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

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

On 16 Dec 1996, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> Jeffrey L Baker (jbaker@gas.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
> : On 13 Dec 1996, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> : > Carter spends many pages on linguistic evidence (both in the Old,
> : > and in the New Worlds) indicating chicken origins and diffusion in
> : > his article. These arguments are complex, and I will not go into
> : > them at this stage. I will provide just a brief summary.
> : Carter is not a linguist.
> How long did it take you, Jeffrey, to arrive to this revolutionary 
> finding?

You seem to treat Carter has an expert in linguistics. I was pointing out 
that he is not. The linguist Carter cites concluded that chickens were a 
post 1500 introduction.

> : In fact, his linguistic research is not 
> : original but is based upon the work of others.
> : His sources for asiatic chickens in South America are all 19th and 20th 
> : century sources (writers talking about the types of chickens present in 
> : 19th and 20th century).
> Wrong. I have no idea why people rush to criticise the article that they
> haven't even read carefully. Is this the methodology to follow?

Who does he cite that is writing earlier than the 19th century (who 
specifically mentions Asiatic chickens in South America)?

> : > Carter continues by drawing a parallel with the name of another
> : > important agricultural staple:
> : >  
> : >       ... just as in America _maize_ was retained in the area where
> : >       Indians survived, whereas _corn_ was substituted in the
> : >       British lands where the Indians were extinguished. (p. 196)
> : This is misleading.
> No. You just misunderstood this argument. In the areas where the native
> population was wiped out, the colonizers' nomenclature prevailed. In the
> areas where the natives remained numerically strong, their existing
> nomenclatures prevailed. Reread Carter for details. 

No. I have read Carter. He is plain and simply wrong. Maize is based upon 
a Taino word. This group (and other Arawakans on the Caribbean islands) 
were heavily effected by Old World diseases quite rapidly. Though the 
Taino were not wiped out, their populations were substantially reduced, 
similar to what happened to groups in North America.

For non-Arawakan groups, maize is a foreign word. Maize was not used in 
Mexico prior to 1519, yet today most Mexicans use this word. Why, because
of the Spaniards.

> : Maize is an based upon an Arawak word. The Spaniards 
> : first encountered maize among them (specifically the Taino), and utilized 
> : the Taino name. In areas where the Spanish ruled, maize replaced local 
> : names as the term to be used.
> The real question is, Why the Spanish borrowed the name "maize" while the
> British did not borrow the native name! Can you understand it now? 

I understood it the first time. It is still a completely and totally 
irrelevant argument. Maize was not used in the Andes prior to the 
arrival of the Spaniards. It is now used their, because the Spanish 
incorporated it into their language. Why the British did not utilize a 
native word, and the Spanish did is something I don't know. But Carter's 
hypothesis is wrong.

Jeff Baker