing the rounding of the lost labialized consonant. So, take both to be "a".

    That yields P-C "saɣʷaħ" for 3.

    When borrowing this to express 7, Berber and Egyptian kept the "s", while Semitic showed its across-the-board shift of "s" to "š". The P-C donor has mismatched voicing for the 2nd and 3rd C, but Egyptian and Semitic show voice-matching in opposite directions -- both voiceless in Egyptian, both voiced in Semitic. Berber has no 3rd C, just the 2nd, but it's voiced as in the donor.

    Berber and Semitic turned the 2nd C into a labial stop by making labialization a primary place feature, preserving voicing as "b". Egyptian kept the fricative manner of the donor and made labialization into semi-labial place feature, i.e. labio-dental. Since it had no "v" to preserve voicing for that choice, it defaulted to "f".

    Berber deleted the 3rd C, Egyptian kept it as is, and Semitic voiced it to "ʕ", with the voicing of the 2nd C spreading to the 3rd, since P-Semitic has no vowel intervening between them. They all kept the 1st vowel as "a", and Egyptian kept the 2nd as that, too.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Finally, P-C 4, which has a bizarre form and will be a two-parter. Cushitic languages show 2 fundamentally different forms, but the ones like "afur" are regionally restricted to the Eastern region, and even that region shows some of the other form. So we'll ignore the "afur" one as a later regional coinage / borrowing.

    The 1st C is either "s" or "ʃ", and since the coronal-hardening languages of the South have "tʃ" instead of "t", this should be "ʃ" -- but these hardening languages also have "i" as the following vowel, so the vowel could have palatalized underlying "s". As we'll see in external comparisons, this is what happened, and the P-C 1st C is "s".

    The 2nd C is reflected in "ɖ" (retroflex), "dʒ", "z", "dz", "l", "r", "ʕ", "g", and "y". Since these are almost entirely in the coronal region, yet there's "ʕ", that suggests this is an emphatic coronal. The "r" could be a relic of retroflex feature, and the "l" could be derived from that "r". Retroflex and pharyngealization are easily mistaken in the emphatic consonants. They're all voiced. Probably "ḍ", emphatic "d", with the affricates resolving this as an unusual "d" in their language. The one example with an unusual "d" is retroflex "d", not a retroflex affricate or sibilant. Perhaps the "g" is shifting "d" backward as an attempt to capture the pharyngeal location of the empathic feature.

    The 3rd C, where it has been retained, is almost always "ħ" (and not due to final de-voicing, since it can be followed by a final vowel). In the exceptional Northern region, it's "g". In one Southern language, it's "l", which could have derived from "ɬ". This is incredibly difficult to figure out internally.

    So that's where we bring in the comparisons in the other branches' words for 6. Those that have a 3rd consonant, and here Berber is atypical in having one, have "s" (Berber and Egyptian) or "th" (Semitic). The "th" in Semitic is likely a fronting kind of place assimilation to the previous "d", a de-emphatic from the donor's "ḍ".

    So the P-C word's 3rd C must have been closer to "ɬ", but with a pharyngeal or other far-back feature as well, such as glottalization. Maybe it was ejective, "ɬ'". This awkward consonant was mostly junked within Cushitic, and not equated with "ɬ", hence not rendered as "l". It kept the far-back feature to distinguish it from "ɬ", and since it must also try to be voiceless and fricative, that leaves only "ħ" or "h". Perhaps "ħ" was chosen over "h" on analogy with the 3rd consonant in the P-C numeral just before 4, namely 3, which already ended in "ħ".

    ReplyDelete
  52. For the 1st vowel, the phonemically conservative Central region has "e", "i", or "ə". The South generally has "i", one exception of "a". The "a" is mostly Eastern as well, though it's in the North. And "oo" is confined to a sub-region within the East. So either "a" or "i".

    The 2nd vowel is "a".

    That yields "saḍaɬ'" / "siḍaɬ'" for P-C 4.

    The problematic nature of emphatics across branches, and the highly unusual ejective lateral fricative, make for greater irregularity in the borrowed forms, compared to the other more obvious borrowings.

    The 1st C was preserved in Egyptian, Berber, and Chadic, and the standard Semitic shift to "š". The 2nd C was preserved in Berber, de-emphaticized to "d" in Semitic and Chadic, and rhotacized to the tap "ɾ" in Egyptian (similar to the Cushitic descendants with "r"), which later altered to "y". The exotic 3rd C had its ejective feature removed since none of the borrowers use that feature, centralized the airflow to "s" in Berber and Egyptian, and fronted a bit further to "th" in Semitic, for place assimilation with de-emphaticized "d" (which moved it forward from retroflex / pharyngealized "ḍ").

    Every borrower treated the donor as having a high-front 1st V, except Egyptian which treated it as "a", but still within the range of the P-C possibilities. Most likely the norm in P-C was "i", confirmed by the palatalization of the 1st C in those Southern Cushitic hardening languages.

    And that wraps it up. Well, not exactly the kind of soothing lazy river ride you expect for a Sunday, but I can't help when I get possessed! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  53. Re: Cushitic 1, Egyptian 10, Semitic 100 sounding like mVtV -- I didn't think that far ahead. Good catch! Sounds like milestone markings to me, not fine-scale integers. Certainly for 10 and 100, but perhaps this was applied in Cushitic after the original word for 1 became an integer.

    The "mato" word would've meant "mini-milestone" or something, analogized downwards from 10 and 100 that they encountered when trading with Egyptian and Semitic speakers.

    If it's based on powers of 10, you can see why it doesn't show up as 1 for awhile -- that's like saying "10 to the 0 power". What the hell is a 0 power? Not intuitive, and just defined to be equal to 1 in the axioms.

    But if you were intent on expressing 1 as an order-of-magnitude milestone, rather than a fine-scale integer, then you could adapt someone else's words for 10, 100, etc.

    Neat!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Japanese has complimentary counting for number words! Well, one of them, anyway. I'll explain the entire system of Proto-Japonic numerals tomorrow, it's pretty strange. I've discovered quite a bit that isn't already known...

    But for now, to connect this to the topic of complimentary counting, I discovered that the P-J word for 4 is based on a word for 1. Not the standard cardinal number-word for 1, which is "pito" -- that word is the same as "person", i.e. contrasting with "group, crowd" or in other words, "the numbers 2 and above". "Pito" is based on "individual" for its meaning of 1.

    However, when re-examining the numerals, which I've already studied a zillion times to look for Dene-Yeniseian connections, I had a "Eureka!" moment, now that I'm thinking of complimentary counting. Check out the P-J word for 4, which is "yə" (AKA "yo2"):

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/y%C9%99

    Look at the 3rd meaning, which is "same". What does "same" contrast with? "Different", or even better, "varied", "multiple", "manifold", etc. "Same" or "identical" relates to 1 -- being of 1 type, not 2 or 3 or etc. separate types.

    The relationship is the same, so to speak, in Proto-Indo-European, where the English word for "same" goes back to P-IE "somHós", which is based on "sem" = "together" and also used as a numeral for 1.

    So at some point in the ancient past, there was a P-J number-word "yə", which meant 1. It was a less frequent word, after the frequent word "pito" (meaning "individual"). This "yə" numeral was derived from the existing P-J word for "same, identical".

    But then later, when trying to derive words for the non-primitive numbers, "yə" = "1" was used to express 4, with the same semantics as we've seen before. When using the fingers to count to 4, there's 1 finger in its original position.

    It used the less-frequent word for 1, so that there aren't too many near-homophones for numbers on the same hand.

    Also, we'll see tomorrow that the P-J word for 2 is based on 1 = "pito" (in a doubling pattern). So if 4 were also based on 1 = "pito", then just on the first hand, there would be 3 numbers all sounding similar -- 1, 2, and 4. They avoided this as part of their doubling pattern as well -- the word for 4 was not based on 2 (doubled). They only wanted pairs of similar-sounding numerals, not triplets, quadruplets, etc.

    Otherwise, 1, 2, 4, and 8 would all sound the same except for vowels. Too confusing!

    Final remark: the OJ and MJ word for "same" has irregularly dropped the initial "y" -- it's "onaji" in MJ, from "onazi" in OJ, which ultimately came from "yənati" in P-J. Nobody knows that yet -- but it's true.

    In P-Ryukyuan, "same" is "yono", where "yo" comes from P-J "yə" and "no" comes from P-J "nə", the attributive particle. So why wouldn't the Japanese branch have a similar construction? It did, but it used the alternate form of the attributive particle, "na", and it mysteriously dropped the initial "y".

    Then "ti" is the P-J word for "essence", which became voiced to "d" in OJ, then palatalized into "z", and hardened further into "j", a typical sequence of changes.

    So, MJ "onaji" ultimately comes from P-J "yə + na + ti" = "of the same essence".

    I had to add this remark since there's no etymology for "onaji" noticing its connection to Ryukyuan words for "same", but with Japanese dropping the initial "y" for no apparent reason.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Cushitic word for "head" led to numerous languages' word for "large number", based on counting herds of livestock.

    This follows up on the very helpful comment left by "fan", who notes that the regional word for 1 in Highland East Cushitic, which is not like the standard Cushitic word for 1, looks like the Egyptian and Semitic words for "large number" or "order of magnitude milestone".

    This actually extends FAR outside of the Saharo-Arabian family this time! And no one has ever seen the faintest glimmer of these connections! But they're right there! In fairness to others, *I* didn't notice them until this morning either, but I don't earn a living doing this stuff, and the others do!

    OK, back to the topic. The regional word for 1 in Highland East Cushitic is "mato" (final vowel uncertain). Although perhaps nobody knows this, this word comes from the Proto-Cushitic word for "head", which is "matħ", but where that final consonant is a generic body-part ending. So the root for just "head" is "mat".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Cushitic/mat%C4%A7-

    In Highland East Cushitic, this native root, without the generic ending "ħ", was used to derive a word for 1 -- "mato", where the final vowel could be an unspecified dummy vowel V. What is the logic here? Well, the people who speak these languages are pastoralists, so they own livestock. And not just one, but many of them -- a herd.

    It is common to refer to living things that are part of a large group, by referring to a salient body part (metonymy). Like in English, "hand" for a sailor (among the entire crew, which is like a herd). Or also in English, "head" for counting livestock (among the entire herd). Or "check out all the skirts", for the vast sea of female bodies making up the secretary pool in the good ol' days.

    This accounts for the regional use of "head" for "1" in Cushitic.

    Now is where the fun starts. Multiple languages outside the Cushitic branch borrowed the Cushitic word for "head" -- *with* the final "ħ", cuz they don't speak Cushitic, and can't distinguish the basic root "mat" from the generic body-part ending "ħ". So to them, the Cushitic counting-word relating to "head" is "matħ".

    Semantically, the borrowers interpreted it in the context of "large number, as big as a herd of livestock". The specific large number varied by the borrower, but they're all powers of 10, or generic "very large number".

    Egyptian borrowed it to mean 10, pronouncing it "muːcʼaw", whose 2nd C is an ejective or emphatic voiceless coronal consonant, and spelled "mḏw". No change to Cushitic "m", and the Cushitic cluster "tħ" was rendered as emphatic "ḏ", since "ħ" is pharyngeal, and this feature attached to the previous coronal stop to make it emphatic, rather than preserve a cluster of 2 consonants.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/m%E1%B8%8Fw

    Proto-Berber also borrowed this word with the meaning of "10", "măraw", although rendering the Cushitic cluster somewhat differently from Egyptian. Berber also heard an emphatic coronal, but it sounded retroflex, and this retroflex feature was made into a primary "r" consonant.

    Proto-Semitic borrowed the Cushitic word with the meaning of "100", "miʔat", whose final "t" is part of the feminine ending and not relevant.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/mi%CA%94at-

    Semitic also fused the two Cushitic consonants in the cluster, into a single consonant, but differently from Berber or Egyptian. Both consonants in the Cushitic cluster are voiceless, and so is "ʔ" (glottal stop). Semitic cared more about the place of articulation, opting for a far-back consonant, and preserving the stop manner of "t". There is no pharyngeal stop, so they opted for glottal stop as the next-best far-back location. Or they first slightly shifted pharyngeal "ħ" to glottal "h". Either way, resolving that Cushitic cluster.

    ReplyDelete
  56. But wait, that's not all! Latin and Greek borrowed this Cushitic "large number" word! Almost certainly not directly, but indirectly, likely through Egyptian and/or Semitic rather than Berber, but you never know. There were so many languages circulating among international traders and merchants around the Mediterranean coast in the old days.

    In Latin, they borrowed some Saharo-Arabian "large number" word as "mille", meaning "1000". The closest phonetic match is Egytpian, whose later development of this word is "mɛd͡ʒuː", with a high-front 1st V, and whose 2nd C is not a stop but has a somewhat continuant nature as well. It has 2 sub-segments in it, "d" and "ʒ", and Latin resolved those as a geminate "ll". Perhaps influenced by Berber "r" in that position of the word, a liquid.

    The etymology of the Latin word for 1000 is currently "unknown", although I've just solved it. The only Indo-Euro derivation is totally ridiculous:

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mille#Latin

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/sm%C4%AB%C9%A3esl%C4%AB

    The main root there is P-IE "ǵʰéslom", which means "heap", and that could indeed be used for "large number". That seems to be the root behind the Greek and Indo-Iranian words for 1000. But the Greek and Indo-Iranian words maintain a reflex of P-IE initial "ǵʰ" ("kh" and "h", respectively). Latin / Italic does not, there's nothing remotely like that in "mille".

    Also, the tortured Latin etymology assumes an initial morpheme "sm̥-", derived from the P-IE word for "1" that we already saw, to mean "one heap". Something like this appears to be in the Indo-Iranian word, but it actually preserves the "s" and turned the syllabic nasal into a vowel, "sa". Latin "mille" doesn't begin with "s"! This assumes the "s" was deleted while the "m" was preserved. Sorry, if you're preserving only 1 consonant of the word for "1", it's "s", not "m".

    And on top of it all, to get the vowels right, the tortured etymology assumes two separate instances of the feminine suffix, "ih₂" -- after each of the morphemes for "one" and "heap".

    This is an insane level of over-fitting the data, or torturing it until it confesses. Too many morphemes for such a simple word -- "large number". The Greek and Indo-Iranian words don't have gender suffixes at all, let alone 2 of them. Only 2 morphemes -- one substantial word for "hand" and a derivational affix meaning "full", i.e. "a hand-ful" = "heap".

    So I utterly reject this tortured Indo-Euro derivation of Latin "mille". It's an obvious borrowing from Egyptian, perhaps influenced by the cognate in Berber. That's why it begins with "m" and not "s", and why it doesn't have 17 consonants in the middle, just a single geminate (if that makes sense).

    ReplyDelete
  57. Next, Greek "myriad" reflects this Cushitic loan as well. Initially "myrios" meant "countless large number", then refined to mean specifically "10,000", as "myrias".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CF%85%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek

    Note that "y" is a high-front vowel, just like the Egyptian 1st V, and just like the 1st V in Latin "mille". Like Latin, there's a liquid as the 2nd C, the same as in Berber, but not dissimilar from the medial consonant in Egyptian. It was even exotic-sounding to the Egyptians, Berbers, and Semitics, who rendered a Cushitic cluster in various ways.

    The "s" ending consonant in Greek is a typical noun ending, not relevant.

    Semantically, both "mille" and "myrios" mean "large power-of-10 number". They didn't need to borrow words for 10 or 100, since P-IE already had words for those, and they were inherited into both the Italic and Hellenic branches.

    However, P-IE had no word for 1000, 10,000, and so on. So the daughter branches needed to come up with their own. Greek derived its word for 1000 based on native I-E roots for "handful" or "heap", just like Indo-Iranian did. But Italic did not -- they went straight to borrowing the Saharo-Arabian word for "larger power-of-10 number".

    But Greek still needed a word for 10,000, or vaguely "power-of-10 beyond 1000". And by that point, they stopped bothering with native I-E roots, and went for borrowing the Saharo-Arabian "power-of-10" word as well.

    This also accounts for why, at least AFAICT, only Italic and Hellenic have similar words for a "large power-of-10" number, and not the other branches of Indo-European -- these two branches are close to the Saharo-Arabian mercantile heartland of the Eastern Mediterranean, where Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic were all spoken among international traders throughout international markets.

    I think the Italic and Hellenic economic connection to Cushitic speakers was probably indirect, via Egyptians, Berbers from the Sahara, or Semitic speakers of the Levant and the Hejaz / Yemen. So Italic and Hellenic didn't borrow directly from Cushitic to get their "power-of-10" number-word, but it ultimately traces back to the Proto-Cushitic word for "head", used as a counting term among livestock herders.

    Another "herd" of mysteries properly corraled into the SOLVED area. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  58. BTW, the Hellenists are honest that "myrios" has no known etymology (until my solution today), and don't bother with tortured 17-morpheme derivations from native I-E roots. The only "take a stab in the dark" guesses are based on I-E roots relating to "damp" -> "water" -> "waves" -> "countless". Yeah sure, each semantic link in the chain is totally secure! Hehe, they're just throwing something at the wall and seeing if it sticks, though, they aren't really committing to it.

    The other is based on the I-E word for "ant", as in "a countlessly large swarm of bugs". Close, but not close enough -- it is an animal-related term, but it's a metonymy for counting individual livestock within a herd, and based on "head". But in Cushitic and Saharo-Arabian borrowers of Cushitic -- not native I-E roots.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Samoyedic borrowed 5 from Indo-European phrase meaning "half-full" or "halfway to completion". Back to Uralic for a minute, but it involves Indo-Euro and their word for both "one" and "half" or "partial / fraction". Number words really get around!

    As mentioned before, the Samoyedic branch of Uralic has a quite different set of numerals compared to the other branches (Finno-Ugric). They share "wixte", based on the verbs for grasping or carrying, implying making a fist with the fingers and thumb curled around the thing you're grasping or carrying. But in Finno-Ugric, it means 5, while in Samoyedic it means 10.

    The reason is probably the Samoyedic speakers, being more East Asian, had a different method of counting on the hands. You start with a closed fist, then extend the fingers one at a time, and when all 5 are extended, you reverse the order in which you extended them, curling them back. In this method, you only make a "grasping hand", i.e. a fist, at 0 -- which is not a numeral -- and 10. In Finno-Ugric, they must have begun with the fingers extended, and then curled them one at a time, so that they made a "grasping hand" at 5. Similar to the American counting game "put a finger down", where they all begin extended.

    Since Samoyedic shifted "wixte" to mean 10 instead of 5 -- and the Uralic branch called Emishi / Ainu shifted it further to mean 20 (P-Ainu "wot", modern "hot") -- Samoyedic needed a replacement word for 5. There are two related forms in this branch, the basic word represented in the Southern region by "səmpulä", and the more complex phrase "səmpəläŋkə" that dominates in the North.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Samoyedic/s%C9%99mp%C9%99l%C3%A4%C5%8Bk%C9%99

    This is obviously a commplex phrase -- way too many vowels and syllables, compared to the Uralic preference for 2 syllables in a word. You can segment either word any way you want, and not find native Samoyedic or Uralic morphemes that they correspond to. So it must be a loan -- not surprising, given that it's a numeral, a word class that is unique in its ability to borrow across entirely different language families. That's cuz numbers and counting and arithmetic are a kind of technology, and tech can easily be loaned and borrowed around all sorts of cultures, for utilitarian reasons, not ethnic or shibboleth-y reasons.

    The first element comes from P-IE "sēmi" = "half", itself from P-IE "sem" meaning 1, and based on "whole, unified". The connection there is that a fraction like "half" is "one piece of a whole". Even in modern English borrowing of this word via Latin, we use the prefix "semi-" to mean "partially", not necessarily where the denominator is 2 and numerator is 1. Just, "fraction, partial, fragment of a whole -- not entirely".

    The second element comes from either of two related, probably cognate, P-IE words. First, "pleh₁", also reconstructed as "pelh₁", a root realting to "fill". Second, "pelh₂", relating to "approach" after being driven, pushed, or set into motion. These are semantically very close, since when you're filling something, you've set a sequence in motion by pouring the liquid, and it approaches completion part-way through the sequence.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/pleh%E2%82%81-

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/pelh%E2%82%82-

    In either case, the phrase rendered by Southern Samoyedic "səmpulä" means "half-full" or "half-way approaching completion". The phonetics are trivial, where the "i" of "sēmi" is deleted in order to bring the "m" and "p" together according to Uralic phonotactics, which prefer a medial sequence CVCCV over CVCVCV. And the P-IE laryngeal is rendered as an indistinct dummy vowel in Samoyedic, as "ə". Southern Samoyedic gave this vowel further rounding in the 2nd and 3rd vowels, probably influenced by the "p". But not in P-Samoyedic, where they're "ə".

    The semantics are also clear -- 5 is half-way toward 10, and if 10 is full since that's when you stop counting, then 5 is half-full.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Now, what's going on with that extra morpheme in "səmpəläŋkə"? I have to conclude this is contamination from the P-IE word for 5, which is "pénkʷe". The Northern Samoyedic languages heard both the P-IE standalone word for 5, "pénkʷe", as well as the Samoyedic borrowed phrase "səmpələ" meaning "half-full". There's a sequence shared between them of "p", V, C, V. So that similarity led to carrying over the "énkʷe" in "pénkʷe", tacked on after the "l" in "pel / pəl", whose initial "p" triggered the association with "pénkʷe". And the alveolar nasal "n" of the P-IE word assimilated for place with following velar "kʷ / k", yielding "ŋ" in the Samoyedic borrowing.

    Solved!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Note that P-Samoyedic 5 borrowed from P-IE, not a daughter branch. There are no "l"s in Indo-Iranian, so it wasn't them. And there are no other branches with the fraction-word "sēmi" near the Altai-Sayan region -- only Germanic, Hellenic, and Italic. Of those, only Germanic and Italic preserve the original, whereas Hellenic changed the initial to "h", and Indo-Iranian changed the 1st V to "a". Italic can be eliminated due to its word for 5 altering the P-IE initial to "kʷ" instead of "p", and Germanic altered it to "f".

    So, it was borrowed a VERY long time ago, from P-IE itself.

    And since Samoyedic borrowed this phrase to replace the earlier Uralic word for 5, which it displaced to mean 10, that means that Samoyedic displacement took place during the P-IE stage. And so the P-Uralic numeral "wixte" meaning "grasping hand, fist" must go back to that stage or earlier as well. Pretty damn old.

    But then, these milestones like 5 and 10 are the earliest to develop, and fine-scale integers are much later.

    ReplyDelete
  62. What was the semantic source of contamination in the longer form of P-S 5? I only mentioned the phonetic source of contamination. Semantically, 5 could be "half-full", but it could also be "one 5 out of two 5's, which together form a whole, i.e. 10 when the counting is complete". This uses the "semi, partial, fractional, half" word, as well as the numeral for "5", from P-IE.

    So the phonetic contamination was also bolstered by semantic contamination or double-entendre.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Final mini-wrinkle on the Mediterranean power-of-10 words. Both the Latin and Greek words end in a high-ish front vowel, "e" in Latin and "i" in Greek (the "-os" and "-as" are generic noun endings, not part of the root). This is the only notable difference with the Saharo-Arabian words, which have either "a" or a back vowel as the 2nd vowel, or a diphthong with both, like "aw".

    I doubt Latin or Greek borrowed from each other -- Greek "r" doesn't get borrowed as geminate "ll" in Latin or vice versa. In fact, Latin did borrow the Greek, but kept it identical phonetically and semantically -- "myrias", meaning a myriad. That's not how Latin got "mille" = "1000".

    They must have borrowed from the same or similar sources, and outside the I-E family, in the Med region. That is, Saharo-Arabian. But none of the standard words in S-A end in a high-ish front vowel.

    I don't think it was dialectal variation among the sources, since all branches and sub-branches of Semitic have "a" or "o / u" as the 2nd V.

    So it must have been an Indo-Euro alteration of the S-A vowel, perhaps to make it sound more like the vowel before a typical noun ending in Indo-Euro, like "e" or "i" before "-os / -us".

    Final final mini-wrinkle -- it's possible that in P-Semitic "miʔat" originally used that final "t" as a meaningful segment, not just part of a generic feminine ending. Two possibilities:

    1. They originally mis-heard the P-Cushitic source as having a final single consonant, an emphatic coronal. Then they split this single emphatic coronal into 2 separate consonants, a coronal stop and a far-back glottal stop, to suggest the pharyngeal location (only "far-back", not pharyngeal per se, but hinting at it).

    This is similar to what they did with their word for 9, "tišʕ", whose final 2-consonant cluster corresponds to a single emphatic coronal in Berber and Egyptian, and all of whom ultimately trace back to an ejective (emphatic?) coronal in the P-Cushitic word for "1". Semitic chose to divide the features of a single emphatic into 2 separate C's, a plain coronal and a pharyngeal.

    2. They correctly heard the P-Cushitic source as having a final sequence of "t" and "ħ". They preserved the "t" and altered the "ħ" to "ʔ" as an assimilation of voicing and manner of adjacent "t" (voiceless, stop). IDK if I buy that -- the other S-A branches mis-heard the P-C donor as a single emphatic, so Semitic probably did too, and applied their splitting strategy as in "tišʕ".

    In either case, why did the far-back consonant come first, and the "t" last? Perhaps under the influence of the feminine suffix having "t" -- so make it sound more like a numeral with a feminine ending, and put the "t" last rather than middle, leaving the glottal stop to go in 2nd place.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Meant to say, "ħ" could've been altered to "ʔ" to assimilate for manner with adjacent "t". That is, making it a stop. And since there are no pharyngeal stops, the next-closest location with a far-back stop is glottal, so they chose glottal stop.

    Note that in "tišʕ", both the 2nd and 3rd C's are fricatives, and they are split from a single consonant in the source. So perhaps splitting required a match for manner of articulation. Further investigation needed.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Now onto solving the mysteries of the Japonic numeral system -- the native system, not the Chinese words they borrowed during the Dark Ages. The Japonic system is very strange, and has largely been abandoned by the Japanese, in favor of Chinese words. But it's revealing about how numeral systems are constructed, how number-words are coined, and so on -- so it's worth exploring.

    Judging from Wiktionary, Wikipedia, etc., almost nothing is known about Japanese numerals, but it's all very easy to figure out -- you don't have to be a cliff-dwelling sage. But if nobody else is going to solve these mysteries, I will. These are all from Proto-Japonic.

    Let's start the way they did -- with the milestones 1, 5, and 10. This is how numeral systems begin, by marking orders of magnitude, and then they fill in the fine-scale integers afterward.

    The only non-trivial etymology that anyone has found so far, is that 1 = "pito", which is the same as "person". This is a new strategy, not based on "alone" or "same, undifferentiated", as in other families. It's based on contrasting a single individual vs. a group of people that's 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. people in size.

    There's a related ordinal word for "first", which is "patu", altering the vowels of "pito" but keeping the consonants the same.

    The word for 5 is "etu / itu", which is the same word as the relative and interrogatory pronoun for "when". How has no one made the connection before? When you're counting, and you reach 5, it's time to start doing something different -- in the case of East Asia, it means it's time to reverse the state of the fingers that has happened during 1-5. You start with the fist closed, then extend them one by one -- after 5, it's time to reverse those actions, and curl them back into a fist one by one.

    Using the word for "when" to announce when some action needs to be taken, is exactly the same as in the English phrase, "Say 'when'..." Like when you're pouring a drink, and you want the other person to say "when" there is enough liquid to their liking. Like, "that's it, that's enough" -- it's like the notion of filling up or completing something, that we saw from the Samoyedic numerals. Calling out the relative or interrogatory time-word -- "when" -- once a filling process has filled up as much as it can, and it's time to stop that process.

    The word for 10 is "təwə", and its meaning is not as obvious as a single word appropriated from elsewhere. But it's a simple compound. The "wə" means "tail, foot of a mountain, end of something". (Ignore the false claim that it's from P-J "bo" -- P-J does not have voiced obstruents, and even when OJ got them, it was not in initial position. This reflects P-J "wo" itself.)

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B0%BE#Japanese

    Well, 10 is the end of what? That's what the modifier "tə" answers. This root relates to sequences and time. By itself, it is the conjunctive particle -- "and" -- that strings together words in a list. It is the first element of the word for "time" = "təki", and the word for "year" = "təsi". It marks the passage of a sequence, or counting items in a sequence. So, "təwə" means "sequence end" or "counting end". And that's just when the process of counting stops, at 10.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The only systematic thing that others have noticed about Japanese numerals is the doubling pattern, where the words sound similar for X and 2X. So, 1 sounds like 2 ("pito" and "puta"), 3 sounds like 6 ("mi" and "mu", same vowel relation as in 1 & 2), and 4 sounds like 8 ("yo" and "ya", a different vowel relation from the other 2 pairs). The notable exception is that 5 and 10 don't sound alike, cuz they're milestones and have their own mneumonics, they don't need to fit into a systematic schema.

    So why don't all words that are twice some other number, fall into this pattern? Why does 4 not sound like 2? Likewise, why does 8 not sound like 2?

    Well, if they did, they would also sound like 1 -- 2 to the 0 power. Recall that 1 and 2 sound alike. So if that logic were extended beyond a pair of words, to all doubled words with a common first member, it would mean 1, 2, 4, and 8 would sound alike, and so would the ordinal word for "first". By keeping the consonants the same, and only altering the vowels, you're pretty much out of vowels if you did this!

    And talk about confusing -- why would you want 4 out of 10 number-words to sound similar? You want to space out similar-sounding words if possible, to avoid confusion. And to prevent the basic act of counting from becoming a tongue-twister! Just imagine if the 1-10 words contained pito, puta, peto, and pota... ay ay ay.

    So, only 2 numbers are grouped into similar-sounding pairs, not 3 or more words to a group.

    When I said "non-trivial" etymologies for Japonic numerals, this is what I mean by "trivial". It's clear that 2 derives from 1, 6 from 3, and 8 from 4, by vowel alternation.

    Well, as neat as this sounds, you might notice how bizarre it is. I guarantee you've never seen another number-word system where two numbers are pronounced similarly if one is a multiple of the other. That's cuz counting is additive -- you add 1 at each step in the sequence. You don't multiply.

    So how can a number sound like a *multiple* of another number? How can you phonetically link numbers that are multiples of each other, using your hands and fingers to count, which is normally additive?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Behold! By using one hand to represent the smaller number of the pair, then copying the state of this first hand, onto the second hand. Surely, they used the right hand for the smaller basic number, and copied it onto the left hand. So, if only the thumb is activated on the right hand, then activate the thumb on the left hand. If 3 fingers are activated on the right, then activate the same 3 on the left. If 4 are activated on the right, then activate the same 4 fingers on the left.

    But that only gets you so far -- if you activate 3 fingers on the right hand, and copy that onto the left hand, you just have 3 fingers activated on each hand. How can you tell what number this represents, from 1 to 10? Remember, primitive people can't do arithmetic -- and neither can many civilized people, including math majors. They can't do it *in their head*, I should say. That's what these hand-counting "technologies" are for.

    Now they move to a second process, which is like using tally-marks. You have to re-arrange all the elements into groups of 5, and any left-overs must be less than 5. So what's the action performed with the hands? You de-activate a finger on the left hand, and activate an unactivated finger on the right hand, one by one until either the right hand fills up to 5, or there are no more fingers left to de-activate on the left.

    To be explicit, for 1 & 2. Activate 1 finger on the right, copy that same finger activation on the left. Then de-activate that 1 left finger, and activate another on the right. Now there are 2 fingers activated on the right, 0 on the left, and you can see with your own eyes what number this represents -- 2, a one-hand-only number.

    For 3 and 6, activate 3 on the right, copy those same 3 onto the left. De-activate 1 on the left, activate 1 on the right. De-activate another 1 on the left, activate 1 on the right. Now all 5 on the right are activated, and this ends.

    If you use two hands to count, you can tell what number this is -- a full hand and 1 finger on the other, is 6. If you use one hand, forward and then inverted, then it's a bit more work. For each activated finger remaining on the left hand, de-activate it, but now de-activate also on the right hand -- inverting the sequence for filling up 1-5. After 1 step, now there are 0 fingers activated on the left, and 1 step into the inverted sequence on the right -- that's 6.

    For 4 and 8, activate 4 on the right, then copy those same 4 activated on the left. De-activate 1 on the left, activate 1 on the right. Now the right is full. If you use two hands to count, one full hand and 3 fingers activated on the other, is 8. If you use one hand, forward and inverted, de-activate each of the 3 fingers on the left, and de-activate 3 on the right, in the inverted sequence. After 3 steps into the inverted sequence, the hand is in the state of 8.

    Now you see why this numeral system was abandoned by the Japanese! Sure, you can just learn the words without understanding the logic of the system that constructed it. But it just doesn't sound very intuitive when there are similar sounding multiples, but only pairs not larger groups -- why doesn't 4 and 8 sound like 1 and 2?

    Just get rid of that system, and that's what they did.

    ReplyDelete
  68. That explains the etymology of the larger of the doubled pair -- 2, 6, and 8. But what about the smaller pair? Where did *those* sounds come from? Well, 1 = "pito" has already been covered. It means "individual" vs. a group of 2+. And yesterday I solved the very elusive mystery of where 4 = "yə" comes from -- it's a complimentary counting term, derived from a no-longer-used P-J numeral for 1, also called "yə", which is the same as the word for "same". It expresses 4 by way of 1 -- a less frequent, secondary kind of 1, not the main standard 1.

    How about 3 = "mi"? Now we have to see which finger is used for 3 in Japonic hand-counting, so we can see what features it has, that may be alluded to by "mi".

    P-J hand-counting was of the East Asian type, where only 1 hand is used for 1-10, it begins closed, and the fingers are extended through 5, then curled back through 10. It started with 1 = thumb, then moved adjacently to the pointer = 2, middle = 3, ring = 4, and pinky = 5. Then the inversion / curling began with the pinky = 6, and moved adjacently to the ring = 7, middle = 8, pointer = 9, and finally the thumb = 10.

    I didn't time-travel back to 500 BC to observe this sequence -- I figured it out cuz this is the only sequence that fits the pattern of P-J numerals, as we'll see.

    So 3 arrived with the middle finger (first stage). I have to conclude that "mi" refers to the fact that the middle finger is the longest, and most visually prominent among the fingers, the most eye-catching. This means that "mi" here is cognate with the P-J word for "eye" = underlying "mai", realized as "me" in standalone form. Also, the root of the verb "to see" = "miru", where the "-ru" is the default verb suffix, and "mi" is the root. It's also the noun-like form of the verb, like "seeing" in English.

    In MJ, the middle finger is called by the same term as in English, "nakayubi", where "naka" means "middle, inner". But once upon a time, it didn't have this name, and was referred to based on it being the longest and therefore most visually prominent of the fingers.

    This is not so different from the etymology of the Proto-Indo-European word for 3, which is based on "tip" and "protruding", alluding to the middle finger, which sticks out further than the others. And so, it must have been 3rd in sequence -- whether they started with the pinky or thumb.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/tr%C3%A9yes

    ReplyDelete
  69. That only leaves the etymology of 7 and 9, which are not part of a doubled pair, and not milestones. Both of them also refer to the finger involved. Both are during the second, inverting stage, during which 7 arrives on the ring finger, and 9 on the pointer finger. They're both very simple, too!

    The P-J word for 7 = "nana", and it means "no name":

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/na

    All you vtuber fans out there remember the meaning of Nanashi Mumei -- "nameless" in Japonic roots, and in Chinese roots. The "-shi" (from older "-si") is just a generic adjective suffix, where the roots meaning "no name" are "na + na".

    In other words, the ring finger is the "no name" finger -- cuz there's nothing special or salient about it. Really, only once the convention of wearing a wedding ring on that finger, did English have any helpful way to describe it. It's not the longest one -- nor is it the littlest one. It's not on either end. It isn't used to do some verb, like grasping, pointing, etc. With no distinctive traits, it's just the "no name" finger.

    As it happens, both Chinese and Japanese use this "no name" sense for ring finger, although only Japanese uses the sounds "nana", whereas Chinese sounds more like "ma meŋ" (in Old Chinese).

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/無名指

    So it's possible that the Wa / Japanese learned the method of hand-counting from the Chinese, or indirectly from the Chinese through someone else in the Xiongnu confederation, which the Wa belonged to. They may have also learned the semantics of referring to the ring finger as the one with no name -- or maybe they figured that out on their own. I figured it out on my own last night. How else do you describe it? Might as well call it "the miscellaneous finger".

    However, the Wa did not pick up the Chinese *sounds* to match that meaning -- they used their own native Japonic roots, to give "nana".

    Finally, the P-J word for 9 = "kəkənə". This is also the name of the finger involved, the pointer finger. As with "nana", the overt word for "finger" = "oyopi" (MJ "yubi") is not included, since it's taken for granted that you're referring to fingers during hand-counting. The number-word is just the modifier, for which finger it is.

    The final "nə" here is the attributive particle, which is a standard way to connect a modifier and a noun, even if the 2nd noun isn't overtly stated.

    The main root is "kəkə", which is the standard demonstrative place-word -- "here". It consists of one "kə", the proximal demonstrative -- "this" as opposed to "that". And the second "kə" is a place-related suffix, also part of the interrogative place-word "doko" = "where?"

    So when referring to the pointer finger, they called it the "here finger", i.e. it's the finger you use to make the pointing gesture to indicate "here".

    Later, this word was shortened to just "kono", but that too means "this" in an attributive sense, like when followed by a noun -- it means "this [noun]" as opposed to some other member from its class. And that gesture also involves using the pointer finger to, well, point.

    Doesn't using mesial or distal demonstratives also involve pointing, like "there" or "over yonder"? No, it does not. First, pointing away or toward something at middle or far distance can be socially rude and taboo. But also, you don't know precisely where to point when it's far away. Only when it's close, do you know precisely where the location is, so you can point at it. "There" or "over there" or "way over there" involve vague, broad, sweeping, waving motions with the whole arm, since you're expressing a wide range, since you don't know precisely where it is. Using the finger to point? That has to be only "this" or "here".

    And that solves the mysteries of the Japonic numeral system. I told you it was strange! But also worth exploring, to see how cultures use language and counting together. It's not an easy merger -- that's why most people either like math or language, not both!

    But I can do both, so just leave it to me... ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  70. Last few mysteries solved with those Saharo-Arabian numerals. First, I found the source that Latin and Greek borrowed from for "mille" and "myri(-os)" -- it's Berber! There's a widespread Berber word for 100, probably going back to Proto-Berber. Here's the Central Atlas Tamazight version, "timiḍi", though others are cognate, like "t-è-med̩e" in Tuareg.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%8E%E2%B5%89%E2%B4%B9%E2%B5%89#Central_Atlas_Tamazight

    It has a feminine plural prefix, "ti-" or "te-", and S-A numerals do tend to be feminine in gender, and this is 100, so it's plural in the sense of "plural power of 10", i.e. 10^2.

    The root, though, is "miḍi" -- exactly what I was looking for! It's "m", high-front vowel, voiced emphatic coronal, and high-front vowel.

    AFAICT, no other branch of S-A has a form like this. This root, without the "ti-" prefix of course, is what Latin and Greek borrowed from, ultimately, perhaps through an intermediary. But it seems to be a Berber word meaning "large power-of-10 number", "the size of a herd," etc. And the prefixed version "timiḍi" gives it a specific value -- 100, as opposed to other power-of-10.

    Note that the root for 100 is not the exact same as the root for 10, which is "maraw" -- ultimately from the same P-Cushitic source, but the Berber roots for 10 and 100 are doublets of that loan from Cushitic. In the 10 root, the 2nd C is a bit hazier than the Cushitic source, which had a pharyngeal feature (coronal + pharyngeal sequence). The "r" in "maraw" is treating it more like a retroflex feature, but still "emphatic", in a different series than the plain consonants.

    But in the 100 root, it's much closer to the original, with an emphatic. The 1st V is slightly different from the source, being "e,i" instead of "a", but there's vowel harmony in Berber that changes "a" to "i" if there are other "i"s in the root, as in this case. Namely, the 2nd V of the root has been changed to "i" from the Cushitic source, more like "a(w)" or "o,u". This vowel alternated form also helps to refine / distinguish its meaning, instead of the vague "herd-size" source.

    This vowel harmony, with both V's being high-front and no "a", is also present in the Latin and Greek words, so they MUST have borrowed it from a Berber source.

    Berbers were mostly associated with the trans-Saharan trade routes, but they interacted with Mediterranean coastal people as well, not to mention Egyptian and Cushitic speakers far to the south of the Med, in the Horn of Africa. Romans traded across the Sahara, and evidently the Greeks traded for goods that came from the Horn of Africa, or perhaps across the Sahara as well (gold, ivory, exotic animals).

    So the next time you use the word "milestone", which has the Latin word for 1000 inside it (from "the distance covered by 1000 paces"), remember to thank the Berbers! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  71. To further support the use of "head of livestock" words to denote power-of-10 number-words in Saharo-Arabian, here are two more cases, both distinct from the Cushitic one.

    Proto-Semitic 1000 is "ʔalp", which originally meant "livestock animal", likely cattle. It shares a root with the verb "ʔallip" = "to domesticate". At first this was used to mean "one", just like in Cushitic -- hence the name of the FIRST letter in the Phoenician alphabet, "aleph", used to start the sequence of letters.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/%CA%94alp-

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%90%A4%80#Phoenician

    Later, the root was used to mean "the size of a herd, measured in heads of cattle", specifically 1,000.

    So there's a semantic connection between "one" and "large power-of-10", by means of a word used to count the size of a herd of livestock, which itself was a form of metonymy ("head" for the entire animal). Just like in Cushitic.

    And in Egyptian, there's yet another root relating to the size of a herd and a large power-of-10 number, here 1,000 = "ḫꜣ". This is part of the phrase for "shepherd" = "ḥꜣt ḫꜣ". So originally it meant "livestock animal", then it was extended to mean "size of a herd", and finally it was specified to be 1,000. So there's another connection between "one", a single animal, and then the vaguely-defined "size of a herd", and then a specific large power-of-10 number. Just like in Cushitic.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%B8%AB%EA%9C%A3#Egyptian

    The claim in the entry is backwards -- it claims it meant 1000 first, and then adapted to mean size of a herd. Numbers are derived from real-world things, not the other way around.

    These examples are further proof that the Cushitic word for "head" was used to refer to a "head of livestock animal", then the number "one", and then borrowed by other S-A branches to mean "size of a herd", with the different branches specifying different powers-of-10 with this borrowed "herd-size" word.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Notice that these words all relate to pastoralism, not crop cultivation. You can thank pastoralists for counting systems! The produce of crop cultivation could technically be measured in single digits, then larger powers of 10, but in reality it's not. The individual seeds planted, or individual grains harvested, are WAAAAYYY too numerous to count with integers, or even 10s / dozens.

    In practice, you treat seeds and grains as a mass noun, not a count noun -- and it's based on weight or volume, like a bushel, or a bag or a pound, or enough to fill a silo of a certain volume of space. They're tiny super-numerous particles that make up a great big undifferentiated blob of a mass noun. No counting involved -- only measuring, which is different.

    In contrast, livestock animals are big enough to the naked eye, and not super-duper-numerous that they can't all be counted. They do not get defined by the total weight of the herd, or the total amount of space the herd takes up. Unlike grains, they aren't loaded onto a scale like a continuously measurable mass noun. They are counted discretely, perhaps using an exponential term after they get that big in size.

    And that's where these power-of-10 words come from -- trying to express the size of a herd of livestock, which could number in the 10s, 100s, or even 1000s. Small-time herders may only need 10s, but once international trade gets involved, big-time livestock owners may in fact own 100s or 1000s of animals. Or at least, be responsible for corraling that many animals into a caravan in order to take to a big international market, or wealthy court, who will want a contract specifying exactly how many animals are being exchanged.

    Seeds and grains provide no motivation to count them by powers-of-10, with discrete integers at the fine level -- rather, scalar weight / volume measurement, treated as a continuous mass noun, not count noun.

    The standard story is that mathematics is a product of sedentary cultivated agriculture, who have a surplus that can support specialists like mathematicians, astronomers, and so on. Well, for providing institutional support and patronage, sure. But the mathematics itself do not come from farmers and cultivators -- it's only a figure of speech, derogatory at that, when we call accountants "bean-counters". You'd never count beans one by one, or even by powers-of-10. You'd only weigh them on a scale like any ol' lump of matter.

    Rather, counting comes from the closest thing to noble savages in the post-hunter-gatherer world -- pastoralists. They don't treat their wealth like a great big undifferentiated blob of inanimate stuff. Their herd is made up of individual living breathing creatures, each one with a spirit and personality and often a name, who deserve having their individuality preserved, even as they're corraled into a herd and driven around as a herd and traded as a herd. The herd is not a soulless heap -- it's one great big exciting family made up of interconnected individual members.

    Hyper-agrarian societies like China have rarely made progress in mathematics, while even fairly poor pastoralist societies have excelled at math -- especially when there are agrarians around to support them with part of their surplus. But the mathematicians themselves come from a herding background, not the matter-weighers of the agrarian economy.

    Without herd-driving nomads, we would never have the rungs of the exponential counting-ladder to climb our way off of the mundane ground and up into the outer heavens...

    ReplyDelete
  73. That's why the seemingly improbable source of Cushitic provided one of the most successfully shared power-of-10 words throughout the Old World. Talk about nomadic pastoralism -- that's just about the only way of life in the Cushitic urheimat. Not much crop cultivation (until recently with coffee). Not much hunting and gathering. And it's not tropical, so there's no tropical gardening / horticulture.

    In Somalia, the camel population is so large, it's about 50% of the human population! About 8 million camels, and 20 million people. Imagine if there were 150 million camels in America... that's Somalia's per capita rate. Nobody loves animals more than they do.

    Who else could be the earliest coiners of power-of-10 words based on counting the size of their vast herds of livestock? ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  74. To get another dig in at China, and praise Glorious Nippon, I think that's a major reason why Japan is so much better than China -- the Wa people came from a nomadic, livestock-herding, horse-riding way of life on the Eastern Steppe. That gives them an edge when it comes to doing mathematics (not just supporting mathematicians).

    For that matter, I'll bet the Northern Barbarians who assimilated into Chinese society, are over-represented among the paltry amount of mathematicians that China has ever produced. The hyper-agrarian elites may have patronized mathematicians, but tally marks -- and brand markings -- come from pastoralist people, to count the size of their herds.

    When a mega-state needs to conduct a census for the purpose of taxation, cultivators could not provide the math necessary to do so. Counting individuals within a very large group -- why, that's like counting a herd of livestock! And governments *do* think of their subjects as being cattle...

    No, they needed to recruit herders to provide the crucial mathematical insights for counting very large numbers, without resorting to scalar weight measurement or filling up space. That's when you know when governments have *really* started to degrade their subjects -- measuring them as pounds of raw material on a society-sized scale...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the vast majority of Chinese are bad at math, then where did the American myth that Chinese Americans are good at math come from?

      Delete
  75. Spain also doesn't seem to have produced a lot of mathematicians, despite being fairly pastoralist. I remember you wrote a post about how this was the result of not having the right mix of personalities. I was also wondering if maybe some of this could be attributed to the black hole of asabiya after the collapse of the Spanish Empire?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mongolian mathematician discovered the Catalan numbers in the 18th C. Now how's THAT for a pastoralist counting synchronicity?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_number

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minggatu

    Catalan lived and worked in France, much as Minggatu worked at the Chinese Qing court -- didn't I tell you?! When you have the right insight, you can never go wrong. I'd never heard of him before, but that just confirms it.

    If your ancestors invented a form a tally-marks for counting the size of your herd, you're guaranteed to discover some important series of numbers! ^_^

    Also, I said Chinese can't invent or create in math, not that they aren't "good at math". You can understand things or test well, but not be able to do anything with it. Especially if it's just a bunch of memorization for tests -- you don't really understand what's going on.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Quick note on Japanese counting, where the Chinese words have replaced the Japonic ones in most cases -- except for 4 and 7, which still use Japonic words. Based on the sequence they use to count on the fingers, both of these numbers use the ring finger (4 during the first stage, 7 during the inverse stage).

    Is the ring finger special to the Japanese? And if so, is it good-special or bad-special? Or is it just a coincidence? IDK, but worth noting.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Ainu myth is Uralic. I'm preparing a new series of posts on the Uralic cultural origins of the Ainu, including shibboleth-y parts like creation myths and beliefs about the afterlife. These are not subject to utilitarian calcuations, hence not arrived at by convergent evolution, pressure from a materially superior outside culture, and so on. Even when a culture adopts a new international religion, they keep these aspects of their old religion, and syncretize it into the new one.

    Here are the two most important ones -- regarding the creation of man, and the nature of the afterlife. The Ainu examples are from Batchelor, "The Ainu and Their Folk-lore" (1901). The Uralic examples are from the Finno-Ugric and Siberian volume of "The Mythology of All Races" by Holmberg (1927).

    I stumped Google's AI search by asking about these without mentioning a specific culture's name, just "which cultures...?" or "cultures whose myth about creation of man involves..." I prompted it to specifically mention "willow", and it still missed these examples. It just goes to show how dumb AI still is -- these books are both digitized and searchable and available for free browsing and download on archive.org.

    Ignore the biases and hallucinations of AI. But never bet against a cliff-dwelling sage rummaging through the ruins of collapsed civilizations...

    * * *

    Creation of man involves forming the skeleton from willow sticks.

    Ainu version:

    'When God made man in the beginning, He formed his body of earth, his hair of chickweed, and his spine of a stick of willow. When, therefore, a person grows old, his back bends in the middle.'

    Uralic version (Voguls are the Ugric-speaking Mansi):

    'The Altaic peoples believe that bones were created from reeds and the rest of the body from clay. The North-West Siberian peoples, like the Voguls, relate how God "took willow-twigs, bound them into skeletons, covered them with a layer of clay, set them before him and blew into them."'

    Both are alone in the world in saying that the first man's skeleton was made of willow sticks. Willow may have sacred importance in other cultures, but it's especially sacred to Uralic cultures. And "importance" is vague -- willow being the skeleton of the first man is very specific, and shibboleth-y. Therefore, the Ainu and the Mansi share a cultural ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The afterlife is lived in an upside-down world, underneath our living world, where the feet of the living and the dead touch each other's, and where the nature of things is generally upside-down or inverted in the underworld. The metaphor seems to stem from the underworld being underwater, creating a mirror-like reflection like the surface of a river or lake.

    Ainu version:

    '[Our living world] is [called] the upper world, because there is another world under foot. That world is very damp and wet, and when wicked people die they go there and are punished. But by the side of this place there is another locality, which is called Kamui moshiri, i.e. "the country of the gods" or "heaven." It is to this place that the good people go at death. They live there with the deities and walk about upside down, after the manner of flies, so that their feet meet ours.

    'When it is day upon this earth it is night in heaven, and when it is daylight there, it is dark here. Now, when it is dark in this world, men should neither do any work, nor trim one another's hair, nor cut the beard, for at that time the deities and ghosts of men are busy in their own spheres. If, therefore, the inhabitants of this world work during the hours of darkness, they will be punished with sickness and meet with an early death.'

    Uralic version:

    'A general belief is that the life beyond is lived under the earth. The passage occurs in a Vogul song: "The dead people go to the land below"; also, in Ostiak folk-poetry we read: "We arrive at the sea belonging to the man living in the underworld." In its nature this underworld resembles the world we live in in everything, with the exception that, seen with our eyes, everything there would appear inside out or upside down. The Lapps believe that the dead walk there with the soles of their feet against ours. According to the Samoyeds the same rivers and streams exist there, but flow in opposite directions. The tops of trees there grow downward; the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. The life of those over there runs also contrary to ours; they become younger and grow smaller with the years, until they disappear and become nothing or are born into the family again as children. In this way, the "shade" [i.e. soul of a dead person] lives as long in the underworld as its predecessor on the earth. The Ostiaks say that the dead dwindle in the end to a little beetle.'

    No other cultures share this view of the underworld, and it is too specific -- about standing upside-down and having the feet of the living and dead touching -- rather than a vague notion of "inversion". None of it necessary to send off the dead in general, or to adopt a material technology or whatever else. It's a shibboleth. Therefore, the Ainu and most / all Uralic cultures share a cultural ancestor.

    * * *

    The Ainu or their predecessors (Emishi, Jomon) also seem to be the source of the Sanzu no Kawa myth in Japanese culture, i.e. the 3 paths across the river separating the living from the underworld. It's not like the River Styx or other Indo-Euro versions, since in the I-E versions you merely pay a toll to the guide over the barrier, whereas in the Uralic version, your conduct in life determines which path you must take to cross over into the afterlife -- no toll, only karma.

    I'll go into more detail on that later, but I've quoted the Uralic versions in earlier comment threads linking Japanese myth to other Northern Eurasian cultures.

    However, given that it's only Uralic cultures who share this myth outside of Japan, that means the link must be via the Ainu / Emishi / Jomon, who are also culturally Uralic. It doesn't seem to belong to Yeniseian or Na-Dene myth, which Wa / Japonic is more similar to.

    And one of the real-world locations for the Sanzu no Kawa is in Northern Japan, which is where the Jomon / Emishi / Ainu were more influential.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Also, making major progress on the linguistic side, showing Ainu is Uralic. Not surprisingly, they're similar to the Eastern branches -- Ugric and Samoyedic. After discovering that the Mansi and the Ainu share a creation myth, I figured their shared ancestor must have been from thereabouts, so looked into what makes Ugric and Samoyedic distinct within the Uralic family.

    Mainly, the hardening of P-U "s" into "t", and filling that gap by shifting palatal "ś" forward to "s". Unlike Ugric and Samoyedic, though, Ainu shifted "š" to "s", whereas it was part of the hardening-to-"t" change in Ugric and Samoyedic. At some point, then, Ainu likely merged the weird sibilants from P-U, "ś" and "š", into a single non-standard sibilant, and shifted that forward to "s", after P-U "s" had hardened into "t" a la Ugric and Samoyedic.

    In over 5 pages of notes, I found almost no examples of P-U "s" initially -- well, that's cuz it hardened into "t"! And I just didn't know that at first, not knowing which branch it would resemble, if any. It could've been its own branch with its own quirks. It probably is, but it also shares telltale Eastern changes, like this one.

    There are tons of Proto-Ainu words beginning with "t", and not so much with "s", especially when not followed by "i". In P-A, "si" can be an allophonic variant of earlier "hi", and even that could have come from "wi". Point being, words beginning with "si" aren't necessarily "s"-initial words going further back. That leaves even fewer P-A words beginning with "s" ancestrally. Likely due to them hardening into "t", and swelling the ranks of "t"-initial words in P-A.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Forgot to emphasize that the creation myths also share the feature where the meat-y part of the body is made from clay, earth, mud, etc. That's not so distinctive on its own, whereas the willow-skeleton is. But it's yet another point of same-ness between Uralic and Ainu creation myths.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Also, if you think an Ugric language from east of the Urals couldn't travel to Sakhalin and Hokkaido, remember that Hungarian is the only other member of this branch, and it traveled way the hell over into Hungary.

    I'm not saying Ainu belongs to the Ugric branch -- it doesn't seem to have taken part in the softening of P-U "k" to "x" or "h" before back vowels, which is distinctive of Ugric. But the notion that it couldn't have traveled far away, is bogus, based on it traveling from east of the Urals into Hungary with the original Magyar raiders.

    The Uralic family got around Eurasia, as much as Indo-European did, and as much as Saharo-Arabian did, in the Old World.

    ReplyDelete
  83. From Japan to Russia, a Uralic myth of earthquakes caused by giant fish moving its body in the watery underworld.

    I'm not the first to draw connections between some of these shared myths, but nobody before -- that I can tell -- has connected them all, let alone identify the origin as Uralic.

    We'll start with Japan, where earthquakes are said to be caused by Namazu (lit. "catfish"), a giant catfish that thrashes its body about somewhere in the watery depths, which cause earthquakes above in our normal world. It can be restrained, and that is the thunder god's job (Takemikazuchi), who holds it down with a real-life stone -- the Kaname-ishi, which lies in Ibariki Prefecture, on the Pacific coast in Eastern Japan. Whenever the restrainer faulters in his task, the catfish thrashes about and causes an earthquake.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namazu

    You've encountered this myth if you've played Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, where you get the quake medallion, which causes earthquakes, from a giant catfish. When you summon him from the watery depths, he causes an earthquake first to announce his presence, before giving you the medallion to get you to leave.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PPUz5ygxgE

    There's also a Pokemon catfish character whose specialty is earthquakes (Namazun in Nihongo, Whiscash in English). And to this day, a kawaii cartoon catfish remains a national symbol for earthquakes.

    However, as common as this myth is in modern Japan, it does not go back to the ancient Wa people. It does not appear in the two earliest works of mythology and history, the Nihon Shoki and Kojiki, from the 8th C. Nor from the various regional Fudoki, which were collections of local tales, customs, and so on, from around the same time. Only during the Early Modern era (15th / 16th C.), do definitive links between catfish and earthquakes appear in Japanese culture.

    So where did they get this myth from? Why, from the Ainu! Or rather, from the Emishi, some of whom later fled the inchoate Yamato state and became the Ainu, and some of whom stayed put and assimilated into the Yamato.

    I can't tell whether the Early Modern Japanese references to earthquakes and catfish came from the Ainu proper, or were relics from the Jomon / Emishi of Honshu that remained in circulation among the commoners, even after they stopped speaking Emishi / Ainu and assimilated into the new fusion culture of the Yamato. But it very clearly came from a Jomon / Emishi / Ainu source.

    Note that Namazu is not portrayed as a cosmic fish upon whose body the entire earthly world rests. He's just some mythological fish who causes earthquakes, but he's not in the larger Japanese cosmography, and plays no role in the creation myth from the Nihon Shoki and Kojiki, which reflect the Yeniseian-like cultural origins of the Wa (since the sole other example of "creator-god stirring the oily primordial ocean with a staff, to cause the seafoam to harden into landmasses", is from Northwest Mongolia, a former Yeniseian-speaking region).

    ReplyDelete
  84. But in the Jomon / Emishi / Ainu version, it's not just any ol' mythological big fish -- it's THE big fish, the cosmic fish which our ordinary solid world rests on. To condense the somewhat lengthy account in Batchelor's "Ainu and Their Folk-lore", this cosmic fish is a trout, and is called "moshiri ikkewe chep, i.e. 'the backbone fish of the world'". When it moves, it causes earthquakes. It also causes the tides by taking in vs. expelling water from its mouth. Batchelor insightfully notes that it's not a turtle or serpent, as in other myths from India, the Middle East, etc.

    To prevent earthquakes, the creator-god sent 2 deities to restrain the fish, who stand on either side of him, and must always keep one hand on him in order to hold his body steady. If for any reason they faulter and remove their hand, its body moves and causes an earthquake.

    This is clearly the source of the Namazu myth, although it has been de-sacralized -- Namazu is not the fish whose backbone supports the entire world, since that goes against the Yamato creation myth. Now, he's just a monstruously large semi-legendary trouble-making beast, with no positive qualities like supporting the world. And he's an ugly-looking fish -- catfish, not a trout -- befitting his demotion from cosmic world-supporter to mere earthquake-causer.

    But the shared points are impossible to ignore, and are shibboleth-y unnecessary points, which prove a common origin. It's a fish, not a serpent or turtle or other animal. It's a freshwater fish, not a saltwater fish. Its bodily movements cause earthquakes. The main god sent lesser gods to physically restrain it, so his human creations wouldn't suffer from constant earthquakes. However, they're lesser gods, so they occasionally faulter, resulting in earthquakes.

    The Ainu point about the fish causing the tides is probably a local innovation from the broader myth, since they're an oceanic culture, and the origin is Uralic, whose homeland is inland and far from beaches where the tides are salient. The Japanese removed this point about the tides, perhaps cuz that's a neutral quality, and they only wanted a negative quality for the beast that causes earthquakes, since their Yamato cosmography does not allow the causer to be the world-supporting fish.

    ReplyDelete
  85. So where else does this myth show up? We consult the good ol' Finno-Ugric & Siberian volume of "The Mythology of All Races", and discover that it's widespread in the Uralosphere, although Holmberg says they got it from somewhere else, despite the obvious differences. He rarely thought that an original Uralic mythology existed, that it was bits and pieces borrowed from various neighboring cultures, and from international religions like Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, etc. He was wrong about that, including in this case.

    First, it appears in the Buryats, who are nowadays a Mongolic-speaking culture, but they live to the west and north of Lake Baikal, and historically included Samoyedic speakers before converting their language to Mongolic during the 2nd millennium AD.

    'In certain Buriat districts, one large fish only [as opposed to 3 fish] is mentioned as the supporter of the earth. When for any reason it changes its position, earthquakes occur.'

    Next he cites the Russian folklorist Afanasyev, known as the Russian counterpart of the Brothers Grimm, who collected an insane amount of fairytales and legends from East Slavic sources in the 19th C.

    'The idea of one or more giant fish as supporters of the earth is general also in East European legends...'

    He then misleadingly cites Biblical Hebrew lore about leviathan -- which is a serpent, from a saltwater environment, and whose body encircles the world menacingly, rather than a freshwater fish that helpfully supports the world from below. Likewise the stack of animals in Indian myth, which ultimately rest on a turtle's shell -- not a fish.

    He cites other examples of a cosmic bull, which in turn rests on a fish, and where the bull's thrashing motions cause earthquakes, which gets us to the "Middle Eastern" monster called Bahamut:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamut

    Given the timing and location of these myths involving a bull, it seems like they come from a Turkic source during the High or Late Dark Ages, and were spread by the Turkic expansion. They're found in Iran, which was controlled by Seljuks and other Turkic tribes at the time, who were creating a Turco-Persian fusion culture. They're not part of Indo-Aryan myth, so it's doubtful they're originally Iranian either (not in Zoroastrianism). They don't have a Saharo-Arabian counterpart -- with a bull -- so it's not from that neighboring region either.

    All the many cultures that Holmberg cites as having this bull version lie on, or adjacent to, the Steppe, and were conquered by all sorts of Turkic tribes during the Dark Ages. Namely, the Kyrgyz, West Siberian Tatars, Volga Tatars, Caucasian Tatars, Crimean Tatars, Volga Finns (probably meaning the Mordvins), Udmurts, and Mari. Some of them converted languages to Turkic and converted their religion to Islam, during the Turkic expansion -- but others did not, and remain Uralic-speaking and practicing Uralic paganism (at the time).

    In Herodotus' time, that entire region spoke Uralic -- from Lake Baikal to NE Europe, and from the northern shores of the Caspian and Black Seas up to the Arctic Ocean, with only Yeniseian breaking things up near Lake Baikal.

    The Tatars of the Volga, Northern Caucasus, and Crimea, share a deeper link with East Slavs, all of whom used to be Uralic. That's why this myth shows up in all of them, even after they converted languages and religions. It's common folk-lore, and resistant to change.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Some of these groups insisted that the bull wasn't alone, but rested on a cosmic fish -- syncretizing their old culture with the newly arrived Turkic culture. The Crimean Tatars said there was a fish under the bull, and the Mari said there was a crab under the bull. They are both ancestrally Uralic (and the Mari, currently so).

    The Kyrgyz, however, said the bull rested on a stone arising out of fog on the subterranean ocean -- not another animal, let alone a water-based one. They must not have had much of a Uralic background before they were Turkic.

    Holmberg also notes the different animals involved in Northeast Siberia, where it's a mammoth, or in Kamchatka, where it's a giant dog that shakes snow off its fur and causes earthquakes. Not a water-animal, definitely not a fish. He notes that a bull is closer to a mammoth, so it's a closer match. But then, the Turkic urheimat is in the east, near the Altai-Sayan region and Mongolia.

    The Uralic cultures, though, all thought the world rested on a giant fish, and its motions caused earthquakes.

    That includes East Slavs, who were Uralic speakers in Herodotus' time and likely through about 500 AD, judging from toponyms north of the Black Sea cited in Jordanes. In their folklore, the world rests on a giant pike -- a freshwater fish -- whose movements can cause earthquakes. In other variants, there are 3 fish supporting the world, and like legs of a table, if one or more leave, the world as we know it will cease to exist. In "Crime and Punishment", Dostoevsky refers to the 3 fish that are the foundation of the world.

    Why a freshwater fish, not a saltwater serpent? Cuz the Uralic urheimat is inland, but surrounded by rivers and lakes. The Saharo-Arabian urheimat, and that of its Semitic branch, are close to the open salty ocean, near the Horn of Africa (Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean). So it the Sino-Tibetan urheimat, somewhere in Greater Southeast Asia, near the Pacific Ocean. Not to mention Oceanic cultures, of course.

    The fact that the Ainu, and the Emishi and Jomon before them, thought their entire world rested on a freshwater fish -- even though they literally live surrounded by the Pacific Ocean -- proves that their cultural origin is further inland, far from the shores of any sea or ocean. By comparing the shibboleth-y points of their "origin of earthquakes" myth, we discover that they're Uralic, confirming an inland origin.

    Their only addition to the inland / freshwater narrative, to adapt it to their newfound saltwater environment, is giving the fish a second role as well, as causing the tides by sucking in and spitting out a giant-sized amount of water.

    ReplyDelete
  87. PS, the fact that this myth does not extend further to the east of Lake Baikal, except among the Ainu and Japan, also shows that it is specifically Uralic, not just "Eastern" or "Siberian". It's absent from Northeast Siberia, where Uralic is not spoken. It's absent from China and Indochina and Oceania, where Uralic is not spoken (and where if anything, it's a serpent or dragon, not a fish, that causes earthquakes).

    It's also absent from all of the New World, where Uralic is not spoken. Some of them, along the Pacific Ring of Fire, from the Athabaskans to the Haida down to the Andeans, do have myths about a world-supporter being the cause of earthquakes, although it's never a fish. And it isn't always due to the motion of its body, but sometimes getting distracted by some other being, slacking off on the job, before righting itself. It's not an angry thrashing motion.

    We can eliminate the Yamato as the origin, since it only goes back to the Early Modern era there. That only leaves the Ainu as the old-time exception to the spatial distribution of this myth. That means they must be an island of Uralic cultural legacy, stranded far from their urheimat -- much like the Tokharians being a far-flung island to the distant east of the Indo-Euro urheimat.

    But also like the Tokharians, the Jomon / Emishi / Ainu were likely not long-distance migrants from the Uralosphere, just like the Tokharians were not long-distant migrants from the Western Steppe.

    Rather, a small core of influential migrants brought the culture with them, and converted the locals. It's pretty well established that Tokharians used to speak Uralic, specifically Samoyedic, before converting to Indo-Euro, and bringing a bunch of Uralic baggage with them. The same likely applies to the Jomon / Emishi / Ainu, who brought some pre-Uralic local baggage with them after converting to Uralic.

    Still, I find it hard to believe that Uralic-speaking migrants got all the way over into Sakhalin island and only there did the conversion of locals take place. I'm guessing the locals they converted were still from the Eastern Steppe or Amur region or perhaps a bit further north, and then after converting to Uralic, they migrated a short distance into Sakhalin, Hokkaido, and then Honshu, where their telltale dogu statues were made during the later stages of the Jomon era.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ainu borrowed Proto-Indo-European words for "fly" and maybe "cloud". I'll post about mythology in a moment, but I came across another instance of Ainu borrowing from P-IE. In Proto-Ainu, "fly" (insect) is "mos" or "mus". Vovin says "mOs", which in Alonso de la Fuente's refinement means it's "mos". It's a dead ringer for the P-IE word "mus", with the same meaning.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/mus-

    Coincidence? I don't think so -- it's not typical Ainu phonotactics. It's only 1 syllable, and words of shape [nasal] [vowel] [sibilant] are uncommon in P-A. The nearest match for "mos" in P-A is "mosma" = "other than, besides, anything else", which has nothing to do with "fly", and actually has a proper Ainu (and Uralic) word-shape. Even for "mus", the only other match is "emus" = "sword", which also has nothing to do with "fly", and also has 2 syllables.

    So it's reasonable to suspect it being a loanword -- and given the striking resemblance, it must be from P-IE. Not from the daughter branches, all of which add some IE suffix. Seemingly from P-IE itself, borrowing the root "mus".

    I speculate the original "u" was slightly lowered to "o" in Ainu due to some phonotactic dislike for "mu" vs. "mo", which has twice as many words in initial position. Maybe to dissimilate roundness, where "u" is more canonically round and "w"-like than "o" (even though "o" is also round). Or Vovin's reconstruction of that vowel for this word is slightly off, and it should be "mus". IDK which.

    The P-IE word has not been loaned outside of the I-E family, except for Armenian into Georgian, not a surprise given how close they are. And Pontic Greek "loaned" it into Turkish -- i.e., after Byzantine Greek-speakers converted to speaking Turkic, they kept this old word of theirs.

    It did not get loaned into any other Uralic language, so Ainu would be the only example. Still, P-U does not have a word for "fly" or "mosquito" -- nor does Finno-Ugric, only the narrower grouping of Finno-Volgaic but excluding Permian. Since Ainu is from Eastern Uralic, it doesn't use that word, but could have borrowed one instead.

    It could not have been mediated by Yeniseian or Turkic, since those families ban initial nasals. Mongolic and Tungusic languages didn't borrowe it either. The only family in close contact with P-IE was P-Uralic, so the branch that Ainu belongs to must have picked it up early on, and it's the only branch in which it survives.

    Very few other families have words for "fly" beginning with "m" and having a sibilant as the next consonant -- Northeast Caucasian is another, but that's adjacent to P-IE. So it's not the kind of sound sequence that any ol' language will come up with by imitating the sound of flies buzzing.

    The linguistic ancestors of Ainu were in contact with P-IE and borrowed the word for "fly", then brought it all the way over into Ainu-land.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Briefly, "sky, cloud" may also be a loan from P-IE to P-Ainu, where it's "nis" -- another unusual word-shape, like "mos". One syllable, [nasal] [vowel] [sibilant]. It has a few phonetic matches in P-A, but the connection to "sky, cloud" is not so clear. "Nis" also means "to be strong, to be hard", no hit there. It also means "to draw water, to ladle, to dip" -- rain-clouds hold liquid, but clouds don't have anything to do with drawing water or using a ladle to dip into a source. "Nisap" means "shin", no hit there, nor with "nispa" = "rich man".

    "Nisat" means "dawn", which is a bit closer, though dawn is more about the sun rising than the clouds parting.

    The P-IE word is "n̥bʰrós" or "n̥bʰrís" = "rain-cloud", the 2nd being the potential donor here due to the "i" vowel instead of "o". Ainu, like Uralic in general, bans initial clusters, so the 3-consonant cluster will have to be dealt with, and deleting offending consonants is more common than inserting zillions of vowels, across languages. There's nothing like "bʰ" in Ainu, so that can't be it.

    Why "nis" instead of "ris"? Phonotactics again -- although the word-shape is not typical of Ainu in either case, "nis" at least has 2 homophones, whereas "ris" only has perhaps 1 ("to pick, nip, pluck") or perhaps 0 (since Vovin also says that could be "dis", or "lis" per Alonso de la Fuente). So it sounded better to Ainu ears.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/n%CC%A5b%CA%B0r%C3%B3s

    This one isn't as clearly a loan as "mos" for "fly", but it came up when I looked for other words of [nasal] [vowel] [sibilant] shape, so worth noting.

    ReplyDelete
  90. OK, back to Ainu mythology being Uralic. Well, in this case, it's more like Eastern Siberian, but including Eastern Uralic cultures like the Samoyeds. We're trying to look for the intersection or center-of-gravity for all the different cultures it resembles, across a variety of examples.

    Earlier, I discussed the common myth about the origin of mosquitos, where they are somehow the remnants or re-birth of a cannibalistic monster that was killed. The logic being, mosquitos bite you and feed on your blood, so their ancestor must have been a man-eater in some way as well. But after being slain, the ogre was reduced to small pieces -- usually involving a fire that burns its body to ashes, and these are scattered into the wind, where they turn into gnats, flies, mosquitoes, etc.

    Japan has a weak version of this, where Buddhist monks believed that mosquitoes were the re-incarnation of people who had behaved wickedly in a previous life. Not an ogre or monster, not a cannibal, no slaying, no burning or reducing to small pieces... it's pretty weak, but it is a weak version of it.

    However, the Ainu have a full-fledged version of this myth, whose closest match is the Samoyedic version. I don't have time to format long quotes of Batchelor and Holmberg yet again, but suffice it to say the Ainu version involves a man-eating cyclops, a hunter who without knowing it, stumbles upon the monster, summons the courage to aim his bow at it, strikes it right in its eye, the only vulnerable part of its body, and for good measure, burns it under a big bonfire, and for even better measure, throws its ashes into the winds, where they become gnats, flies, and mosquitoes.

    The Samoyedic version involves a hero who sets off deliberately on a quest to slay the man-eating ogre, though it's not described as a cyclops. He kills it, burns it, and the wind scatters its ashes, which turn into mosquitoes.

    There are versions of the myth in the New World, which crossed over with the Na-Dene, seemingly, and then loaned into various other cultures as well. But they don't involve a cyclops, and it's more of a disembodied head that must be slain.

    Since the closest match is Samoyedic, this example shows yet again the distinctly Uralic nature of Ainu myth.

    ReplyDelete
  91. To return finally to the Indo-Euro word for "fly" being loaned outside the family, Holmberg mentions one version of the mosquito myth among the "Altai Tatars", which isn't as close to the Samoyedic and Ainu versions, but does involve a hero slaying a monster associated with mosquitoes.

    Although found among Tatars, this myth cannot be Turkic, since all the characters involved have names beginning with "m", or compounds using a word beginning with "m", which is banned in Turkic.

    The 3 heroes are named Mandyshire, Tyurun-Muzykay, and Maidere, while the ogre is named Andalma-Muus -- where the 2nd word there must derive from P-IE "mus" = "fly", and "alma" is Steppe-region word for ogre, monster, evil spirit (IDK what the "and-" means, though).

    I came up with Uralic etymologies for all of their names -- the ogre just above. Mandy means "missing the mark" ("mentä") and "shire" means "old" ("serä"), presumably the eldest hero who missed when he shot. Maidere derives from "majδ̕a", relating to forest hunters. "Turun" is Turkic for "grandchild; niece or nephew" (from "young of an animal"), including in Turkic languages spoken by former Uralics, like Crimean Tatars. And Muzykay from "musɜ" = "to perform magic, tell fortunes, sacrifice".

    Maybe there are better etymologies, but aside for "turun", these words cannot be Turkic. So even though the myth is described as belonging to "Altai Tatars", it was not spread by Turkic speakers, and is a relic of their Uralic-speaking past. And that Uralic heritage is shared with the Ainu, as seen in this myth.

    But more importantly, this Tatar myth looks like another example of the P-IE word for "fly, mosquito" being loaned outside of the family, in the name of the mosquito-linked monster Andalma-Muus. Since Turkic could not have borrowed that word without altering the initial consonant, someone else did -- and in the Tatar-speaking world, they could only have been Uralic speakers, as hinted at by the names of the other characters.

    So it's less unbelievable that it got loaned into the Ainu branch of Uralic.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ainu source of Japanese "3-path river in underworld" myth CONFIRMED. I finally tracked it down! In fairness to myself, Batchelor stuck this way in the end of his 600-page book, away from the very early discussion about the Ainu underworld being a watery mirror-realm, where people walk upside-down with their soles touching ours. He should've had a single underworld chapter!

    Anyway...

    I've been talking about the "Three Path River" (Sanzu no Kawa in Nihongo) for years now, it's one of the most striking parts of all of Japanese mythology, and it ties into their funerary ritual of including coins with the deceased, another very distinctive part of Japanese culture.

    In short, when the dead leave this world behind, they must cross over a river of the underworld. There are 3 paths to cross it -- a safe sturdy bridge, a shallow part that can be waded through, and deep monster-infested waters.

    The logic of this myth is that your actions when you were alive *determine* which of those 3 paths you'll take when you're dead -- if you want to take the safe path, behave nobly while you're alive, and don't act wicked, unless you want to be forced to take the dangerous path when you're dead.

    However, Japan has a separate ritual, where six coins are placed with the deceased during burial, so that they can pay the fare to the ferryman who escorts the dead across the river of the underworld.

    This is a clear parallel to the ancient Indo-European (Greek) ritual of putting coins with the dead so they can pay the ferryman Charon to guide them across the River Styx.

    There's another close parallel in Indo-Aryan religion, where a cow (sacred animal) is worshiped and donated well before the dead needs to cross the Vaitarani River in the underworld. This is another form of paying a toll to cross. In this myth, the only influence of your actions while living, is how you experience the river -- positively if you behaved well, being terrified of it if you were wicked. But as far as crossing it, there are no separate paths, and your living conduct does not determine which path you take. As long as you pay the cow-toll, you're good to cross.

    Do you see how these two parts of Japanese culture are contradictory? If you need to pay a toll, then your living conduct is irrelevant. And if your living conduct determines which path you take, there's no point in paying a toll to a ferryman. One is superfluous to the other.

    This suggests that Japanese myths about the underworld come from two separate sources, and have been folded into a fusion culture. The "pay the toll to the ferryman" myth clearly comes from an Indo-European source, and given that it appears in India, the birthplace of Buddhism, this myth certainly arrived in Japan when they converted to Buddhism during the High and Late Dark Ages. It's not in the earliest Japanese texts on history, culture, myth, and religion -- the Nihon Shoki and the Kojiki.

    ReplyDelete
  93. However, where did the other myth come from -- about the 3-path river that cannot be crossed by paying a toll, but where your entire behavioral track-record from your life determines which path you must take? That is not in the Nihon Shoki or Kojiki either.

    I figured that out last year -- it's Uralic, as extensively detailed in chapter 5 of the Finno-Ugric section of "The Mythology of All Races". In some form or another, it's present among speakers of the Sami, Finnic, Mordvinic, Mari, Ugric, and although he doesn't specifically mention them, probably the Permic and Samoyedic branches of Uralic.

    The land beyond being an underworld rather than up in the skies, it being watery, in some remote northern sublime / wasteland, with a great river to cross, three paths of varying danger, which path you take is determined by your living conduct rather than a toll, guard dogs to deter wicked people from taking the wrong path, a gate around the entire place that must be opened, and the wicked being punished by either a freezing watery drowning death or a burning underwater death (a fiery maelstrom, a cauldron of burning resin, etc., even in the watery underworld).

    The paradise section of the afterlife is full of luxuriant plant-life, bountiful food, and villages centered around families, just as in the living world.

    All of these shibboleth-y details of the crossing from the land of the living and into the land of the afterlife are present in the Ainu culture. The Ainu do not have a ferryman who collects a toll, there is no particular sacrifice or toll to pay while alive, and no coins or other toll included with the dead during a funeral, to make sure they can cross. The Ainu only have the "three-path river, whose crossing is determined by your living conduct" myth.

    The afterlife is indeed an underworld, not a sky-world. Around the whole place is a great iron metal gate which must be opened. There are 3 roads leading into the center of the underworld -- 1 leading from the living-world, and 2 forking toward the punishment section and toward the paradise section of the afterlife. There are guard dogs along the path to make it dangerous for the wicked to go down the wrong path.

    Which path the dead takes is based on the entire history of their living conduct -- and in an Ainu innovation, the dead can object if they are condemned to the punishment section. But then, the sun goddess herself appears and displays pictures of the person's entire life, since she has a picture-perfect memory of everyone's behavior, and this evidence leaves no room for objection -- on to the punishment section you go!

    As with the other Uralic cultures, the Ainu view the punishment section as watery, like the deep monster-infested water path of the Japanese Sanzu no Kawa. And like the other Uralics, they allow for the punishments to be both wet and freezing, as well as fiery and burning, even while underwater.

    Ainu families are reunited in family-centered villages in the afterlife, just as in the other Uralic versions. The landscape is beautiful, food is bountiful, nobody wants for anything. But most importantly, they have re-created their clan-based residential pattern in the afterlife, as it was in the living world.

    ReplyDelete
  94. The Ainu afterlife is 100% Uralic in origin, with only a few local additions or flourishes. And it does not have any of the Indo-European-derived "pay the ferryman a toll" elements that Japan received along with Buddhism from India.

    Therefore, the Sanzu no Kawa from Japanese culture came from a non-Wa source -- it was from the Ainu, the Emishi, the Jomon, or whatever we call the pre-Wa society of the Japanese islands. And the Jomon in turn got it from a Uralic source, along with their language. Nobody else shares these shibboleths about the nature of the afterlife.

    The focus on rivers in the afterlife only began to appear in Japanese religion around 1000 AD, and the specific view of 3 paths of varying levels of danger, was only codefied by around 1300 AD.

    https://grokipedia.com/page/Sanzu_River

    Where did this highly specifically Uralic view of the afterlife come from, between the arrival of the Wa, and the earliest writings of the 8th C, and the sudden fascination with the 3-path river during the early 2nd millennium AD?

    It can only have come from the Jomon / Emishi / Ainu, who still held to the Uralic-only view when Batchelor visited them in the 19th C. That means the emerging Yamato state and culture incorporated an earlier Uralic myth among the islands' native population, as they succeeded in subduing the Emishi and began to assimilate them, politically and culturally, into a new fusion culture led by the Wa-descended Yamato.

    But, just cuz the Wa were the leaders, didn't mean the Jomon could be left by the wayside -- to assimilate them, some elements of their indigenous culture needed to be incorporated into the new fusion culture, so that they had representation, and an easy transition from their old culture into the new one. The new fusion was not totally alien to them -- it had crucial elements of their old culture. And it was a sign of good faith by the victors --

    "We aren't going to erase your culture and treat you like worthless slaves, we can dignify your culture as well, but we'll all be fusing into a single new culture, not preserving 100% of either of our earlier cultures."

    ReplyDelete
  95. I think the fact that this Uralic afterlife myth entered Japanese culture through the Buddhist, rather than Shinto, sector of society, also reflected the tension between Wa cultural domininance -- reflected more in Shinto, which was brought over with the Wa -- and Wa-Emishi co-evolution, which was reflected more in Buddhism, which did not originate with either the Wa or the Emishi. Rather, it was a new universal religion, converting both Wa and Emishi away from their former religions, into a single religion.

    *That* was the way for Emishi culture to enter the fusion culture -- if they tried to incorporate it into Shinto, it would have seemed "off" to the traditional Shinto practitioners. But Buddhism was not traditional or familiar to either side -- it was recently imported from India, via China. To syncretize it with local cultures, both the Wa and the Emishi could include elements of their earlier cultures into the Japan-specific form of Buddhism.

    In fact, the 2nd-most common school of Buddhism in Japan, Nichiren, was born in Eastern Japan rather than in the imperial core of Kansai and the West. And it was founded by a self-described outcast -- perhaps he was from a Jomon / Emishi ethnic background, or an unfortunate cast-off from the Wa. Either way, it appealed to leveling influences, and was challenging the Buddhist establishment from Kansai.

    I have to believe this was a kind of struggle between the more Wa-dominated West vs. the more Emishi-dominated East. Even as the Emishi assimilated into the inchoate Yamato state and culture, they fought to preserve some of their old ways, and to ensure they held an influential role in shaping the fusion culture, not just abandon their old culture and go along with whatever the victorious Wa told them to do.

    And that is also why the agreed-upon location of the Sanzu no Kawa is near Mount Osore, way up in the North, in Aomori, right across from Hokkaido. It reflects the Jomon / Emishi / Ainu source of the Japanese fusion culture, and must be located near their homeland, as a reminder, and as a way to dignify their culture with important cultural landmarks.

    By now, Japanese people don't think of themselves as Wa vs. Emishi -- their fusion culture has been solidified for the better part of a millennium. But in figuring out where their origins lie in the distant past, we have to untangle the tight knot that have tied, and follow the threads wherever they lead.

    As it turns out, there is a crucial Uralic element in Japanese culture, it comes from the Ainu / Emishi / Jomon, who must have made a serious culture-wide conversion to Uralic sometime before the Wa showed up during the Yayoi era. No later than 500 BC.

    A far-eastern island of Uralic culture in the middle of the Pacific Ocean -- amazing! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  96. From Scandis and Slavs to the Ainu, a Uralic myth of meteors and lightning being "fire-snakes". Batchelor devotes a chapter to the Ainu serpent cult, which is not as common as other cults in Ainu-land, but is present and very ancient all the same.

    Unlike widespread myths about serpents and dragons being creatures of water, in Ainy mythology they are sky-creatures. The original ancestor of the serpents accompanied the sun goddess on her descent to earth, even though he was burned up in the process and left a large hole in the ground. Yes, the Ainu view lightning and meteors as snakes made of fire, or surrounded by fire at any rate.

    This is not part of Japanese culture or mythology, nor from Eastern Siberian mythology, judging from its absence in the Siberian section of "The Mythology of All Races". However, it does repeatedly occur in the Finno-Ugric section -- the Mari believe meteors are fire-snakes, and the Finns' legends about the origin of lightning liken it to a snake as well.

    Holmberg says this view is also held by "Tatars", and he cites Afanasyev -- who did his work in Western Russia and Ukraine, not in the Altai-Sayan region, so he must be referring to Crimean, Caucasian, and other Tatars of the Western Steppe. These people used to speak Uralic during Herodotus' time, as the Scythians and neighboring groups, and their folklore maintains a Uralic core even to this day, regardless of their conversion to other languages and international religions.

    But wait, that's not all! This belief actually extends into cultures who have spoken Indo-European languages since around 500 AD, but who ancestrally spoke Uralic in Herodotus' time, as members of Northeastern Europe. See the examples described for the "firedrake":

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firedrake_(folklore)

    The word "drake" is cognate with "dragon", and ultimately means only a serpent-like creature -- hence the need for a modifier, "fire", to specify what kind of dragon it is. Most Indo-Europeans place the serpent in a watery abode, not in the sky. So this phrase is morphologically identical to the Mari phrase "fire-snake", just replacing the Uralic roots with Indo-Euro ones.

    It shows up in Slavic myth, especially the Eastern Slavs, the Estonians (naturally, they're still Uralic), Balts, and even the Swedes -- all of whom spoke Uralic in Herodotus' time, and who only converted to Indo-Euro around the mid-1st millennium AD.

    Here again, we see a shibboleth-y myth that is widespread among current and former Uralic speakers -- then a void in Eastern Siberia, but then a far-eastern island of it in the Ainu! It's uncanny...

    As for the Scythians and their neighbors, Herodotus doesn't mention what objects they liken lightning and meteors to. However, he does say that the northern tribe of the Neuri -- ancestors of the Belarussians, from the Pripyat Marshes -- were driven southward by a surge of serpents from the north.

    Very unlikely that they meant literal snakes -- probably a totem animal representing some other tribe of Uralic-speakers who drove the Neuri out of their homeland. If so, that shows serpent worship and use of serpents as a totem animal among North Eurasians, who likely spoke Uralic.

    Maybe they meant a natural disaster, like a meteor shower that spooked them into heading to the south? Presumably there would have had to be at least one major impact event, or a bunch of smaller impacts. I could see how that would spoke an entire tribe to pick up and move somewhere else, temporarily anyway. That's the only other figurative use of serpents in Uralic cultures.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Reminder that the Neuri have a Uralic name, from P-U "ńëre", which relates to "wet, moist", and whose reflex in the Permic branch means "swamp" i.e. wetland. Sure enough, that's where the Neuri live -- the Pripyat Marshes.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/%C5%84%C3%ABre

    Perhaps this means the Neuri specifically spoke a Permic language, where this word is a geographic term, which easily gives way to a tribal name like "the swamp people".

    Scythians spoke a Mordvinic language, BTW, which is the most southwestern branch of Uralic even today.

    Permic is further north, but still in the lands of East Slavs -- Udmurt is spoken right outside of Kazan, and the branch stretches up to the Barents Sea. Not hard to see it having been further west, in Belarus.

    That P-U word doesn't seem to mean "swamp" in the Finnic branch, where it may have shifted meaning away from "wet" and into "young" (or the reflex is not from "ńëre" after all). So I don't think the Neuri spoke Finnic. And Sami is too far north to be in Belarus.

    Permic it is!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Ainu origin of the American lucky rabbit's foot. Wow, I was NOT expecting this!

    At the start of ch. 34, on animal-based charms ("fetiches"), he mentions the widespread use of the "fore-paws of hares" as charms to ward off contagious disease. He adds that the hind legs are specifically believed to be powerless, so they're thrown away.

    But the fore-paws are hung over doorways and windows, so that a disease that approaches the hut will be too frightened to enter it. The Ainu even use the rabbit's foot to give themselves a little scratch with its claws, if they feel they're coming down with a sickness, to nip it in the bud.

    Batchelor makes zero references to any other culture's custom of treating the fore-paws of rabbits as special, lucky, charms, etc. He began living in Ainu-land during the 1880s, and wrote this compilation of folklore in the early 1900s. And yet, not a single mention of this custom existing in North America, Europe, Asia, Japan, Africa, or anywhere. And he does have quite a few references to other cultures, across time and space, when they seem appropriate elsewhere.

    So the fact that his discussion of the lucky rabbit's foot is totally silent about its parallels, means that it *had no* parallels. It was sui generis.

    I searched "The Mythology of All Races" volumes on Finno-Ugric & Siberian, African, North America, and China & Japan -- nothing whatsoever about lucky rabbit's feet. The Ainu make charms of animal skulls, and that is common in Uralic groups too -- but not rabbit fore-paws. That seems to be a uniquely Ainu practice.

    Americans who are Gen X or older, immediately recognize this as our "lucky rabbit's foot" charm, although perhaps Millennials and Zoomers grew up in a de-Americanizing time and don't know much about it from their lived experience, only references they've seen in pop culture. Feel free to comment on this, if you're born after the Carter administration.

    But for Gen X and older, the lucky rabbit's foot was a very real, widespread American cultural phenomenon -- everyone had a lucky rabbit's foot, at some time or another in their life. It seems like the good ol' '70s made it into a mass-produced lucky charm and standardized its form: the forepaw, with fur preserved, a cylindrical metal cap on the open end, and a metal carrying loop -- one of those strings of metal beads on a wire, with a crimped metal cylinder to lock and unlock the whole loop. Nowadays made from synthetic materials, of course, and maybe with dyed "fur". But the ones I remember were always natural fur, not dyed.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Strange as it may seem, there is no explanation whatsoever for where this insanely popular piece of American culture came from. It goes back no earlier than Grover Cleveland's presidency (he's mentioned as having a lucky rabbit's foot charm), or the late 1880s. Teddy Roosevelt also had one, in the early 1900s. There are no accounts of it being common, popular, folk custom, etc., before then. And even around the turn of the 20th C, it seems to be confined to the elite stratum, not a bottom-up folk custom that reached the elites.

    As usual, there are totally unsupported and vague allusions to "Celtic" culture -- but there is no evidence to that effect, and lucky rabbit's feet were totally unknown to the Britain of Batchelor's time (he was British). They're unknown in France, or any other place that was historically Celtic. Roman ethnographers like Tacitus don't mention any such thing when discussing the Celts or Germans.

    I'm surprised that no one tried the usual bogus story about a Greco-Roman origin in "ancient times" -- but I guess a magical charm sounds more like the druid-and-fairy Celts, rather than the math-and-engineering Greco-Roman culture.

    There is also a totally unsupported claim that lucky rabbit's feet came from Southern African-American slave culture, tying into Voodoo ("hoodoo"). Supposedly, the rabbit had to be caught at the proper time, in the proper location, and only the proper paw could be used -- the left hind-paw. There is no contemporaneous account of this custom in the American South around the turn of the 20th C, only later allusions to rabbit feet in African-American musical genres later into the 20th C.

    Also, the American custom uses the fore-paw, not the hind-paw -- that matches the documented Ainu tradition, not the alleged African-American tradition. And the American custom says nothing about the circumstances under which the paw is taken -- exactly like the Ainu tradition, unlike the alleged Af-Am tradition. It sounds like the Af-Am account is totally made-up, as people desperately searched for the origin of the lucky rabbit's foot charm. "Well, if it didn't come over with Europeans, maybe the chicken bone-reading African slaves brought it over with them?" No, they did not.

    The only connection to rabbits in Af-Am folk culture is the folktales about Brer Rabbit, but there is not lucky rabbit's foot practice in those stories. They're just about a rabbit -- that's the only "link".

    ReplyDelete
  100. However, there was an intense American fascination with all things related to Japan, starting in the mid-19th C. No, Americans thinking Japan is cool did not begin with anime in the 21st C. -- only a dumbass Millennial or Zoomer could be so ignorant of their own American cultural heritage. From ukiyo-e woodblock prints and Japonisme in painting, to Japanese gardens, to Frank Lloyd Wright's Imperial Hotel in Tokyo, to Zen Buddhism, karate, ninjas, nunchucks, to folk-culture items like flip-flops, "Hawaiian" shirts (Japanese in Hawaii), the game of rock-paper-scissors... America has incorporated innumerable Japanese elements, long before the birth of video games and anime.

    Americans are Japanophiles, not weebs.

    And this Japanophilia extended to the Ainu as well, not just the Yamato. During the 1880s, Romyn Hitchcock, with the Smithsonian institution, began traveling to Hokkaido to observe, collect, and curate pieces of Ainu material culture, which were housed and exhibited in major museums back in America. For the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair, Frederick Starr brought a living Ainu village to the American public -- with a group of Ainu people, as well as a reconstructed village.

    And of course there was Batchelor's ethnographic work on the Ainu, during the same time period, reaching American audiences.

    Although they do not specifically mention lucky rabbit's feet as among the items of Ainu material culture that were commented on, collected, or exhibited -- they had to have been there somewhere, given how ubiquitous and popular they were in contemporaneous Ainu culture, according to Batchelor.

    This is the only source of the American practice of the lucky rabbit's foot. Right time, right place, right source culture -- one we looked up to and emulated and borrowed from eagerly.

    This also explains why it began as with American elites like the sitting presidents, and only later became widespread among the common people. The Ainu source was mediated through museums and World's Fair-tier exhibitions -- that was popular enough to expose a large number of Americans to the custom, but targeting a more elite audience than a mass culture audience. The people who, later, would subscribe to National Geographic magazine.

    Other elements from Japan came back to America from grunts in the military who were stationed over there, but our military was not stationed in Ainu-land, and again, this is not a Yamato practice, only the Ainu.

    Rather, it was part of the educated classes' fascination with the superstitions and talismans of primitive cultures, such as voodoo dolls from Africa (or New World Africans), shrunken heads and tiki statues from the South Seas, and so on and so forth. Well, the Ainu, as the primitive culture of the Japanese islands, commanded just as much interest from American audiences, once their lucky rabbit's feet were collected and exhibited in museum's and World's Fairs, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    This was also the right timing for American history, as our distinctive culture only emerged after wrapping up our integrative civil war (which ended with the end of Reconstruction, circa 1880). That's how imperial-tier ethnogenesis always goes -- a whole new culture, for a whole new society. The Ainu, Polynesian, or other customs could not have caught on in Revolutionary-era America, since we were not a whole new society yet. We were still two Americas.

    Only after the integrative civil war phase of the imperial lifespan, does a whole new culture emerge, just like distinctly Roman culture only emerged after the mid-1st C BC, or distinctly British culture after "The Anarchy" of the 12th C, and so on and so forth, as I've extensively detailed before.

    Right place, right time, right source -- the American lucky rabbit's foot was imported from the Ainu! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  101. So many mysteries being solved, on Ainu being Uralic, which lead down further secret passageways and unearthed further treasure-troves that don't at first appear to relate to Uralic or the Ainu... and yet they do!

    For instance, where does the word "mustache" come from? Solving this mystery -- it's really 3 related mysteries -- took the better part of today. It's supposedly Indo-European, but there's an obviously related compound word in Proto-Samoyedic meaning "beard".

    I'll flesh out all the details later, but suffice it to say that some Western Uralic group borrowed an Indo-Euro word for "mouth" and a likely Indo-Euro word for "hair, bristles, whiskers, barbs", and stuck them together into a compound.

    These Uralics, or maybe another group of Uralics closer to the Black Sea (e.g., the Mordvinic-speaking Scythians), then loaned this compound into Ancient Greek, which became "mystax", referring to facial hair on the mouth / lip region.

    The same or neighboring Uralic group loaned only their borrowed word for "mouth" -- not the "mouth-hair" compound -- into Indo-Aryan, where it only meant "lips", not having to do with facial hair.

    Then the Eastern Uralic group, Proto-Samoyedic, borrowed the "mouth-hair" compound from their Western Uralic brethren, and made it the P-S word for "beard".

    Well, to end where this wild and crazy journey all began, the Proto-Ainu word for "beard" is "trek" according to Vovin, since it varies between "rek" and in some places "triek". I've made major progress on the origins of Ainu, by figuring out that the "tr"-initial words in his reconstruction are borrowings from Indo-European. Likewise, the "pr"-initial words are I-E loans. (However, the "hd" and "hr"-initial words look like Japanese, Nivkh, and other recent loans, which replenished the supply of initial glides, which have been on the long-term decline in Ainu. A few could be old-school Uralic words that held onto their glide, due to high frequency of usage.)

    There aren't many Ainu words in these classes, and that's what I've been trying to figure out as I uncover the nature of Ainu's origins. Should there really be a phoneme in the inventory to account for only a handful of words? Especially if their loan-words, and some Ainu dialects deal with problematic foreign words one way, and other dialects another way? Etc. This has massively simplified the picture for Ainu's history! I was really delighted to see this "mustache / beard" business pay off big-time for the over-arching project I'm working on now, about Ainu's distant history.

    As Uralic-speakers, their urheimat once upon a time was adjacent to Indo-Euro speakers. The distant linguistic ancestors of the Ainu borrowed from the Indo-Euro family at various stages, and in various branches -- Proto-Indo-Euro, the Tocharian branch, perhaps the Proto-Indo-Iranian branch too.

    Peyrot uncovered the fact that the Tocharians used to speak Uralic, likely Samoyedic. But perhaps they weren't exactly Samoyedic -- maybe they were the linguistic ancestors of the Ainu. Ainu looks most like the Eastern Uralic branches, Ugric and Samoyedic, but it's still distinct. Maybe that's the Uralic culture that fed into the Tocharian ethnogenesis.

    ReplyDelete
  102. One fascinating clue that called out to me while exploring these cobwebbed catacombs, is that Tocharian has a word relating to hair and beards, which in Toch B refers to "awns" -- the hair-like or whisker-like or beard-like growths on grain plants. Adams, the main Tocharianologist, says it's common for a word for "beard" to get extended to refer to "awns" for plants. This Toch B word for "awns" reflects Proto-Tocharian "traksi" -- a dead ringer for the Proto-Ainu word for "beard", "trek"!

    There are several seeming cognates within Indo-Euro for the Tocharian word, like Ancient Greek "thrix" = "hair". So it's unlikely that the I-E languags borrowed from Uralic, and that Ainu reflects the Uralic source. Why does it have that awkward "tr" at the beginning, then? Only a few words have it. Whereas "tr" is super-common at the start of I-E words.

    No, Ainu borrowed the word for "beard" from the Tocharian branch, likely at the Proto-T stage -- by the time it speciated into Toch A and B, their speakers had migrated waaaayyy down into the Tarim Basin, where the ancestors of the Ainu -- or any other Uralic group -- has never ventured. Ainu's linguistic ancestors were living along the Eastern Steppe somewhere, likely the Altai-Sayan region, before heading east to found a Uralic off-shoot in the pre-Wa era of the Japanese islands.

    It's really amazing how many 100% unambiguous Indo-Euro loanwords there are in Ainu, yet no one has discovered them before me -- cuz they're too blinkered to believe that Japan and Indo-Euro-land could have ever been linguistically connected.

    And yet... they were! A Uralic-speaking culture near the Sayan Mountains, who had borrowed from Proto-Indo-Europeans, Proto-Tocharians, perhaps Proto-Indo-Iranians, at various times in prehistory, eventually picked up their stakes and headed eastward, where they linguistically and extensively culturally converted the natives of Sakhalin, Hokkaido, Honshu, and the Kuril islands, possibly down into the Ryukyuan islands as well.

    I don't think it was a mass migration or genetic population replacement. Jomon DNA is highly unique in having almost no Denisovan DNA -- they were a separate human-like species, closer to Neanderthals, but distinct. Present-day Ainu have a bit of Denisovan DNA, likely introduced by the Wa, who have typical levels for East Asia, though not like the South Seas where it's much higher. The Wa are more like Northeast Asians -- no surprise there.

    But the Jomon had no Denisovan DNA, while the Asian-looking Uralic speakers do, just like any ol' group of Northern / Northeastern Eurasians. If the introduction of Uralic languages into the Japanese islands were done via mass migration, then the Jomon would have genomes like the Samoyedic and Ugric speakers -- but the Jomon had hardly any Denisovan DNA, meaning the Uralic branch that led to Ainu was mostly a conversion of locals from whatever pre-Uralic indigenous language there was, not demographic replacement of non-Uralic natives by Uralic settlers.

    The Ainu are so fascinating that, even accounting for Americans' Japanophilia, we are still unusually knowledgeable of non-Japanese groups in Japan, like the Ainu. Not like the man in the street knows who they are, but considering how small their numbers are, and how they aren't plastered all over pop culture, the typical educated American is very likely to have heard of them.

    That is not true for the indigenous people of any ol' region around the world -- mainly just in Glorious Nippon, reflecting our Japanophilia, where we're curious about its distant prehistory as well as its present.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Probably the only other indigenous group we know something about are also Uralic, perhaps not a coincidence -- Uralic is the most under-rated mega-influence in global culture. That other culture is the Lapps of Scandinavia, now known as the Sami. That reflects the Scandiphilia of American culture -- Danish Modern design, Ikea, Swedish meatballs, Vikings, Bergman, the Swedish Bikini Team (uber-popular ad campaign for Old Milwaukee beer in the early '90s), all sorts of other Scandiphilia.

    If your recent ancestors practiced the bear sacrifice ritual, Americans are very likely to know who you are. We have an uncanny ability to sniff out Uralic culture and hype it up. Like I said, all our common mythical heroes have Uralic names like Batman, Catwoman, Swamp Thing, and so on. Our fondness for Saharo-Arabian culture is well known, especially relating to Egypt, but our fondness for Uralic culture is striking, considering how low-key they are, unlike the attention-grabbing high-key cultures from Saharo-Arabia.

    Anything to distance ourselves from our Indo-European roots, as we forged a unique American identity after leaving Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Uralic origin of the mustache, both the grooming shibboleth and the linguistic term for it. OK, here are all the details from my journey yesterday.

    Briefly, on the grooming shibboleth, one of the earliest depictions of a mustache -- as opposed to a beard, which grows on the cheeks and/or neck -- is from the Pazyryk burials in the Eastern Steppe, circa 300 BC. Naturally, he's a horse-rider.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PazyrikHorseman.JPG

    The extensive body tattoos, reflected on the gravestones as well, not to mention the "animal style" aesthetic, of the Pazyryk culture points to a definitive Eastern Steppe origin, not to mention their horse-riding way of life. They were not from the Western Steppe, although during their westward conquest of the Steppe, they spread some elements of their culture into the West.

    This is all cultural -- they have some fraction of Western-like DNA, but as we know, genetic variants do not correlate with cultural variants. People in Mexico mostly / all speak Spanish, even though some of them have almost zero New World native DNA, while others have close to 100% New World native DNA. Russians have a north-south gradient for Nganasan-like DNA (higher in the north) and for Early Euro Farmer DNA (higher in the south), but at any given period of time, all of them spoke Uralic (ancient times) or Indo-Euro / Slavic (medieval times and after).

    Culture homogenizes genetically varied individuals into a single, cohesive, social collectivity. The things that cultures do at a collective level, require collaboration across individuals -- so they need to speak the same language, practice the same food taboos, worship the same gods, follow the same birth and marriage and burial rituals, and so on and so forth.

    Otherwise they cannot collaborate on the necessarily collective endeavors that societies can accomplish, which individuals cannot -- war / defense, producing food, settling disputes through norms / laws and punishment, not to mention purely ethnic matters like a sense of belonging to a larger entity than yourself, mythological / religious meaning, and so on and so forth.

    So, despite having a small fraction of Western DNA, the Pazyryk culture was primarily non-Western genetically, and was entirely Eastern Steppe culturally. That included their language, which was not Tocharian (the only Indo-Euro branch in the East), but must have been Uralic, Yeniseian, or some creole of these two. In fact, the creolization of Uralic and Yeniseian is what produced the Turkic language family in the middle of the 1st millennium AD -- but Pazyryk was nearly 1000 years before then, so there were no Turkic languages to speak. It was either Uralic or Yeniseian.

    The Celts of Julius Caesar's time wore mustaches -- their elites did, anyway, according to Roman historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st C BC. This is later than the Pazyryk by several centuries, so it's possible that the Eastern Steppe culture that spread the animal style westward into Europe also spread the grooming practice of mustaches. The fact that only the Celtic elite wore mustaches says it was a prestige fashion, probably not a long-standing Celtic-wide shibboleth. Elites are the same stratum that adopt exotic prestigious art styles, like the animal style.

    It could be a later independent development in situ, but given the sequence of attestations, and the overall highly influential culture spreading that the Eastern Steppe horse-riders did in the Western Steppe and Europe, it's also possible that the Celtic elite adopted the mustache from the same Eastern Steppe source of the animal style art that became all the rage in the West.

    The grooming practice being Eastern doesn't tell us what language they spoke, just that it was Eastern rather than Western. So now let's look at the linguistic journey that accompanied the practice of wearing a mustache.

    ReplyDelete
  105. The English word "mustache" ultimately came from Ancient Greek "mystax", via Latin and then French. The Ancient Greek word does not go back to Proto-Hellenic, let alone Proto-Indo-European, nor even to the Golden Age of Athens. It's either from peak Classical or Late Antiquity. It has no known etymology (until now).

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/μύσταξ

    I said this linguistic mystery is really 3 related mysteries. So here's the 2nd. There is a similar word in Ashokan Prakrit, an Indo-Aryan language spoken in the 3rd C BC. It is "būsta" = "lip, mouth".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Ashokan_Prakrit/%F0%91%80%A9%F0%91%80%BD%F0%91%80%B2%F0%91%81%86%F0%91%80%A2

    This differs semantically from the Greek word in *not* referring to hair, and phonetically it differs in *not* having the "x", or any sound, after the "a". This is the clue that the Greek word is somehow a compound (not in Greek itself, as it turns out, but in the language that donated the phrase into Greek).

    The first element must refer to the lip / mouth region, and the second element must refer to "hair, facial hair, whiskers, beard, etc." The hair-word must have the "x" sound in it, although it's unclear at first glance how far back the word goes -- at least including the previous vowel, to form a syllable, "ax". As it turns out, it goes back to the previous "t" as well -- "tax".

    As for the 3rd and crucial mystery, Proto-Samoyedic, a very old branch of the Uralic family, has a similar word, meaning "beard", not specifically a mustache. It is "muntəjtsɜn".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Samoyedic/munt%C9%99jts%C9%9Cn

    Because this goes back to Proto-Samoyedic, not just some of the individual daughters, and because Samoyedic was early in branching off from the rest of the Uralic family, the P-S word is the oldest one of the three we're looking at -- definitely before the 3rd or 4th C BC, which is when the Greek and Indo-Aryan words are attested.

    Samoyedic is wonderful cuz they have quite a few 17-syllable compound words, which invite the puzzle-solver to break them down and figure out what each piece means. And the other one of these puzzles that I solved, "səmpəläŋkə" = "five", I showed that the components were Proto-Indo-European (meaning "half full" for the "səmpulä" variant, and further contaminated by P-IE "five" for the longer "səmpəläŋkə" variant). So we pursue an Indo-Euro origin of the components of the P-S compound word for "beard" as well, especially since it looks strikingly similar to Greek "mystax".

    ReplyDelete
  106. First, the "mouth" word. It's unclear exactly which branch it came from, or what exact form it took, but it was likely "usta", perhaps with a laryngeal consonant at the start, ultimately from P-IE "h₁óh₃s" = "mouth".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83%C3%A9h%E2%82%81os

    It must have had a "t" following the root, which shows up in the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches. Balto-Slavic didn't exist until the 1st millennium AD, so it was likely Proto-Indo-Iranian that donated the word, "Háwštʰas". They would have donated the word somewhere near the Steppe, before they headed south into Iran and India. The time would have been circa 2000 BC at the earliest (Sintashta culture, Central Steppe), to circa 1000 BC at the latest (end of Andronovo culture, Eastern Steppe).

    The borrowing language adopted it as "wusta" -- inserting a "w" before a "u"-initial word. So they did not like vowel-initial words -- typical of Uralic. E.g. Proto-Permic borrowing the Indo-Iranian word for "otter", which was "udrás" but borrowed as "vurd", with "v" inserted at the start. If a language doesn't have "w", "v" is close enough to create a "u"-like consonant.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Permic/vurd

    The clue that it's a Uralic borrowing of the Indo-Euro word, is that the Greek and Indo-Aryan words begin with "m" and "b", neither of which are present in the P-IE source, which begins with a laryngeal. Indeed, none of the IE descendants show a word with an "m" or "b" -- either a vowel, or a laryngeal. That includes the Indo-Aryan branch, where the Classical Sanskrit word for "lip" is "óṣṭha" -- with a rounded vowel to start, not any kind of consonant.

    Middle Indo-Aryan, which Ashokan Prakrit belongs to, *did* merge "w" into "b", however (by hardening). So the source of the Indo-Aryan "busta" was certainly "wusta" -- which reflects a non-IE language borrowing the IE word for "mouth".

    Likewise in Ancient Greek, they had lost "w" by the mid-1st millennium BC, and generally deleted it entirely. But if they preserved it as a consonant, they could have used "m", which is also voiced, labial, and sonorant. This is the only way to connect Greek "musta" with Indo-Aryan "busta" -- both rendering "wusta" in their own way, after having lost "w".

    Uralic is not just the right type of language whose phonotactics would borrow "usta" or "Hawsta" by deleting the laryngeal and inserting a prothetic "w" at the start. It's also in the right place and right time -- between Greek to its west and Indo-Aryan to its east. In the 1st millennium BC, Uralic was spoken all the way down to the northern shores of the Black and Caspian seas, and likely further south than just the Altai-Sayan region where Samoyedic was spoken, perhaps as far as the Oxus River in southern Central Asia, where the non-Indo-Euro / Eastern Steppe Massegetae defeated the advance of the Iranian Achaemenid Empire as it tried to move outside of its heartland of India and Iran and up toward the Steppe.

    Or there were intermediaries between a Uralic Steppe source, and the Indo-Aryan borrower.

    The Greeks borrowed this word directly from Uralic speakers in the Western Steppe, though, where the Mordvinic-speaking Scythians occupied the region north of the Black Sea, whose coast was host to Greek mercantile colonies. Probably it entered the Hellenic branch via Pontic Greek.

    ReplyDelete
  107. The Uralic borrower of the IE word for "mouth" preserved the "st" sequence, which is non-existant in native Uralic roots, and is a sign of it being a loan. Such words show up in the pre-Uralic substrate words related to agriculture and other things. They generally don't show up in the Eastern Uralic branches, Ugric and Samoyedic.

    These words are considered to be non-Uralic and non-Indo-Euro, but from some local family that preceded to expansion of either mega-family. For "wusta", it was from an IE source, but the difficult "st" sequence being preserved, still shows it was likely borrowed by a Western Uralic branch.

    Sadly, the original borrower left no attested examples descended from "wusta", so I can't narrow down which particular branch of Uralic did the borrowing. All I can tell is that it was Western. Based on geography, it was not northern branches like Finnic or Sami, probably not Permic either. Likely a southern one, Mordvinic or Mari.

    Now comes the Samoyedic term -- it has "muntəj" as the 1st element, with "nt" replacing "st". This is according to Uralic phonotactics, where medial "CC", with distinct C's, wants these to be a nasal followed by an obstruent. The problem with "st" is the "s" being a sibilant, so it was altered to a nasal, and matched for place with the non-problematic "t" -- i.e., "n".

    Why did P-S alter "w" back into "m", though? There's seemingly no reason -- P-S is happy with initial "w", with tons of examples. However, none of those "w"-initial words are followed by "u", and only one highly frequent word is followed by its front counterpart, "ü" -- "wüt" = "ten". Also, only 2 words followed by "o". P-S did not like "w" followed by high round vowels, a dissimilation between a rounded (and high) consonant and high-round vowels.

    This aversion to "wu" is also present in Yeniseian and its sister Wa / Japonic. So, an Eastern Steppe areal feature.

    Instead, P-S altered "w" into "m", which *does* allow "u" after it in P-S. There are 4 examples in addition to "muntəjtsɜn" beginning with "mu". When there's dissimilation between vowels and consonants, glides or semi-vowels like "w" and "y" are the most likely to be targeted, not so much nasals like "m" or liquids like "l", since glides are the most vowel-like.

    So P-S did not borrow the Greek or similar IE version of this "mouth" word -- it independently gave it initial "m", also derived from initial "w", but for a different reason than Greek. Samoyedic doesn't like "wu", whereas Greek didn't have "w" at all.

    ReplyDelete
  108. OK, now onto the "hair / beard" element of the compound. I'll cut to the chase, and cite the Tocharian B word "traksiñ", which has the plural suffix "ñ", and reflects Proto-Tocharian "traksi". This means "awns", the hair-like or whisker-like growths on grass plants.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traksi%C3%B1

    Adams says it originally must have meant "beard, whiskers, facial hair", and was semantically extended to mean "awns".

    Yesterday I showed that this word was borrowed into Proto-Ainu, where "trek" = "beard", and establishes the geographic proximity of the Ainu urheimat to Indo-Euro speakers (presumably the far-eastern branch of them, Tocharian). That's part of showing Ainu is Uralic -- Uralic is also adjacent to Tocharian. The important thing here is that it shows that this IE word related to "hairs, whiskers" was loaned outside of the IE family, whatever you think Ainu belongs to.

    And there are cognates elsewhere in IE, namely Ancient Greek "thrix" = "hair" (generic, not specific to the face), the second element of Middle Irish "gairb-driuch" = "bristle", and Lithuanian "drikà" = "threads hanging from a loom". So, this is likely a native IE word.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BE

    The main phonetic difference is that the Greek, Celtic, and Baltic words have "i(u)", and even the Ainu borrowing has nearby "e", whereas Tocharian has "a". Adams suspects it derived from earlier "ä", which in P-T is a high central vowel, so also near "i".

    We're ignoring the Indo-Aryan word, since that only had 1 element and meant "lip", nothing to do with "hair".

    As for the Greek and Samoyedic words, they seem to show 2 independent developments in this "hair" element.

    Uralic cannot do initial consonant clusters, so if "traksi" were borrowed as a word unto itself, before used in the compound, the initial "tr" would have to be simplified. Initial "r" is banned in Uralic, so that leaves "t", yielding "taksi".

    This is the route that led to the Greek word. The Uralic coiner here took "wusta" and "taksi" and compounded them into "wustataksi". Greek will alter "w" to "m", and also delete final "i", since it's happy with final "ks" = "x", and wants to minimize the number of syllables in a compound.

    Either Uralic or Greek deleted the 1st "a", at the end of "wusta" -- probably Uralic, since that vowel is unstressed in Uralic, and Uralic loves to reduce and delete such vowels. That then brought the two "t"s into collision. Perhaps for a time this sequence was pronounced as a geminate, "tt", but after that -- in Uralic, or in the Greek borrowing -- these two contracted into a single "t".

    That yields "wustaksi" in Uralic, borrowed as "mystax" in Greek.

    One down, one to go!

    ReplyDelete
  109. The Samoyedic word borrowed a slightly different variant from the one that led to Greek "mystax". The mustache was a new fashion fad, so it had two nearly identical variants vying for adoption.

    The donor of the P-S word must have included the plural suffix from Tocharian, "ñ", leading to a final nasal in Samoyedic. Hardly a major difference phonetically. And semantically the difference is minor -- facial hair can be construed as a plural count noun or a single mass noun. Even in English, we do both -- plural count noun for "whiskers" and the derogatory "face pubes", vs. single mass noun for "stubble", "beard", "goatee", and "mustache".

    Alternatively, there was a single variant coined, with the final nasal from the Tocharian plural suffix, and final "-in" was deleted in the Greek borrowing, but preserved in the Samoyedic borrowing. IDK which has more weight to it, but I give more weight to having as few variants in the coinage, than to reduction of segments from a polysyllabic source during a borrowing event. So let's just say there was a single Uralic compound during coinage, with final nasal.

    The reduction of the vowel which led to the contraction of the two "t"s, which led to the Greek word, must have happened after Samoyedic borrowed it from Western Uralic. Samoyedic shows no such vowel reduction or fusing of the two "t"s. Samoyedic borrowed the Western Uralic coinage earlier, and Greek borrowed it much later. That fits with the age of the two languages -- Proto-Samoyedic is much older than Greek of the late 1st millennium BC.

    Another clue that the P-S word was not the original Uralic coiner, but borrowing another Uralic language's coinage, is that the Tocharian plural suffix is an exotic nasal -- palatal. Samoyedic, as an Eastern Eurasian language, loves exotic nasals, including the palatal nasal specifically, including in final position, including for multisyllabic words.

    So why didn't it preserve the palatal nasal of the Tocharian word? Likely, cuz Samoyedic did not borrow directly from Tocharian, but from some other Uralic language, which was Western, and did not have the same Eastern Eurasian penchant for exotic nasals.

    For instance, Proto-Mari shows no final palatal nasals, or really in any position. Likewise for Proto-Mordvinic. So this is another sign that a Western Uralic was the original coiner, and Samoyedic borrowed and altered the W.Uralic compound to suit its own needs. But since Samoyedic didn't know about the Tocharian original, it couldn't see that it had a final palatal nasal, and kept the final alveolar nasal that Mari or Mordvinic altered the Tocharian original to.

    The problematic cluster "tr" was simplified into "t", as in the route that led to the Greek word. But since the Samoyedic word also has a final consonant, and therefore the 2nd vowel from "traksi(n)", this created an extra syllable in the 2nd element for P-S compared to Greek. So P-S had to simplify by deleting other segments -- the "a" and the "k". This led to the 2nd element becoming "tsɜn".

    This did not violate the ban on initial clusters, since P-S did not coin the compound -- they were simplifying someone else's compound. And so, the "ts" was a medial sequence inside a compound word, not a cluster at the beginning of a word. The "t" was re-syllabified into the coda of the 2nd syllable in P-S, and the "s" into the onset of the 3rd syllable -- "mun.təjt.sɜn".

    ReplyDelete
  110. The only strange thing in this route, is that the compound word doesn't mean "mustache" or "goatee" -- i.e., reflecting the coinage of a phrase for "mouth hair" or "mouth beard". In Samoyedic, it just means "beard". It's impossible to believe that this unwieldy multisyllabic clearly compound word replaced a long-standing atomic morpheme from Uralic roots, meaning "beard".

    But then, Proto-Finnic also shows a borrowed word for "beard" -- "parta", borrowed from Proto-Balto-Slavic "bardā́ˀ". Erzya borrowed a Turkic word for "beard" -- "sakalo", from Proto-Turkic "sakal". And there is no Proto-Uralic word for "beard", so the most likely story is that they simply didn't have words relating to facial hair, and borrowed them. Even if, in the case of Samoyedic, it meant borrowing a bizarre-sounding compound originally meaning "mouth-hair" for the basic sense of "facial hair".

    Lots of twists and turns to this story, eh? ^_^ And it all began with one tribe of horse-riding badasses, who spoke Uralic or Yeniseian, before eventually spreading its Eastern Steppe influence -- both grooming and linguistic -- toward the West...

    ReplyDelete
  111. *Single count nouns for "beard", "mustache", and "goatee", single mass noun for "stubble".

    ReplyDelete
  112. Addendum: it may sound strange to posit Tocharian as the donor of the "hair" word, if it was borrowed by Western Uralic. But remember, this was not in the mid-1st millennium AD, when Tocharian was only spoken down in the Tarim Basin. Previously, they lived in the Eastern Steppe, not too far from Mari in the Central Steppe. And once you're on the Steppe, you're everyone's neighbor, given how fast and easy it is to travel by horse from one end to the other.

    The only major barrier between Tocharian and Uralic is once the Tocharians passed through the Sayan Mountains, headed south, and then tucked themselves away in the Tarim Basin. But that separation was much later than the time period we're talking about, which preceded Proto-Samoyedic, given that the compound was loaned into P-S.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Uralic word for "three" borrowed from Proto-Indo-European meaning "the tall one" or the one that reaches high, referring to the middle finger, which is 3rd in sequence whether you start with either end of the hand (pinky or thumb).

    In all Uralic branches except Samoyedic and Ainu, "three" traces back to "kolme".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/kolme

    There are no other words in P-U beginning with "kol", except for "kolmeš" = "tree bark" in Western Uralic, which is probably a loan.

    But tonight's Spanish Wordle reminded me of the English word we get from Latin, "culminate", having to do with reaching a peak. Hmmm, that sounds like a Uralic word, I thought. Let's look it up... it's "three"! That's perfect.

    The P-IE root is "kelH-", and it's a verb meaning "to rise". In the Italic and Germanic branches, it gets suffixed with P-IE "-mn̥", which creates an agent noun from a verb -- the thing that does the verb. In this case, "the thing that rises (to great heights)". The Italic descendant is cognate with the Latin word that gave us the English word "column".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kelH-

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-mn%CC%A5

    This pair of P-IE morphemes must have formed the basis for the P-Finno-Ugric word for "three". Probably the root had a syllabic "l", "kl̥H", and P-FU broke up the initial cluster with "o" since both "k" and "l" have a velar feature, so a back vowel provides a smoother transition. The laryngeal was deleted. From the P-IE suffix, the "m" was preserved, while the syllabic "n̥" was turned into a vowel, a dummy vowel "e".

    I've already uncovered how extensive the influence of P-IE was on the numeral words in various Uralic languages, including Samoyedic and Ainu. But they had an influence closer to home, among Finno-Ugric as well!

    Note that the P-IE word for "three" employs a similar mneumonic -- "tri-" having to do with "on top, tip", i.e. it's the finger that stands taller than the others. It's no different from "the one that rises".

    But phonetically, the latter is superior since it doesn't have an initial cluster like "tri-" does. Either it was "kelH-" and had no cluster at all, or it was "kl̥H", whose 2nd segment is a syllabic weight-bearer and behaves more like a vowel -- not like the liquid in "tri-", which is not syllabic.

    Rather than try to resolve the difficult "tr" initial cluster, the Finno-Ugric audience said, "Well, thanks for the offer, but... do you have another verb that means the same as "stand on top", but doesn't have an initial cluster? You do? Great! We'll take that one instead!"

    If Samoyedic can borrow a P-IE compound phrase meaning "half-full" for "five", how unbelievable is it that Finno-Ugric borrowed a P-IE simple word meaning "the one that rises" to refer to the middle finger, for "three"? I buy it -- but then, I would! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  114. For that matter, the Western Uralic word "kolmeš" = "tree bark" may derive from the same P-IE source, where in this case "kolme" = "tree" or "tree trunk", i.e. the part of the tree that rises, just like a column. That's where the bark is attached to, not really the branches -- that's where the leaves or needles are attached.

    That leaves the unusual final "š", perhaps from a suffix "-Vš", whose V got smooshed into the final "e" of "kolme". It is some generic suffix meaning "thing related to the root". Word-final consonants are not allowed in P-U, so it's from someone else, whose suffixes *are* allowed to end in a consonant, like Indo-Euro.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Wow, a breakthrough in the pre-Uralic substrate, relating to "beard"! Although there's no P-U word for "beard", there is a root in the Finno-Permic group (Finnic, Permic, Mordvinic, and Mari). It is "teškä" or "tekšä", and it means "beard" in Proto-Permic, secondary meaning of "beard hair" in Mari, "grass" in Mordvinic, and "ear" e.g. of corn in Finnic. The basic meaning is "something that sticks up", and applied to both grass plants and facial hair.

    Gee, that's exactly like that "traksi" word in Tocharian, "thrix" in Greek, "drika" in Lithuanian, and "driuch" in Celtic. I mean exactly like it both semantically *and* phonetically.

    In the Wiktionary entry for "thrix", it notes that Beekes is not sure the origin of these words is Indo-Euro, even though they're clearly present in several branches. Maybe it goes back to P-IE, but even then, it may not be of native roots, but a loan / substrate word.

    And that Uralic word is listed by Helimski as a suspect for the Finno-Volgaic substrate, or the pre-Uralic substrate in that part of the world, as opposed to the pre-Uralic substrate in Sami up in Scandinavia. It is suspicious due to medial "š", especially as part of a cluster.

    So perhaps both Finno-Permic and P-IE (or some group of proto daughters near Europe), both borrowed from the same local source. It's possible that it is natively I-E, and Finno-Permic borrowed from it, simplifying the difficult aspects of the I-E form. Unlikely that it is Finno-Permic originally, and I-E borrowed it -- it wouldn't make it so much more elaborate during borrowing, like inserting "r" after "t".

    That means the I-E onset better reflects the original -- it had a "tr" cluster, or maybe a retroflex "t", or other exotic kind of "t" that Uralic could not render better than a plain ol' "t", but I-E could with "tr".

    However, the medial sequence of "ks" vs. "sk" is not straightforward. P-IE doesn't like medial "sk", only initially, and is much happier with medial or final "ks". So if the original were "sk", P-IE would almost certainly metathesize that into "ks". The Uralonet entry notes that the Finnic words can only fit into the broader group if the original was "šk", not "kš". Well, that leans toward the original being sibilant first, then obstruent.

    Was there a final vowel? Seems like it. Uralic likes final vowels no matter what, but Indo-Euro doesn't require them. The fact that Lithuanian and Tocharian both have a final vowel suggests there was one.

    Uralic is insistant on these exotic local words having post-alveolar "š", not alveolar "s" or palatal "ś". P-IE can't distinguish more than one sibilant, unlike Uralic.

    The first vowel seems to be high and front-ish (Tocharian original was probably the high-central one, not low "a"). Even the Ainu borrowing has "e".

    So that yields "treškV", where V is reduced or low (apart from Tocharian).

    ReplyDelete
  116. Since the meaning has to do with "standing up" or "sticking out", that local substrate word may also be the source for the "tri-" / "tre-" at the beginning of the P-IE word for "three", which is based on "on top, tip, standing up, rising, sticking out, etc."

    Maybe in the local substrate, they had the morphological process that was inherited into Germanic and to a lesser extent Baltic, where we have initial consonant clusters as semi-meaningful morphemes, which fuse with semi-meaningful rimes (vowel and/or coda consonants). Neither half is a standalone word, and the meanings are vague rather then precise. The onset is the root, the rime is a modifier. Things like:

    Onset "gl" having to do with "light" -- "glean", "glisten", "glimmer", "glint", etc.

    Rime "-unk" having to do with "negative connotation" -- "junk", "gunk", "chunk", "bunk", "punk", "lunk", "hunk", "funk", "slunk", etc. And although some people out there like "spunk", Mary Tyler Moore's boss summed up the other half of humanity -- "I HATE SPUNK!" You may have guessed it, from how much I've written about Manic Pixie Dream Girls, including Mary Tyler Moore, but I happen to like spunk. ^_^

    The fact that a consonant cluster is involved, and it's possibly reflecting the pre-Uralic / pre-Indo-Euro language of the Funnelbeaker Culture, which Germanic (and Baltic) sound-symbolic onset-rime morphology comes from... makes me think this is a case of "tr-" meaning "sticking out, standing up, jutting, etc."

    And therefore, all these medial clusters with "š" in Uralic, may be part of a recycled rime or 2nd element in the fusion. In this case, "-eška" (using "a" for the final vowel to make it easier to read).

    That means the onset ought to be recycled as well, just like the "gl-" onset in Germanic.

    I think this is the right way to pursue this Funnelbeaker Culture language, which makes up the substrate for Indo-Euro and Finno-Permic -- triangulate from both heavily attested families. In particular, look for initial clusters, and assume they're part of the "onset + rime" morphology.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Maybe you can get into the Indus Valley Civ substrace too. I just wish I understood all these terms

    ReplyDelete
  118. Etruscan-like languages were spoken in North & East Europe before Uralic and Indo-European expanded from the east. How many mysteries can one man solve? Stick with me, and we'll find out...

    I only have time for a summary right now, and will add more details later. Hopefully it won't be like the Ainu-is-Uralic project, which has already exploded into 10 pages of notes. I'll write that up soon, I promise. This one will be briefer, since there's not as much to study.

    The big picture is -- what languages were spoken in Paleo-Europe, that is, before the expansion of the mega-families like Indo-European and Uralic? Only one such language is still spoken today -- Basque, which unfortunately will not be related to the topic at hand. Apparently, Basque-like languages were confined to Southwestern Europe.

    But what about Northern and Eastern Europe? And the central-to-eastern stretch of Southern Europe? As it turns out, there was a single family connecting much of this region. I'm not sure if it included the Balkans, though, haven't looked into Paleo-Balkan yet.

    But there IS a definite connection between the Paleo languages of Italy, represented by Etruscan and Raetic (and an off-shoot in the Aegean Sea, Lemnian), and the Paleo languages that show up as substrates in Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Western Uralic languages.

    The Etruscan-like languages are called Tyrsenian -- not a helpful name, but I'll stick with it for now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrsenian_languages

    The other major one is the so-called Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate in Western Uralic branches. I'm specifically talking about the one in the Finno-Volgaic region, not the Scandi-specific one that shows up in Sami.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Finno-Ugric_substrate

    There are other substrates in the neighboring Indo-Euro branches -- Celtic to the least extent, but definitely Germanic and Balto-Slavic. I will be connecting these various Northern / Eastern substrates, to the South-Central one in Italy / Switzerland.

    Collectively, this covers Italy, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe -- quite a vast expanse of territory covered by a single language family. And therefore, this was surely an expansionist family as well -- seemingly related to the spread of agriculture from Anatolia ("Early European Farmers"). Note that this was not demographic expansion, since Anatolian farmers did not wipe out the existing hunter-gatherers (assimilated them), nor did they fully withstand the migrations of Western Steppe herders.

    I'm only talking about the spread of the technology and subsistence mode of sedentary agriculture. I typically dismiss any proposed links between the spread of food-production modes, and the spread of languages. It's mostly bogus. But that doesn't mean there are no such examples whatsoever. And this one seems to be an exception.

    Based on the most famous person to hail from this Early Euro Farmer population, between Italy and Switzerland, I will call this family the Iceman languages. That has a much better ring than Tyrsenian...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi

    Much of the connections within this vast territory relate to agricultural words, or other flora & fauna words. But given that some of them are the names of trees, which are not part of sedentary agriculture like grains are, some of these could reflect an even earlier family of languages. Still, if they are found from Italy to the Baltic, even that older family would have to be an expansionist one -- otherwise every micro-region would have its own niche word for "maple".

    So we'll just assume that these words originated in the Iceman family, unless there is compelling evidence pointing to an even earlier origin.

    ReplyDelete
  119. An overview for now, with the best evidence in the briefest time. We'll start with phonotactics -- what sounds are present vs. absent, and where these sounds can appear in a word.

    One very striking thing about the Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate (in the Finno-Volgaic region) is the absence of the "o" vowel in the earliest proto-stage reconstructions. Proto-Uralic and its daughter branches are all happy with this vowel, and yet it's entirely missing in the substrate.

    Lo and behold, this exactly matches the vowel inventory of the Iceman languages -- Etruscan and Raetic have only 4 vowels, "a", "e", "i", and "u". There's only one potential example of a front-rounded vowel (in the word for "milk"), otherwise the telltale front-rounded vowel of Uralic are absent. This also matches the Iceman vowel inventory. The only difference is that the Uralic words have the front and back low vowels, "a" and "ä", probably due to vowel harmony in Uralic, not in the substrate itself.

    Indo-European also loves "o" -- it's one of only two basic vowels in P-IE. So, naturally, I-E cannot be the source of this substrate.

    Another striking thing is the initial use of "r" -- this is banned in all sorts of families across Eurasia, including Uralic and Indo-European, but also Yeniseian, the creoles involving Yeniseian and/or Uralic (like Turkic and Mongolic and Tungusic)), Yeniseian's sister Wa / Japonic, and so on and so forth.

    And yet, a good number of the substrate words begin with "r".

    Which families *don't* ban "r" initially? Well, speaking of Paleo-European, it's not Basque -- "r" is banned initially there as well. What is everybody's problem with starting words with "r"? IDK, but the good ol' Iceman languages not only allow initial "r", it's fairly common. And in the case of the Etruscans, their very own ethnonym begins with it -- "Rasna"! AKA "Rasenna".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Etruscan_word_list

    https://tir.univie.ac.at/wiki/Category:Word

    Initial clusters are present in the Iceman languages, and not that you'd know it from the substrate in Uralic, since Uralic bans clusters, but by comparing their Indo-Euro counterparts, you can tell that the Paleo-Euro language must have had initial clusters too. Like in the case of "awn / bristle / hair" that I discussed earlier -- it begins with "tr-" in the Indo-Euro variants, but with "t-" in the Uralic ones. So, to get a good picture, we'll have to try triangulating with the substrates in Indo-Euro languages, since they can preserve clusters from the Paleo language, whereas Uralic will struggle or be unable to capture that.

    Of all the examples I've seen so far, none of the Paleo words have voiced obstruents like "b", "d", "g", "z", etc. That is not clear from Uralic, since it too lacks voiced obstruents for the most part. But the Indo-Euro forms show no voiced obstruents either, and they're perfectly equipped to reflect "b", "d", and "g". If they do not, probably the Paleo language lacked voiced obstruents to begin with.

    Sure enough, the Iceman languages lack voiced obstruents, although Etruscan has a contrast between aspirated vs. unaspirated for voiceless obstruents. I'm not sure how relevant a single vs. geminate consonant contrast is. That shows up more in the Scandi / Sami substrate, not the Finno-Volgaic one. Perhaps geminates are allowed, but they're not a systematic contrast -- in either the Paleo substrates, or in the Iceman languages.

    There seem to be more than 1 sibilant in the Paleo substrate within Uralic, since it goes to pains to stick postalveolar "š" in so many of these words, as contrasted with plain "s". This may not be so obvious in the Indo-Euro examples, since they tend to only have 1 sibilant. And whaddaya know, Iceman languages have 2 sibilants, a plain one and a palatal one (like "sh" in English).

    It's less clear if there's a palatal stop / affricate in the Paleo substrates, but just in case there is, Iceman languages have one of those too, transcribed "z" but pronounced like in German, as "ts".

    ReplyDelete
  120. The syllable shape is somewhat like Uralic, polysyllabic with some sequences of consonants allowed, but typically 2 or 3 syllables, and not too clustered, with a vowel preferred at the end of a word. It's hard to say about final vowels, since Uralic wants these no matter what, whether they were in the original or not. They could reflect Uralic phonotactics rather than that of the substrate.

    That's where Indo-Euro comes in again. P-IE prefers monosyllables that have a zillion consonants and only 1 of 2 vowels in the middle (or just a syllabic resonant). So if their variant of the Paleo substrate word is polysyllabic and ends in a vowel, that isn't cuz the borrowing language wants it that way -- that's there in the source.

    So far, the syllable shape of the Paleo substrates match those of the Iceman languages.

    So overall, the distinctive / shibboleth-y aspects of the phoneme inventory, as well as its phonotactics, are best matched by the Iceman languages, not any other possible candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Finally, a few quick but crucial correspondences between words in the Iceman and Paleo substrate languages.

    By far the telltale sign that immediately convinced me of this, is the ubiquitous presence of "na" at the end of words in the Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate. In the box at the Wikipedia entry, fully one-half, or 5 out of 10, of those words end in "na"!

    (Or rather, "nä", but I'm ignoring the distinction between low vowels, since it was not there in the source, and reflects adaptation to Uralic phonotactics.)

    Take a wild guess what the most common suffix is in Etruscan....

    NA!

    Jeez, it's so popular it has its own Wiktionary entry, with 3 usages. Overall, it's a generic "relating to..." suffix, and is used to form nouns. It's also used to form ordinal numbers from cardinal numbers, and to form surnames / family names, by sticking it after the father's given name.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%F0%90%8C%8D%F0%90%8C%80

    There's no way that the Paleo substrate in Uralic just happens to luuuvvvv words ending in the sound "na". It's not phonotactic. Rather, it must be a suffix. What other language family can supply "na" as the most highly productive suffix of all? IDK, but probably none! The competition is already over, but here is yet another way where only the Iceman languages can get the job done.

    Moving on, "neri" = "water" in Etruscan, which is basically the same as "ńëre" in Proto-Uralic, another word relating to "wet, moist". I said this Uralic word was the basis of the tribal name "Neuri" recorded by Herodotus. They were indeed a Uralic-speaking group inhabiting present-day Belarus, namely the wetlands of the Pripyat Marshes. I still stand by this Uralic origin of their name, since there's a "u" in "Neuri", and the Uralic word, but not the Etruscan word, has a front-round vowel in it.

    However... now we have to allow for some other "ner-" water words in NE Europe to be derived from the Iceman family, not necessarily Uralic. And this is complicated by the fact that perhaps one of them borrowed from the other. It is in Proto-Uralic, with reflexes in Samoyedic -- way over to the east, and very old. Possibly it was a wanderwort circa 5000 BC, and found its way into both the Proto-Iceman and Proto-Uralic languages. Hard to say for now, just noting that at the least, they're nearly homophones, and possibly one borrowed from the other.

    This Etruscan word is used in a river name in the homeland of the Etruscans -- the Nera River in present-day Umbria, the largest tributary to the Tiber.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Two speculative lexical matches to end on. These are speculative since their meaning in Iceman is unknown, but they have solid phonetic matches in the Indo-Euro languags of Northern Europe, and a plausible semantic match too.

    There's a proper noun in Raetic, "klevie" -- I've been looking at tree-names all day long, and I think this matches the Baltic word for "maple", which is "klevas" in Lithuanian and "klava" in Latvian. The Raetic "v" is actually pronounced "w", and in Indo-Euro languages, "v" traces back to "w".

    There are similar words for "maple" in Proto-Slavic "klȅnъ", and Proto-Germanic "hluniz". Given the highly regional nature of these words, and the lack of a clear P-IE derivation (semantic or phonetic), they're likely substrate words from Northern Europe.

    Notice that the consonant after the stressed vowel is different -- "v" in Baltic, but "n" in Slavic and Germanic. Possibly they reflect the same source consonant, which must have been exotic -- or perhaps the shared part is simply "kle-", and this is part of the Funnelbeaker Culture "onset + rime" morphology.

    Even today in English, "kl-", written "cl-", is an uber-popular onset for such words -- "clutz", "cling", "clammer", "clod", "cleave", etc. Some of these may have cognates elsewhere in Indo-Euro, but I'm guessing most are only from Northern Europe, and are the relic of the Funnelbeaker morphology.

    And yet, the Raetic words matches not just "kle-" but also "-vV(V)" after that, in Baltic. A proper noun is the name of a place or person, and what better way to refer to a place than by its trees? I just randomly googled "Mapleton England" -- OF COURSE such a village name exists there! Then there's the surname of Trump's only American wife, who he therefore treated lower than dirt -- Marla Maples.

    Then there's a pair of surnames in Raetic, meaning son of "Valθe" or "Valθiki", where "θ" is the aspirated "t". I think that's a perfect match for the Proto-Germanic word for "forest", "walþuz" (where the "-uz" is a suffix, and the root is "walþ-"). There's no convincing P-IE derivation, and no other cognates in other I-E branches having to do with forests. So, likely part of some Northern Euro substrate.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wal%C3%BEuz

    If it's the name of a place, that's obvious. Name it after being a forest, rather than other type of environment.

    If it's a personal name, well, even in English, we have the given name "Forrest" -- as in the titular protagonist of the ur-Boomer movie, "Forrest Gump". And in the Italic branch, "Silvio" and "Silvia" are male and female given names stemming from the Latin word for "forest".

    Speaking of Germanic "wald", though, in Medieval times the name that became "Walter" was used mainly in the sense of "wald" = "power, authority", but sometimes in a punning secondary sense of "from the forest, savage".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Waltheri#Old_High_German

    There's no greater theme for given names than "back to nature" and "noble savage" -- who wants to name their kid "Fad", "Machine", or "Tech"? Although Italic does have "Urban", but still... "Silvio" and "Silvia" will always tug at the heart-strings more than "Urbano", even after thousands of years of sedentary civilization in Italy. Even they still long to roam the wild mountains and woods, and name their kids aspirationally after the forest. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  123. Oh God, speaking of Trump being the revenge of the neo-cons, "Bush" is a surname in English! Paleo-European surnames will always harken back to the good ol' days before they became tied down to the land by sedentary agriculture...

    ReplyDelete
  124. Nihongo quickie about forests. Still about Ainu and Uralic, but relates to Japanese as well. There's a common word in Japanese for "forest" = "mori", which is not just any ol' group of trees but has the connotation of it being on a hill, mound, or mountain.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%A3%AE#Japanese

    As common as it is, it is not from Proto-Japonic, since there's no version of it in the Ryukyuan branch, no known etymology from native Japonic roots, although it does go back to Old Japanese (first attested in the 8th C).

    The connection to the Japanese word "mori" = "heap, pile" is likely due to the semantic connection to "hill, mound". That is, a heap or pile of earth, not a heap or pile of trees. Nobody thinks of trees as things that can be formed into a heap or pile, and still be alive and growing upwards. Only if they're cut down, they can be formed into a heap or pile of lumber -- but that's not a forest.

    But dirt, soil, and earth can be formed into a heap or pile, and referred to as a hill, mound, etc.

    So where does this word come from? It's Uralic! And that must be, loaned into Japanese via Ainu, the most far-eastern branch of the Uralic family.

    First, Ainu *does* have a word "mori", which Batchelor glosses as "hill, hillock, slope". No direct mention of trees or woods, but historically there must have been, given the obvious connection to the Japanese word. In present-day Ainu dialects, the word for "forest" is based on the word for "tree" = "ni", nothing that includes "mori". So these "ni"-based words must have displaced an older word, "mori", which has also lost the connotation of woods and trees, and now only used to refer to a hill, slope, or mound.

    Ainu did not borrow this word from Japanese, since it is not a Japonic-origin word. And loans tend to be more popular and displace the older native words. Whereas in this case, the native Ainu word is most common, and "mori" is fading away. Why borrow a word that you'll never use?

    So where *does* this word come from? Why, Uralic! Proto-Uralic, in fact, where it is "mȣrɜ" and means exactly what it does in Japanese -- "a hill or ridge, covered in bushes or forests". It is a very well attested word in the Uralic branches.

    https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?locale=en_GB&id_eintrag=572

    But wait, there's more! Remember how I keep saying that Ainu most closely resembles the Eastern Uralic branches, Ugric and Samoyedic? Well, what's their reflex of this P-U word? In 2 of the 4 Khanty dialects, it's "mori"! That's from the Ugric branch. Another dialect of Khanty has a reflex "mora" = "heap, crowd", which is the exact same related meaning for Japanese "mori"!

    ReplyDelete
  125. Now, if this word existed way back in Proto-Japonic, I'd consider it being a Uralic loan directly from Ugric or Samoyedic, when the Wa people still lived on the Eastern Steppe, and encountered Uralic speakers. But it's not there in P-J -- it only entered Japanese when Ryukyuan split off, and when the Wa people had settled into the Japanese islands.

    Once they settled into Japan, they never encountered a single speaker of Ugric, Samoyedic, or the other well-known Uralic branches. The only foreign languages that left a heavy imprint on Japanese after that point, were Chinese and Ainu. This word is not Chinese, and it does exist in Ainu, therefore they got it from Ainu.

    But where did Ainu get it from? They, too, have been linguistically isolated from speakers of Ugric, Samoyedic, and the other well known Uralic branches for literally thousands of years. Their only foreign influences are Japanese, Nivkh, maybe Kamchatkan. Not the Ugric or Samoyedic speakers.

    Therefore, Ainu cannot get loans from (the commonly accepted branches of) Uralic -- they have never met the speakers of such languages. If they do receive loans that are ultimately from Uralic, there must be an intermediary who has the word. But that specific intermediary, and their specific word, must be provided, to establish the link. The only real possibility in general, to mediate between Uralic and Ainu, is Nivkh. But in this case, the Proto-Nivkh words for "forest" and "hill" are not like "mori" at all -- they are "cɣaɣ" and "ulav".

    Conclusion: Ainu *is* a branch of Uralic, and it inherited "mori" from Proto-Uralic, in a form most closely resembling the Ugric form, which is natural since both Ugric and Ainu are Eastern rather than Western. It loaned this word into Old Japanese (but not Ryukyuan), and eventually it faded into the background in Ainu, displaced by a new word based on "ni" = "tree".

    Like I said, I have 10 pages of other examples. The discovery that Ainu is Uralic is not based on this single example. But I just had to share this one, since it's on the topic of forests from yesterday, and since I haven't written about Nihongo in a little while, and must atone for my linguistic negligence...

    BTW, the most popular example of "mori" used in a place-name in Japan, is way up in the North, right across from Hokkaido. The prefecture named "Aomori", where Okayu is from. ^_^ How fitting, that it should be so close to the Ainu homeland!

    ReplyDelete
  126. Addendum on "mori". There's also a verb in Japanese, "moru" = "to heap, to pile". The noun form of this verb is "mori" = "heap, pile".

    However, that verb is not old in Japanese. Apparently not there in OJ, and certainly not in P-J.

    So what must have happened, is that OJ borrowed the Ainu word "mori", with both senses -- "hill, heap of earth" and "forest, especially on top of a hill". This Ainu word is of Uralic origin, so the "ri" has nothing to do with suffixes. It's just part of the root.

    But to Japanese ears, a noun that ends in "ri" sounds like the noun form of a verb, since "-ru" is the default verb ending, and changing its "u" to "i" makes it into a noun. So, after they borrowed the word "mori" and used it long enough, eventually they assumed that it must be the noun form of a verb "moru", and began using "moru" as a verb.

    But "moru" did not exist in Japanese before it borrowed "mori" from Ainu. It's just that, due to a coincidence, the Ainu loanword sounds like a Japanese "noun form of a verb". And thus, the Japanese verb "moru" was born, by re-analyzing the Ainu noun "mori" as not being a simple noun, but having a suffix "-ri", which came from another suffix, "-ru", and therefore it must have come from a verb "moru" = "to heap, to pile".

    To give an example in English, think if we borrowed some other language's word for "clear area within a forest", which in their language was pronounced "dapping". We start using it as a noun to refer to clear areas in forests -- "Ah, don't you just love the way the dapping lets the light into the dark forest?"

    After we used this word for awhile, we might be tempted to re-analyze it -- not as a simple noun, but as a "noun ending in -ing", which suggests it came from a verb, namely whatever comes before "-ing". We might assume there's a verb "dapp", which means "to be clear of obstructions". Maybe we would start admonishing our kids, "How many times have I told you to dapp away all these toys that are laying all over your floor?"

    Suddenly we have a new verb, "dapp", which can take the typical verb endings. I dapp, he dapps. Yesterday I dapped. They're busy dapping away the debris from the construction site, so we can't drive through just yet.

    But in the language we borrowed "dapping" from, it was just a standard noun, not a noun derived from a verb "dapp", not a noun with a suffix "-ing". It only sounds that way to us, not to the language that we borrowed it from.

    But that won't stop us from re-analyzing it, and coining a new verb from a noun that has the standard "noun from a verb" ending, "-ing".

    And that didn't stop Nihongo from re-analyzing "mori" as the noun form of a verb "moru", and suddenly they had a whole new verb to play around with!

    ReplyDelete
  127. More on that "na" suffix in Iceman, and the Paleo substrate of Finno-Volgaic. First, there is a suffix "na" in Proto-Uralic, but it's inflectional, not derivational. It's the locative case ending, which attaches to a noun to mean "at / in" the noun. But that doesn't show up in the dictionary definition -- it only shows up in a context where it's required, like saying "I'm at / in school right now, but I'll be at / in my home later".

    A derivational suffix makes a new word from an old word, so that can appear as a new dictionary entry. Like adding "-er" to a verb, to produce a noun -- the person or thing that does the action of the verb.

    That's what the Iceman suffix is, mainly -- a noun-forming suffix. It's not inflectional, outside its use in surnames, where it's like the possessive "-s" ending in English, which produces a surname like "Maples" from the noun "maple", or "Peters" from the noun "Peter".

    In the Iceman source words, the root it attaches to could be just 1 syllable. But monosyllable roots are rare in Uralic. And so, Uralic ears do not hear "na" in 50% of these loanwords and think, "Hmmm, that's odd, it must be a suffix, we'll just borrow the part of the word before 'na'". If they did, then their borrowed form might be just 1 syllable, and might end in a consonant -- two big no-no's for Uralic morphophonology.

    So instead, they borrow these Iceman words with the "na" suffix and re-analyze it as part of a multisyllabic root, which becomes a new morphologically atomic noun in Uralic.

    Also, this final "na" is so diagnostic that it can be posited as grounds for considering a Uralic word to be from the Iceman substrate.

    However, there's one wrinkle -- it's only diagnostic when it follows a consonant, not a vowel. There are quite a few native Uralic words of the form (C)VNV, where N is a nasal. And yet there seem to be none of the form (C)VCNV, regardless of what kind of C the medial one is. Uralic only likes N in a medial sequence if its first, then followed by some C -- (C)VNCV.

    Although not listed in the Wikipedia article, this also brought to my attention "śäśnä" = "woodpecker", which Wiktionary does note as a potential substrate word.

    One that has escaped notice until now, is "säwnä" = a species of fish, mostly Ide. This word has "na" after a consonant, violating the native Uralic pattern, but totally fine in the substrate words.

    These may be in larger lists, like the one by Helimski I referred to earlier. I'm just going off of what is at Wiktionary.

    Notice that both of these words lack "o", lack front-round vowels, and lack voiced obstruents. Just like the other substrate words -- and just like the Iceman languages. Semantically, both are flora + fauna, though not agricultural.

    I found them by searching for "na" in Wiktionary's Proto-Uralic lemmas. I'll go through the longer list of reconstructions in Uralic, some of which are only for Finno-Volgaic, later and report back with any further examples of (C)VCNV.

    ReplyDelete
  128. More on "klev" = "maple" in Iceman and the Paleo substrates of Balto-Slavic and Germanic. The Raetic name "klevie" has a name suffix "-ie", so the root is "klev". It has no gloss, but it has a clear cognate in Etruscan "cleva" = "offering". Now we have a semantic anchor in the Iceman side of things.

    And both look like the Baltic word for "maple", based on "kleva", so there's the semantic anchor on the Northern side of things. Again, there is no native Indo-Euro origin of that Baltic word, or the related Germanic and Slavic words for maple, based on "klun" or "klen". They're all reflecting a local substrate.

    Somehow, "offering" in Etruscan religion was related to "maple". Archaeology of Etruscans shows that their furniture was made of maple, and so were funerary goods like maple boxes / cases for holding cosmetics. It seems like maple wood was used for special crafts, not just firewood or lumber or other quotidian usage.

    So, perhaps the Etruscans used maple wood in their sacred offerings -- maple branches, hand-crafted goods made from maple, etc. It's not 100% certain, but given the use of maple for funerary goods, it's plausible.

    More importantly, the name of the Tuscan city Chiusi comes from Clevsi in Etruscan, where "-si" is the dative case ending, which can occasionally be used to mean locative -- where something is in / at. So, this name means "in / at / related to Clev". And in that city and its surroundings, maple is a major species of trees. So this name may very easily mean "near the maple groves", "maple land", etc.

    This connection not only provides a missing piece of semantic evidence for the Iceman words -- that they're not primarily about "offering", but about "maple" -- it also provides the origin of the Northern Euro substrate words for "maple", namely they're from some branch of the Iceman family. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  129. Full investigation of "na" after CVC in Uralic words, suggesting substrate origin, and showing that the phonotactics best match Iceman languages. There's even one case of a phonetic match in Raetic, although its meaning is unknown, so can't connect it semantically. But still!

    I'm consulting this list of Proto-Uralic reconstructions, see the links there to the Uralonet full picture of each entry.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Uralic_reconstructions

    First, a word of this shape that is a known loan from Indo-Iranian -- not a local substrate, but still not natively Uralic:

    "tarna" = "grass, hay"

    I said these substrate words lack "o", but 3 examples turned up with "o". I don't think these are from the Finno-Volgaic substrate, but the Scandi substrate.

    "lowna" = "day, noon", from the Finno-Permic region, probably a Scandi substrate, not Finno-Volgaic.

    "ńowŋa" = "a salmon species", from Sami and only the Nenets member of Samoyedic, both probably reflecting an Arctic substrate or wanderwort. NE Siberian languages love exotic nasals, and this has 2 of them, out of 3 consonants total!

    "korŋa" = "to land (e.g., a boat on the bank)". Uralonet notes the questionable nature of the reconstruction. It's only in Samic, which has more to do with "to climb", and in Samoyedic, where it means "to land" but the nasal consonant is almost always absent (the one example could be intrusive, before "b"), and the 1st vowel is always "a", not "o". So I dismiss this one as irrelevant.

    OK, with those out of the way, onto the main findings...

    ReplyDelete
  130. These are all from a broad range, mostly Finno-Ugric, one Finno-Volgaic, and one Finno-Permic. First, a Finno-Ugric one, with a phonetic match in Raetic!

    "pelna" = "flax, hemp plant (used for linen / textiles)"

    This matches "Φelna" in Raetic, aside from the aspiration on the initial consonant, which Uralic cannot render. If "na" is a suffix in Raetic, that means the root is "Φel", and there are in fact 3 more words beginning with "Φel", followed by various other components, whose meaning is uncertain. Plants and nature were important in Etruscan religion, probably they were also in Raetic, and a natural source of place names and personal names.

    I could see these plants providing names in English -- Flaxy, Hemper, Lynynn. ^_^

    "šišna" = "strap"

    This looks like Baltic "šikšnà" = "strap, belt, leather", although Baltic has an medial "k". Uralic doesn't like 3-consonant sequences, so perhaps it deleted the "k" from the source, although it does sporadically preserve 3-C sequences from substrate words. The Baltic word has no deeper Indo-Euro origin, so both the Uralic and Baltic word are ultimately from the same local substrate, regardless of whether one borrowed from the other, or are separate borrowings from the same source.

    "kärnä" = "bark, crust"

    Uralonet notes the Finnish member of this group may be a loan from Baltic, but again, it has no deeper Indo-Euro origin, so ultimately from a local substrate.

    "kurńa" = "groove, furrow"

    "pajna" / "pajńa" = "to press"

    "śawŋa" = "stake, bar, post"

    "śarna" = "magic word, speech, conversation"

    This resembles "sarïn" = "song" and "sar(ï)na" = "to sing, celebrate", both from Altai-region Turkic languages. I doubt it's Proto-Turkic, given the narrow geographic scope. But it's near the Proto-Uralic urheimat, so both groups could reflect an earlier local substrate in the Eastern Steppe.

    Now for the least secure one, from Finno-Permic and potentially an onomatopoeia:

    "kićnä" = "to sneeze"

    Having presented the examples, onto a phontactic and semantic analysis...

    ReplyDelete
  131. As usual, there's no "o", no voiced obstruents, and multiple sibilants. This suggests an Iceman source.

    Oh but wait -- it gets WAY better than that. I'm assuming the "na" is a suffix (whether it's altered into another nasal due to surrounding consonants, doesn't matter). So that lets us break apart the word into a CVC root from the source language. Now we can investigate *that* word's phonotactics.

    A very glaring pattern in these substrate words is that the final C of the root is never a stop. It can be either glide "j" or "w", either liquid "l" or "r", or the sibilant "š". Of course, "na" can also follow a vowel, which we're ignoring, but it's true. So at first it looks like a sonority hierarchy pattern -- a nasal can only follow a more-sonorant consonant, like vowel, glide, or liquid. Then it makes sense why it can't follow a stop -- that's less-sonorant.

    But one of the most frequent consonants in that position is a sibilant, which is also less sonorant than a nasal. There are a few examples with an affricate like "ć", which is not a pure stop but has a sibilant feature as well. So it's not about sonority relative to a nasal, but overall sonority -- anything more sonorant than a stop is fine.

    That makes it seem like it's not about the following nasal, which is the first part of a suffix "na" in the source language. Rather, it's about the final C of the root word, in the source language. This reflects a constraint on what consonants can end a word.

    From the phonotactic pattern in the Uralic words, the source language must have banned stops word-finally, but allowed anything else -- vowel, glide, liquid, sibilant (and maybe affricate).

    A quick check of the Raetic word list, removing any suffixes to get to the root word, shows that in fact it did not allow final stops. So this perfectly matches the phonotactics of the language that provided the substrate words into Uralic and Northern Indo-Euro.

    There are 2 exceptions, which I take to be later developments, after Iceman languages provided the substrate words into Uralic and Northern Indo-Euro.

    One is "θauχ-", where "χ" is aspirated "k". This sits inside the complex word "θauχrilina". The only other close match is "θaukis", whose final "s" is not glossed as a suffix, hence likely belonging to the root.

    What I think happened, is that there was a Proto-Iceman or Proto-Raetic final cluster "ks", or sequence "kis" with later vowel deletion into "ks", since Iceman languages reduced and eliminated unstressed vowels (heavy stress on 1st syllable).

    Since Iceman bans final clusters, it took the hissy sound of the sibilant, turned it into aspiration, and grafted that onto the previous unaspirated consonant, now making it an aspirated stop.

    The only other exception is "suχ", which also has "χ" as its final stop. There are no comparable-sounding words in the list, so I can't say whether or not there's a word like "sukis" that it derived from -- but I'll bet there was. It matches the final consonant of "θauχ-", and there are no other final stops, whether aspirated or not -- no aspirated "p" or "t", let alone unaspirated stops.

    The fact that there are no unaspirated stops, is the key -- it says that the aspirated stop in final position is a rendering of an earlier cluster, not a single stop in the original form. And since clusters are banned, that cluster must have been the result of syllable collapse due to syncopation, which is heavily attested in the history of Iceman languages. The most plausible candidate for the 2nd member of that cluster is a sibilant, and sure enough, there's a support for that in the case of "θauχ-" and "θaukis".

    Now onto Etruscan phonotactics...

    ReplyDelete
  132. Etruscan phonotactics are similar to Raetic, but they went much further in the direction of vowel deletion due to heavy stress on the 1st syllable. In the 2nd half of Etruscan written history, lots of vowels are left out from the written form. But in the 1st half, that was not so true. So, any final stops that are due to vowel deletion, reflect later developments within the history of Etruscan or Raetic -- not the proto-form of either language, and not their proto-parent, Proto-Iceman.

    As a result of widespread vowel deletion, Etruscan has more final stops than Raetic does. I assume the phonological reasons are exactly the same -- original form had CVC at the end of the word, the V deleted, clusters are not allowed word-finally, so features of both C's were fused into a single final consonant. If the first C was an unaspirated stop, and the second C a sibilant, their illegal cluster was resolved by fusing them into a single aspirated stop.

    I won't quote every example of a final stop in Etruscan, but suffice it to say that they're all aspirated, or are ambiguous between aspirated or unaspirated, or ambiguous between final stop and stop + final vowel.

    There are no unambiguous cases of a final stop being unaspirated. There are 2 examples of word-internal roots ending in an unaspirated stop, "ac-" and "sac-". And the only potential standalone word with word-final unaspirated stop, is the numeral "cezp" = "eight", but this is not known to be a standalone word for "eight". It appears in the larger phrase for "eighty" = "cezpalch", and a phrase perhaps meaning "eight times" = "cezpz". This supports my view of this process, that since final stops are aspirated, they result from a fusion of earlier unaspirated stop + sibilant. Or perhaps final vowel deletion, from an earlier word with CV word-finally.

    But we can do better than that, and as in Raetic, show a group of related words to show the original CVC form, and the fused form after vowel deletion. In Etruscan studies, aspirated stops are written as the unspirated one followed by "h", not using Greek characters as in Raetic studies. And in Etruscan, the sound "k" is written "c", "k", and "q". A bit confusing, but you get it.

    One of the Etruscan words with a final stop is "mach", with final aspirated "k". This means "five".

    There are a pair of related words, both having to do with magistrates, or high-ranking state officials. One is "macstrev", the name of an office or role. The other is "macstrna", a proper name, with the standard "-na" suffix, and surely attaching to the word "macstrev", with vowel deletion and even glide deletion of "v" (pronounced "w").

    I don't know the precise semantic connection between "five" and "magistrate", but numerals are first in base 5, deriving from counting the fingers on one hand. Then base 10 after that. So the semantic basis for "five" is often something like "maximum", "full", "done", etc. It can also refer to a hand in the grasping or seizing position. Either of these can be related to a high-ranking state official -- as the "maximum" level in the authority hierarchy, or as one whose office derives from him "wielding" power, as though grasping a weapon to beat down his inferiors and rivals.

    Phonetically, the magistrate words have "macs", with an UN-aspirated stop, followed by "s". I assume the "trev" sequence is another root, since it has a typical word-initial cluster in Etruscan, "tr-". Given the sparse nature of the word list, there's no help in figuring out what "tre-" or "trev" mean. But they seem to be a separate word from "macs", and the 2 components form a compound.

    Since Etruscan didn't always write the unstressed vowels, it's possible this was pronounced "macis". At any rate, it must have derived from an earlier stage of Etruscan, where it was "macis". After deleting the unstressed vowel "i", an illegal final cluster resulted, and this was resolved by fusing "k" and "s" into aspirated "k", exactly like the Raetic case.

    ReplyDelete
  133. It's also possible that the Etruscan magistrate words are loans from Latin "magister", and that they abbreviated this word when coining a word for "five", using the same semantic basis I explained before.

    Either way, Etruscan lacks voiced obstruents, so they would have rendered the "g" in "magister" as either "k" or aspirated "k". From the political title and personal name, it looks like they chose unaspirated "k" -- "macis". After vowel deletion, this shortened into "macs-", word-internally.

    When they tried making that a word for "five", it had an illegal final cluster, so they fused both into aspirated "k", as in Raetic.

    If this Latin loan theory is correct, then we do have a full sequence of events, from "macis" (in the donor language, albeit with "g", but that's irrelevant, the key is it ends in CVC), to "macs-" (word-internally for the office and personal name), and finally "mach" (standalone word for "five").

    So, although Etruscan is further down the path of vowel deletion and word-final stops than Raetic, the earlier stage of the language can still be glimpsed. And just as in Raetic, it is likely that stops were banned word-finally, only resulting later in the manner described.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Thus, word-final stops were banned in both Etruscan and Raetic -- in their earlier stages, at least, and even in Raetic's later stage, for the most part. Given how old the substrate words are in Proto-Finno-Ugric or P-Finno-Volgaic, Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Balto-Slavic, they reflect the earlier history of the Iceman languages, not the late 1st millennium BC, when the vowel deletion process had become widespread, resulting in some final stops.

    What other language families can provide these substrate words into Uralic and Northern Indo-Euro? None -- Indo-Euro loves final stops, and although Uralic bans final stops, it bans all final consonants, whereas the source languages in question allowed word-final consonants, *except for* stops. Word-final stops are allowed in Semitic and all of Saharo-Arabian, Yeniseian, Yukaghir, Eskaleut, Nivkh, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Turkic...

    Mongolic and Tungusic ban final stops, allow final nasals and liquids, but also ban final glides. So that doesn't match the Finno-Volgaic substrate either, due to the ubiquity of glides before "na" in the substrate words.

    The only phonological match for the F-V substrate words is Iceman languages -- and they're also a very close family geographically to F-V and Northern Indo-Euro. The known branches are from Central Italy through Switzerland -- of course they could have spilled further northward to the Baltic Sea. And they left an off-shoot in the Aegean Sea (Lemnian), so of course they could have extended further east in mainland Europe, into Western Russia and the Volga.

    Perhaps not all of the examples of CVC-"na" are from Iceman sources. But at least one of them definitely is -- "pelna" -- and so in the absence of convincing etymologies from *other* languages, the default assumption is that they're Icemannic.

    Do you like the sound of Iceman or Icemannic better? I prefer Iceman, but maybe I'll mix it up every one in awhile. Can't let things get too standardized, it sucks the joy out of life. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  135. That's enough for now, later I'll look into other cases of CVCNV, where the N can be any nasal, and final V can be any V.

    And then, cases of CV-"na", which could be native Uralic -- but could also be Iceman substrate words, with root CV and suffix "na".

    Time for dinner and another episode from the iconic series Mannix. It's just too cool to stop watching. Midcentury Modern aesthetics, mysteries, babes -- it's like James Bond scaled down to a local private investigator, to match the small-screen venue. You're really missing out if you don't tune in to this series...

    So many iconic actors and actresses guest-starred in Mannix, it's always a pleasant surprise. Recently I saw episodes with a younger Mona from Who's the Boss?, and the second woman to play Catwoman in the '60s Batman, after that series had ended. Lee Meriwether... hachi-machi! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  136. I figured out where "lowna" and "ńowŋa" come from, and neither is from the Finno-Volgaic substrate or reflecting Iceman languages. So the fact that they have "o" is irrelevant to my point about "o"-less substrate words coming from Iceman.

    "lowna" was originally a complex word, frome "luwe" = "direction term" and "-na" = locative suffix in Uralic. I said the other examples do not involve this native Uralic suffix, but this one does -- and sure enough, it has "o", unlike the others.

    Since "lowna" = "noon, midday", it originally meant "in / at south", referring to the position of the sun at midday, without an overt word for "sun" -- since it was tacitly understood, that times of the day were based on the position of the sun, not any other object.

    In Scandinavia, like Sami, the "luwe" directional term means "south", although in Ugric it means either "downstream" or "east". But since we're only concerning ourselves with the Finno-Permic region, where "lowna" is used for "midday", we'll ignore Ugric.

    So why did "luwe + -na" change its 1st vowel to "o"? Well, the 2nd vowel deleted, due to the Uralic preference for CVCCV instead of CVCVCV. Suddenly, the "w" was not the onset of a syllable, but the coda. This put "uw" together within a syllable -- perhaps that was uncomfortable, and a dissimilation forced a lowering of "u" to "o", which is not as "w"-like as "u" is. Dissimilating "u" from "w" is fairly common across the world's languages, including in Northern Eurasia.

    There's a good comparison case, where Proto-Uralic "luwe" = "bone" became "luu" in Proto-Finnic. This did not alter the 1st vowel from the original, it just turned "w" into its vocalic equivalent, "u", perhaps also to absorb the syllable weight of the lost "e" vowel at the end. But this process did not involve "w" becoming a coda consonant, whereas "luwe + na" -> "luwna" did alter where "w" was in a syllable, now occuring after "u" in a syllable.

    Somehow that's treated differently than a "w" -> "u" change, which came from a "w"-initial syllable, and is treated more like a sequence of two "u" vowels, like "luu" = "bone".

    I don't know all the exact phonotactic reasons that Finno-Permic did this, but it's clear that "lowna" has a native Uralic origin. Originally, an inflected phrase meaning "at south", then lexicalized into a standalone word -- similar to how the multi-morpheme phrase in English, "of (the) clock", abbreviated and lexicalized into "o'clock".

    That's why this word is phonotactically unusual, in having CVCNV -- it's a lexicalized phrase whose suffix was "na".

    ReplyDelete
  137. "lowna" is also not like the other words of CVCNV shape, in being a time of day expression -- the others tend to be flora + fauna, or technology / material culture. Borrowing time-of-day expressions is rare, compared to borrowing words for flora + fauna, or tools, weapons, and food production.

    ReplyDelete
  138. And "ńowŋa" is a loan from Yukaghir -- didn't I tell you it would be Northeast Siberian, with all those exotic nasals? ^_^

    There are two similar-sounding words -- similar to foreign ears, anyway, who might get them confused and fuse segments of both together into a single loanword.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Yukaghir_reconstructions

    One Proto-Yukaghir word for "salmon" is "noɣeː / noŋqeː" -- with the medial consonants being velar or uvular.

    Another is "ńumč’ə" -- whose medial consonants are closer to alveolar / palatal.

    The only word in Samic that belongs to this group, is "njoawdnja", which only reflects the P-Y word "ńumč’ə", since it begins with a palatal nasal, and has alveolar-ish consonants afterward, not velar. They may not have heard the P-Y "noɣeː / noŋqeː" word. The only thing about it that Sami has is the "o" vowel in the 1st syllable, which could have been an alteration of "u" in the source (whether directly from Yukaghir, or via the Nenets loan of the Yukaghir source).

    Nenets may have heard both of them and created hodge-podge fusions, to produce 4 distinct words that refer to 3 distinct species of salmon. Two of them have a medial velar nasal, borrowed from the "noɣeː / noŋqeː" source. None of them have alveolar-ish medial consonants, so it's unclear if they heard the "ńumč’ə" word -- however, two of the Nenets words begin with plain "n" and two begin with palatal "ń", so perhaps they did.

    At any rate, these words are ultimately borrowed from Yukaghir, and that's why they are the shape CVCNV, where the 1st V is "o". It's not an Iceman word, so it having "o" is no big deal. And the "na" is not a suffix, since both Yukaghir words have a 2nd syllable that is NV, and are part of the root, not a suffix.

    And so, Uralic words of shape CVCNV are still highly likely to be Iceman substrate words. Not necessarily -- Indo-Iranian could lack an "o" in certain words. But since this rule has few exceptions, and those are known to be native Uralic or Yukaghir loans, the lack of "o" still says it's likely to be an exotic loan.

    Perhaps the donor is Indo-Iranian, which also lost a lot of its "o" vowels. But since we only have 1 good example of that, "tarna", and tons of others with no known etymology, one of which has a perfect phonetic match in Raetic, we should assume the rest of this group are from Iceman languages as well, unless proven otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Luvvv the strong nose and brows on this Yukaghir shamaness.

    https://www.ethnicjewelsmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/yukaghir-singer.jpg

    Oh nyo, pwease don't cast your spell over me and make me carry out your every desire... you laugh, but shamans play a healing role in society, and sometimes when you get that feeling, you need, shamanic healing. SHA-ma-NIC -- healinnnng... ^_^

    I think snow-Asians have better facial structure than jungle-Asians, for the witchy enchantress persona. Sharper, high-relief features, furrier eyebrows, very contrast-y and attention-grabbing. You can't look away from their hypnotic spellbinding gaze...

    Whereas the flatter features of jungle-Asian faces makes them not so perceptually captivating. Not to say they can't be attractive, they're just not the witchy enchantress type. If their persona involved capturing you, danger, the Sublime, etc., it would be more like jungle cannibals capturing you and threatening to cook and eat you -- a little too death-drive-y to be thrilling, compared to merely being mind-controlled into becoming the love-slave of a sorceress.

    That's why the babes of Glorious Nippon will always rank at the top of Asian babes -- they're enchanting and bewitching, not maniac headhunters and heart-ripper-outers.

    But to each their own...

    ReplyDelete
  140. The spellbinding face can be angelic, too, not only witchy. Speaking of sorceresses, that reminded me of Sorceress from He-Man -- she had the same striking face and voluptuous body as her nemesis, Evil Lyn (the witchy baddie type), but she channeled it toward good rather than evil.

    Enya has striking high-relief features, half-moon eyelids that you might call "seductive" in another context, but more like a Byzantine icon, and furry eyebrows and dark hair. She could have easily turned out as a witchy spellbinder... but that doesn't diminish her enchanting qualities, they're just channeled in the pure and angelic direction, rather than the tempting and seductive direction.

    I can't stop looking at the face of Takako Okamura, who I linked to a little bit ago. The projecting nose, the bunny-rabbit overbite, the near monobrow -- she's just so captivating. But like Enya, from the New Age / World Music scene, which never went in a debasing, coarse, or other negative direction. It was always supposed to be uplifting and elevating and ennobling and dignifying.... "spiritual", as we used to call it. It went without saying, as in good spirits, not bad spirits.

    Like this music video, where she's almost like a Shinto shrine maiden:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_CWLPvKc3k

    I don't think the shamaness / priestess role would work so well, without their striking faces. They're captivating, fascinating, and enchanting -- for virtue and healing, not sin and debasement. With attention-grabbing high-relief features, you can't turn away from their message, and you can't help but become caught up in their spiritual flight.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I'm shocked to learn that Enya is 5'2, she seems like the unflappable statuesque type. I thought for sure she'd be at least 5'8. Okamura is also a shortie, probably 5'. Maybe being the type who can become possessed by spirits, requires the woman to be petite -- easily taken over by a real physical body, and so more easily moved around by spiritual forces during possession as well.

    Witchy baddies are tall -- Julie Newmar and Lee Meriwether, going back to '60s Catwoman, are 5'11 and 5'9. It helps to impose your naughty rule-bending will, when you carry an imposing figure.

    Whereas the forces for good don't need that extra height to impose their will -- they're not imposing on you, they're imploring or inspiring you. They shouldn't have to physically lean on you to bend you to their will, if you're an inwardly decent person.

    ReplyDelete
  142. The witchy baddie type relies on a high-trust social environment, and has died off as the American Empire has entered its stagnation and now collapsing stage of the imperial lifespan. On top of this long-term trend, there's also the 50-year cycle of social discord, which ramped up starting in the 2nd half of the '90s and reached its peak around 2020.

    Quick reminder to the deluded, though: there will be no protests, riots, or anything like that for the next several decades. America maxed out those stats in 2020, and will have less and less discord every year until 2045, when it will begin to creep upward again, and not another explosive peak until 2070.

    Very clueless people parroted Turchin's analysis of American history, and its 50-year cycle of societal discord, on the way UP of the recent chaos. But now that it has manifestly begun falling for 5 years straight, they cannot admit the other half of his analysis -- that what goes up, comes down, in a dynamic system with periodic behavior.

    Harmony -- or at least, apathy -- is not as attention-grabbing as chaos and explosions, and talking heads -- and reacting avis -- rely on spiking the dopamine response of their emotional take-junkie audience. So they will keep hyping up the "looming" riots that repeatedly fail to materialize. They wrongly predicted riots after Roe v. Wade was overturned, wrongly predicted riots after food stamps were threatened, wrongly predicted riots now that gas is $5 and soaring.

    Riots are over, and won't come back until the 2nd half of the 2060s. By now, anyone threatening the elites with "think of the consequences -- there could be riots!" is revealed as a hot-air-blower. It's an empty threat. If there were going to be riots over anything, they would've exploded any time during the past 5 years -- and they have not. There's no more gas left in the rioting tank, and it takes a generation to refill.

    Again, this is not an IQ thing, the take-meisters could understand the logic when the chaos was exploding, so they certainly understand it now that it's calming down. But they get paid or earn cloud by clicks, and chaotic explosions are more click-worthy than reports of the medium-term cooling-off in the social climate.

    Well, with that out of the way...

    ReplyDelete
  143. Back to witchy baddies relying on high trust. Watching movies and TV series from the good ol' days, really drives home how bereft the American IRL society and fictional world of culture has become of the witchy, naughty, baddie, femme fatale, promiscuous, nympho types of women.

    Yeah, their male counterparts are missing too, I'm sure, but IDK who they are, and my female counterpart can write that corresponding post.

    The whole role or persona of the witchy baddie, is that she's a temptress -- tempting men to do what? To bend or break society's norms, partly cuz the behavior that society proscribes feels good inherently, and partly cuz bending the rules feels good in a transgressive way -- at least to her, and if she makes you her partner in crime, maybe some of that transgressive thrill that she feels, will rub off on you too.

    The behavior she's tempting you into, always revolves around sex -- what else could she be tempting you with? What else feels good, but society proscribes in the greater interest of social harmony and decency?

    The temptation could be -- sex before marriage, as a one-night stand, when you or she is already taken / married, in a place where it's not supposed to take place, or without going through the proper protocol of courting + mating conventions, throwing caution to the wind and surrendering to the passion of the moment.

    Doesn't this all sound so very last-century? Well, *it is*. And it's not cuz we live in a hyper-promiscuous society, where sexual imagery is everywhere, etc., and there are no more rules left to break. That is the most delusional and retarded view of the current society, and how it differs from the good ol' days.

    I won't rehash every piece of evidence which I've been cataloging over the past 15-20 years. Young people have stopped having sex, getting married, and having kids. They don't go on dates, won't talk to the opposite sex IRL, and by now, largely won't even flirt over the internet.

    In contrast to the good ol' days, where it was utterly commonplace to see a young couple walking hand-in-hand at the mall, or a guy with his hand right on his girlfriend's ass, let alone the practice that only became ridiculed and shunned during the late '90s and 21st century -- Public Displays of Affection.

    "Ewww, guh-ROAHS! It's like they're practically having SEX in the middle of the Kroger! Get a room, you two!"

    You never hear "get a room" anymore -- cuz no one touches each other in public anymore. Or even in "a room", behind closed doors! How can people be so blind? And yet, they are. The take-meisters anyway, maybe the general public understands how non-sexual and even anti-sexual today's society is.

    But the dum-dum take-meisters still force themselves to frame society as though it's still 1968, with crazy wild sex taking place everywhere, and the only debate is whether that's good or bad, depending of if the take-meister is a leftoid or a rightoid. Sorry, dork, it hasn't been 1968 for 60 years, and we live in the polar-opposite society from the high-trust days of our New Deal utopia.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Sexual imagery has similarly vanished from the public sphere. You never see cologne or perfume ads with naked babes anymore. Nudity has been eliminated from movies, regardless of the rating, for decades.

    I collect vintage items of any kind still in the packaging, if that packaging featured a pretty woman on them -- they literally don't make those kinds of packages anymore! Things that had nothing to do with selling a beauty product to women, either. The most common category of vintage stuff I own, with honey bunnies on the packaging, is light-bulbs -- seriously! Flashbulbs, mood lights, even just a plain ol' white lightbulb. How could you not put a cute girl on the packaging? It was obligatory.

    Red light districts have been closed down for many decades as well. Ditto for the lone "adult bookstore" in an otherwise normal shopping center. And of course, the adult section of the video rental store -- that building doesn't exist anymore either, but if it did, it wouldn't have an adult section. Just have a look at streaming services -- do they have a conspicuous adult section, tempting you to stray? Not in a zillion years.

    The ease of searching for and acquiring porn via the internet, has totally blinded people to the vanishing of sexual imagery and energy from all public spaces, both IRL and online, including dedicated sexual spaces like the red light district.

    When sexual imagery suffused our culture, you couldn't avoid it -- now you have to deliberately search it out, in secret. Seeing sexual imagery has never been a more "behind closed doors, in your home, where no one else will ever know" kind of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  145. So, in our hyper-puritanical culture, the easiest thing to tempt men into doing, would be merely seeing sexual imagery, or taking part in sexual activity. That's the most basic thing that the witchy baddie did -- so if it's not happening, that entire role or persona has vanished.

    And no, marketization of the baddie role does not make her a baddie-for-hire -- the whole essence of the baddie is that she is operating outside of society's norms, appealing directly to you, without getting a permission slip or certificate or legalized blessing from the state.

    So, OnlyFans and other parasocial porn services, do not count as the latter-day reincarnation of the naughty nympho from 50 years ago. Likewise for e-girls who get paid, literally or via clout and social credit, by posting selfies online. Anything with a list of "rules" or "terms of service" is ruled out from the "tempting baddie" phenomenon.

    For nothing is so state-sanctioned in neoliberal American hell, than market transactions and legalistic contracts over the terms of use -- especially those that have no business existing, that replace natural human interactions. If primitive hunter-gatherers didn't need it in 1 million BC, there does not need to be a market for it today. Like receiving female attention, touching, and having sex. Homo sapiens did all of those things for millions of years without services and payment being negotiated in a market.

    A market for grain, tools, and high-tech machines -- that may need to exist. But not the natural things that people have done forever, naturally, including Americans of the high-tech New Deal utopia, not just during our Noble Savage past.

    And all of those examples of sexual imagery suffusing public spaces in the 20th century, were not marketized. Rather, they were patronized by elites from the retail and entertinment sectors of society. But it didn't cost you a penny to see a hot babe in a perfume ad when you went out in public. You didn't have to actually buy the set of flashbulbs, to see a pretty young thing smiling on the packaging. You weren't giving them social credit, clout, clicks, or anything else they could convert into material gain or status points.

    They were simply paid for modeling, by their patrons, and were otherwise giving themselves over to the public -- who they liked, and who they trusted. What was there to be afraid of? Who was there to be afraid of? It's just your pretty face on a package of flashbulbs -- beautifying the sights of public spaces, out of generosity (and a little spending money from your patron, but not customers). They had a gift, they were going to share it with the public, not hoard it away and deprive us of it.

    That goes for their patrons as well -- they didn't hoard their wealth and greenlighting / gatekeeping role, to deprive us of wonderful things that cost us nothing. Advertising and product packaging doesn't make us buy more. They got no return-on-investment for hiring models, photographers, illustrators, talent scouts, office space and studios, and the rest of it. The point was not to generate a profit by boosting sales via "sex sells" packaging -- it was to donate their wealth and social connections in order to give the public a pleasant culture to live in on an everyday basis.

    We used to have benefactor elites, now we have stingy parasite elites.

    ReplyDelete
  146. As social antagonism has replaced cooperation, the witchy baddie has been replaced by the snarky power-tripping bitch, in whatever costume she wears. It's no longer about her trying to tempt the man into cooperating with her, and both of them working against societal norms like "no sex before marriage" or "no adultery". Now, it's about the battle *between* the sexes, not the battle *of both* sexes against The Powers That Be.

    Indeed, she has recruited The Powers That Be to legally sanction her anti-sexual power-tripping, and to increase her reach in antagonizing the opposite sex -- by being hired to star in a movie, to write the script, to decide what packaging looks like, to extend OnlyFans throughout the internet, and so on.

    I won't go on about how tiresome and annoying the power-tripping bitch persona is -- it's cortisol-spiking, and nobody cares about them anymore anyway. Everyone has started to check out and atomize, rather than whine about the antagonism that pervades any interaction -- they just stop interacting, after awhile.

    But suffice it to say, this is what the baddie role has been warped into -- bad in what way? Not bad toward societal norms and appealing to men's desires, but the reverse! Bad toward men's desires, and appealing to societal norms to protect her antagonistic behavior.

    Now the M.O. is not to tempt men by making them an offer that seems too good to be true, but by withholding, depriving, blue-balling, cucking, belittling, shit-testing, and otherwise thwarting his desires. It's meant to instill the feeling that he's pathetic, or even more, that he's a sinner or criminal or other type who needs to be punished -- and her deprivation is karmic punishment for his real or imagined crimes, past present or future. It's very puritanical and based on "crime and punishment".

    The witchy baddie's offer was the opposite -- she will fulfill your desires, eagerly and willingly, but there may be other consequences that befall you since it will take place outside of, maybe against, society's norms. If your girlfriend finds out you're cheating with a witchy baddie, and your relationship falls apart -- that's your fault, not the baddie's. If it ruins your public image in the corporation that you're an executive for, that's your fault, not hers. So, it's based on "the tempting Faustian bargain".

    And as I emphasized the last time I wrote a series on puritanism vs. temptation, the latter is empathetic -- it understands your desires, and tries to warn you against giving into them, no matter how tempting the witchy baddie may be. The former says that you are a criminal who needs to be punished, and the antagnostic bitch is the karmic deliverer who metes out your just desserts, by degrading you during what is supposed to be an exciting interaction.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Needless to say that both sexes take part in the antagonism, just as they both used to take part in the cooperation. Cooperation vs. antagonism is what cycles, not men's power vs. women's power -- that's the fake and gay "battle of the sexes" dIsCouRsE.

    For just as the witchy baddie has been replaced by the power-tripping bitch, the audience for the witchy baddie has been replaced by the opposite. Not a man who more or less adheres to societal norms regarding sexal restraint, and is occasionally tempted by a witchy baddie, and may or may not give into her witchy charms as her partner in crime.

    Today, his counterpart expects sex-from-hotties on demand, expects porn on demand (to whatever degrading degree of act depicted), and would therefore not be risking anything to be with a nympho. Risk is a form of payment -- it's not 100% guaranteed, but over the long-run, you're paying something by taking on risk. What you get in return for that payment is to be determined. But it is a kind of cost that you pay, just not a marketized one.

    So when a guy gave into the charms of a witchy baddie in the '70s, she knew that he was giving something up in order to be with her. It was an honest signal of his commitment to becoming her partner in crime. He's risking his happy married family life, or his comfortable executive career, or his public reputation as a superhero or saint or chivalrous knight, or whatever it was that represented the potential risk in her Faustian bargain.

    And for her part, she was risking the opprobrium of society, perhaps formal or informal punishment for being a temptress against society's norms. A corrupter of public morals, decency, and harmony -- a home-wrecker, and one who deliberately used her magical powers, much like a witch.

    So, both sides in that interaction knew the other was taking on hefty risks in order to surrender to the passion of the moment. That established their trust-worthiness -- they weren't stingy commitment-phobic free-riders, they put skin in the game, so to speak. And given the hefty risks they were taking, it was "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- quite the honest signal of their trustworthiness, regarding each other.

    Obviously, they were not trustworthy as viewed by the societal norms against promiscuity. They were flagrantly bending or breaking those rules. I'm talking about interpersonal trust -- they needed it in order to carry out their torrid love affair, and they delivered on that trust to each other. That's what kept them so entangled and embroiled in each other's lives -- proving their trust by "I won't tell if you won't tell", and becoming highly reliable to each other, if not toward society at large. Very powerful, steamy motivational stuff -- that whole "us against the world" scenario!

    ReplyDelete
  148. And just as cooperation vs. antagonism is what cycles, not men's vs. women's power, the benefactor vs. depriver role has cycled, involving not just both sexes, but also both poles of the spectrum for female and male behavior.

    For not only has the witchy baddie evaporated, but so has the angelic shrine maiden, who freely gave her captivating and enchanting energy to the public audience in the good ol' days, but who now either hides away, or requires some kind of marketized payment for her services rendered, which neuters the whole appeal of the angelic type, such as Enya or Takako Okamura.

    Sure, Enya and Okamura had patrons who funded their work, but the audience heard their music, saw their music videos, etc., without having to pay a red cent. Enya was everywhere -- and in fact, you can still hear her in public spaces today, free of charge.

    The difference from the witchy baddie type, is they were using their captivating and enchanting qualities to direct your attention in a virtuous or elevated or wholesome way, not tempting you to bend or break societal norms. But they were exactly like their witchy baddie mirror-images, in giving themselves over to their audience, rather than antagonizing them, expecting payment for services rendered, and erecting a fortress of terms-of-service around access to their special gifts.

    We can't even speak of the witchy baddie and the angelic shrine maiden as nemeses. They were not at war with each other. They certainly offered different things to their audience, and that audience was largely the same group of people -- much like the "angel and devil sitting on one person's shoulders" from the cartoons. Just like in the cartoons, they didn't argue with each other, or fight with each other. They just made their own appeal into each ear of the target audience.

    Likewise, today's polar opposite ends of the spectrum behave the same way toward their audience, and are not battling each other. There is no serious campaign by virtue-marketers to shut down OnlyFans or porn sites. They "respect the hustle", and simply try to market an opposing brand of parasocial content to the audience, based on being a goodie-goodie rather than a flesh-flasher. But it's just as marketized, expecting payment (money or clicks) from each individual audience member (rather than from a patron, and free to the audience), and policing the audience's behavior with power-tripping legalistic terms-of-service.

    There are no terms-of-service in utopia, where everyone cooperates with each other. The ubiquity of them in today's society shows how far we have descended into low-trust antagonistic power-tripping Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  149. And just as men are to blame alongside women, audiences are to blame alongside performers or other public figures. Audiences today go beyond taking the performer for granted, they show up to performances with the purpose of antagonizing the performer.

    Imagine if the whole audience were hecklers! No naturally gifted performer would ever dare set foot on stage...

    The audience-of-hecklers think it's funny and worthy to "neg", that is to insult, the performer, to try to cut them down to size, put them in their place. Sometimes it's out of a seething school-shooter revenge fantasy, where the performer is a stand-in for someone who humiliated the loser audience member.

    But our society has become so antagonistic that revenge is not necessarily a motive anymore -- someone who never got mistreated by a girl, will eagerly show up to a live-stream to try to "neg" (insult) her, for the sake of adding to the antagonism level in society. That makes it even more anti-social or sociopathic -- no revenge motive (as much as we may disapprove of acting on it), just pure unmotivated hater-ism.

    So you can see why the fortress of mods and terms-of-service have become obligatory in today's shithole society. Performers are not dealing with the same audience of 50 years ago, and cannot behave like performers of 50 years ago. Their audience is the opposite, so they as performers must behave the opposite of performers from utopia.

    ReplyDelete
  150. All sides are to blame, until everyone gets exhausted from the current phase of the cycle, and it shifts back in the opposite direction again. Usually this is a generational turnover. And Lord knows Millennials will not be the ones to steer us back -- they are the most hyper-competitive, power-tripping, antagonistic-for-its-own-sake, audience-of-hecklers that the world has ever had to suffer from.

    Zoomers aren't a whole lot better, but they have noticeably dialed down their free-floating level of hater-ism, compared to Millennials.

    And since the peak of anti-social discord was 2020, we won't see quite so much antagonism going forward.

    However, there is still the matter of imperial disintegration. The witchy baddies of the '60s and early '70s came from a discordant phase of the cycle, right at the peak of social breakdown in fact. And yet, they still benefited from the longer-term phases of the imperial lifespan cycle. All Americans still had high asabiya, solidarity, civic pride, and so on. So even when society was being split apart, there was an independent source of cohesion and trust and cooperation.

    Now, as the empire has begun collapsing, we can no longer rely on that back-up source of cohesion. Americans hate each other and wouldn't mind if their enemies were dead. So, although social discord has started to calm down from the sadistic cacophony of the woketard 2010s, there is still a fraying of civic solidarity and communal togetherness, in the imperial lifespan cycle.

    Imperial disintegration also shows medium-term cycling. Like the end of the anarchic Crisis of the Third Century in the Roman Empire. That did not restore the empire or expand it further, or anything like that. It was irreparably split. But at least they weren't constantly at each other's throats -- until the next phase when they were, during the 5th C.

    So at some point in the future, there will be a Diocletian-type era in America, where civil solidarity will bounce off of the sinking depths that we are currently mired in, even if it won't bounce back to 50% of what we enjoyed during our heyday.

    And at some point within that era, the social cycle will be harmonious rather than discordant. That will be the only silver lining era in "our" future -- we will all be long dead by then, but our descendants will get to enjoy it, at any rate, although not for very long, until it goes back to collapsing and strife.

    ReplyDelete
  151. I hate wading into dIsCouRsE, especially anywhere near the topic of the battle of the sexes. One of the most retarded and shrill sections of tHe dIsCouRsE -- and that's saying something.

    But every once in awhile, something from the good ol' days really hits me, and I have to channel that into seizing the battle of the sexes topics from the retards and liars, to do it proper justice.

    And to further sanctify our utopian heyday, with previously unappreciated benefits that were taken for granted at the time, and deliberately falsified out of the historical record in the present.

    And to further denigrate our dystopian present, with previously unappreciated burdens that have become invisible / background noise, and deliberately lied about in the present (e.g., that we're so hyper-sexual, and that's why temptresses don't exist anymore).

    The main thing is to show how totalizing the climate is during either phase of the cycle. There is no trade-off, which is a central conceit of the dum-dum take-meisters -- "Well, you may not like that temptresses don't exist to give you the thrill of being 'us against the world', but on the other hand, sex with hotties is so easily available, and that's why there's no temptresses, so it's a mixed bag overall".

    There's nothing mixed about our bag -- it's crammed full of toxic dead weight. Everything has gotten worse during dystopia, and everything was better during utopia. That's why we call it "the good ol' days", and why we talk about today's "hellscape" or "trash-world" or "shithole country". There are no trade-offs or pros and cons to balance between the eras -- everything was better, and now everything's worse.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Societies not subject to our particular history, may remain free from this dystopia that we are currently drowning in. Most of our imperial orbit has been a collapsing empire for longer than we have -- like the Europeans, who began collapsing in the early 19th C (Spain and the Ottomans) or the early 20th C (Britain, France, Germany, Austria), or just recently in the 1990s (Russia).

    Japan was never an empire, and they have remained largely insulated to American social dynamics, even while we have been occupying them for 80 years. They have not abandoned Nihongo for becoming ESL by default. They have not substituted our culture for their own, and they have a globally thriving native culture. So they may not have the same phenomenon that we do, where performers are antagonistic toward their audience, and the audience shows up just to heckle the performer.

    And witchy baddies may still roam the high-trust social environment of Glorious Nippon. Look no further than the vtuber Marine from Hololive -- seductive, enchanting songbird, in the witchy temptress tradition. How can you not fall under her spell, when you hear that voice singing?

    And to emphasize, she has an angelic shrine maiden mirror-image, like Takako Okamura, or whoever her descendant is in the 2020s, who I am unaware of, but still surely exists in some area of Japanese culture. One of the idols.

    Just like America's witchy temptresses from our utopia, Marine is very relatable, fun to be around, and you feel sympathetic toward her even if you don't like temptresses. That's why she's so tempting. She's like '60s Catwoman. She's not antagonistic -- you *want* to be around her.

    She's mischievous, naughty, a rule-bender, but not hateful, antagonistic, blue-balling or castrating, or argumentative. To the extent that she threatens something, it's the system of rules in place over both herself and the people she appeals to -- tempting them to join her as a partner in crime, as a common cause against the system of rules...

    It's very nostalgic to tune into her streams. Even if you don't understand much Japanese, you can still feel the witchy temptress persona coming through the screen. She's a natural in that role -- and Japan is very lucky to have a high-trust social environment, where witchy baddies like her can flourish. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  153. This theme was also given the treatment of pathologizing normality, while normalizing pathology.

    So, 99% of society was told they should never surrender to the passion of the moment -- that made the guy evil (toxic masculinity), and the girl guilty of enabling toxic masculinity. Can't have that -- it's pathological, rather than utterly natural.

    The framework based on temptation acknowledged that such an experience would be natural, and the urge to surrender to it is natural, but that they should overcome those natural urges, in some larger societal or spiritual interest. And if there was a witchy baddie involved, obviously such an appeal would fall on deaf ears, so it was only targeted toward the male who might give in to her dazzling spell.

    In addition to pathologizing normality, American culture normalized pathology -- it did encourage 1% of the population to surrender to their urges, to bond close together based on "us against society's rules", and to valorize tempters in such scenarios. Namely, fags... and for a brief while, girls who were bi-curious / performatively bi, but that faded away.

    Sometimes this was pushed within the same work, like the music video for "Cool for the Summer" by Demi Lovato -- hard to believe that's over a decade old now. It's all so tiresome by now.

    This is the opposite of the treatment given to fags in the good ol' days -- they were not encouraged, enabled, or valorized, but told to keep it secret, to not indulge at all, and that they were mentally disordered for having those urges -- that it was *not* natural. Of course it's not.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Although the performative bi-girl thing was a viable option for a brief moment, it still appealed to normal guys, and that was a big no-no -- enabling toxic masculinity, appealing to the male gaze ("two hot chicks are better than one"), and so on. Plus, two girls hugging or even kissing is not as unnatural as two guys doing so. No, girls don't secret practice kissing with each other, but they're not as viscerally disgusted by each other, physically.

    So if the goal is to normalize pathology, girl-girl interactions don't quite do the job, when there is a superior option -- pushing fag-fag interactions, trannies (guys pretending to be girls), sex acts that are disgusting and only practiced by fags ("eating ass"), and the rest of the real winners of the woketard 2010s.

    For lesbians were cast by the wayside during that decade, their safe spaces no longer exist IRL or online, and you never see them out and about anymore.

    Indeed, women as a whole lost out during the 2010s -- contrary to right-wing moron slopaganda, there were zero (0) legal victories relating to women or feminism during the entire decade. Rather, the two big culture war victories at the Supreme Court, and in public discourse, were gay marriage -- widely viewed as fag-fag marriage, not about lesbians -- and trannies gaining Civil Rights Act protections, also widely seen as a guy-pretending-to-be-female trannie victory, not girls who cut off their boobs.

    The former was thanks to Obama, the latter was thanks to Trump (he appointed Gorsuch, who cast the deciding vote in Bostock). Neither party has disavowed gay marriage or trannies gaining CRA status, neither has taken steps to unwind the 2010s, and both parties still celebrate fags and trannies as special classes who are superior to normies, and who count for more in the partisan coalition. Right-wingers LOVE advertising the fags and trannies in their coalition.

    By this point, girls who feel horny must not just re-direct those urges away from guys and toward girls, a la the brief window of 2012 or so. That doesn't serve the crusade of normalizing pathology enough -- so instead, they must imagine themselves as a guy, and their romantic or sexual interest as a guy. Perhaps in their fujo fantasy, neither guy is already a fag, but when one thing leads to another... they surrender to the passion of the moment.

    This is the only acceptable form of "surrendering to the moment", giving in to temptation, falling under the spell of a witchy tempter, and so on, that girls are safely allowed to imagine. Naturally that means they can't actually *practice* it -- unlike the girl-girl craze, where they could have gone to a club, or given a certain look to their girl friend, they can never be a guy, let alone a guy making out with another guy. They're girls, who can never become boys.

    This fujo trap ensures they never indulge in actual physical intimacy, but only fantasize about it -- similar to the "porn brain" phenomenon that has infected the male population, who only watch it and never flirt with girls, let alone get physical with them. It is far worse than women who read tawdry romance novels in the good ol' days -- those fantasies could be made into reality, if she wanted them to.

    Very dangerous stuff, when they're supposed to not enable male desires, and if you wanted those romance novels to come true, you would definitely have had to enable male desires -- and that was not an unfortunate cost-of-doing business, that was half the purpose! To get all hot-and-bothered, after seeing how much you inflame the passions of the male of the species! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  155. Fujos, on the other hand, are ashamed of their feminine charms and sexually exciting nature, keep it under wraps, and if some guy accidentally gets turned on by them, the fujo atones for her sin of enabling male desire, by fantasizing about guy-guy sex.

    Fag hags are the other group to win out during the 2010s, and there could be no role further from the witchy temptress than a woman who wants her gay BFF to be her personal eunuch, to ward off unwanted male attention.

    There's the related explosion of Millennial women marrying fags, knowingly, to further desecrate the institution of marriage. Especially if they're a public, visible couple -- I just assume he's a fag and she's a beard. Normie Millennials may get married to a heterosexual man, but not celebs of any degree. Even micro-celebs -- if they're Millennial, he's gay, she's a fag-hag. Regardless of whether they're leftoid or rightoid.

    Again, IDK about Zoomers keeping up the culture war excesses of Millennials. They probably do to some extent, but they're not as insane about elevating the fag-and-hag faux-mance like Millennials have done.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Fairuz is another enchantress whose striking bone structure and half-moon eyelids would have easily allowed her to become a seductive temptress, if she wanted to, but who chose to channel her spellbinding aura in a positive direction. Her tone is more dark and brooding, compared to Enya or Okamura, but still societally and spiritually positive, not tempting.

    In ancient times, she would have been a temple priestess or shamaness, not a witch.

    And sure enough, she's a real shortie, like the others whose performances are a kind of spirit possession. There's a picture of her with Macron, who is listed as 5'8 (probably 5'6 or 5'7), and she's tiny even compared to him.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Spanish mystic Teresa of Avila was 5'2 as well, according to measurements of her skeletal remains.

    It's far easier for spirits to overwhelm and possess a tiny, vulnerable body than an imposing, statuesque body...

    And here's a (later) portrayal of her as quite an enchantress, with a strong nose, dark furry eyebrows, deep-set eyes with half-moon eyelids, full lips, and spellbinding gaze. She could have easily become the beguiling witchy temptress type, if she wanted -- but she chose not to, and channeled her captivating aura in a positive spiritual direction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fran%C3%A7ois_G%C3%A9rard_-_St_Theresa_(detail).jpg

    The painter, Francois Gerard, is described as Neoclassical, mainly due to having been a student of David. But his work is way more Romantic, as in this portrait, which looks like the cover art for some Gothic novel of its time. It was painted in 1827 -- it wasn't 1777 anymore, Neoclassical was over.

    Anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  158. Sumerian, Elamite, Minoan, and Iceman: the Fertile Crescent family of languages. Minoan includes the Pre-Greek substrate in Greece, that is not from the Anatolian branch of Indo-Euro.

    Crescentine? Early Eurasian Farmer? Sumero-Volgaic? IDK exactly what to call it, but it's real.

    I can only state the basic logic and conclusion now, hopefully fill in more details later.

    It's that highly unusual vowel inventory of Etruscan and Raetic and Lemnian -- and the local substrate in the Finno-Volgaic languages. It's "a, i, u" -- which Proto-Semitic and even Proto-Saharo-Arabian has -- but adding "e" yet not also "o". Or at least, "o" is rare / questionable / secondary / later, while "e" is common, certain, primary, and early. VERY unusual vowel inventory.

    AFAICT, no other language family in Eurasia or Northern Africa has this vowel inventory.

    I simply mapped it out as far as it goes, and this is the result. It's so unusual, that it's all confined to the region of the Early Euro / Anatolian / Fertile Crescent farmers.

    It was spread by those farmers -- along with the new subsistence mode of grain cultivation, and complex societies resulting from that kind of economy. Again, I don't think there's always a connection between spreading subsistence mode, and language. But in this case, the first spreaders of agriculture were considered worth emulating in more ways than just how they got food.

    It brought a whole new level or two of society, making them complex civilizations. So, why not adopt their language as well? Or at least try, and the result is a creole / synthesis / speciation of their language family, as you create your own branch within it.

    Technically, the Anatolian Indo-Euro languages have this vowel inventory -- I consider that the baggage of the Crescentine language they used to speak, before adopting / switching to Anatolian. Hattic also has this vowel inventory -- although that language is sparsely attested, so it's not clear what it is, but either it is Crescentine, or its speakers used to speak Crescentine, before switching to Hattic, and the unusual vowel inventory was carried over as baggage.

    Akkadian has this vowel inventory, but Semitic in general does not, nor does P-Saharo-Arabian. Conclusion: just as with Hittite, Akkadian's vowel inventory reflects the baggage of the language spoken previously, by its speakers. Namely, Akkadian speakers used to speak Sumerian, before trying to adopt Semitic, whose synthesis / creole was Akkadian, with its distinctive vowel inventory carried over from Sumerian.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Not coincidentally, the Crescentine family also allows initial "r", against just about all of the rest of the neighboring language families. Semitic and Saharo-Arabian in general allow initial "r", but they don't have the oddly asymmetric vowel inventory. All the other usual suspects, big and small, in Eurasia ban initial "r", until you get way down into Sino-Tibetan. Austronesian bans initial "r", too, so it's not like there's a SEA regional trend.

    Proto-Dravidian bans initial "r", so it does not belong with Crescentine, against the theory that Elamite and Dravidian are related. Dravidian also has "o".

    Initial "r" seems to be rare or less-common, but still allowed in native roots, in Sumerian and Elamite, on the southern / eastern side of the family. It's more common in Minoan / Pre-Greek substrate, Etruscan and Raetic, and the Finno-Volgaic substrate, on the western / northern side of the family.

    I include this "initial r" parameter in the model to rule out most of the non-members that do have the "a, e, i, u" vowel inventory. Namely, the Anatolian Indo-Euro languages -- which ban initial "r" -- and Hattic, which seems to ban initial "r" (although the data is sparser than for other language). If richer data on Hattic comes to light, suggesting it allowed initial "r", then it belongs to Crescentine. Otherwise, its vowel inventory is like Hittite and Akkadian -- reflecting the Crescentine language that its speakers used to speaker before adopting their current language.

    Why do I insist on the vowel inventory parameter, then? It's very striking, but also to eliminate other families that allow initial "r", but don't have the "a, e, i, u" vowel inventory -- like Sino-Tibetan. It really is strange how unique this family of languages is, across all of Eurasia and the northern half of Africa.

    Also excluded, by either / both parameters -- Basque, Paleo-Sardinian, and any other Pre-Indo-Euro languages of Europe that they're related to. They're apparently too far away from the Fertile Crescent to have adopted their languages, which only made it as far west as the Alps, but remained "eastern" into the Volga region, due north of Sumeria.

    Obviously, grain agriculture traveled further than the Crescentine language family did into Europe, even though it came from the same source cultures in Asia Minor. That's another reason why I don't want to lean too much on the material culture angle -- it *can* make you a role model to the locals, so that they adopt your language, but it doesn't necessarily do that, so maybe they'll keep their language and adopt only your tech.

    That's what seems to have happened west of the Alps -- "We'll take your grain agriculture and social complexity, but you guys are too weird to emulate otherwise, for us West Europeans, so we'll keep our own language."

    Whereas in Italy, the Balkans and Anatolia weren't so exotic, so they could consider them worthy of emulation.

    Even in NE Europe and the Volga region? That was just swampy backwater, wasn't it? Well, yes, but it was also Great European Plain, which leads directly down through Thrace and into the nexus between the Balkans and Anatolia. Even during the Medieval era, the Vikings and the Rus supervised trade routes and interacted with the Byzantine Empire, centered between the Balkans and Anatolia. Further east toward the Volga, in today's Russia, they still consider themselves the inheritors of Byzantine or Eastern culture, and are more likely to consider the Middle East "their backyard", rather than Western Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Time for one quick lexical correspondence. I haven't conducted an exhaustive search, this one just came up immediately.

    From the Pre-Greek substrate in Ancient Greek, there's "ripto" = "throw, cast, hurl; throw or toss around; throw out of a place; cast or throw off / away; throw down". The semantic root is "rip-" -- with no "o", and initial "r".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BF%A5%CE%AF%CF%80%CF%84%CF%89

    Proto-Kartvelian / Southern Caucasus is not Crescentine -- it has "o", and initial "r" is generally banned, with Mingrelian innovating its allowance (in the other languages, something is stuck in front of an "r" root to prevent words from beginning with "r").

    Nevertheless, they appear to have picked up a loanword from Crescentine, "regw-" -- note that a labialized velar and a labial stop often correspond to each other. And it begins with "r", and has a high-front vowel, like the Pre-Greek root "rip-". It means "smash; shake / loosen; knock over; fall upon; snare / trap".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Kartvelian/regw-

    Sumerian "raḫ₂, raḫ" = "to hit, beat upon, strike down; shake".

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%92%8A%8F#Sumerian

    Substrate within Uralic, "re(ń)ćɜ" = "to shake, rock". With a change of vowel, "ra(ń)ćɜ" = "to fray, rip open, unfasten".

    https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=856

    https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=851

    With front vowel and medial "p", "rȣ̈ppɜ" = "to split, rend, tear, break".

    https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=867

    I'll keep my eyes peeled for more.

    ReplyDelete
  161. So far, the only claim about a relationship between any of these languages, is Raymond Brown linking Minoan with Etruscan / Raetic / Lemnian, and the Pre-Greek substrate with Minoan. All the way back in 1985...

    Great minds think alike! Although I haven't read his argument yet, so I don't know how he arrived at that, by lexical comparisons it seems.

    I arrived at it by noticing that Linear A largely doesn't have "o", but does have "a, e, i, u" -- and that it allows initial "r", whether that sound matches the sign normally transcribed as "r" or as "d". Both are amply attested initially. Ergo, Minoan must be Crescentine.

    But no one has ever thought the Finno-Volgaic substrate, or the local substrates in Balto-Slavic or Germanic, had anything to do with the Iceman languages, let alone Minoan or Sumerian or Elamite.

    I was actually shocked to see no real claims of Sumerian and Elamite being related, only Elamite and Dravidian -- which is not true, as I already showed. Sumerian and Elamite are right next to each other, Elamite was spoken in Susa, where intensive grain agriculture is still practiced today in Iran (Khuzestan).

    I did see a warning that Etruscan's unusual vowel inventory matches Hittite and Akkadian, so "it could just be a regional feature". Typical meaningless non-explanation. It's one of the most unique vowel inventories on Planet Earth -- it's not just some regional trend that all sorts of unrelated cultures are taking part in, like dancing the Macarena in 1996.

    So far, the only language that my 2-parameter model does not correctly rule out is Akkadian -- its vowels are "a, e, i, u" and it allows initial "r". But it's Saharo-Arabian, not Crescentine.

    However, its vowels are not inherited from Semitic or Saharo-Arabian -- which use either "a, i, u" or if they expand into the mid-height space, they fill in both "e" and "o", not just "e". They must have been carried over from the language they spoke before Semitic -- that would be Sumerian, which was spoken in the exact same spot that Akkadian later was spoken in.

    Only 1 error, and it's easily understood and accounted for, so I don't think the model needs to add more parameters just to rule out the sole language of Akkadian, AKA "Semitic, as spoken by former Sumerian speakers". ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  162. I think "rythmos" = "rhythm" is Pre-Greek, and has a root from Crescentine. The "-thmos" is a suffix relating to an unfolding process, and the root is "ri" (later fronted to "ry"). Supposedly this comes from the P-IE root for "to flow" = "srew", whose initial "s" becomes "h" in Proto-Hellenic and then deletes by Ancient Greek, to account for the initial "r".

    The Sumerian word "raḫ₂, raḫ" has to do with striking something repeatedly, like beating the soil with a hoe. And several of the words I listed alongside it, relate to "to shake, rock" -- which are repeated back-and-forth motions.

    These are much closer to what "rythmos" refers to, an undulating or vibrating or periodic motion. The I-E root "srew" only means "to flow", saying nothing about periodic, up-and-down, back-and-forth, side-to-side, heavy-and-light, kinds of processes.

    If anything, "flow" without any modification, means WITHOUT rhythm, white noise, chaos, entropy.

    Something needs to break up that monotonous flowing continuity, to establish a rhythm or order or structure. "Flow" by itself is unstructured, unordered. But "beating" and "shaking, rocking" have a periodic structure to them.

    This is semantically better, and a phonetically simpler derivation to explain the initial "r". So this goes under Pre-Greek, of the Crescentine type (not Anatolian).

    ReplyDelete
  163. On fast food and the collapse of living standards in shithole America, which Republicans and Trump now own as their defining crisis.

    To cover up for their political failures, the usual right-wing retards are lying that nobody ever ate out on a regular basis, that it was a luxury for the rich or occasional treat for the masses, etc. This is aimed at 20-and-30-somethings, who they lecture to eat the bugs, own nothing, and like it, just like neolib woketard left-wingers from the 2010s. You can always count on right-wingers to be 10 years too late to a fad, and to do it in an even more cringe and retarded way than the left.

    Rather than point out what a lazy lie that is, since it's obvious, I'll up the ante. Eating out and ordering food for delivery, on a regular basis, was not only something for working-class adults, but for jobless slacker teenagers, or even pre-teens who had nothing more than their $5 per week chore money / allowance.

    Personal anecdotes are fine, but in order to drive home the point, it's better to provide an iconic piece of Americana, since no one can refute its reality. It's iconic for a reason -- the verisimilitude, not its utterly wacko fabrication of a reality that never existed.

    And everyone knows that the 1950s were one of the high-points of America in general, culturally, economically, socially, everything. Even the late 20th C was still pretty good for most Americans. And by that time, there was a major nostalgia wave for the '50s, since the neolib Reaganite yuppie revolution was palpably destroying that New Deal utopia, regardless of its branding.

    THE most iconic 1980s portrayal of the 1950s, is Back to the Future, set in 1955. Boomers are not the characters depicted -- these are the Silents, whose children would become Gen X-ers (the teens of the '80s present, in the movie).

    In it, THE regular hang-out spot is a local diner, called Lou's Cafe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWyz91I_Olc

    As you can see, everyone making the movie remembered how jam-packed these places were, how all-American and for-the-masses they were, and how the clientele was far from society's upper crust of blood-sucking geezers, but the common man -- and really, the common teenager. Not a grown man with a 40-hour-a-week job, not a housewife whose husband had such a job. Common teenagers, whose parents were not elite, and who themselves had no jobs -- not even a part-time job.

    And yet, everyone patronized the local diner regularly -- including jobless teenagers who only went there after a long day of not-working and not-earning. It was not a reprieve from the daily grind at the factory, like a local bar may have been for working adults. Every teenager went there to hang out and laze around, without having first become productive economic units in the grind-and-hustle slave maze.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't the comparison test be to see the popularity of Door Dash and such? If regular Americans still eat out but do it at home via Klarna funding pizzas from Uber Eats, it's not that they can't afford to eat out, just that they want to sit at home and eat while staring at a screen instead of being in a social third space atmosphere.

      Delete
  164. Utopian societies provide for their young, and in these honest portrayals of the good ol' days, it really comes across just how well-provided-for the youth of America were during the New Deal. Likewise in noble savage societies like the Bush people of the Kalahari, the grown-ups refer to their youngsters as "owners of the shade", who enjoy life to the fullest, by lounging around in the shade all day long, while their fathers go out hunting game and their mothers gather berries.

    Evil, greedy, Satanic societies do the opposite, fattening up the adults at the expense of the vulnerable young, who cannot provide for themselves, nor protect themselves in the great big complex institutions of society, while the adults behave like wicked step-parents who tell them to navigate these booby-trapped labyrinths on their own (despite *their* own parents having safely guided and protected *them* through these mazes when *they* were growing up).

    That is why there's such an intense slopaganda campaign against American utopia -- the benevolence of yesteryear's elites is a blinding testament to the callous thieving of today's elites. The repulsive degenerates ruling society today are only fit for the guillotines, and they know that.

    That's really the only worthy response to their "let them eat cake" slopaganda -- "off with your heads".

    ReplyDelete
  165. Fast Times at Ridgemont High, the iconic portrayal of teen life circa 1980, right at the tail-end of the New Deal utopia, shows an even greater degree of them being "owners of the shade". These are the late Boomers, born on 3rd base, who are now lecturing young people about how hard they had it growin up, and to just tighten your belt.

    This movie includes a friend group of the most jobless slacker pothead burnouts and drop-outs, centered around Jeff Spicoli. Any time a Boomer lectures you, just remind them how well their life was at your age, despite them being "the Jeff Spicoli generation". They'll know.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2NaHBVVYzY

    Here we see the jobless slacker teens waltzing into a fast-food restaurant, like it's utterly normal and taken-for-granted. The place is packed with everyday Americans, not the upper crust, and not as a "once per month treat". It's a fucking burger joint -- you could, and did, go there every day if you felt like it. Money was not the limiting factor, only your desire.

    With only a buck and change between the three of them, at the prices of the time they could still afford to buy a hamburger apiece, plus an order of fries to split. And that buck-and-change could have been earned by only a half-hour of labor at the minimum wage of about $3 per hour.

    At today's minimum wage of $7.25, which hasn't been raised in decades, a half-hour of labor only gets you about $3.60. In order for that to buy 3 burgers, forgetting the fries as a lost cause, they'd have to still have a dollar menu, and those days are long gone. Now a single burger at a typical burger joint is several dollars.

    But wait, there's more! In a further sign of New Deal utopian lifestyles, Jeff Spicoli actually orders a pizza for delivery into his history class at high school! He has enough money jangling around his slacker-stoner pocket to afford the pizza, delivery charge, and a tip for the delivery guy. In a cruel twist of fate, though, the crotchety teacher Mr. Hand takes it from him and re-distributes it to share with the entire class -- one of those defining traumas that me-first greedy Boomers have voted on ever since.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J8__fWphE0

    Nobody at the time blinked an eye that a jobless teen had enough money to order a pizza for delivery on any given day in America. The remarkable thing that the joke relies on, is the audacity he had to order it straight to his high school classroom which was currently in session -- not the price of it.

    American living standards have been slashed to maybe 20% of what they were circa 1980 -- and again, those utopian living standards were not for the upper-crust, who always live well. It is called "utopia" cuz it benefits everyone -- including jobless slacker pothead teenagers. And that very same cohort is now in control of all societal institutions and owns nearly all the wealth, despite having grown up as the Jeff Spicoli generation.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Even into the '90s, iconic Gen-X teen culture included the local diner as an affordable "third space" for socializing in public. There was NEVER a question of, "Gee, have we actually scraped together enough money to afford to go to the diner?" That was taken for granted -- cuz the prices of goods and services were low, and wages and incomes were high.

    The only shift by the '90s was that neoliberalism had begun to eat into the living standards of the working class, so the jobless teens hanging out at the diner were now usually solidly middle-class -- and yet, still not just the privileged few.

    At Twin Peaks' Double R Diner, you didn't have to be Audrey, the daughter of a wealthy businessman, to make it a regular hang-out. All the young people -- and working-class adults -- hung out there.

    https://twinpeaksblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TPB_Prop_SeaFoam_CherryCoke-1024x769.jpg

    Likewise in Saved by the Bell, jobless teens spent most of their free time at The Max, another Midcentury-styled diner with a jukebox, and whose only nod to the late '80s and early '90s was a video game arcade cabinet in the back.

    https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/30/33/7b061bf049f4984921b8ee82f71e/1461178297.jpg

    And in X-ennial land, the jobless gang of Boy Meets World always hang out at Chubbies Famous restaurant, which naturally comes with a Midcentury jukebox.

    https://www.mashed.com/img/gallery/iconic-fictional-restaurants-we-wish-were-real/chubbies-famous-boy-meets-world-1661354085.jpg

    Eating out regularly was not too expensive for jobless teens in the good ol' days, since prices were low and household incomes were high. American utopia allowed them to be "owners of the shade", just like in noble savage societies.

    ReplyDelete
  167. In today's dystopian Trump-cult shithole society, most of those places are closed down. The ones still operating charge more, offer less quantity, of lower quality, and erasing all the ambiance that their glorious ancestors provided -- no extra charge.

    Chrome trim and internal lights on the jukebox...

    Patterned and colored tablecloths on the tables...

    Red-white-and-blue seating at the All-American Burger...

    I never noticed until now, but there's a large macrame plant hanger inside the All-American Burger, too. You'll never see something like a finely hand-crafted work of macrame, or an oil painting like at the Double R, in a fast food place these days...

    And there were plants, real or faux, everywhere in the good ol' days. A return to our noble savage roots...

    When you watch vintage TV series or movies, the level of ambiance was off the fucking charts at every little hole-in-the-wall, especially during the New Deal. Red carpet, Mod cantilevered chairs, candles inside glass vases at each table, pendant lamps with colored glass shades, wood paneling everywhere. It's crazy how deprived neoliberal America has become, and it only gets worse each year.

    And smiling young babes as your servers -- yes, that was reality, check out any YouTube video titled "visit to McDonald's in 1980-whenever", and you'll see how real it was. As one example, a San Diego McDonald's in 1987, whose thumbnail shows the standard cute smiling young babe taking orders. Look how absolutely PACKED it is, and only a small fraction of the crowd is a high school band. No upper-crust elites, nobody making it their "once a month treat" -- this was daily reality for the common people in America back then.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LSI0GzbbK8

    Millennials and Zoomers may remember the last vestige of that, when every cute young babe across America was working as a barista in the early 2010s, when the coffee shop was the final "affordable third space" left in our decaying rot-heap of a country.

    And again, increasingly less affordable for most people, but still, you could buy a shot of espresso and hang out as long as you wanted, for a buck and change. I did, every day for many years straight, and blogged about it being the new local pub. If you missed out on the 2010s Starbucks scene, it's too late now, and there will never be anything like that ever again.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Every right-winger lying about our utopian past must be guillotined, not only for worshiping the current neoliberal Hell, but for blaspheming against our New Deal Heaven.

    They know it's not enough to tell people to tighten their belts, so that the most over-fattened born-on-3rd-base generation in world history can continue to bleed the nation dry. They know that the audience has personal memories, or at least iconic portrayals etched onto their minds, about how wonderful America used to be in the good ol' days, including for jobless slacker teens.

    Like all Satan-worshipers, they cannot merely praise their Anti-Christ, they must attempt to demonize the angels. Otherwise, they'll get tossed aside in the competition for the audience's attention.

    Everyone should have seen this coming when the foreigner Ramaswamy went on that seething school-shooter tirade, during Christmas of all times, about how Americans must purge their culture of the Zack-and-Kelly owners of the mall food-court shade, and Get Real Serious about descending into an Asian cram-school termite-mound on synthetic steroids.

    Now the whole rest of the Trump-cult / Republican dicksucking / Thiel-Musk-Whoever-Else slopaganda network, is not only repeating that message, and amplifying the shrill nagging tone, they're now applying it to more and more basic staples of iconic Americana, like "eating at the local diner after school".

    I am not imploring this to the few remaining Republican commentators who are not cheerleaders for the Trump cult -- they're too few, and too powerless. This is a call to Democrats and Independents (like me), to campaign on what would be a massively popular theme -- guillotining the right-wing school-shooter administration, and their slopaganda servers on Fox News and Twitter. It would cost Democrats nothing, as their own depraved elites would be spared.

    Yeah, I know, it'd be better if all the depraved elites were executed. But in reality, only one side can go against the other, since we are severely polarized along partisan lines. So only one side's vampires can be liquidated. Republicans repeatedly prove that they will not liquidate the leftoid vampires, and will only replenish their ranks on their own team. But Democrats are at least somewhat willing to liquidate the rightoid vampires -- and that's better than liquidating no vampires at all.

    No, it will not deliver us back into utopia. It may not even slow down our descent. But meting out justice is not solely, or primarily, about its utilitarian / consequentialist outcomes. It's not a social-engineering tool in the technocrat's toolbox. Massive systematic crimes have been committed against America, and those criminals must be punished for their bad acts per se, whether or not it reforms them or deters would-be criminals in the future.

    If they don't want to be guillotined, they can pony up the mother of all weregild payments to compensate us for their crimes.

    Otherwise -- OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.

    ReplyDelete
  169. And be sure to rub it in that their failures and betrayals have led you to "vote straight Democrat" in the upcoming elections. You may not be planning to vote at all, but merely saying that will blow their fuse.

    After all, their sole purpose is to whip votes for the Republican Party, no matter who the candidate is (like a foreigner school-shooter termite like Ramaswamy), and no matter what they actually do in office (like launching the Iran War and consequent energy crisis and inflationary spiral).

    I advise you to actually go out and vote straight Democrat in the upcoming elections, since that will be a stronger blow to the Trump cult than just words on Twitter.

    No, it won't save the country, although given Trump's demolition of the nation after only a year in office, it's hard to see how Democrats wouldn't at least slow the descent or pad the landing.

    And at least Democrats won't campaign on callousness and shirking of their duties toward America, like Trump saying he doesn't care about American's financial well-being, after launching the impoverishing Iran War -- which he's also lost before it begun, so adding yet another L on the scoreboard, depriving Americans of a vicarious sense of victory, if they're the type to treat war like the Super Bowl. Warmongers can only offer L after humiliating L to the military cheerleaders.

    If you feel like voting for a Democrat is too eww, yucky, and contaminating, and would at most refuse to vote at all (or only for a 3rd party), then you are still stuck in hyper-polarized pro-Republican land. If you truly believe the two parties are no different overall, and that they are therefore interchangeable -- then vote for the Democrat.

    It will not fundamentally solve America's problems -- that's what the "two parties are the same" argument is about. But it will neuter, and God willing, eradicate the Trump cult from our political landscape.

    Quite frankly, American history cannot move forward with the Trump cult in the way. We are headed for national disintegration into smaller rump-state successors to the collapsing American Empire, and the sooner we get there, the better. And in the most damage-free trajectory possible. The Trump cult is actively thwarting that necessary change, so they must be eliminated.

    True, the Boomers on the Democrat side will try to "maintain normalcy" rather than go on a school-shooter spree like the Trump cult is. But given the party-system cycle phase we're in -- disjunctive, end of an era -- that means the other party will become realigners. It will take a major realignment on the Democrats' side to attract enough Independents and former-Republicans to usher in a new party system (like New Deal Democrats, Neoliberal Republicans, etc.).

    Social conservatives may be 10 years too late to every major event, but I don't think this is a case where they'd be rejected by the left-wingers of 10 years ago who wanted to imprison or kill Trump and his whole political network.

    Back then, before Trump's populist promises had not been put to a test, it sounded like bitter loser derangement. Now after his repeated failures and betrayals, it sounds like a sensible and necessary baby step toward the post-imperial future of America.

    ReplyDelete
  170. At the risk of spoiling the call-to-arms climax, let's end with an epilogue about a variety of other ways in which Boomers benefitted from the largesse of others, which most of them are not repaying to the next generation in turn. It's not just about the cost of burgers and fries and beer.

    I've heard these stories from my mother, who is unlike most Boomers, and will openly admit, and express gratitude for, how generous her Greatest Generation parents were toward her and her siblings -- from childhood right up through adulthood. That's one of the most extensively covered-up Boomer secrets -- that their parents gave them tons of free stuff well into their 30s and 40s, not just an allowance when they were kids.

    My grandparents grew up, and lived their whole lives, in rural Appalachia, without going to college (or even finishing high school for my grandfather). Grandmother was a housewife her whole life, never slaved for a wage. Grandfather was blue-collar in various industries, until settling into a career as a carpenter, joining several unions along the way. They did not come from money, were not elite, or anything like that.

    And yet...

    My grandfather built an entire house from the ground up, for my aunt and her husband, when they were 20-something newlyweds. An entire house to live in!

    He built a shack / tool-shed for my parents when they were newlyweds.

    He bought them a brand-new PAIR of clothes washer and dryer -- TWICE! Within 10 years of each other, during their late 20s and 30s. Not only the cost of the appliances, but the delivery and installation fees (if Sears even charged for them back then... may have been complimentary before everyone nickle-and-dimed you for every basic service). He bought a whole new pair the second time, not cuz the first set had broken -- just cuz it's nice to have newer and better things, right?

    He plunked down one-third the price of a NEW car, when my mom was nearly 40. She was going to trade in the old car, but my grandfather didn't want her to have to pay much out of pocket, so he straight-up gave -- not loaned -- her 1/3 of the total price, whatever it was in the mid-'90s.

    For that matter, my mother and her siblings all had their own cars during high school / college age. Sometimes new, sometimes used, but still in top shape and not an ancient beater. These were some of the best cars ever manufactured, on top of it -- my uncle drove a '60s Mustang as a youngster. I know they didn't pay for them all by themselves... possibly they put a little of their own money toward the cost, but perhaps my grandparents paid 100% of the price. That's just how it was, with Greatest Gen parents. Not sharing the family car -- someone buying you one of your own.

    I should ask if they ever helped pay toward the cost of a home, like part of the down payment, or helping out with monthly mortgage payments. I'm sure they did, somehow, sometime.

    My grandparents, mainly my grandmother, used to babysit us grandkids for months on end, every year. That was a huge relief instead of having to pay for daycare, so my parents had some time for themselves, to travel or go on vacation, etc. Boomers don't do this for their own children if they have grandkids. Also, the cost of all our meals during the course of a month or so!

    And even us wee little grandkids were dealt in by our Greatest Gen grandparents. Every time we visited them, or they visited us, they would hand us a cold hard $20 bill -- and that had massive purchasing power back in the '80s and '90s. My grandmother would always say, "They keep sending us these Social Security checks, and I don't know what to do with it, so here you 'uns go..."

    ReplyDelete
  171. When you watch vintage TV series or movies, you can immediately appreciate how generous the older generations used to be, by how magnificent our society used to be. That took place within families, too, not only society at large.

    Boomers got heaps upon heaps of material welfare by their parents, right into middle-age, when they still need it -- like buying a new car, or a new washer-and-dryer set. These are hefty items in a budget, not just occasionally taking their adult children out to eat.

    If you have the selfish ingrate kind of Boomer in your family (the default kind), they may refuse to answer you, or straight-up lie to your face, if you ask them to list all the payments their parents gave them, no strings attached, from puberty up through middle age. It totally blows apart their worthless advice about "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps", which they never had to do.

    An entire cohort of Jeff Spicolis, the most owners-of-the-shade generation in world history. Some of them will admit it, though, and be grateful for the miracle that they did not cause nor earn, but were fortunate enough to be gifted. They are the only way that the truth can be smuggled out into the open for history to remember. So I'm grateful to the handful of them who are honest, so we are aware of just how utopian the good ol' days used to be...

    And with that, I have to go tend to my own little-big owner of the shade, who just woke up from a nap. ^_^

    Yes, parents used to treat their children like shepherds tending their flock, not like wolves in the hen-house. It's really sick and disgusting what America has devolved into, and that only gets more guillotine-worthy when you reflect on how opposite things were in the good ol' days. That is why we must never forget them, or dismiss it as mere nostalgia bait -- it forces us to reckon even more severely with the injustices of the present, which would otherwise look like regrettable but can't-do-any-better crappiness.

    Our utopian past is proof that a better world is possible, and that whoever is plunging us into Hell must be punished for that crime alone, regardless of how it may or may not affect our future trajectory.

    For the punishment for murdering a healthy thriving body must be harder than for abusing a corpse, or for failing to help. Once we recall just how wonderful America used to be during our New Deal utopia, the price for destroying it must be very severe indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  172. In apartment complexes of the past, tennis courts were standard.

    In the new apartment community I lived in, there was no tennis court (the complex was built in the 2020s).

    I now live in a house built in 2000. This neighborhood doesn’t even have a swimming pool (it’s a nice neighborhood too).

    ReplyDelete
  173. The village-in-a-forest complex I live in has a central pool, and even a smaller peripheral pool. From the good ol' floating-stairs '70s... ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  174. Is she really chasing clout with him?
    Is she really gonna fave his post tonight?
    Is she really chasing clout with him?

    If my replies are any metric,
    There's something being botted on here...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDG6MQkzh1o

    ReplyDelete
  175. Your posts about the decline of fast food reminded me of how convenience stores and fast food in Japan are often both cheaper AND higher quality than in the US, which makes them affordable to their young people, unlike here where they sell expensive garbage. The stores themselves are also cleaner and better-looking too!

    ReplyDelete
  176. A crucial angle to the affordability crisis and lies about the New Deal, is the so-called stagflation of the 1970s, supposedly casting a pall over the entire decade.

    Back when America had generous provider elites, not stingy parasite elites, they raised the minimum wage when the cost of living shot up. After the yuppie Boomer Reagan revolution, that stopped -- they raised it here and there, but it failed to keep pace with inflation. And by now, they haven't touched it for nearly 20 years, and probably won't for another 20 -- until their replacement arrives, and will jack it up to $30 or $50 or whatever it will need to be.

    The big source of inflation during the '70s was the 1973 oil embargo, which led to an energy crisis, and other things got more expensive if they relied on energy as an input (most things).

    The minimum wage had stayed flat for the first few years of the decade, but the very year after the 1973 oil embargo shock, they jacked it up from $1.60 to $2. Imagine getting a whopping 25% raise in a single year!

    But wait, there's more! It went all the way to $2.90 by 1979.

    If you set the time window to begin at 1973, when the energy crisis exploded, overall consumer inflation rose by 60% by '79 -- and yet the minimum wage rose 80% during the same time. Imagine getting not only nearly double your pay within 5 years, but that that also beat inflation by 20%!

    If you set the window at the start of the decade, then the two rose by the same amount, 80% during the decade. Still, matching inflation -- what more do you want?

    By today's shithole standards, the minimum wage from the good ol' days would be worth in the $20-30 per hour range, yet it's been flat at $7.25 for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  177. And the '70s was not the only decade when New Deal elites raised the minimum wage during an inflationary period, so that Americans would not fall through the cracks in affording their way of life. The '60s saw major inflation, too, although it also saw soaring GDP, so that is not lumped in with the '70s as "stagflation". Still, consumer prices went up a lot.

    And therefore, so did the minimum wage -- $1 at the start of the '60s, rising fully 60% by the end, to $1.60.

    So during the entire inflationary period of the '60s and '70s (putting aside GDP growth vs. stagnation), the minimum wage nearly tripled from $1 to $2.90. That's what benevolent provider elites did when their subjects were threatened with ruin due to inflation -- wring more money from the employers, who cannot be plunged into poverty, to cover their employees, who very easily can.

    Needless to say, during the past 15-20 years of insane inflation, the minimum wage has not tripled -- it hasn't risen AT ALL. That's a testament of our Reaganite elites being stingy parasites, who deserve to be replaced.

    Midwits attempting moralism love to admonish others about "Don't bite the hand that feeds". True enough -- but so therefore is, "Bite the hand that has stopped feeding". Our worthless parasitic elites deserve to be bitten and taken from, not respected or obeyed, let alone given the fruits of our labor.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Remember this when you hear Boomers lie, or those sucking up to Boomers for slopaganda purposes, about how hard it was to live through the sTaGfLaTioN of the '70s. It wasn't hard at all -- the minimum wage matched inflation point for point throughout the decade. And just speaking for the period after the energy crisis struck, the minimum wage rose substantially FASTER than consumer prices.

    Boomers -- well, all of America -- had benevolent guardians of civilization in control of society back then, the Greatest Generation. And like hell they were going to let Americans just get pointlessly tortured into poverty by inflation. They padded the blows of the energy crisis so much that nobody felt a thing.

    The only part of the energy crisis that people remember stinging is the shortages at gas stations. Well, sure, government policy can't conjure oil out of thin air when it's under embargo. But the energy crisis did not set off a chain reaction that ruined Americans' standard-of-living, since the minimum wage was raised accordingly.

    Boomers didn't start eating bug-paste due to the gas shortages -- they ate the exact same things as always, at the exact same prices relative to their wages. They didn't put off buying a home for another 2 or 3 decades or accept never owning a home, due to gas shortages. They didn't even put off buying a car, on account of gas shortages. They didn't stop going out to eat at diners, bars, McDonald's, etc. They didn't stop taking vacations to Disney World -- price of general admission in 1979, $7. Yep, 7 whoooollle smackeroos to get into Disney World, or a bit over 2 hours worth of minimum wage labor. Now it's well over $100, like every other form of entertainment that used to be around $10 circa 1980.

    They didn't feel the slightest dent in their wallet, let alone the full-on raping that Trump and the Republican party has pointlessly inflicted upon all Americans.

    So please remember this extra dimension to their born-on-3rd-base charmed lives, which didn't happen by magic -- let alone their own merits and choices! -- but by deliberate Big Gubmint policy set by their Greatest Gen protective overseers. Not only did the minimum wage buy a lot more stuff back then -- it was jacked up any time there was a bout of inflation, so that it bought a comfortable lifestyle at every point in time, for decades on end, not just during a brief lucky respite before inflation kicked in.

    No generation has benefited so much from the nanny state, while blowing it up for everyone else, than Boomers. They are spoiled toddler parasites who never matured into responsible guardians of the thing that provided so generously for their charmed-life upbringing.

    Yeah, I know, some of them are aware and grateful, and they can be spared during the upcoming Great Redistribution of Boomer Ill-Gotten Wealth. But most of them are simply going to get expropriated -- and remember to tell them that! That's their worst nightmare, not death / execution.

    So maybe I'll dial down the "off with their heads" rhetoric, since they wouldn't care -- it's more about "you're going to work off your debt to the society you ruined, in a labor camp". They can't stand hard honest work, or the thought that they owe anyone anything.

    And their worst nightmare -- "We're going to take all your stuff and redistribute it to the generations that truly need and deserve it". Watch them drop dead from heart attacks, just like Jeff Spicoli staring in horror as Mr. Hand seized his pizza and shared it with the rest of the class. He was young then, and could withstand the shock to his heart -- Boomers today will literally drop dead when they see their ill-gotten wealth seized and given to the deserving and needy. That will solve most of the "off with their heads" problem right there! It's a two-fer! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  179. During the '60s consumer prices rose 22% but the minimum wage rose 60% -- nearly 3 times as much as overall prices! Don't believe the lies of anyone after the Greatest Gen, about how hard they had it growin up -- they were born on 3rd base, raised in paradise, due to deliberate society-wide programs by the Greatest Gen guardians and stewards of American civilization.

    Once the Silents and Boomers took over society's institutions during the Reagan revolution, they blew all that up for the generations after them -- but without returning all the nanny state provisions they had already enjoyed while maturing during the New Deal. They received, but did not give back, and blew up the resources that could be used for the next generations to receive as they received.

    Parasites. But their bill is finally coming due. The Great Redistribution... followed by The Great Heart Attackening...

    ReplyDelete
  180. Are only males being targeted by the austerity slopaganda? There are still a decent amount of females on Twitter, but I haven't seen any of them pushing back against the slopaganda. Maybe they're not the targets and haven't seen any of it?

    It's not like the slopaganda is specifically calling out males, like with the blame about "young men playing video games all day long". This campaign is calling out "Millennials" and "Gen Z" broadly, focusing on things that females take part in, perhaps more so than males -- like DoorDash, avocado toast, and food / going out in general.

    Maybe it's being targeted at right-wingers, and since right-wingers under 40 are 90% male, that's why all the push-back is coming from males. The Trump / Israeli funders of the slop know that Gen Z and Millennial females are a lost cause for right-wing austerity slop, but are hoping to browbeat the conservative males of those generations.

    What can I say -- if you allow right-wingers to not only materially force you into poverty by giving away the nation's inheritance to a predestined failure of a war for Israel against Iran, but also allow them to shame you into not pointing out the reason why everything is so unaffordable under the Anti-Christ, then they calculated right, and you deserve your slavery.

    But the backlash has been pretty intense, so I don't think even the infamously dickless do-nothing conservatives are eating the slop this time around.

    Naturally the women aren't eating it either, cuz they aren't the target, and don't need to put themselves through an existential identity crisis about, "Can I really bring myself to vote Democrat instead of Republican?" They're already locked in for Dems by this point -- they will simply brush off austerity slopaganda and vote Democrat.

    Speaking of which, do the incels realize how much worse they're sequestering themselves into a dead-end sausage-fest by accepting austerity slop? The ones who are, I mean. Nothing could be a bigger turn-off to young babes than advocating voluntary eager poverty, just so genocidal Israel gets a war with Iran.

    So much for men being the providers -- girls wouldn't be caught dead talking to a guy who's promising to squander what would be their pooled household income, to own the toddlers in Palestine and Iran.

    And so much for men being the responsible budgeters -- sorry babe, we can't eat red meat this year for dinner, the Orange Retard needed to print up $3 trillion in 2020 to prop up the stock market for Boomers. Then Israel called and said blow up the global economy to own random toddlers in Iran. Don't worry your pretty little head about the budget -- that's the duty of responsible frugal types like Trump-supporting guys like me.

    By this point, woketard insanity has been mostly exhausted on the Dem side, and is primarily being propped up by Republicans. Now, your would-be Democrat gf isn't forcing you to side with her about trannies or black lives, it's about being able to afford a basic life. How can you be against that, without being a cucked slave?

    Incels of the world have nothing to lose but their chains, by joining an anti-austerity bloc for the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Boomers wasting / giving away what should be their children's inheritance, is exactly what's going on at the national government and corporate level. Gen X, Millennials, and Zoomers all know about this pattern by now, and it is one of the most cortisol-spiking topics in the media.

    Well, push back by using that metaphor -- it's not even a figure of speech, it's just highlighting how broad the "squandering the inheritance" behavior is. It's not limited to the family domain, it's going on in government and corporations.

    Sorry, citizen, your government owes you nothing, especially when there are needy militaries elsewhere in the world, who can't afford to bomb toddlers without the aid of responsible guardians like Uncle Sam.

    They grin sadistically while wasting what should be America's inheritance on this shit, too, just like gleeful Boomers taking another cruise or giving away their wealth to other elites, rather than passing it down the family.

    ...And another thing, about the Greatest Gen ethos. Although they lived frugally, the point of that was not to hoard a shit-load of pointless money or stuff -- it was to be able to share their wealth with others, in the family, in the community, in the nation as a whole. Like when my grandparents helped out my parents well into middle age, or handed us a $20 bill when we visited.

    If they had lived frugally in order to hoard the savings all for themselves, that's just miserly greed. They went without, so that others could go with. It was a small personal sacrifice, and all those little pieces of altruism added up to a great big social safety net, whether informally within a family or administered through a government bureaucracy.

    The slopagandists aren't admonishing you about buying avocado toast cuz that money could be spent on helping out your neighbor or family member who fell on hard times through no fault of their own. Or to help them take a vacation they've never been able to take.

    They're saying deprive yourself of basic nutrition, so you can get a leg-up on your competition, which is framed as the entire rest of society, including your neighbors and your own blood family. Beat your rivals with this one weird budgeting trick (scurvy diet). It's the typical anti-social school-shooter manifesto that Republicans now own as their party platform.

    Frugality should always be toward a greater collective social purpose -- not greed and competitiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Small town / rural traditions for eating out, as seen in archival news features from the good ol' days. At first when the slopagandists tried pushing the lie that no one ever ate out except for rich people, or the average person only once a month as a treat, I thought maybe as right-wingers, they were from the South, and maybe this was a regional thing.

    Well, except for the whole Civil Rights movement taking place at lunch counters -- a small diner kind of eating-out public space. OK, but those were the larger cities, not necessarily small towns or rural areas, which is mostly what the South is.

    Did the South get left behind in public eating places? No, not at all, and neither did small towns in the rural Midwest, West Texas, or anywhere else. Diners are most common in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Great Lakes regions, and along the West Coast (or maybe just California?). But everywhere had them -- or some version of a public eating place for the common people.

    I'm not showing these to combat the lie about "no one ever ate out" -- that is laughable slopaganda. Rather, the point is to show what America was like in the good ol' days, in the domain of "public food places".

    For Gen X-ers and earlier, this will be a trip down memory lane. For Millennials and later, this will be one of your first direct views into the New Deal society, at its very tail-end.

    And that is Charles Kuralt's feature stories from his ongoing series On the Road, channeling John Steinbeck and Jack Kerouac, searching out iconic vignettes of Americana for a mass TV audience. It was for CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite, the most watched evening news program of the '60s and '70s.

    As Bob Ross was to landscape painting, Charles Kuralt was to human interest stories. You guys all know who Bob Ross is, and how all-American his show is -- well, time to start searching YouTube for "Charles Kuralt" and seeing what America used to be like, from CBS's archives. You may find stories from other reporters, but in the same vein.

    First, from Buffalo, SC -- in the upland part of the state, in a rural small town, in the early '80s. A Greatest Gen woman who makes home-cooked meals every day, hosts anyone who will come to her house to gather 'round the dinner table, and even sends orders out to the local shut-ins through a volunteer-based "meals on wheels" program. Only $2 to $2.50 -- or free of charge, if you can't afford that. Less than an hour's worth of minimum wage labor at the time, so around $5 today.

    Not only does she have a crowd of regulars, who leave their homes to gather in a public space, they're not just the wealthy. She doesn't try to pinch pennies or squeeze her customers, in some greedy profit-maximizing scheme. She serves as a community anchor, and you don't get rich doing that -- you have to sacrifice, and others benefit from your altruism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmla5mZ1fXU

    ReplyDelete
  183. Next, a small-town pharmacy / coffee bar in rural Arcola, IL, in the late '70s, where the regulars have their names hand-painted onto their own personal coffee cups. Over 160 of them! Needless to say, they're not just the local upper crust, these are everyday people, and they're regulars, not indulging in on occasional treat. In fact, they needed to have ordered 100 cups of coffee -- then they get their own personal cup. Now *there's* a rewards program! Blue-collar folks didn't rack up hundreds of cups of coffee by only visiting infrequently as a treat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmPVVpkJPQ

    The coffee counter serves as a communal gathering place, much like the neighborhood Starbucks of the 2010s. As a regular, I knew all the workers' names, they knew mine, knew my order, and we chatted about whatever... and not just the cute babes who worked there. There were non-homo guys working there too.

    The early 2010s was the last time straight guys were allowed to work normal jobs in public -- now those jobs all go to fags and trannies. Very few even go to women, supposedly a demo that the Democrats reward with jobs, but in reality, women have been increasingly replaced by fags in retail / food service, along with immigrants.

    How can such a small demo of fags + trannies staff the public-facing jobs in the entire retail sector? Simple -- retail-pocalypse, there's barely anything left by now. Everything is shut down, and never re-opens as anything else. And the public-facing jobs are not the majority of jobs in a retail store, compared to all the behind-the-scenes jobs as well. It's bizarre how you only see straight guys working in a supermarket as truck delivery drivers, and pallet-movers / unloaders who work only at night.

    Or it's staffed by foreigners who were hauled in as cheap labor. But the early 2010s Starbucks didn't have an entire staff of cheap-labor foreigners -- famously they had a decent healthcare plan, and that's not something you give to foreign slaves. No, those non-homo guys were also American.

    Back during the wholesome New Deal utopia, the idea that weirdos, deviants, etc., would be in a public-facing role was completely unthinkable. It was the local pharmacist and his wife serving the coffee, not some random gay creep.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Finally, from a rural 24-hour truck stop in West Texas on Christmas Eve in the '90s. Not from CBS but the Texas Country Reporter, though still in the vein of Charles Kuralt. You can hardly tell you're in the '90s, since the New Deal society didn't vanish 100% overnight everywhere. There were still little pockets of it lingering into the '90s, but they're just about all gone as of the 21st century.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sNRy-oayl4

    Obviously this is not society's upper crust, and they were not rare indulgers -- paying for strangers to make you a meal and serve you coffee was the most ordinary, frequent thing in the world for truckers.

    They did not, as a rule, "pack their lunch" in a lunchbox, brew their own coffee and then carry it in a thermos, etc. Only as an emergency, if there were no truck stop nearby. In general, they wanted to take a load off, and eat a nice hot meal that someone else made while they themselves are taking a break from work. No different from Millennials and Gen Z wanting someone else to make them a meal during their lunch break at work.

    Again, look at who used to be the standard waitress at a diner or coffee shop -- a cute young babe with amazing buns, smiley, engaging, attentive, looking out for others. Some truckers in the comments section say the term for that type of person is a "highway angel". Despite being a total stranger, it sure doesn't feel like it when you're in their presence. It never did, in a place of hospitality.

    And remember, this is on Christmas Eve -- talk about making a sacrifice for others...

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."