Tangipahoa

Post by Geopelia
Does anyone know what it would mean in Maori?

According to <http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/>: Nothing.

-Phil

Jan Ras

2007-01-07 14:11:23 UTC

Post by Geopelia
I was surprised to see there is a place named Tangipahoa in Louisiana.
Apparently it comes from the Acolapissa language and means "ear of corn" or
"those who gather corn".
At first I wondered how on earth a Maori name got there. Did Maoris get to
America before Columbus?
Then I found a lot about the place on Google.
Does anyone know what it would mean in Maori?
Geopelia

Tangipahoa.
A wailing friend of the Iwi perhaps?,

Or even being a little linguistically innovative, perhaps
(Tangi-pahoahoa).........................
"Ka takoto (tangi) pahoahoa te tangata ra i runga i tana moenga".

(A very (Sad?) drunk person lay completely flakers on his bed )????????

(Pinch of salt please)

JR

David

2007-01-07 18:07:51 UTC

This could well be a one-off, a fluke.

The relationship between polynesia and western south america
does interest... Recently I saw on TV people in that part of the world
putting down a hangi.

I am not a Maori scholar!!! But literally the name means:
'weep, settlement, friend'

It has been found that there are sufficient accord between
Polynesian and Malay to prove a link.

David,

David Lloyd

2007-01-07 19:00:56 UTC

This could well be a one-off, a fluke.
The relationship between polynesia and western south america
does interest... Recently I saw on TV people in that part of the world
putting down a hangi.
'weep, settlement, friend'
It has been found that there are sufficient accord between
Polynesian and Malay to prove a link.
David,

It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori. And you are right there is a
link between Malay and Polynesian. Carvings and weaving of the Iban
tribe of Sarawak bears a striking resemblance to that of the Maori.
Some Malay words are similar to Maori also. And many Malay,
particularly in the northern states of Terangganu, Kelantan and
Perlis, could be mistaken for Polynesians.

david

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

David

2007-01-08 04:26:05 UTC

Post by David Lloyd
It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori.

i would be interested in who the Acolapissa are...

My understanding is that the first people to enter the Pacific
were the Lapida people. Are the two the same?

Post by David Lloyd
And you are right there is a
link between Malay and Polynesian. Carvings and weaving of the Iban
tribe of Sarawak bears a striking resemblance to that of the Maori.
Some Malay words are similar to Maori also. And many Malay,
particularly in the northern states of Terangganu, Kelantan and
Perlis, could be mistaken for Polynesians.
david
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Geopelia

2007-01-08 12:02:17 UTC

Post by David Lloyd
It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori.

i would be interested in who the Acolapissa are...
My understanding is that the first people to enter the Pacific
were the Lapida people. Are the two the same?

The Acolapissa are related to the Choctaw. There is a lot about them on
Google. Sadly their population has declined through introduced diseases.
http://www.manataka.org/page40.html

Louisiana is bordered by Texas, Mississippi and Arkansas. The coastline is
on the Gulf of Mexico, the South Eastern side of the USA.
Any ancient Polynesians reaching North America would have arrived on the
Western side.

Geopelia

David

2007-01-08 18:30:16 UTC

Post by David Lloyd
It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori.

i would be interested in who the Acolapissa are...
My understanding is that the first people to enter the Pacific
were the Lapida people. Are the two the same?

The Acolapissa are related to the Choctaw. There is a lot about them on
Google. Sadly their population has declined through introduced diseases.
http://www.manataka.org/page40.html
Louisiana is bordered by Texas, Mississippi and Arkansas. The coastline is
on the Gulf of Mexico, the South Eastern side of the USA.
Any ancient Polynesians reaching North America would have arrived on the
Western side.
Geopelia

Interesting variant of Madoc and the Welsh Indians.

In the unlikely event of Polynesian language and genes
reaching the eastern seaboard the language would
have not been a replica of modern NZ Maori.

vis. There were various reports of Indians having fragments
of the Welsh Bible. Published circa 1600. Madoc, if he ever
arrived would have been there circa 1100.

David

2007-01-08 18:34:09 UTC

Post by David Lloyd
It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori.

i would be interested in who the Acolapissa are...
My understanding is that the first people to enter the Pacific
were the Lapida people. Are the two the same?

The Acolapissa are related to the Choctaw. There is a lot about them on
Google. Sadly their population has declined through introduced diseases.
http://www.manataka.org/page40.html
Louisiana is bordered by Texas, Mississippi and Arkansas. The coastline is
on the Gulf of Mexico, the South Eastern side of the USA.
Any ancient Polynesians reaching North America would have arrived on the
Western side.
Geopelia

Hmmm... anm interesting language- manataka has meaning in Maori too.
Manataka in Kai Tahu, Manatanga is not a word as such but has resonance
and meaning in Maori...

spookey!

Geopelia

2007-01-08 21:02:05 UTC

Post by David Lloyd
It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori.

i would be interested in who the Acolapissa are...
My understanding is that the first people to enter the Pacific
were the Lapida people. Are the two the same?

The Acolapissa are related to the Choctaw. There is a lot about them on
Google. Sadly their population has declined through introduced diseases.
http://www.manataka.org/page40.html
Louisiana is bordered by Texas, Mississippi and Arkansas. The coastline
is on the Gulf of Mexico, the South Eastern side of the USA.
Any ancient Polynesians reaching North America would have arrived on the
Western side.
Geopelia

Hmmm... anm interesting language- manataka has meaning in Maori too.
Manataka in Kai Tahu, Manatanga is not a word as such but has resonance
and meaning in Maori...
spookey!

Early humans entered the Americas over a land bridge where the Bering Sea is
now. Thus the Native Americans are of ancient Asian descent.
Wouldn't they be genetically closer to the Polynesians than to Caucasians?

I wonder if there is some very ancient language link, too.

Geopelia.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

TarlaStar

2007-01-09 04:04:06 UTC

Post by Geopelia
Early humans entered the Americas over a land bridge where the Bering Sea is
now. Thus the Native Americans are of ancient Asian descent.
Wouldn't they be genetically closer to the Polynesians than to Caucasians?
I wonder if there is some very ancient language link, too.

Not bloody likely. Native Americans are more closely related genetically
to Mongolian Asians. NA's and Asians have shovel-shaped incisors.
Caucasians don't.

"Some scholars estimate that the Western Hemisphere at the time of the
first European contact was inhabited by 40 million people who spoke
1,800 different tongues. Another widely accepted estimate suggests that
at the time of Columbus more than 15 million speakers throughout the
Western Hemisphere used more than 2,000 languages; the geographic
divisions within that estimate are 300 separate tongues native to some
1.5 million Native Americans N of Mexico, 300 different languages spoken
by roughly 5 million people in Mexico and Central America, and more than
1,400 distinct tongues used by 9 million Native Americans in South
America and the West Indies."
http://www.answers.com/topic/native-american-languages

As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and one
outside of the Americas.

Peter Metcalfe

2007-01-09 04:55:04 UTC

Post by TarlaStar
As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and one
outside of the Americas.

Both the Aleut and Yupik languages are spoken in Alaska and
Siberia.

--Peter Metcalfe

TarlaStar

2007-01-09 05:20:18 UTC

Post by Peter Metcalfe

Post by TarlaStar
As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and one
outside of the Americas.

Both the Aleut and Yupik languages are spoken in Alaska and
Siberia.
--Peter Metcalfe

Source and time frame, please. My understanding is that that's an
assertion, but not proven.

Peter Metcalfe

2007-01-09 08:07:55 UTC

Post by Peter Metcalfe

Post by TarlaStar
As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and one
outside of the Americas.

Both the Aleut and Yupik languages are spoken in Alaska and
Siberia.

Source and time frame, please. My understanding is that that's an
assertion, but not proven.

The Yupik languages:

http://www.ethnologue.org/show_family.asp?subid=92634

And the Aleut:

http://www.ethnologue.org/show_language.asp?code=ale

Relationship between Yupik and the Aleut:

The language of the Siberian Eskimo belongs to the Eskimo-Aleut
group of the Paleo-Asiatic languages. The Eskimos separated from
the Aleuts at least 2,000--3,000 years ago and spread over a vast
territory stretching from Northeast Asia across North-America to
Greenland.

http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/asiatic_eskimos.shtml

My understanding is that contact over the Bering strait was possible
due to the Thule cultures which arrived in Alaska circa 500 and
became established in Northern Canada half a millenium later.
There's some technological contact in the northwest

The "asiatic eskimos" are sufficiently well-established to be
part of the Inuit circumpolar council.

http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?Lang=En&ID=1

Unfortunately the Russian section of that is in Cyrillic which
I can't read. The earliest recorded reference according to
the Red Book is in 1649 when the first Russian explorers
reached there.

--Peter Metcalfe

Sue Bilstein

2007-01-09 09:40:41 UTC

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 21:07:55 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
<***@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
...

Post by Peter Metcalfe
The "asiatic eskimos" are sufficiently well-established to be
part of the Inuit circumpolar council.
http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?Lang=En&ID=1
Unfortunately the Russian section of that is in Cyrillic which
I can't read. The earliest recorded reference according to
the Red Book is in 1649 when the first Russian explorers
reached there.

Cyrillic is a doddle, but Russian is hard.

Brian Dooley

2007-01-11 00:44:43 UTC

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:40:41 +1300, Sue Bilstein

Post by Sue Bilstein
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 21:07:55 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
...

Cyrillic is a doddle, but Russian is hard.

My nephew reckoned not so much, but he was living there.

--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand

TarlaStar

2007-01-11 03:37:01 UTC

Post by Brian Dooley
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:40:41 +1300, Sue Bilstein

Post by Sue Bilstein
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 21:07:55 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
...

Cyrillic is a doddle, but Russian is hard.

My nephew reckoned not so much, but he was living there.

It's hard for English speakers to learn because they have cases that
don't exist in English, and male and female usages for some words.

Sue Bilstein

2007-01-11 08:55:27 UTC

Post by Brian Dooley
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:40:41 +1300, Sue Bilstein

Post by Sue Bilstein
Cyrillic is a doddle, but Russian is hard.

My nephew reckoned not so much, but he was living there.

It's hard for English speakers to learn because they have cases that
don't exist in English, and male and female usages for some words.

And different forms of the same verb for actual and habitual moods, so
twice the verb vocab to learn.

Brian Dooley

2007-01-12 21:05:38 UTC

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:37:01 +1300, TarlaStar

Post by Brian Dooley
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:40:41 +1300, Sue Bilstein

Post by Sue Bilstein
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 21:07:55 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
...

Cyrillic is a doddle, but Russian is hard.

My nephew reckoned not so much, but he was living there.

It's hard for English speakers to learn because they have cases that
don't exist in English, and male and female usages for some words.

Half the languages in the world have funnies of that nature,
including English, but I think for opposite reasons.

--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand

Floyd L. Davidson

2007-01-09 20:11:23 UTC

Post by Peter Metcalfe
The language of the Siberian Eskimo belongs to the Eskimo-Aleut
group of the Paleo-Asiatic languages. The Eskimos separated from
the Aleuts at least 2,000--3,000 years ago and spread over a vast
territory stretching from Northeast Asia across North-America to
Greenland.
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/asiatic_eskimos.shtml

That is really interesting reading! It has a very significantly
different slant on many things than is typically found in
descriptions of Eskimos written in the US or Canada.

However, it also simply left out a few things and there are a
couple of fairly gross errors too.

The Eskimo culture evolved in *Alaska*, not in Asia. We are not
sure exactly when their ancestors came to Alaska, but we know
that they did come from Asia, and that they were *not* what we
would call an Eskimo culture when they arrived. We know that
those ancestors were probably in North East Siberia as far back
as 16,000 years ago, and may have come to Alaska any time from
perhaps 8 to 14 thousand years ago. And we know that by 5000
years ago a full fledged Dorset Eskimo culture had developed in
Alaska.

That culture migrated back into Siberia. It also split at least
twice. The Aleut people broke off perhaps 4000 years ago (note
that is very different than the 2-3,000 mentioned above, but
both linguists and DNA researchers agree on a 4000 years ago
separation). And the Eskimo branch split between Yupik and
Inuit perhaps 2000 or fewer years ago. I'm not really sure when
the migration of Yupik into Siberia took place.

Post by Peter Metcalfe
My understanding is that contact over the Bering strait was possible
due to the Thule cultures which arrived in Alaska circa 500 and
became established in Northern Canada half a millenium later.
There's some technological contact in the northwest

Thule Technology developed in Northwestern Alaska at just about
the same time (but probably not as a single event) that the
Inuit and Yupik cultures and languages became distinct (1500 to
2000 years ago). Thule Technology swept through virtually all
Eskimo cultures, though Dorset Eskimo people continued to exist
in fair numbers for hundreds of years, and only became totally
extinct after the arrival of Europeans in Canada.

Dorset Technology would not have found the Bering Straits
impossible to pass, but Thule Technology (which may have brought
the large Umiaq skin boats to everyone, though some believe that
Dorset people already had them) certainly made it downright
easy.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@apaflo.com

Floyd L. Davidson

2007-01-09 18:52:24 UTC

Post by Peter Metcalfe

Post by TarlaStar
As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and
one outside of the Americas.

Both the Aleut and Yupik languages are spoken in Alaska and
Siberia. --Peter Metcalfe

Source and time frame, please. My understanding is that that's
an assertion, but not proven.

It is an easily demonstrated fact. However, it still misses the
point entirely! They *originated* in Alaska, not Siberia.
Whatever migration they represent, it was a *westward* migration
into Siberia.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@apaflo.com

Geopelia

2007-01-09 11:16:56 UTC

Post by Geopelia
Early humans entered the Americas over a land bridge where the Bering Sea
is now. Thus the Native Americans are of ancient Asian descent.
Wouldn't they be genetically closer to the Polynesians than to Caucasians?
I wonder if there is some very ancient language link, too.

Not bloody likely. Native Americans are more closely related genetically
to Mongolian Asians. NA's and Asians have shovel-shaped incisors.
Caucasians don't.
"Some scholars estimate that the Western Hemisphere at the time of the
first European contact was inhabited by 40 million people who spoke 1,800
different tongues. Another widely accepted estimate suggests that at the
time of Columbus more than 15 million speakers throughout the Western
Hemisphere used more than 2,000 languages; the geographic divisions within
that estimate are 300 separate tongues native to some 1.5 million Native
Americans N of Mexico, 300 different languages spoken by roughly 5 million
people in Mexico and Central America, and more than 1,400 distinct tongues
used by 9 million Native Americans in South America and the West Indies."
http://www.answers.com/topic/native-american-languages
As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and one outside
of the Americas.

I remember seeing in a film about WWII that the Americans made some Native
American soldiers into radio operators, so they could talk to each other
without the Germans understanding them. But they had forgotten that one
tribe cannot understand another.

t***@texas...removethisbit...usacom..

2007-01-09 16:25:00 UTC

Post by Geopelia
Early humans entered the Americas over a land bridge where the Bering Sea
is now. Thus the Native Americans are of ancient Asian descent.
Wouldn't they be genetically closer to the Polynesians than to Caucasians?
I wonder if there is some very ancient language link, too.

Not bloody likely. Native Americans are more closely related genetically
to Mongolian Asians. NA's and Asians have shovel-shaped incisors.
Caucasians don't.
"Some scholars estimate that the Western Hemisphere at the time of the
first European contact was inhabited by 40 million people who spoke 1,800
different tongues. Another widely accepted estimate suggests that at the
time of Columbus more than 15 million speakers throughout the Western
Hemisphere used more than 2,000 languages; the geographic divisions within
that estimate are 300 separate tongues native to some 1.5 million Native
Americans N of Mexico, 300 different languages spoken by roughly 5 million
people in Mexico and Central America, and more than 1,400 distinct tongues
used by 9 million Native Americans in South America and the West Indies."
http://www.answers.com/topic/native-american-languages
As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and one outside
of the Americas.

They only used Navajo.
Besides the film that was made in the past couple of years starring
Nicholas Cage, there's been several more recent documentaries
made/shown on the History Channel here.

Cath

Floyd L. Davidson

2007-01-09 19:41:11 UTC

Post by t***@texas...removethisbit...usacom..

Post by Geopelia
I remember seeing in a film about WWII that the Americans made some Native
American soldiers into radio operators, so they could talk to each other
without the Germans understanding them. But they had forgotten that one
tribe cannot understand another.

They only used Navajo.

None of the above is true, other than that some were indeed radio
operators.

The Navajo "code talkers" are the most famous today, and
probably the largest group and the most used group. But there
were more than a dozen different groups, going back to WW I when
the Chocktaw people were used.

About 400 Navajo code talkers were *extensively* used by the US
Marines in the Pacific Theater. Hopi code talkers were also
used in the Pacific.

In Europe at least the Commanche and Apache code talker were
used, but not nearly to the same extent as the Navajos in the
Pacific.

Each group however was very distinct. That includes groups who
spoke the same language. Hence one batch of Navajos would not
necessarily be able to work with another bunch. The reason for
that was because they did much more than just speak their own
language... they also encoded, within that language, everything
they said.

Here is the standard "dictionary" used by the Navajo code talkers.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-4.htm

There was a "standard" code developed for Navajo, but then each
group would embellish that too, sometimes down to the point where
two guys who grew up together might be able to make references
to things so unique to them that nobody else would ever
understand what they meant.

It wasn't just that a non-Navajo speaker would not be able to
understand, but that even a fluent Navajo speaker would be
confused. In fact, the Japanese had captured at least one
Navajo soldier in the Philippines and forced him to translate
some of the coded messages. He did, literally, and it meant
nothing to him or to the Japanese.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@apaflo.com

Brian Dooley

2007-01-10 08:30:08 UTC

Post by t***@texas...removethisbit...usacom..

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:25:00 -0600,

Post by Geopelia
Early humans entered the Americas over a land bridge where the Bering Sea
is now. Thus the Native Americans are of ancient Asian descent.
Wouldn't they be genetically closer to the Polynesians than to Caucasians?
I wonder if there is some very ancient language link, too.

Not bloody likely. Native Americans are more closely related genetically
to Mongolian Asians. NA's and Asians have shovel-shaped incisors.
Caucasians don't.
"Some scholars estimate that the Western Hemisphere at the time of the
first European contact was inhabited by 40 million people who spoke 1,800
different tongues. Another widely accepted estimate suggests that at the
time of Columbus more than 15 million speakers throughout the Western
Hemisphere used more than 2,000 languages; the geographic divisions within
that estimate are 300 separate tongues native to some 1.5 million Native
Americans N of Mexico, 300 different languages spoken by roughly 5 million
people in Mexico and Central America, and more than 1,400 distinct tongues
used by 9 million Native Americans in South America and the West Indies."
http://www.answers.com/topic/native-american-languages
As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and one outside
of the Americas.

They only used Navajo.
Besides the film that was made in the past couple of years starring
Nicholas Cage, there's been several more recent documentaries
made/shown on the History Channel here.

The US Army also trained a group of 17 young Comanche as 'code
talkers'.

--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand

BTMO

2007-01-10 08:32:36 UTC

Post by Brian Dooley

Post by t***@texas...removethisbit...usacom..
They only used Navajo.
Besides the film that was made in the past couple of years starring
Nicholas Cage, there's been several more recent documentaries
made/shown on the History Channel here.

The US Army also trained a group of 17 young Comanche as 'code
talkers'.

Hmmm.. are you sure?

I'd always believed they only used Navajo as well - because the language has
so little linguistic relationship to other languages.

Makes it *hard* to decode...

BTMO

2007-01-10 08:33:25 UTC

Post by BTMO

Post by Brian Dooley
The US Army also trained a group of 17 young Comanche as 'code
talkers'.

Hmmm.. are you sure?
I'd always believed they only used Navajo as well - because the language
has so little linguistic relationship to other languages.
Makes it *hard* to decode...

Disregard. Just read Floyd's post...

-sigh-

Floyd L. Davidson

2007-01-10 12:31:25 UTC

Post by BTMO

Post by Brian Dooley

The US Army also trained a group of 17 young Comanche as 'code
talkers'.

Hmmm.. are you sure?

There were several others, in addition to Commanche, besides the
Navajo code talkers. However, the number of Navajo code talkers
was about 400, and the other groups were only a handful each.

Post by BTMO
I'd always believed they only used Navajo as well - because the language has
so little linguistic relationship to other languages.
Makes it *hard* to decode...

That is essentially true of *all* Native Amercian languages.

Navajo is probably a bit more extensive than you would expect
too. It is an Athabaskan language, and for example I've seen
young Navajo firefighters brought to Alaska to fight forest
fires in the summer who were astounded to find themselves in
Koyukon villages in Northwestern Alaska where they understood
almost every word spoken!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@apaflo.com

Sue Bilstein

2007-01-11 08:56:46 UTC

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by BTMO

Post by Brian Dooley
The US Army also trained a group of 17 young Comanche as 'code
talkers'.

Hmmm.. are you sure?

There were several others, in addition to Commanche, besides the
Navajo code talkers. However, the number of Navajo code talkers
was about 400, and the other groups were only a handful each.

Post by BTMO
I'd always believed they only used Navajo as well - because the language has
so little linguistic relationship to other languages.
Makes it *hard* to decode...

That is essentially true of *all* Native Amercian languages.
Navajo is probably a bit more extensive than you would expect
too. It is an Athabaskan language, and for example I've seen
young Navajo firefighters brought to Alaska to fight forest
fires in the summer who were astounded to find themselves in
Koyukon villages in Northwestern Alaska where they understood
almost every word spoken!

Cool, a visitor from Alaska! Welcome, Floyd.

TarlaStar

2007-01-10 05:48:19 UTC

Post by Geopelia
Early humans entered the Americas over a land bridge where the Bering Sea
is now. Thus the Native Americans are of ancient Asian descent.
Wouldn't they be genetically closer to the Polynesians than to Caucasians?
I wonder if there is some very ancient language link, too.

Not bloody likely. Native Americans are more closely related genetically
to Mongolian Asians. NA's and Asians have shovel-shaped incisors.
Caucasians don't.
"Some scholars estimate that the Western Hemisphere at the time of the
first European contact was inhabited by 40 million people who spoke 1,800
different tongues. Another widely accepted estimate suggests that at the
time of Columbus more than 15 million speakers throughout the Western
Hemisphere used more than 2,000 languages; the geographic divisions within
that estimate are 300 separate tongues native to some 1.5 million Native
Americans N of Mexico, 300 different languages spoken by roughly 5 million
people in Mexico and Central America, and more than 1,400 distinct tongues
used by 9 million Native Americans in South America and the West Indies."
http://www.answers.com/topic/native-american-languages
As yet, there are no proven links between any NA language and one outside
of the Americas.

You understand incorrectly, I'm afraid. The Navajo Code Talkers were
very successful. They all spoke Navajo, which is impossible to
understand unless you've pretty much grown up speaking it, and rare
enough that no one outside of Arizona and New Mexico would have ever
heard of it back then.

Scooter

2007-01-09 06:37:45 UTC

On , , Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:02:05 +1300, Re: Tangipahoa, "Geopelia"

More mongolian than either.

Floyd L. Davidson

2007-01-09 19:45:24 UTC

Post by Scooter
On , , Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:02:05 +1300, Re: Tangipahoa, "Geopelia"

More mongolian than either.

Except for the Eskimo-Aleut group, that is pretty hard to
verify.

With some of the west coast Indians (Athabaskan and Pacific
Northwest tribes) it does appear that they too are related to
Asians, though it isn't positive in just which way, and a
relationship to Polynesians is only slightly less likely.

For east coast Indians and South American Indians, the
relationship to Polynesians is no more or less clear than to any
other Asians.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@apaflo.com

Geopelia

2007-01-09 22:48:35 UTC

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Scooter
On , , Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:02:05 +1300, Re: Tangipahoa, "Geopelia"

More mongolian than either.

Except for the Eskimo-Aleut group, that is pretty hard to
verify.
With some of the west coast Indians (Athabaskan and Pacific
Northwest tribes) it does appear that they too are related to
Asians, though it isn't positive in just which way, and a
relationship to Polynesians is only slightly less likely.
For east coast Indians and South American Indians, the
relationship to Polynesians is no more or less clear than to any
other Asians.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>

Thank you. It's great to have someone here from that region.
Marvellous website! I love those snowy owls.

(It looks as if those dancers are doing a haka.)

Geopelia

TarlaStar

2007-01-09 03:53:20 UTC

Post by David Lloyd
It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori.

i would be interested in who the Acolapissa are...
My understanding is that the first people to enter the Pacific
were the Lapida people. Are the two the same?

The Acolapissa are related to the Choctaw. There is a lot about them on
Google. Sadly their population has declined through introduced diseases.
http://www.manataka.org/page40.html
Louisiana is bordered by Texas, Mississippi and Arkansas. The coastline is
on the Gulf of Mexico, the South Eastern side of the USA.
Any ancient Polynesians reaching North America would have arrived on the
Western side.
Geopelia

Hmmm... anm interesting language- manataka has meaning in Maori too.
Manataka in Kai Tahu, Manatanga is not a word as such but has resonance
and meaning in Maori...
spookey!

Hardly. There are a limited number of sounds that the human throat,
tongue and teeth can make. The likelihood of duplicated words with
different meanings is pretty high, and even higher if the word pattern
rules of your language require alternating consonants and vowels without
allowing consonant clusters or diphthongs.

TarlaStar

2007-01-09 03:49:51 UTC

Post by David Lloyd
It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori.

i would be interested in who the Acolapissa are...
My understanding is that the first people to enter the Pacific
were the Lapida people. Are the two the same?

Not even close. For one thing...there never were any "Lapida people."
It's simply a term given to a style of pottery in the Pacific.

" Originally, both sides of the lower Pearl River which is the current
eastern border of Louisiana with Mississippi. During 1702 the Acolapissa
left their original location and moved a short distance west to Bayou
Costine on the north side of Lake Pontchartrain. By 1718 they relocated
once again, this time to the east bank of the Mississippi just above the
new French settlement at New Orleans. Pressured by the expansion of
French settlement during the next few years, the Acolapissa were
absorbed by the Houma and moved upstream with them to Ascension Parish
(Donaldsonville, La.). The Houma remained in this area until they sold
their land in 1776 and moved to Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes
southwest of New Orleans. Their descendants still live in this area and
have provided the name for present-day Houma, Louisiana. "
http://www.dickshovel.com/acol.html

People are people wherever you go.

David

2007-01-09 04:27:22 UTC

Post by David Lloyd
It is obvious that the Acolapissa discovered New
Zealand, er... Aotearoa before the Maori.

i would be interested in who the Acolapissa are...
My understanding is that the first people to enter the Pacific
were the Lapida people. Are the two the same?

Not even close. For one thing...there never were any "Lapida people." It's
simply a term given to a style of pottery in the Pacific.

Hmmm, the history of a myth... I watched a NZ history series over the
summer-
on Sunday I think it was. Its thesis on this period was that pot making
originated
from Asia but then it died out. I think pots were made for keeping human
bones it.
The programme made a lot about the sacntity of the human head in Polynesia.

It showed a remnant of people in the Sigatoga valley in Fiji still making
the pots...

TarlaStar

2007-01-08 03:41:12 UTC

This could well be a one-off, a fluke.
The relationship between polynesia and western south america
does interest... Recently I saw on TV people in that part of the world
putting down a hangi.

Dude, my people been doing pit barbecue for generations. You didn't
really think that Maori were the first to come up with that idea, did you?

David

2007-01-08 04:28:26 UTC

Post by Geopelia
I was surprised to see there is a place named Tangipahoa in Louisiana.
Apparently it comes from the Acolapissa language and means "ear of corn"
or "those who gather corn".
At first I wondered how on earth a Maori name got there. Did Maoris get
to America before Columbus?
Then I found a lot about the place on Google.
Does anyone know what it would mean in Maori?
Geopelia

This could well be a one-off, a fluke.
The relationship between polynesia and western south america
does interest... Recently I saw on TV people in that part of the world
putting down a hangi.

Dude, my people been doing pit barbecue for generations. You didn't really
think that Maori were the first to come up with that idea, did you?

A very good point- Heyderdahl reckoned the Polynesians were from
South America. One pointer was that the peoples from both places
made reed rafts, mikihi in NZ.

And yes of course people could have invented them, and hangi
seperately...

-D

Enkidu

2007-01-07 20:02:40 UTC

--
Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?

David

2007-01-08 04:31:37 UTC

Post by Enkidu

Post by Geopelia
I was surprised to see there is a place named Tangipahoa in Louisiana.
Apparently it comes from the Acolapissa language and means "ear of corn"
or "those who gather corn".
At first I wondered how on earth a Maori name got there. Did Maoris get
to America before Columbus?

The Welsh met them half way... Madoc ap Owain Gwynedd arrived there a
few years ahead of St Brendan...

ah have proof!

The word for hippy , hipi is the same in Welsh and Maori!

Spookey, huh?

David.

Pooh

2007-01-08 05:06:35 UTC

Post by Enkidu

Post by Geopelia
I was surprised to see there is a place named Tangipahoa in Louisiana.
Apparently it comes from the Acolapissa language and means "ear of corn"
or "those who gather corn".
At first I wondered how on earth a Maori name got there. Did Maoris get
to America before Columbus?

I asked a Maori friend of mine what Maori call Los Angeles and he said
"Los Angeles". I then asked him what they called New York and he said "New
York". Obviously the Maoris colonised the whole of North America!
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?

Do a google search for waka. You'll be surprised at some of the images
you'll get and on closer inspection you'll find a Japanese insect among
them.

Pooh

Enkidu

2007-01-08 07:02:19 UTC