CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM !!!!!!!!!!!!

[BV]

CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM

Sorry for not sending anything related to this group but it might be
something new to you.
CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are
used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not
the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God.
Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender.
This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be
made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice
that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of
Jesus and a sister language of Arabic. The One true God is a
reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a
Muslim, Allah is the Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of the universe,
Who is similar to nothing and nothing is comparable to Him. The
Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the
answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter
of the Quran, which is considered the essence of the unity or the
motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112 which reads:

"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad)
He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten,
nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone."

Some non Muslims allege that God in Islam is a stern and cruel God who
demands to be obeyed fully. He is not loving and kind. Nothing can be
farther from truth than this allegation. It is enough to know that,
with the exception of one, each of the 114 chapters of the Quran
begins with the verse: "In the name of God, the Merciful, the
Compassionate." In one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) we
are told that "God is more loving and kinder than a mother to her dear
child." But God is also Just. Hence evildoers and sinners must have
their share of punishment and the virtuous, His bounties and favors.
Actually God’s attribute of Mercy has full manifestation in His
attribute of Justice. People suffering throughout their lives for His
sake and people oppressing and exploiting other people all their lives
should not receive similar treatment from their Lord. Expecting
similar treatment for them will amount to negating the very belief in
the accountability of man in the Hereafter and thereby negating all
the incentives for a moral and virtuous life in this world. The
following Quranic verses are very clear and straightforward in this
respect:

"Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the Presence of
their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like the people of
Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?" (68:34-36)


Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as
favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power
or race. He created the human beings as equals. They may distinguish
themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety only. The
concept that God rested in the seventh day of creation, that God
wrestled with one of His soldiers, that God is an envious plotter
against mankind, or that God is incarnate in any human being are
considered blasphemy from the Islamic point of view. The unique usage
of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of Islam’s emphasis
on the purity of the belief in God which is the essence of the message
of all God’s messengers. Because of this, Islam considers associating
any deity or personality with God as a deadly sin which God will never
forgive, despite the fact He may forgive all other sins.
The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created
because if he is of the same nature as they are, he will be temporal
and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him.
If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is
eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing outside him causes him to
continue to exist, which means that he must be Self-Sufficient. And if
He does not depend on anything for the continuance of His own
existence, then this existence can have no end. The Creator is
therefore eternal and everlasting: ‘He is the First and the Last.’ He
is Self-Sufficient or Self-Subsistent or, to use a Quranic term, Al-
Qayyum. The Creator does not create only in the sense of bringing
things into being, He also preserves them and takes them out of
existence and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to them.
"God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything.
Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth." (39:62, 63)
"No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests
on God. He knows its lodging place and its repository." (11:6)


GOD’S ATTRIBUTES
If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His attributes must
also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose any of His
attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then His attributes
are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such absolute
attributes? Can there be for example, two absolutely powerful
Creators? A moment’s thought shows that this is not feasible. The
Quran summarizes this argument in the following verses:
"God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him:
For then each god would have taken of that which he created and some
of them would have risen up over others." (23:91)
And Why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, they
(heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin." (21:22)


THE ONENESS OF GOD
The Quran reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the
worshippers of man-made objects, it asks:
"Do you worship what you have carved yourself?" (37:95) "Or have you
taken unto you others beside Him to be your protectors, even such as
have no power either for good or for harm to themselves?" (13:16)

To the worshippers of heavenly bodies it cites the story of Abraham:
"When night outspread over him he say a star and said, ‘This is my
Lord.’ But when it set he said, ‘I love not the setters.’ When he saw
the moon rising, he said, ‘This is my Lord.’ But when it set he said,
‘If my Lord does not guide me I shall surely be of the people gone
astray.’ When he say the sun rising, he said, ‘This is my Lord; this
is greater.’ But when it set he said, ‘O my people, surely I quit that
which you associate, I have turned my face to Him Who originated the
heavens and the earth; a man of pure faith, I am not of the
idolaters.’" (6:76-79)


THE BELIEVER’S ATTITUDE
In order to be a Muslim, i.e., to surrender oneself to God, it is
necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of His being
the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief – later
on called "Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah is not enough." Many of the idolaters
knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this. but
that was not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyyah one
must add tawhid al’uluhiyyah, i.e., one acknowledges the fact that is
God alone Who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstains from
worshipping any other thing or being. Having achieved this knowledge
of the one true God, man should constantly have faith in Him, and
should allow nothing to induce him to deny truth. When faith enters a
person’s heart, it causes certain mental states which result in
certain actions. Taken together these mental states and actions are
the proof for the true faith. The Prophet said,
"Faith is that which resides firmly in the heart and which is proved
by deeds."

Foremost among those mental states is the feeling of gratitude towards
God, which could be said to be the essence of ‘ibada’ (worship). The
feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called
‘kafir,’ which means ‘one who denies a truth’ and also ‘one who is
ungrateful.’ A believer loves, and is grateful to God for the bounties
He bestowed upon him, but being aware of the fact that his good deeds,
whether mental or physical, are far from being commensurate with
Divine favors, he is always anxious lest God should punish him, here
or in the Hereafter. He, therefore, fears Him, surrenders himself to
Him and serves Him with great humility. One cannot be in such a mental
state without being almost all the time mindful of God. Remembering
God is thus the life force of faith, without which it fades and
withers away. The Quran tries to promote this feeling of gratitude by
repeating the attributes of God very frequently. We find most of these
attributes mentioned together in the following verses of the Quran:
"He is God; there is no god but He, He is the Knower of the unseen and
the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God,
there is no God but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace,
the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-
Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they
associate! He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong
the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth
magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (59:22-24)
"There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes
Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and
the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His
leave? He knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they
comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His
throne comprises the heavens and earth; the preserving of them
oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious." (2:255)
"People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and
say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was
only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and
a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not,
‘Three.’ Refrain; better is it for you. God is only one God. Glory be
to Him – (He is) above having a son." (4:171)

—————————————
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ISLAM

http://www.islam-guide.com

http://www.islamhouse.com/s/9661

http://www.thisistruth.org

http://www.quran-m.com/firas/en1

http://kaheel7.com/eng

http://www.knowmuhammad.com

http://www.rasoulallah.net/v2/index.aspx?lang=e

http://imanway1.com/eng

http://www.todayislam.com

http://www.thekeytoislam.com

http://www.islamland.com

http://www.discoverislam.com

http://www.thetruereligion.org

http://www.beconvinced.com

http://islamtomorrow.com

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran

http://www.quranforall.org

http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran

http://www.prophetmuhammed.org

http://www.chatislamonline.org/ar

http://www.dar-us-salam.com

http://youtubeislam.com

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Jan 28, 6:14 am, BV <cv33cv33c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
>
> Sorry for not sending anything related to this group

You are not sorry at all, you just use sci.lang
as a platform for religious propaganda.

> Allah is the personal name of the One true God.
> Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender.

No gender? Let's see.

> nothing is comparable to Him
> God Himself

> He is God the One God

> equal to Him is not anyone

> His bounties and favors
> His attribute of Justice
> for His sake

> Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him
> as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power
> or race.

What about sex and gender?

> He created the human beings as equals.

But you treat them as unequals.

> His favor through virtue and piety only

> His soldiers
> He may forgive
> nothing is like Him

> He does not depend on anything

> His own existence

> ‘He is the First and the Last.’
> He is Self-Sufficient or Self-Subsistent

> He also preserves them and takes them out of existence

> He is the guardian over everything.

> Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth." (39:62, 63)

> He knows its lodging place and its repository." (11:6)

> His attributes

> He should not lose any of His attributes

> His attributes

> "God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him:

> others beside Him
> His being
> faith in Him

> fears Him, surrenders himself to Him and serves Him

> "He is God; there is no god but He, He is the Knower of the unseen and
> the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God,
> there is no God but He. He is the King

> He is God the Creator

> To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful.
> All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty

> "There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes
> Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and
> the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His
> leave? He knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they
> comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His
> throne comprises the heavens and earth; the preserving of them
> oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious." (2:255)
> "People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and
> say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was
> only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and
> a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not,
> ‘Three.’ Refrain; better is it for you. God is only one God. Glory be
> to Him – (He is) above having a son." (4:171)

No gender? You are lying to us, and, what is worse,
you are lying to yourself.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

the word "alla:h" in Arabic has grammatical gender but in Islam not
the attributes of biological sex. as the Qur'an explicitly staes that
"he did not beget neither nor is there any likeness of him" lam yalid
wa-lam yu:lad * was lam yakun kufuwwan 'aHad

[Yusuf B Gursey]

or: nor is there anything comparible to him

> wa-lam yu:lad * was lam yakun kufuwwan 'aHad

* wa lam yakun lahu kufuwwan 'aHad

[Bart Mathias]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]

> the word "alla:h" in Arabic has grammatical gender but in Islam not
> the attributes of biological sex. as the Qur'an explicitly staes that
> "he did not beget neither nor is there any likeness of him" lam yalid
> wa-lam yu:lad * was lam yakun kufuwwan 'aHad

I'm puzzled. How could *any* word in *any* language have the attributes of
biological sex?
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[Yusuf B Gursey]

OK. I worded it wrong.

<<

the word alla:h in Arabic has grammtical gender, but in Islam, God
does not have the attributes of biological sex. one cannot for
example, call God "Our Father". (such was put in the mouth of Ibn
Fadlan by Antonio Banderas inthe film "The Thriteenth Warrior" - I
remeber that line in the novel).

> --
> Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu>

[DKleinecke]

The movie tried - but that was a bad error.. There are doubtless
others.

Arabic has two genders - called masculine and feminine - which
default, when a sexual being is being discussed to male and female
beings. But there are lots of exceptions and special cases.

In the Qur'an Allah has concord as though it were a singular masculine
name and the singular masculine pronoun is often applied to "him".
But sex is never attributed to Allah. Calling him father is a
particularly stupid error because one of the prime tenets of Islam is
that Allah does not begat. To recognize Allah as a father would be to
fall into the Christian trap. But daughters would be no better than
sons because the main pagan opposition to Muhammad seems to have been
made up of worshippers of the "Daughters of Allah" - Manat. Lat and al-
Uzzah.

So far as I know no one has ever dared suggest that maybe Allah was
feminine.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 28, 3:34 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

> On Jan 28, 6:14 am, BV <cv33cv33c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
>
> > Sorry for not sending anything related to this group
>
> You are not sorry at all, you just use sci.lang
> as a platform for religious propaganda.

agreed. but you should not prolong it by trying your hand at exegisis.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Sufis and scholars as early as Baydawi read the Qur'anic phrase la:
'ila:ha 'illa: huwa "There is no god but He" as la: 'ila:ha 'illa: hu:
"There is no god but Hu" (probably refering to Yahweh, particlularly
in the phrase ya: hu: "Oh Hu!"), supooosedly the secret name of God.

> But sex is never attributed to Allah. Calling him father is a
> particularly stupid error because one of the prime tenets of Islam is
> that Allah does not begat.  To recognize Allah as a father would be to

beget

> fall into the Christian trap.  But daughters would be no better than
> sons because the main pagan opposition to Muhammad seems to have been
> made up of worshippers of the "Daughters of Allah" - Manat. Lat and al-

al-Lat

> Uzzah.
>

the "Daughters of God ('il)" <bnty 'l> is also attested in Epigraphic
South Arabian inscriptions.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 28, 7:13 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 7:08 pm, Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:48:29 -0800 (PST)
> > Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > the word "alla:h" in Arabic has grammatical gender but in Islam not
> > > the attributes of biological sex. as the Qur'an explicitly staes that
> > > "he did not beget  neither nor is there any likeness of him" lam yalid
> > > wa-lam yu:lad * was lam yakun kufuwwan 'aHad
>
> > I'm puzzled. How could *any* word in *any* language have the attributes of
> > biological sex?
>
> OK. I worded it wrong.
>
>  <<
>
> the word alla:h in Arabic has grammtical gender, but in Islam, God
> does not have the attributes of biological sex. one cannot for
> example, call God "Our Father". (such was put in the mouth of Ibn

in Islam "Our Father" refers to Adam.

> Fadlan by Antonio Banderas inthe film "The Thriteenth Warrior" - I

I don't remember that line in the novel.

> remeber that line in the novel).
>

another Hollywood faux pas is in the film "The Horsemen", Jack Palance
and Omar Sharif. the plot is stupid. the "Buzkashi" player in
Afghanistan played by Omar Sharif gets wounded in the leg while
playing. he refuses medical treatment, wraps pages of the Qur'an
around his wound and instead of going to the next tournament via the
valleys, he "takes the high road" through the mountains for the next
tournament and his leg has to be amputated in the meantime. anyway
nothing can be done about the silly plot, but when the character
played by Omar Sharif describes in the Qur'an as "the Holy words of
Muhammad", that should have been averted by Omar Sharif (born as a
Catholic as Michael - pronounced as in French - Shalhoub and no
relation to Tony Shalhoub) who is a nominal convert to Islam. should
have said "the holy words of God"

>

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 28, 10:17 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> another Hollywood faux pas is in the film "The Horsemen", Jack Palance
> and Omar Sharif. the plot is stupid. the "Buzkashi" player in
> Afghanistan played by Omar Sharif gets wounded in the leg while
> playing. he refuses medical treatment, wraps pages of the Qur'an
> around his wound and instead of going to the next tournament via the
> valleys, he "takes the high road" through the mountains for the next
> tournament and his leg has to be amputated in the meantime. anyway
> nothing can be done about the silly plot, but when the character
> played by Omar Sharif describes in the Qur'an as "the Holy words of
> Muhammad", that should have been averted by Omar Sharif (born as a
> Catholic as Michael - pronounced as in French - Shalhoub and no

*sh*alhu:b is Lebanese colloquial for a hot wind. it is an Aramaic
loanword. cf. Arabic lahab "flame", with the Old Semitic *sh*-
preformative, if it was of Arabic origin or an early loanword one
would expect *salhu:b .

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Jan 29, 2:55 am, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So far as I know no one has ever dared suggest that maybe Allah was
> feminine.

I did, at least from an archaeological / historical
perspective. Greek logos and Hebrew Elohim
and Arabic Allah go back to Magdalenian )OG
or LOG for the one who has the say, and the oldest
written form of )OG or LOG is a hierotglyph on
the female central pillar of temple D on the Göbekli
Tepe in southeast Anatolia, forty kilometers north
of Harran, 11,600 years old, showing the open mouth
of a priestess of the supreme goddess speaking
in her name between the central pillars of this very
temple. Have a look at a message of mine from
another thread (origin of Genesis 1:1 followed by
the four Magdalenian test cases).

(quote)

Hebrew El and Elohim, Lord in the English translation,
Arabic Allah and Greek logos have the same Magdalenian
origin, ) or L or )OG or LOG for the one who has the say,
building a bridge over the wide and deep trench between
the Muslims who believe in Allah and western civilization
based on logos. Furthermore, the Magdalenian hieroglyph
representing )OG or LOG is attributed to a goddess on
the female central pillar of temple D on the Göbekli Tepe,
11,600 years old, an oval between a pair of vertical strokes,
representing the open mouth of a priestess of the fire giver
PIR GID standing between the central pillars of temple D
and giving a talk, also representing the goddess in the act
of calling the world into existence:

http://www.seshat.ch/home/gt01.GIF

The inscription on the 'throat' of the female central pillar
reads

)OG BIR AC CA or LOG BIR ACCA

origin of Genesis 1:1 in the Bible. In the begin was the word,
and the word was with the fire giver PIR GID who called out
to her sister the fur giver BIR GID. This one took hold of her
cosmic fur BIR and scopped the primeval hill BIR LAD, the
hill LAD in the fur BIR, out of the cosmic sea. Now the fire
giver PIR GID called out to her sister the fertility giver BRI GID.
This one took the BIR LAD werald world and shaped it into
a ring, separating the hole of the sky CA from the ring of the
primeval earth AC. In the hole appeared a male face, the
sky god AAR RAA NOS whose eyes were moon and sun,
lit by the fire giver PIR GID. The name of the sky god means:
mind NOS of the one composed of air AAR and light RAA.
He is visualized ex negativo by the big limestone ring
on the Göbekli Tepe:

http://www.seshat.ch/home/ouranos.JPG

GIS BAL CA MmOS GISh.BIL.GA.MISh Gilgamesh,
gesturing GIS hot(headed) BAL heavenly CA offspring MmOS
broke open the ring, freeing AAR RAA NOS, flattened the earth
AC and turned the former hole of the ring into the vast sky CA
above the now flat earth, whereupon AD DA MAN created
river beds by digging channels with his right hand MAN,
thus making the water flow toward AD one place while coming
from DA another place - AD DA being a generic formula for
a river. AD DA MAN Adam separated land from water, he
became the first farmer irrigating the fields (agriculture was
invented in the era and area of the Göbekli Tepe). Now the
fertility giver BRI GID planted her seeds of life, the fire giver
PIR GID warmed the ground, and all sorts of plants and
animals emerged from the soil and from niches and clefts
in the rock and populated all realms of the world ...

The three goddesses or their actions are present in the
hieroglyphic inscription on the 'throat' of the female central
pillar of temple D, the fur bag of BIR GID in form of a 'bowl'.
That this 'bowl' can really be read as BIR for fur found an
unexpected confirmation when the lower part of the pillar
was excavated not long ago, revealing the fur of a fox
going over into the 'bowl'. And the emblems of the male
trinity are combined to a peculiar bucranium on the 'throat'
of the male central pillar of temple D, sort of a ring for
AAR RAA NOS, head of the bull, a horizontal bar for the
earth flattened by GIS BAL CA MmOS, and the horns of the
bull turned down for AD DA MAN, reminding of the horns
used as digging sticks and for digging channels by Adam,
the first farmer.


Here is how to lead a scientific discussion. Either focus
on a claim of mine you find utter nonsense, or then go
for one of my four Magdalenian test cases:

bear as the furry one
versus
bear as the brown one

In my opinion, English bear goes back to Magdalenian
BIR meaning fur, especially the fur on which a newborn
was placed, preferably the fur of a bear, provider of the
best fur, thick, longhaired, soft and warm

deus theos / Zeus
versus
deus Zeus / theos

In my opinion, Latin deus and Greek theos derive from
Magdalenian DhAG meaning able, good in the sense
of able, whereas Zeus derives from TYR meaning
overcomer, as verb to overcome in the double sense
of rule and give, emphatic Middle Helladic Sseyr
(Phaistos Disc, Derk Ohlenroth) Doric Sseus (Wilhelm
Larfeld) Homeric Zeus

Avestan aspa and Sankrit asva for horse go back to
Magdalenian AS PAC, whith the inversion PAC AS
emphatic PAC AS AS accounting for Pegasos Pegasus,
personification of the summer wind Afghanetz blowing
from the Aral Sea to the Hindu Kush, while AC PAS
accounts for PIE *h1ekwos Greek hippos Latin equus
and for the name of the Gallo-Roman horse goddess
Epona
versus
*h1ekwos hippos equus aspa asva

AS means upward, PAC means horse, AC means an
expanse of land with water, and PAS means everywhere
in a plain, here, south and north of me, east and west
of me. AS PAC names the horse that carries goods and
a rider upwards, while AC PAS names the horse as
the animal that carries you everywhere PAS on earth AC.
The compounds AS PAC and AC PAS are phonetically
close but semantically different, and so the Avestan and
Sanskrit words for horse have not the same origin as the
Greek and Latin words; aspa asva and hippos equus
go back to different compounds

the banks of the Amu Darya were the first Indo-European
homeland, its core having been the triangle of Termez
and Kunduz and Kurgan-T'upe; the Uralic steppes east
of the Volga, ancient name Rha, were the second IE
homeland; and the Pontic steppes east of the Rha / Volga
were the third IE homeland
versus
the IE homeland was placed anywhere between the
North Pole and South Pole (Mallory and Adams 2006)
but nowwhere really - Where Do They Put It Now?

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Allah allegedly has no gender but is referred to by
Him Himself He Him His His His Him He His His
He Him He His He He He He Him He His He His
His Himself Him Him His Him Him Him Him He He
He He He He He He Him Him He He Him Him Him
His He His He His Him He His He Him His Him He
in one single message, 61 male forms, not much of
exegesis needed to know where the wind blows.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 29, 3:28 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:19 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 3:34 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 6:14 am, BV <cv33cv33c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
>
> > > > Sorry for not sending anything related to this group
>
> > > You are not sorry at all, you just use sci.lang
> > > as a platform for religious propaganda.
>
> > agreed. but you should not prolong it by trying your hand at exegisis.
>
> Allah allegedly has no gender but is referred to by

there is a difference between gramamtical gender and biological sex.
biological sex is determined by procreation, which the Islamic concept
of God does not have. that is what the OP refered to.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

having three principle goddesses in Arab paganism developed over time.
mana:t was a late comer and is listed seperately from the other two,
and this is confirmed by epigraphy. originally al-la:t was the
principle goddess, meaning simply "The Goddess" presumeably the
consort of alla:h or "The God"

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jan 29, 3:16 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:55 am, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So far as I know no one has ever dared suggest that maybe Allah was
> > feminine.
>
> I did,

David presumably meant 'no one who has any credentials at all for
considering the question'.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 28, 10:05 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > fall into the Christian trap.  But daughters would be no better than
> > sons because the main pagan opposition to Muhammad seems to have been
> > made up of worshippers of the "Daughters of Allah" - Manat. Lat and al-
>
> al-Lat
>
> > Uzzah.
>
> the "Daughters of God ('il)" <bnty 'l> is also attested in Epigraphic
> South Arabian inscriptions.

rather should be read as "the two daughters of God" (in the dual).
Uzza and Lat are grouped together in the Qur'an, in Arab tradition, as
well as in two South Arabian (Qatabanian) inscriptions. Manat seems to
be a northern deity. there are some inscriptions with "Daughters of
God" <bnt 'l> cf. Arabic bana:t. it may well be that Uzza and Lat were
considered daughters of God as the Qur'an implies and Arab tradition
states.

>

[Yusuf B Gursey]

although born in Egypt, Omar Sharif's parents were Syro-Lebanese, as I
suspected from his original surname.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 29, 6:38 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> although born in Egypt, Omar Sharif's parents were Syro-Lebanese, as I
> suspected from his original surname.
>
>

Omar Sharif was born in Egypt, seems not his parents

[Franz Gnaedinger]

I know, and this unoutspoken premise was the reason
why I added my four Magdalenian test cases, they are
my credentials. You, Peter, never went for them. Here again:

(quote)

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 2:08 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:13 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 3:16 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 2:55 am, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So far as I know no one has ever dared suggest that maybe Allah was
> > > > feminine.
>
> > > I did,
>
> > David presumably meant 'no one who has any credentials at all for
> > considering the question'.
>
> I know, and this unoutspoken premise was the reason
> why I added my four Magdalenian test cases, they are
> my credentials. You, Peter, never went for them. Here again:
>
> (quote)
>
> Here is how to lead a scientific discussion. Either focus
> on a claim of mine you find utter nonsense, or then go
> for one of my four Magdalenian test cases:

they were answered, but you reject the responses as being a rehash of
textbooks. you want something like "I silently wispered ... and
got ...". your methodology is unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. you
will never get the answer you want.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

On 28 Jan, 10:34, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 6:14 am, BV <cv33cv33c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
>
> > Sorry for not sending anything related to this group
>
> You are not sorry at all, you just use sci.lang
> as a platform for religious propaganda.

Look who is talking.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

On 30 Jan, 09:08, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> my four Magdalenian test cases, they are
> my credentials.

That is a poetic metaphor for having no credentials.

[Italo]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> schreef:

> having three principle goddesses in Arab paganism developed over time.
> mana:t was a late comer and is listed seperately from the other two,
> and this is confirmed by epigraphy. originally al-la:t was the
> principle goddess, meaning simply "The Goddess" presumeably the
> consort of alla:h or "The God"

Herodotus has Alilat as consort of Orotalt, who is Ruḍa / Arṣu (in
Akk. also Ruldaiu, in Greek also referred to as "Ares").

In my opinion, Ruḍa / Arṣu is the Anatolian deity Rutas..
The Arabians about Ienisos-Kadytis may have inherited it from the
Philistines.







--
b o y c o t t a m e r i c a n p r o d u c t s
V i v a H A M A S ! V i v a P A L E S T I N A !

[António Marques]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote (28-01-2012 09:48):
> the word "alla:h" in Arabic has grammatical gender but in Islam not
> the attributes of biological sex. as the Qur'an explicitly staes that
> "he did not beget neither nor is there any likeness of him" lam yalid
> wa-lam yu:lad * was lam yakun kufuwwan 'aHad

Well, one does not need to beget in order to have gender (and the begetting
part is surely a reference to the christian view), so, just to clear that
up, muslims do *not* think of God as male? (NB male is not the same as human
male.)

[António Marques]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote (29-01-2012 00:13):

> the word alla:h in Arabic has grammtical gender, but in Islam, God
> does not have the attributes of biological sex. one cannot for
> example, call God "Our Father". (such was put in the mouth of Ibn
> Fadlan by Antonio Banderas inthe film "The Thriteenth Warrior" - I
> remeber that line in the novel).

But aiui that's a specific reaction against the christian view/usage. It
seem to have more to do with rejection both of the Trinity and the closeness
of human beings to God (as a father-children relationship would kind of
entail) than to a comment on maleness.

[António Marques]

DKleinecke wrote (29-01-2012 01:55):
> Calling him father is a
> particularly stupid error because one of the prime tenets of Islam is
> that Allah does not begat.

What's stupid about it? Nor do christians think God begets human beings
(except for one), that has no bearing on calling God 'our father'. Nor does
calling God 'father' entail maleness; despite the rejection of 'vertical
inclusive language' by many, it isn't on the grounds that God is male.

[António Marques]

Are they viewed by muslims as non-existent, demonessses, innocent objects of
shirk, or what?

[António Marques]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote (29-01-2012 03:17):

> another Hollywood faux pas is in the film "The Horsemen", Jack Palance
> and Omar Sharif. the plot is stupid. the "Buzkashi" player in Afghanistan
> played by Omar Sharif gets wounded in the leg while playing. he refuses
> medical treatment, wraps pages of the Qur'an around his wound

Would that fall into piety, superstition, or disrespect for the Qur'an?

> but when the character played by Omar Sharif describes in the Qur'an as

> "the Holy words of Muhammad" (...) should have said "the holy words of
> God"

Cf. my recurrent comments on how you can't relativise the Qur'an if you're a
muslim, because it was written by God, not by a human being.
Unless someone who believes the Qur'an is of Muhammad's authorship, however
inspired by God, can still be considered a muslim.

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger wrote (29-01-2012 08:28):
> Allah allegedly has no gender but is referred to by
> Him Himself He Him His His His Him He His His
> He Him He His He He He He Him He His He His
> His Himself Him Him His Him Him Him Him He He
> He He He He He He Him Him He He Him Him Him
> His He His He His Him He His He Him His Him He
> in one single message, 61 male forms, not much of
> exegesis needed to know where the wind blows.

In your view, how could they.... erm... God have got around the question of
referring to godself in a language like arabic?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-01-30 09:50:28 +0100, The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz

Self-awareness is not one of Franz's most prominent characteristics.

In his case he doesn't even pretend to be sorry.


--
athel

[Yusuf B Gursey]

the Qur'an says "they are but names" (i.e. non-existant), but it seems
that at one point Muhammad was willing to compromise (cf. the story of
the "Satanic Verses").

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 7:25 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> DKleinecke wrote (29-01-2012 01:55):
>
> > Calling him father is a
> > particularly stupid error because one of the prime tenets of Islam is
> > that Allah does not begat.
>
> What's stupid about it? Nor do christians think God begets human beings

it's stupid in an Islamic context.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 7:12 am, Italo <italo_2...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> schreef:

>
> > having three principle goddesses in Arab paganism developed over time.
> > mana:t was a late comer and is listed seperately from the other two,
> > and this is confirmed by epigraphy. originally al-la:t was the
> > principle goddess, meaning simply "The Goddess" presumeably the
> > consort of alla:h or "The God"
>
> Herodotus has Alilat as consort of Orotalt, who is Ruḍa / Arṣu (in
> Akk. also Ruldaiu, in Greek also referred to as "Ares").
>

the word has the lateralized emphatic interdental fricative, modern
ḍad, and is unlikley to be of non-Semitic origin. the etymology of of
Alilat suggests that Alilat was originally the consort of Alilah, i.e.
Allah.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 7:19 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (28-01-2012 09:48):
>
> > the word "alla:h" in Arabic has grammatical gender but in Islam not
> > the attributes of biological sex. as the Qur'an explicitly staes that
> > "he did not beget  neither nor is there any likeness of him" lam yalid
> > wa-lam yu:lad * was lam yakun kufuwwan 'aHad
>
> Well, one does not need to beget in order to have gender (and the begetting
> part is surely a reference to the christian view), so, just to clear that

it's a reference to the Arab pagan view as well, and Genesis has an
enigmatic reference to the "sons of God" as well.

> up, muslims do *not* think of God as male? (NB male is not the same as human
> male.)

the transcendance of God is essential dogma in Islam. although there
are references in the Qur'an to the "hand of God" and the throne of
God" such references are either dismissed as metaphorical or beyond
human understanding. so th equestion does not arise.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 7:21 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (29-01-2012 00:13):
>
> > the word alla:h in Arabic has grammtical gender, but in Islam, God
> > does not have the attributes of biological sex. one cannot for
> > example, call God "Our Father". (such was put in the mouth of Ibn
> > Fadlan by Antonio Banderas inthe film "The Thriteenth Warrior" - I
> > remeber that line in the novel).

the line is not in the novel.

>
> But aiui that's a specific reaction against the christian view/usage. It

again, a reaction to the Arab pagan view and event the Jewish view.

> seem to have more to do with rejection both of the Trinity and the closeness
> of human beings to God (as a father-children relationship would kind of
> entail) than to a comment on maleness.

in the Islamic view God is transcendant. calling him "male" would be
anthromorphising him.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 7:32 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (29-01-2012 03:17):
>
> > another Hollywood faux pas is in the film "The Horsemen", Jack Palance
> > and Omar Sharif. the plot is stupid. the "Buzkashi" player in Afghanistan
> > played by Omar Sharif gets wounded in the leg while playing. he refuses
> > medical treatment, wraps pages of the Qur'an around his wound
>
> Would that fall into piety, superstition, or disrespect for the Qur'an?

disrespect for the Qur'an.

>
> > but when the character played by Omar Sharif describes in the Qur'an as
> > "the Holy words of Muhammad" (...) should have said "the holy words of
> > God"
>
> Cf. my recurrent comments on how you can't relativise the Qur'an if you're a
> muslim, because it was written by God, not by a human being.

you can relativize it because it has to be intepreted in context.
Mulsims do that all the time. the simple theological part, is however,
quite firm.

[Italo]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> schreef:

> On Jan 30, 7:12 am, Italo <italo_2...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> schreef:
> >
> > > having three principle goddesses in Arab paganism developed over
> > > time. mana:t was a late comer and is listed seperately from the
> > > other two, and this is confirmed by epigraphy. originally al-la:t
> > > was the principle goddess, meaning simply "The Goddess"
> > > presumeably the consort of alla:h or "The God"
> >
> > Herodotus has Alilat as consort of Orotalt,

(_Orotal_ rather)

> > who is Ruḍa / Arṣu (in
> > Akk. also Ruldaiu, in Greek also referred to as "Ares").
> >
>
> the word has the lateralized emphatic interdental fricative, modern
> ḍad, and is unlikley to be of non-Semitic origin.

And Arṣu ('rṣw) of Palmyra? If indeed the same deity as Ruḍa, is such
variation (ṣad vs. ḍad) within north-Arabic logical for an inherited
word?

The Arabs were at the Philistine coast by 700 bce or so, so an
possible adoption of Ruḍa / Arṣu would also date from that time.
(As for another Philistine loanword, perhaps mina "port, harbour"? -
not from Gr. limen but from pre-Gr. minoa)

[António Marques]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote (30-01-2012 19:40):
> On Jan 30, 7:32 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (29-01-2012 03:17):
>>> but when the character played by Omar Sharif describes in the Qur'an as
>>> "the Holy words of Muhammad" (...) should have said "the holy words of
>>> God"
>>
>> Cf. my recurrent comments on how you can't relativise the Qur'an if you're a
>> muslim, because it was written by God, not by a human being.
>
> you can relativize it because it has to be intepreted in context.
> Mulsims do that all the time.

I've recently learned that from you, but still sounds like very narrow
ground for relativisation.

>> Unless someone who believes the Qur'an is of Muhammad's authorship, however
>> inspired by God, can still be considered a muslim.

Can they?

[António Marques]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote (30-01-2012 19:22):
> On Jan 30, 7:25 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> DKleinecke wrote (29-01-2012 01:55):
>>
>>> Calling him father is a
>>> particularly stupid error because one of the prime tenets of Islam is
>>> that Allah does not begat.
>>
>> What's stupid about it? Nor do christians think God begets human beings
>
> it's stupid in an Islamic context.

What's stupid about it, since it is not literal? How is 'father' not a
usable word for 'creator'? (that's how it's used in other religions, few
profess that God is literally the father of human beings) The only reason I
can think of it the deliberate avoidance of christian echoes.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 5:28 pm, Italo <italo_2...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:12 am, Italo <italo_2...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > > Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> schreef:
>
> > > > having three principle goddesses in Arab paganism developed over
> > > > time. mana:t was a late comer and is listed seperately from the
> > > > other two, and this is confirmed by epigraphy. originally al-la:t
> > > > was the principle goddess, meaning simply "The Goddess"
> > > > presumeably the consort of alla:h or "The God"
>
> > > Herodotus has Alilat as consort of Orotalt,
> (_Orotal_ rather)
> > > who is Ruḍa / Arṣu (in
> > > Akk. also Ruldaiu, in Greek also referred to as "Ares").
>
> > the word has the lateralized emphatic interdental fricative, modern
> > ḍad, and is unlikley to be of non-Semitic origin.
>
> And Arṣu ('rṣw) of Palmyra? If indeed the same deity as Ruḍa, is such
> variation (ṣad vs. ḍad) within north-Arabic logical for an inherited
> word?
>
> The Arabs were at the Philistine coast by 700 bce or so, so an
> possible adoption of Ruḍa / Arṣu would also date from that time.
> (As for another Philistine loanword, perhaps mina "port, harbour"? -
> not from Gr. limen but from pre-Gr. minoa)
>

there is no reason to believe the word is a loanword.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 7:00 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (30-01-2012 19:40):
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:32 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt>  wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (29-01-2012 03:17):
> >>> but when the character played by Omar Sharif describes in the Qur'an as
> >>> "the Holy words of Muhammad" (...) should have said "the holy words of
> >>> God"
>
> >> Cf. my recurrent comments on how you can't relativise the Qur'an if you're a
> >> muslim, because it was written by God, not by a human being.
>
> > you can relativize it because it has to be intepreted in context.
> > Mulsims do that all the time.
>
> I've recently learned that from you, but still sounds like very narrow
> ground for relativisation.

the Qur'an also says that some passages are of two meanings or
allegorical.

>
> >> Unless someone who believes the Qur'an is of Muhammad's authorship, however
> >> inspired by God, can still be considered a muslim.
>
> Can they?

Muslims believe that God is the author but transmitted through
Muhammad.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 7:03 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (30-01-2012 19:22):
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:25 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt>  wrote:
> >> DKleinecke wrote (29-01-2012 01:55):
>
> >>> Calling him father is a
> >>> particularly stupid error because one of the prime tenets of Islam is
> >>> that Allah does not begat.
>
> >> What's stupid about it? Nor do christians think God begets human beings
>
> > it's stupid in an Islamic context.
>
> What's stupid about it, since it is not literal? How is 'father' not a
> usable word for 'creator'? (that's how it's used in other religions, few
> profess that God is literally the father of human beings) The only reason I
> can think of it the deliberate avoidance of christian echoes.
>

it's avoidance of anthropomorphism and the implication that God has
sons and daughters. it's not specifically a polemic against
Christianity as it also a polemic against Arab paganism and also
marginally against the Old Testament.

>
>
> >> (except for one), that has no bearing on calling God 'our father'. Nor does
> >> calling God 'father' entail maleness; despite the rejection of 'vertical

> >> inclusive language' by many, it isn't on the grounds that God is male.-

[DKleinecke]

Actually the status of the Qur'an has been the subject of some intense
debate among Muslims. In the theology that won the debate the Qur'an
is considered uncreated. Hence it can have no author - not even
Allah. At this point I am getting in over my head. All I can say
about the relationship of Allah to the Qur'an is that I have read (I
don't remember where) that "the Qur'an is to Allah as Jesus is to God
the Father". But this might just be a comparison of Jesus as the
Logos (Gospel of John) and the Qur'an as the word of Allah.

In any case we cannot call the Qur'an an attribute of Allah - though
that might be tempting - because the attributes of Allah are something
else.

Declaring the Qur'an was created is now a heresy in Islam - and so
doing may get you called an apostate with possibly fatal
consequences. But, to my mind at least, it seems more reasonable.
Those Muslims who declared the Qur'an created all still believed it
was the word of Allah. On the basis of the 85th surat most Muslims
believe the the definitive text of the Qur'an is, always has been and
always will be written on some kind of monument in heaven. It appears
that most believe Allah's text is in Arabic - but it has been
suggested by Muslim scholars that Allah translated it into Arabic for
Gabriel to pass on to Muhammad.

Personally I find the idea that the eternal word god is in Arabic a
rather pathetic piece of chauvinism.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 30, 5:28 pm, Italo <italo_2...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:12 am, Italo <italo_2...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > > Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> schreef:
>
> > > > having three principle goddesses in Arab paganism developed over
> > > > time. mana:t was a late comer and is listed seperately from the
> > > > other two, and this is confirmed by epigraphy. originally al-la:t
> > > > was the principle goddess, meaning simply "The Goddess"
> > > > presumeably the consort of alla:h or "The God"
>
> > > Herodotus has Alilat as consort of Orotalt,
> (_Orotal_ rather)
> > > who is Ruḍa / Arṣu (in
> > > Akk. also Ruldaiu, in Greek also referred to as "Ares").
>
> > the word has the lateralized emphatic interdental fricative, modern
> > ḍad, and is unlikley to be of non-Semitic origin.
>
> And Arṣu ('rṣw) of Palmyra? If indeed the same deity as Ruḍa, is such
> variation (ṣad vs. ḍad) within north-Arabic logical for an inherited
> word?

the northern Arabs who used the north Semitic alphabet with its lesser
consonantal inventory used Sade for Dad, later, they put a dot over
it, as it is today.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Jan 30, 9:30 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> they were answered, but you reject the responses as being a rehash of
> textbooks. you want something like "I silently wispered ... and
> got ...". your methodology is unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. you
> will never get the answer you want.

All the answers I got were meta-arguments, no linguistic
arguments on the scientific level. I have been told that
surely someone had written the answer to my qustion
in some journal or book, all I have to do is to read all
the seventy-five-thousand-nine-hundred-sixty-four books
on linguistics and the 3,405,9237,226 papers and I will
get my answer ... Meta-arguments won't do. Repeatability
is a hallmark and criterium of science. One must be able
to reproduce an experiment and outcome and argument.
I can repeat my arguments any time. Analyst started
a thread in August 2006 and posed a question about
the etymology of bear. I proposed BIR as origin, a word
meaning fur, especially the fur on which a newborn was
placed. English bear is then the furry one, and not the
brown one. The thread reached more than 280 messages,
as I recall. Then Ross Clark asked me in another thread
about my reasons for my etymology of bear. I told him
that he may read Analyst's thread wherein I developed
my etymology of bear as the furry one and rejected the
PIE etymology of bear as the brown one. He was too lazy
to go through the long thread, so I wrote a long summary
of my arguments for him. You can do the same. If a valid
argument against my etymology of bear as the furry one
had been brought forth, you could repeat it. Repeat it,
behave in a scientific manner. But you can't, because
I have only been given meta-arguments, no linguistic
arguments on the scientific level. Ironically, the only one
who ever went for one of my test cases was Harlan
Messinger. He always used meta-arguments, to such
an extent that I called him meta-Harlan. But it was Harlan
who went for my first Magdalenian test case on the linguistic
level, and not just a meta-level. What he said about my
etymology of bear as the furry one, provider of the best fur,
thick, longhaired, soft and warm, was so very complikintracate
that I needed two years to get a clear statement form him:
he does not support the PIE etymology of bear as the brown
one but could very well imagine that English bear goes back
to a verbal root meaning fur.

To make it short: if a valid linguistic argument (and not just
a meta-argument) had been formulated against my etymology
of bear, surely someone can repeat it. And you must repeat it
if you want to participate in a scientific discussion.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 31, 4:39 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:30 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > they were answered, but you reject the responses as being a rehash of
> > textbooks. you want something like "I silently wispered ... and
> > got ...". your methodology is unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. you
> > will never get the answer you want.
>
> All the answers I got were meta-arguments, no linguistic
> arguments on the scientific level. I have been told that
> surely someone had written the answer to my qustion
> in some journal or book, all I have to do is to read all
> the seventy-five-thousand-nine-hundred-sixty-four books
> on linguistics and the 3,405,9237,226 papers and I will
> get my answer ... Meta-arguments won't do. Repeatability
> is a hallmark and criterium of science. One must be able

your "methodology" of "repeating silently" is not reproducable.

> to reproduce an experiment and outcome and argument.
> I can repeat my arguments any time. Analyst started
> a thread in August 2006 and posed a question about
> the etymology of bear. I proposed BIR as origin, a word
> meaning fur, especially the fur on which a newborn was
> placed. English bear is then the furry one, and not the
> brown one. The thread reached more than 280 messages,
> as I recall. Then Ross Clark asked me in another thread
> about my reasons for my etymology of bear. I told him
> that he may read Analyst's thread wherein I developed
> my etymology of bear as the furry one and rejected the
> PIE etymology of bear as the brown one. He was too lazy

so there is such an argument based on regular sound changes. that's
your answer.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

They could do what I do, repeat God or Allah, instead of writing

"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting
Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten,
and equal to Him is not anyone."

they could write:

In the name of God, the Mericful, the Compassionate.
Say (O Muhammad) Allah is God the One God, the Everlasting
Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten,
and equal to Allah is not anyone.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Jan 30, 1:39 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2012-01-30 09:50:28 +0100, The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz

> Shadow Army <craoibhi...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On 28 Jan, 10:34, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> >> On Jan 28, 6:14 am, BV <cv33cv33c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
>
> >>> Sorry for not sending anything related to this group
>
> >> You are not sorry at all, you just use sci.lang
> >> as a platform for religious propaganda.
>
> > Look who is talking.
>
> Self-awareness is not one of Franz's most prominent characteristics.
>
> In his case he doesn't even pretend to be sorry.
>
> --
> athel

When did I post religious propaganda? Recently I posted this,
the closest to religion I ever came:

Some years ago a friend asked me what I think about
a next life. Here is what I replied and now find worth
being noted. I don't believe in a personal reincarnation
but am sure that others will be born and live and see
the world as I in my best and happiest and most hopeful
moments.

I am not sorry for having written those lines, nor am I sorry
for developing my Paleo-linguistic hypothesis in a lingustic
forum. Either focus on a claim of mine you find utter nonsense,
or go for one of my four Magdalenian test cases. But you won't
do that, you never did before and nevver will in the future,
all that comes from your sort are meta-arguments, you are
unable of leading a discussion on the scientific level.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 31, 4:59 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:34 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > Franz Gnaedinger wrote (29-01-2012 08:28):
>
> > > Allah allegedly has no gender but is referred to by
> > > Him Himself He Him His His His Him He His His
> > > He Him He His He He He He Him He His He His
> > > His Himself Him Him His Him Him Him Him He He
> > > He He He He He He Him Him He He Him Him Him
> > > His He His He His Him He His He Him His Him He
> > > in one single message, 61 male forms, not much of
> > > exegesis needed to know where the wind blows.
>
> > In your view, how could they.... erm... God have got around the question of
> > referring to godself in a language like arabic?
>
> They could do what I do, repeat God or Allah, instead of writing
>
>   "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
>   Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting
>   Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten,
>   and equal to Him is not anyone."
>

more comments on this translation later.

> they could write:
>
>   In the name of God, the Mericful, the Compassionate.
>   Say (O Muhammad) Allah is God the One God, the Everlasting

you can't say "Allah is God" in Arabic without saying "Allah is
Allah". since even sexless things are assigned gender, and that gender
is, with few exceptions, morphologically or semantically marked, the
question of avoiding the pronoun "huwa" does not arise for Arabs.
making "Allah" feminine, however, would make "Allah" female.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jan 31, 4:39 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:30 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > they were answered, but you reject the responses as being a rehash of
> > textbooks. you want something like "I silently wispered ... and
> > got ...". your methodology is unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. you
> > will never get the answer you want.
>
> All the answers I got were meta-arguments, no linguistic
> arguments on the scientific level.

Meta-argument IS the scientific level. If your methodology is crap,
then your results are crap.

[Italo]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> schreef:

> On Jan 30, 5:28 pm, Italo <italo_2...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> schreef:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 30, 7:12 am, Italo <italo_2...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > > > Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> schreef:
> >
> > > > > having three principle goddesses in Arab paganism developed
> > > > > over time. mana:t was a late comer and is listed seperately
> > > > > from the other two, and this is confirmed by epigraphy.
> > > > > originally al-la:t was the principle goddess, meaning simply
> > > > > "The Goddess" presumeably the consort of alla:h or "The God"
> >
> > > > Herodotus has Alilat as consort of Orotalt,
> > (_Orotal_ rather)
> > > > who is Ruḍa / Arṣu (in
> > > > Akk. also Ruldaiu, in Greek also referred to as "Ares").
> >
> > > the word has the lateralized emphatic interdental fricative,
> > > modern ḍad, and is unlikley to be of non-Semitic origin.
> >
> > And Arṣu ('rṣw) of Palmyra? If indeed the same deity as Ruḍa, is
> > such variation (ṣad vs. ḍad) within north-Arabic logical for an
> > inherited word?
> >
> > The Arabs were at the Philistine coast by 700 bce or so, so an
> > possible adoption of Ruḍa / Arṣu would also date from that time.
> > (As for another Philistine loanword, perhaps mina "port, harbour"? -
> > not from Gr. limen but from pre-Gr. minoa)
> >
>
> there is no reason to believe the word is a loanword

For mina "harbour" not?
I thought it was considered to be from Gr. limen, where the l-
became conflated with the Arabic definite article.

There is however also Egyptian mnjw.t "harbor";
http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/GetWcnDetails?u=guest&f=0&l=0&wn=68450
Apparently not attested before the 18th dynasty. As such there remains a
possibility of it originating with some Hyksos language.
Likewise "Minoa", the supposedly Cretan name for harbour towns from
Minoa on Sicily to Minoa-Gaza, may have had the same meaning.

[Italo]

Italo <italo...@operamail.com> schreef:

But now I notice that
mjni "to moor; to steer; to die (metaph.)"
http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/GetWcnDetails?u=guest&f=0&l=0&wn=70060
is already attested in Old Kingdom times..

> As such there
> remains a possibility of it originating with some Hyksos language.
> Likewise "Minoa", the supposedly Cretan name for harbour towns from
> Minoa on Sicily to Minoa-Gaza, may have had the same meaning.

Perhaps more likely then that the Cretans adopted the Egyptian word.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 31, 4:59 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:34 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > Franz Gnaedinger wrote (29-01-2012 08:28):
>
> > > Allah allegedly has no gender but is referred to by
> > > Him Himself He Him His His His Him He His His
> > > He Him He His He He He He Him He His He His
> > > His Himself Him Him His Him Him Him Him He He
> > > He He He He He He Him Him He He Him Him Him
> > > His He His He His Him He His He Him His Him He
> > > in one single message, 61 male forms, not much of
> > > exegesis needed to know where the wind blows.
>
> > In your view, how could they.... erm... God have got around the question of
> > referring to godself in a language like arabic?
>
> They could do what I do, repeat God or Allah, instead of writing
>
> "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
> Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting
> Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten,
> and equal to Him is not anyone."

bismilla:hirraHma:nirraHi:m


qul huwa~lla:hu 'aHad *
alla:hu~S-Samad(u) *

lam yalid wa-lam yu:lad *

wa-lam yakun kufuwan 'ahad(un) *



the syntax of verse (1) is tricky. it is discussed by Uri Rubin “Al-
Samad and the High God: An Interpretation of Sura CXII”, Der Islam 61
(1984), 197–217.


"huwa" refers to what the matter is at hand, the question asked (God)
as deduced buy Uri Rubin.

the translation of Samad is tricky. Rosenthal ("Some Minor Problems in
the Qur'an," in The Joshua
Starr Memorial Volume (New York, 1953), pp. 67–84 (section 2)),
discusses the problem but his solution is unsatisfactory (Walid Saleh
"The Etymological Fallacy and Quranic Studies: Muhammad, Paradise, and
Late Antiquity," in The Qur’an in Context, ed. Angelika Neuwirth
2010). a better solution is offered by Uri Rubin

at any rate there is a reason a pronoun is used at the beginning.

according to Uri Rubin

Say: He is God (he is) one.
God whom one turns to in exigencies.
He did not beget nor was He begotten.
And therei no equal of him.

>
> they could write:
>
> In the name of God, the Mericful, the Compassionate.
> Say (O Muhammad) Allah is God the One God, the Everlasting
> Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten,

the verb has to be put in either the masculine or the feminine, even
if a participle is used.

> and equal to Allah is not anyone.

it in negative of the perfective of the verb "to be" which has to
either masculine or feminine.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

actually a special negative of the jussive with the same meaning.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

for ruDa"

[Yusuf B Gursey]

*ruDa:'

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Jan 31, 2:49 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Meta-argument IS the scientific level. If your methodology is crap,
> then your results are crap.

Either focus on a claim of mine you find utter nonsense,

or go for one of my four test cases. You can of course focus
on my methodology, or on a special part of my methodology,
and discuss it with me on the scientific level, however,
dropping verdicts from above, just calling my methodology
crap instead of leading a discussion on the scientific level,
that is not scientific. Tell me on what part of my methodology
you wish to focus, then I will engage in a discussion with
you on this precise aspect.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Jan 31, 10:53 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> so there is such an argument based on regular sound changes. that's
> your answer.

PIE *bher- 'brown' is compatible with English bear
German Bär Dutch beer under the rules of sound change,
but so is Magdalenian BIR meaning fur, especially the fur
on which a newborn was placed, a particular meaning
imposed by the meme of the permutation group according
to the second law of Magdalenian. Phonetics can't decide
the case. We must look out for other aspects. I rely on
archaeology. Newborns have been placed on bear furs
in ancient Greece according to a testimony from the
second century AD, and this custom lived on until the
twentieth century in parts of the Slavic world (Marija Gimbutas).
Edward de Vere alias William Shakespeare, in A Winter's Tale,
mentions a bearing cloth in which a child was carried to be
christened. From the Neolithic Balkans we have clay figurines
of the Divine Bear Mother and of the Sacred Bear Nurse with
her fur poach to carry the child in. Then there is the linguistic
aspect. PIE proposes no less than six homonyms *bher-
of six different meanings. Even Mallory and Adams 2006
concede that this may be hard to swallow. I can easily
derive the meanings of each *bher- from BIR. Martin Huld,
an eminent PIE scholar, held a speech on the etymology
of bear at an Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference,
published in one of the Proceedings. He enumerated
all the noteworthy etymologies, and said that taboo names
are too often invoked. Between the lines I noticed some
irony, but he accepts the etymology of bear as the brown
one, because, I have the impression, there is no better one.
But meanwhile there is a better one, BIR meaning fur,
Greek byrsa French fourrure English fur, the bear is the

furry one, provider of the best fur, thick, longhaired, soft

and warm. And as most fur is brown, also *bher- 'brown'
derives from BIR.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Feb 1, 12:22 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the verb has to be put in either the masculine or the feminine, even
> if a participle is used.

If so, Arabic is not really the language required to convey
transcendence, and the Quran, in the present form, can't
really be the ultimate truth. Nor is the Bible, nor the Rig Veda.
All the holy books of humankind are guided by divine inspiration
but also driven by the human craving of power. We can obtain
real transcendence only if we get aware of our cravings. All the
holy books, also the Quran, have been written by humans beings,
and all the holy books, the Quran included, were edited by human
beings. When this is denied you can be sure that there is a mighty
power issue lurking behind even the most beautiful language.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 1, 2:40 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:22 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > the verb has to be put in either the masculine or the feminine, even
> > if a participle is used.
>
> If so, Arabic is not really the language required to convey

you really don't understand the difference between grammatical gender
and biological sex.

[Peter T. Daniels]

There is no discussion to be had about "silently mouthing" and
pretending that somehow has something to do with the transmission of
human language from generation to generation.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

On Jan 29, 10:16 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Hebrew El and Elohim, Lord in the English translation,
> Arabic Allah and Greek logos have the same Magdalenian
> origin,

Logos means "word", it has the (novel) sense of God only in Christian
mysticism. So, it cannot be brought into context with a word that has
of old meant "God", i.e. Elohim, Allah.

Besides, even if we, for the sake of argument, accepted Magdalenian as
a possible parent language of Indo-European languages, you haven't yet
demonstrated why it should also be the parent language of Semitic
languages, which are an entirely different family of languages.

Of course, you know even less about Semitic than about Indo-European
languages, so your allegations about Semitic languages can be quietly
dismissed. For them to be taken seriously, surely the minimum demand
is that you demonstrate the knowledge of at least one Semitic
language. I am not going to hold my breath though.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:39 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2012-01-30 09:50:28 +0100, The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz
> > Shadow Army <craoibhi...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > On 28 Jan, 10:34, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 28, 6:14 am, BV <cv33cv33c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
>
> > >>> Sorry for not sending anything related to this group
>
> > >> You are not sorry at all, you just use sci.lang
> > >> as a platform for religious propaganda.
>
> > > Look who is talking.
>
> > Self-awareness is not one of Franz's most prominent characteristics.
>
> > In his case he doesn't even pretend to be sorry.
>
> > --
> > athel
>
> When did I post religious propaganda?

Your Magdalenian nonsense is conceptually equal to religion. This has
been explained to you dozens of times.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:39 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2012-01-30 09:50:28 +0100, The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz
> > Shadow Army <craoibhi...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > On 28 Jan, 10:34, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 28, 6:14 am, BV <cv33cv33c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
>
> > >>> Sorry for not sending anything related to this group
>
> > >> You are not sorry at all, you just use sci.lang
> > >> as a platform for religious propaganda.
>
> > > Look who is talking.
>
> > Self-awareness is not one of Franz's most prominent characteristics.
>
> > In his case he doesn't even pretend to be sorry.
>
> > --
> > athel
>
> When did I post religious propaganda?

It has been pointed to you many times, that your Magdalenian visions
are essentially equivalent to religious propaganda. The only evidence
for you Magdalenian "theories" is inside your own head, and there are
no consistent scientific laws to it that would allow us to reproduce
your "results" independently, without you being there to guide us. At
least, you have not been able to formulate those laws in a
communicable way.

If we were to accept your Magdalenian ideas and become your adepts, we
should accept you as the infallible teacher, and follow your wordings
in every detail - because there is no consistent theory there that
could be independently developed further by us. This would not be
science. You would be basically a religious teacher, and we would be
believers in your religion.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Feb 1, 9:17 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> you really don't understand the difference between grammatical gender
> and biological sex.

Do you deny that grammatical gender goes back to
biological sex? What you don't consider is that messages
are not only conveyed by means of the semantical content
but also for example by the choice of words. If someone
tells me that Allah has no sex and gender but then refers
to Allah by saying Him Himself He Him His His His Him

He His His He Him He His He He He He Him He His He
His His Himself Him Him His Him Him Him Him He He
He He He He He He Him Him He He Him Him Him

His He His He His Him He His He Him His Him He,
using the male form more than sixty times in one single
message, and when I compare this to the way women
are being treated in most parts of the Arabic world,
I really have to wonder about the extent of self-delusion
of the Islamists who are turning religion into an issue
of mere power craving.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Feb 1, 1:37 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> There is no discussion to be had about "silently mouthing" and
> pretending that somehow has something to do with the transmission of
> human language from generation to generation.

So you picked up this part of my methodology
to focus on, my way of following sound changes
along the arrow of time by pronouncing words
or Magdalenian compounds silently, not even
whispering, over and over and over? I described
often enough how I do this, and how the words
or compounds remain stable - kept within their
place in what I call the verbal morphospace -
when I voice them, but how they begin to shift
when I go through all the motions of the lips and
tongue and jaw but not giving voice, not even
whispering (I have to say this again). Seems that
nobody can follow me. The reason may be that
you are not willing to perform my experiment
properly, pronouncing the words without giving
voice, not even whispering. 'Mouthing' is not the
same, you must really _pronounce_ them without
giving voice. I have no difficulties performing my
experiment, and from the insights gained this way
I can propose a neurological test: the verbal
morphospace must in some way be linked to the
phonetical system in the brain. We still don't really
know how words are being stored in the mind.
My claim is that the memory of words is linked with
the phonetical system, and this, in principle, should
be testable in not so far a future with a neurological
apparatus, MRI or the like. Are you really willing
to focus on this part of my method? Or are you
sending me on a round trip once more, obliging
me to repeat all I said once again, and if possible
within ten lines, the measure of your attention span?
You told me that you read only ten lines of a reply.
How can I possibly pack my elaborate hypothesis
of now more than seven years within ten lines?

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

Personally, I find Islam much more interesting and moving than
Magdalenian. All my Muslim acquaintances are quite nice people and
much better company than Franz.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

In Persian and in Turkic languages, there is no grammatical gender and
no distinction between "he" and "she". Persian is spoken in Iran and
much of Afghanistan. Turkic languages are spoken in Turkey, many ex-
Soviet republics and much of Iran. (I don't know if there are any
Turkic languages spoken in Afghanistan.) The vast majority of the
speakers of said languages are Muslims.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 2, 2:48 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:17 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > you really don't understand the difference between grammatical gender
> > and biological sex.
>
> Do you deny that grammatical gender goes back to
> biological sex? What you don't consider is that messages

the history is irrelevant. all Muslims believe that God has no sex,
based on the chapter discussed in this thread.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 2, 2:59 am, The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army

there are. Uzbek and Turkmen. they are concentrated in the Northwest,
around Balkh. General Dostum is an Uzbek (his name means "my friend")
and is the prinicipal warlord looking after their interests. he
maintained a secular enclave during the Taliban era.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Feb 2, 9:32 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the history is irrelevant. all Muslims believe that God has no sex,
> based on the chapter discussed in this thread.

Then you believe and wish to make me believe
that only the conscious intention counts while
the unconscous part is irrelevant or does not
even exist.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

So, Franz presumes himself to be able to read the unconscious
intentions of all the Muslims of the world. This imples that he
fancies himself to be God, or have god-like powers. That is quite a
presumption, even for him. Or should we write: "Him"?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 2, 2:37 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 1:37 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is no discussion to be had about "silently mouthing" and
> > pretending that somehow has something to do with the transmission of
> > human language from generation to generation.
>
> So you picked up this part of my methodology
> to focus on,

Since your constant challenge is "Pick one statement and we will
discuss it," are you complaining?

> my way of following sound changes
> along the arrow of time by pronouncing words
> or Magdalenian compounds silently, not even
> whispering, over and over and over? I described
> often enough how I do this,

You certainly did.

> and how the words
> or compounds remain stable - kept within their
> place in what I call the verbal morphospace -
> when I voice them, but how they begin to shift
> when I go through all the motions of the lips and
> tongue and jaw but not giving voice, not even
> whispering (I have to say this again).

But what that has to do with language change, you simply omit.

> Seems that
> nobody can follow me.

Bingo!

> The reason may be that
> you are not willing to perform my experiment
> properly, pronouncing the words without giving
> voice, not even whispering. 'Mouthing' is not the
> same, you must really _pronounce_ them without
> giving voice. I have no difficulties performing my
> experiment,

Yet everyone else does. Experiments must be _replicable_ to be
persuasive.

> and from the insights gained this way
> I can propose a neurological test: the verbal
> morphospace must in some way be linked to the
> phonetical system in the brain. We still don't really
> know how words are being stored in the mind.
> My claim is that the memory of words is linked with
> the phonetical system, and this, in principle, should
> be testable in not so far a future with a neurological
> apparatus, MRI or the like. Are you really willing
> to focus on this part of my method? Or are you
> sending me on a round trip once more, obliging
> me to repeat all I said once again, and if possible
> within ten lines, the measure of your attention span?
> You told me that you read only ten lines of a reply.
> How can I possibly pack my elaborate hypothesis
> of now more than seven years within ten lines?

You do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over again.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Arabs know that a word may have grammatical gender but no biological
sex.

[Peter T. Daniels]

You'd think a German-speaker would understand that. (Though they have
3 genders.)

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

Come on, Peter. The problem is that Franz does not see Arabs as his
human peers.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 3, 4:07 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

> On Feb 2, 1:59 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Since your constant challenge is "Pick one statement and we will
> > discuss it," are you complaining?
>

> I want to make sure that you are really willing to focus
> on this part of my method, and to stay with it, not just
> using it as starting point of yet another round trip.

>
> > But what that has to do with language change, you simply omit.
>

> If you are willing to focus on this part of my method,
> and to stay with it, I can explain. PIE and the comparative
> method are a top down approach to early language, while
> I look out for a bottom up approach that follows the arrow
> of time, the way the mind works more easily. Artificial
> Intelligence failed keeping its big promises, the top down
> approach is getting far too complicated when one has
> to make a robot walk, for example. AI is in need of
> a bottom up approach called embodiment. Intelligence
> is already in the way the body is shaped, and this can be
> experimentally tested by constructing simple mechanical
> devices, as invented for example at the university of Zurich.
> Mechanically very simple robots, activated by cheap
> electro-motors, perform for example a dog-like walk,
> simply by turning up the speed the tin foil dog falls into
> three different gaits. You can inform yourself about
> embodiment in AI research. The bottom up approach
> is also very successful in experimental archaeology
> (we discussed this several times, meanwhile you should
> know about experimental archaeology and what it achieves.
> I expanded experimental archaeology to the experimental
> history of early mathematics, and then to experimental
> Paleo-linguistics, following the approach of Prof. Dr. Richard
> Fester and his ur-words ACQ and KALL and TAG and BA
> - he assumed that there might have been some twenty words
> of that sort. Well, I tried to make a language out of such words
> and their permutations, relying on the physiology of the vocal
> apparatus that replaces the sound rules of the comparative
> method. Sound rules allow to go back some five or six
> thousand years, but how can I follow sound changes
> along the arrow of time, over 16,000 or even 30,000 years?
> The simplest way is to pronounce the hypothetical ancient
> word, over and over and over, and keeping the recent word
> in mind. I discovered that the words are being kept in place
> when I pronounce them giving voice, but they shift when
> I pronounce them without giving voice. They can remain
> unchanged for a while, and then suddenly flip into another
> form, or the shift from the ancient to the recent form can
> occur more gradually. I did this for years, it guided my work,
> it is very simple and practical a method, so I go on using it,
> and if nobody else in sci.lang can follow me. Not every
> new idea or method was universally understood right from
> the begin. I am entitled to ignore your complaints, because
> I offer a test: my claim is that the memory of words is closely
> linked with the phonological system in the brain, and if this
> should be confirmed by a neurological test, or an insight
> gained by someone else working from another starting point,
> some people surely will try out my simple physiology-friendly
> method of following sound shifts along the arrow of time. This
> method can only be used by people who are sympathetic
> to an idea of a bottom up approach to early language.

(If you have to be "sympathetic," then it isn't science. That's
exactly what fraudulent "mentalists" like ouija board operators and
Uri Geller claim.)

> > Yet everyone else does. Experiments must be _replicable_ to be
> > persuasive.
>

> It will be replicable if my claim that the memory of words
> and the phonetical system in the brain are connected,
> as explained above.

I read all the way to the end of this, and this is the closest you
have ever come to a claim that you are doing anything remotely
"scientific" -- by stating a test to be applied to your assertions --
but unfortunately you never finished the sentence.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 3, 4:56 am, The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army

> human peers.-

Eh? He's not French. Do they even have Gastarbeiter in Switzerland?
You could say "Turks" if you were speaking of a German, or "Aramaic-
speakers" of northern countries (do you have Gastarbeiter in Finland?).

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 4, 3:20 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2:12 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > (If you have to be "sympathetic," then it isn't science. That's
> > exactly what fraudulent "mentalists" like ouija board operators and
> > Uri Geller claim.)
>

> Uri Geller was revealed to be a trickster by Amazing Randy,

Randi

> a scientist who also works as a magician. Try to reveal my tricks,

The late and unlamented Thomas Sebeok around 1980 invited most of the
world's principal researchers in animal communication to a New York
Academy of Sciences conference on the "Clever Hans Phenomenon," and
made Randi the keynote speaker. He entertained the crowd and wouldn't
reveal how his tricks were done, and Sebeok's insulting implication
was that the psychologists performing the experiments were self-
delusional. At least one of the research teams was so insulted that
they declined to present their presentation.

> you won't find any, because I am not a magician. Andrew Wiles

Your "trick" is "pronouncing words silently," when it only works if
you are "sympathetic."

> proved that Fermat's Last Conjecture holds, but not many really
> understand his work. I can't replicate Andrew Wiles's reasoning,
> nor can 99.999999... per cent of humankind, yet I believe that
> his proof is correct. He was accompanied by a group of sympathetic
> mathematicians who gave him credit and overlooked initial
> mistakes.

Wiles did not demand "sympathy" and did not use anything other than
_reasoning_ and a computer with the "patience" to apply trial-and-
error to billions of potential counterexamples.

> > I read all the way to the end of this, and this is the closest you
> > have ever come to a claim that you are doing anything remotely
> > "scientific" -- by stating a test to be applied to your assertions --
> > but unfortunately you never finished the sentence.
>

> I made this claim many times, repeating it every couple of months.
> This is my hard science test case, while the soft science test
> cases are my four Magdalenian test cases. We have a phonetician
> among us, Prof. Dr. Nathan Sanders. What does he say about

> my claim that the memory of words and the phonetical system

> in the brain are connected?

So you're actually refusing to finish the sentence that would have
actually revealed some sort of test of your "hypotheses"?

Why would anyone imagine that "memory of words" (i.e., the mental
lexicon) and "the phonetical system in the brain": (i.e., how sound is
encoded in the mental lexicon) are not "connected"?

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

I fail to see the connection. My point was, that Franz cannot conceive
of Arabs as people who could distinguish between grammatical gender
and natural gender in the way he, the great white man, can. Whether
there are Arabic gastarbeiters in Switzerland, is beside the point.

But as it happens they do have lots of immigrant workers in
Switzerland - last time I checked about one sixth of the people living
in that disagreeable country were foreign nationals.

In Finland we have few immigrant workers - we do admit a minimum
amount of humanitarian immigrants, but brutal and sickly racism of a
kind seldom heard of in your country is rampant and ubiquitous, also
commonly accepted.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

On 6 Feb, 09:59, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> Your insisting shows me that you did not read my entire
> message, as you have claimed, just only  the begin and the
> few additional lines at the end.

Note "the begin". Franz has been told that it is "beginning" in
correct English, but he still insists on using this wrong form. I
think this is didactically interesting.

When did Franz become unteachable? It is obvious that at some stage in
his life he was intellectually flexible enough to acquire some kind of
English, but now, he cannot even correct his English according to
instructions from native speakers.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Feb 6, 8:59 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

> On Feb 4, 2:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Your "trick" is "pronouncing words silently," when it only works if
> > you are "sympathetic."
>

> I began my scientific work in the summer of 1974 with an
> optical experiment, looking at a landscape while fixing
> my gaze on a single spot. Then I repeated my experiment
> in art class, fixing a single spot of the room and drawing
> the room as it appeared to me in doing so. I spent hours
> on these drawings, and noticed that we see very unclearly
> everything that lies apart from the one fixed spot. By and by
> the short-lived knowledge of all the details of the present
> surroundings vanishes and must be restored by moving
> our eyes, but if you don't move them the objects you normally
> see turn into moving shadows and lights - but then, if you free
> your eyes, and allow them to regain the whole field of vision,
> the objects are restored at once and appear in such clarity
> and firmness as you never saw them before. And when I looked
> at a good reproduction of the Mona Lisa painting, I immediately
> understood how Leonardo da Vinci accomplished her beautiful
> smile: it appears when we look into her eyes (into her left eye
> in the center of the 'circle' of the head), not on her lips directly;
> then we can't see her mouth clearly anymore, we don't even
> see the corners of her mouth but we know that there must be
> the corners and so we place them somewhere in the shadows
> of the corners of the mouth and of the cheeks, and these points
> lie to the sides of the actual corners, and a little higher, so our
> brain sees the mouth prolonged, the outer parts of the lips drawn
> upward - she smiles, and the most beautiful smile can be seen
> when we smile ourselves, returning her smile, but if we look
> back on her mouth in order to see her smile it disappears
> at once, because we can see the corners of her mouth clearly
> again ... I showed this effect to many people, lay people understood,
> especially young women, but academically trained art historians
> did not understand, they were just unable to perform my simple
> optical experiment, because their mind runs in deep tracks
> they can't leave anymore. So if you can't perform my equally
> simple way of simulating the phonetucal evolution of words
> by repeating them silently, pronouncing them over and over again
> without giving voice, not even whispering, I don't really care.
> I can't hope for academic understanding while still being alive.

>
> > Wiles did not demand "sympathy" and did not use anything other than
> > _reasoning_ and a computer with the "patience" to apply trial-and-
> > error to billions of potential counterexamples.
>

> I don't know that Wiles used a computer. He described his
> way of working as the exploration of a dark mansion. He enters
> a room, stumbles around in the dark, bumps into furniture,
> by and by getting an impression of the room, then finds the
> light switch, turns it on, sees the furniture in all clarity, and
> then moves on to the next room that is dark again, repeating
> his stumbling around in the dark and bumping into furniture.
> Wiles also drew unconscious doodles. Other mathematicians
> 'see' the number space as landscape, with hills and groves
> and marshes, instead of calculating they walk around in their
> scenery. And the chemist Kékulé dreamt of a snake that seized
> its tail with the mouth, he woke up and had the solution to the
> question of the shape of the benzol molecule: a ring. Stumbling
> around in the dark and bumping into furniture, drawing unconscious
> doodles, walking around in landscapes of numbers, dreaming up
> the solution to a problem of a chemical structure - are these
> scientific methods? Hardly, if I had to rely on your understanding
> that scientific insights must be derived logically from textbook
> wisdom, from the given knowledge.

>
> > So you're actually refusing to finish the sentence that would have
> > actually revealed some sort of test of your "hypotheses"?
>

> The few lines at the end were but a summary of what I said
> in the long paragraph before, the body of my message.

> Your insisting shows me that you did not read my entire
> message, as you have claimed, just only  the begin and the
> few additional lines at the end.

Here is the part you didn't read:

[Ruud Harmsen]

>On 6 Feb, 09:59, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>> Your insisting shows me that you did not read my entire
>> message, as you have claimed, just only  the begin and the
>> few additional lines at the end.

The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army

<craoi...@gmail.com> schreef/wrote:

>Note "the begin". Franz has been told that it is "beginning" in
>correct English, but he still insists on using this wrong form. I
>think this is didactically interesting.

He is unlearnable.

>When did Franz become unteachable?

Wrong word.

>It is obvious that at some stage in
>his life he was intellectually flexible enough to acquire some kind of
>English, but now, he cannot even correct his English according to
>instructions from native speakers.

--
Ruud Harmsen,
http://rudhar.com/new

[yangg]

On Feb 6, 1:57 pm, The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army

***

There's an African proverb (possibly invented) that has it: "A piece
of wood, no matter how long it soaks in water, will not become a
crocodile".

Franz belongs to the class of pieces of wood.

A.

[pauljk]

"Ruud Harmsen" <r...@rudhar.com> wrote in message
news:qkv1j7pdgq7t0rl7b...@4ax.com...

>>On 6 Feb, 09:59, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>>> Your insisting shows me that you did not read my entire
>>> message, as you have claimed, just only the begin and the
>>> few additional lines at the end.
>
> The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army
> <craoi...@gmail.com> schreef/wrote:
>>Note "the begin". Franz has been told that it is "beginning" in
>>correct English, but he still insists on using this wrong form. I
>>think this is didactically interesting.
>
> He is unlearnable.
>
>>When did Franz become unteachable?
>
> Wrong word.

I think the General got it right.
AFAIK, unlearnable is something/knowledge that cannot be learned, and
AFAIK, unteachable is somebody who refuses to/cannot be taught.

pjk

[António Marques]

pauljk wrote (07-02-2012 13:46):
>
> "Ruud Harmsen" <r...@rudhar.com> wrote in message
> news:qkv1j7pdgq7t0rl7b...@4ax.com...
>>> On 6 Feb, 09:59, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>>>> Your insisting shows me that you did not read my entire
>>>> message, as you have claimed, just only the begin and the
>>>> few additional lines at the end.
>>
>> The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army
>> <craoi...@gmail.com> schreef/wrote:
>>> Note "the begin". Franz has been told that it is "beginning" in
>>> correct English, but he still insists on using this wrong form. I
>>> think this is didactically interesting.
>>
>> He is unlearnable.
>>
>>> When did Franz become unteachable?
>>
>> Wrong word.
>
> I think the General got it right.
> AFAIK, unlearnable is something/knowledge that cannot be learned, and
> AFAIK, unteachable is somebody who refuses to/cannot be taught.

Paul, Paul, Paul.

Ruud's was actually one of the wittiest remarks of the year.

[pauljk]

"António Marques" <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:jgreqd$k72$1...@dont-email.me...

Okay, git it now, apologies.
Presume Ruud was talking in Franzish, not English!

pjk

[Ruud Harmsen]

>> The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army:

>>>Note "the begin". Franz has been told that it is "beginning" in
>>>correct English, but he still insists on using this wrong form. I
>>>think this is didactically interesting.

>"Ruud Harmsen" <r...@rudhar.com> wrote in message

>> He is unlearnable.
>>
>>>When did Franz become unteachable?
>>
>> Wrong word.

"pauljk" <paul....@xtra.co.nz> schreef/wrote:

>>I think the General got it right.
>AFAIK, unlearnable is something/knowledge that cannot be learned, and
>AFAIK, unteachable is somebody who refuses to/cannot be taught.

Yes, I know, but my point was, somewhere in the past Franz himself
stated he was unlearnable, and when it was pointed out to him that
that should be unteachable, he demonstrated being unteachable by
insisting on sticking to the word unlearnable.

So when referring to Franz, I think we should use unlearnable, even
though in proper English, that is not the right word.

BTW, it is amazing that Franz finds this difficult, because German has
two words for it: lernen = learn, lehren = teach. In Dutch, both are
'leren', so I have to pay attention to the difference to get it right
in German and English.

Perhaps in Swiss German, the two meanings share the same word too?

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Meta and meta-meta and meta-meta-meta arguments
again, or rather meta babble, no scientific arguments,
nothing about my physiological method of emulating
sound shifts over long periods of time, so I won that
discussion, one more discussion, which confirms me
in my approach to early language.

[António Marques]

He doesn't find it difficult, he finds it funny.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 8, 5:06 am, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> >> The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army:
> >>>Note "the begin". Franz has been told that it is "beginning" in
> >>>correct English, but he still insists on using this wrong form. I
> >>>think this is didactically interesting.
> >"Ruud Harmsen" <r...@rudhar.com> wrote in message
> >> He is unlearnable.
>
> >>>When did Franz become unteachable?
>
> >> Wrong word.
>

> "pauljk" <paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> schreef/wrote:

>
> >>I think the General got it right.
> >AFAIK, unlearnable is something/knowledge that cannot be learned, and
> >AFAIK, unteachable is somebody who refuses to/cannot be taught.
>
> Yes, I know, but my point was, somewhere in the past Franz himself
> stated he was unlearnable, and when it was pointed out to him that
> that should be unteachable, he demonstrated being unteachable by
> insisting on sticking to the word unlearnable.
>
> So when referring to Franz, I think we should use unlearnable, even
> though in proper English, that is not the right word.
>
> BTW, it is amazing that Franz finds this difficult, because German has
> two words for it: lernen = learn, lehren = teach. In Dutch, both are
> 'leren', so I have to pay attention to the difference to get it right
> in German and English.
>
> Perhaps in Swiss German, the two meanings share the same word too?

In dialectal American, both are "learn."

If the Standard-English-speaker finds this odd, let them notice the
verb "rent," which refers to both directions of the transaction.

(The example of "cleave" is not helpful, because who uses the verb in
either of its directions anyway?)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 8, 4:47 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

> Meta and meta-meta and meta-meta-meta arguments
> again, or rather meta babble, no scientific arguments,
> nothing about my physiological method of emulating
> sound shifts over long periods of time, so I won that
> discussion, one more discussion, which confirms me

> in my approach to early language.-

It is not a "physiological method." It is a _mystical_ method. You did
not "win" anything, because it's not a contest.

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6a14e26f-0d13-4823...@j14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

If it's not clear from context it can be differentiated by "rent" versus "rent out"
as in "I rent my house in Xyz street" and "I rent out my house in Xyz street."

Then, of course, in some contexts there is a "let" available.

[pauljk]

"Ruud Harmsen" <r...@rudhar.com> wrote in message

news:ith4j7hf5uok7r9ss...@4ax.com...

>>> The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army:
>>>>Note "the begin". Franz has been told that it is "beginning" in
>>>>correct English, but he still insists on using this wrong form. I
>>>>think this is didactically interesting.
>>"Ruud Harmsen" <r...@rudhar.com> wrote in message
>>> He is unlearnable.
>>>
>>>>When did Franz become unteachable?
>>>
>>> Wrong word.
>
> "pauljk" <paul....@xtra.co.nz> schreef/wrote:
>>>I think the General got it right.
>>AFAIK, unlearnable is something/knowledge that cannot be learned, and
>>AFAIK, unteachable is somebody who refuses to/cannot be taught.
>
> Yes, I know, but my point was, somewhere in the past Franz himself
> stated he was unlearnable, and when it was pointed out to him that
> that should be unteachable, he demonstrated being unteachable by
> insisting on sticking to the word unlearnable.
>
> So when referring to Franz, I think we should use unlearnable, even
> though in proper English, that is not the right word.

Yes, I already got a little jab in the ribs from António which
prompted me realize what exactly you meant. :-)

> BTW, it is amazing that Franz finds this difficult, because German has
> two words for it: lernen = learn, lehren = teach. In Dutch, both are
> 'leren', so I have to pay attention to the difference to get it right
> in German and English.

In a Dutch sentence can you express the reflexivity of one of
the 'leren's or do you rely on context?

Slavic languages rely heavily on one or two reflexive particles.

pjk

[Ruud Harmsen]

"pauljk" <paul....@xtra.co.nz> schreef/wrote:

>In a Dutch sentence can you express the reflexivity of one of
>the 'leren's or do you rely on context?

Context only, I think.

"Dat is ons nooit geleerd."
That was never taught to us.

"Dat hebben we nooit geleerd."
"We never learned that."

"Ik hoorde pas nog dat ..."
"I recently learned that ..."

[Trond Engen]

pauljk:

> Ruud Harmsen:

[on learn/teach]

>> BTW, it is amazing that Franz finds this difficult, because German
>> has two words for it: lernen = learn, lehren = teach. In Dutch, both
>> are 'leren', so I have to pay attention to the difference to get it
>> right in German and English.
>
> In a Dutch sentence can you express the reflexivity of one of
> the 'leren's or do you rely on context?
>
> Slavic languages rely heavily on one or two reflexive particles.

In Norwegian we use the verb 'lære' in both senses. In the "teach" sence
it's transitive:

Jeg lærer elevene å banne.
"I teach the pupils how to swear."

In the "learn" sense it's not:

Jeg lærer å banne.
"I learn how to swear."

However, as it's originally a causative verb to 'lese' "read", one can
use the, uh, auto-reflexive pronoun as a dative object for the "learn"
sense:

Jeg lærer meg å banne.
"I learn to swear." (Implying some active participation, but not
necessarily "teach oneself".)

Without a dative object it could mean "teach", as preserved in e.g.
'lærer' "teacher" and «leve som man lærer» "live as you teach".

I think the 'learn' sense likely arose through agent-less sentences
(with a dative object as a "patient subject"):

**meg lærer å banne.

As the dative was lost, first with personal names, later with nouns,
this construction would be homologous with the canonical ["agent
subject"+intransitive verb] in more and more cases. This development has
parallels in English, me thinks. (For pronouns the dative merged with
the accusative, which is what I use in the modernized examples above.)

--
Trond Engen

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Here is what Peter T. Daniels replied:

It is not a "physiological method." It is a _mystical_ method.
You did not "win" anything, because it's not a contest.

Yet another meta-statement, so I won.

Ruud Harmsen calls me unlearnable. Antonio Marques
considers this the wittiest remark of the year. How can
I learn you that I pay homage to Horace Bixby and Samuel
Clemens? and that I use 'learn' instead of 'teach' when
I intend an ironic spin? I told you before, but in vain, you
just don't get it, you can't be learned.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Trond Engen <tron...@engen.priv.no> schreef/wrote:

>pauljk:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen:
>
>[on learn/teach]
>
>>> BTW, it is amazing that Franz finds this difficult, because German
>>> has two words for it: lernen = learn, lehren = teach. In Dutch, both
>>> are 'leren', so I have to pay attention to the difference to get it
>>> right in German and English.
>>
>> In a Dutch sentence can you express the reflexivity of one of
>> the 'leren's or do you rely on context?
>>
>> Slavic languages rely heavily on one or two reflexive particles.
>
>In Norwegian we use the verb 'lære' in both senses. In the "teach" sence
>it's transitive:
>
> Jeg lærer elevene å banne.
> "I teach the pupils how to swear."

Ik leer de leerlingen (te) vloeken.

>In the "learn" sense it's not:
>
> Jeg lærer å banne.
> "I learn how to swear."

Ik leer vloeken.

So: same in Dutch.

>However, as it's originally a causative verb to 'lese' "read", one can
>use the, uh, auto-reflexive pronoun as a dative object for the "learn"
>sense:

Interesting thought! That would never occur to me, but it is quite
likely, because r and z often vary in Germanic language. Dutch
verliezen, verloren, German: verlieren, verloren. English: lose, lost.

[The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army]

On 9 Feb, 08:22, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:6a14e26f-0d13-4823...@j14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

Lending and borrowing are a hell to learn in any foreign language. One
of the reasons why I love Irish is the fact that the word is a noun,
"iasacht" = loan, and in Irish you, logically enough, either give
something "ar iasacht" ("on loan") or get something "ar iasacht".
Interestingly, the genitive of the word, "iasachta", is used in the
sense of "foreign", as in "tíortha iasachta", foreign countries.