Las unidades organizativas indígenas II: "addenda et corrigenda"

[ES] Se ofrece una puesta al día de la relación de "gentilitates" que completa y, en su caso, corrige la que ofrecimos en nuestro trabajo de 1986. Se añaden los nuevos nombres, repetidos o no, aparecidos desde entonces, se suprimen algunas de las reconstrucciones propuestas y se corrigen otras.

Zipf and Type-Token rules for the English, Spanish, Irish and Latin languages

The Zipf curves of log of frequency against log of rank for a large English corpus of 500 million word tokens, 689,000 word types and for a large Spanish corpus of 16 million word tokens, 139,000 word types are shown to have the usual slope close to –1 for rank less than 5,000, but then for a higher rank they turn to give a slope close to –2. This is apparently mainly due to foreign words and place names. Other Zipf curves for highlyinflected Indo-European languages, Irish and ancient Latin, are also given. Because of the larger number of word types per lemma, they remain flatter than the English curve maintaining a slope of –1 until turning points of about ranks 30,000 for Irish and 10,000 for Latin. A formula which calculates the number of tokens given the number of types is derived in terms of the rank at the turning point, 5,000 for both English and Spanish, 30,000 for Irish and 10,000 for Latin.

Unidades organizativas indígenas del área indoeuropea de Hispania III: Addenda

[EN] This article analyses the new names, repeated and non-repeated names being both included in similar fashion, of indigenous units of organization (cognationes, gentes and gentilitates), discovered back in the 90’s (20th C.). These names are mentioned in the Latin and Celtiberian inscriptions from Indo-European Hispania.

Genetics and the origin of European languages.

A new set of European genetic data has been analyzed to dissect independent patterns of geographic variation. The most important cause of European genetic variation has been confirmed to correspond to the migration of Neolithic farmers from the area of origin of agriculture in the Middle East. The next most important component of genetic variation is apparently associated with a north-south gradient possibly due to adaptation to cold climates but also to the differentiation of the Uralic and the Indo-European language-speaking people; however, the relevant correlations are not significantly different from zero after elimination of the spatial autocorrelation. The third component is highly correlated with the infiltration of the Yamna ("Kurgan") people, nomadic pastoralists who domesticated the horse and who have been claimed to have spread Indo-European languages to Europe; this association, which is statistically significant even when taking spatial autocorrelations into account, does not completely exclude the hypothesis of Indo-European as the language of Neolithic farmers. It is possible that both expansions were responsible for the spread of different subfamilies of Indo-European languages, but our genetic data cannot resolve their relative importance.

Le trasformazioni delle specie e le tre epoche delle lingue e letterature indo-europee;

Mode of access: Internet.

De Indo-Europeiska sprakens forhallande till de Semitiska.

Mode of access: Internet.

Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indo-germanischen Sprachen, unter Berücksichtigung ihrer Hauptformen, Sanskrit; Zend-Persisch; Griechisch-Lateinisch; Littauisch-Slawisch; Germanisch und Keltisch,

"2. Th. 2. Abth." to "5. Bd." have added t.-p.: Wurzel-Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen ...; "6. Bd.": Wurzel-, Wort-, Namen- und Sach-Register zu den fünf Bänden ... von Dr. Heinr. Ernst Bindseil.

"Lancea", Lusitanian Word, and the "Lancienses" Ethnogenesis

Analysis of the word lancea, of Hispanic origin after Varro, and of place names, people´s names and personal names derived from it. It confirms that the spear was the most important weapon in the Bronze Age, belonging to the iuventus and used as heroic and divine symbol. This analysis confirms also the personality of the Lusitanians, a people related to the Celts but with more archaic archaeological, linguistic and cultural characteristics originated in the tradition of the Atlantic Bronze in the II millennium BC. It is also relevant to better know the organisation of Broze and Iron Age societies and the origin of Indo-Europeans peoples in Western Europe and of pre-Roman peoples of Iberia.

Queer

The word “queer” is a slippery one; its etymology is uncertain, and academic and popular usage attributes conflicting meanings to the word. By the mid-nineteenth century, “queer” was used as a pejorative term for a (male) homosexual. This negative connotation continues when it becomes a term for homophobic abuse. In recent years, “queer” has taken on additional uses: as an all encompassing term for culturally marginalised sexualities – gay, lesbian, trans, bi, and intersex (“GLBTI”) – and as a theoretical strategy which deconstructs binary oppositions that govern identity formation. Tracing its history, the Oxford English Dictionary notes that the earliest references to “queer” may have appeared in the sixteenth century. These early examples of queer carried negative connotations such as “vulgar,” “bad,” “worthless,” “strange,” or “odd” and such associations continued until the mid-twentieth century. The early nineteenth century, and perhaps earlier, employed “queer” as a verb, meaning to “to put out of order,” “to spoil”, “to interfere with”. The adjectival form also began to emerge during this time to refer to a person’s condition as being “not normal,” “out of sorts” or to cause a person “to feel queer” meaning “to disconcert, perturb, unsettle.” According to Eve Sedgwick (1993), “the word ‘queer’ itself means across – it comes from the Indo-European root – twerkw, which also yields the German quer (traverse), Latin torquere (to twist), English athwart . . . it is relational and strange.” Despite the gaps in the lineage and changes in usage, meaning and grammatical form, “queer” as a political and theoretical strategy has benefited from its diverse origins. It refuses to settle comfortably into a single classification, preferring instead to traverse several categories that would otherwise attempt to stabilise notions of chromosomal sex, gender and sexuality.

Gender

The OED informs us that “gender” has at its root the Latin genus, meaning “race, kind,” and emerges as early as the fifth century as a term for differentiating between types of (especially) people and words. In the following 1500 years, gender appears in linguistic and biological contexts to distinguish types of words and bodies from one another, as when words in Indo-European languages were identified as masculine, feminine, or neuter, and humans were identified as male or female. It is telling that gender has historically (whether overtly or covertly) been a tool of negotiation between our understandings of bodies, and meanings derived from and attributed to them. Within the field of children’s literature studies, as in other disciplines, gender in and of itself is rarely the object of critique. Rather, specific constructions of gender structure understandings of subjectivity; allow or disallow certain behaviors or experiences on the basis of biological sex; and dictate a specific vision of social relations and organization. Critical approaches to gender in children’s literature have included linguistic analysis (Turner-Bowker; Sunderland); analysis of visual representations (Bradford; Moebius); cultural images of females (Grauerholz and Pescosolido); consideration of gender and genre (Christian-Smith; Stephens); ideological (Nodelman and Reimer); psychoanalytic (Coats); discourse analysis (Stephens); and masculinity studies (Nodelman) among others. In the adjacent fields of education and literacy studies, gender has been a sustained point of investigation, often deriving from perceived gendering of pedagogical practices (Lehr) or of reading preferences and competencies, and in recent years, perceptions of boys as “reluctant readers” (Moss). The ideology of patriarchy has primarily come under critical scrutiny 2 because it has been used to locate characters and readers within the specific binary logic of gender relations that historically subordinated the feminine to the masculine. Just as feminism might be broadly defined as resistance to existing power structures, a gendered reading might be broadly defined as a “resistant reading” in that it most often reveals or contests that which a text assumes to be the norm.

Foreword

Ghrelin was first identified in 1999 by Kojima and colleagues (Kojima et al. 1999) as the natural ligand of an orphan G-protein coupled receptor, the Growth Hormone (GH) secretagogue receptor (GHS-R), which had been identified several years earlier through the actions of a growing number of synthetic growth hormone releasing peptides (GHRPs) and non-peptidyl GH secretagogues (Howard et al. 1996). Early studies, therefore, focussed on the actions of ghrelin as an important regulator of GH secretion. As a result Kojima et al (1999) designated this GH-releasing peptide, ghrelin (ghre is the Proto-Indo-European root of the word 'grow'). We now recognise that the functions of ghrelin extend well beyond its GH releasing actions and that it is a multi-functional peptide with both endocrine and autocrine/paracrine modes of action.

Provinicializing curriculum? On the preparation of subjectivity for globality

The recent availability of international forums devoted expressly to discussing subfields of education such as curriculum studies has brought to visibility preexisting flashpoints that are not easily defused by strict adherence to definition of key terms. The difficulty of translating the term curriculum into “non”-Indo-European root languages, as well as among them, is a case in point and not just an issue of vocabulary. The difficulty of translation indexes a cleavage that is beyond-conceptual and exo-technical. Efforts to locate analogs or equivalents might suggest on the one hand, an ethnocentric preoccupation to extend the reach of a provincial concept (i.e., curriculum), while the effort to avoid or move to the side of such a preoccupation for translation might suggest structures of subjectivity that refuse co-option into foreign frames of reference. Both of these possibilities are, however, constitutive of and pointing to productive interstices from which to reengage and rephrase the weight given to subjectivity and language, to global/local divisions, and to the politics of traveling discourses in educational research.