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

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

agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu (DomingoMartinez-Castilla) wrote:
: In article <5940oc$1as@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

: >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.

Yes, but he was an early observer in _that area_.

: >: to dismiss it : as non-important as soon as others notice its
: >flaws. 
: >
: >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
: >surprised. 

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

The following does not say what you claim it says. I don't dismiss any
relevant arguments. Certainly not about early European witnesses of
chickens in America. On the other hand, I point out that _etymological
connections with the Old World_, although extremely interesting, are not
central to Carter's argument. Got it now? 

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

: >Greg,

: >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)

Here you go. You try to prove one thing, and meanwhile add another
distortion. Cater's hypothesis IS NOT based on only linguistic arguments.
He gives plenty of info from cultural evidence (e.g. the ritual use of
chickens in cock-fighting), and from zoological record, etc..

: is not centrally based on the linguistic evidence.

Try to read more carefully in the future.

: 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...

I am grateful to you for finding that quote from Trujillo. But that quote
doesn't exactly disprove what I said. It may indeed add weght to it...



            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
Diffusionist studies are not, as they are sometimes said to be,
attempts to depreciate the creativity of peoples; rather they are
efforts to locate and specify this creativity. D. Frazer,
Research, 32 (1965) p. 454, as quoted by J. Needham.