AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What is Pangasinense?
nenabunena
post Feb 11 2012, 05:16 PM
Post #1


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 2-March 09




According to this, Pangasinense isn't related to any other Filipino languages directly, though it is close to Ibaloi? If Ibalois came from Pangasinan, shouldn't they both belong to the same branch?

Also, what's with all the spam here, where are the mods?

Inquirer
QUOTE
Why itís difficult to learn Pangasinan

By Gabriel Cardinoza
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:10:00 06/17/2009

Filed Under: Language, history, Culture (general), Education

EVER wondered why it's difficult to learn the Pangasinan language if you were not born in a Pangasinan-speaking community? It?s because in the family tree of Philippine languages, Pangasinan has no relative.

Pangasinan is one of the 13 indigenous languages in the country with at least a million native speakers. These include Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano, Hiligaynon, Waray-Waray, Kapampangan, Bikol, Albay Bikol, Maranao, Maguindanao, Kinaray-a and Tausug.

?Linguists don?t really know where to put the Pangasinan language, on which branch [in the family tree],? said Edgardo Quiros, a division chief at the National Library who has been doing research on the Pangasinan language for his doctoral dissertation at the University of the Philippines.

He said that even the Sentro ng Wikang Pambansa had aired this concern when he consulted the office.

Quiros, a Pangasinense, said the theory was that if two languages belong to the same family tree and a person was born with the first one, it will be easier for him or her to learn the language in the same branch.

?For example, Ilocano is your first language and you try to learn Pangasinan. It will take you longer to learn Pangasinan than if you were born in a Pangasinan-speaking environment,? he said.

?But if you were born an Ilocano and you try to learn Tagalog, it will be a lot easier for you to learn it than Pangasinan.?

Linguists baffled

Why the Pangasinan language is the way it is today continues to baffle linguists, Quiros said.

?Until now, there are no proofs or documents that could tell why the Pangasinan language is the way it is today although we have archeological evidence and some cultural distinctions that could point to something,? he said.

For example, he said, the Chinese have been trading in Pangasinan even before the Spaniards came. And there are families in Pangasinan, he said, that have in their possession artifacts proving that their families had been in Pangasinan when it was trading with China in the pre-Hispanic era.

?But there has been no formal studies on Pangasinan language,? he said.

Asked if he was aware that in the history of Dagupan City, the early settlers were believed to have come from the Flores Islands in Indonesia, where the language was said to be similar, Quiros said it was possible.

?But you can never tell. That community already existed like us then. So, maybe, we should confirm the similarity of our languages,? he said.

Quiros also said the closest language to Pangasinan was Ibaloi.

?During one of my field research activities in the barrios and sitios along the Agno River, in the upstream of the San Roque Dam, we validated the idea that the Ibaloi were actually from Pangasinan,? he said.

He said people he interviewed had told him that their ancestors were located in Pangasinan. ?So, Ibaloi and Pangasinan are the same because they came from Pangasinan. There?s no debate about it,? he said.

Five dialects

So far, Quiros said, the only definite about Pangasinan language was that it has five dialects.

?It?s easy to distinguish, for example, the Pangasinan that is spoken in the central part of the province. It?s very distinct,? he said.

?However, if you talk about Pangasinan spoken somewhere in the areas of Camiling [Tarlac] and Mangatarem towns, and compare it to the Pangasinan in the coastal areas, such as Dagupan, then compare it to those spoken in places like San Carlos City, you?ll easily spot the difference,? Quiros said.

He said Pangasinenses in central Pangasinan have more detailed words to describe specific phenomena.

?One good example is the rain. Rain is associated with adjectives, like maksil [strong] or makapuy [weak] in other places. But in central Pangasinan, there are many terms for rain. It can be maya-maya [drizzle], tayaketek [light rain] or ambusabos [heavy rain],? Quiros said.

Fully developed

This shows, he said, that in central Pangasinan, the language has been fully developed because these were also the oldest places in the province.

He said anthropologist and UP professor Jerome Bailen, a Pangasinense, had proposed to conduct diggings around Mangabul Lake in Bayambang town to find archaeological evidence to prove that Pangasinan already existed even before the Spanish period, but he was not able to get funding.

?Mangabul is a very good place to go. If there?s a big lake or there?s a big river, the communities during the pre-Hispanic period were there. So, it?s there where you can find a good study of the language,? Quiros said.

He said he pursued the study of Pangasinan language ?more on of interest rather than a necessity.?

?Language is an accumulation of experience of a society. Language, in itself, is history. And I find it as a sense of fulfillment to know more about a culture of a place where I am supposed to come from and yet I know little about,? he said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AnybodyKiller
post Feb 12 2012, 03:19 PM
Post #2


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 867
Joined: 12-September 09
From: Bay Area




QUOTE (nenabunena @ Feb 11 2012, 05:16 PM) *
According to this, Pangasinense isn't related to any other Filipino languages directly, though it is close to Ibaloi? If Ibalois came from Pangasinan, shouldn't they both belong to the same branch?

Also, what's with all the spam here, where are the mods?

Inquirer

Is Pangasinese not part of the Austronesian language family?

I know, they really need to update their registration and start IP banning blatant trolls.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jc2
post Feb 12 2012, 04:01 PM
Post #3


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,527
Joined: 28-May 05
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada




Pangasinan is a Cordilleran language that is spoken in the lowlands. Like all indigenous Filipino language except for Chavacano, it belongs to the Austronesian family.

I don't know why the article says that a person who was raised Ilocano would have a harder time learning Pangasinan than Tagalog when Ilocano and Pangasinan are closer to each other.

As for the spams, I think the mods might have already given up on this site and just let all the spams slide through

This post has been edited by Jc2: Feb 12 2012, 04:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nenabunena
post Feb 12 2012, 05:52 PM
Post #4


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 2-March 09




QUOTE (Jc2 @ Feb 13 2012, 05:01 AM) *
Pangasinan is a Cordilleran language that is spoken in the lowlands. Like all indigenous Filipino language except for Chavacano, it belongs to the Austronesian family.

I don't know why the article says that a person who was raised Ilocano would have a harder time learning Pangasinan than Tagalog when Ilocano and Pangasinan are closer to each other.

As for the spams, I think the mods might have already given up on this site and just let all the spams slide through


I believe Chavacano is also Austronesian as it's grammar follows Philippine languages. It's all about grammar, rather than the loan words.

I believe Pangasinan is an Austronesian language but the article is saying that it's not directly related to any Filipino language, though still a Filipino language genetically? I'm not exactly sure what it's saying tbh.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Feb 12 2012, 09:09 PM
Post #5


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




QUOTE (nenabunena @ Feb 11 2012, 05:16 PM) *
According to this, Pangasinense isn't related to any other Filipino languages directly, though it is close to Ibaloi? If Ibalois came from Pangasinan, shouldn't they both belong to the same branch?

Also, what's with all the spam here, where are the mods?

Inquirer

I also noticed the big differences almost unintelligible among Ilocano, Pangasinense and Kapampangan. All three grouped as the Northern Philippine languages as to distinguish to the Southern Languages like the Tagalogs and Bisayans.

Kapampangan belongs to Sambalic languages and is transitional between Aeta language and the Sinaunang Tagalog, Remontados. Bolinao language is also Sambalic and is transitional between Botolan or Sambalic Aeta and Pangasinense. Sinaunang Tagalog or Remontados is transitional between Kapampangan and Tagalog.

It looks like the greatest bifurcation occurs in Central Luzon with Austronesian Aeta Sambalic as the most archaic and ancestral. Sambalic languages is also being spoken to as far as Puerto Princesa in Palawan.

Out of Taiwan? It looks like Out of Luzon.

The Northern Languages are so unintelligible among each other that you can group them as separatem major language gruoping and the languages as sole representatives of their respective separate language group. Philippine languages grouping can rival as the most diverse which are often designated to the Formosan language grouping by linguists like Bellwood and Blust. Diversity usually denotes the site of bifurcations and thus the Origin or the original Proto or mother language.

Just an amateurish observation since I have no linguistic studies background.
QUOTE
Sambal: Hiyay kay tanda mamanomtom ha pinag'ibatan, kay 'ya maka'lato ha ampako'tawan.”
Bolinao: “Si [tawon] kai magtanda’ lumingap sa ibwatan [na], kai ya mirate’ sa keen [na].”
Botolan: “Hay ahe nin nanlek ha pinag-ibatan, ay ahe makarateng ha lalakwen.”
Tagalog: “Ang hindi marunong lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi makararating sa paroroonan.”

See that even among Sambalic languages, they are almost unintelligible among each other. While I noticed the similarities and mutual intelligibility between Visayan languages.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Feb 12 2012, 09:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
martin_nuke
post Feb 12 2012, 09:15 PM
Post #6


AF Elite
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,471
Joined: 6-November 05




QUOTE (nenabunena @ Feb 12 2012, 06:52 PM) *
I believe Chavacano is also Austronesian as it's grammar follows Philippine languages. It's all about grammar, rather than the loan words.

I believe Pangasinan is an Austronesian language but the article is saying that it's not directly related to any Filipino language, though still a Filipino language genetically? I'm not exactly sure what it's saying tbh.

Chavacanos speak very funny Tagalog. They say "kumain na ka?" instead of "kumain ka na?"

This post has been edited by martin_nuke: Feb 12 2012, 09:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
silangan
post Feb 14 2012, 01:53 AM
Post #7


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,306
Joined: 31-October 08




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Feb 12 2012, 09:09 PM) *
I also noticed the big differences almost unintelligible among Ilocano, Pangasinense and Kapampangan. All three grouped as the Northern Philippine languages as to distinguish to the Southern Languages like the Tagalogs and Bisayans.

Kapampangan belongs to Sambalic languages and is transitional between Aeta language and the Sinaunang Tagalog, Remontados. Bolinao language is also Sambalic and is transitional between Botolan or Sambalic Aeta and Pangasinense. Sinaunang Tagalog or Remontados is transitional between Kapampangan and Tagalog.

It looks like the greatest bifurcation occurs in Central Luzon with Austronesian Aeta Sambalic as the most archaic and ancestral. Sambalic languages is also being spoken to as far as Puerto Princesa in Palawan.

Out of Taiwan? It looks like Out of Luzon.

The Northern Languages are so unintelligible among each other that you can group them as separatem major language gruoping and the languages as sole representatives of their respective separate language group. Philippine languages grouping can rival as the most diverse which are often designated to the Formosan language grouping by linguists like Bellwood and Blust. Diversity usually denotes the site of bifurcations and thus the Origin or the original Proto or mother language.

Just an amateurish observation since I have no linguistic studies background.

See that even among Sambalic languages, they are almost unintelligible among each other. While I noticed the similarities and mutual intelligibility between Visayan languages.



Contact between ancient Filipinos in the Visayas was more frequent since most of the islands are small and lie close to each other. And since ancient Filipinos have good maritime skills, it was easy for them to navigate nearby islands. Frequent contact of people between these islands made the language they use more intelligible between tribes.

Tribes in Luzon did not have much contact with each other as much as in the Visayas because Luzon is a big land mass. For a maritime people, land is more of an obstacle than an access to get to other places. So then, less communication tended the languages to drift further apart.

I think the Panagasinan language developed from the inland since they don't have much coastal areas. Most of Pangasinan's coastal area is Ilocano speaking. I think the Pangasinan language started to grow in number of speakers during the Spanish time when the railway's northernmost station was in Dagupan. The railway made Dagupan a very important gathering place where a lot of activity not only in commerce took place. It must have originally been a small tribe that grew because of the activity in Dagupan.

Just like Chavacano, the language of Zambonga city, which is now more dominant than Tausug, Subanon and Yakan. Looking back, where was Chavacano before the Spanish came? Almost every Tausug, Yakan and Subanon now could either speak or understand Chavacano. It's because the Spanish made Zamboanga city the center of much activity, so then the Chavacano language grew in number, not biologically but numerically by having other tribes adapt to it.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nenabunena
post Feb 14 2012, 11:59 AM
Post #8


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 2-March 09




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Feb 13 2012, 10:09 AM) *
I also noticed the big differences almost unintelligible among Ilocano, Pangasinense and Kapampangan. All three grouped as the Northern Philippine languages as to distinguish to the Southern Languages like the Tagalogs and Bisayans.

Kapampangan belongs to Sambalic languages and is transitional between Aeta language and the Sinaunang Tagalog, Remontados. Bolinao language is also Sambalic and is transitional between Botolan or Sambalic Aeta and Pangasinense. Sinaunang Tagalog or Remontados is transitional between Kapampangan and Tagalog.

It looks like the greatest bifurcation occurs in Central Luzon with Austronesian Aeta Sambalic as the most archaic and ancestral. Sambalic languages is also being spoken to as far as Puerto Princesa in Palawan.

Out of Taiwan? It looks like Out of Luzon.

The Northern Languages are so unintelligible among each other that you can group them as separatem major language gruoping and the languages as sole representatives of their respective separate language group. Philippine languages grouping can rival as the most diverse which are often designated to the Formosan language grouping by linguists like Bellwood and Blust. Diversity usually denotes the site of bifurcations and thus the Origin or the original Proto or mother language.

Just an amateurish observation since I have no linguistic studies background.

See that even among Sambalic languages, they are almost unintelligible among each other. While I noticed the similarities and mutual intelligibility between Visayan languages.


It's unintelligible because they are languages, not dialects. Dialects refers to an accent/diction differences & a few differences in words perhaps, akin to english spoken in the U.S. compared to english spoken in the UK or in Australia. But Philippine languages are very close to each other, & even in your examples, I see many words I recognize in Tagalog. Not one of us here are linguists, more so Austronesian linguists, so it seems folly for me for us to conjecture & make up theories based on our own flawed assumptions on the diversity of languages. As much as there is criticism or dissension of the Out of Taiwan theory, linguistically, I believe Austronesian linguists are better equipped to determine which languages are older. Besides, as much as diversification indicates an ancient strata, it is not the only one. It would be prudent to take up all the factors involved & to remember to be humble (we Filipino value humility no?) because none of us here can boast to be experts over those professionals who are undoubtedly experts.

As for Sinaunang Tagalog, from what I have read, it's still up in the air if sinaunang tagalog really exists or are even Tagalogs. Also that the researcher merely called the language sinaunang tagalog for simplicity's sake I believe.

Tagarugs
QUOTE
The research area of Dar and Llamzon is home to three indigenous people groups- the Remontados (half-breeds) who speak Tagalog, and two Dumagat groups speaking their respective languages. The Dumagats call these languages Dumagat Kaliwa and Dumagat Kanan. Your Sinauna Tagarug is actually Dumagat Kaliwa. Linguists do not classify Kaliwa as Dumagat. But I have to respect local knowledge and indigenous label. I strongly suspect that Dumagat Kaliwa is a dying language. I often visit the area. Help me save the language and ethnicity of Kaliwa Dumagats.

By the way, it is not surprising to hear that there were people or language in the Remontado-Dumagat area called Sinaunang Tagalog, Taga-ilog, Tagaelog or Tagarug. The area is Kaliwa Watershed. It has many rivers and streams. River is "ilog" in Tagalog/Filipino. Stream is oftentimes called "ilog" also by native speakers of the national language. ("Sapa" is the correct term though.) Tagalog, Taga-ilog, Tagaelog or Tagarug simply means "people by the river".

Generally, Remontados are indigenous people who consider "Dumagat" as a deregatory term. So, they refuse to be called as such. Most of them descended from Dumagat-settler union. Remontados speak a Tagalog dialect not a distinct language.

Below are some Dumagat Kaliwa statements translated to Dumagat Kanan and English.

Kaliwa- Kanna ka pupure?
Kanan- Dino ka paago?
English- Where are you going?

Kaliwa- Baana ingaran mo?
Kanan- Ano ingalan mo?
English- What is your name?

Kaliwa- Rangbon e aram ko pambuhayed katutubo.
Kanan- Makmok nakaengtingasan ko buhay ne katutubo.
English- I know much of the ways of the native.

Kaliwa- Ladap ka eda kayime?
Kanan- Naketingaes ka man nunsurot me?
English- Do you understand our language?


QUOTE
willy agrimano said...

remontado agtas or people are mixture of ancient tagalog and dumaghet. the term tagarug is actually new term because the tendency of the tribe people there is to create new terminologies out of new words from outside their community.i talked to dumagat people and i learnrd that their language exist in many forms. the general are in two categories- the "mangnih or mangnah" and the "baybay"(sa baybay dagat na salita).other form is the newer one which is more tagalog/kapangpangan forms.(maybe due to the influence of the migrating people from pampangga and tagalog areas) .The real dumaghet has their own terminology for tagalog and according to them they called the tagalogs as " abyang"!i believe the dumagats are the early groups of pilipino in the areas of the sierra madre regions in the provinces of Rizal,Bulakan and Quezon.This are the samples of dumagat words or "e sorot pa dumaghet" 1. papalanu magpakaluto di ni bigyes de buloh?(papaano magluto/magsaing ng bigas sa buho? 2.) mapion kapen e agta ni dumaghet dehil te pakundeangan ide eyen tolad ni agta de kasidungan a lewet lewet de pagyedi ni kalekoan.( mabuti pa ang taong dumaghat dahil may pakundangan hindi tulad ng mga tao sa kapatagan na pauli ulit sa paggawa ng kalikoan.3. Mahalage e pakekepagkapuwe agta kesa pakekekoloy. (mahalaga ang pakikipagkapuwa tao kaysa pakikisama) 4.) inomeral e kamatoden ta katoweden ni makedepaT de ketam a bensa ngane masopel e makmuk a ore ni kamalotan ta kalekoan ni inuman a agta. (umiral ang katotohanan at katuwiran ng Panginoon upang masupil a maraming uri ng kasamaan at kalikuan ng sinumang tao.)5.) on tuneh a pelipeno de ketam a bensa ey on agta ni dumaghet de kabukodien ni Bukod ni ena(sierra madre). (Ang tunay na Pilipino sa ating bansa ay ang taong dumagat sa kabundukan ng sierra madre)


One thing is clear, they are not Sinaunang Tagalogs.

As for transitional languages from Aeta, it is my understanding that the Aetas speak an austronesian language because they abandoned their language for the sake of our's. This is similar to Melanesians abandoning their own native tongue for the sake of the Polynesian Austronesian languages I believe. So it's really quite impossible for a Philippine Austronesian language to be transitional from Aeta since an Aeta language is not Austronesian to begin with.

I hope you didn't find my post too harsh, I just hope that we can all be more logical in our assessments & own capabilities. I value the humility of Filipino culture because it encourages us to not speak out of turn unless we are aware of the subject at hand. Maybe because this is how I was raised & I sometimes get irked with Westerners when they speak of what they do not know too willingly. I hope I did not offend you Trismegistos.

BTW, I found this post on Pangasinense: Pangasinense Literary Works and Linguistics

QUOTE
The Pangasinan language is very closely related to the Ibaloi language spoken in the neighboring province of Benguet and Baguio City, located north of Pangasinan. The Pangasinan language is classified under the Pangasinic group of languages. The Pangasinic languages are:

Pangasinan
Ibaloi
Karao
I-wak
Kalanguya
Keley-I
Kallahan
Kayapa
Tinoc
The Pangasinic languages are spoken primarily in the provinces of Pangasinan and Benguet, and in some areas of the neighboring provinces of Zambales, Tarlac, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, and Ifugao.

Pangasinan is an agglutinative language.


It seems according to this there is a sub-branch of Pangasinic languages.

This post has been edited by nenabunena: Feb 14 2012, 01:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nenabunena
post Feb 14 2012, 12:03 PM
Post #9


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 2-March 09




QUOTE (silangan @ Feb 14 2012, 02:53 PM) *
Contact between ancient Filipinos in the Visayas was more frequent since most of the islands are small and lie close to each other. And since ancient Filipinos have good maritime skills, it was easy for them to navigate nearby islands. Frequent contact of people between these islands made the language they use more intelligible between tribes.

Tribes in Luzon did not have much contact with each other as much as in the Visayas because Luzon is a big land mass. For a maritime people, land is more of an obstacle than an access to get to other places. So then, less communication tended the languages to drift further apart.

I think the Panagasinan language developed from the inland since they don't have much coastal areas. Most of Pangasinan's coastal area is Ilocano speaking. I think the Pangasinan language started to grow in number of speakers during the Spanish time when the railway's northernmost station was in Dagupan. The railway made Dagupan a very important gathering place where a lot of activity not only in commerce took place. It must have originally been a small tribe that grew because of the activity in Dagupan.

Just like Chavacano, the language of Zambonga city, which is now more dominant than Tausug, Subanon and Yakan. Looking back, where was Chavacano before the Spanish came? Almost every Tausug, Yakan and Subanon now could either speak or understand Chavacano. It's because the Spanish made Zamboanga city the center of much activity, so then the Chavacano language grew in number, not biologically but numerically by having other tribes adapt to it.


Has anyone recounted all the Philippine ethnic groups that is a maritime culture? I find it interesting & odd that in the Out of Taiwan theory, we all descended from Taiwan, but aside from the Yami/Tao who has a strong maritime culture, what other Taiwanese tribe has a maritime culture? Did the lowland tribes also have a maritime culture in Taiwan? Because if not, why would almost every single Austronesian out of Taiwan have a maritime culture except the Taiwanese aboriginals? Or am I getting too ahead of myself? Can anyone enlighten me please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
filipinai
post Feb 15 2012, 06:02 AM
Post #10


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 10-July 06




I am pangasinense and a lot of our fellow kababayan think that our dialect is so hard to learn.

It's an austronesian language family, i read that some of the pangasinense word is spoken in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Badjao and those people from Butuan City are maritime seafarers too & the Zamboangas.. I guess Pangasinense, Ilocanos of La Union, Ilocos came from Ivatan who were known as one of the best ship builder and they are related with the Yami people of Taiwan. I guess they were the one that brought that kind of tradition in Taiwan. Because they shared the same tradition and culture, It's an opposite.

Pangasinense is Malayo-Polynesian too

Ilocano Counting - Pangasinense Counting
Maysa - Sakey
Dua - Duara
Tallo - Talora
Uppat - Apatira
Lima - Limara

icon_smile.gif it's part of the Ilocandia dialects


just listen to Ivatan dialect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4OgTBOei0c
Because Yami Tao speak the same and understand

Itbayat Dialect of Batanes. Ivatan said they are the descendants of Yami Tao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hz2fQeWTTE
Yami Tao came from Itbayat Island

checking which dialect is similar with itbayat ...hmm ilocano?

Similarities with other Philippine languages


Person

House

Dog

Coconut

Day

New



Ivatan

Tawo

Vahay

Chito

Niyoy

Araw

Va-yo



Tagalog

Tao

Bahay

Aso

Niyog

Araw

Bago



Bikol

Tawo

Harong

Ayam

Niyog

Aldaw

Ba-go



Cebuano

Tawo

Balay

Iro

Lubi

Adlaw

Bag-o



Tausug

Tau

Bay

Iru'

Niyug

Adlaw

Ba-gu



Kinaray-a

Taho

Balay

Ayam

Niyog

Adlaw

Bag-o



Kapampangan

Tau

Bale

Asu

Ngungut

Aldo

Bayu



Pangasinense

Too

Abong

Aso

Niyog

Agew

Balo



Ilokano

Tao

Balay

Aso

Niog

Aldaw

Baro



Gaddang

Tolay

Balay

Atu

Ayog

Aw

Bawu



Tboli

Tau

Gunu

Ohu

Lefo

Kdaw

Lomi


This post has been edited by filipinai: Feb 15 2012, 07:07 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Feb 15 2012, 07:53 PM
Post #11


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




QUOTE (nenabunena @ Feb 14 2012, 11:59 AM) *
It's unintelligible because they are languages, not dialects. Dialects refers to an accent/diction differences & a few differences in words perhaps, akin to english spoken in the U.S. compared to english spoken in the UK or in Australia. But Philippine languages are very close to each other, & even in your examples, I see many words I recognize in Tagalog. Not one of us here are linguists, more so Austronesian linguists, so it seems folly for me for us to conjecture & make up theories based on our own flawed assumptions on the diversity of languages. As much as there is criticism or dissension of the Out of Taiwan theory, linguistically, I believe Austronesian linguists are better equipped to determine which languages are older. Besides, as much as diversification indicates an ancient strata, it is not the only one. It would be prudent to take up all the factors involved & to remember to be humble (we Filipino value humility no?) because none of us here can boast to be experts over those professionals who are undoubtedly experts.

There are various points of view and nobody carries the monopoly of truth. There are indivual truths and points of view as there are people. Everybody is free to form their own opinion, intelligent or not. Just like there are Orthodox and Mainstream sciences and there are alternatives. For eg there is the Orthodox Allopathic medicine that drugged people having chronic diseases into toxicity without any cure in sight. And there are Alternative Natural Medicine like Homeopathy, Naturopathy. Other offer chelation. American Medical Association funded by the Illuminati elites, oil barons and banksters like the Rothschilds and The Rockefellers is exactly organized to fight these much effective alternative choices in favor of Synthetic drugs coming from their Petrochemical products.

What is ORTHODOX, MAINSTREAM OR POPULAR doesn't necessarily mean it is right?

Theories are theories. Linguistics is not actually an exact science. And among liguists there are varrying opinions and differences. Exactly, there are other factors to determine which is which the more plausible theory to pinpoint the actual origin of Austronesians. I tend to go more with archaeological and genetic evidence.

Theories get debunked. And theories get rewritten. And many linguists are questioning the validity of the Out of Taiwan theory too. Solheim even proposed the area in Wallacea as the origin of Austronesian language, as the languages there are more older.

I created two threads, exactly debunking OUT of Taiwan theory...
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=223334
and
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=257140


QUOTE
As for Sinaunang Tagalog, from what I have read, it's still up in the air if sinaunang tagalog really exists or are even Tagalogs. Also that the researcher merely called the language sinaunang tagalog for simplicity's sake I believe.

Tagarugs

One thing is clear, they are not Sinaunang Tagalogs.

As for transitional languages from Aeta, it is my understanding that the Aetas speak an austronesian language because they abandoned their language for the sake of our's. This is similar to Melanesians abandoning their own native tongue for the sake of the Polynesian Austronesian languages I believe. So it's really quite impossible for a Philippine Austronesian language to be transitional from Aeta since an Aeta language is not Austronesian to begin with.

I hope you didn't find my post too harsh, I just hope that we can all be more logical in our assessments & own capabilities. I value the humility of Filipino culture because it encourages us to not speak out of turn unless we are aware of the subject at hand. Maybe because this is how I was raised & I sometimes get irked with Westerners when they speak of what they do not know too willingly. I hope I did not offend you Trismegistos.

Aeta language is Austronesian belonging to Sambalic. Who to say the Aetas abandon their languages. These are just suppositions and assumptions. Maybe Aeta language got influences and modified through time from neighboring Austronesian languages which shared common ancestry linguistically from the Austric mother language. Their Austronesian neighbors shared with them a common genetic K* ancestry. And the Aetas have the K* in their genetic material. What is their evidence the Aetas abandoned their language. Do they have a time machine and went during the time of the Paleolithic Ice age.

Languages are born as diverging tribes separate, the TOWER OF BABEL paradigm. So there is no such thing as an admixture language such as Dumagat or Remontados only TRANSITIONAL LANGUAGES. Admixtures occur only as the world gets smaller unlike before the population where sparse with wide open spaces.

Remontados or Sinaunang Tagalog is transitional between the Aeta Sambalic languages(Northern) and Tagalog(Southern languages).

Genetically, the K*MNOPS Aetas carry the genetic material of our ancestors. Ancestral K being granddaddy haplotype of the majority of Eurasians and Americans, such as the Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Melanesians and Amerindians. Sundaland theory anyone?

And my point of view is borne out of collating other evidence, from the scientific to the metaphysical. Paul Kekai Manansala, an intuitive and a scholar, spoke of the Sambalic areas as THE AXIS MUNDI. Archaeoanthropolinguistgeneticists intuitives like Oppenheimer, Solheim believe in the Eden in the East and have lots of scientific evidence proving that and are not exactly in favor of OUT OF TAIWAN theory. Whether you believe my opinion or don't is your opinion that I have to respect. Again, nobody can claim the monopoly of truth and the absolute Truth is the domain of the perfected ascended beings and Divine Providence Herself/Himself.

Edit: Paul Kekai Manansala more than qualifies as a linguist with his scholarly linguistic and scientific works like these...

http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/lang.htm

Austronesian Navigation and Migration
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austro.htm

Austric Influence in India
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austric.htm

Austric relationship of Sumerian Language
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/sumer.htm

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Feb 16 2012, 10:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AnybodyKiller
post Feb 15 2012, 08:09 PM
Post #12


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 867
Joined: 12-September 09
From: Bay Area




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Feb 15 2012, 07:53 PM) *
There are various points of view and I don't carry the monopoly of truth. Just like there are Orthodox and Mainstream sciences and there are alternatives. For eg there is the Orthodox Allopathic medicine that drugged people having chronic diseases into toxicity without any cure in sight. And there are Alternative Natural Medicine like Homeopathy, Naturopathy. Other offer chelation. American Medical Association funded by the Illuminati elites, oil barons and banksters like the Rothschilds and The Rockefellers is exactly organized to fight these much effective alternative choices in favor of Synthetic drugs coming from their Petrochemical products.

Theories are theories. Linguistics is not actually an exact science.
Exactly, there are other factors to determine which is which the more plausible theory to pinpoint the actual origin of Austronesians. I tend to go more with archaeological and genetic evidence.

Theories get debunked. And many linguists are questioning the validity of the Out of Taiwan theory too. Solheim even proposed the area in Wallacea as the origin of Austronesian language, as the languages there are more older.

I created two threads, exactly debunking OUT of Taiwan theory...
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=223334
and
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=257140



Aeta language is Austronesian belonging to Sambalic. Who to say the Aetas abandon their languages. These are just suppositions and assumptions. What is their evidence. Do they have a time machine and went during the time of the Paleolithic Ice age.

Languages are born as diverging tribes separate. So there is no such thing as an admixture language such as Dumagat or Remontados only TRANSITIONAL LANGUAGES. Admixtures occur only as the world gets smaller unlike before the population where sparse with wide open spaces.

Remontados or Sinaunang Tagalog is transitional between the Aeta Sambalic languages(Northern) and Tagalog(Southern languages).

Genetically, the K*MNOPS Aetas carry the genetic material of our ancestors. Ancestral K being granddaddy haplotype of the Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Melanesians and Amerindians. Sundaland theory anyone?

And my point of view is borne out of collating other evidence, from the scientific to the metaphysical. Paul Kekai Manansala spoke of the Sambalic areas as THE AXIS MUNDI. Whether you believe my opinio or don't is your opinion that I have to respect. Again, I don't have the monopoly of truth only perfected ascended beings can possibly say otherwise.


Quick question. Which do Taiwanese Aboriginals and Filipinos have? K*MNOPS or K?

I ask because someone on a different forum said it was MNOPS, but isn't it the Ancestral K?

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 15 2012, 08:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Feb 15 2012, 08:18 PM
Post #13


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




QUOTE (AnybodyKiller @ Feb 15 2012, 08:09 PM) *
Quick question. What's the difference in K*MNOPS and K? And which do Taiwanese Aboriginals and Filipinos have?

I ask because someone on a different forum said it was MNOPS, but isn't it the Ancestral K?

K* MNOPS belong to K haplogroup. Subgroups of K includes N, O, R, M, S etc.

In terms of family tree, K* MNOPS and other Melanesian subbranches are the earliest to branch from the Ancestral K. K*Mnops being the most nearest or is it equal molecularly speaking to the actual ancestral K. While newer branches to sprung out are the Mongoloid O and Caucasoid R.

The Aetas have K*MNOPS, While the indigenous Manobos and surigaonons have NO or is it NO*. NO being the immediate parent of the Mongoloid O and N.

They are right. It is paragroup K. And you are right also. They are saying that in order to downplay the possibility of Mongoloids and Caucasoids could ever sprung out in Sundaland.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Feb 15 2012, 08:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AnybodyKiller
post Feb 15 2012, 08:28 PM
Post #14


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 867
Joined: 12-September 09
From: Bay Area




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Feb 15 2012, 08:18 PM) *
K* MNOPS belong to K haplogroup. Subgroups of K includes N, O, R, M, S etc.

In terms of family tree, K* MNOPS and other Melanesian subbranches are the earliest to branch from the Ancestral K. K*Mnops being the most nearest or is it equal molecularly speaking to the actual ancestral K. While newer branches to sprung out are the Mongoloid O and Caucasoid R.

The Aetas have K*MNOPS, While the indigenous Manobos and surigaonons have NO or is it NO*. NO being the immediate parent of the Mongoloid O and N.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see. Thanks


This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 15 2012, 11:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Feb 16 2012, 07:36 PM
Post #15


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




K* MNOPS and Paragroup K is the nearest to the original and ANCESTRAL K, grand daddy haplo of majority of Eurasians. No other comes close. And it is found only in this side of the globe, in Indonesia and Oceania with the greatest frequency on our very own AETA. I think India has very few surviving K*Mnops, despite aeons of somewhat a racial caste system enforced by religious and political status quo preventing intermarriages between various ethnicities, there should be more surviving K*MNOPS. In Central Asia, Aryanists' putative homeland has no surviving K*MNOPS.

MNOPS
QUOTE
is the ancestral haplogroup to haplogroups K1, K2, K3, K4, M, NO, P (which contains haplogroups Q and R), and S.[2]


So, it is safe to say, Sundaland and somewhat in lesser degree with India collectively, as the homeland of majority of Eurasians(Caucasoids and Mongoloids) even Amerindians. Since majority are from the macro K haplo.

Here, Sambalic-centric Paul Kekai Manansala showed the linguistic, anthropological, genetic, cultural relationships between Austrics(Sino-Austronesians) and Sumerians or Indians.

http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/lang.htm

Austronesian Navigation and Migration
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austro.htm

Austric Influence in India
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austric.htm

Austric relationship of Sumerian Language
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/sumer.htm

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Feb 16 2012, 10:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
filipinai
post Feb 17 2012, 12:08 AM
Post #16


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 10-July 06




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Feb 16 2012, 08:36 PM) *
K* MNOPS and Paragroup K is the nearest to the original and ANCESTRAL K, grand daddy haplo of majority of Eurasians. No other comes close. And it is found only in this side of the globe, in Indonesia and Oceania with the greatest frequency on our very own AETA. I think India has very few surviving K*Mnops, despite aeons of somewhat a racial caste system enforced by religious and political status quo preventing intermarriages between various ethnicities, there should be more surviving K*MNOPS. In Central Asia, Aryanists' putative homeland has no surviving K*MNOPS.

MNOPS

So, it is safe to say, Sundaland and somewhat in lesser degree with India collectively, as the homeland of majority of Eurasians(Caucasoids and Mongoloids) even Amerindians. Since majority are from the macro K haplo.

Here, Sambalic-centric Paul Kekai Manansala showed the linguistic, anthropological, genetic, cultural relationships between Austrics(Sino-Austronesians) and Sumerians or Indians.

http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/lang.htm

Austronesian Navigation and Migration
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austro.htm

Austric Influence in India
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austric.htm

Austric relationship of Sumerian Language
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/sumer.htm


How about the dumagat, mamanwa, agta, tumandok, batak and ati are related to the aetas so they do have the same dna?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Feb 17 2012, 02:33 AM
Post #17


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




QUOTE (filipinai @ Feb 17 2012, 12:08 AM) *
How about the dumagat, mamanwa, agta, tumandok, batak and ati are related to the aetas so they do have the same dna?

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n2/...ml#figure-title
In that study, Aeta from Zambales are purely K, while Aeta from Bataan has K with a little admixture of O1a (M119) and O1a2 ( M110).

While the rest of the negrito groups also have the Aeta or rather the negrito K* and varrying proportions of C*(another old haplo as K*), NO(immediate parent of Mongoloid N and O), and varrying admixtures of various subclades of O haplogroup.

While Indigenous Non Negritos like Hanuno Mangyan, Maranaos and the Manobos have certain frequency of the ancestral K*. So we can say these people are the Transitional groups having the genetic continuum from K, NO to various subclades of O. Most on the other hand would counter that these people are admixed primarily and not by divergence or transition. It was inferred by their orthodox thingking as such because to them Austronesian expansion together with neolithic agriculture came from Taiwan. Never they would have thought that domestication of both plants(glutinous rice, rootcrops, spices like ginger, banana) and animals(dogs, chicken and pig) or agriculture itself started in Sundaland. Their orthodox thinking would counter the genetic continuum due to genetic divergence from a common ancestry, K* and NO*. But I would not deny a certain admixture happening from recent prehistory up to present. Thus, the genetic continuum happened due to both transition/genetic divergence and admixture but primarily by the former.


We have no data for Dumagats and Remontados. But since they can be considered transitional from Aeta to Tagalogs...
... We can probably predict some K*, some C*, NO, and the more Mongoloid will have pure O, the Remontados or Sinaunang Tagalog will have more O, while the Dumagats will show more K*. Presence of the transitional NO, would confirm the transition between these groups and not just mere admixture which is quite a fairly recent phenomenon during the recent prehistory up to the present day of globalization and to more years to come, wherein everybody would have claim, I'm mixed Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, etc.

While the negrito Mamanwa group where we expect to have more K and C, has actually more Mongoloid genotype(O haplo) than K. Some Mamanwa even have NO, the older and the immediate parent of Mongoloid O haplo. Some Non negrito Surigaonons like the Manobos even have some NO too...

While even the Mamanwa negrito have more Mongoloid "blood" or rather genotype than the transitional Non negrito Hanuno Mangyan though the latter having the somewhat more Southern Mongoloid Looking(phenotype) but the latter have more negrito (K) than O more than that of the negrito looking Mamanwa who are more Mongoloid genotypically. And so Hanunuo has a physical appearance of a Non negrito Southern Mongoloid with Aeta or Negrito blood /genotype(K*). Within the Australoid genes(K*) of Mangyan, is the gene that is the key that has opened that door to signal Mongoloid phenotype and genotype(O*) development.

Looks can be very deceiving.

It is safe to say that the transition or the continuum between the Australoid phenotype developing into the Mongoloid phenotype happened in our own backyard during the Paleolitic Ice age down to the time of the Flooding or Sinking of Sundaland(synonymous to the NOAH's flood).

Note: I have to label O, K, and such and such as Mongoloid and Australoid for simpler discussion. It's actually should not be the case. For e.g some newer subclades of C are even more Mongoloid looking like those descendants of the Great Khan for e.g than those with O1. Negritos, Dravidians and Melanesians have C* too but not Mongoloid looking. So the Haplogroups is not mutually exclusive to the so called various racial phenotypes.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Feb 17 2012, 06:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AnybodyKiller
post Feb 17 2012, 01:52 PM
Post #18


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 867
Joined: 12-September 09
From: Bay Area




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Feb 16 2012, 06:36 PM) *
K* MNOPS and Paragroup K is the nearest to the original and ANCESTRAL K, grand daddy haplo of majority of Eurasians. No other comes close. And it is found only in this side of the globe, in Indonesia and Oceania with the greatest frequency on our very own AETA. I think India has very few surviving K*Mnops, despite aeons of somewhat a racial caste system enforced by religious and political status quo preventing intermarriages between various ethnicities, there should be more surviving K*MNOPS. In Central Asia, Aryanists' putative homeland has no surviving K*MNOPS.

MNOPS

So, it is safe to say, Sundaland and somewhat in lesser degree with India collectively, as the homeland of majority of Eurasians(Caucasoids and Mongoloids) even Amerindians. Since majority are from the macro K haplo.

Yeah very true. The article I was reading linked sources saying Paragroup K found in 45%. A commenter on Dienekes anthropology site said it was unlikely that populations north of Java had Paragroup K and was more likely K*MNOPS. We were discussing Denisovan admixture and why certain populations with frequencies of K had slim to nil, while some had rather high.


QUOTE
Here, Sambalic-centric Paul Kekai Manansala showed the linguistic, anthropological, genetic, cultural relationships between Austrics(Sino-Austronesians) and Sumerians or Indians.

http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/lang.htm

Austronesian Navigation and Migration
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austro.htm

Austric Influence in India
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austric.htm

Austric relationship of Sumerian Language
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/sumer.htm


I'm in the process of reading these now. I found the first one interesting and comparable to many articles I've read by "Indocentric" scholars claiming that their language and history has been misclassified. Many of these scholars also agree that Southeast Asia as a likely place for the birthplace of agriculture.

Also you make good points about a halpogroup not being synonymous with ethnicity. Looks can be very deceiving indeed. Y-DNA C3 and Y-DNA C4 being an example.

@filipinai

I know you will appreciate this article because you know so much about the culture and history of these different groups. In display #1 and the chart underneath, it uses the HUGO Pan Asian consortium data and shows (accurately, not just using broad terms etc.) which populations contributed to the modern make up of various Southeast Asian populations. This includes populations from 'West Mindanao' and 'West Luzon'.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...ype-first-pass/

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 17 2012, 01:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nenabunena
post Feb 17 2012, 02:07 PM
Post #19


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 2-March 09




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Feb 16 2012, 08:53 AM) *
There are various points of view and nobody carries the monopoly of truth. There are indivual truths and points of view as there are people. Everybody is free to form their own opinion, intelligent or not. Just like there are Orthodox and Mainstream sciences and there are alternatives. For eg there is the Orthodox Allopathic medicine that drugged people having chronic diseases into toxicity without any cure in sight. And there are Alternative Natural Medicine like Homeopathy, Naturopathy. Other offer chelation. American Medical Association funded by the Illuminati elites, oil barons and banksters like the Rothschilds and The Rockefellers is exactly organized to fight these much effective alternative choices in favor of Synthetic drugs coming from their Petrochemical products.

What is ORTHODOX, MAINSTREAM OR POPULAR doesn't necessarily mean it is right?

Theories are theories. Linguistics is not actually an exact science. And among liguists there are varrying opinions and differences. Exactly, there are other factors to determine which is which the more plausible theory to pinpoint the actual origin of Austronesians. I tend to go more with archaeological and genetic evidence.

Theories get debunked. And theories get rewritten. And many linguists are questioning the validity of the Out of Taiwan theory too. Solheim even proposed the area in Wallacea as the origin of Austronesian language, as the languages there are more older.


That is true but that is not the point, the point is you have no standing or credibility in the scientific community to question or tackle the theories brought forward. The ones who are in such a position to do so have merit because they have earned it through serious study, in other words they have degrees. I think you may think too little of both archaeology & linguistics that you assume any person off the street with no college education, masteral degree, phd are equipped to challenge such theories. If you are serious with challenging these scholars who have studied for years on the subject at hand, then take your hypothesis off internet frums, get a degree in archaeology & linguistics & challenge them.

Everyone is free to make their own opinions, fabricated or not, but as people we need to be rational & take responsibility with intentional misinformation or misrepresentation of self & data.

Linguistics & archarology both belong to social sciences, they are not exact, therefore one should be all the more prudent, careful, exact & strict with their research & proclamations. That is the very point I am trying to make. We cannot afford to be careless in such a subject. Also, your presentations are not theories but mere hypothesis. A theory is dependent & subjected to scientific scrutiny & method. None of us is capable of subjecting such hypothesis to tests, these hypothesis are all interesting. But be logical & rationale, you need to test such ideas & see where & if they stand for them to hold any water or weight. I can make any proclamations like we are all aliens from the planet Marduk, but without a serious study & test imposed upon it, it is all empty conjecture out of people's imagination.

Now, you bring the topic back to Out of Taiwan theory which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. Almost every thread here is devoted to posters/trolls/haters dedication to Filipino genes, yet no one cares to talk about Filipino culture, history, sociology, politics, etc. I have avoided every troll baited thread here, please don't relegate this thread into another Aeta/Korean/NE Asian thread. & this will be my last response to any post of yours unrelated to the discussion at hand.

QUOTE


Fine. SO you have to threads & many more here dedicated to your interest, why try to steer this thread into another one of those? We don't need every thread to be about genes of Filipinos. Let's have a few threads about our culture & history shall we?



QUOTE
Aeta language is Austronesian belonging to Sambalic. Who to say the Aetas abandon their languages. These are just suppositions and assumptions. Maybe Aeta language got influences and modified through time from neighboring Austronesian languages which shared common ancestry linguistically from the Austric mother language. Their Austronesian neighbors shared with them a common genetic K* ancestry. And the Aetas have the K* in their genetic material. What is their evidence the Aetas abandoned their language. Do they have a time machine and went during the time of the Paleolithic Ice age.


Maybe maybe maybe? Maybe all Filipino languages are in fact Romance languages or Sinitic? Come on. I think I will rely more on experts/professionals with years of serious study under their belts than some poster on an internet site. Please don't be offended, but remember 'humility is not only a virtue, it is rationale.' Please be rationale, why should one listen to a person just learning to count over a mathematician?

QUOTE
Languages are born as diverging tribes separate, the TOWER OF BABEL paradigm. So there is no such thing as an admixture language such as Dumagat or Remontados only TRANSITIONAL LANGUAGES. Admixtures occur only as the world gets smaller unlike before the population where sparse with wide open spaces.

Remontados or Sinaunang Tagalog is transitional between the Aeta Sambalic languages(Northern) and Tagalog(Southern languages).

Genetically, the K*MNOPS Aetas carry the genetic material of our ancestors. Ancestral K being granddaddy haplotype of the majority of Eurasians and Americans, such as the Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Melanesians and Amerindians. Sundaland theory anyone?

And my point of view is borne out of collating other evidence, from the scientific to the metaphysical. Paul Kekai Manansala, an intuitive and a scholar, spoke of the Sambalic areas as THE AXIS MUNDI. Archaeoanthropolinguistgeneticists intuitives like Oppenheimer, Solheim believe in the Eden in the East and have lots of scientific evidence proving that and are not exactly in favor of OUT OF TAIWAN theory. Whether you believe my opinion or don't is your opinion that I have to respect. Again, nobody can claim the monopoly of truth and the absolute Truth is the domain of the perfected ascended beings and Divine Providence Herself/Himself.

Edit: Paul Kekai Manansala more than qualifies as a linguist with his scholarly linguistic and scientific works like these...

http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/lang.htm

Austronesian Navigation and Migration
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austro.htm

Austric Influence in India
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austric.htm

Austric relationship of Sumerian Language
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/sumer.htm


Paul Manansala himself is open to the study & expert opinions of others. Read the quote I posted above. He has since reanalysed these points. & you are putting words into his mouth. Again, please don't make this thread into another Aeta thread or Out of Taiwan vs Sunda thread. Like you said, you have many threads here already dedicated to that subject.

Be reasonable, apply some humility in yourself please.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nenabunena
post Feb 17 2012, 02:15 PM
Post #20


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 2-March 09




Great, this thread has been face lifted into another Austronesian gene thread. I give up. You can have the thread.

Wala ba ditong interesado sa kultura ng mga katutubong pinoy?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 12:59 AM