> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > Hello, Qiwi!
> > Long time no talk...
> > I see that you've been posting some interesting new evidence
> > about the matters Polynesian.
> > Myself, I've been busy with lots of other stuff, but now and
> > then I do check sci.arch for the latest merriment.
> > qiwi wrote on 29 Jul 2005 in
> > <1122682610.098353.163250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > The fact is there is only one word in the Polynesian language that has
> > > been traced to an exact and provable point of origin outside the
> > > Pacific region and that word is the generic Polynesian term for the
> > > sweet potato, 'Kumara'.
> > Well, there's certainly more than one such word... For
> > example, how about the old mausoleums known as tupa on
> > Rapanui and as chullpa in S. America?
> > They are both mausoleums, the word is nearly the same, and
> > they often look the same in both places,
> > http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8pb2.htm
> I would suggest an alternative to Yuri's expurgated version. Google
> Groups has the whole discussion, including the fact that the tupa were
> not mausoleums.
What you probably meant to say is that these structures were
also used for other purposes later on...
> > > Ross's word list is too vague to even determine a specific origin for
> > > any of the words on it. The numerals cant be pinned down to any
> > > specific point of origin.... and as for words like 'Vavjan' for woman
> > > and 'HoDal' for rain.....they are just too tenuous to even consider
> > > them to be of serious value.
> > I don't really understand why you feel the need to rewrite
> > linguistic theory in this area. I see no problem with the
> > Austronesian languages originating somewhere in Taiwan/South
> > China.
> > According to Heyerdahl, the ancestors of the Polynesians
> > moved from those parts down to the NW Coast of N America,
> > and then onwards to Hawaii -- all along following the
> > prevailing winds and currents. I agree with this picture.
> > Thus, I'm afraid I agree in this area more with Ross than
> > with you... :(
> Though that might be an amusing novelty,
Hear, hear! :)
> I don't think our agreement
> would get far beyond Taiwan. As pointed out repeatedly here, the
> Heyerdahl scenario utterly fails to account for the internal relations
> among Austronesian languages.
> Ross Clark
Well, these are archy groups. I'm not about to solve any big
linguistic problems this morning.
OTOH, as I say, there's certainly plenty of archaeological
and anthropological evidence for the links between the
American NW Coast and Hawaii, and Polynesia more generally.
Putting linguistics before archaeology is like putting the
cart before the horse.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=-
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
-- Aldous Huxley