"Dominican"

[NALs]

The name Kiskeya or Quisqueya may or may not be of indigenous origins, but one thing we can all be certain is that its not an anti-Haitian term.

If it was anti-Haitian this radio station would have never been named as such and this website.

Also, this organization would not had been named as such given that its oriented towards Haiti and lets not forget the private university located in Port-au-Prince which happens to be named Kiskeya as well.

My point is that the name Kiskeya is widely used by both, Dominicans and Haitians, to refer to the island of Hispaniola. Given that reality, it can't possibly be an anti-Haitian term, unless Haitians themselves have become anti-Haitian and that is highly unlikely!

-NALs

 

[bilijou]

The name Kiskeya or Quisqueya may or may not be of indigenous origins, but one thing we can all be certain is that its not an anti-Haitian term.

Quisqueya isn't an anti-Haitian name, but traditionally, nationalists (many of anti-Haitian nature) have claimed that Quisqueya was the name conveniently given by Tainos to the eastern side of the island (as if they also had the political borders).

In past we ,especially in our homeland we had Socialogists writing books on anthropology. Anthropologists writing books on Language, etc and never having been trained in those sciences.
On the other hand for example Mr Julian Granberry, whom I mentioned regarding the word Kiskeya, has been working on the reconstruction of the language for 50 years. Further, he is credited with reconstructing the language of the Wampanoag of Mashpee here in the states. In short this is coming from a very qualified source.
The sources you posted however, are not from a linguist but from a newspaper..........historian?
You can be assured that all my sources have been carefully scrutinized.

C?sar Nicol?s Penson is a very important figure for anybody studying our history, traditions and even our language. He founded the first daily newspaper and thanks to his documenting of the times, we actually have a glimpse of our country in its first 50 years. He might not be a 21st century linguist, but if such wanted accuracy in their studies of the Dominican "dialect", I'm sure they would cite or at least study Penson (or other intellectuals of the time who agreed with him, most notably, Salome Ure?a).

Mr. Granberry might be correct about most of the Taino language, but we're specifically referring to the word "Quisqueya". Unfortunately I haven't read his book, but could you please post his theory about this word?

Why should I trust a person who studies regional patterns in language over someone who had specific knowledge of Dominican historical events and culture?

 

[Baracutay]

Bilijou, It is not a matter of trust but one of expertise. Mr Penson may have been very good at documenting the birth of our Nation, but still he was not really qualified to make a statement as matter of fact. I am sure that he did not explore Lokono Arawak from which Taino derives or Tolan Languages from the Yucatan which also had strong linguistic influence in the Taino Language.
Here is what Pedro Martir D'Angleira and Julian Granberry have to say about Kiskeya:

Pietro Martire D, Anghiera Writes: ?Los nombres que los primeros habitants pusieron a la Espanola, fueron primero Quizquilla, despues Haiti, y no solo por voluntad de los que pusieron el nombre, sino por el efecto que ellos creian?..Quizquella interpretan Grandeza? Fuente historicas sober Colom y America, Pedro Martir De, Angleria, 4 Vols. Year 1530) ll;384

Mr Julian Granberry writes: ?The second syllable of K?isk?eya, ke, is probably partial
Resuplication of the initial syllable, a process often used with nouns in TOL (Tolan Language of the Yucatan) to indicate not just plurality but proliferating multiplicity (Holt 1999:38-39). Thus, the word which Anghiera translates as grandeza, particularly given his lengthy description of what it implied, may have meant ?a very mountainous, heavily forested terrain.? While again perhaps a stretch to some, particularly since we are comparing language data separated by 500 years, the phonological, morphological, semological match of Quizquella K?isk?eya and K?isyana to ?very mountainous? is rather remarkable and particularly appropiratye given the terrain of the western half of Hispanola.

 

[NALs]

Quisqueya isn't an anti-Haitian name, but traditionally, nationalists (many of anti-Haitian nature) have claimed that Quisqueya was the name conveniently given by Tainos to the eastern side of the island (as if they also had the political borders).

Hm, can you show a link or refer to a book where such can be verified?

From my understanding, the term Quisqueya has been used in the DR as an affectionate name for the country much in the same manner Haitians use the same term (but spelled in Creole which would be Kiskeya) used it in the same manner for their country, but never has the term been made to seem an exclusive Dominican term.

What I have seen from some critics of the term Quisqueya is that they often equate the term to the DR and only the DR as they try to discredit the terms validity and thus, attribute the use of such term to the suppose affinity Dominicans have towards the Indigenous in lieu of the African.

Of course, such critics often ignore the use of the term in Haiti and thus, ignore the fact that Haitians are aware of their indigenous roots mixed with everything else as much as Dominicans are aware of the same indigenous roots.

Depending on the Haitian, some say the term was the indigenous name for Haiti the country and others make sure they mention that the term Quisqueya was an indigenous term referring the entire island; much like Dominicans.

I have never read an article by Haitians questioning the validity of the term Quisqueya, although such questioning have occured in the DR and by foreigners studying and trying to understand the DR, but again, not when they are studying and trying to understand Haiti.

In conclusion, the questioning of the validity of the term Quisqueya is part of the backlash against anything connecting the DR and its people to Tainos. This backlash often ends right along the border, because further west is Haiti and the Haitians have used the term affectionately towards their country and they are aware of their indigenous roots, but no one ask them the samething they ask Dominicans concerning the same word which has the same meaning and is attributed to the same source.

-NALs

BTW: Who ever is the moderator (I think is Rick Snyder), can you please move the posts concerning the discussion on the validity of the term Quisqueya to a new thread. There are two different discussions taking place here and I think the Quisqueya discussion is interesting, but merits its own thread. Thanks.

 

[bilijou]

Bilijou, It is not a matter of trust but one of expertise. Mr Penson may have been very good at documenting the birth of our Nation, but still he was not really qualified to make a statement as matter of fact. I am sure that he did not explore Lokono Arawak from which Taino derives or Tolan Languages from the Yucatan which also had strong linguistic influence in the Taino Language.
Here is what Pedro Martir D'Angleira and Julian Granberry have to say about Kiskeya:

Pietro Martire D, Anghiera Writes: ?Los nombres que los primeros habitants pusieron a la Espanola, fueron primero Quizquilla, despues Haiti, y no solo por voluntad de los que pusieron el nombre, sino por el efecto que ellos creian?..Quizquella interpretan Grandeza? Fuente historicas sober Colom y America, Pedro Martir De, Angleria, 4 Vols. Year 1530) ll;384

Mr Julian Granberry writes: ?The second syllable of K?isk?eya, ke, is probably partial
Resuplication of the initial syllable, a process often used with nouns in TOL (Tolan Language of the Yucatan) to indicate not just plurality but proliferating multiplicity (Holt 1999:38-39). Thus, the word which Anghiera translates as grandeza, particularly given his lengthy description of what it implied, may have meant ?a very mountainous, heavily forested terrain.? While again perhaps a stretch to some, particularly since we are comparing language data separated by 500 years, the phonological, morphological, semological match of Quizquella K?isk?eya and K?isyana to ?very mountainous? is rather remarkable and particularly appropiratye given the terrain of the western half of Hispanola.

Baracutay,

The topic we are discussing is one that, given obvious limits, nobody knows the truth, so YES, it is a matter of whether you trust the source. I would distrust any source that claims to have a definite answer. Mr. Granberry's theory can be classified as nothing more than an "educated guess". If it passed "careful scrutiny", it is because he was able to word it properly (as you may have noticed the word "probably" before anything), but it by no means closes the books on this one.

As for Pietro Martire Anghiera, from whom the word "Quisqueya" makes its debut, and where you and Mr. Granberry place all your trust, spent his time documenting the stories of discoverers, as did Herrera and Gomara.
So I ask... where did he come across this word? Did he hear it from the Tainos themselves? Did anybody else hear a Taino say it (as many have with "Haiti")?

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Granberry may be right, but he hasn't convinced me, or would fully convince any critical thinker, enough to say his statement is indisputably true.

-bj

 

[bilijou]

Hm, can you show a link or refer to a book where such can be verified?

I'm sure you've heard people say that Quisqueya was the name given to ONLY the eastern side of the island, but as usual, me quieres llevar la contraria.

Let me give you an example, from a simple search on google...

New York City 's Washington Heights is so densely populated by Dominicans, it is sometimes referred to as Quisqueya Heights . Quisqueya is believed to be the name given to the eastern side of Hispaniola by its original inhabitants, the Arawak Indians, although this version is disputed by some historians.
(Source: Dominican Students@Yale)

 

[NALs]

I'm sure you've heard people say that Quisqueya was the name given to ONLY the eastern side of the island, but as usual, me quieres llevar la contraria.

Let me give you an example, from a simple search on google...

As usual? I get into a debate with someone if I may disagree or need further proof of what such person claims. Have I gone into a debate with you on everything you have posted? The answer is no, because everything you post I don't contradict (in fact, I agree with many things you say - I simply don't feel the need to create an entire post to simply say "I agree", but when I see anything that you or anyone else post a side of a story or subject where I may have a different point of view, then I will respond to such.

So no, it's not 'as usual'.

Regarding your source, its simply one example of a Dominican making the claim that Quisqueya is the indigenous name for the DR. Similarly, these Haitians make a similar claim, eventhough its not in essay form or explanatory, but its simple and speaks volumes to the person who asks, why did they said that and were not more inclusive in their defition to encompass the entire island:

(Kis-ke-ya) noun. 1. Old style name for Haiti

The Source

Notice, it doesn't say old style name for "Hispaniola" or for "the island of Haiti" or even for "the entire island". It doesn't even say its the old style name for "Haiti and the Dominican Republic". It simply says Haiti and the reader will assume that by Haiti such website creator meant the country and not the island.

However, below you will see two links (one Dominican and the other Haitian) where the word Quisqueya is said to be the indigenous name for the island.

Kiskeya is a Ta?no name for Hispaniola, the Caribbean island now occupied by Dominican Republic and Haiti. Kiskeya is usually spelled Quisqueya in Spanish.

Source

Reading the magazine published by The Association for Haitian - American Development, Inc (AHAD), on their website I came across an article written by Prof. Alan Belen Cambeira, Historical and Cultural Connections: La R?publique d?Haiti and La Republica Dominicana. In this wonderful article, Prof Cambeira states very clearly that, way before the arrival of the Spaniards in 1492: "The Taino people called their island Quisqueya..." and according to him that word meant "The Mother of all Lands". Considering the credentials of Prof. Cambeira, I have no difficulty either to accept that affirmation in as much that one talks about the second largest island (after Cuba) of all the Caribbean and that Haiti, during the time of colonization, reached the unrivaled position of being crowned not just the richest colony in the Caribbean region, but the World?s richest colony.

Source

Thus, what I stated in my previous response (which is quoted below) still holds.

Depending on the Haitian, some say the term was the indigenous name for Haiti the country and others make sure they mention that the term Quisqueya was an indigenous term referring the entire island; much like Dominicans.

-NALs

 

[bilijou]

As usual? I get into a debate with someone if I may disagree or need further proof of what such person claims. Have I gone into a debate with you on everything you have posted? The answer is no, because everything you post I don't contradict (in fact, I agree with many things you say - I simply don't feel the need to create an entire post to simply say "I agree", but when I see anything that you or anyone else post a side of a story or subject where I may have a different point of view, then I will respond to such.

Alright... alright... I thought we had an agreement, we annoy each other to the best of our abilities. What's going on? you're going "soft" on me now? hehe

If a Haitian was asked "what was the name given to the island by the Tainos?" He/she may respond, "Haiti, Quisqueya, Bohio".
However, if you would ask a Dominican the same question, very few of them would list "Haiti".

I have yet to meet a Haitian who refers to the western side of the island as Quisqueya. However, I can't even count the times I've heard Dominicans say the word "Quisqueya" refers only to the eastern side of the island.

 

[Baracutay]

Bilijou, I think we are on to something now! No Mr.Granberry'stheory does not close the book on the subject, but it comes a lot closer than Mr Pensons, dont you think? You did hit it on the head when you stated " it is an EDUCATED guess".
So where did Mr Angleria get his source for this name?Well he got it from sailors and others who traveled from Kiskeya at the time. I concede that his guess is as good as any. But Mr Granberry's analysis and conclusion can hardly be discounted.
I ask you, if Mr Granberry's analysis and conclusions are hardly conclusive, then how do you place so much stock in the writings of a newspaper reporter who was neither trained nor specialized in Indigenous languages? And for that matter, as you put forth, would a critical thinker base an argument on what Mr. Penson wrote?
What I will say about this subject is that it is clear that we had more than one name for the island. Quisqueya could very well be one of them. Certainly linguist today who have studied Garifuna (island Carib) Lokono and Tolan, can make more than just an edcuated guess as to the origin of some words. They can actually look at related languages, study the roots of those words, and come to scientific conclusions. I place my faith on these people because they are (a) not from the island and therefore do not have a "secret agenda" to Indianize the island and hence un-biased. (b) have painstakenly taken the time to weigh all options before making a statement. (C) And even when they do, its done using words like , Probably, perhaps, and maybe. What I got from this original post was that "Kiskeya could not POSSIBLY be an Indigenous word. I ask you this, if Kiskeya is not Taino/Indigenous what language does it come from then? Can I look this up in a dictionary? If so,which one?

 

[bilijou]

Baracutay,

I?m glad we agree that there is no definite answer here. So statements referring to lack of expertise of Dominican scholars in this subject can be discarded at this point.

What I got from this original post was that "Kiskeya could not POSSIBLY be an Indigenous word. I ask you this, if Kiskeya is not Taino/Indigenous what language does it come from then? Can I look this up in a dictionary? If so,which one?

What I got from this thread, rather, was that Kiskeya MAY be a Taino, but if we?re relying on the account of a man who was asking sailors to recall their experiences after months of voyage, chances are that it is not (especially when nobody other than Peter Martyr had ever even heard the name Quisqueya).
Does Kiskeya have to belong to a language? Is it remotely possible that maybe it is completely fabricated? Or that one of the sailor summoned by the Crown to give their account of the discoveries gave them some random name because he had to get home to his wife?

As for Penson, obviously he (who died more than a century ago) could not do the same research Granberry is able to. The main reason why I cited him was to show that the name Quisqueya has always been under question, not only after the 1970?s.

I place my faith on these people because they are (a) not from the island and therefore do not have a "secret agenda" to Indianize the island and hence un-biased. (b) have painstakenly taken the time to weigh all options before making a statement. (C) And even when they do, its done using words like , Probably, perhaps, and maybe.

a) Ever heard of ?making a name of yourself in the?? linguistics field. Yes, even members of the academia have a ?secret agenda?. Many scholars take the risk of publishing the most far-fetched ideas (not saying this is one of them) for a shot academic fame, or being the ONE that proved that theory (some don?t even believe their own theories). Some people (not necessarily scholars), as the one in the opening post, will ignore or diminish certain weak facts in order to make their arguments work. I still put my faith on someone who is sitting in the National Library in Santo Domingo reading through hundreds of original accounts, over someone who has never set foot on the island.
b) Did they consider the possibility that the original account from which they base all their theories might be incorrect (i.e., it is very weak proof)?
c) If they don?t include words like ?probably?, ?perhaps? or ?maybe?, then I can assure you that there would be hundreds of papers criticizing Granberry. Then he would have to go through the unfortunate fuss of writing a 2nd edition to his once respected book.

Nevertheless, I love my ?Quisqueya? la Bella (yes, as Kiskeya/Quisqueya).

 

[juancarlos]

I am inclined to think Quisqueya was the original indigenous name for the island. Just as Cuba and Borinquen. Of course, the way it was heard or written by the Spaniards may have been an aproximation to the real name. Cuba came from Cubanac?n or even just Cuba. Both names coexisted. But I don't think the name Quisqueya, or whatever spelling is used, was somebody's invention. God knows where the accent was or if it was two or three words instead of one. The Spaniards probably heard it as one word and they way it sounded to their ears became the standard form.

 

[Baracutay]

JuanCarlos, That was a very accurate observation. I Lokono the words I love you are Dakia Anshihi bui, but it is pronounced D'Anshibui. Taino like lokono from which it comes from also has a tendency to shorten words ,drop accents, etc.

Bilijou- Wow................wow! Look, to put it simply the word Kiskeya/Quisqueya is one that can be broken down Analyzed (and has), compared and deciphered. If someone can "Make up" a word such as this, and 500 years later we can analyze the word such as Mr. Granbery and others have, well that would be a very neat trick trick.
As for how many people disagree with Granberry? None. All linguists and academics that have tackled the subject agree on one thing, the word is indeed Indigenous. The problem only lies in whether the word is Cariban or Tolan or of a dialect of Taino.
I am not attacking Mr. Penson, but you have to admit that for his time they had very limited resources when making comparative studies. And such has been the case for many Dominican academics. I have met countless Dominican, anthropologist, Archeologists etc in New York, who cannot get a job in their country for lack of resources and cant get one in their field here in the US for not being able to speak English.
What is noteworthy about that Mr. Penson's statements that you posted
is the obvious political overtones, which of course is what the thread was about.
So, about these secret agendas that scientists/linguists have, can you give me a good example of one? Other than Kiskeya, what other words were made up by Pedro Angleria, just to confuse the masses in the future. Is there a list somewhere? Or did someone in the past with a political agenda, zero in on this particular word? What makes you think that Granberry never visited Kiskeya? Or that he has not looked through hundreds of documents himself? You say this so matter of factly. Amazing.
The fact remains, the island was populated by 4 distinct groups, Ciboney, Macorix, Ciguayo and Taino. Each with their own unique language. It is inconcievable to think they ALL had one name for the entire island.

 

[Chip00]

I just had an opportunity to read the myspace homepage of the author that the OP quoted and it is apparent this person is uneducated or grossly misinformed if not a downright lier.

In their numerous diatribes "blacks" are mentioned frequently but one can assume that "Haitian" is the equivalent. However, the author seems to ignore the fact that a large number of Domicans are as dark and African in apearance as many Africans.

What the author's deems "racism" is actually "nationalism" but since most Americans wouldn't recognize the difference it becomes good fodder for the extremist views of some AA's in the US who would like everyone to believe that their is a global agenda of whites against blacks or at the very least whites can't stand blacks. If one thinks this is crazy thinking I asked one of the sons of the Domincan family that I stay with in Orlando what he thought about it and he responded when they lived in NY most of the black's he hung out with expressed similar views. He also is considered black in the US and could double for Jay-z, Beyonce's fiance.

It is a shame that the youth in my country, whatever their color, are part of such divisive groups. If one needs an example of what continuous focus one's heritage to the detriment of all else can do well no more.

I have no issue of one embracing one's roots: on the contrary it can be very enlightening and fulfilling and I am in fact in the process of learning more about my heritage which includes French, Quisqueyan, American Indian and maybe even African. However, I understand that just because my ancestors came from a certain part of the world doesn't have anything to do with my own character or value. In fact, finding one's worth simply in one's heritage is really the root of racism after all.

Just like anything there has to be balance and knowing one's heritage is important of course but not at the expense of one's respect and love of their fellow man.

 

[Rick Snyder]

I think it is time to intervene in this ongoing discussion. I do this because after reading the OP I was at a bit of loss as to what the message for this thread was. The title being ?Dominican? and the title of the supplied link being ?Kiskeya is the name not The "Dominican" Republic.?, gave me the impression that the complaint had to deal with the proposed changing of the name of the Dominican Republic. The only words coming from the OP were, ?Coffee came out my nose with this idiot...?, which further provoked an uncertainty in meaning.

We then proceeded to go through a few posts about the KKK, crusades, genocide, truth, socialists and former communists.

It is at post #11 that the OP comes back and gives us more of an insight as to what he is trying to convey in this thread. He states that he is not happy about renaming the DR to Kiskeya and does bring out the arguable origin of the word Kiskeya. It is the last paragraph of that post that I think the true feelings of the OP reside. I say this due to his use of the statement, ?but these people just **** me the F off. I came across someone with a sign about ?lynching and burning bodies in DR?, I wanted to rip his head off. It?s as if they?re desperate for a cause so they make one up? ?we will not let another Rwanda slip through our fingers!? ?. This portion I will return to shortly to comment on.

We then go through a few posts talking about the QKK, lack of virtues of ?MySpace? and ex-communist/socialist mentality. At post #17 our newbie Baracutay does a very good job at steering this thread in the direction of its present course and it has done a good job of staying there.

Though the present posters seem to be content in their well controlled tit-for-tat concerning the authenticity and reliability of certain renowned individuals past and present I am not. I am always drawn back to the second post by the OP whereas he gives an indication as to his major complaint.

In the posting of links and statements on this board it becomes apparent that people deal in half-truths and it is these half-truths that I like to point out when they are so flagrant. It was because of the statement, ? ?lynching and burning bodies in DR?, I wanted to rip his head off. It?s as if they?re desperate for a cause so they make one up? that I wish to remind everyone about some of the prior news that has been published just within the last year. I will be the first to admit that there is no genocide in the works but to say ?they make one up?, as it relates to facts, is stretching the imagination to the limits and places such an author in the same sphere as those that try to proclaim things like genocide.

Rick

 

[Rocky]

One would think with all the problems in the world, one would not go looking to fabricate new ones.
Some people are simply obsessed.

 

[bilijou]

Rick,
In defense of the tangent we have gone in, the OP is centered around the names for the country and their origins, started with ?Dominican? (also ?Trinitarios?) then went on to ?Quisqueya? and ?Haiti?. Last point on the "Quisqueya" subject, promise. hehe

Baracutay,
Please don?t take everything on this forum to heart, it is the debate section for a reason. I simply think you are very misleading, and say things so very ?as matter of factly?. For instance:

?I just want to clarify the word kiskeya/Quisqueya and its origins.
It has been suggested in the past, mostly by scholars in the DR during the
70's that the word Kiskeya is not Indigenous or was not the true name of the island. This is a false statement in that the island was populated not just by the Taino, but also by the Ciboney in the South-western tip of Haiti, the Ciguayo on the Samana Pennisula and also by the uppper and lower Macorix people.?
or
?All linguists and academics that have tackled the subject agree on one thing, the word is indeed Indigenous.?
or
?Look, to put it simply the word Kiskeya/Quisqueya is one that can be broken down Analyzed (and has), compared and deciphered. ?

You seem 100% sure that ?Quisqueya? was a Taino word?
merely because you trust Granberry?s theory?
which is based on his only source, Angueira?
who got this information from? hrmm we know NOTHING of his sources.
Yet you don?t see this as a major flaw in the theory.

My skepticism on the subject lies in the fact that the reason why I know so little about Tainos is because there is very little out there to know. But somehow Granberry has already accurately mapped out the once extinct languages; meanwhile, you preach that the continuation of the Taino customs (particularly the vocabulary) within Dominican culture is prevalent. Wouldn?t anybody other than Angueira (thousands of miles away from the island) hear the name Quisqueya directly from Taino (when, according to you, the language never died)? Especially when it is such a common word as ?home??

So aside from Angueira, you are going by supposed comparisons to other languages?
Though you have implied it indirectly, you haven?t actually said if there is an actual word Quisqueya is related to, a point you could?ve made initially. I figured you couldn?t make this statement since you don?t even know which one of the supposedly mapped out language "Quisqueya" may come from, Cariban or Tolan. However, according to you and Granberry, what deciphers this whole case is the fact that the second syllable is PROBABLY a repetition of the first, indicating multiplicity (Why couldnt it have been a word like "Teteye"? or "Bebeque" for that matter). And the final point you make, the one that hits the nail in the head, the idea that ?if there are 4 languages spoken in the island, then Quisqueya must be one of them?. Yet, you don?t see anything wrong with any of this. It is this pseudo scientist approach that would lead someone to make narrow-minded statements about Dominican scholars (such as the ones you have made).

-bj

 

[Rick Snyder]

No, no, you miss understood me as I really don't care about the tangent it should take. I was just trying to put some 'spice' into a (nostalgic?) subject.

The reality of the possibility of this fine country ever changing its name is what dreams are made of but then I digress. :bunny:

Carry on............................

 

[Baracutay]

Im sorry Bilijou, It may be that I do not write well, which is probably the case since I am always multi-tasking.
I never said the word was Taino, I said it was indigenous.The facts are there were FOUR distinct groups of people on the island. The Macorix did not speak Taino neither did the Ciboney or the Ciguayo. The Name Kiskeya probaly stems from there.What I did say wit certainty is that in the Tolan Languages of the Yucatan, especially western Tolan, you can find the words K'isk, Ke, and ya, and these correspond to exactly what Angleria was speaking about, that this land was Large and Mountainous and heavily forested. In my first post I also pointed to the fact that the words CAIRI mean island in the Carib Language, and wouldnt you know it that the word Kis is also found in this language also mean large. Dr.' Dicey Taylor, and Jose Juan Arrom, have proposed that the word KisKairi could have been corrupted by the spaniards as well giving it a Quisqueya sound. Pound for pound I just think that these people are making better sense.

I have misled no one , I have looked at data and made up my mind. All this alluding that you're keen to pointing to is that the information is vast. I can point you to the source, but you have to research yourself. The data is long but it is there ,pick up Granberry's book or those of Dicey Tayor or Jose Arrom. If you do the research you will find the answers. the only thing I am taking to heart is that you actually believe that someone in 1530, invented a word for the sake of of inventing and you are staunch about it like this is a FACT? Nothing tangible, nothing to read or compare with, only your word.If this is the best you can come up with, then I graciously bow out. Thanks for the converstion, I thought it was a debate forum and thats what we were doing.

To Rick Snyder: I truly apologize for an inconveniece I may have casued you or anyone else on this forum. My intention was and has always been to share new information. There are many great things happening in many fields and the current trend is to back up an idea/theory with another science. Hence you will find anthropologists using genetics, geneticists using archeology, etc etc. When any given subject say Taino genes in the DR or even the meaning of words, one can actually look much deeper than ever before. These are exciting times for researchers, but I guess the excitment is only for those that get excited about such things!
Thank you and all the best to al of you.

 

[Rick Snyder]

It is not my intension to give the impression that DR1 does not wish these types of subjects to be discussed or debated or that it is an inconvenience to anyone when they come up. DR1 and I do in fact encourage such things and for that reason please don't feel or get the notion that your presence isn't welcomed or appreciated on this board.

I as a moderator must insure that the rules of DR1 are followed in the forums that I have the privilege to moderate. I as a normal human being have a lot of interest in the many things you have and brought up on this board and therefore look forward to when you post. The only problem, and that is one of a personal nature, is the ability to stay interested in a debate when the opposing sides fail to present something new or different and I get stuck in a visualization of 'No, I'm right!' - 'No, I'm right!'. That is the reason I went back to the OP and his second response to look for ammunition to throw out there for the sole purpose of 'livening' things up a little. As nobody took the bait then all I can say is 'carry on'...............

Rick

 

[bilijou]

the only thing I am taking to heart is that you actually believe that someone in 1530, invented a word for the sake of of inventing and you are staunch about it like this is a FACT?

What's going on with the world today, I remember a time (around 500 years ago) when there was a standard of truth, when academic institutions and hundreds of scholars are constantly scrutinizing over everything written by fellow colleagues, where we can thank men like Peter Angueira for striving for, above all, acuracy...

I never said that he lied about it, just that he didn't hear it first hand, he could've lied and his is only mention of the name in history. Scholars are trained to approach this kind of evidence with a critical eye, as they have on this subject if you've ever done the research...

Kis, Ke, Ka, Ko... obvious indigenous words, very conclusive evidence! Great job!

I can bow out now... hehe