Stubbs Responds to Hansen

[_Physics Guy]

Yes, apparently it’s, “Wingardia leviOOSa!”

[_Gadianton]

Point 41 has Stubbs "clarification" on the borrowing thesis. I have to say, When I read a post by Symm, it might take a couple passes but I get the gist of it. I honestly can't say that I can follow Stubbs at all. I think in addition to an overly ambitious project that has taken place in a vacuum, he's not great at communicating his ideas.

Some have questioned sound correspondences applying to loanwords. Borrowings and sound correspondences are not mutually exclusive. Early borrowings also obey laws of sound change subsequent to their entrance into the data. The problem with Rogers’s criticism is that he assumes [Page 285]common descent from Afro-Asiatic. In contrast, descent from a first millennium BCE Hebrew-Aramaic offshoot that joined with a language family in ancient America may be an easier way for some to visualize it. Indeed, borrowed vocabulary is often identified by its departure from the sound correspondences of the larger backdrop of a deeper time-depth; however, if the borrowing or the infusion occurred near the origins of the language family, then its vocabulary would adhere to a system of sound changes from that point on. As Robertson comments, there is an initial compulsory transformation of some sounds to accommodate the phonological inventory of the speakers of the receiving language,123 and he gives examples of consistencies in sound change among borrowed lexica. He also adds, “There are many studies that deal with rules of borrowing. Changes are not random, as Hansen claims, but largely rule- governed.”124 Some initial changes relative to that initial contact seem apparent: for example, initial r- > t- probably occurred because those with whom they mixed did not have initial r- in their phonological inventory, though intervocalic -r- occurs as an allophone. Similarly, other Near East fricatives became stops: x > k and ġ > k and f > p. So there is a larger pattern of Near East fricatives becoming stops in the initial position. After the initial reception, normal sound changes would be expected from that point on. The data suggest that that process happened early in United Airlines because most of the few cognate sets that are found in all or nearly all United Airlines branches belong to the Near East infusion.

I'm just bringing this over for now. More later.

[_Symmachus]

Some have questioned sound correspondences applying to loanwords. Borrowings and sound correspondences are not mutually exclusive. Early borrowings also obey laws of sound change subsequent to their entrance into the data. The problem with Rogers’s criticism is that he assumes common descent from Afro-Asiatic. In contrast, descent from a first millennium BCE Hebrew-Aramaic offshoot that joined with a language family in ancient America may be an easier way for some to visualize it. Indeed, borrowed vocabulary is often identified by its departure from the sound correspondences of the larger backdrop of a deeper time-depth

Just as I said above: borrowings are detected by deviations from expected patterns. In the absence of some external clue, it is rather more than "often" that borrowings are determined in this way.

however, if the borrowing or the infusion occurred near the origins of the language family, then its vocabulary would adhere to a system of sound changes from that point on.

If the data set at "that point on" represents the totality of your data, then you have no way of knowing what's behind it—you don't know what patterns characterize the language at the earlier stage—and therefore cannot determine whether borrowing. This is functionally the same as arguing for descent, so Rogers is not mistaken in his assumption because that is the only way to make sense of Stubbs's argument of a connection between Uto-Aztecan and Nephitish. Stubbs is trying to have it both ways here.

As Robertson comments, there is an initial compulsory transformation of some sounds to accommodate the phonological inventory of the speakers of the receiving language, and he gives examples of consistencies in sound change among borrowed lexica. He also adds, “There are many studies that deal with rules of borrowing. Changes are not random, as Hansen claims, but largely rule- governed.” Some initial changes relative to that initial contact seem apparent: for example, initial r- > t- probably occurred because those with whom they mixed did not have initial r- in their phonological inventory, though intervocalic -r- occurs as an allophone. Similarly, other Near East fricatives became stops: x > k and ġ > k and f > p. So there is a larger pattern of Near East fricatives becoming stops in the initial position.

All of this is irrelevant without first establishing that there even was a Uto-Aztecan language before the Nephites. I could just as well say that Nephite fricatives developed into stops and discard this notion of borrowing and language contact. In that case I would be arguing for a genetic descent, implying that Uto-Aztecan was actually a descendant of the language spoken by the Nephites and not a separate language family that was affected through contact with theirs. I wonder why Stubbs and Robertson want to avoid that.

After the initial reception, normal sound changes would be expected from that point on. The data suggest that that process happened early in United Airlines because most of the few cognate sets that are found in all or nearly all United Airlines branches belong to the Near East infusion.

There you have it: all or nearly all of Uto-Aztecan was filtered through the Nephite language. It might as well be genetic descent, then. How does Stubbs even know there was something like Uto-Aztecan in place here to borrow Nephite words if all of his evidence for such a language is based on his assumptions about the Nephite language? Stubbs, conveniently, is at complete liberty to tell us what that Nephite language is, and especially what parts of it influenced Uto-Aztecan.

You can see how this all works then: he posits this sound rule (r > t), meaning that Uto-Aztecan speakers interpreted Semitic/Egyptian "r" as a "t." He thus assumes that the Uto-Aztecan dialect did not have an "r" sound at the point of infusion. Why does that matter? Because if these correspond (that is, if r > t), then there has been Semitic/Egyptian influence on Uto-Aztecan and the Book of Mormon is what they told us in Primary. For that to work, Uto-Aztecan must not have had an "r" sound when it came into contact with Nephitish. So what is the evidence for that? The evidence is that Uto-Aztecan speakers interpreted Semitic/Egyptian "r" as "t." The claim depends upon itself for evidence.

[_tapirrider]

27. Nonlinguistic evidence of Semitic infusion in ancient America
According to Hansen there is zero independent (other, nonlinguistic) evidence of Semitic infusion in ancient America. This is in line with the accepted paradigm because the DNA evidence of Semitic infusion does not receive much press, so most people are oblivious. However, the DNA parallels between Arabs and Uto-Aztecan peoples have been published in at least four different publications by Cavalli et al., Guthrie, Jett, and Leonard.86


So I looked at his sources in footnote 86. All I can say is wow. Just wow. History and Geography of Human Genes is seriously outdated. It was published in 1994, the human genome was sequenced in 2003 and the plethora of published research since then makes Stubbs use of this book for a source highly suspect. The remainder of his sources are in diffusionist publications of questionable credibility and often written by amateurs. For example, Guthrie is a chemist. I can't believe that Stubbs is even trying to use these kind of things and then claim that his work is credible and reputable. I might as well go read May's Ancient America magazine, the Interpreter has put itself into that same category of crank writings.

[_Gadianton]

Thank you Symmachus. After going over that a couple of times, this sentence stuck out:

In contrast, descent from a first millennium BCE Hebrew-Aramaic offshoot that joined with a language family in ancient America may be an easier way for some to visualize it

It might be more clear to just admit this *is* what he's saying rather than some might visualize it this way -- except for the first contact problem, which is critical:

He thus assumes that the Uto-Aztecan dialect did not have an "r" sound at the point of infusion. Why does that matter? Because if these correspond (that is, if r > t), then there has been Semitic/Egyptian influence on Uto-Aztecan and the Book of Mormon is what they told us in Primary.

The problem with a descent-only model is it ignores Lehi's ship.

It's maddening though:

Changes are not random, as Hansen claims, but largely rule- governed.” Some initial changes relative to that initial contact seem apparent: for example, initial r- > t- probably occurred because those with whom they mixed did not have initial r- in their phonological inventory, though intervocalic -r- occurs as an allophone.

Obviously, that's not what Hansen was talking about. I'm sure Hansen knows how borrowing works. In the context of the comparative method, borrowings are "random" as Hansen said, it's the stuff that can't be pinned down by sound-change rules. But that doesn't mean they are random in the ultimate sense of the word "random". Robertson is equivocating. If borrowing were deterministic in the same way the comparative method for descent is deterministic, then we wouldn't need the comparative method, we could just apply the borrowing rules and what's left over would be descent.

Wait---isn't that what Stubbs is doing?

Symm has provided several examples of how borrowing can work. in this case, Stubbs has a particular example of how a borrowing could have worked, but as Symm and Hansen say, there is no way to show a borrowing is constrained to happen that way. But assume a borrowing did happen like this such that Lehi's ship stays afloat. Once we have several of such examples and Father Lehi is happy, then we can construct plausible sound-changes for both before and after the time of infusion, and speculate on what Uto-Aztecan prior to Lehi was.

But that would be drawing target around arrow as has been remarked, no matter how consistent the model might seem.