Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DDeden Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > with fire and axes). I think "aqua"
> correlated to
> > dugouts and derived plankboats but not reed
> rafts
> > or wooden boats following reed raft design
> (which
> > would probably include the word for
> reed/weave).
>
> It doesn't seem to -- at least not in the
> dictionary that I have (which is a small one, to
> be sure.)

ok, thanks for checking.

> > I accept your point about knapping cores, I
> meant
> > the OK AE were expert at stone cutting
> technology,
> > using bronze/copper/iron as stand-ins for
> > antler/bone/stone tools.
>
> Uhm... well... the two techniques are so vastly
> different that they are really different crafts.
> And the tools are used in very different ways.

Sure, neolithic-bronze age differs from Acheuleun.

> > Lingusistic research: I started from 10
> million
> > years back:
>
> 10 million years? That predates Sahelanthropus
> tchadensis, the earliest known hominid -- the time
> of the gorilla-like Chororapithecus abyssinicus.

Right, just after the orangs split away, before the gorillas split.

>
>
> > calls and physical gestures, volume + pitch
> =
> > dominance, territory, alarm
> > then clicking consonants and tonal humming
> vowel
> > sounds, at seashores
> > then vocalized words like mama, waeta (wet,
> water,
> > wader), m~r, w~t
>
> You determined this from the molars? Or
> jawbones?

Combination of vertical posture, early H erectus midface projection, enlargement of the nose, hyoid relocation, descent of the larynx, enlargement of the paranasal sinuses, swimming and diving rather than tree climbing, backfloating of mother with child learning breath hold, lullabye origin (hum tone only), loss of laryngeal air sac, probability that teeth were not in place in infancy, improved bilabial control, improved manual dexterity but poorer foot dexterity

> > then technical words like tek, ora,
> > (ochre/ore-man), akwa
>
> ...and that all the hominds did this?

erectines making Acheulean biface stone bait traps to replace bilateral clams, possibly heidelbergensis, antecessor, neandertal (but some used other methods, Java man probably used sharp bamboo slivers in fish).
Others (Apiths) may have made stone cutting flakes and nut crackers but not bait traps.

> Australopithecus? Erectus? Neanderthals? What
> cultural or forensic evidence are you using to
> support this?

Thousands of bifaces and millions of flakes found at waterside after 2.6million yrs ago Gona, Rift, etc.

> > then tribal trade words like urban,
> boater/border,
> > port, paddler/peddler
> > then herd count words like herdman, turkmen,
>
> "men/man" is a recent word for humans.

I don't know when it was first used. Do you? I think the words marital, woman, womb, are extremely old and only slightly changed. The sound w~m and m~w are ancient.

> > viking (bi-con),
>
> Sorry, that comes from the Old Norse word
> "vikingr." I doubt the Neanderthals and Erectus
> and Habilus used any Old Norse words.

einz, zwei drei is German, 2 = "vi", bi-son, bi-con, 2 horn=cattle herding Black-Caspian basin
(here talking about less than 20,000 yrs ago, probably between 500-5,000 yrs ago, erectus and neandertals all gone already)

> > hund-erd (120)
>
> That's a fairly recent addition from
> proto-Germanic:

Right, where did they get it from?

> > then farm-town words like plow, plot,
> furrow,
> > bake, store
> > then city words like poli, script,
> concentrate
> > (100 cone huts per?)
>
> From the Latin meaning "together" and "center" and
> has nothing to do with hundreds or cone huts.

Yes, perhaps from an English Latin/Greek based dictionary
(I didn't check if con- as prefix derived from cone)
together + center
gather + many (100/kent/count/10fold)
get + too many


> > I guess what I'm saying
> > is that I may be 20% incorrect on word
> details,
> > yet be correct conceptually overall.
>
> I don't see how you've proved any of this or
> identified its origins. You've stated conclusively
> you "know" this happened at a time long before
> humans ever existed;

Well that would be a neat trick. Humans have always had ancestors, right? No matter how far back you go. That's what I've been tracking, back to 35 million years. But until about 20 million years ago, it was basically monkey-like calls AFAICT. Once Miocene apes were at the water's edge, it gets interesting. The last common ancestor of the siamang/gorilla/orangutan/chimp/Homo is when the air sacs enlarged resulting in tail loss and more upright posture and moved transverse process and vertical truncal climbing and association with rainforest mangrove habitat. After that our ancestors remained associated with coasts until boat development.

at a time when our lineage
> consisted of proto-apes. You then make some
> statements about what sounds were made without
> giving any references to "are their mouths capable
> of making these sounds and do they have the
> structures (hyoid arch) and free tongue that need
> to be present in order to make those sounds.

Polly want a cracker? Birds can say that clearly, without knowing what it means.
Making sounds is easy, understanding word symbols isn't. Homo did both.

>
> > Sn = O-Sn (ocean),
> No. If there'd been an "o" sound in front they
> would have used one of the vowel designates.
> Although they didn't put them in the middle of the
> words, they put them at the beginning of words --
> and at the end of words, too.

Right, it was an example of how English may have gotten some words from Egypt via French trade.
eg. English: O-cean <- French: Eau-Sea-n <- AE: Sn.
I didn't mean AE pronounced it O-Sn.