Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hobbits confirmed as new species of human

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


That was a sad story , reminds me of that russian family that was discovered, They didnt last long after they reestablished contact with the outside world.

www.smithsonianmag.com... ml
edit on 12-7-2013 by CitizenJack because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Of course communities of small people exsisted,,,not sure you could classify them as a separate species of human though
edit on 12-7-2013 by Ostracized because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSB
 


I'm sure that encounters were much more frequent in the distant past when there was not much difference between HF and the other humans living in the region.
My older Filipino relatives told me stories of when they were young they were told stories about the little people of the forest, much like the polynesian minehune, I think that's how it was spelled.

I'm starting to think that the extreme small size is related to living in the densest forests, where small size would be an advantage for moving through the undergrowth.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
homo florensis....Why make it so hard to remember...hobbits or dwarfs sounds easier to remember. Even leprechauns.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I honestly can't wait to tell my wife "I told you so"! As soon as they prove the past existence of Elves and Dwarves I will be completely vindicated! To think she called me crazy........ Pfffffff.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10
reply to post by TheSB
 


I'm sure that encounters were much more frequent in the distant past when there was not much difference between HF and the other humans living in the region.
My older Filipino relatives told me stories of when they were young they were told stories about the little people of the forest, much like the polynesian minehune, I think that's how it was spelled.

I'm starting to think that the extreme small size is related to living in the densest forests, where small size would be an advantage for moving through the undergrowth.


not just small for movement.

think about how low caloric intake would be.

i get chills for some reason and dreams. ive had feelings of tremendous guilt and this though popped in my head one day.

What if humans are so evil that long, long ago we killed off countless other human like species out of hatred, or otherwise...
aka ..humanity..



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
homo florensis....Why make it so hard to remember...hobbits or dwarfs sounds easier to remember. Even leprechauns.


The heavy burden of tradition, but it would have been possible to latinize Hobbit too



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by rickymouse
homo florensis....Why make it so hard to remember...hobbits or dwarfs sounds easier to remember. Even leprechauns.


The heavy burden of tradition, but it would have been possible to latinize Hobbit too


Rats, that tradition of putting things in latin.
Forgot again, should have said: Rattus norvegicus, that tradition of putting things into latin.
I'm learning.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by rickymouse
homo florensis....Why make it so hard to remember...hobbits or dwarfs sounds easier to remember. Even leprechauns.


The heavy burden of tradition, but it would have been possible to latinize Hobbit too


Rats, that tradition of putting things in latin.
Forgot again, should have said: Rattus norvegicus, that tradition of putting things into latin.
I'm learning.


It's all a conspiracy by those damn classical scholars to keep that language alive - those sus domesticus

Anybody here have the Latin knowledge to tell us how the latinized word Hobbit would be spelled?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I'm trying to study the really old languages, Latin appears to have evolved out of the tower of babbel, the people who confused the simple widespread language that people used to speak. I have been trying to figure it out but chances are I could be wrong. These were sounds, not really the way they were spelled. Maybe you can clarify them, I am trying to figure them out from studying multiple languages looking for the original language of man.

Na means graceful, like water.

Ka meant communication NaKa would be communicating with water, Nuka would be communicating wit earth,

Fa was mountain or hill

Se or Sey meant Brilliant or fire or sparkley

Ya may have referred to god or teacher.

Ra was lord or king

Nu meant earth,

Ku seems to mean shouts or bitchy.

Wa may have meant impressive or shocking.

Mona meant mother but that is a combination of two words.Na being graceful and Mo I can't quite figure out.

Huma meant ...that which distinguishes....basicly clothes. Humans could be distinguished by their clothes or paints, jewelry. It is again a combination of Hu and Ma, neither of which I have been able to look up yet. It takes many articles to get a sort of grip on a sound.

Kaufa may have meant attempts communication through the mountains.


FaRa was a king who owned a hill. if he was bitchy he could have been FaRaKu or maybe pharaoh

I've just been studying this for a short while, trying to identify a possible primordial language we may have within us. I had previously studied some things that help identify a language, usually modern. Am I even close to right on this



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Linguists have been playing around with the 'base' language(s) for centuries, it has a certain pseudo quality to it. There is a great lack of empirical evidence which makes the subject unsuitable for serious study - aptly suited for speculation thou......but its a subject that seems to suck into people all the time they just cannot resist I guess. Research on evolutionary linguistics are a recent phenomenon, emerging only in the 1990s but still crippled by a lack of anyway to determine if they are right.

Its the old meaux versus moe problem

You might want to look at some of work of people trying the same thing, W. Tecumseh Fitch, Roy Rappaport, Max Muller, Robin Dubar you can also try asking Byrd I think she knows more about it than I.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Hi there Hans and rickymouse,

I don't believe there is such things as a "base language", because humans have dispersed around the globe in so many different episodes, some being before the advent of language, that logic dictates discontinuity.
Afterall if you hold to a traditional interpretation of human dispersal, then you have homo habilis leaving Africa and evolving into homo geororgicus. Then there is the question of the origin of homo erectus, who's early signs are all in asia and it's clear from the record that HE was the base for many populations in the eastern hemisphere.
Then you have homo Heidelbergensis that spread through Europe, and then are the denisovans and Neanderthals.
All of the populations show the hallmarks of small isolated population that would have no mechanism for linguistic continuity.
Some of the newer work that shows a basic linguistic relationship among certain Eurasian derived people's is just showing their broad relationship.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


That's the basis of the problem, language was most probably invented/improved in lots of places but you could make an arguement that when and if the 'constriction' occurred a common set of concepts dealing with language were made but again - speculation. I would say that the Khoekhoe or the twenty plus Aboriginal languages and perhaps even one of the New Guinean speech might be the oldest around - but again speculation.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


All animals seem to have certain sounds that others of their species somewhat understand. Animals on different continents seem to have some basic similar sounds they make, the sounds have a relation to what the situation is. I got interested in this when I found that nodding the head no is a genetic knowledge and this knowledge is not limited to humans. There are lots of facial expressions that they say are genetic oriented also. We are born with them. Science is investigating the sounds, but as Hanslune says, it is hard to get evidence of.

I started with Ka, it is pretty evident that it sort of means communication. Call me, Command. Both have a communication link. The spelling is different but they both are usually pronounced Ka. Just like the Ka in communications is usually pronounced. Crows Ka....Ancient societies had bird heads on the gods. Birds are not trained to make sounds, it is automatic. Humans I feel will also have these instructions in us, they are not suppressed, our languages usually have them incorporated in them. Even the Asian languages have similarities to these things. They would have us believe that Latin or Hebrew are the base, but it appears even these languages have their base in what I am studying.

I'll have to look up some of the people Hanslune talked about to see what they arrived at.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





They would have us believe that Latin or Hebrew are the base


Whose 'they'? Latin certainly isn't a base its base was proto-Indo-European and the base for Hebrew was the afroasiatic LF and before that proto-AFL

For both after proto no one knows



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by rickymouse

Rats, that tradition of putting things in latin.
Forgot again, should have said: Rattus norvegicus, that tradition of putting things into latin.
I'm learning.


It's all a conspiracy by those damn classical scholars to keep that language alive - those sus domesticus

Anybody here have the Latin knowledge to tell us how the latinized word Hobbit would be spelled?

Pilosus Pede, according to Google Translate.

Harte



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by rickymouse

Rats, that tradition of putting things in latin.
Forgot again, should have said: Rattus norvegicus, that tradition of putting things into latin.
I'm learning.


It's all a conspiracy by those damn classical scholars to keep that language alive - those sus domesticus

Anybody here have the Latin knowledge to tell us how the latinized word Hobbit would be spelled?

Pilosus Pede, according to Google Translate.

Harte

Hmmmmm not terribly inspiring but I suspect that Hobbit will stick around as slang for a long time



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


you just have to wonder if the cryptid orang pendek are related


same country even
edit on 14-7-2013 by reject because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I my memory serves me, hobbits seem to be followed by great adventures.




posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


That's the basis of the problem, language was most probably invented/improved in lots of places but you could make an arguement that when and if the 'constriction' occurred a common set of concepts dealing with language were made but again - speculation. I would say that the Khoekhoe or the twenty plus Aboriginal languages and perhaps even one of the New Guinean speech might be the oldest around - but again speculation.


Yah,
The oldest extant languages in the old world will be in Australia or the new Guinean highlands, in the new world I believe it is chumashan, or their inland neighbors yokuts.
Chumash is an isolate surrounded by other old language families, and when that information is taken in context with ancient dna, from historic burials, and moder sampling of living native Americans in the same region it appears as though chumash is one of the oldest languages on the west coast

If language diversity is taken as an indicator of time-depth of occupation, as it in Australia and new guinea, then yokuts is extremely old. Within a 50 mile radius of here, where there are no natural barriers to travel, youkuts developed into more than thirty dialects, and several distinct languages, withh southern yokuts being the mist divergent.
And it's here in the southern san Joaquin valley that the whole discussion of language/human dispersal gets very interesting. Basically at the end of the kings river,the kaweah and Kern rivers were large dead end lakes, they had no outflow. It's in this area that you have the most divergent yokuts languages. It's also here that you have the oldest securely dated and accepted site in California, the 17000 year old Witt site, where there is a defined pre Clovis layer of chipped bone tools and human remains, underneath a well defined layer of Clovis artifacts. And just a few miles away are the Tranquility burials, some of the oldest burials in California at 8k? years. The skeletons found here are so physically different from current modern humans that a Smithsonian anthropologist wondered whether they represented late Asian homo erectus. The only other peoples with the same morphology are the extinct pericue of southern Baja and luiza of Santa lago Brazil.






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join