[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.)

In article <5940oc$1as@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Domingo Martinez-Castilla (agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu) wrote:
>: Precisely.  That was what I pointed in a post that somehow did not make
>this thread.  : It does not suprise me that Acosta wrote about his wonder
>of finding words : for egg (runtu) and chicken (wallpa).  Ir surprises me
>that Carter and the : reviewers of his article thought that as a big deal. 
>It's a big deal because here was an early observer who thought the
>chickens were pre-Spanish.

Acosta, Mr Kuchinsky, is NOT, repeat , NOT an early observer for South 
American standards: 1590 is late, very late.  Can you possibly get that?  
I do not think so, because you *believe* that chickens were there and nobody, 
no matter which arguments are put forward, will convince you otherwise.  If 
Needham sounds more mellow now, even if Carter recants, you will still believe 
that chickens were brought here way before 1492.

>And then , it does : not suprise me that Mr Kuchinsky picks up that
>Neither should it surpise you.

Well, what can I say about this..!?  "I am not surpissed"?

>: to dismiss it : as non-important as soon as others notice its
>And where did you take this from? Are we seeing one more case of the usual
>twisting of evidence by certain parties here? All too common... I am not

I took it from the following, Mr Kuchinsky (that I am pasting from Deja, 
because I do not store some things):

In article <58umjj$q4s@news1.io.org>, you, Mr Kuchinksy, of all people, wrote:


>I don't feel like getting into these linguistic arguments at this >point. I
>simply reproduced Carter's findings and it would take me a major effort to
>try to verify them. The linguistic evidence for Old World connections >is
>not central to Carter's hypothesis, in any case. (The fact that S.
>American names are not based on Spanish is, though.)

If I may be guilty of the verb "dismiss" (I humbly recognize that, in the 
little time of our "acquaintance", it is true that I have not seen you 
dismissing a single case of "evidence" advanced by you, no matter how bad it 
was beaten by other people), but you clearly say that Carter's hypothesis 
(which in the case of early --underline, early-- chickens is entirely 
linguistic) is not centrally based on the linguistic evidence.

See you.


P.S. You should really jump of happiness and use the "evidence" I provided 
from the Diego de Trujillo quotation:  it is better, by almost 60 years, than 
that of Acosta's, and it truly tells about first contacts of Spaniards with 
natives.  That will confirm your "beliefs" beyond your wildest dreams.  I will 
pass you every piece of original information I can find in the chronicles, so 
perhaps you can convince Carter and Needham to sound a little more assertive 
that they are as of late... NOT!

No bones, huh? Tooooo bad!

Domingo Martinez-Castilla