|
Post by bc on Mar 28, 2010 21:12:51 GMT -6
I also can't seem to save it and zoom in very far or otherwise print them for further study. They don't seem to print except for a corner of an 8.5 by 11 inch sheet of paper. bc What do you expect when you have to have your bytes shipped in by Pony Express? Billy Yeah, and to make things worse, I just found out the ponies unionized and they don't deliver on Sunday anymore. I just remembered that I owe you a beer for a basketball game bet that you forgot to collect on. You're slippin Billy. bc
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 3, 2010 22:16:05 GMT -6
Hero, I'm trying to follow your montages. As hard as they are to read, they disappear before I can think them through. My little 26" computer screen makes some of those pics hard to make out. The 8x11 printer is worse.
I haven't figured out if you have a point to make with your last two montages, but I'm trying to read them before you take them down. Unless there is not a point or purpose to a particular montage, some of us dummies who occasionally follow along here (me in particular) would like a little explanation. Especially if you have hundreds of these, a point of explanation and reference to other materials may help (except that you take them down so I can't refer back to them.
Keep up the good work.
bc
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on May 22, 2010 7:44:20 GMT -6
Where do you find this stuff!
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 23, 2010 9:15:55 GMT -6
How did Little Souix determine 1,600 yards? What was the Souix words for 1,600 and yards in 1876?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 23, 2010 9:46:36 GMT -6
But so much more. What was a 'mile' to them? Right angle?
When did the Dakota show up? Wasn't this all Lakota (and not Lacota?) Why spend any time on the utterly worthless McGuire map?
This is not Independent Research. It's not even research. This is a coloring book mentality to nonsense, not entirely unlike the drawings found over the last centuries in books held in Indian hands unrelated, because they couldn't read, to the contents. It's no worse than conz' offerings on the other board, though. Both hope to impress by color and graphic size, but it doesn't have much point, never mind any new points, and at first blush it covers up the utter vacuum of the posters in question.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 25, 2010 4:40:32 GMT -6
'Little Sioux' was Arikara and probably didn't converse with Lacota other than with weapons. He was probably named for the river. The Arikara Narratives are tedious exercises to unravel but a worthy exercise for those who choose so to do. The pony stealers were on the bluffs down river of Weir Point, with the ponies they stole. That is where they climbed the bluffs, which is where private Peter Thompson of company C saw them, as stated in his account of the battle in 'The Black Hills Trails'.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 25, 2010 10:23:14 GMT -6
You missed the point. What is the Arikara words for 1,600 yard ? Or any other NA language?
|
|
|
Post by darkmoon on May 25, 2010 13:43:24 GMT -6
Cheyenne,
mâhtohto hóhtâhnaesóhtoha mâhtóhtôhnó'e ho'né'êstóva
Cherokee,
da-lu-du go-hi- `o-`ni
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 25, 2010 20:47:58 GMT -6
We did not find any results for m htohto hohtahnaesohtoha mahtohtohno'e ho'ne'estova
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 25, 2010 20:59:43 GMT -6
Setting aside they're the wrong language at issue, it's helpful to reflect that these are the modern variants demanded by life next to English speakers. What Indian grammars and information we have come from the missionaries, for the most part, who taught it to the tribes. There are some things that go together everywhere: commonly understood alphabet for writing/numerals and large numbers.
Imagine taking a calculus class - or even an algebra class - in Cheyenne. Five syllables in English for 1800 yards equals ..... well, a lot more in Cheyenne.
When Japan developed a modern navy, they gave orders in English because their language did not then give the specificity needed for the industrial revolution, especially in predicate tenses. Well, that and Royal Navy instructors, who had noted the issues. Language follows need.
Plains Indians did not have need for specific large numbers. Nobody was going to count 1123 bison, as there was no purpose to it. 'Enough for all year' or "many" would convey the needed enthusiasm.
Of course, they had to accept our units of measurement as well.
The point is, when Indian accounts list things in English measurement and specific high numbers they themselves did not use, it is an indication it went through 'helpful' translation. When the same account has correct ranks for officers, English names for geographic features not concurrent at the time being discussed, and all this atop a seeming fondness for the literary templates of another continent, all should be reduced in value, or at least not stated to be a 'first hand' account. If the accounts appear late in the record, melding and confusion add to the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 30, 2010 7:22:51 GMT -6
This is not research, much less independent research. You're copying other people's offerings - some of it ridiculous though easily available - and coloring them in every sense. It is the equivalent of taking a dictionary definition, photoshopping it over nonsense, and then presenting it as something insightful. It isn't.
You aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 11, 2010 9:33:54 GMT -6
Vast improvement, could only be made better if these ones went where the other ones went.
Can't suppose the reason for you taking down much of the retina searing nonsense - we can safely eliminate a bout of good taste - but I'm sure the server thanks you.
Again: this isn't original, this isn't research at the level Markland and others established for this section. You have not established criteria, you have only printed stuff on colored paper, for all intents. The stuff itself is nonsense, trading off first and third person. The stuff in the first person varies from documented accounts, so it's made up or, at least, not to be considered as a quotation. In any case, you list no source.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Jul 14, 2010 17:38:22 GMT -6
I can't speak for anyone else but, this is impressive!
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 19, 2010 5:51:42 GMT -6
What is the original source for the statment that Reno was a wing commander on June 25, 1876?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 19, 2010 8:00:09 GMT -6
"I can't speak for anyone else....." No, you cannot. Including yourself should you decide on a gender and identity.
".... but, this is impressive!" No. It isn't. It's gibberish, both in graphics and in prose.
|
|