Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Outside of the box / Re: Pictish as a Baltoid language
« Last post by Daniel on Today at 01:09:26 AM »
Quote
Read any Wikipedia article about the extant Pictish legends, or any other medieval or ancient European legend (Brutus of Troy, the Trojan origins of the Franks, Alanus the first man to walk in Europe, Hispan the founder of Spain, the Icelandic legends of how Scandinavia was settled via a migration from the city of Asgard in "Turkland", etc.), and nearly 100% of the time you will find the term "pseudo-histories." To call something "false" is a nearly complete ignoring. Imagine calling the Navajo legendarium a "pseudo-history"? Breathlessly snarky.
The tone and relevance differ, but not the way they are treated by science, as I said.

Quote
Well said. This tenor is not often found in scientistic writings.
My knowledge comes from reading scientific writing.
(One of the flood myths I alluded to above was related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland although now I can't remember where I read that.)

Quote
No, just three places: Scythia, Thrace, and Denmark.
Three places spanning greater area than the Roman Empire at its peak. I have a hard time taking that seriously.

Quote
Well, it's pretty clear that, at one point, there was a continuum between Proto-Baltic and Proto-Dacian. This timeframe could be pinpointed linguistically. I don't know off hand whether this would be even earlier (e.g. Proto-Balto-Slavic era). But it could be pinpointed.

Also, the legendary (traditional) date of the Pictish migration(s) from "Denmark" (Dacia) or Thrace could also be pinpointed pretty easily, just by the reigning king of Ireland.

So just line them up, and then there's a timeframe.
OK, start by doing that. Sounds to me like there will be a wide span of thousands of years.

Quote
No, not everything has been done and tried before. To assume that, is passive scientism.
That's not what I said. What I said is that any geographically reasonable relationship for linguistic isolates in Europe has probably been considered, directly or indirectly, multiple times. There's a paucity of language candidates, not of scientific or amateur minds interested in these mysteries. You've also suggested a hypothesis curiously in the middle of other hypotheses that have been seriously researched on this topic, which is unlikely to have just been missed as a possibility by everyone else, and even likely to have been noticed by someone looking for broad comparisons, if it fit.

Quote
It takes interest, passion, and imagination to spark the will to investigate a hypothesis. Science doesn't just happen.

Someone would need to sit down and "imaginatively" fill out (reconstruct) more Dacian words based on the extensive correspondences with Proto-Baltic. It would take time.

And then study all the extant interpretations of the Pictish epigraphs. It would take time.

And apply the two together. It might click. Or it might not. But it might.
Go for it. But I strongly urge you not to go into this with a confirmation bias. That's where fringe (read: inaccurate) proposals begin (and end).

Quote
Do you think the Picts would just make up an entire migration story out of thin air?
That's not a good argument. Many origins stories really are essentially fiction, like various gods creating humans from parts of animals or something like that. There likely are some hidden truths underneath the legends, but that might be more of a cultural truth (how they see themselves, what they represent) than any facts about migrations, or even if so they might be quite general, like in ancient times the Picts came from far away, and maybe transposed onto distant locations that they heard about and mixed with the legends over generations. I'm not saying they can't be right, but we also can't assume they are. As you've said, it would need to be investigated to confirm.

--

I'm having a hard time understanding your intent in posting this. Are you asking about existing research? Are you proposing your own? Or are you suggesting this is already a reliable conclusion? Regardless, I don't have much more to tell you about the topic. Yours is one of countless hypotheses about the topic, but I remain quite skeptical about it because it is not an under-researched topic, and many of your arguments are really a stretch. I don't mean to discourage you from exploring it. But remember that science is in essence a quest to falsify hypotheses.
2
Outside of the box / Re: Pictish as a Baltoid language
« Last post by traversetravis on August 23, 2019, 06:45:58 PM »
Thanks for your response.

You begin with a false dichotomy. Myths are not taken at face value by scientists regardless of the community with which they originate, but they are not completely ignored either.

Read any Wikipedia article about the extant Pictish legends, or any other medieval or ancient European legend (Brutus of Troy, the Trojan origins of the Franks, Alanus the first man to walk in Europe, Hispan the founder of Spain, the Icelandic legends of how Scandinavia was settled via a migration from the city of Asgard in "Turkland", etc.), and nearly 100% of the time you will find the term "pseudo-histories." To call something "false" is a nearly complete ignoring. Imagine calling the Navajo legendarium a "pseudo-history"? Breathlessly snarky.

Quote
Myths can often encode truths, although through the lens of narration (and yes, some fiction). Myths are also shaped by cultures (compare the various shared elements of mythology, including the various gods, among Indo-European peoples, for example). Examples from Amerindians, since you mentioned them include probably historical accounts of comets or meteors, as well as, amazingly more than 4,000 years later, descriptions of Mammoths that once roamed North America. And all around the world there are myths converging on the idea of a great flood at some time (related of course to the story of Noah's Ark). This is no less true for European cultures, except to the extent that we have older (and just more) historical records, as well as so much more research being done on that part of the world.

Well said. This tenor is not often found in scientistic writings.

Quote
Your second and third paragraphs name locations basically all over the geography of Europe, which don't support any specific conclusions, and certainly wouldn't correspond to one ancient people in all of those places.

No, just three places: Scythia, Thrace, and Denmark. And Thrace and Denmark are portrayed as embarkation points. Note also, that in medieval legend, "Dania" and Dacia were often equated. And that the extent Pictish legends seem to perhaps describe more than one migration: one which landed in Ireland, and another which landed in Orkney. And most importantly, regardless of the embarkation point (Thrace or Denmark), the Picts are specifically said to be Agathrysi (with the adjacent Geloni as a secondary ancestral tribe). Based on Herodotus and later Roman and Byzantine mentions, even the most hard-nosed scientist would admit the Agathyrsi to be located in Dacia and the Geloni to be located in Scythian Ukraine.

Quote
That's really not how it works. Proto-Baltic as we know it would be just what can be deduced from the modern languages (plus Old Prussian), maybe with some comparison with what is reconstructed for Proto-Slavic and Proto-Balto-Slavic, but that would make your hypothesis more complicated anyway. Regardless, the odds of Pictish happening to be contemporaneous with Proto-Baltic are low, and if anything it was likely an offshoot with its own dialectal variation.

Well, it's pretty clear that, at one point, there was a continuum between Proto-Baltic and Proto-Dacian. This timeframe could be pinpointed linguistically. I don't know off hand whether this would be even earlier (e.g. Proto-Balto-Slavic era). But it could be pinpointed.

Also, the legendary (traditional) date of the Pictish migration(s) from "Denmark" (Dacia) or Thrace could also be pinpointed pretty easily, just by the reigning king of Ireland.

So just line them up, and then there's a timeframe.

Quote
I don't know the answer to your question, but generally speaking for these "mystery" languages of uncertain affiliation, just about everything has been tried, and we'd know about it if someone found the answer.

No, not everything has been done and tried before. To assume that, is passive scientism.

It takes interest, passion, and imagination to spark the will to investigate a hypothesis. Science doesn't just happen.

Someone would need to sit down and "imaginatively" fill out (reconstruct) more Dacian words based on the extensive correspondences with Proto-Baltic. It would take time.

And then study all the extant interpretations of the Pictish epigraphs. It would take time.

And apply the two together. It might click. Or it might not. But it might.

Quote
Wikipedia suggests the two leading hypotheses are either that it is Celtic or non-Indo-European.

Obviously, even in the traditional legends, the Picts came to be couched within a Brittonic Celtic environment (having conquered the North British Kingdom of Albania), and later a Goidelic environment (after themselves being conquered by the Fergusian Gaels). And so Brythonic and Goidelic influence would be expected. Yet that doesn't mean the original language of the Picts (as they sailed from Thrace/Dacia) was Celtic!

As for the "non-Indo-European Pictish"...that viewpoint only became popular when, in the Enlightenment, geologists and paleontologists extended the timeline of prehistory, and so it was clear that "someone" lived in Britain in these prehistoric eras. And since the Picts are the only of the traditional nations of Isles to not survive into modern times, then it was easy to just make them (as a blank slate) to be the "indigenous" people of all of Britain. Even though none of their own stories (as conveyed through the inherited legends of the Irish Picts, and in other very early sources (e.g. Bede)) all say that the Agathyrsi sailed from such-and-such place (Thrace/Denmark) and conquered North Britain during such-and-such reign. To imply that all prehistoric archaeological remains in Britain are of indigenous "Pictish" affiliation makes as much sense as calling them "English"!

Do you think the Picts would just make up an entire migration story out of thin air? Don't you think that each generation of Pictish mothers and fathers were telling stories to their children about their origins? Even though only a certain number of Pictish stories have survived (mostly in the Irish chronicles), it wouldn't make a lot of sense for the chroniclers to just totally make it up, like a modern fantasy author. I mean, the Pictish (and Irish Pictish) monks who were writing the stories and reading them to the Pictish (and Irish Pictish) nobles would chafe and protest if the chronicles totally clashed with their nursery stories. Sure, in traditional legendariums, facts are gradually morphed and ornamented via the living art of storytelling. But it's an organic process. Not just "pseudo-history", not just "fiction."

Quote
Either way, the available evidence is too limited to be confident in any conclusions, but that doesn't make Baltic any more likely.

Well, we wouldn't know till we tried. :)
3
Morphosyntax / Re: Perfect tenses for talking about the past experiences
« Last post by Audiendus on August 22, 2019, 06:35:52 PM »
2. Since the present perfect progressive is used to talk about an action of certain duration which may also have a result in the present, can I also use it in the same way as the present perfect simple above? (i.e. to talk about a past event which, to me, has some present relevance). For example, look at the response to A which I came up with and tell me please if it makes sense.

A: Have you travelled a lot in your life?
B: Yeah, I've been living in different places. For example, I've been living in Spain for 3 years.
I would not use the progressive form here, as that implies that you have only just returned from Spain  (and that you lived in various other places consecutively before that). If your stay in Spain ended some time in the past (but is relevant to the present), you can use the present perfect simple:

B: Yeah, I've lived in different places. For example, I've lived [or I lived] in Spain for 3 years.

With the present perfect simple, it is usually clear from the context whether we are referring to (a) something continuing up to the present, or (b) something that ended in the past, but is relevant to the present. The following well-known joke by Groucho Marx plays on those two uses of the present perfect:

"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
4
Morphosyntax / Re: Perfect tenses for talking about the past experiences
« Last post by Daniel on August 22, 2019, 05:18:49 PM »
Yes, that's relevant. (1) refers to experience leading up to the current moment, and (2) refers to something you did in the past but maybe not relevant now.
5
Morphosyntax / Re: Perfect tenses for talking about the past experiences
« Last post by Natalia on August 22, 2019, 02:38:25 PM »
And what if you are at a job interview and your potential boss asks you to tell them something about your experience, about your previous jobs. Which form would be better to use?
1. I've worked in accounting for 4 years
2. I worked in accounting for 4 years.

On the Internet, I've found this model: I've worked in "occupation" field for "unit of time".
6
Morphosyntax / Re: Perfect tenses for talking about the past experiences
« Last post by Daniel on August 22, 2019, 01:55:47 PM »
Yes, if relevant.
7
Morphosyntax / Re: Perfect tenses for talking about the past experiences
« Last post by Natalia on August 22, 2019, 01:41:48 PM »
OK, thank you. I thought that the issue was present relevance. But just to be sure, let me ask you two more questions:

1. Is it fine to add how long I have lived or worked somewhere in the past (as in the example "I’ve worked in the accounting field for 4 years")?

2. Since the present perfect progressive is used to talk about an action of certain duration which may also have a result in the present, can I also use it in the same way as the present perfect simple above? (i.e. to talk about a past event which, to me, has some present relevance). For example, look at the response to A which I came up with and tell me please if it makes sense.

A: Have you travelled a lot in your life?
B: Yeah, I've been living in different places. For example, I've been living in Spain for 3 years.
8
Morphosyntax / Re: Perfect tenses for talking about the past experiences
« Last post by Daniel on August 22, 2019, 12:56:19 PM »
Quote
I’ve learnt from an English grammar book...
That's the problem. You're going to get over-generalizations meant for learning the most common patterns, but they're often not actually accurate descriptions, and certainly do not cover all usage.

In this case, the issue is present relevance: is it currently relevant that you have experienced living somewhere? If not, if you're just describing the past, use the past. If you're stating something about your experience (for example, a friend is thinking about moving to that same place) then you'll use the present perfect. You can think of a paraphrase as "I have the experience of [verb]".
9
Morphosyntax / Perfect tenses for talking about the past experiences
« Last post by Natalia on August 22, 2019, 11:34:23 AM »
I’ve learnt from an English grammar book that when we are talking about something that occupied a period of time now terminated (especially with the verbs “live” and “work”), we should use the past simple. Here are the examples:
- He worked in that bank for four years. (but he does not work there now)
- He has worked in that bank for four years. (he still works there)

Having said that, recently I watched some English videos in which native English speakers talked about their past experiences and used the structures like:

- I’ve lived in Vietnam.
- I’ve worked in the accounting field for 4 years.

So I thought maybe we could use the perfect tenses to highlight the present relevance of a particular past event? For example: I’ve lived in Vietnam = I have some valuable experience of having lived in Vietnam. That’s how I understand it but can be wrong of course, and that’s why I’d be very grateful for your feedback on this.
10
Historical Linguistics / MOVED: Pictish as a Baltoid language
« Last post by Daniel on August 20, 2019, 09:08:43 PM »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10