(Daniel von Brighoff) wrote:

>>>>> ... Why is Mr. Chong starting with
>>>>>modern forms anyway?  If he really wants to prove a relationship, why
>>>>>doesn't he compare Sumerian to reconstructed Proto-Finno-Ugric and
>>>>>Proto-Altaic?

Not a bad point. I recently got a hold of Roy Andrew Miller's "Japanese 
and the Other Altaic languages" and noted down several Proto-Altaic 
words. Compared with Sumerian and Magyar and Finnish, and HEY! quite a 
few sound thought-provoking to say the least...

However, I'm seem to have run a problem with "Proto-Finno-Ugric". I have 
read that: (and I quote...)

1) The Finno Ugric "ancient language" never existed. Linguists creating 
something similar by hypothetical means, came to this result.

The well-known Hungarian linguist - Hajdu - (42) tells us about this 
hypothetical "ancient idiom";

   "as there are no texts in basical Finno-Ugric idiom - ... the     
    vocabulary of this language and its grammatical structure in its 
    entirety and its details remains unknown. So the only thing we can do
    is to try to reconstruct a Hypothetical Finno-Ugric Basical Idiom."

2) The different peoples, called "finno-ugric" have no common history.

3) During the last century the leading men controlling Hungarian cultural 
problems were Austrians and they were naturally enemies of Hungarian 
national cultural interests. So the Hungarian language was declared to 
belong into the Finno-Ugric linguistic group, inspite of Hungarian 
protests. The comparison of the Hungarian with any languages of "Southern 
Origin" was forbidden, thus paralyizing Hungarian researches for more 
than 100 years.

   Now - in 1973 - the actual government of Hungary also forbids the 
investigations of the Sumerian-Hungarian identities. (1)

>[snip]
>>>>Working from reconstructions is second-generation
>>>>research -- one step further removed from the raw data, with all the
>>>>ambiguities, errors, and occasional prejudices that are accidentally
>>>>embedded in the reconstruction. It is akin to what the statisticians
>>>>call "data-mining" -- very useful, if you are very careful.

True

>>>
>>>	Yes, but working in ignorance of data that, in some cases,
>>>represent a lifetime of painstaking reconstruction just strikes me as
>>>foolhardy.  By all means, double check the data sets to see if your
>>>predecessors knew what they were talking about, by why rediscover Grimm's
>>>Law?

But true once more...

>>
>>I don't suggest reinventing the wheel. Trusting and extending previous
>>effort is after all the hallmark of science, isn't it. But I thought
>>(correct me if I was wrong) you were asserting that because the
>>reconstructions exist, using modern languages was wrong. That's pretty
>>much like appealing to Aristotle.
>
>Hardly.  Ural-Altaic reconstruction is not that old a field.  Starting
>work on it without any reference to recent work is like deciding, today,
>to build a heavier-than-air flying craft without reading Bertoulli or his
>succeesors.  It's those who dispense with modern comparative
>reconstruction techniques in favour of intuitive comparison who are
>appealing, if not to Aristotle, to Enlightenment philologists and their
>search for the language of Adam.
>
>>It is not inconceivable that modern languages could shed some light on
>>mr Chong's attempt to show a relationship between Sumerian and
>>Altaic... imagine, if you will, that there are some cognates between
>>Sumerian and Mongolian, and some other cognates between Sumerian and
>>Manchu, but that Manchu and Mongolian didn't share these -- or at
>>least didn't share enough of them for the words to have turned up in a
>>reconstruction of proto-Altaic. Admittedly this is a somewhat
>>far-fetched notion, yet mr Chong ought to be allowed to pursue it in
>>the absence of flamage.

The problem for me is that, I can't get a hold of many proto-Uralic or 
Proto-Altaic sources directly since the field of Ural-Altaic linguistics 
is treated with such apathy. (At least in MHO). Thus I'm left with 
obtaining lexicons of modern languages (I've found Finnish, Estonian, 
Magyar, Japanese, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Tatar and Uzbek ones) and only 
some Sumerian sources. The problem also is that many of the Sumerian 
sources I can find are written by Deimel (ergo German which I can't 
understand) so I'm restricted by a linguistic barrier (for now)...

However, what similarities I can find between modern Ural-Altaic 
languages and Sumerian are notable and cannot be easily ignored. In fact, 
I found some Chinese words and IE words that sounded similar to Sumerian 
and those can either be attributed to pure fluke or a possible 
linguistic/cultural exchange between Sumerian and Chinese and/or IE 
peoples. However, that is something of which I am unsure about and I 
won't say anything further about IE & Chinese vs. Sumerian.

>I never flamed Mr. Chong or any other contributors to this thread.  I
>merely suggested that the methodology apparently underlying this attempt
>was deeply flawed and seemed to ignore much previous work.  If Mr. Chong

Sorry :-( -> :-D

>has posted something to the effect of "I'm familiar with the work of the
>following linguists, but I think it falls short" or if he had presented
>more proof than a mere word-list I would have reacted much differently 

That's arrogance...

NEway...

I have found some Proto-Altaic words that sound similar to Sumerian and 
Uralic words and maybe I'll send you the list when I'm done.

Cheers,

Peter Chong

(1) Badiny, Francisco Jos, "The Sumerian Wonder". Buenos Aires: School   
      for Oriental Studies of the University of Salvador, 1974.

Racism starts when we act AGAINST races. Just because we maintain our own
or perhaps criticize others does not necessarily lend to racism. And after
all let's face it, the beauty of this worldly existence is that we are ALL
different!

Balazs

MK wrote:

:time... But I like challenging people to substanciate their
:spring-loaded and cocky counter-claims, especially if they
:derive them from irrelevant stories they read between the
:lines (such as the Sun Languages theory, which subsequently
:became the title of this thread)...

the thread was started by a question on the Sun Language
theory, derived from a comment by some other person in
"Finnish related to Turkish?..." thread. the discussion
then reverted to the original subject. here is the
original post which deserves some comments:

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:      Sun Language Theory? (was Re: Finnish related to Turkish?)
From:          (Loren Petrich)
Date:         1996/12/31
Newsgroups:   sci.lang,soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.turkish

In article >,
paradox > wrote:
>Polat Kaya > wrote in article

>>         1.      If 'opa' is grandfather in German, it must indeed be a
>> distorted form of Turkish 'apa' for father as well as for grandfather.
>> 'Apa' has  both meanings in Turkic languages spoken throughout the
>> Turkic world both ancient and present.  Since Germanic and Turkic
>> peoples had a lot of contact with each other in Europe in the past, it
>> must be a loan word from Turkic languages into German.

>Two Things to say here.
>1- What makes you think it is not the other way around?
>2- Every human child is born with a certain and same muscle structure in
>the larynx that is underdeveloped and produces the same sounds...That is a
>mixture of aspiratives and glottal stops. pah/bah/or repeat pah-pah.That's
>universal. If you had studies other languages you would not be re-producung
>that Sun-Language Theory comedy after 70 years and make yourself sound
>extremely ignorant.

        What's the "Sun Language Theory"? I recall it being something
like all words being descended from the Turkish word for "Sun", gu"nes,

        Also, this similarity in words for "father" reflects nothing but
a common taste for baby-talk words for parents: mama, baba, papa, dada,
tata, nana, ... One interesting exception is Indo-European, which
features the suffix -ter-, but that's just that -- an exception.
--
Loren Petrich                           Happiness is a fast Macintosh
                      And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
some comments on what paradox says:

- true, polat kaya's example does not prove turkic-germanic
contact.

- polat kaya is wrong in saying that "the germanic and turkic
peoples had a *lot* of contact in the past" (emphasis mine).
"a lot" is definetely wrong.
 however, during the hunnic invasions they most probably had
some contact. the origin of the huns is not definetly known,
but a turkic or near turkic origin seems likely. the evidence
for this is the appearance of volga bolgars and related
tribes that spoke a special branch of turkic (some say this
may represent an independent branch intermediate between
mongolian and turkic) in the base area of the huns. incidentaly,
the language of the on-ogurs (hence the name hungarian) is 
apparently of that type, as can be ascertained from loans
into hungarian. this, and subsequent turkic invasions using
varieties of common turkic (as opposed to the hunnic branch)
is what has lead hungarian to have so many words in common
with turkic and altaic (the avars who settled there previously
are generaly thought to be mongolic, although there has been
speculation that they too were turkic linguistically, or had an
important element of turkic).
 k. menges also notes the appearance of a germanic tribe recorded 
by the romans as the turcilingi just after the hunnic invasions.

- there have not been any germanic migrations into
the turkic *heartland*, so turkic into germanic loans are 
more likely.

- indo-european loans (discounting words hypothesised as 
nostartic) into turkic most likely came from indo-aryan
(there are certainly many old iranian words) and
tokharian (such loans are known).

- the Sun language theory on the other hand claimed
that germanic-turkic contacts were extensive and very 
ancient and that influence, indeed that indo-european
and other language families derived specificaly from 
turkish.
 
:is of course a relative argument. The said list may not
:good enough, but the fact is, those people have not yet
:been able to provide a list "even as bad as that one":)
:between Sumerian and other languages they mentioned...

as I have mentioned, sumerian has been connected with
the basque - etruscan - cauacsian - burushaski - 
sino tibetan - na dene (canada) hypothetical superfamily, 
specifically  with caucasian. the evidence I heard is a common 
numbering  system with basque and caucasian and the fact that 
caucasian is also agglutunative. I repeat, I would like to know
more about the subject.

I guess I'm to hardup to afford impotence treatments.
Anyway my new years resolution was to give up sex.

In soc.culture.nordic Jari Oksanen > wrote:
: In article >  (Jarmo Ryyti) w
rites:
: >In soc.culture.nordic Markku Huttu-Hiltunen 
i> wrote:: >: Jarmo Ryyti wrote:
: >: > In soc.culture.nordic Markku Huttu-Hiltunen 
: >: > : > It is actually from the NORTH! From the Saamis who have lived close
: >: > : > and together with the so called Finns THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

: >A nice coincidence:
: >"The Finns come from the south and west". Finnish television news
: >12.1.1997. Scientists Savontaus,Lahermo,Sistonen and Sajantila
: >told about their research.
: >They are ones who I refer, because they participated in the 8th
: >International Congress on Finno-Ugric studies august 1995,Jyva"skyla".

cut in order to shorten
: The genetic relationship between the Finns and the Finnish Saami (Lapps): 
: analysis of nuclear DNA and mtDNA.
: Lahermo-P; Sajantila-A; Sistonen-P; Lukka-M; Aula-P; Peltonen-L; Savontaus-ML
: Am-J-Hum-Genet. 1996 Jun; 58(6): 1309-22

: The genetic relationships between two Finno-Ugric-speaking populations, the 
: Finns and the Finnish Saami (Lapps), were studied by using PCR for six 
: nuclear-DNA marker loci, mitochondrial restriction-site polymorphism, and 
: sequence variation of a 360-bp segment of the mitochondrial control region. 
: The allele frequencies of each of the nuclear-DNA marker loci and the 
: frequencies of mtDNA restriction haplotypes were significantly different 
: between the populations. 

My source: Pekka Sammallahti, Univ. of Oulu "Language and roots".
page 151, Pars 1 Orationes plenarie et conceptus quintaennales.
Jyv{skyl{ 1995.


"It has been estimated that more than half of the genetics of
the Finns come from the south i.e. from the Indo-European populations
of central Europe and the rest is Finno-Ugric heritage. When one
compares Finnish gene frequencies with those of the Saami and the
Swedes as presented by Aldur W. Eriksson (Eriksson) the Finnish
frequencies normally fall between the two..."
.....

That is between the Saamis and Swedes fall genetically the Finns.

The point is to estimate the frequencies of so called Saami
genes in the populations and it is clear that the Finns are
closer to the Saamis also genetically than the Swedes, not
to mention the Germans or Swiss what ever...


: The Saami showed exceptionally low variation in their 
: mtDNA restriction sites. The 9-bp deletion common in East Asian populations 
: was not observed, nor did the haplotype data fit into the haplogroup 
: categorization of Torroni et al. The average number of nucleotide 
: substitutions from the mtDNA haplotype data indicated that the Finnish Saami 
: may be closer to the Finns than to the other reference populations, whereas 
: nuclear DNA suggested that the Finns are more closely related to the European
 : reference populations than to the Finnish Saami. The similarity of the Finns
 : to the other Europeans was even more pronounced according to the sequence 
: data. 

regards,
jami
-- 
#In 1958,The Swedish School Administration repealed directives banning#
 # the speaking of Finnish language in Sweden's schools.However,some #
       # municipalities maintained restrictions until 1968 #

In soc.culture.nordic Markku Huttu-Hiltunen > 
wrote:
: Jarmo Ryyti wrote:
: > In soc.culture.nordic Markku Huttu-Hiltunen 
: > : > It is actually from the NORTH! From the Saamis who have lived close
: > : > and together with the so called Finns THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

A nice coincidence:
"The Finns come from the south and west". Finnish television news
12.1.1997. Scientists Savontaus,Lahermo,Sistonen and Sajantila
told about their research.

They are ones who I refer, because they participated in the 8th
International Congress on Finno-Ugric studies august 1995,Jyva"skyla".

: > : Here is a very short translation of some parts from an article, made by
: > : Irma Stenbäck according to interview of assistant professor Ulla-Maria
: > : Kulonen. 
: > : Helsingin Sanomat January 10. 1997:
: > : The origin of the (Finnish) language clarifed in Science Days:
: > : HALF OF THE LANGAGES OF THE HUMAN RACE THREATENED OF EXTINCTION

And most of the Fenno-Ugric languages. Lennart Meri, august 1995
in Jyva"skyla":  "Out of the 23 Uralic peoples only three have been
able to establsih their own states."

"We would help to re-establish the blood circulation of post-
Russification culture at least where it is still possible".

(Comment: post-swedefication and post-anglification culture)

: > : Gene research has proved that the major part of people in the world is
: > : closer related to each other through genes than previously thought.  ...
: > : The origin of the Finnish language has according to comparative
: > : linguistic research noted to diverge from Uralic basic language 8 000
: > : years ago.
: > : Though our langage came from east, genetically we are, according to
: > : Kulonen, europeans.
: > 
: > : "Researching blood groups gives a result that 75% of the origin of Finns
: > : is western and 25% eastern. The latest DNA analysis confirm this result
: > : of the origin of the Finns."

: > I write it here:
: > Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristum Jyva"skyla"
: > 10.-15.9.1995 Summaria acroasium in sectionibus et symposiis
: > factarum:
:  
: I recall that "the revolution" on this matter occurred 1995 or -96, and
: that was the first time it was proven that language and genetic heritage
: are two different things. At least 50 years it was thought at schools
: that Finns come from Ural.

Earlier. Scientific reports were given in 1995 Jyva"skyla" in the 8th
International Congress on Fenno-Ugric studies.

: I would challenge that your information  (50% european 50% sami) either
: outdated or false:

I have not written or anyone else about 59%50 but the Finns and
Karelians have more Saami genes as for instance the Swedes.
The Finns fall between as the scolars say. Simply because
the Finns and Saamis have interacted thousands of years.
Unlike the Germanic people and Saamis. For instance you
cannot find any rune stones in the north or more north
as in Medelpad in Sweden, simply because there lived
Kvens next to them Samis and there were no clear border.

: If that would be true, do you think that assistant
: professor of the university of Helsinki would intentionally give that
: statement (quoted earlier) in Jan 10. 1997? The answer is simple: Of
: course not.
: We are talking about the Finns, not Sami people, so I erased most
: off-the-topic stories.

So called "Asian genes" in Finns are in fact Saami genes. 
People who arrived from the south and west following
the ice edge and settled to the areas exposed from under the ice
met in the north other Uralic people that is Saamis who lived
in the region even during the ice era. Reference: a Norwegian
recearer Poul Simonsen who writes about cultural continuum on 
the Finnmark coast. With other words there existed pockets
of human life dispite of the icebelt and people who lived
there were Uralic people, that is the first Europeans.

: > A comment: the exchange has had two way direction, not only
: > from "the Finns" and Indo-Europeans into the Saamis but from
: > the Saamis into the Finns and Indo-Europeans. When the Finns
: > and Saami have allways interacted very closely it is clear
: > that Finnish (and Karelians) have a lot of Saami genes.

: The source here is Jarmo. Not qualified as a reliable source.

: Pekka Sammallahti Univ. of Oulu refers:
: Refers what? When? Any document?
Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum 10.-15.8.95
Pars I Orationes plenarie et conspectus quinquannales "Language
and roots" pages 143-153.

(Comment: recommended reading to those who like to repeal
old stupid myths about "Finns coming from Asia")

: > "On other hand, it has been estimated that more than half
: > > of the genetics of the Finns come from the south, i.e.
: > from the Indo-European populations of Central-Europe
: > and the rest is Fenno-Ugric heritage. When one compares
: > Finnish gene frequencies with those of the Saami
: > and the Swedes as presendted Aldur W. Erikson (Eriksson 1984)
: > the Finnsish frequencies normally fall between these
: > the two, and it is an obvious conclusion that this is the result
: > of the same strong influence of Germanic on the Pre-Finnic
: > which was also posited by historical linguistics."

: As said earlier: This is either outdated or false.
On the contrary. Yesterday's television news told it as
big news and the research group is the same I am referring to.
(Savontaus,Sajantila et al from Turku)

: > (Comment:Finns are Indo-Europeanized Saamis)

: That's your comment, Jarmo.

And those who study Finno-Ugric heritage from many
differents points of view.

: > Valeri Petrusev,Univ. of Yoshkar-Ola, Mari El
: > also points out:
: > 
: > "Uralic nations are amongst the oldest, most archaic groups
: > of Russian population"
: > 
: > In brief: Uralic peoples, that is Finno-Ugrians are a very
: > old "European" population who has inhabited the northern
: > parts of Europe, what we call now Scandinavia and Russia
: > long before the Indo-European expansion.

: Valeri can have said whatever. The fact remainds that hardly scientists
: of today are unaware of previous claims or hypothesis. (I can't help
: making a comment: Valeri's geographic knowledge is not sparkling.)

Fenno-Ugric studies are very well developed in Russia and Petrushov
is a well known scientist.  His geographic position is one of
the best in terms of Fenno-Ugric studies. What is in your opinion
better position, Champs Elysee,Paris?

: > The genes now called "Asian" are in fact original "European
: > genes" and those people who are now called "Indo-Europeans"
: > are as much truly "European" as the present Indo-European
: > population of "America" is "American".
: Is that Valeri or Jarmo? 

Fenno-Ugric studies.

: I'v heard these claims before, weather that's true or not is not our
: topic here. 
:  
: > Seppo Lallukka writes about assimilation process of the
: > Uralic peoples of Europe for instance.HU.

: Who is Seppo Lallukka? What document? What date?

"Assimilation and its measurement: Finno-Ugrian peoples of Russia."
8th Congress on Fenno-Ugric studies, Jyvaskyla,august 1995.
Pars I, Orationes plenarie et conspectus quintannales, pages 83-96.
  
: > The genetic relationsships between the Finns and the Saamis.
: > Savontaus,Turku. Lahermo,Turku. Sistonen Helsinki. Sajantila
: > Munich also have in their studies made a conclusion
: > that Saami and Finnish/Karelian gene pool have similarites
: > compared to Indo-Europeans. I attended on her lecture and
: > remember it quite well.

: I can't get it clear according to above: Whose lecture you attended?
: What is the name-place list above? Dates?

See abouve. The very same scientists were yesterday in Finland's
television. 2+ years later what Jyva"skyla"ites already know.
It is not my false that people are not following development
in the knowledge elsewhere but stay with old beliefs and myths
stubbornly.

: > One can say in brief: Those people who are called
: > in ourdays "Finns" are Saamis who adopted agriculture
: > from the Indo-Europeans. And present day Saamis are
: > "Finns" who continued old occupations. That had
: > a strong effect on the language,too.

: Even without your passive form, I would have quessed the source: Jarmo.

I cannot copy entire seminar lectures but it is clear.

: > I cannot copy entire seminars but I have material enough not to
: > believe any folkloristic tales about "Finns" who arrived
: > from Volga. Or "Finns" who have "Asian" genes.
: I haven't made those claims.

Lucky you. 

:  It is folklore
: > and pleases only later arrived occupants like Russians,Swedes
: > and Norwegians who liked on the political reasons to cultivate
: > such beliefs. Comp. Estonia and SU/Russian policy of Estonia.

: Jarmo, are you sure your story is not influenced the same way? 
: (I do not want to go too personal here, but have you seriously
: thought about your motives?) 

Motives: information about culture in Scandinavia.
 
: > The fact is that the Finns, Estonians,Karelians have always lived
: > in Northern-Europe together with other Fenno-Ugric nations
: > like Nenets,Komis,Saamis and the Indo-European expansion
: > has extint many of the Pre-Uralic peoples during the process.

: What an angle! "The good, original, people so old that they are the
: people of no ancestors, where intruded by evel indo-europeans who wrote
: the history according to their political views..." That seems to be your
: message, Jarmo.

Compare Finland's history can be written from many angles. 
Also from the angle of the Finns themselves.

: > Those nations who "won" Finnic nations like Russians and Swedes
: > have then later written their history from their point of view
: > the way it pleases them best. Comp. American history from
: > the Indo-European point of view vs. natives of America.
:  
: I think you're childish, and more importantly wrong. You make these
: conceptions up and you are driven by some strange battle where you'd
: like to prove that ultimately yours heretage is better than
: "indo-europeans".

You read something what is not written.

: I see, you are having a mission against the Sweeds and other
: indo-europeans (which genetically we Finns are too - I hope you aren't
: having a mission against yourself).

Then all the scientists who claim the same things must have the same 
mission,too.

regards,
jami
-- 
#In 1958,The Swedish School Administration repealed directives banning#
 # the speaking of Finnish language in Sweden's schools.However,some #
       # municipalities maintained restrictions until 1968 #

On Jan 12/97 Gabor Barsai >
|willy, the canadian pseudo poet and artificial artist wrote:
|>aheringer ) writes:
 says...
|>>>willy, the canadian pseudo poet and artificial artist wrote:
|>>>>Canadians are unable to accept the fact that Canada is a
|>>>>country with two nations in it. Two nations. When that fact
|>>>>is accepted as fact, then everything else can flow from it.
|I >>>>personally oppose seperation.
|>>>
|>>>Two nations? Which are those two?
|> 
|>USAmericans are notoriously ignorant of Canadian affairs. If
|>you don't know the answer to those questions, you are case in
|>point.
|
|Which are the unique two nations that Canada consists of? You
|still did not answer.

Oh but I did little dickhead; note of my posting of Jan 11/97:

     In >, 
      says...
     >Two nations? Which are those two? 

     Really? You really don't know? Honest? Most USAmericans 
     are largely ignorant of the nation on top of the continent.  
     Case in point.

     >The algonquins and the anglos? 

     French & English.

     >I thought the country had a few hundred indian nations in   
     >it, who consider themselves separate. 

     They are seperate. They were never conquered. Nation to      
     nation treaties exist. The French & English & descendents    
     did a horrific job of betraying those treaties. Canada never 
     got into the extremities of violence against these nations   
     as did the USA against its. However, Canadian-based Native   
     Nations have not expressed any desire to seperate that I am  
     aware of. Perhaps you could illuminate the aboriginal        
     nations that want to seperate.

     >The inuits?

     There are no inuits in Canada. There are Inuit. And the      
     Inuit are not the Innu. And neither is Cree. The majority    
     Cree have already expressed their desire to remain           
     "Canadian". The same for the Inuit in northern Quebec. 
 
|>>>The algonquins and the anglos? I thought the country had a
|>>>few hundred indian nations in it, who consider themselves
|>>>separate.
|> 
|>Care to name those nations?
|
|Just one, for sport:
|From: http://schoolnet2.carleton.ca/english/ext/aboriginal/occc/
|===
|Treaty 9 was signed in 1905-06 by the Canadian and Ontario
|governments and the Cree-Ojibway Nations of what is now known as
|northern Ontario. Adhesions were made in 1929 and 1930. Treaty
|No. 5 was signed in 1875 by the Canadian government and the
|Saulteaux-Cree Nations of what is now northern Ontario and
|Manitoba. 
|
|Those treaty bands within Ontario are also part of
|Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. Grand Council Treaty No. 9 was formed in
|February 1973, and in 1981 the name was changed to
|Nishnawbe-Aski Nation to represent the social, political and
|economic aspirations of Nishnawbe-Aski Nation people. All First
|Nations located in 50 communities are represented by the
|Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. 
|
|The people of the Treaty 9 area are known as the Nishnawbe-Aski.
|The name is based on a principle which is sacred to our people:
|the notion of the people and the land, especially the relation
|between them in our languages,"Nishnawbe-Aski". This concept is
|our central self-reliance for our people. 
|===
|So does the Cree nation constitute part of the anglo or french
|nation? Or something separate? 
|
|I asked a genuine question, but you're such a hypocrite, you
|can't even answer it. 

What does hypocrisy have to do with whether a question is
answered or not? Also it is not a matter of of whether I "can't"
-- that is your presumption. At any rate, I answered your
question in a posting yesterday. To the question immediately
above, the Cree Nation is the Cree Nation, they are note another
nation in spite of the fact that they are citizens of Canada.

|I was/am genuinely curious. Maybe soc.culture.canada can give me
|an answer, since you can't.

Why don't you post on more pertinent newsgroups -- native
newsgroups.

|>Perhaps Gabor can tell us the proportions of the native nations
|>and list
|
|I think the native population of Canada is around 3%. 
|
|>those that want to seperate. I think not. None of you are
|>interested in an exchange of information on this matter. You
|>are simply a mutual support system spreading misinformation on
|>this subject matter.
|
|Sheesh, you can't even read. Read my typing, above:
|"who consider themselves separate."
|I did not write 
|"that want to separate".
|
|Those two are not necessarily the same.

However the thread that Agnes & I were involved in dealt with
Quebec and seperation. If you want to use seperate in the meaning
of unique, distinct, I have no problem with that. However, Canada
was formed by two founding peoples (nations) -- English, French.
These are the dominent nations of Canada. Insofar as the First
Nations are concerned, they are no threat to the territorial
integrity of Canada, however, the Cree are a threat to the
territorial integrity of a seperate Quebec. If Canada is
divisible, then so is Quebec. Finally, the issue of partition has
arisen in Quebec, not just by Anglos, but also by the Cree.

|You aren't interested in answering my question, just in putting
|me down.

Ah, poor baby. Like you don't indulge in this very same activity.
Przt!

|Up yours,

Given the smallness of your bland gland, (no need to be shy) go
ahead, there would be no noticable sensation for anyone.

Any studies on the genetic make up of the Mari people?

A. Toprak

In article >,  says...
>
>Hi
>I looking for the recipe for Longos??
>thanks John


John, I see you are fellow Ontarian. I already posted quite a few times 
that you can make terrific langos from pizza dough.  I don't know where 
you live, but here, in Toronto, we can get fresh pizza dough almost in 
any supermarket.  Roll it out, cut it into pieces and fry in hot oil 
until golden.  They sell fresh langos every Sunday after service at the 
Hungarian Church on Sheppard E.   Bon appetit! Agnes

willy, the canadian pseudo poet and artificial artist wrote:

> |Which are the unique two nations that Canada consists of? You
> |still did not answer.
> 
> Oh but I did little dickhead; note of my posting of Jan 11/97:
> 
>      In >,
>       says...
>      >Two nations? Which are those two?
> 
>      Really? You really don't know? Honest? Most USAmericans
>      are largely ignorant of the nation on top of the continent.
>      Case in point.
> 
>      >The algonquins and the anglos?
> 
>      French & English.

You are quite a hypocrite writing that Canada today consists of only two 
nations. Even you know it's not true. It may have been 200 years ago, but 
the Canadian population is a bit more diverse than that. That's like saying 
Germany today consists of only the German nation, or Romania consists of 
only the Romanian nation. If Quebec separates, will the rest of Canada 
consist of only "the anglo nation"? The monolithic nation-state? (Or in 
your native tongue: eh?)
 
>      aware of. Perhaps you could illuminate the aboriginal
>      nations that want to seperate.

Per-haps (peut-etre, tal-vez, ta-la'n), vous cannot read en anglais. I 
never wrote they want to separate. I wrote they are separate.
 
> |I asked a genuine question, but you're such a hypocrite, you
> |can't even answer it.
> 
> What does hypocrisy have to do with whether a question is
> answered or not? Also it is not a matter of of whether I "can't"

Since you're assuming that i did not have a genuine discussion in mind. As 
usual, you're using double standards. Thus, your opinions cannot be 
trusted.
 
Gabor