The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
Steve Whittet
When you don't have a word for something and someone gives you one
it suddenly becomes a lot easier to deal with. Take architecture
for example. The creation of orders of architecture and the naming
of the elements in those orders created a system which people could
use to build with.
>
>>There are elements of architecture such as the
>>"fluted Doric columns" which Hatshepset's architect
>>used in her mortuary temple which anticipate the
>>Greek orders of architecture by almost a millenium
>
> So what if that's an imitation?
It isn't so much that it is an imitation, (which is really the
sincerest form of flattery), as that it is a system which people
could use. Prior to the creation of the system, the system was
not used, after it was created and given a name, architecture
became more and more common.
>
>>The Platonic Dialoges closely follow the Egyptian ideas
>>of what was right and proper as illustrated by their
>>celebration of the Goddess Ma'at.
>
>Absolute baloney. How does it follow Egyptian ideas as opposed to
>ideas from elsewhere???
Ma'at was the Goddess of Truth, and represented the essence of
everything which was right and proper. The idea of the good.
The Egyptians concieved of living the life in Ma'at or doing what
was right and proper as a way of becoming one with Neter (nature).
They were trying to live in harmony with their world by first
measuring, weighing and judging what was straight, plumb, level,
well proportioned and in balance. How else can we explain their
obsession with accuracy in measurement and proportion and good
craftsmanship, but that it was something they believed in?
Look at the Platonic Dialoges. What is Plato investigating?
The Idea of the Good. What does this consist of? It seems to
have something to do with living a life in which one strives
to do what is right and proper. Plato emphasises measuring,
weighing and judging what is right. He talks about a State,
a Republic organized to live according to Laws which are
based on standards of what is right and proper.
Charmides or Temperence
Lysis or Friendship
Laches or Courage
(Presenting the standards of Similarity, Difference, Motion and Rest
then in Protagoras, using the standards to ask and answer questions)
Protagoras, is about speaking the truth, how discussion
is one thing and how making an oration is quite another. About
asking and answering questions, about the difference between
Becoming and Being and the question
"Can a man become truly good, built four square in hands and feet
and mind, a work without a flaw"
"There is a very ancient philosophy which is more cultivated
in Crete and Lacedaemon than in any part of Hellas"
"Justice is the health of states"
"Are wisdom and temperence and courage and justice and Holyness
five names of the same thing?"
"The art of measurement would do away with appearances, and showing
the Truth...this result is the art of measurement"
"The right choice of pleasures and pains, in the choice of the more
or the fewer and the greater and the less and the nearer and remoter,
must not this measuring be a consideration of their excess and defect
and equality in relation to one another?"
Now I could go on about this for weeks and months and years, but
the point is that "By the dog of Egypt", Plato is talking about
the Egyptian concept of "living the life in Ma'at"
> And how does it closely parallel some Egyptian text?
Every Egyptian text evidences the obsession with doing what is
right and proper. Balance, proportion, "the art of measurement"
If you don't understand that, you can't understand Egypt.
Euthydemus or Wisdom
Cratylus or Truth
"Hermogenes: 'Suppose that we make Socrates a party to the argument?'
Cratylus: 'If you please.'
Hermogenes: 'I should explain to you Socrates that our friend Cratylus
has been arguing about names; he says that they are natural and not
conventional; not a portion of the human voice which men agree to use;
but that there is a truth of correctness in them which is the same for
Hellenes as for barbarians.'"
>For one thing, nowhere do Plato's dialogues contain, as far as I am
>aware, instructions to assert that one did not commit any of a long
>list of offenses ("I did not pilfer Temple grain", "I did not talk
>too much",etc.) when one was being judged.
The reason the Egyptians assert that they lived the life in Ma'at
and did what was right and proper, while avoiding doing anything
which was not right and proper, is that they had concieved of the
"idea of the good" and of "the art of measuring", weighing and judging
what was good, which Plato endeavors to explain to us in his dialoges.
>More seriously, there is no discussion of rule by an allegedly divine
>monarch who is careful to keep the family lineage pure by inbreeding.
No, and in fact that is not a part of the Egyptian concept of what
was right and proper either. The Egyptian king or pharoah was a
statesman. A man who represented the state. The Egyptian pharoah
was seen as symbolic of the state. The state of Egypt included
the state of all its people. If everything was seen as proceeding
harmoneously then the state was healthy. The reverence shown to
the symbol of the state was really a very healthy attitude of
pride in what the people had accomplished. That is why people
build pyramids. Not for the glory of a king but for the glory
of the state which the king represents.
On his crown (ity) the king worth the vulture (Mut) and cobra
(Uraeus), which symbolized the Mut-Ur-ity of the state and
statesman.
>
>
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Loren Petrich
In article <51uijt$f...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>>>There are elements of architecture such as the
>>>"fluted Doric columns" which Hatshepset's architect
>>>used in her mortuary temple which anticipate the
>>>Greek orders of architecture by almost a millenium
>> So what if that's an imitation?
>It isn't so much that it is an imitation, (which is really the
>sincerest form of flattery), as that it is a system which people
>could use. ...
More likely simply an imitation of appearance, such as what one
does when one makes a drawing or painting of something. No linguistics
necessary, except when one wants to describe it in words.
[on giving stuff names...]
The Greek names are Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian -- Greek
place-names. Zero Egyptian names.
>>>The Platonic Dialoges closely follow the Egyptian ideas
>>>of what was right and proper as illustrated by their
>>>celebration of the Goddess Ma'at.
>>Absolute baloney. How does it follow Egyptian ideas as opposed to
>>ideas from elsewhere???
>Ma'at was the Goddess of Truth, and represented the essence of
>everything which was right and proper. The idea of the good.
And *HOW* is this specifically Egyptian?
>The Egyptians concieved of living the life in Ma'at or doing what
>was right and proper as a way of becoming one with Neter (nature).
There you go again. English "nature" is from Latin natura, what
something has built-in, from nasci, to be born, ultimately from
Indo-European *gen@- "to generate, beget, ..."
.... He talks about a State,
>a Republic organized to live according to Laws which are
>based on standards of what is right and proper.
So what? Why does he have to have borrowed the idea from the
Egyptians? Lots of people very far away from them have had an idea that
something or other is right and proper.
And I note that Plato's Republic is not headed by some divine
monarch, unlike Pharaonic Egypt, and it does not recommend that when it
comes time to be judged in the Next World that you assert that you have
not committed any of a *huge* catalog of sins.
Furthermore, its three divisions of society, guardians, soldiers,
and common people, parallel Dume'zil's proposed Indo-European division of
society almost exactly. No Egyptian influence there :-)
>> And how does it closely parallel some Egyptian text?
>Every Egyptian text evidences the obsession with doing what is
>right and proper. ...
I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence of that.
>>More seriously, there is no discussion of rule by an allegedly divine
>>monarch who is careful to keep the family lineage pure by inbreeding.
>No, and in fact that is not a part of the Egyptian concept of what
>was right and proper either. ...
What idiocy. Why go to all the trouble to be inbred if that is
the case???
>On his crown (ity) the king worth the vulture (Mut) and cobra
>(Uraeus), which symbolized the Mut-Ur-ity of the state and
>statesman.
Hahahahahaha! ROTFL. There you go yet again!!!
First off the -ity is the Old French mangling of the Latin suffix
-itas, which is the Latin version of English -ness. And the rest? I'm
laughing too hard to continue :-)
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Steve Whittet
In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>>>>"fluted Doric columns" which Hatshepset's architect
>>>>used in her mortuary temple which anticipate the
>>>>Greek orders of architecture by almost a millenium
>>> So what if that's an imitation?
>
>>It isn't so much that it is an imitation, (which is really the
>>sincerest form of flattery), as that it is a system which people
>>could use. ...
>
> More likely simply an imitation of appearance, such as what one
>does when one makes a drawing or painting of something. No linguistics
>necessary, except when one wants to describe it in words.
If you dont have names for things, and you try to describe the Greek
orders of architecture to the workman you want to have make this
"imitation" by names like "Doric, Ionic and Corinthian", you are as
liable to get pilasters, as fluted columns with the proper degree
of entasis. Will the architraves have the proper pediments? Will
the frieze get mutals? Will someone forget to include the stylobate?
>
> [on giving stuff names...]
>
> The Greek names are Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian -- Greek
>place-names. Zero Egyptian names.
We don't know what the names the Greeks used were. The names we use
were invented by Palladio who created the Greek Orders of Architecture
as a system so he could imitate the Greeks.
>>>>The Platonic Dialoges closely follow the Egyptian ideas
>>>>of what was right and proper as illustrated by their
>>>>celebration of the Goddess Ma'at.
>
>>>Absolute baloney. How does it follow Egyptian ideas as opposed to
>>>ideas from elsewhere???
>
>>Ma'at was the Goddess of Truth, and represented the essence of
>>everything which was right and proper. The idea of the good.
>
> And *HOW* is this specifically Egyptian?
To answer your question as simply as possible,the Egyptians celebrated
a very subtle and sophisticated philosophy. I think it is fair to say
it was an independent invention. Each of their "gods" represented a
natural principle such as Truth, Justice, Wisdom, Literacy, Numeracy,
Beauty, Loyalty, Craftsmanship, Time, Earth, Day, Night, Sky, Sun,
Stars, Life, Death, Love, Courage, Friendship, Innocence, Humour
The Physical Body, Intelligence, Becoming and Being, (to mention
a few of the better known and most universal symbols).
All these were related to each other in a natural philosophy;
often in paired opposites resolved by a synthesis which partook
of the essence of both and added on something more besides.
>>The Egyptians concieved of living the life in Ma'at or doing what
>>was right and proper as a way of becoming one with Neter (nature).
>
> There you go again. English "nature" is from Latin natura, what
>something has built-in, from nasci, to be born, ultimately from
>Indo-European *gen@- "to generate, beget, ..."
What we describe as nature was what the Egyptians celebrated as neter,
the natural principles which we all observe and understand as a part
of our own natures, taken all together it described the process by
which our existence becomes whatever it is going to be.
>
>.... He talks about a State,
>>a Republic organized to live according to Laws which are
>>based on standards of what is right and proper.
>
> So what? Why does he have to have borrowed the idea from the
>Egyptians? Lots of people very far away from them have had an idea that
>something or other is right and proper.
We are talking about a period before there was Law and Order in the
world. How do you build consensus for social stratification where
some people work and others manage and administer things? What the
Egyptians developed was a homogeneous world view where people found
a way to agree on what was right and proper and to abide by it.
They went beyond norms, mores and conventions to build standards of
values where a person might expect the deeds of a lifetime to be
weighed in the balance against Ma'ats feather of truth.
If you look at people far away from Egypt with ideas of what was
right and proper, did they include the concept that these things
could be measured, weighed and judged? Then the chances are that
their beliefs came to them from Egypt. The Judaeo - Christian -
Moslem ethical system is based on this idea of the good. So are
the Ideas of Hindus and Budhists, and many other systems.
The state which Plato examines in the Republic is the state of mind.
> And I note that Plato's Republic is not headed by some divine
>monarch, unlike Pharaonic Egypt, and it does not recommend that when it
>comes time to be judged in the Next World that you assert that you have
>not committed any of a *huge* catalog of sins.
Plato is examining the state of mind which the Egyptians had created.
The "negative confession" is a part of the process by which a man's
life is put in the balance to be measured, weighed and judged by the
goddess Ma'at (Plato's Diatoma)
>
> Furthermore, its three divisions of society, guardians, soldiers,
>and common people, parallel Dume'zil's proposed Indo-European division of
>society almost exactly. No Egyptian influence there :-)
Its three divisions are three levels of conciousness. The dialoges can
be taken literally by common people who enjoy a story such as Atlantis
and wish to go no farther. It can be learned as a method and practiced
like gymnastics or music; it can be used in combat as the weapon of the
soldier, and it can be a guardian which helps us avoid making the wrong
choices in life.
>
>>> And how does it closely parallel some Egyptian text?
>
>>Every Egyptian text evidences the obsession with doing what is
>>right and proper. ...
>
> I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence of that.
Note as just one instance, how carefully inscriptions are composed
in a harmonious balance. Everything the Egyptians did was neat and
orderly, but also subtle and sophisticated; gestures, the ripling
of muscles, the upturned corner of a lip, the flaring of a nostril,
express an idea of what is right and proper and good in terms of
the scribes craft in communicating the process of his thought.
>
>>>More seriously, there is no discussion of rule by an allegedly divine
>>>monarch who is careful to keep the family lineage pure by inbreeding.
>
>>No, and in fact that is not a part of the Egyptian concept of what
>>was right and proper either. ...
>
> What idiocy. Why go to all the trouble to be inbred if that is
>the case???
One has the sense that you might answer that better than I...
>
>>On his crown (ity) the king worth the vulture (Mut) and cobra
>>(Uraeus), which symbolized the Mut-Ur-ity of the state and
>>statesman.
>
> Hahahahahaha! ROTFL. There you go yet again!!!
>
> First off the -ity is the Old French mangling of the Latin suffix
>-itas, which is the Latin version of English -ness. And the rest? I'm
>laughing too hard to continue :-)
>>On his crown (ity) the king worth the vulture (Mut) and cobra
>>(Uraeus), which symbolized the Mut-Ur-ity of the state and
>>statesman.
Look at any picture of a pharoah of Egypt. On his crown he wears
a vulture and a cobra, right in front, it is an emblem. Some Pharoahs
also are guided by Horus but that is a separate issue.
The vulture is the goddess "Mut"
The Cobra is called a "ureaus".
The Egyptian word for crown is "ity".
One has to wonder why you find the concept of maturity
so difficult to grasp...
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Steve Whittet
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <51uijt$f...@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>>>>There are elements of architecture such as the
>>>>"fluted Doric columns" which Hatshepset's architect
>>>>used in her mortuary temple which anticipate the
>>>>Greek orders of architecture by almost a millenium
>>> So what if that's an imitation?
>
>>It isn't so much that it is an imitation, (which is really the
>>sincerest form of flattery), as that it is a system which people
>>could use. ...
>
> More likely simply an imitation of appearance, such as what one
>does when one makes a drawing or painting of something. No linguistics
>necessary, except when one wants to describe it in words.
If you dont have names for things, and you try to describe the Greek
orders of architecture to the workman you want to have make this
"imitation" by names like "Doric, Ionic and Corinthian", you are as
liable to get pilasters, as fluted columns with the proper degree
of entasis. Will the architraves have the proper pediments? Will
the frieze get mutals? Will someone forget to include the stylobate?
>
> [on giving stuff names...]
>
> The Greek names are Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian -- Greek
>place-names. Zero Egyptian names.
We don't know what the names the Greeks used were. The names we use
were invented by Palladio who created the Greek Orders of Architecture
as a system so he could imitate the Greeks.
>>>>The Platonic Dialoges closely follow the Egyptian ideas
>>>>of what was right and proper as illustrated by their
>>>>celebration of the Goddess Ma'at.
>
>>>Absolute baloney. How does it follow Egyptian ideas as opposed to
>>>ideas from elsewhere???
>
>>Ma'at was the Goddess of Truth, and represented the essence of
>>everything which was right and proper. The idea of the good.
>
> And *HOW* is this specifically Egyptian?
To answer your question as simply as possible,the Egyptians celebrated
a very subtle and sophisticated philosophy. I think it is fair to say
it was an independent invention. Each of their "gods" represented a
natural principle such as Truth, Justice, Wisdom, Literacy, Numeracy,
Beauty, Loyalty, Craftsmanship, Time, Earth, Day, Night, Sky, Sun,
Stars, Life, Death, Love, Courage, Friendship, Innocence, Humour
The Physical Body, Intelligence, Becoming and Being, (to mention
a few of the better known and most universal symbols).
All these were related to each other in a natural philosophy;
often in paired opposites resolved by a synthesis which partook
of the essence of both and added on something more besides.
>>The Egyptians concieved of living the life in Ma'at or doing what
>>was right and proper as a way of becoming one with Neter (nature).
>
> There you go again. English "nature" is from Latin natura, what
>something has built-in, from nasci, to be born, ultimately from
>Indo-European *gen@- "to generate, beget, ..."
What we describe as nature was what the Egyptians celebrated as neter,
the natural principles which we all observe and understand as a part
of our own natures, taken all together it described the process by
which our existence becomes whatever it is going to be.
>
>.... He talks about a State,
>>a Republic organized to live according to Laws which are
>>based on standards of what is right and proper.
>
>>> And how does it closely parallel some Egyptian text?
>
>>Every Egyptian text evidences the obsession with doing what is
>>right and proper. ...
>
> I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence of that.
Note as just one instance, how carefully inscriptions are composed
in a harmonious balance. Everything the Egyptians did was neat and
orderly, but also subtle and sophisticated; gestures, the ripling
of muscles, the upturned corner of a lip, the flaring of a nostril,
express an idea of what is right and proper and good in terms of
the scribes craft in communicating the process of his thought.
>
>>>More seriously, there is no discussion of rule by an allegedly divine
>>>monarch who is careful to keep the family lineage pure by inbreeding.
>
>>No, and in fact that is not a part of the Egyptian concept of what
>>was right and proper either. ...
>
> What idiocy. Why go to all the trouble to be inbred if that is
>the case???
One has the sense that you might answer that better than I...
>
>>On his crown (ity) the king worth the vulture (Mut) and cobra
>>(Uraeus), which symbolized the Mut-Ur-ity of the state and
>>statesman.
>
> Hahahahahaha! ROTFL. There you go yet again!!!
>
> First off the -ity is the Old French mangling of the Latin suffix
>-itas, which is the Latin version of English -ness. And the rest? I'm
>laughing too hard to continue :-)
>>On his crown (ity) the king worth the vulture (Mut) and cobra
>>(Uraeus), which symbolized the Mut-Ur-ity of the state and
>>statesman.
Look at any picture of a pharoah of Egypt. On his crown he wears
Loren Petrich
In article <521tql$r...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
[On how to create the various styles of temple column...]
But *what* were the words used for the various parts of a column?
In both Greek and Egyptian?
>> The Greek names are Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian -- Greek
>>place-names. Zero Egyptian names.
>We don't know what the names the Greeks used were. The names we use
>were invented by Palladio who created the Greek Orders of Architecture
>as a system so he could imitate the Greeks.
So we can't say where the names came from, and we certainly can't
jump to the conclusion that they all came from Egypt.
>>>Ma'at was the Goddess of Truth, and represented the essence of
>>>everything which was right and proper. The idea of the good.
>> And *HOW* is this specifically Egyptian?
>To answer your question as simply as possible,the Egyptians celebrated
>a very subtle and sophisticated philosophy. I think it is fair to say
>it was an independent invention. Each of their "gods" represented a
>natural principle such as Truth, Justice, Wisdom, Literacy, Numeracy,
>Beauty, Loyalty, Craftsmanship, Time, Earth, Day, Night, Sky, Sun,
>Stars, Life, Death, Love, Courage, Friendship, Innocence, Humour
>The Physical Body, Intelligence, Becoming and Being, (to mention
>a few of the better known and most universal symbols).
How is that so? And Mr. Whittet, be careful in your explanations
of how it is so, because you are likely to make all the net.egyptologists
ROTFL, thus making it impossible for them to post a serious evaluation of
your proposals.
>> There you go again. English "nature" is from Latin natura, what
>>something has built-in, from nasci, to be born, ultimately from
>>Indo-European *gen@- "to generate, beget, ..."
>What we describe as nature was what the Egyptians celebrated as neter,
>the natural principles which we all observe and understand as a part
>of our own natures, taken all together it described the process by
>which our existence becomes whatever it is going to be.
Like how???
>> So what? Why does he have to have borrowed the idea from the
>>Egyptians? Lots of people very far away from them have had an idea that
>>something or other is right and proper.
>We are talking about a period before there was Law and Order in the
>world. ...
Tell that to Hammurabi :-)
More seriously, when a group of people follows some customary
course of action, members of these group are likely to describe it as the
right thing to do.
>> And I note that Plato's Republic is not headed by some divine
>>monarch, unlike Pharaonic Egypt, and it does not recommend that when it
>>comes time to be judged in the Next World that you assert that you have
>>not committed any of a *huge* catalog of sins.
>Plato is examining the state of mind which the Egyptians had created.
Like how???
>The "negative confession" is a part of the process by which a man's
>life is put in the balance to be measured, weighed and judged by the
>goddess Ma'at (Plato's Diatoma)
But where is the Negative Confession in Plato's Dialogues?
And is the Republic led by a divine monarch? It wasn't, at least
the last time I read it :-)
>> Furthermore, its three divisions of society, guardians, soldiers,
>>and common people, parallel Dume'zil's proposed Indo-European division of
>>society almost exactly. No Egyptian influence there :-)
>Its three divisions are three levels of conciousness. The dialoges can
>be taken literally by common people who enjoy a story such as Atlantis
>and wish to go no farther. It can be learned as a method and practiced
>like gymnastics or music; it can be used in combat as the weapon of the
>soldier, and it can be a guardian which helps us avoid making the wrong
>choices in life.
So it's literal if I like it and allegorical if I don't. Where
have I heard this before??? :-):-):-)
>Note as just one instance, how carefully inscriptions are composed
>in a harmonious balance. ...
These are inscriptions that are meant to last a long time; the
more cursive Egyptian scripts that were developed from the monumental
script (hieroglyphics), and they don't look very neat.
And what is specifically Egyptian about careful order in
monumental inscriptions???
>>>>More seriously, there is no discussion of rule by an allegedly divine
>>>>monarch who is careful to keep the family lineage pure by inbreeding.
>>>No, and in fact that is not a part of the Egyptian concept of what
>>>was right and proper either. ...
>> What idiocy. Why go to all the trouble to be inbred if that is
>>the case???
>One has the sense that you might answer that better than I...
Does one go through the trouble of keeping one's family line
inbred unless one believes that, for whatever reason, it is the right
thing to do???
And where does Plato mention the idea that a royal family has to
be inbred in order to avoid contaminating its lineage with commoner
ancestry???
[a lot of irrelevant reassertion of WhittetLinguistics...]
Anti Christ
whi...@shore.net says
[load of good stuff about stylobates and Netjers snipped]
***well done steve.
another couple of years and youll be a raving atlantean like
the rest of us :) kaman.
Greg Reeder
No way! I think what Steve's reading of the ancient philosophy shows is
that there is so much to delve into with out bringing in Aliens from Mars
or Atlantean refugees. Leave Egypt to the Egyptians and study the wonders
they left behind. Atlantus et al will just divert you from the real
goodies.
--
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
ree...@sirius.com
Loren Petrich
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
In article <521tql$r...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
[On how to create the various styles of temple column...]
But *what* were the words used for the various parts of a column?
In both Greek and Egyptian?
>> The Greek names are Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian -- Greek
>>place-names. Zero Egyptian names.
>We don't know what the names the Greeks used were. The names we use
>were invented by Palladio who created the Greek Orders of Architecture
>as a system so he could imitate the Greeks.
So we can't say where the names came from, and we certainly can't
jump to the conclusion that they all came from Egypt.
>>>Ma'at was the Goddess of Truth, and represented the essence of
>>>everything which was right and proper. The idea of the good.
>> And *HOW* is this specifically Egyptian?
>To answer your question as simply as possible,the Egyptians celebrated
>a very subtle and sophisticated philosophy. I think it is fair to say
>it was an independent invention. Each of their "gods" represented a
>natural principle such as Truth, Justice, Wisdom, Literacy, Numeracy,
>Beauty, Loyalty, Craftsmanship, Time, Earth, Day, Night, Sky, Sun,
>Stars, Life, Death, Love, Courage, Friendship, Innocence, Humour
>The Physical Body, Intelligence, Becoming and Being, (to mention
>a few of the better known and most universal symbols).
How is that so? And Mr. Whittet, be careful in your explanations
of how it is so, because you are likely to make all the net.egyptologists
ROTFL, thus making it impossible for them to post a serious evaluation of
your proposals.
>> There you go again. English "nature" is from Latin natura, what
>>something has built-in, from nasci, to be born, ultimately from
>>Indo-European *gen@- "to generate, beget, ..."
>What we describe as nature was what the Egyptians celebrated as neter,
>the natural principles which we all observe and understand as a part
>of our own natures, taken all together it described the process by
>which our existence becomes whatever it is going to be.
Like how???
>> So what? Why does he have to have borrowed the idea from the
>>Egyptians? Lots of people very far away from them have had an idea that
>>something or other is right and proper.
>We are talking about a period before there was Law and Order in the
>world. ...
Tell that to Hammurabi :-)
More seriously, when a group of people follows some customary
course of action, members of these group are likely to describe it as the
right thing to do.
>> And I note that Plato's Republic is not headed by some divine
>>monarch, unlike Pharaonic Egypt, and it does not recommend that when it
>>comes time to be judged in the Next World that you assert that you have
>>not committed any of a *huge* catalog of sins.
>Plato is examining the state of mind which the Egyptians had created.
Like how???
>The "negative confession" is a part of the process by which a man's
>life is put in the balance to be measured, weighed and judged by the
>goddess Ma'at (Plato's Diatoma)
But where is the Negative Confession in Plato's Dialogues?
And is the Republic led by a divine monarch? It wasn't, at least
the last time I read it :-)
>> Furthermore, its three divisions of society, guardians, soldiers,
>>and common people, parallel Dume'zil's proposed Indo-European division of
>>society almost exactly. No Egyptian influence there :-)
>Its three divisions are three levels of conciousness. The dialoges can
>be taken literally by common people who enjoy a story such as Atlantis
>and wish to go no farther. It can be learned as a method and practiced
>like gymnastics or music; it can be used in combat as the weapon of the
>soldier, and it can be a guardian which helps us avoid making the wrong
>choices in life.
So it's literal if I like it and allegorical if I don't. Where
have I heard this before??? :-):-):-)
>Note as just one instance, how carefully inscriptions are composed
>in a harmonious balance. ...
These are inscriptions that are meant to last a long time; the
more cursive Egyptian scripts that were developed from the monumental
script (hieroglyphics), and they don't look very neat.
And what is specifically Egyptian about careful order in
monumental inscriptions???
>>>>More seriously, there is no discussion of rule by an allegedly divine
>>>>monarch who is careful to keep the family lineage pure by inbreeding.
>>>No, and in fact that is not a part of the Egyptian concept of what
>>>was right and proper either. ...
>> What idiocy. Why go to all the trouble to be inbred if that is
>>the case???
>One has the sense that you might answer that better than I...
Does one go through the trouble of keeping one's family line
Baron Szabo
Greg Reeder wrote:
>
> No way! I think what Steve's reading of the ancient philosophy shows is
> that there is so much to delve into with out bringing in Aliens from Mars
> or Atlantean refugees. Leave Egypt to the Egyptians and study the wonders
> they left behind. Atlantus et al will just divert you from the real
> goodies.
Well said! It's good to hear some positive things said about our Steve!
;>
--
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
Copy the linklist page if you want! (for personal use only)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/
Baron Szabo
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> And where does Plato mention the idea that a royal family has to
> be inbred in order to avoid contaminating its lineage with commoner
> ancestry???
I just thought I'd mention that the Bacchiad's of eight's century
Corinth were a genos of about 200 upper-classers that practiced strict
inbreeding. They were replaced by one of the first Tyrants. And I
should mention that aristocratic writers such as Plato were not fond of
Tyrant rule. Plato was certainly well aware of this history... I
haven't read any Plato though.
IMHO I would guess that this practice happened more than just there and
then in archaic Greece.
If this isn't relevant, I apologize.
Ber...@cyberix.com
In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>,
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <51uijt$f...@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>>The Egyptians concieved of living the life in Ma'at or doing what
>>was right and proper as a way of becoming one with Neter (nature).
>
>something has built-in, from nasci, to be born, ultimately from
>Indo-European *gen@- "to generate, beget, ..."
Of course, nobody who understands the history, philosophy, or methodology of
the empirical sciences would continually attempt to refute hypothesized
cognations of real words by parroting as if they were axioms what are
ultimately nothing more than different hypothesized cognations. This,
notwithstanding the fact that the parroted cognations have been declared "O.K.
to parrot" by the etymology board of the American Heritage Dictionary.
The parroted cognations are still -- from a philosophical and scientific
perspective -- far weaker than those they are intended to refute, because the
former depend on one or more additional hypotheses: 1) the existence of one or
more hypothetical words, roots, and/or forms thereof, parading under the
euphemistic aegis of "unattested"; and, 2) the unobserved and empirically
unverifiable action of one or more hypothetical sound shifts.
So, to axiomatically invoke, as Mr. Petrich has, that a real word like Latin
"natus" was derived from in the accepted way -- from a hypothetical form
*gna-sko- of a hypothetical zero-grade form *gö@-sko- a hypothetical
Indo-European root gen@- -- as a basis for refuting Mr. Whittet's hypothesis
-- i.e., "natus" reveals its cognation with the semantically and phonetically
very close Egyptian word Neter -- is nothing but shear and utter lunacy --
given especially the wealth of evidence that Egyptian words could easily have
and did move prehistorically into the so called Indo-European lexicon.
Mr. Petrich's repeated attempts to invoke the similarly hypothetical
etymologies to silence Mr. Whittet should, thus, be viewed for what they
clearly are: a manifestation of the linguistic community's long standing
campaign to inculcate its students with a taboo that makes it very difficult
for them to even consider the possibility that allegedly, extra-Indo-European
words could possibly be cognate with -- but, especially, ancestral to -- the
gerrymandered body of words that was used to frame the Indo-European theory in
the first place.
But, it should it matter one iota to anyone who does understand the
aforementioned aspects of science how many supposedly intelligent people have
been inculcated to believe that Mr. Petrich's parroted cognations are facts.
I can state with impunity that facts never have been, are not, and never will
be determined by the form of scholarly consensus that was used to frame such
etymologies. If facts could be determined in such a way, we would all be
walking around on a flat earth in a geocentric solar system.
Regards,
Steve Berlant
"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop
the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."
Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences [1638]
The great tragedy of Science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an
ugly fact. Biogenesis and Abiogenesis, Thomas Henry Huxley [1870]
Piotr Michalowski
In article <52coe9$t3g...@news.cyberix.com> Ber...@cyberix.com writes:
>
>Mr. Petrich's repeated attempts to invoke the similarly hypothetical
>etymologies to silence Mr. Whittet should, thus, be viewed for what they
>clearly are: a manifestation of the linguistic community's long standing
>campaign to inculcate its students with a taboo that makes it very difficult
>for them to even consider the possibility that allegedly, extra-Indo-European
>words could possibly be cognate with -- but, especially, ancestral to -- the
>gerrymandered body of words that was used to frame the Indo-European theory in
>the first place.
One more conspiracy theory. There is no such taboo, as the study of loans and
language contact is a very active part of linguistics, as can bee seen, for
example, in the explosion of syudies on creoles, etc. Linguistics may not be
a "science" in the sense of the paradigmatic sciences, but it does have a body
of various principles, and competing ways if viewing things. One of them is
that you have to have a system of understanding lanaguage borrowing and to be
able to provide regular correspondences, as well as logical historical
explanations. There are, and, more important, have been thousands of
languages on this planet, and the idea that IE had to have borrowings from
Egyptian, as opposed to any other language, is very strange indeed. When it
comes to proto-IE, it could not have borrowed from Egyptian, as the latter
language did not even exist, not to mention the geographical problems. As for
later times, no one has ever doubted the masses of outside loans in various IE
groups and individual languages, not to mention secondary borrowing between
them. Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
not have been very important. Turcic language, for example have left a bigger
impact, especially on Slavic languages. This whole conspiray theory works
only if one does not have a proper understanding of the whole area of contact
linguistics.
Loren Petrich
In article <52coe9$t3g...@news.cyberix.com>, <Ber...@cyberix.com> wrote:
>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>,
> pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>In article <51uijt$f...@shore.shore.net>,
>>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>>>The Egyptians concieved of living the life in Ma'at or doing what
>>>was right and proper as a way of becoming one with Neter (nature).
>> There you go again. English "nature" is from Latin natura, what
>>something has built-in, from nasci, to be born, ultimately from
>>Indo-European *gen@- "to generate, beget, ..."
>Of course, nobody who understands the history, philosophy, or methodology of
>the empirical sciences would continually attempt to refute hypothesized
>cognations of real words by parroting as if they were axioms what are
>ultimately nothing more than different hypothesized cognations.
"There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox" -- the words of the
crackpot George Francis Gillette, in response to the lack of enthusiasm
for his "Spiral Universe" theory (Martin Gardner, _Fads and Fallacies in
the Name of Science_, http://www.webcom.com/petrich/misc/Gillette.txt).
Seriously, there are *numerous* correspondences between words
that are too much to be coincidence, and it is for that reason that some
Proto-Indo-European language, or at least collection of dialects, is
hypothesized.
... This,
>notwithstanding the fact that the parroted cognations have been declared "O.K.
>to parrot" by the etymology board of the American Heritage Dictionary.
The AHD does *not* represent some Party Line, but one of the most
accessible documents on Indo-European linguistics I have been able to find.
>So, to axiomatically invoke, as Mr. Petrich has, that a real word like Latin
>"natus" was derived from in the accepted way -- from a hypothetical form
>*gna-sko- of a hypothetical zero-grade form *gö@-sko- a hypothetical
>Indo-European root gen@- -- as a basis for refuting Mr. Whittet's hypothesis
>-- i.e., "natus" reveals its cognation with the semantically and phonetically
>very close Egyptian word Neter -- is nothing but shear and utter lunacy --
>given especially the wealth of evidence that Egyptian words could easily have
>and did move prehistorically into the so called Indo-European lexicon.
That's bullpoop. Semantically, the two words don't fit, and why
doesn't the Latin word have that r that's in the Egyptian one?
And Mr. Berlant does seem to have access to an AHD of his own,
which means that he could see the numerous words that have been derived
from that root, at least those that have gotten into English. Not only
native ones, but also German, Latin, Greek, and even Sanskrit ones.
[Some appeals to Galileo, the patron saint of self-pitying crackpots...]
I have no intention of making a bonfire out of Mr. Berlant :-):-):-)
Stella Nemeth
pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
I have no problems with most of what you said, but two of your
statements give me pause. And some questions.
> ...When it
>comes to proto-IE, it could not have borrowed from Egyptian, as the latter
>language did not even exist, not to mention the geographical problems.
Just how early is proto-IE supposed to be that it is older than
Egyptian?
> .... As for
>later times, no one has ever doubted the masses of outside loans in various IE
>groups and individual languages, not to mention secondary borrowing between
>them.
Well, that's a relief. There have been times when I couldn't have
been sure that borrowed words were acceptable ideas to linguists.
>Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
>not have been very important.
This is the statement that gives me pause. It might be true of IE as
a whole, but it certainly can't be true of Greek or even of Roman, or
of the other languages that influenced Greek and Roman. It might be
great linguistic theory, but it is lousy history. Egypt was a major
force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
during that time.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Saida
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> >Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
> >not have been very important.
>
> This is the statement that gives me pause. It might be true of IE as
> a whole, but it certainly can't be true of Greek or even of Roman, or
> of the other languages that influenced Greek and Roman. It might be
> great linguistic theory, but it is lousy history. Egypt was a major
> force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
> and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
> of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
> during that time.
wisdom comes from Egypt" and were captivated with this land. Perhaps
the Romans were as well. If these peoples didn't borrow terminology
from Egypt, it would be very odd indeed.
Piotr Michalowski
In article <piotrm.17...@umich.edu> pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) writes:
>From: pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
>Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re:
>Egyptian Tree Words
>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:49:40
>In article <52mroo$e...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>Nemeth) writes:
>>Just how early is proto-IE supposed to be that it is older than
>>Egyptian?
>It is generally assumed that IE is some 6000 years old and Afroasiatic about
>8000. If you are serious about such matters, may I suggest that you consult
>Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time, Chicago U Press,
>1992. This is, to me, a brilliant book by a fantastic historical linguist.
>
>>>Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
>>>not have been very important.
>>This is the statement that gives me pause. It might be true of IE as
>>a whole, but it certainly can't be true of Greek or even of Roman, or
>>of the other languages that influenced Greek and Roman. It might be
>>great linguistic theory, but it is lousy history. Egypt was a major
>>force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
>>and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
>>of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
>>during that time.
>I see your point here, but one would have to ask which level of which
>language. I would seriously doubt that Latin speakers came into much contact
>with Middle Egyptian we we know it from writtten documents. People, in
>cultures with restricted literacy, usually borrow words through extensive
>contact of speakers, so at most one would expect, except for the odd word here
>and there, that the time to look for such contact would involved very late
>forms of Egyptian and perhaps Koine Greek.
Loren Petrich
In article <324F08...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
... Egypt was a major
>> force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
>> and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
>> of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
>> during that time.
>> Thank you, Stella, you have said it beautifully. The Greeks said "All
>wisdom comes from Egypt"
Which ones? :-)
I think that they may have been impressed by Egypt having a
clearly longer recorded history than their native land. However, Egyptian
and Greek mythologies are *very* different -- the Gods are differently
named, have different attributes, and have different stories told about
them, despite some effort to identify Egyptian and Greek ones. In
particular, Amon-Ra is not depicted as some sort of lecher who produced
over 100 illegitimate children.
Furthermore, Greek mathematics had numerous innovations that have
no known Egyptian prototype. Although unit-fraction decompositions are
certainly interesting, I'm not aware of Egyptian anticipations of such
discoveries as:
* There are 5 regular solids
* The square root of 2 is an irrational number
* There seems to be no way to deduce the Parallel Postulate from other
geometrical concepts
* Euclid's Algorithm for finding the Lowest Common Denominator of two numbers
* An explicit idea of mathematical proof
I'd be happy to be proved wrong about any of these, but I'd like
to be *proved* wrong with an appropriate counterexample -- some Egyptian
New Kingdom or earlier document explaining why (say) the square root of 2
is an irrational number.
and were captivated with this land. Perhaps
>the Romans were as well. If these peoples didn't borrow terminology
>from Egypt, it would be very odd indeed.
But the $10,000 question is: what terms *did* get borrowed? In
actuality, not a whole lot. Just check out a lot of the technical terms
that we get from Latin and Greek -- many of them have impeccable
Indo-European pedigrees, as determined from numerous cognates in various
IE languages.
Stella Nemeth
pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>In article <piotrm.17...@umich.edu> pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) writes:
>>From: pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
>>Subject: Re: The Egyptian concept of Ma'at in the Platonic Dialoges: was Re:
>>Egyptian Tree Words
>>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:49:40
>>In article <52mroo$e...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
>>Nemeth) writes:
>>>Just how early is proto-IE supposed to be that it is older than
>>>Egyptian?
>>It is generally assumed that IE is some 6000 years old and Afroasiatic about
>>8000. If you are serious about such matters, may I suggest that you consult
>>Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time, Chicago U Press,
>>1992. This is, to me, a brilliant book by a fantastic historical linguist.
One of these days in my copious free time, I guess. <g>
I take it that the IE that you are discussing here is the proto-IE
that might or might not be a real language?
What I was questioning was how old was the oldest known IE language
that the Egyptians could have been in contact with? The reason I ask
is that as far as I understood the Egyptians where in the area FIRST,
and the IE speakers arrived AFTERWARDS. Did I get that backwards?
>>>>Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
>>>>not have been very important.
>>>This is the statement that gives me pause. It might be true of IE as
>>>a whole, but it certainly can't be true of Greek or even of Roman, or
>>>of the other languages that influenced Greek and Roman. It might be
>>>great linguistic theory, but it is lousy history. Egypt was a major
>>>force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
>>>and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
>>>of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
>>>during that time.
>>I see your point here, but one would have to ask which level of which
>>language.
That is an excellent question. Kind of like the time a friend and I
were arguing about the abilities of children and it turned out her
"children" were age 14 and "mine" were age 7. Quite different
abilities obviously.
>>.. I would seriously doubt that Latin speakers came into much contact
>>with Middle Egyptian we we know it from writtten documents.
I'd doubt it too. But I'd expect that Latin speakers living in Egypt
during the Roman Empire period, or even a bit earlier than that,
probably had plenty of contact with whatever version of Egyptian the
Egyptians were speaking at that point in time. Would you agree with
that?
>>...People, in
>>cultures with restricted literacy, usually borrow words through extensive
>>contact of speakers, so at most one would expect, except for the odd word here
>>and there, that the time to look for such contact would involved very late
>>forms of Egyptian and perhaps Koine Greek.
I'll agree with the very old forms of Egyptian. As for the Koine
Greek, maybe yes and maybe no. I'm reaching the end of my knowledge
base here, but Koine Greek is the kind spoken during Helenistic times?
Or during the Byzantine era?
Actually, I'd expect that a bunch of Bronze Age Greek traders (you
remember those trading wrecks off the coast of Turkey we were
discussing before I got interrupted by my daughter's wedding, don't
you) trading on the Egyptian coast and even down the Nile would have
to speak a bit of Bronze Age Egyptian. That means Middle Kingdom
through 19th Dynasty, I believe. And we aren't talking about late
forms of Egyptian and we aren't talking about even Classical Greek,
much less late forms of Greek. There is no question about the traders
since we've got physical evidence (the wrecks) and pictorial evidence
of the Minoans doing trading in addition to several other peoples.
Were the traders literate? Good question. They did find writing
materials on the trading ship I cited before. Unfortunately the wax
in the wax tablet was gone.
Finally, we keep forgetting that the Roman Empire period was a known
world culture. I'd expect quite a bit of loan word drift from Greek
to Roman to Egyptian and back again. It would be a surprise if it
didn't happen.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Saida
Loren Petrich wrote:
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> >> force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
> >> and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
> >> of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
> >> Thank you, Stella, you have said it beautifully. The Greeks said "All
> >wisdom comes from Egypt"
>
> Which ones? :-)
>
> I think that they may have been impressed by Egypt having a
> clearly longer recorded history than their native land. However, Egyptian
> and Greek mythologies are *very* different -- the Gods are differently
> named, have different attributes, and have different stories told about
> them, despite some effort to identify Egyptian and Greek ones. In
> particular, Amon-Ra is not depicted as some sort of lecher who produced
> over 100 illegitimate children.
What has this to do with our linguistic debate?
>
> Furthermore, Greek mathematics had numerous innovations that have
> no known Egyptian prototype. Although unit-fraction decompositions are
> certainly interesting, I'm not aware of Egyptian anticipations of such
> discoveries as:
>
> * There are 5 regular solids
> * The square root of 2 is an irrational number
> * There seems to be no way to deduce the Parallel Postulate from other
> geometrical concepts
> * Euclid's Algorithm for finding the Lowest Common Denominator of two numbers
> * An explicit idea of mathematical proof
>
> I'd be happy to be proved wrong about any of these, but I'd like
> to be *proved* wrong with an appropriate counterexample -- some Egyptian
> New Kingdom or earlier document explaining why (say) the square root of 2
> is an irrational number.
I know nothing about mathematics except that it helps me balance my
checkbook. But, again, I don't see the relevance to our discussion.
Obviously, if the Greeks thought the Egyptians possessed wisdom, they
were talking about something more exciting than square roots. For
example, I think they probably learned medicine from the Egyptians.
Here is another Greek quote: "Every man in Egypt is either a physician
or a magician or both at once."
>
> and were captivated with this land. Perhaps
> >the Romans were as well. If these peoples didn't borrow terminology
> >from Egypt, it would be very odd indeed.
>
> But the $10,000 question is: what terms *did* get borrowed? In
> actuality, not a whole lot. Just check out a lot of the technical terms
> that we get from Latin and Greek -- many of them have impeccable
> Indo-European pedigrees, as determined from numerous cognates in various
> IE languages.
> --
> Loren Petrich
Hmmm...the dictionary I am using now has a lot of etymology, usually
ending with Sanskrit, which, to my surprise, because I never expected
it, is showing me considerable commonality with ancient Egyptian.
BTW, just so it is on the record--I don't believe for a moment that
every English word has a basis in Egyptian.
> Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>What I was questioning was how old was the oldest known IE language
>that the Egyptians could have been in contact with? The reason I ask
>is that as far as I understood the Egyptians where in the area FIRST,
>and the IE speakers arrived AFTERWARDS. Did I get that backwards?
Depends on what the area is, and on your choice of "Urheimat" for PIE.
The currently most popular thesis puts PIE to the north of the Black
Sea, and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
Mitanni. Other theories would put the homeland south of the Pontic,
in Anatolia (Renfrew) or Armenia (Gamkrelidze). Other proposals have
been: Lithuania, Germany, the Balkans, Central Asia, and, yes!, Egypt
[all I know about this theory is that the perpretrator was a certain
Hodge].
[piotrm ?:]
>>>>>Of all the languages that IE came into contact with, Egyptian could
>>>>>not have been very important.
>>>>This is the statement that gives me pause. It might be true of IE as
>>>>a whole, but it certainly can't be true of Greek or even of Roman, or
>>>>of the other languages that influenced Greek and Roman. It might be
>>>>great linguistic theory, but it is lousy history. Egypt was a major
>>>>force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
>>>>and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
>>>>of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
>>>>during that time.
A few. In the case of Greek more than a few, perhaps, though I'm only
aware of a couple: (el-)ephas (Lat. ebur) "ivory, elephant", baris
(Lat. bar(i)ca) "ship", (h)ebenos "ebony", kommi (Lat. gummi) "gum",
and some others I forget. On the whole, the Egyptians seem to have
been happy to deal with foreigners in whatever language pleased them
(Akkadian, Aramaic, Greek). Even the Egyptians' greatest contribution
to world civilization, IMHO, the domestic cat [Felis domesticus], does
not have an Egyptian etymology.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Steve Whittet
In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <324F08...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,>... Egypt was a major
>>> force in the Mediterranean area for thousands of years, and the Greeks
>>> and later the Romans were involved with the Egyptians for a good part
>>> of those thousands of years. I'm sure they borrowed a few words
>>> during that time.
>>wisdom comes from Egypt"
>
> Which ones? :-)
That particular quote is from Plato I believe, though similar wordings
are found in the works of many early Historians such as Herodotus.
>
> I think that they may have been impressed by Egypt having a
>clearly longer recorded history than their native land. However, Egyptian
>and Greek mythologies are *very* different -- the Gods are differently
>named, have different attributes, and have different stories told about
>them, despite some effort to identify Egyptian and Greek ones.
Herodotus in particular tells us that there is no question that the
Greek gods and the Egyptian gods are one and the same.
>In particular, Amon-Ra is not depicted as some sort of lecher
>who produced over 100 illegitimate children.
In Egypt the god with these particular attributes is Khemenu. I
don't think either the Greeks or the Egyptians had any serious
problem with inhibitions regarding lechery.
>Furthermore, Greek mathematics had numerous innovations that have
>no known Egyptian prototype.
The Greeks did improve on Egyptian systems, it is a poor teacher
whose student does not surpass him, but the Egyptian prototypes
are generally present and the work of the Greeks is to add something
more on besides.
The Egyptians had formulas for calculating the area of a circle,
triangle, rectangle, the volume of a cylinder,pyramid, semi cylinder
and the area of a hemisphere as well as equations of the first and second
degree, geometric and arithmetic progressions, squares and square roots.
What the Egyptians did not do was move from the demonstration
of the specific to the proof of the general
>Although unit-fraction decompositions are certainly interesting,
>I'm not aware of Egyptian anticipations of such
>discoveries as:
>
>* There are 5 regular solids
Of the five Platonic solids, three of them are attributed to the
Pythagoreans. Pythagorus studied in Egypt, The Egyptians knew of
the tetrahedron with four triangular faces, we call it a pyramid.
The tetrahedron, cube and dodecahedron are due to the Pythagoreans,
while the octahedron and isohedron are due to Theaetetus
The tetrahedron, cube and octahedron are found in nature as crystals.
They knew of the hexahedron or cube with six square faces, most
people would not dispute this. Their measures of area are related
to their measures of volume as the side of a cube to the cube.
The octohedron with 8 triangular faces is derived from the cube by
taking a diagonal and cutting corners.
The Egyptians knew of the dodecahedron with 12 pentagonal faces,
but the icosahedron with twenty triangular faces may have
a Greek addition.
>* The square root of 2 is an irrational number
"There would have been no need for the Egyptians to devise a means
of finding the square roots of perfect squares, these could have been
read off from a table of the squares of integers."
"Mathematics in the Time of the Pharoahs", Richard J. Gillings.
Because squares and square roots are found in their documents it is
presumed they read them off from tables rather than calculate them.
Where they do appear to have been calculated the phrase used is
"make a corner 16 square root 4" KP LV 4 lines 39, 40 Griffith
To prove the square root of two is irrational by means of
infite descent the Egyptian might have demonstrated
sqrt2 +1 - 1/(sqrt2-1) but would not have proved
a/b +1 = 1/a/b-1 = b/a-b (Milo may want to correct me on this)
and thus would not have said sqrt 2 = a/b-b/a-b-1 = 2b-a/a-b= a1/b1
The Egyptian would have demonstrated but not proved the case.
>* There seems to be no way to deduce the Parallel Postulate from other
>geometrical concepts
If a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior
angles on the same side together less than two right angles the two
straight lines if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the
angles are together less than two right angles.
This essentially says that things not in contact which are intended
to meet need at some point to get closer together.
If they are straight lines then their point of inflection at which
point they have an equal tendency to meet in either direction is at
a relative angle to a common perpendicular of 90 degrees
>* Euclid's Algorithm for finding the Lowest Common Denominator of two
numbers
This was a part of the discussion we were having about algoritms for
unit fractions
>* An explicit idea of mathematical proof
>
> I'd be happy to be proved wrong about any of these, but I'd like
>to be *proved* wrong with an appropriate counterexample -- some Egyptian
>New Kingdom or earlier document explaining why (say) the square root of 2
>is an irrational number.
The ability to determine squares and square roots is the process which
leads to the discovery that the square root of two is irrational. This
is the part of the operation which the Egyptians performed, then they
let the Greeks close for them.
>
>and were captivated with this land. Perhaps
>>the Romans were as well. If these peoples didn't borrow terminology
>>from Egypt, it would be very odd indeed.
>
> But the $10,000 question is: what terms *did* get borrowed? In
>actuality, not a whole lot.
Well, no that isn't really the question at all. The question is
did Egypt provide the foundation on which the culture of the Greeks
was able to build.
As we have shown, the Egyptians provided the necessary standards,
in architecture, astronomy, art, religion, philosophy, science,
natural philosophy, mathematics, and engineering principles, on
which the Greeks depended for the evolution of their culture.
Just check out a lot of the technical terms
>that we get from Latin and Greek -- many of them have impeccable
>Indo-European pedigrees, as determined from numerous cognates in various
>IE languages.
Why don't you list a few and show us the pedigrees to which you refer?
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Piotr Michalowski
In article <52ooka$1...@halley.pi.net> m...@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>
>Depends on what the area is, and on your choice of "Urheimat" for PIE.
>The currently most popular thesis puts PIE to the north of the Black
>Sea, and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
>meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
>Mitanni. Other theories would put the homeland south of the Pontic,
>in Anatolia (Renfrew) or Armenia (Gamkrelidze). Other proposals have
>been: Lithuania, Germany, the Balkans, Central Asia, and, yes!, Egypt
>[all I know about this theory is that the perpretrator was a certain
>Hodge].
Miguel, may I just add as a footnote that the shadowy IE elements among the
Kassites are apparently only that. We still know very little about the
Kassites and their language, but I believe that the IE connection is no longer
held.
Even the Egyptians' greatest contribution
>to world civilization, IMHO, the domestic cat [Felis domesticus], does
>not have an Egyptian etymology.
I, and my cat, who is sitting here beside me, speaking an archaic form of
Egyptian, completely agree! She was very dissapointed to learn that the
Akkadian word for cat, shuranu (Aramaic shunara), as well as its Sumerian
equivalent, written sa-a, were not loaned into anything! As a good descendant
from noble creatures from the banks of the Nile, she has nothing but contempt
for Mesopotamia and my work, which only gets in the way of feeding her!
Piotr Michalowski
>What I was questioning was how old was the oldest known IE language
>that the Egyptians could have been in contact with? The reason I ask
>is that as far as I understood the Egyptians where in the area FIRST,
>and the IE speakers arrived AFTERWARDS. Did I get that backwards?
You are perfectly right. As far we we know, the earliest IE speakers in
Western Asia were members of the so-called Hittite branch, from which we get
Nesite, Palaic, and Luwian. The first inkling of their coming is known only
from a few personal names in the Old Assyrian tablets from Cappadocia. We
have to reconstruct much of this early history from later Hittite materials,
such as the copy of the Anitta inscription. Quite recently more documentation
on the earliest "Hittite" rulers has been found in tablets from Kultepe. This
is all late as far as Egypt is concerned. It is also far away. There was a
lively interchange between the Egyptian and Hittite courts, with princesses
coming and going for marriage purposes, but most of the long distance contact
was done in Akkadian, which was the diplomatic language of the day.
>Actually, I'd expect that a bunch of Bronze Age Greek traders (you
>remember those trading wrecks off the coast of Turkey we were
>discussing before I got interrupted by my daughter's wedding, don't
>you) trading on the Egyptian coast and even down the Nile would have
>to speak a bit of Bronze Age Egyptian. That means Middle Kingdom
>through 19th Dynasty, I believe. And we aren't talking about late
>forms of Egyptian and we aren't talking about even Classical Greek,
>much less late forms of Greek. There is no question about the traders
>since we've got physical evidence (the wrecks) and pictorial evidence
>of the Minoans doing trading in addition to several other peoples.
We have no idea who the traders on these boats were. In fact, I once asked
George Bass if he had any idea and he told me that it was impossible to
discern what was cargo and waht might have belonged to the crew. I suspect
that all sorts of interlanguages existed in the Aegen at the time, but there
is no reason to be certain that these mixed language had to have an effect on
any of the home tongues.
>Were the traders literate? Good question. They did find writing
>materials on the trading ship I cited before. Unfortunately the wax
>in the wax tablet was gone.
This is only an opinion, but I am quite dubious that this was tablet was
actually crew property as opposed to cargo. It is a luxary item, and if the
swabs could read and write, which I really doubt, they would have made use of
wooden versions of such tablets. This is very much like the inscribed Kassite
cylinder seals found at Thebes, which were simply a trade item. One of them
even gave rise to a silly linguistic article claiming that Kiddin-Marduk,
whose name is on one of the seals was the origin of the name Kadmos, the
legendary founder of Thebes! Not only is this linguistic nonsense, but it is
also historically strange, as the man was a high officer of the Babylonian
court, and there is no evidence that he was ever near Thebes, but only his
ornate seal, which got pinched and traded off to the Aegean. Ooops, I should
not have mentioned it here, as who knows what will be made of it!
Saida
Piotyr wrote:
> There was a
> lively interchange between the Egyptian and Hittite courts, with princesses
> coming and going for marriage purposes, but most of the long distance contact
> was done in Akkadian, which was the diplomatic language of the day.
>
There was only coming--into Egypt--for Egyptian princesses were not,
historically, given to foreigners for wives. This made the foreigners
mad sometimes. The only Egyptian princess I can think of right now that
married a non-Egyptian king is the one who married King Solomon. That
might give an indication of the power of the latter--or perhaps a
decline in the arrogance of the Egyptians. Oh well, a goddess can't be
expected to ally herself with just any old monarch. I know someone was
begging Amenhotep III for a daughter at one time, but I forgot how that
story ended.
Ramesses II got a couple of Hittite princesses. He liked the first one
so much that he sent for her sister, as well. Do you suppose Ramesses
and the girls conversed in Akkadian? Nah. Probably didn't do much
conversing. Can you just picture it?
Ramesses (in Egyptian): Here I am again, you lucky little devils!
Princess #1 (in Hittite): This one will give himself a coronary.
Princess #2 (in Hittite): Fat chance! This type lives until ninety!
One would expect that the princesses, however, did not arrive alone but
with a considerable entourage, some of whom may have remained in Egypt
for a time and then gone back to their land with Egyptian words for the
Egyptian items they brought back with them.
Piotr Michalowski
>One would expect that the princesses, however, did not arrive alone but
>with a considerable entourage, some of whom may have remained in Egypt
>for a time and then gone back to their land with Egyptian words for the
>Egyptian items they brought back with them.
Fair enough, but can you point to any Egyptian loan words in Hittite? The
point is not what was possible, but what happened. In your favor I would say
that written forms of languages at the time were highly formalized and would
probably not have reflected many changes that may have happened on the ground.
Against your thesis I would point out that even if Hittite had loans from
Egyptian, that would not have resulted in any residue in other IE languages,
as none of the languages discussed here are descendants of Hittite, but come
from other branches of IE.
Saida
Piotyr wrote:
> Fair enough, but can you point to any Egyptian loan words in Hittite? The
> point is not what was possible, but what happened. In your favor I would say
> that written forms of languages at the time were highly formalized and would
> probably not have reflected many changes that may have happened on the ground.
> Against your thesis I would point out that even if Hittite had loans from
> Egyptian, that would not have resulted in any residue in other IE languages,
> as none of the languages discussed here are descendants of Hittite, but come
> from other branches of IE.
Yes, you are right--I am seeing commonalities with Sanskrit. BTW,
Piotyr, while I can even rattle off some Polish (my father having been
born there) I come up empty on Hittite...
Steve Whittet
In article <piotrm.17...@umich.edu>, pio...@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <52ooka$1...@halley.pi.net> m...@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
writes:
>>
>>Depends on what the area is, and on your choice of "Urheimat" for PIE.
>>The currently most popular thesis puts PIE to the north of the Black
>>Sea,
This is precisely the point of the objection. All of the archaeological
evidence shows that people were developing civilizations to the south
of the Black Sea and that while perhaps there was some trade across it
and up the rivers which feed into it at a later date, civilization in
the fourth millenium BC was still a southern phenomenon..
Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the
development of language in the more civilized area?
>>and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
>>meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
>>Mitanni.
Actually that is not at the case. The Egyptians are in contact with
Mesopotamia from at least the 3rd millenium BC and possibly back
into the predynastic Naquada II period in the 4th millenium.
The Kassites and Mitanni have in common Hurrian names. The sphere of
influence for people with such Hurrian names includes the same territory
inhabited by the Kurds today, parts of India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia
and Turkey were inhabited by a single people with much more in common
than just their names.
>>Other theories would put the homeland south of the Pontic,
>>in Anatolia (Renfrew) or Armenia (Gamkrelidze).
What we are really talking about are the villages of the
Kuhha-ye Zagros mountains. These mountains, draining down
to the Tigris at one end and the Indus at the other, are the
home of the Hurrians. With the conquest of the Sealand Dynasty
the Kassites included the Euphrates and ancient Dilmuns
territories as well. Anatolia and Armenia are at the
Northwesternmost extreme of this range, India is at
the southeaternmost extreme.
>> Other proposals have been: Lithuania, Germany, the Balkans,
The logic of this escapes me, these places were a part of the
Beaker and Urnfield cultures, hardly in a position to influence
anything outside of a day's walk away fom home.
>>Central Asia,
This includes the Zagros mountains.
>> and, yes!, Egypt
Egypt is not a good candidate for influence until the
3rd millenium BC and is a much better candidate for influence
in the 2nd millenium BC this happens to be the era when IE was
developing. PIE apparently developed somewhat earlier.
>>[all I know about this theory is that the perpretrator was a certain
>>Hodge].
>
>Miguel, may I just add as a footnote that the shadowy IE elements among the
>Kassites are apparently only that. We still know very little about the
>Kassites and their language,
"36 Kasite kings ruled Babylonia for 576 years and 9 months
according to the Babylonian king list. Akkadian texts occasionaly
use Kassite words in reference to the training of horses which is
another link to the Mittani. The first Kassite king, Kara-indash,
(c1415 BC) corresponded with the Egyptian pharoah as did his sucessors
Kadashman-Enlil I (1374-1360 BC) and Burna-Buriash II (1359-1333 BC)"
Michael Roaf CAM p 141-142
"The Kassites were responsible for the standardising of Akkadian
and Sumerian texts." Ibid.
Late Old Babylonian - Early Kassite is dated to c 1595 BC and
the destruction of Babylon by the Hurrians.
"By the end of the Ur III period the Arabian Gulf was apparently
so completely the Dilmunite Gulf that they could safely put up
trading stations on Faikala right on the border of Mesopotamia."
"City II and City III at Qal'at Al-Bahrain" F Hojlund BTTA p 224
The Kassite period at Failaka runs from levels 3B through 4B
c 1600-1300 BC and includes Mittani seals.
> but I believe that the IE connection is no longer held.
Why not? The Kassites provide a very good link between
India and Europe, especially with the Dilmun connection.
>
>> Even the Egyptians' greatest contribution to world civilization,
>>IMHO, the domestic cat [Felis domesticus], does
>>not have an Egyptian etymology.
>
>I, and my cat, who is sitting here beside me, speaking an
>archaic form of Egyptian, completely agree! She was very
>dissapointed to learn that the Akkadian word for cat, shuranu
>(Aramaic shunara), as well as its Sumerian equivalent, written
>sa-a, were not loaned into anything!
No, the Akkadian word for cat was not loaned into anything,
why should it have been? Egyptian for cat is "Miw" Gardiner E13
Faulkner p 104
> As a good descendant from noble creatures from the banks
>of the Nile, she has nothing but contempt for Mesopotamia
>and my work, which only gets in the way of feeding her!
Cats can be quite demanding.
steve
Loren Petrich
In article <52pj7d$6...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the
>development of language in the more civilized area?
Mr. Whittet would have to get off of his trade-route kick and
examine other factors, such as how nomadic hordes can overrun sedentary
populations. There have been numerous examples of that happening in
historical times, and the Kurgan hypothesis of Indo-European origins
proposes that the builders of those early kurgans were the first such
nomadic horde ever.
And although there is some rather shadowy evidence of
Indo-European speakers in the form of some Indo-Aryan names in vocabulary
in the Fertile Crescent around 1500 BCE, the only big Indo-European
presence in the region comes with the Persian Empire and the various
Greek settlers and mercenaries about a millennium later.
>No, the Akkadian word for cat was not loaned into anything,
>why should it have been? Egyptian for cat is "Miw" Gardiner E13
>Faulkner p 104
Seems like they were named after their well-known sound.
Loren Petrich
In article <324FD4...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
[Differences between Greek and Egyptian mythology...]
>What has this to do with our linguistic debate?
Steve Whittet is claiming that such well-known Greek thinkers as
Plato had gotten essentially *all* their ideas form Egypt; he does not
address the question of which ideas were original with them.
[the discovery that the square root of 2 is an irrational number...]
>I know nothing about mathematics except that it helps me balance my
>checkbook. But, again, I don't see the relevance to our discussion.
>Obviously, if the Greeks thought the Egyptians possessed wisdom, they
>were talking about something more exciting than square roots. ...
Tell that to the Pythagoreans :-) When one of their number
discovered that the square root of 2 could not be expressed as the ratio
of two integers, the others considered this discovery very embarrassing
and tried to keep it a secret. But someone spilled the beans about these
Satanic Verses of Pythagoreanism -- and we are told that the Gods got
pissed enough to shipwreck him.
>Hmmm...the dictionary I am using now has a lot of etymology, usually
>ending with Sanskrit, which, to my surprise, because I never expected
>it, is showing me considerable commonality with ancient Egyptian.
Given your imagination at doing Egyptian-English comparisons,
maybe it's not all that surprising :-)
Why not read some serious textbook on comparative linguistics
before continuing further? You might actually learn something.
Loren Petrich
In article <52oqb7$k...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>>In article <324F08...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
>>Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>>>> Thank you, Stella, you have said it beautifully. The Greeks said "All
>>>wisdom comes from Egypt"
>> Which ones? :-)
>That particular quote is from Plato I believe, though similar wordings
>are found in the works of many early Historians such as Herodotus.
So what? Do we *have* to agree with them???
More seriously, where are the Egyptian antecedents of Herodotus,
Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, etc.?
>Herodotus in particular tells us that there is no question that the
>Greek gods and the Egyptian gods are one and the same.
And he says that about the deities of a whole lot of other
people. Thus, he states, in effect, that Amon-Ra, Bel-Marduk, and Ahura
Mazda are all other names for Zeus.
>>In particular, Amon-Ra is not depicted as some sort of lecher
>>who produced over 100 illegitimate children.
>In Egypt the god with these particular attributes is Khemenu. I
>don't think either the Greeks or the Egyptians had any serious
>problem with inhibitions regarding lechery.
But Khemenu was *not* Amon-Ra. And how many illegitimate children
did *he* produce?
>The Egyptians had formulas for calculating the area of a circle,
>triangle, rectangle, the volume of a cylinder,pyramid, semi cylinder
>and the area of a hemisphere as well as equations of the first and second
>degree, geometric and arithmetic progressions, squares and square roots.
Where can I find out more?
>What the Egyptians did not do was move from the demonstration
>of the specific to the proof of the general
I think that that's a rather serious deficiency, because it
limits how much one can accomplish. Without an explicit idea of proof,
one will sooner or later hit a wall in how much one can demonstrate.
For example, one Egyptian mathematics text stated, in effect,
that the area of a circle with diameter D is (8D/9)^2 -- without any
effort at proof. Greek mathematicians, however, described how to find the
value of pi.
>>* There are 5 regular solids
>Of the five Platonic solids, three of them are attributed to the
>Pythagoreans. Pythagorus studied in Egypt, The Egyptians knew of
>the tetrahedron with four triangular faces, we call it a pyramid.
A pyramid has 5 faces, not 4.
>The tetrahedron, cube and dodecahedron are due to the Pythagoreans,
>while the octahedron and isohedron are due to Theaetetus
>The tetrahedron, cube and octahedron are found in nature as crystals.
The cube and octahedron, yes (different cleavage planes), the
tetrahedron, no.
>>* The square root of 2 is an irrational number
>"There would have been no need for the Egyptians to devise a means
>of finding the square roots of perfect squares, these could have been
>read off from a table of the squares of integers."
>"Mathematics in the Time of the Pharoahs", Richard J. Gillings.
That's not what I'd call Real High-Quality Mathematics, because it
begs the question of how the tables were devised. I may note that before
computers became commonplace, those who did a lot of calculation were
*heavily* dependent on precalculated tables, and one very *serious*
headache was errors that would creep in.
>To prove the square root of two is irrational by means of
>infite descent the Egyptian might have demonstrated
>sqrt2 +1 - 1/(sqrt2-1) but would not have proved
>a/b +1 = 1/a/b-1 = b/a-b (Milo may want to correct me on this)
>and thus would not have said sqrt 2 = a/b-b/a-b-1 = 2b-a/a-b= a1/b1
How is infinite descent any kind of proof? The canonical (and
presumably Pythagorean proof) is a *lot* simpler.
Let's say that sqrt(2) = a/b, where a and b are relatively-prime
integers.
Then, a^2 = 2*b^2, which means that a must be divisible by 2, since it is
a prime number. Let a = 2*c. The equation becomes 4*c^2 = 2*b^2, or 2*c^2
= b^2, which implies that b must also be divisible by 2. This contradicts
the original condition on a and b, which means that sqrt(2) is irrational.
Is there *any* manuscript from Pharaonic Egypt that contains this
proof?
>The Egyptian would have demonstrated but not proved the case.
What's the difference?
>>* There seems to be no way to deduce the Parallel Postulate from other
>>geometrical concepts
[...]
The reason I bring this up is because a precise statement of it
is rather unwieldy, and Euclid was not aware of any proof of it from any
other geometrical axioms.
>>* Euclid's Algorithm for finding the Lowest Common Denominator of two
>numbers
>This was a part of the discussion we were having about algoritms for
>unit fractions
But is there an *explict* statement of it?
>>* An explicit idea of mathematical proof
... -- some Egyptian
>>New Kingdom or earlier document explaining why (say) the square root of 2
>>is an irrational number.
>The ability to determine squares and square roots is the process which
>leads to the discovery that the square root of two is irrational. This
>is the part of the operation which the Egyptians performed, then they
>let the Greeks close for them.
Mr. Whittet, your squiddish talents are superlative. Looking up
square roots in tables is a LONG way from proving that the square roots
of all integers that are not the squares of other integers are
irrational. For one thing, this could keep one from wasting time trying
to find rational representations of them.
>> But the $10,000 question is: what terms *did* get borrowed? In
>>actuality, not a whole lot.
>Well, no that isn't really the question at all. The question is
>did Egypt provide the foundation on which the culture of the Greeks
>was able to build.
There you go again with your squidlike ink squirting. Fist you
insinuate that the Greek language is derived from the Egyptian one, then
you claim never to have implied anything *close* to that, not even the
borrowing of a lot of technical terms.
>As we have shown, the Egyptians provided the necessary standards,
>in architecture, astronomy, art, religion, philosophy, science,
>natural philosophy, mathematics, and engineering principles, on
>which the Greeks depended for the evolution of their culture.
See above from some glaring differences between the two.
> Just check out a lot of the technical terms
>>that we get from Latin and Greek -- many of them have impeccable
>>Indo-European pedigrees, as determined from numerous cognates in various
>>IE languages.
>Why don't you list a few and show us the pedigrees to which you refer?
Just pick up a copy of the American Heritage Dictionary some
time. Or consult some Greek etymological dictionary.
Baron Szabo
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> I think that they may have been impressed by Egypt having a
> clearly longer recorded history than their native land. However, Egyptian
> and Greek mythologies are *very* different -- the Gods are differently
> named, have different attributes, and have different stories told about
> particular, Amon-Ra is not depicted as some sort of lecher who produced
> over 100 illegitimate children.
An important distinction between Greek gods and their, IMO, forebears is
the Greek's readiness to change and adapt their gods to fit local areas,
customs, and cults. The Egyptians and Near Easterners were careful to
preserve as closely as possible the faithful transmission of their gods
stories. (subject to political change, of course)
One might go so far as to say that the Greeks believed less in the
actual existance of their gods than the Egyptians and Near Easterners.
But then, the later Egyptian gods became, more and more, symbols of
natural forces, more than actual humanlike dudes walking around.
Meanwhile the Near Easterners fervently held onto the oldest traditions
of their god(s).
--
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
Copy the linklist page if you want! (do not publish though)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/
Saida
Loren Petrich wrote:
> Given your imagination at doing Egyptian-English comparisons,
> maybe it's not all that surprising :-)
>
> Why not read some serious textbook on comparative linguistics
> before continuing further? You might actually learn something.
While I cannot deny that my lively imagination has served me well, on
the whole, throughout my life, I see that you do not regard it as a
plus. Perhaps it does take some imagination to make these word
connections as the commonalities between terms isn't always readily
apparent at first glance. Words taken from the same root sometimes have
very different appearances even among languages that are known to be
closely tied such as German and English. Take their "kuche" and
"kitchen" for example.
Loren, I think some of your problem with my observations is your lack of
an acquaintance with the Egyptian language. I am no expert in it,
certainly, but I do spend a lot of time looking at it. Well, we all
have a lot to learn and I do think I have learned "something" in my
time. I am teachable and have absorbed a great deal from these
linguistic discussions here, not the least of which came from yourself.
While languages have always come easily to me, I know I am not learned
in linguistics compared with you, Piotyr, Steve and the others, but I
know one thing: If I were to read a hundred books such as you might
wish me to read, I can tell you with all certainty that I would not
change my mind about what I believe is going on between Egyptian and
English. I don't think I have made any extraordinary claims. Some of
my assertions are backed up by our dictionaries already and, if I have
found some additional words, should that be so surprising? Where does
the overabundance of imagination that you always allude to enter into
it? We KNOW Egyptian words survived into English. Period. If, at
times, we can't quite figure out the route, so what? Added to that,
those things which I have learned from our threads have only served to
make me even more convinced that my impression was right in the first
place and that the influence of ancient Egypt, that place which holds so
much fascination for so many of us, is still felt in many subtle ways of
which we are not fully aware.
Piotr Michalowski
>While languages have always come easily to me, I know I am not learned
>in linguistics compared with you, Piotyr, Steve and the others, but I
>know one thing: If I were to read a hundred books such as you might
>wish me to read, I can tell you with all certainty that I would not
>change my mind about what I believe is going on between Egyptian and
>English. I don't think I have made any extraordinary claims.
Please, do not put us all in the same basket! I do think, however, that it is
hardly a good way to approach knowledge to prejudge everything and deny that
one can learn from reading what others have written on a given subject. If
you have already made up your mind about all these matters, why bother to
debate? This is not religion, where faith is everything, but a matter for
rational discourse and debate.
Steve Whittet
>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>>Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the
>>development of language in the more civilized area?
>
>examine other factors, such as how nomadic hordes can overrun sedentary
>populations.
If nomadic hordes overrun sedentary populations either the hordes:
1.)Continue to be nomads and leave... after which the survivors
rebuild with no cultural influence from the nomads whatsoever
2.)Leave no survivors...in which case there is no cultural
influence whatsoever
3.)Cease to be nomads and take up farming and living in the city
they have conquored... in which case the cultural influence is on
their way of life and they have to learn words for all the new things
they experience in the city...
4.)Are co-opted by a taste of the pleasures of the city, but
not strong enough or well enough organized to go up against
it's defences so they end up living in hovels on the outskirts
of town and eking out an existence on its scraps until they
learn its lanquage and customs well enough to pass as citizens.
>There have been numerous examples of that happening in
>historical times, and the Kurgan hypothesis of Indo-European origins
>proposes that the builders of those early kurgans were the first such
>nomadic horde ever.
The builders of kurgans are associated with a life of pastoral
nomadism and hunting. Their numbers were neither great nor is
there any evidence that as a people they were organized as a
nomadic horde to invade the south.
What Herodotus refered to as the wandering Scythians did inhabit
a region to the north of the Black Sea in historic times. Their
ancestors have been associated with the domestication of the horse
in the central Ukraine. The population in this region in the 4th
millenium BC was neither numerous, nor engaged in farming.
We find that as civilization emerges the horse spreads from
the Caucasus Mountains south along the Zagros Mountains to the
Hurrians, Mitanni and Kassites and along the copper mining regions
to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
All the action in the development of farming in the 3rd and 4th
millenia BC is to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
each other is unconvincing.
For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father"
considered in this analysis?
This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
each other because of the spread of farming in Europe having
extended as far as India is even more unconvincing.
The Indo European hypothesis has farming in the 3rd and 4th
milleniums BC running north from Turkey across the Bosphorus
to Thrace and Europe in a culture which already spoke Indo
European.
The European Culture at this time consists of Balkan painted and
Impressed ware cultures, Funnel rim pottery cultures, early painted
ware cultures and Urnfields. None of this culture is found to the
east of the Dniester except for the funnel rim pottery which appears
to be associated with trade up the Dnieper to the Vistula and the Baltic.
Here theory conflicts greatly with the archaeological record.
In theory this Indo European culture then splits off into
Proto Indo Iranian which moves east north of the Black sea
through the Scythians and Cimmerians who were noted for their
horsemanship not their farming.
Splitting off south through the Kuban Valley between the
Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, this theory has the spread
of farming continuing east and then heading south again
into Iran to become the cultural basis for Indo Iranian.
At the same time it also continues east to become the Tocharian
culture.
The problem is there is no evidence whatsoever for what any
of these people spoke in the 4th millenium BC and the analysis
of their movements is not based on any archaeological evidence.
There is no connection between the European pottery and the
horsemen of Central Asia.
>
>And although there is some rather shadowy evidence of
>Indo-European speakers in the form of some Indo-Aryan names in vocabulary
>in the Fertile Crescent around 1500 BCE, the only big Indo-European
>presence in the region comes with the Persian Empire and the various
>Greek settlers and mercenaries about a millennium later.
When we look at the evidence for the dispersion of languages
the focus turns on the Hurrians with the Mitanni and Kassites
who were their apparent cultural inheritors.
...snip...
>Loren Petrich
steve
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>All the action in the development of farming in the 3rd and 4th
>millenia BC is to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
All the action? What about Sherratt's "Secondary Products Revolution"
in Europe?
>This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
>each other is unconvincing.
Not if you add several hundred additional and systematic resemblances
to the list.
>For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father"
>considered in this analysis?
Precisely because it's a single isolated example. What "other"
Egyptian kinship terms end in "-tah"?
>The European Culture at this time consists of Balkan painted and
>Impressed ware cultures, Funnel rim pottery cultures, early painted
>ware cultures and Urnfields.
Urnfields? The Central European Urnfield culture is dated c. 1400 BC
(1100 bc).
>None of this culture is found to the
>east of the Dniester except for the funnel rim pottery which appears
>to be associated with trade up the Dnieper to the Vistula and the Baltic.
>Here theory conflicts greatly with the archaeological record.
J.P. Mallory, in his book "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", talks at
large of the connections between the IE homeland theory and the
archaeological record. For the Southern Ukraine, the relevant
archaeological cultures are the Bug-Dniestr, Dniepr-Donets, Tripolye,
Sredny Stog and Yamnaya. For the Caspian area, the Seroglazovo,
Samara and Khvalynsk. For Central Asia, the Afanasievo and Andronovo
cultures. Whatever you think of the Kurgan theory of IE origins (and
I happen to disagree with it), one must take these cultures into
account and deal with the issues raised by Mallory. There may be some
excuse for ignoring and twisting linguistic facts on a forum called
sci.archaeology, there can be none for ignoring archaeological facts.
Saida
Piotyr, you misunderstand me. I am not prejudiced in this matter and I
have never been reluctant to pick up a book. Most of the knowledge I
possess has come from books. And it is not a question of "already
having made up my mind". Yes, I am a student of Egyptology and Egyptian
language, but, beyond that, what axe do I have to grind? Am I an
Egyptian that I should be compelled to further the cause of all things
Egyptian in the same way that the Afrocentrists claim everybody they can
is black? No. In point of fact, I am a Jew and have been a student of
the Hebrew language, too, yet I do not see the possibilities in Hebrew
that I have seen in ancient Egyptian.
I put all of you into the basket of knowing more about linguistics than
I do--and that is a pretty full basket. But that is not to say that I
have never read a book about linguistics. Added to that, I have been
reading the linguistic posts in here for quite some time now. NOTHING
anybody, including yourself, has said has served to convince me that it
is impossible for ancient Egyptian terms to have survived into the
English language. We know they have, already, or do the dictionaries
lie? My question to you is--why do you want to deny the possibility?
What is YOUR prejudice that you want to disregard the evidence of the
dictionaries--never mind what I say?? How many words do you need to
have served up to you before you are willing to admit that Egypt was not
an isolated land whose culture and language was of no interest to
anybody? And even if we can't find more than ten words (and we will)
that have survived through some channel into English--so what? Those
ten words prove that it IS possible, no matter how many books on
linguistics ignore the whole situation.
Steve Whittet
In article <piotrm.18...@umich.edu>, pio...@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <325130...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida
<sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> writes:
>
>>While languages have always come easily to me, I know I am not learned
>>in linguistics compared with you, Piotyr, Steve and the others, but I
>>know one thing: If I were to read a hundred books such as you might
>>wish me to read, I can tell you with all certainty that I would not
>>change my mind about what I believe is going on between Egyptian and
>>English. I don't think I have made any extraordinary claims.
>
>Please, do not put us all in the same basket!
You are too humble Piotr.Indeed all parties to a discussion yourself
included, should be considered partners in the search for a wider
understanding of the issues.
>I do think, however, that it is hardly a good way to approach
>knowledge to prejudge everything and deny that one can learn
>from reading what others have written on a given subject.
I am also glad to see you renounce prejudice and firmly state
that one can learn from reading what others have written on a
given subject.
>If you have already made up your mind about all these matters,
>why bother to debate?
Perhaps we would all benefit from such introspection...
>This is not religion, where faith is everything, but a matter
>for rational discourse and debate.
Well said Piotr, here we are in complete agreement.
steve
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <piotrm.17...@umich.edu>, pio...@umich.edu says...
>>
>>In article <52ooka$1...@halley.pi.net> m...@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
>writes:
>>>
>>>Depends on what the area is, and on your choice of "Urheimat" for PIE.
>>>The currently most popular thesis puts PIE to the north of the Black
>>>Sea,
>This is precisely the point of the objection. All of the archaeological
>evidence shows that people were developing civilizations to the south
>of the Black Sea and that while perhaps there was some trade across it
>and up the rivers which feed into it at a later date, civilization in
>the fourth millenium BC was still a southern phenomenon..
>Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the
>development of language in the more civilized area?
Why would Germanic tribes overrun the Western Roman Empire [OK, little
linguistic impact there], why would Arabs from the desert have any
influence over the Aramaic Near East (and Aramaic itself came from
less civilized places to replace civilized Akkadian), why would
Central Asian Turks have any influence over Hellenistic Greek spoken
in Anatolia? These things happen.
>>>and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
>>>meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
>>>Mitanni.
>Actually that is not at the case. The Egyptians are in contact with
>Mesopotamia from at least the 3rd millenium BC and possibly back
>into the predynastic Naquada II period in the 4th millenium.
So?
>The Kassites and Mitanni have in common Hurrian names. The sphere of
>influence for people with such Hurrian names includes the same territory
>inhabited by the Kurds today, parts of India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia
>and Turkey were inhabited by a single people with much more in common
>than just their names.
But Hurrian is not an Indo-European language!
>>>Central Asia,
>This includes the Zagros mountains.
I don't think so.
>>Miguel, may I just add as a footnote that the shadowy IE elements among the
>>Kassites are apparently only that. We still know very little about the
>>Kassites and their language,
>"36 Kasite kings ruled Babylonia for 576 years and 9 months
>according to the Babylonian king list. Akkadian texts occasionaly
>use Kassite words
What are they? I'd be very interested in samples of the Kassite
language.
>in reference to the training of horses which is
>another link to the Mittani. The first Kassite king, Kara-indash,
>(c1415 BC) corresponded with the Egyptian pharoah as did his sucessors
>Kadashman-Enlil I (1374-1360 BC) and Burna-Buriash II (1359-1333 BC)"
>Michael Roaf CAM p 141-142
>"The Kassites were responsible for the standardising of Akkadian
>and Sumerian texts." Ibid.
>Late Old Babylonian - Early Kassite is dated to c 1595 BC and
>the destruction of Babylon by the Hurrians.
>"By the end of the Ur III period the Arabian Gulf was apparently
>so completely the Dilmunite Gulf that they could safely put up
>trading stations on Faikala right on the border of Mesopotamia."
>"City II and City III at Qal'at Al-Bahrain" F Hojlund BTTA p 224
>The Kassite period at Failaka runs from levels 3B through 4B
>c 1600-1300 BC and includes Mittani seals.
So what does this tell us about the Kassite's language? The presence
of Mitanni seals proves nothing. Of course there were contacts
between the Kassites and the Hurrians/Mitanni. Contacts do not imply
that the languages were similar, though.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Piotyr wrote:
>> Fair enough, but can you point to any Egyptian loan words in Hittite? The
>> point is not what was possible, but what happened. In your favor I would say
>> that written forms of languages at the time were highly formalized and would
>> probably not have reflected many changes that may have happened on the ground.
>> Against your thesis I would point out that even if Hittite had loans from
>> Egyptian, that would not have resulted in any residue in other IE languages,
>> as none of the languages discussed here are descendants of Hittite, but come
>> from other branches of IE.
>Yes, you are right--I am seeing commonalities with Sanskrit.
Be careful not to identify Sankrit with Proto-Indo-European.
An English (etymological) dictionary will often say things like:
XXXX, compare with Old Saxon aaaa, Old High German bbbb, Old Norse
cccc, Gothic dddd; Sankrit yyyy.
This seems to imply a direct link with Sanskrit, but not so.
What they mean is: this-or-that English word is related to words in
other Germanic languages, and has an Indo-European root [not all
Germanic words have one]. From Indo-European, such-and-such Sanskrit
(Greek, Latin, Celtic, Slavic...) word is also derived. The link is
through IE, not directly to Sanskrit in most cases. If the link *is*
directly with Sanskrit [as sometimes happens], it will be stated so
explicitly.
> BTW,
>Piotyr, while I can even rattle off some Polish (my father having been
>born there) I come up empty on Hittite...
All you need to know about Hittite to impress people of your erudition
at cocktail-parties and such are the words:
nu NINDA-an ezateni, watar-ma ekuteni.
"now bread you eat, and-water you drink"
These are the words that provided the Czech scholar in Austrian
service Bedr^ych Hrozny' the clue to identify Hittite as an IE
language. Nu=now, eza-=essen (Hitt. z=ts), watar=water, eku-=aqua.
Steve Whittet
In article <52s3bs$b...@halley.pi.net>, m...@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>All the action in the development of farming in the 3rd and 4th
>>millenia BC is to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
>
>in Europe?
"One scholar, Andrew Sherratt has looked beyond the initial stage of
domestication to ask whether there was not a second and later
stage""Archaeology", Renfrew, Bahn, p 287
Essentially the idea is that in the 4th millenium BC people
began to use animals for milk and cheese instead of just meat
and hides, and they began to use their muscle power for
transportation and to plow fields...the obvious inference
was that these secondary materials provided one impetus for trade.
The evidence comes from south of the Black and Caspian seas.
"His evidence consists to some extent of tools but largely of
artistic depictions - in Sumerian pictograms from Uruk,
Mesopotamian cylinder seals in murals and models." Ibid
"Antiquity Vol: 67:492--3", see also
THE FIRST PALACES IN THE AEGEAN
This document is one section of a course on Aegean prehistory
put together by Jeremy Rutter of Dartmouth College.
The rest of the materials, including...
http://rome.classics.lsa.umich.edu/11.FirstPalaces.0393.html
- size 25K - 11 Feb 94
It mentions the Secondary Products Revolution in the broader
sense of trade.
The real issue is whether or not the emergence of the Indo
European Linear B in the Aegean is the result of influence from
the north (farming by land folk) or the south (trade with sea people)
"Renfrew in 1972 was the first to propose a theoretical model
for the indigenous development of "civilization" in the Aegean.
More recently, alternative models have been suggested by Gamble
and Halstead. By far the most prolific, as well as most provocative,
authority on the subject within the past decade has been Cherry, who
deserves much of the credit for making the question of what he terms
"the emergence of the state"
Sherratt, van Andel, and Runnels and the Secondary Products
Revolution (1981, 1983, 1988)
Van Andel and Runnels reject the notion that Halstead's model
of "social storage", conceived as a strategy to avoid risk in
a marginal environment, can have resulted in the palatial
economies of the Aegean for two reasons: first, since no society
could hope to accumulate a surplus at the expense of its immediate
neighbors for the simple reason that whatever surplus it did
generate could theoretically be called upon by those neighbors
in an emergency, there was no particular incentive for the creation of
truly significant surpluses; and second, the palatial economies which
eventually arose on Crete were located in comparatively fertile and
climatically less risky areas, that is, not in regions where the
principles of "social storage" might have been best appreciated
and most readily adopted.
========================================================================
Van Andel and Runnels prefer to return to an alternative explanatory
hypothesis championed by Renfrew in 1972, one focussing attention
on trade (whether commercial or based upon gift-exchange of prestige
items), craft specialization, and the resulting accumulation of
wealth by an elite.
====================================================================
In their view, a modest network of trans-Aegean trade routes had
gradually come into existence between late Mesolithic and Final
Neolithic times.
=================================================================
Late in the 4th millennium B.C., the introduction
of animals exploited for traction in tandem with the ard
(a primitive plough) and the use of animal fertilizer opened
up extensive areas of previously unused land to rain-fed agriculture.
In addition, increased emphasis on the secondary products generated
by animal husbandry (e.g. milk, cheese, wool/hair, hides) raised
the demand for grazing land.
====================================================================
Thirdly, improved shipbuilding technology as evidenced by the advent
of the longboat (at least by the time of the Keros-Syros culture of
EC IIA, if not earlier) and the sail (certainly by the EM III period)
made possible bulk transport of goods on a scale and across distances
not previously practicable.
==================================================================
The result of these changes was the colonization and exploitation
of the Aegean islands and of previously neglected areas of the
Peloponnese, a process which still further promoted trade and
possibly at the same time increased the variety of the items exchanged.
[to the south of the Baltic and Caspian seas]
==================================================================
The broadly contemporary development of lead, copper, gold, silver,
and bronze technology and what one imagines was a brisk exchange of
both metallic raw materials and finished goods further enhanced the
development of trade networks.
===================================================================
These would have been punctuated by exchange centers (emporia) at
fairly regular intervals, centers where wealth may have accumulated
quite rapidly in the hands of emerging elites. The seats of
these elites eventually became the foci of the first Aegean states.
======================================================================
The model proposed by van Andel and Runnels is not without its own
problems. They are very casual about chronology and lump together
in fairly tight cause-and-effect fashion a series of developments
which spanned more than a millennium.
=====================================================================
Their emphasis on the prominent role of Sherratt's "secondary
products revolution" may be misplaced in that weaving
(of wool, one imagines) was clearly already a major industry
at Knossos well back in the Neolithic and thus hardly a novel
development of the 3rd millennium.
==============================================================
Moreover, if trade played such an important role in the emergence
of elites, why did obvious middlemen like the Cycladic islanders,
who furthermore had the readiest access to such regionally
restricted raw materials as obsidian (Melos), emery (Naxos),
marble (several islands), silver and lead (Siphnos and eastern Attica),
and perhaps copper and gold as well, not become the architects of the
Aegean's first palatial polities?
[possibly because this was the role of the sea people]
=========================================================
If van Andel and Runnels are right, it is far from clear
why Minoan Crete should have been the home of the Aegean's first
civilization, although Aegina's importance at the same early stage
of the Middle Bronze Age is very well accounted for by their model.
Bibliography
K. Branigan, "Craft Specialization in Minoan Crete," in O. Krzyszkowska and
L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan
Society (Bristol 1983) 23-32.
K. Branigan, "Some Observations on State Formation in Crete," in E. B. French
and K. A. Wardle
(eds.), Problems in Aegean Prehistory (Bristol 1988) 63-71.
K. Branigan, "Social Security and the State in Middle Bronze Age Crete,"
Aegaeum 2 (Li ge 1988)
11-16.
G. Cadogan, "The Rise of the Minoan Palaces," BICS 28(1981) 164-165.
J. F. Cherry, "Evolution, Revolution, and the Origins of Complex Society in
Minoan Crete," in O.
Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan Society (Bristol 1983) 33-45.
J. F. Cherry, "The Emergence of the State in the Prehistoric Aegean,"
Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society 30(1984) 18-48.
J. F. Cherry, "Polities and Palaces: Some Problems in Minoan State
Formation," in C. Renfrew and J.
F. Cherry (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change
(Cambridge 1986) 19-45.
R. C. Dunnell, "Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology," Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory
3(1980) 35-99.
T. W. Gallant, Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural
Domestic Economy
(Stanford 1991).
C. Gamble, "Surplus and Self-Sufficiency in the Cycladic Subsistence
Economy," in J. L. Davis and J.
F. Cherry (eds.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (Los Angeles 1979) 122-134.
C. Gamble, "Social Control and the Economy," in A. Sheridan and G. Bailey
(eds.), Economic
Archaeology (Oxford 1981) 215-229.
A. Gilman, "The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe,"
Current Anthropology
22(1981) 1-8.
P. Halstead, "From Determinism to Uncertainty: Social Storage and the Rise of
the Minoan Palace," in
A. Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.), Economic Archaeology (Oxford 1981) 187-213.
P. L. J. Halstead, "Counting Sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece," in I.
Hodder, G. Isaac, and N.
Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past. Studies in Honour of David Clarke
(Cambridge 1981) 307-339.
P. Halstead, "On Redistribution and the Origin of Minoan-Mycenaean Palatial
Economies," in E. B.
French and K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Aegean Prehistory (Bristol 1988)
519-530.
P. L. J. Halstead and J. O'Shea, "A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social
Storage and the Origins of
Scoial Ranking," in C. Renfrew and S. Shennan (eds.), Ranking, Resource and
Exchange (Cambridge
1982) 92-99.
J. M. Hansen, "Paleoethnobotany in Greece: Past, Present, and Future," in N.
C. Wilkie and W. D. E.
Coulson (eds.), Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: Studies in Honor of
William A. McDonald
(Minneapolis 1985) 171-181.
J. M. Hansen, "Agriculture in the Prehistoric Aegean: Data versus
Speculation," AJA 92(1988) 39-52.
G. E. M. Jones, K. Wardle, P. Halstead, and D. Wardle, "Crop Storage at
Assiros," Scientific American
254:3 (1986) 96-103.
J. Lewthwaite, "Why Did Civilization Not Emerge More Often? A Comparative
Approach to the
Development of Minoan Crete," in O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan
Society (Bristol 1983)
171-183.
R. A. McNeal, "The Legacy of Arthur Evans," California Studies in Classical
Antiquity 6(1974) 205-220.
J. O'Shea, "Coping with Scarcity: Exchange and Social Storage," in A.
Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.),
Economic Archaeology (Oxford 1981) 167-183.
C. Renfrew, "Polity and Power: Interaction, Intensification and
Exploitation," in C. Renfrew and M.
Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos
(Cambridge 1982) 264-290.
C. N. Runnels and J. Hansen, "The Olive in the Prehistoric Aegean: The
Evidence for Domestication in
the Early Bronze Age," OJA 5(1986) 299-308.
R. Sallares, The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World (Ithaca 1991).
A. Sherratt, "Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products
Revolution," in I. Hodder, G.
Isaac, and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David
Clarke (Cambridge
1981) 261-306.
A. G. Sherratt, "The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World,"
World Archaeology 15(1983)
90-104.
T. H. Van Andel and C. N. Runnels, "An Essay on the 'Emergence of
Civilization' in the Aegean World,"
Antiquity 62(1988) 234-247.
P. M. Warren, "The Genesis of the Minoan Palace," in R. HŠgg and N. Marinatos
(eds.), The Function
of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm 1987) 47-56.
L. V. Watrous, "The Role of the Near East in the Rise of the Cretan Palaces,"
in R. HŠgg and N.
Marinatos (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm 1987) 65-70.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>>This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
>>each other is unconvincing.
>
>Not if you add several hundred additional and systematic resemblances
>to the list.
>
>>For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father"
>>considered in this analysis?
>
>Precisely because it's a single isolated example. What "other"
>Egyptian kinship terms end in "-tah"?
"Ptah" probably has the literal sense of "the place that things
come forth from", hence the slang sense of the word "peter"
Why do you presume that the cognate is "father" used in the
sense of kinship as oposed to "father" used in the Biblical
sense of "creator"?
Why is the suffix of more interest than the root of the word?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>>The European Culture at this time consists of Balkan painted and
>>Impressed ware cultures, Funnel rim pottery cultures, early painted
>>ware cultures and Urnfields.
>
>Urnfields? The Central European Urnfield culture is dated
>c. 1400 BC (1100 bc).
Yes. The period of discussion is the development of language.
The development of language might go back before the development
of farming but could be safely termed undeveloped prior to about
the 7th millenium BC when farming began in Europe.
It was also a part of the discussion that a major impetus
to the spread of the Indo European language came after
the period of about 150 years when the Hurrians, Mittani
and Kassites were in contact with The Hittites, Egyptians,
Nomadic Semites and very likely the cultures of India.
The Phoenicians c 1200 BC, were mentioned as one of the possible
mechanisms involved in the spread of language so it makes some sense
to look at the civilizations of Europe all the way down through the
Urnfields.
To briefly touch on the chronology involved.
"Agriculture first reached the Balkans in the 7th millenium BC,
probably spreading from Anatolia." TAA p 86
"Farming villages first appeared in southern Italy and Scicily
c 6200 BC spreading from the Balkans" Ibid
"In Central Europe farming began c 5400 BC as evidenced by the
linear incised pottery called Bandcekeramic."Ibid
"In the lower Danube cattle bones suggest their use as plough
animals c 4500 BC," [this is the sort of secondary products
revolution refered to by Andrew Sherratt.]Ibid p 114
"The period c 4500BC -2500 BC is typified by the building
of megaliths in Europe and the widespread use of copper."Ibid
"In Central Europe following c 2000 BC there is an increased
emphasis on the use of hillforts, society was becoming increasingly
militaristic, by c 1250 BC new types of weaponry had been adopted
throughout Europe including bronze slashing swords" [such as were
carried on the Anatolian wreck mentioned in an earlier thread.]Ibid
"Sheet bronze metal work was a feature of the Urnfield period
in Central Europe c 1,100 BC" Ibid
>>None of this culture is found to the
>>east of the Dniester except for the funnel rim pottery which appears
>>to be associated with trade up the Dnieper to the Vistula and the Baltic.
>
>>Here theory conflicts greatly with the archaeological record.
>
>J.P. Mallory, in his book "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", talks at
>large of the connections between the IE homeland theory and the
>archaeological record. For the Southern Ukraine, the relevant
>archaeological cultures are the Bug-Dniestr, Dniepr-Donets, Tripolye,
>Sredny Stog and Yamnaya.
All of these cultures to the east of the Dniester are characterized
by funnel rim pottery as described above are they not?
> For the Caspian area, the Seroglazovo, Samara and Khvalynsk.
> For Central Asia, the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures.
None of these cultures are characterised by funnel rim pottery
do you disagree?
>Whatever you think of the Kurgan theory of IE origins (and
>I happen to disagree with it), one must take these cultures into
>account and deal with the issues raised by Mallory.
So are we are agreed, there is no ceramic connection between the
cultures to the east and west and there is a change in lifestyle
from agrarian to pastoral nomadism as well between these regions.
>There may be some excuse for ignoring and twisting linguistic
>facts on a forum called sci.archaeology, there can be none for
>ignoring archaeological facts.
There is a difference between linguistic speculation and
archaeological fact, I agree.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Steve Whittet
In article <52u74v$8...@halley.pi.net>, m...@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article <piotrm.17...@umich.edu>, pio...@umich.edu says...
>>>
>>>In article <52ooka$1...@halley.pi.net> m...@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>Depends on what the area is, and on your choice of "Urheimat" for PIE.
>>>>The currently most popular thesis puts PIE to the north of the Black
>>>>Sea,
>
>>This is precisely the point of the objection. All of the archaeological
>>evidence shows that people were developing civilizations to the south
>>of the Black Sea and that while perhaps there was some trade across it
>>and up the rivers which feed into it at a later date, civilization in
>>the fourth millenium BC was still a southern phenomenon..
>
>>Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the
>>development of language in the more civilized area?
>
>linguistic impact there],
There was some Germanic influnce on parts of the western Roman Empire
the British Isles and Germany in particular, but the reason were that
the Germans were a settled civilzed people who had cities and practiced
agriculture. They were not nomadic hordes in the sense that the Visigoths,
or Huns or Mongols were.
>why would Arabs from the desert have any influence over the
>Aramaic Near East
That is a good question. There is some evidence to suggest that
Semitic peoples moved into the peripheries of cities as Amurru
and gradually over some period of time became less nomadic and
more settled. In the case of the Semitic Habiru they built cities.
It was the cities which had influence, not the nomadic hordes.
> (and Aramaic itself came from less civilized
>places to replace civilized Akkadian),
I would beg to disagree. Aramaic is a Semitic language related
to Hebrew documented since the 7th century BC. It was the most
widely spoken vernacular of West Asia until replaced by Arabic
in the 7th century AD. By the time it got around to replacing
Akkadian, Damascus and Jerusalem were at least as advanced as
Babylon. Allowing it may have existed as early as the time of
Solomon, it certainly had highly civilized roots.
> why would Central Asian Turks have any influence over
>Hellenistic Greek spoken in Anatolia?
I don't think they did. I think the influence was carried
by sea not land. Hellenistic Greek was subject to the same
influences as were the Central Asian Turks rather than the
one influencing the other.
These things happen.
>
>>>>and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
>>>>meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
>>>>Mitanni.
>
>>Actually that is not at the case. The Egyptians are in contact with
>>Mesopotamia from at least the 3rd millenium BC and possibly back
>>into the predynastic Naquada II period in the 4th millenium.
>
>So?
So there is no wait involved, but rather a long and very well
interconnected relationship.
>
>>The Kassites and Mitanni have in common Hurrian names. The sphere of
>>influence for people with such Hurrian names includes the same territory
>>inhabited by the Kurds today, parts of India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia
>>and Turkey were inhabited by a single people with much more in common
>>than just their names.
>
>But Hurrian is not an Indo-European language!
Follow the logic here. The Mitanni have some association with IE
and with the Hurrians and Kassites. The Kassites come to control
what was once the ancient kingdom of Dilmun which was linked through
Makkan to the Indus Valley Civilization and Meluhha.
The link thus runs from Syria and Anatolia, following the Caucasus
and Zagros mountains into central Asia and the Tigris and Euphrates
from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea. The Black Sea connects to
the Danube running through Europe and the Persian Gulf Connects to
the Indus at the headwaters of which we have Dehli and the Ganges
running downstream to Calcutta.
>
>>>>Central Asia,
>
>>This includes the Zagros mountains.
>
>I don't think so.
Think of it as the realm once known as Persia. Persia which
included the Zagros Mountains was bordered on the east by
India, Tibet and Sinkiang (the Tais Makan Desert) on the north
by a line from the Caspian sea across the Aral sea to lake Balkhash,
on the south by the Persian Gulf and Arabia and on the west by Syria.
>>>Miguel, may I just add as a footnote that the shadowy IE
>>>elements among the Kassites are apparently only that.
>>>We still know very little about the Kassites and their language,
>
>>"36 Kasite kings ruled Babylonia for 576 years and 9 months
>>according to the Babylonian king list. Akkadian texts occasionaly
>>use Kassite words
>
>What are they? I'd be very interested in samples of the Kassite
>language.
Examples of the Kassite language include "a Kassite Babylonian
vocabulary list of 48 words, a list of 19 Kassite names with
their Babylonian equivalents, some proper names and occassional
Kassite words in Akkadian texts particularly technical terms
to do with horses." Michael Roaf CAM p 140
>>in reference to the training of horses which is
>>another link to the Mittani. The first Kassite king, Kara-indash,
>>(c1415 BC) corresponded with the Egyptian pharoah as did his sucessors
>>Kadashman-Enlil I (1374-1360 BC) and Burna-Buriash II (1359-1333 BC)"
>>Michael Roaf CAM p 141-142
>
>>"The Kassites were responsible for the standardising of Akkadian
>>and Sumerian texts." Ibid.
>
>>Late Old Babylonian - Early Kassite is dated to c 1595 BC and
>>the destruction of Babylon by the Hurrians.
>
>>"By the end of the Ur III period the Arabian Gulf was apparently
>>so completely the Dilmunite Gulf that they could safely put up
>>trading stations on Faikala right on the border of Mesopotamia."
>>"City II and City III at Qal'at Al-Bahrain" F Hojlund BTTA p 224
>
>>The Kassite period at Failaka runs from levels 3B through 4B
>>c 1600-1300 BC and includes Mittani seals.
>
>So what does this tell us about the Kassite's language? The presence
>of Mitanni seals proves nothing. Of course there were contacts
>between the Kassites and the Hurrians/Mitanni. Contacts do not imply
>that the languages were similar, though.
The Kassites are well placed to have served as a link connecting
the Indus, (eyestones, agate, carnelian, seals, metals, woods, lapis)
to the Mittani (large numbers of seals) and for that matter to Egypt
from the Hyksos through the XVIIIth Dynasty.
Piotr Michalowski
>So what does this tell us about the Kassite's language? The presence
>of Mitanni seals proves nothing. Of course there were contacts
>between the Kassites and the Hurrians/Mitanni. Contacts do not imply
>that the languages were similar, though.
There is absolutely no relationship that we know of between Hurrian/Urartaean
(East Caucasian?) and Kassite. We first hear of Kassites in the middle of the
Old Babylonian period when a few administrative texts and letters mention
eren2 kashshu, "Kassite troops." After the Hittite sack of Babylon a Kassite
"dynasty" filled the void, but we really do not know much about Kassite
ethnicity beyond personal names. Certainly there was not a sizable Kassite
element in Babylonia judging by the number of such names and they never wrote
their own language. If the names were not there, we would hardly know that
such an element was there. I should say, however, that the early part of the
Middle Babylonian period is very badly known archeologically as well as
textually, and that there is a 300-400 year blank in texts in southern
Mesopotamia after the reign of Samsuiluna (the son of Hammurabi), so that we
have to be careful with generalizations. Moreover, a large group of Kassite
period texts from Nippur is still unpublished. Because we know so little, all
sorts of speculations, including textual redaction, have been attributed to
this period, but that has nothing to do with Kassites as such. It is
traditional to use the term Kassite period for part of the Middle Babylonian
period, and this may lead some to think that everything in this time was
"ethnically" Kassite. As for the language, so little is known that any
connections have to be very tentative. Diakonoff has suggested Dravidian, but
with caution. In any case, it seems to come to Mesopotamia from the east
(older books indicate a connection with Syria, but this is based on misdating
of tablets from Terqa) and definitely has nothing to do with Hurrian nor with
Indoeauropean. Because we know that early Kassites had horses, it is often
assumed that they had to have had contact with IE. I should point out,m
however, that horses are mentioned in Sumer already in the Ur III period
(c. 2100-2000) The main source for the language remains the old book by Kemal
Balkan, Kassitenstudien 1. Die Sprache der Kassiten (New Haven, 1954, written
earlier), as nothing of any significance has come to light since then.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <52u74v$8...@halley.pi.net>, m...@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>>>Why would they less civilized area be likely to influence the
>>>development of language in the more civilized area?
>>
>>Why would Germanic tribes overrun the Western Roman Empire [OK, little
>>linguistic impact there],
>There was some Germanic influnce on parts of the western Roman Empire
>the British Isles and Germany
"Germany" was hardly part of the Roman Empire. (Neither was Ireland.)
> in particular, but the reason were that
>the Germans were a settled civilzed people who had cities and practiced
>agriculture. They were not nomadic hordes in the sense that the Visigoths,
>or Huns or Mongols were.
Excuse me. The Visigoths were Germanic too. The Germanic peoples
certainly practiced agriculture, but they had villages rather than
"towns" in the Roman sense. The Goths went through a period of
nomadic pastoralism, when they moved into the S. Russian steppe, which
is not to say they abandoned agriculture completely.
>>why would Arabs from the desert have any influence over the
>>Aramaic Near East
>That is a good question. There is some evidence to suggest that
>Semitic peoples moved into the peripheries of cities as Amurru
>and gradually over some period of time became less nomadic and
>more settled. In the case of the Semitic Habiru they built cities.
>It was the cities which had influence, not the nomadic hordes.
I was referring to the Arab Khalifate. Yes, the Arabs had cities and
practiced agriculture, but many of them were at least semi-nomadic.
As to Aramaic, it may have spread into Palestine and Mesopotamia from
the Arabian and Syrian deserts, or it may not have. It doesn't
matter. The main thing is that civilized areas are often conquered by
less civilized peoples moving in from the periphery. Sometimes the
invadors are simply assimilated and absorbed, and nothing (except
maybe a few words) remains of their languages. Other times, the
invadors impose their language on the vanquished (although some/many
autochtonous culture words remain). I agree with you in rejecting the
silly myth of "Indo-European nomad pastoralists" overrunning
everything in sight. The first thing nomads do when they conquer a
settled agricultural area is that they stop being nomads. But
inverting the myth is equally silly. If it's the language of the
"civilized" peoples that spreads and spreads among the "barbarians",
then we would all be speaking Sumerian. Or Egyptian. Oh yeah, I
forgot. We do :-)
>> why would Central Asian Turks have any influence over
>>Hellenistic Greek spoken in Anatolia?
>I don't think they did.
You don't think Turkish is spoken in Anatolia now, or you don't think
Greek was spoken in Anatolia before Manzikert?
>>>>>and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
>>>>>meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
>>>>>Mitanni.
>>
>>>Actually that is not at the case. The Egyptians are in contact with
>>>Mesopotamia from at least the 3rd millenium BC and possibly back
>>>into the predynastic Naquada II period in the 4th millenium.
>>
>>So?
>So there is no wait involved, but rather a long and very well
>interconnected relationship.
Between Egyptians and IE speakers?
>>>The Kassites and Mitanni have in common Hurrian names. The sphere of
>>>influence for people with such Hurrian names includes the same territory
>>>inhabited by the Kurds today, parts of India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia
>>>and Turkey were inhabited by a single people with much more in common
>>>than just their names.
>>
>>But Hurrian is not an Indo-European language!
>Follow the logic here.
I'll try.
> The Mitanni have some association with IE
>and with the Hurrians and Kassites. The Kassites come to control
>what was once the ancient kingdom of Dilmun which was linked through
>Makkan to the Indus Valley Civilization and Meluhha.
>The link thus runs from Syria and Anatolia, following the Caucasus
>and Zagros mountains into central Asia and the Tigris and Euphrates
>from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea. The Black Sea connects to
>the Danube running through Europe and the Persian Gulf Connects to
>the Indus at the headwaters of which we have Dehli and the Ganges
>running downstream to Calcutta.
You've lost me there. The logic is that language is water-soluble and
travels upstream?
>>>>>Central Asia,
>>
>>>This includes the Zagros mountains.
>>
>>I don't think so.
>Think of it as the realm once known as Persia.
I'll do no such thing. Think of Central Asia roughly as the modern
republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
Kirghizia, and the Chinese province of Sinkiang-Uyghur.
Loren Petrich
In article <52re2p$s...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>If nomadic hordes overrun sedentary populations either the hordes:
[Several possibilities...]
There is yet another one. They settle down and just plain take
over. Consider the spread of Turkic-speaking tribes from their Central
Asian homeland about 1000 years ago.
>The builders of kurgans are associated with a life of pastoral
>nomadism and hunting. Their numbers were neither great nor is
>there any evidence that as a people they were organized as a
>nomadic horde to invade the south.
It's easier than you think. Just drive your cows and horses to
the pastures between the settlements. And this kind of shift from settled
agriculture to nomadism took place in North America, when horses went
free and allowed their capturers to wage war much more efficiently than
before.
>This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
>each other is unconvincing.
This from someone who is willing to accept the most preposterous
attempts to derive English from Egyptian? Latin and Sanskrit correspond a
heck of a lot better than English and Egyptian. And when one factors out
the numerous borrowings, English corresponds a heck of a lot better to
Latin and Sanskrit (not to mention other IE languages) than Egyptian.
For example, the English word is "father". and p- in L and S
correspond to f- in English: ped-, pad-, foot; my AHD gives several
examples of other English f- -- Latin p- correspondences (not as many
Sanskrit borrowings have gotten into English as Latin ones).
>For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father"
>considered in this analysis?
Because it does not fit. What's the Egyptian word for "father"?
And where did the final r go?
Loren Petrich
In article <52uh1l$r...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <52u74v$8...@halley.pi.net>, m...@pi.netÁ says...
>>why would Arabs from the desert have any influence over the
>>Aramaic Near East
>That is a good question. There is some evidence to suggest that
>Semitic peoples moved into the peripheries of cities as Amurru
>and gradually over some period of time became less nomadic and
>more settled. In the case of the Semitic Habiru they built cities.
>It was the cities which had influence, not the nomadic hordes.
A classic example of Whittet squidlike obfuscation. It is very
clear from the historical record that the 7th-cy. Arabs had conquered
large areas very quickly, and that they were very nomadic.
>> why would Central Asian Turks have any influence over
>>Hellenistic Greek spoken in Anatolia?
>I don't think they did. I think the influence was carried
>by sea not land. Hellenistic Greek was subject to the same
>influences as were the Central Asian Turks rather than the
>one influencing the other.
What kind of bullshit is that? There is not a whole lot of water
between Central Asia and Anatolia. And Turkish is *very* closely related
to the Central Asian Turkic languages, something on the order of how
close the Romance languages are (I'm not exactly sure, however).
Ber...@cyberix.com
In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>,
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <52re2p$s...@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
----SNIP-----
> For example, the English word is "father". and p- in L and S
>correspond to f- in English: ped-, pad-, foot; my AHD gives several
>examples of other English f- -- Latin p- correspondences (not as many
>Sanskrit borrowings have gotten into English as Latin ones).
>
>>For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father"
>>considered in this analysis?
>
> Because it does not fit. What's the Egyptian word for "father"?
>And where did the final r go?
There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from this argument: someone
traded their brains for a dictionary.
Piotr Michalowski
>I put all of you into the basket of knowing more about linguistics than
>I do--and that is a pretty full basket. But that is not to say that I
>have never read a book about linguistics. Added to that, I have been
>reading the linguistic posts in here for quite some time now. NOTHING
>anybody, including yourself, has said has served to convince me that it
>is impossible for ancient Egyptian terms to have survived into the
>English language. We know they have, already, or do the dictionaries
>lie? My question to you is--why do you want to deny the possibility?
>What is YOUR prejudice that you want to disregard the evidence of the
>dictionaries--never mind what I say?? How many words do you need to
>have served up to you before you are willing to admit that Egypt was not
>an isolated land whose culture and language was of no interest to
>anybody? And even if we can't find more than ten words (and we will)
>that have survived through some channel into English--so what? Those
>ten words prove that it IS possible, no matter how many books on
>linguistics ignore the whole situation.
The issue is not the possibility or impossibility of loans from Egyptian into
English, but the cultural contexts and the methodologies involved. I would be
very happy if anyone could show even hundreds of such loans, but one has to
have some fairly strict methodological ways of doing this. You cannot simply
look for vague similarities between vague transliterations of Egyptian and
some semantically vaguely similar word or words. You cannot compare modern
English with Egyptian and then disregard the well-documented history of the
word in either the Germanic or Romance history of the language. There are a
tremendous number of loans in English, as in all languages, and all of them
came into the language long after Egyptian had died out. The other problem is
that since Egyptian loan would have come into ancestors of English, they would
have to have their other trajectories in other IE languages. There is a whole
field of contact linguistics that is very sophisticated, and if you wish to
indulge in this you should study it a bit. Loans usually have specific
structures, with regular sound correspondences and with certain regular
changes. The hunt-and-peck method that goes straight from Egyptian to modern
English disregards the history of both languages. If there were loans, they
would have undergone many changes from then and have been much less obvious.
Let me give you an example. When I--years ago, I am afraid--took beginning
Hittite from Warren Cowgill, a brilliant Indoeauropeanist, he looked at me,
trying to make a specific point about the well established principles of the
comparative method and asked me what the Hittite word for "eagle" was.
Of course, I did not know. He told me it was hara(sh) [sh is an ending] and
then went through all the established sound changes in dozens of IE languages
to try to reconstruct the Polish word, which he claimed not to know. It was
dazzling, and he ended up with Polish orzel (the l has a slash through it and
is pronounced as w in wombat; my name has the same letter). Now, on the
surface, without detailed knowledge of the history of comparative IE
historical phonology, one would never dream that hara and orzel were related.
Sorry got to go--just heard on the radio that one of my favorite poets,
Wieslawa Szymborska got the Nobel prize in literarure!!!!
Saida
Miguel wrote:
Steve wrote:
> >>>>>and the Egyptians have to wait until the second millennium to
> >>>>>meet the Hittites and some shadowy IE elements in the Kassites and
> >>>>>Mitanni.
> >>
> >>>Actually that is not at the case. The Egyptians are in contact with
> >>>Mesopotamia from at least the 3rd millenium BC and possibly back
> >>>into the predynastic Naquada II period in the 4th millenium.
> >>
> >>So?
>
> >So there is no wait involved, but rather a long and very well
> >interconnected relationship.
>
> Between Egyptians and IE speakers?
Hang on! Egyptian IS an Indo-European language, in part, and also, in
part, a Semitic one. Since it goes its own way and could not be
classified, a new designation, Hamitic, had to be assigned to it.
Saida
Miguel wrote:
Saida wrote:
> > BTW,
> >Piotyr, while I can even rattle off some Polish (my father having been
> >born there) I come up empty on Hittite...
>
> All you need to know about Hittite to impress people of your erudition
> at cocktail-parties and such are the words:
>
> nu NINDA-an ezateni, watar-ma ekuteni.
> "now bread you eat, and-water you drink"
>
> These are the words that provided the Czech scholar in Austrian
> service Bedr^ych Hrozny' the clue to identify Hittite as an IE
> language. Nu=now, eza-=essen (Hitt. z=ts), watar=water, eku-=aqua.
So why, then, when I find the same commonalities in Egyptian, do you
guys get so upset?
Anyway, thanks for the info. I don't get much call for Hittite, but
occasionally people ask me what language Christ spoke and was it Hebrew.
I tell them that, yes, Jesus knew Hebrew very well, being a prodigious
scholar from his youth, but the language he spoke in everyday life was
Aramaic. When they ask me if I can give them an example of an Aramaic
word, I begin to recite the Kaddish, the Jewish Prayer For the Dead,
which I know by heart and which is the only Aramaic Jews still commonly
use. "Yitgadal, v yitkadash shmeh Rabbo, etc."...It floors them every
time.
Saida
Loren Petrich wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>
> >This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
> >each other is unconvincing.
>
> attempts to derive English from Egyptian? Latin and Sanskrit correspond a
> heck of a lot better than English and Egyptian. And when one factors out
> the numerous borrowings, English corresponds a heck of a lot better to
> Latin and Sanskrit (not to mention other IE languages) than Egyptian.
Just keep in mind that Egyptian IS partly an Indo-European language. It
is also partly Semitic. This is precisely what troubled scholars when
they first began to study it. It just wouldn't be classified.
>
> For example, the English word is "father". and p- in L and S
> correspond to f- in English: ped-, pad-, foot; my AHD gives several
> examples of other English f- -- Latin p- correspondences (not as many
> Sanskrit borrowings have gotten into English as Latin ones).
>
> >For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father"
> >considered in this analysis?
>
> Because it does not fit. What's the Egyptian word for "father"?
> And where did the final r go?
> --
The Egyptians used "iti" or "tef" for "father". "Teftef" evidently was
"grandfather". I don't know when one or the other was called for, if
both terms were interchangeable or what. Later on, it appears, the
Semitic "abba" was also used. Strangely, if the "f" and the "t" were
reversed in "tef", we'd have something. The word for "mother", of
course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
Interestingly, when I was a very small child and spoke no English yet, I
called my parents "Tate" and "Mutti".
Piotr Michalowski
>Hang on! Egyptian IS an Indo-European language, in part, and also, in
>part, a Semitic one. Since it goes its own way and could not be
>classified, a new designation, Hamitic, had to be assigned to it.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Where did you get the idea that Egyptian
was IE? It is a separate branch of the Afroasiatic family. Forget about
Hamitic, as a)it never had anything to do with IE and b) the way in which the
term (now obsolete) was applied to languages is unrelated to what you are
trying to say. SOme people still use the term Hamito-Semitic, but no proper
linguistic classification of the family recognizes any separate Hamitic
branch. That is linguistic prehistory.
Steve Whittet
In article <piotrm.19...@umich.edu>, pio...@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <52u74v$8...@halley.pi.net> m...@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
writes:
>>
>
>
>>So what does this tell us about the Kassite's language? The presence
>>of Mitanni seals proves nothing. Of course there were contacts
>>between the Kassites and the Hurrians/Mitanni. Contacts do not imply
>>that the languages were similar, though.
>
>There is absolutely no relationship that we know of between
>Hurrian/Urartaean (East Caucasian?) and Kassite.
The Old Babylonian period comes to an end when Babylon is sacked
bt "Hittites" c 1595 BC. At this time the region between Hattusas
and Babylon is under the control of the Hurrians and the Hittites
barely have control of their own capital established less than
50 years earlier.
If instead of Hittites sacking Babylon we have Hurrians sacking
Babylon then we have some explanation for the subsequent appearance
of a people with Hurrian names, whom we call Kassites, in control
of what had previously been the territory of the Sealand Dynasty
and Babylon.
Because Piotr thinks the Hurrians are limited to the Caucasus
Mountains he doesn't look at the possibility that the Hurrians
were spread throughout the mountains of the region much as are
the modern Kurds.
If the Hurrian territory also includes the Kuhha-ye Zagros Mountains
connecting the mountains of the Caucasus and Anatolia with the
mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and paralleling the water
routes along the Tigris and Euphrates from the Black Sea to the
Persian Gulf, then these people might have made their living
bringing wood and metal from the mountains down to the rivers,
raising sheep for wool and weaving carpets for trade down the
rivers, and been associated through a network of trade down
the rivers.
The reason I see for the Hurrians coming into conflict with
the Babylonians is a dispute over water rights and the right
of free passage along the rivers. We see some mention of this
in the correspondence earlier cited in the Mari letters.
What reason would there have been for the Hittites to come into
conflict with the Babylonians? Their terratories are not in any
way, manner, shape or form adjacent or interactive.
>We first hear of Kassites in the middle of the Old Babylonian
>period when a few administrative texts and letters mention
>eren2 kashshu, "Kassite troops."
Which is another reason to suppose the sack of Babylon was by Hurrians
(Kassites not Hittites)
> After the Hittite sack of Babylon a Kassite "dynasty" filled
>the void, but we really do not know much about Kassite
>ethnicity beyond personal names.
Do you have any examples of Kassites with Hittite names?
Why not allow that the Kassites and the Mittani were Hurrian
if that is what the preponderence of the evidence suggests?
>Certainly there was not a sizable Kassite element in Babylonia
>judging by the number of such names and they never wrote
>their own language.
The center of the Kassite sphere of influence does not seem
to have been Babylon. Rather it is associated with the Dilmunite
sphere of influence to the south, the Mittani sphere of influence
to the west, the Hurrian sphere of influence to the North, all
combining to cut off Babylon from any source of trade.
> If the names were not there, we would hardly know that
>such an element was there.
That is because as a linguist you seem to have no interest
whatsoever in discussing organics, ceramics, metal, stone,
take the presence of eyestones and agate in Kassite sites
such as the Qal-at which are strong indicators of a trade
link with India, what have you to say about that?
> I should say, however, that the early part of the
>Middle Babylonian period is very badly known archeologically
>as well as textually, and that there is a 300-400 year blank
>in texts in southern Mesopotamia after the reign of Samsuiluna
>(the son of Hammurabi), so that we have to be careful with
>generalizations.
And yet you manage to convey such a certainty that your perspective
is always correct and that no other point of view need be considered.
What I see is a very interesting question. Why did emerging nations
struggle with one another in the Middle Bronze Age.
What were they fighting over? There certainly is a lot of
fighting going on, there is increased militarism, fortifications,
standing armies, the emergence of a warrior class... Why is that?
The Habiru march through Canaan putting cities under the ban
massacring their inhabitants, burning the infrastructure, and
sowing the fields with rocks. All those who won't join with them
in worshipping the Law as sovereign over all other norms, mores,
conventions, rules, attitudes and values are declared out Laws
and marked for destruction. Is this a religious crusade or
vigilante justice?
It reminds me of what we see in our modern cities where people
join together to burn down the house of the local crack dealer.
People are fighting to establish a sense of identity, to build
consensus as to what is right and proper behavior, to establish
standards and values and spheres of influence, and to protect
what they view as their rights and property.
> Moreover, a large group of Kassite period texts from Nippur
>is still unpublished.
So you know about the school and administrative texts and yet you
claim there is no complete sentence in the Kassite Language?
>Because we know so little, all of speculations, including
>textual redaction, have been attributed to this period, but
>that has nothing to do with Kassites as such.
Of course outside the epigraphics there is also the archaeology...
>It is traditional to use the term Kassite period for part of
>the Middle Babylonian period, and this may lead some to think
>that everything in this time was "ethnically" Kassite.
What I have been talking about is a much broader picture. The
"ethnicity" involved seems to include terms for training horses.
Of what use are horses to rivermen? The Egyptians don't come to
use horses until their empire expands beyond the Nile. We also
have a tradition of weaving carpets which apparently ties into
the Silk Road, Persia and the caravans of the next millenia.
> As for the language, so little is known that any
>connections have to be very tentative.
Then you should have very little to say. Let's put the
language aside for a while and move on to discuss the archaeology.
> Diakonoff has suggested Dravidian, but with caution.
It makes some sense to look at what sorts of possible connections
there may have been to India. I would submit that the Persian Gulf
and the Dilmun, Makkan, Meluhha link is impossible to ignore in
this context.
>In any case, it seems to come to Mesopotamia from the east
>(older books indicate a connection with Syria, but this is
>based on misdating of tablets from Terqa)
If the Kassites have a link to India, moving up the Persian Gulf
with the Dilmun trade, and establishing a base of operations at
Qal'at al Bahrain, thence up the coast to Faikala at the very
estuary of the Tigris and Euphrates, thence up the Euphrates
to Terqa, Syrian outpost of Mari, and the reason for their
presence is the rich trade we have been discussing, why isn't
it germane to the conversation to look at the trade connections?
>and definitely has nothing to do with Hurrian nor with
>Indoeauropean.
The Hurrians control the Mountains, the Kassites the rivers,
and sealands, the Mittani control the plains.
Each is ethnically disposed to different lifestyles with
different interests perhaps different attitudes and values
but strongly connected by an interdependence of trade.
Hurrians bring trees, metals and precious stones down from
the mountains to the rivers, they herd sheep and weave their
wool into carpets. The Kassites transport these goods down
the rivers and trade them for meat and grain.
Perhaps the Kassites also get involved in making pottery
to put their goods in using the clay of the river beds.
At the sea they meet people who have fish and pearls to trade,
farther along there are people with frankincense and copper,
farther still lapis, corrundum, carnelian, aggate and tin.
Perhaps the direction of travel begins at the other end
and works north instead of south, irregardless there is soon
a connection between India and Anatolia and people talk of an
upper and lower sea.
>Because we know that early Kassites had horses, it is often
>assumed that they had to have had contact with IE.
We know that they had technical terms for training horses...
Apparently this is considered an IE trait, and laid to
Scythians, Cimmerians, Kurgan Cultures, Hunters and
Pastorial Nomads, Nomadic Groups of the Steppes, etc;
While it is true that there is evidence for the
domestication of the horse in the Ukraine and Central Asia
much earlier, what does that really prove?
At the point written languages document the presence
of the words for horses, domesticated horses have
been around in most civilized cultures for milenia.
>I should point out,m however, that horses are mentioned in Sumer
>already in the Ur III period (c. 2100-2000) The main source for the
>language remains the old book by Kemal Balkan, Kassitenstudien 1.
>Die Sprache der Kassiten (New Haven, 1954, written earlier), as
>nothing of any significance has come to light since then.
While I would agree with other posters that the real issue
is not simply the domestication of the horse, but its secondary
uses and the terms for them, we need to add on besides that
that the focus is on the level of interest in the horse as
evidenced by the technical terms for training horses and not
its mere presence.
In this light the unpublished texts of Bibby found at
Qal'at al Bahrain and the technical terms for the use
and training of horses found elsewhere in other texts
from Kassite sites discovered more recently are
of interest here.
steve
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>When I--years ago, I am afraid--took beginning
>Hittite from Warren Cowgill, a brilliant Indoeauropeanist, he looked at me,
>trying to make a specific point about the well established principles of the
>comparative method and asked me what the Hittite word for "eagle" was.
>Of course, I did not know. He told me it was hara(sh) [sh is an ending] and
>then went through all the established sound changes in dozens of IE languages
>to try to reconstruct the Polish word, which he claimed not to know. It was
>dazzling, and he ended up with Polish orzel (the l has a slash through it and
>is pronounced as w in wombat; my name has the same letter).
Lgal. You can't get the -l without knowing the Polish, or at least
the Russian word (ore"l). Hitt. haras < PIE Har-/Hor- > PSlav or-.
(Actually, the oblique stem in Hittite is haran- < *Harn- > ran-?).
Piotr Michalowski
I
>The Old Babylonian period comes to an end when Babylon is sacked
>bt "Hittites" c 1595 BC. At this time the region between Hattusas
>and Babylon is under the control of the Hurrians and the Hittites
>barely have control of their own capital established less than
>50 years earlier.
I am really sick and tired of this constant misinformation being peddled here.
Once again we have nothing but misunderstood generalizations that are
completely false. There is no evidence that the whole region between Hattusas
and Babylon was at the time in the hands of Hurrians. Some of the region was,
but there is absolutely no evidence that all of it was. In fact, there is
very little evidence at all and the texts that have surfaced, from terqa. SW
dismissed earlier without even knowing what they contain.
>If instead of Hittites sacking Babylon we have Hurrians sacking
>Babylon then we have some explanation for the subsequent appearance
>of a people with Hurrian names, whom we call Kassites, in control
>of what had previously been the territory of the Sealand Dynasty
>and Babylon.
More rubbish. There is no evidence at all that all the Hittite and
Babylonian records are wrong and Hurrians rather than Hittites attacked
Babylon. The Kassites have nothing to do with Hurrians and it is absurd to
say "people with Hurrian names who we call Kassites." People with Kassite
names are called Kassites. Ugh!
>Because Piotr thinks the Hurrians are limited to the Caucasus
>Mountains he doesn't look at the possibility that the Hurrians
>were spread throughout the mountains of the region much as are
>the modern Kurds.
I never said anything of the sort, I only noted that there is evidence that
the Caucasus was their previous home before they first appear in the Near
East, first attested during the reign of Naram-Sin of Akkad.
>The reason I see for the Hurrians coming into conflict with
>the Babylonians is a dispute over water rights and the right
>of free passage along the rivers. We see some mention of this
>in the correspondence earlier cited in the Mari letters.
Nonsense
>>We first hear of Kassites in the middle of the Old Babylonian
>>period when a few administrative texts and letters mention
>>eren2 kashshu, "Kassite troops."
>Which is another reason to suppose the sack of Babylon was by Hurrians
>(Kassites not Hittites)
More nonsense. Just because some small Kassite troop movements are reported a
few hundred years earlier does not mean that unrelated Hurrians destroyed
Babylon! What kind of logic is this?
>> After the Hittite sack of Babylon a Kassite "dynasty" filled
>>the void, but we really do not know much about Kassite
>>ethnicity beyond personal names.
>Do you have any examples of Kassites with Hittite names?
>Why not allow that the Kassites and the Mittani were Hurrian
>if that is what the preponderence of the evidence suggests?
I am sorry, but words fail me. What do Hittites have to do with Kassites????
What single piece of evidence is there that Kassites were Hurrian? Another
invention like your Hutur river?
>>Certainly there was not a sizable Kassite element in Babylonia
>>judging by the number of such names and they never wrote
>>their own language.
>The center of the Kassite sphere of influence does not seem
>to have been Babylon. Rather it is associated with the Dilmunite
>sphere of influence to the south, the Mittani sphere of influence
>to the west, the Hurrian sphere of influence to the North, all
>combining to cut off Babylon from any source of trade.
That is pure nonsense. There is no Dilmunite influence in the south, and I as
said before no connection with Hurrians. Now we have a new conspiracy that
was invented here ad hoc.
>> If the names were not there, we
would hardly know that >>such an element was there.
>That is because as a linguist you seem to have no interest
>whatsoever in discussing organics, ceramics, metal, stone,
>take the presence of eyestones and agate in Kassite sites
>such as the Qal-at which are strong indicators of a trade
>link with India, what have you to say about that?
What does this have to do with your imaginary ethnic history? Metal and stone
do not belong to any group. As for trade with India, it has nothing at all to
do with the present discussion and, morever, seems to end before this time, as
far as I know.
>
>> Moreover, a large group of Kassite period texts from Nippur
>>is still unpublished.
>So you know about the school and administrative texts and yet you
>claim there is no complete sentence in the Kassite Language?
Are we speaking the same language? Name me one text that has a sentence in
Kassite. Don't post some encyclopedia entry from the net, just give us one
simple reference!
>>Because we know so little, all of speculations, including
>>textual redaction, have been attributed to this period, but
>>that has nothing to do with Kassites as such.
>Of course outside the epigraphics there is also the archaeology...
>>In any case, it seems to come to Mesopotamia from the east
>>(older books indicate a connection with Syria, but this is
>>based on misdating of tablets from Terqa)
>If the Kassites have a link to India, moving up the Persian Gulf
>with the Dilmun trade, and establishing a base of operations at
>Qal'at al Bahrain, thence up the coast to Faikala at the very
>estuary of the Tigris and Euphrates, thence up the Euphrates
>to Terqa, Syrian outpost of Mari, and the reason for their
>presence is the rich trade we have been discussing, why isn't
>it germane to the conversation to look at the trade connections?
This is complete nonsense, once again. You have no concept of time at all,
nor of geography. By the time Kassites first appear, Mari was gone and
finished, never to be occupied again. You have invented all the rest of this
paragraph, as the rich trade "we have been discussing" is unattested, since
the main connections of Mari, as evidenced by tons of information were with
Iran and the West, with very little information about any trade with the Gulf.
You learn nothing.
(snip, more invented facts about "ethnic" groups, all unfounded)
I had made up my mind to disregard your uninformed postings, and I probably
should have kept to my decision, but the shameless range of disinformation
made me angry. Why don;t you discuss something you know even a small amount
about, if there is such a thing, and stop peddling rubbish. If you insist on
doing this, perhaps you could read a book or two on the subject (no, please do
not post a list of unread entries from a bibliography, we have seen those
already).
Steve Whittet
>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>>If nomadic hordes overrun sedentary populations either the hordes:
>
>
>There is yet another one. They settle down and just plain take over.
In that case the mechanism of migration used to diffuse the
language from place to place no longer exists.
The idea of settled sedentary nomads is an oxymoron.
> Consider the spread of Turkic-speaking tribes from their Central
>Asian homeland about 1000 years ago.
Migrations tend to require a series of distinct steps. First
someone needs to discover a new place and come back to report
that it is worth going to see. Usually the first few expeditions
to such a place consist of scouts who come back and report on what
they have found.
Only after a base of operations and a staging area have been
established, water and pasturage located, the presence of
strongholds and rival spheres of influence noted, do a people
begin to move. Even nomadic people usually have previously
traveled through the area to which they intend to move or
else scout it out first.
Frequently the process occurs over time with hunters, herdsmen
or traders establishing the first wave of migration and setting
up camp. Once kin have established themselves families are
generally more willing to move to a new location.
Even the Turks did not simply pack up and leave without knowing
where they were going and what to expect once they got there.
>
>>The builders of kurgans are associated with a life of pastoral
>>nomadism and hunting. Their numbers were neither great nor is
>>there any evidence that as a people they were organized as a
>>nomadic horde to invade the south.
>
>It's easier than you think. Just drive your cows and horses to
>the pastures between the settlements.
What settlements? Do your new neighbors welcome you with open arms?
Will they steal your horses and eat your cattle? What happens if
they decide to make a fight of it? Do they have friends nearby?
> And this kind of shift from settled agriculture to nomadism took
>place in North America, when horses went free and allowed their
>capturers to wage war much more efficiently than before.
The same thing applies to North American migrations. Urban
populations generally were not overwhelmed by nomadic hordes,
except where decimated by disease or warfare.
>
>>This premise that Latin pater and Sannskrit pitar resemble
>>each other is unconvincing.
>
>This from someone who is willing to accept the most preposterous
>attempts to derive English from Egyptian?
>Latin and Sanskrit correspond a heck of a lot better than English
>and Egyptian.
Prove it.
>And when one factors out the numerous borrowings,
Why should one factor out the numerous borrowings? Isn't each of
them a part of the total package? English provides a record in its
borrowings, of places English speakers have been and the people and
languages English speakers have met and learned from.
>English corresponds a heck of a lot better to
>Latin and Sanskrit (not to mention other IE languages) than Egyptian.
Perhaps, but then it is closer to Latin in time and space. Some of
those correspondences to Latin pass right through the latin and
end up in Egypt, others do not. When it comes to Sanskrit and
other IE languages the same thing applies. There is usually a path
of transmission and that path has a mechanism to explain it.
Nomadic hordes are not a good mechanism to explain the diffusion
of language which it is reasonable to assume flows from more
highly civilized and complex cultures with large vocabularies
down to less highly civilized and complex cultures with smaller
vocabularies.
>
>For example, the English word is "father". and p- in L and S
>correspond to f- in English: ped-, pad-, foot; my AHD gives several
>examples of other English f- -- Latin p- correspondences (not as many
>Sanskrit borrowings have gotten into English as Latin ones).
Think about it for a second.
>>For one thing why isn't the Egyptian "Ptah" or "sky father"
>>considered in this analysis?
>
>Because it does not fit. What's the Egyptian word for "father"?
>And where did the final r go?
Ptah was the Egyptian god responsible for making or creating
the sky. In that sense he was the sky father or creator in the
same sense the Bible uses the word father or creator.
The Egyptians believed that things were created by giving them
a name "r". Thus the act of creation or naming by Ptah was
written as "Ptah" "r".
As Saida has pointed out your analysis would be greatly improved
by an introductory course in Hieroglyphic Egyptian, and some
familiarity with their culture and religion, science, mathematics,
philosophy and technology would not hurt either.
steve
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Just keep in mind that Egyptian IS partly an Indo-European language. It
>is also partly Semitic. This is precisely what troubled scholars when
>they first began to study it. It just wouldn't be classified.
Where did you get these notions from? I have never seen an
Indo-European connection seriously claimed for Egyptian.
As to the classification of Egyptian, there never has been any doubt
that it is (distantly) related to Semitic. Unfortunately, there has
been a lot of confusion about the name and the exact members of the
language group where Semitic and Egyptian belong. It was formerly
known as Hamito-Semitic, and was thought by some German scholars
(Lepsius, Meinhof) to include completely unrelated languages like
Maasai, Fula (Peul, Fulbe, Fufulde, Fulani) and Nama (Hottentot) [just
because these were African languages that distinguished masc. and fem.
gender]. Now that these early confusions are out of the way, the
picture is simple: the Afro-Asiatic language family consists of the
following subgroups:
1. Semitic
2. Ancient Egyptian (incl. Coptic)
3. Berber
4. Chadic (e.g. Hausa)
5. Beja-Cushitic (e.g. Beja, Somali, Oromo (Galla))
6. Omotic (formerly known as East Cushitic)
[Quoting from another post, re: Hittite :]
>So why, then, when I find the same commonalities in Egyptian, do you
>guys get so upset?
Maybe because the sensible thing to do (given what was stated above)
is to first compare Ancient Egyptian with Semitic, Berber, Hausa and
Somali [Omotic is a bit hard to come by]. This may well give an
indication of the history of the Egyptian word. Only then, when the
internal Afro-Asiatic connections have been sorted out (or have been
found wanting), does it make sense to compare with Indo-European, or
Sumerian, or Quechua for that matter.
>The Egyptians used "iti" or "tef" for "father". "Teftef" evidently was
>"grandfather". I don't know when one or the other was called for, if
>both terms were interchangeable or what. Later on, it appears, the
>Semitic "abba" was also used. Strangely, if the "f" and the "t" were
>reversed in "tef", we'd have something. The word for "mother", of
>course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
I can quote dozens of non-IE languages where "mother" is something
like "ma" or "mu". Father seems to vary a bit more ("pa(pa)" and
"ta(ta)" being the most common). These words are almost universal
("baby talk").
>Interestingly, when I was a very small child and spoke no English yet, I
>called my parents "Tate" and "Mutti".
Had it been Latvian instead of Yiddish, you would have said "te^vs"
and "ma^te", which sounds even more Egyptian. It doesn't mean much.
I'm sure there's some Papuan or American Indian language even more
closely resembling Egyptian here. What _is_ characteristic of
Indo-European, is the *-ter suffix added on to these baby-talk words
(p@-ter, ma:-ter, bhra:-ter, etc.). If you'd find *that* in Egyptian,
then you'd have something. That's why I asked: "what "other" Egyptian
kinship terms end in -tah [besides Ptah, which isn't a kinship term,
obviously]."
Steve Whittet
>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>>In article <52u74v$8...@halley.pi.net>, m...@pi.netÁ says...
>
>>>Aramaic Near East
>
>>That is a good question. There is some evidence to suggest that
>>Semitic peoples moved into the peripheries of cities as Amurru
>>and gradually over some period of time became less nomadic and
>>more settled. In the case of the Semitic Habiru they built cities.
>>It was the cities which had influence, not the nomadic hordes.
>
>clear from the historical record that the 7th-cy. Arabs had conquered
>large areas very quickly, and that they were very nomadic.
The conquests of the arabs were the result of the propagation of
religious ideas. The people they conquered were often persuaded to
accept new political ideas by a few individuals speaking sensibly.
Where the arabs suceeded in making military conquests the way was
paved first with political and religious negotiations and alliances.
>>> why would Central Asian Turks have any influence over
>>>Hellenistic Greek spoken in Anatolia?
>
>>I don't think they did. I think the influence was carried
>>by sea not land. Hellenistic Greek was subject to the same
>>influences as were the Central Asian Turks rather than the
>>one influencing the other.
>
>What kind of bullshit is that? There is not a whole lot of water
>between Central Asia and Anatolia.
I guess it helps if you realise that the principle trade routes from
Central Asia to Anatolia led down rivers to the Persian Gulf or to
the Caspian sea. From the Persian Gulf they followed the Euphrates
and Tigris to the Black Sea. From the Caspian they followed the Aras
river from modern Kommisarov to Mt Arat in Anatolia.
> And Turkish is *very* closely related
>to the Central Asian Turkic languages, something on the order of how
>close the Romance languages are (I'm not exactly sure, however).
Perhaps, but the connection would be trade across the Caspian sea
and up the Aras river.
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Piotr Michalowski
>Lgal. You can't get the -l without knowing the Polish, or at least
>the Russian word (ore"l). Hitt. haras < PIE Har-/Hor- > PSlav or-.
>(Actually, the oblique stem in Hittite is haran- < *Harn- > ran-?).
Actually, I abbreviated the story, as Cowgill came up with ore'l, which is
Russian, but it was close enough. You are also right about the full stem--my
memory is not what it used to be!
Loren Petrich
In article <3253C3...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Just keep in mind that Egyptian IS partly an Indo-European language. It
>is also partly Semitic. This is precisely what troubled scholars when
>they first began to study it. It just wouldn't be classified.
On what grounds is it partly IE and partly Semitic? Is this the
isolated-comparison gimmick all over again? :-)
>The Egyptians used "iti" or "tef" for "father". "Teftef" evidently was
>"grandfather".
That does not fit very well with "Ptah".
... The word for "mother", of
>course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
Where is the final r?
>Interestingly, when I was a very small child and spoke no English yet, I
>called my parents "Tate" and "Mutti".
What was your original language?
Loren Petrich
In article <52umvc$rr0...@news.cyberix.com>, <Ber...@cyberix.com> wrote:
>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>,
[Egyptian god Ptah > Latin pater, Sanskrit pitar- "father"?]
>> Because it does not fit. What's the Egyptian word for "father"?
>>And where did the final r go?
>There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from this argument: someone
>traded their brains for a dictionary.
Oh, those orthodox oxen! [sarcasm]
Why not *study* some Indo-European linguistics some time before
making such childish statements?
Loren Petrich
In article <530oe8$g...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>>There is yet another one. They settle down and just plain take over.
>In that case the mechanism of migration used to diffuse the
>language from place to place no longer exists.
They settle down *after* their migrations.
>> Consider the spread of Turkic-speaking tribes from their Central
>>Asian homeland about 1000 years ago.
[a lot of squidlike obfuscation deleted]
>>Latin and Sanskrit correspond a heck of a lot better than English
>>and Egyptian.
>Prove it.
Just check out some textbook on comparative linguistics. Compare
a lot of grammar and vocabulary, and Indo-European will stick out like a
sore thumb.
Mr. Whittet, for all the erudition your display, why do you
persist in being such an ignoramus about comparative linguistics???
>>And when one factors out the numerous borrowings,
>Why should one factor out the numerous borrowings? Isn't each of
>them a part of the total package? ...
Borrowing != ancestry.
>Nomadic hordes are not a good mechanism to explain the diffusion
>of language which it is reasonable to assume flows from more
>highly civilized and complex cultures with large vocabularies
>down to less highly civilized and complex cultures with smaller
>vocabularies.
Counterexamples: Arabs and Turks.
>>For example, the English word is "father". and p- in L and S
>>correspond to f- in English: ped-, pad-, foot; my AHD gives several
>>examples of other English f- -- Latin p- correspondences (not as many
>>Sanskrit borrowings have gotten into English as Latin ones).
>Think about it for a second.
I just did. And it only indicates that I don't have as many
Sanskrit examples available as Latin examples, or, for that matter, Greek
examples.
>Ptah was the Egyptian god responsible for making or creating
>the sky. In that sense he was the sky father or creator in the
>same sense the Bible uses the word father or creator.
What's the relevance of that?
>The Egyptians believed that things were created by giving them
>a name "r". Thus the act of creation or naming by Ptah was
>written as "Ptah" "r".
Where did you get *that*?
>As Saida has pointed out your analysis would be greatly improved
>by an introductory course in Hieroglyphic Egyptian, and some
>familiarity with their culture and religion, science, mathematics,
>philosophy and technology would not hurt either.
Not to mention some serious comparative linguistics.
Loren Petrich
In article <530p9h$g...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>> A classic example of Whittet squidlike obfuscation. It is very
>>clear from the historical record that the 7th-cy. Arabs had conquered
>>large areas very quickly, and that they were very nomadic.
>The conquests of the arabs were the result of the propagation of
>religious ideas. ...
Horseshit. They conquered the old-fashioned way.
>> And Turkish is *very* closely related
>>to the Central Asian Turkic languages, something on the order of how
>>close the Romance languages are (I'm not exactly sure, however).
>Perhaps, but the connection would be trade across the Caspian sea
>and up the Aras river.
Mr. Whittet shows yet again that he can *only* imagine contacts
by trade along bodies of water.
Saida
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Just keep in mind that Egyptian IS partly an Indo-European language. It
> >is also partly Semitic. This is precisely what troubled scholars when
> >they first began to study it. It just wouldn't be classified.
>
Why? Why should the African connection be more significant than the
Asiatic one?
(SIGH) The earlier (but not the earliest, of course ) scholars of
ancient Egyptian were, Ebers, Brugsch, De Rouge, Budge, Lepsius,
Stern--to mention only a few. It was they who grappled with the
question--to what category does Egyptian belong? Here is Budge: "The
language of the Egyptian as known to us by the inscriptions which he
left behind him belongs wholly neither to the Indo-European nor to the
Semitic family of languages." ( In the thread "Egyptian Tree Words", I
made lists of the personal pronouns, numbers, etc. to illustrate what
Budge means. ) The only known language which it resembles is Coptic, and
this is now pretty well understood to be a dialect of the language of
the hieroglyphics...Dr. Lepsius tried to show by the names of the
numerals and alphabets that the Indo-European, Semitic and Coptic
families of languages were originally identical, and Schwartze asserted
that Coptic was analogous to the Semitic languages in its grammar, and
to the Indo-European by its roots; but that it was more akin to the
Semitic languages in its simple character and lack of logical structure.
Bunsen and Paul de Lagarde thought that the Egyptian language
represented a pre-historic layer of Semitism, and tried to show that the
forms and the roots of the ancient Egyptian language could be explained
neither by Aryan nor Semitic singly, but by both of these families
together and that they formed in some way the transition from one to the
other."
That is what I mean by "being troubled", but I think the latter part of
this statement sums the situation up pretty well. Well, Miguel you are
quite a stickler. Do you know all the languages you want me to compare
ancient Egyptian to? You can quit worrying about the Semitic languages;
I have already taken care of that department.
>
> >The Egyptians used "iti" or "tef" for "father". "Teftef" evidently was
> >"grandfather". I don't know when one or the other was called for, if
> >both terms were interchangeable or what. Later on, it appears, the
> >Semitic "abba" was also used. Strangely, if the "f" and the "t" were
> >reversed in "tef", we'd have something. The word for "mother", of
> >course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
>
> I can quote dozens of non-IE languages where "mother" is something
> like "ma" or "mu". Father seems to vary a bit more ("pa(pa)" and
> "ta(ta)" being the most common). These words are almost universal
> ("baby talk").
>
> >Interestingly, when I was a very small child and spoke no English yet, I
> >called my parents "Tate" and "Mutti".
>
> Had it been Latvian instead of Yiddish, you would have said "te^vs"
> and "ma^te", which sounds even more Egyptian. It doesn't mean much.
> I'm sure there's some Papuan or American Indian language even more
> closely resembling Egyptian here. What _is_ characteristic of
> Indo-European, is the *-ter suffix added on to these baby-talk words
> (p@-ter, ma:-ter, bhra:-ter, etc.). If you'd find *that* in Egyptian,
> then you'd have something. That's why I asked: "what "other" Egyptian
> kinship terms end in -tah [besides Ptah, which isn't a kinship term,
> obviously]."
You're right here. It doesn't mean much. I just mentioned it as
something I found interesting and didn't offer it as proof of anything.
But I would be interested in your Papuan or American Indian examples--or
are you just being lofty here?
You know, you linguists in this group talk about ancient Egyptian as
though you thought about it every day and were intimately familiar with
its ins and outs. Actually, you never gave it a thought before Steve
Whittet begun talking about it. Most of you have done nothing to give
yourselves a better acquaintance of it. All you can do is say "read
this" and "do this". Well, why don't you sit down with an Egyptian
lexicon or grammar. I am sure that, with your tremendous background in
languages, you will find the experience most fascinating.
Saida
Pegular
> changes. The hunt-and-peck method that goes straight from Egyptian to modern
> English disregards the history of both languages. If there were loans, they
> would have undergone many changes from then and have been much less obvious.
> Hittite from Warren Cowgill, a brilliant Indoeauropeanist, he looked at me,
> trying to make a specific point about the well established principles of the
> comparative method and asked me what the Hittite word for "eagle" was.
> Of course, I did not know. He told me it was hara(sh) [sh is an ending] and
> then went through all the established sound changes in dozens of IE languages
> to try to reconstruct the Polish word, which he claimed not to know. It was
> dazzling, and he ended up with Polish orzel (the l has a slash through it and
> surface, without detailed knowledge of the history of comparative IE
> historical phonology, one would never dream that hara and orzel were related.
> Sorry got to go--just heard on the radio that one of my favorite poets,
> Wieslawa Szymborska got the Nobel prize in literarure!!!!
Piotyr, you are not being fair. Nobody is ignoring anything. I feel I
am, indeed, searching for a chain of Egyptian to English. I don't think
you ready my posts very well. Meanwhile, what if there is no order to
it all? Would that be so surprising? There really isn't much order to
ancient Egyptian. Period. Meanwhile, I wish we had Warren Cowgill here
in this group. Sounds like he could be a big help :-)
I am glad Polish artists are getting the recognition they deserve.
Stolat!
Saida
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <3253C3...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
> Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Just keep in mind that Egyptian IS partly an Indo-European language. It
> >is also partly Semitic. This is precisely what troubled scholars when
> >they first began to study it. It just wouldn't be classified.
>
> isolated-comparison gimmick all over again? :-)
This is the truth, Loren, believe it or not. It's a strange language.
Go talk to the ancient Egyptians about it. I am not responsible :-)
>
> >The Egyptians used "iti" or "tef" for "father". "Teftef" evidently was
> >"grandfather".
>
> That does not fit very well with "Ptah".
Again, not responsible.
>
> ... The word for "mother", of
> >course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
>
> Where is the final r?
You will not find it in the Indian languages, either.
>
> >Interestingly, when I was a very small child and spoke no English yet, I
> >called my parents "Tate" and "Mutti".
>
> What was your original language?
Perhaps ancient Egyptian ;-^
Actually, I was multi-lingual from childhood. There was no "one"
language.
> --
> Loren Petrich
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
Saida Yes, but an open mind is bliss!
Steve Whittet
>>The Old Babylonian period comes to an end when Babylon is sacked
>>bt "Hittites" c 1595 BC. At this time the region between Hattusas
>>and Babylon is under the control of the Hurrians and the Hittites
>>barely have control of their own capital established less than
>>50 years earlier.
>
>I am really sick and tired of this constant misinformation
>being peddled here.
I note the care with which you assemble your facts in rebuttal.
>Once again we have nothing but misunderstood generalizations
>that are completely false.
and again, no facts in rebuttal
> There is no evidence that the whole region between Hattusas
>and Babylon was at the time in the hands of Hurrians.
note how when I say "the region",
Piotr thens says "the whole region"
allows that
>Some of the region was,
and then claims I am wrong because
>but there is absolutely no evidence that all of it was.
Why not instead compare what the evidence for Hittite
controlled areas and Hurrian controlled areas actually is?
>In fact, there is very little evidence at all and the texts
>that have surfaced, from terqa. SW dismissed earlier without
>even knowing what they contain.
Is this the reason Piotr? That you don't have any evidence of Hittite
controlled areas in the region? If you do put it up for discussion.
If you don't then your entire line of attack is pointless.
>
>>If instead of Hittites sacking Babylon we have Hurrians sacking
>>Babylon then we have some explanation for the subsequent appearance
>>of a people with Hurrian names, whom we call Kassites, in control
>>of what had previously been the territory of the Sealand Dynasty
>>and Babylon.
>
>More rubbish.
Again, no facts in rebuttal.
>There is no evidence at all that all the Hittite and Babylonian
>records are wrong and Hurrians rather than Hittites attacked Babylon.
This raises the question of how we know the Hittite records refer
to Babylon and how you know the Babylonian records refer to Hittites.
> The Kassites have nothing to do with Hurrians and it is absurd to
>say "people with Hurrian names who we call Kassites." People with Kassite
>names are called Kassites. Ugh!
Also, some people considered a part of the Kasite occupation
levels at some sites apparently had Hurrian names.
>
>>Because Piotr thinks the Hurrians are limited to the Caucasus
>>Mountains he doesn't look at the possibility that the Hurrians
>>were spread throughout the mountains of the region much as are
>>the modern Kurds.
>
>I never said anything of the sort, I only noted that there is
>evidence that the Caucasus was their previous home before they
>first appear in the Near East, first attested during the reign
>of Naram-Sin of Akkad.
There is no evidence "it was their home", just evidence that
they were there. There is evidence they were elsewhere also.
According to some sources the Hurrians appear to have defined
their territory as the mountains, meaning any and all mountains
were where they felt most at home.
>
>>The reason I see for the Hurrians coming into conflict with
>>the Babylonians is a dispute over water rights and the right
>>of free passage along the rivers. We see some mention of this
>>in the correspondence earlier cited in the Mari letters.
>
>Nonsense
And more expert testimony and hard facts in rebuttal.
>
>>>We first hear of Kassites in the middle of the Old Babylonian
>>>period when a few administrative texts and letters mention
>>>eren2 kashshu, "Kassite troops."
>
>>Which is another reason to suppose the sack of Babylon was by Hurrians
>>(Kassites not Hittites)
>
>More nonsense. Just because some small Kassite troop movements
>are reported a few hundred years earlier does not mean that unrelated
>Hurrians destroyed Babylon! What kind of logic is this?
If this were a criminal investigation and the prosecuter could
place the defendant at the scene of the crime at a point prior
to the event in question, would you consider it evidence?
>
>>> After the Hittite sack of Babylon a Kassite "dynasty" filled
>>>the void, but we really do not know much about Kassite
>>>ethnicity beyond personal names.
>
>>Do you have any examples of Kassites with Hittite names?
>>Why not allow that the Kassites and the Mittani were Hurrian
>>if that is what the preponderence of the evidence suggests?
>
>I am sorry, but words fail me. What do Hittites have to do with
Kassites????
Nothing, and that is the issue. There is a lot of interaction
between Hurrians and Kasites and Mittani. It is thus reasonable
to find Kassites and Mittani with Hurrian names. There is not a
lot of interaction between Hittites and Kassites, thus it seems
unlikely that there would be many examples of Kassites with
Hittite names.
When we go to look at Babylon we find interactions with Kassites
and no interactions with Hittites. We find that the people who
are in Babylon before it is sacked are Kassites.
The Kassites are present as armed soldiers which in itself is a
bit odd as few states allow the military of other nations to
enter their cities armed unless they are in a status of occupation.
We find that the people who benifit by the sack of Babylon
are Kassites. We find the Kassites in control of Babylon and
the Sealand Dynasty immediately thereafter.
What do the Hittites have to show for their supposedly sucessful
incursion? They are never heard from in the region again.
I am sorry Piotr but the whole thing doesn't add up the way you
tell it. It makes no sense. That is why I have proposed an
alternative scenario which actually has a lot more going for it.
>What single piece of evidence is there that Kassites were Hurrian?
The people of Kassite occupation levels share a certain similarity
of ceramic, organic, stone, metal, and ethnalogical artifacts with
the Hurrian sites.
Another invention like your Hutur river?
Hutur River? As I recall we were discussing the Terqa texts, economic
and administrative texts contemporary with the events that were happening.
I said
"They may have been called Hittites (Hatur) by Babylonians, but
this may simply have been a reference to the location of their
capital (Hana) on the Hatur river ..."
The river we call the Habur today could have had any number of
possible etymologies. Is it your position that you can show it
was called the Habur c 1595 BC? Habur, Haptur, Hatur, all seem
like possibilities, If the texts that you refer to use a term
like "hatur" to refer to the people attacking Babylon, perhaps
it was a reference to the people of the "hatur" rather than Hittites.
>
>>>Certainly there was not a sizable Kassite element in Babylonia
>>>judging by the number of such names and they never wrote
>>>their own language.
>
>>The center of the Kassite sphere of influence does not seem
>>to have been Babylon. Rather it is associated with the Dilmunite
>>sphere of influence to the south, the Mittani sphere of influence
>>to the west, the Hurrian sphere of influence to the North, all
>>combining to cut off Babylon from any source of trade.
>
>That is pure nonsense.
And again the profusion of facts in rebuttal
>There is no Dilmunite influence in the south,
Just a series of sites along the coast from Faikala and Tarut, Sar
and Qal'at all the way down through Quatar, the United Arab Emirate
and even Oman which contain Ubiad pottery, and Kassite occupation
levels. Cylinder seals, pottery, eye stones, pearls, metal, wood,
the list of things you are in denial about goes on and on.
>and I as said before no connection with Hurrians.
The fact is that there is a connection between Hurrians
and Kassites because some Kassites have Hurrian names.
There is a connection between Kassites and Dilmun because
the city of Qal'at al Bahrain on the island of Bahrain
contains Kassite Occupation levels.
>Now we have a new conspiracy that was invented here ad hoc.
>
> >> If the names were not there, we
>would hardly know that such an element was there.
So, translation: the names *are there* so we do know that such
an element was there.
>
>>That is because as a linguist you seem to have no interest
>>whatsoever in discussing organics, ceramics, metal, stone,
>>take the presence of eyestones and agate in Kassite sites
>>such as the Qal-at which are strong indicators of a trade
>>link with India, what have you to say about that?
>
>What does this have to do with your imaginary ethnic history?
So now you are reduced to answering a question with a question.
>Metal and stone do not belong to any group.
Come on Piotr. Metals can be matched to their points of origin by
analysis. The way in which they are worked, amounts of impurities,
even the weights in which they were cast. Stones likewise have
points of origin. Agates and eyestones came from India. tracing the
route by which these articles came to be in the Kassite occupation
levels and also found at Hurrian sites is the very essence of archaeology.
> As for trade with India, it has nothing at all to do with the present
>discussion and, morever, seems to end before this time, as far as I know.
>
And yet the Mittani, also linked to the Hurrians and Kassites
and the Dilmun trade in eyestones and agates coming from India
and found in Kassite occupation levels at Qal'at al Bahrain
have many ties to India and are associated with the end of
this period.
>>
>>> Moreover, a large group of Kassite period texts from Nippur
>>>is still unpublished.
>
>>So you know about the school and administrative texts and yet you
>>claim there is no complete sentence in the Kassite Language?
>
>Are we speaking the same language? Name me one text that has a
>sentence in Kassite. Don't post some encyclopedia entry from
>the net, just give us one simple reference!
"The texts from Bahrain itself refer to a Burnaburis and to a
Kastiliasu. The former is presumably Burnaburis II c 1359-1333 BC
since the older Burnaburis ruled prior to the occupation of the
Sealands and thus before his presence on Bahrain was geographically
possible. The later is probably Kastiliasu IV c 1232-1225 BC"
"Bahrain and the Arabian Gulf", C Edens, BTTA p 200
"Furniture made of mesu-wood a commonly imported item of the
third millenium trade, appears in a handful of Kassite texts from Nipur
(collected in the Chicago Assyriological Dictionary M, 237), Leemans
(1968:216)" Ibid, p 213-214
>
>>>Because we know so little, all of speculations, including
>>>textual redaction, have been attributed to this period, but
>>>that has nothing to do with Kassites as such.
>
>>Of course outside the epigraphics there is also the archaeology...
>
>
>>>In any case, it seems to come to Mesopotamia from the east
>>>(older books indicate a connection with Syria, but this is
>>>based on misdating of tablets from Terqa)
>
>>If the Kassites have a link to India, moving up the Persian Gulf
>>with the Dilmun trade, and establishing a base of operations at
>>Qal'at al Bahrain, thence up the coast to Faikala at the very
>>estuary of the Tigris and Euphrates, thence up the Euphrates
>>to Terqa, Syrian outpost of Mari, and the reason for their
>>presence is the rich trade we have been discussing, why isn't
>>it germane to the conversation to look at the trade connections?
>
>This is complete nonsense, once again.
Lots of hard facts in rebuttal here
> You have no concept of time at all,
More of the same...
>nor of geography.
More of the same...
> By the time Kassites first appear, Mari was gone and
>finished, never to be occupied again.
The discussion mentions Terqa, a vassal city of Mari which
survived into the Kassite period and not Mari, but Piotr
adresses Mari and not Terqa.
>You have invented all the rest of this paragraph, as the
>rich trade "we have been discussing" is unattested, since
>the main connections of Mari, as evidenced by tons of
>information were with Iran and the West,
In fact the bulk of the evidence which I have seen such as
eyestones, pearls, shell seals, shells from Indo Pacific species,
carnelian and agate coming from India, tin, ebony, even the lapis
which came down the rivers to the sea from the mountains, all
argues emphatically for the Gulf trade. Nutmeg found at Terqa
for example, elephant hides and ivory, frankincense and myhrr,
baboons and mesu wood; are these the trade goods of Iran, Piotr?
>with very little information about any trade with the Gulf.
>You learn nothing.
You are in denial
>(snip, more invented facts about "ethnic" groups, all unfounded)
and unrefuted...
>
>I had made up my mind to disregard your uninformed postings,
>and I probably should have kept to my decision, but the shameless
>range of disinformation made me angry.
And so being inarticulate with rage, you were incapable of producing
any facts in rebuttal and thus found it necessary to sling mud.
> Why don;t you discuss something you know even a small amount
>about, if there is such a thing, and stop peddling rubbish.
First prove me wrong with some facts.
>If you insist on doing this, perhaps you could read a book or two
>on the subject (no, please do not post a list of unread entries
>from a bibliography, we have seen those already).
Actually you are quite right to chide me Piotr, I quess I will
have to reprogram the bot which retrieves my cites for me to be
more erudite:)
steve
Piotr Michalowski
In article <325432...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> writes:
>. Meanwhile, I wish we had Warren Cowgill here
>in this group. Sounds like he could be a big help :-)
That would indeed be nice, but rather impossible, as he is no longer with us.
>I am glad Polish artists are getting the recognition they deserve.
>Stolat!
Indeed! Szymborska is an incredible poet!
Steve Whittet
>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>
>>In that case the mechanism of migration used to diffuse the
>>language from place to place no longer exists.
>
The point is that they cannot be both nomadic and sedentary
at the same time. When nomadic they are not around long enough
nor involved enough to pick up and transmit any languages.
Once you make them sedentary they have time and interaction enough
to learn the languages but then you cut the tranmission mechanism off.
>
>>> Consider the spread of Turkic-speaking tribes from their Central
>>>Asian homeland about 1000 years ago.
>
> [a lot of squidlike obfuscation deleted]
Usually people put their "sig" at the end of their message...
>
>>>Latin and Sanskrit correspond a heck of a lot better than English
>>>and Egyptian.
>>Prove it.
>
>Just check out some textbook on comparative linguistics.
And the textbook which compares English and Egyptian is ???
> Compare a lot of grammar and vocabulary, and Indo-European
>will stick out like a sore thumb.
I have been watching Saida do that with Egyptian and English
and have to admit she is doing a fairly good job!
>
>Mr. Whittet, for all the erudition your display, why do you
>persist in being such an ignoramus about comparative linguistics???
You are right to chastise me Loren, I am illiterate in more languages
than I speak!
>
>>>And when one factors out the numerous borrowings,
>>Why should one factor out the numerous borrowings? Isn't each of
>>them a part of the total package? ...
>
> Borrowing != ancestry.
Borrowing = interest...
>
>>Nomadic hordes are not a good mechanism to explain the diffusion
>>of language which it is reasonable to assume flows from more
>>highly civilized and complex cultures with large vocabularies
>>down to less highly civilized and complex cultures with smaller
>>vocabularies.
>
> Counterexamples: Arabs and Turks.
Arabs and Turks what?
>
>>>For example, the English word is "father". and p- in L and S
>>>correspond to f- in English: ped-, pad-, foot; my AHD gives several
>>>examples of other English f- -- Latin p- correspondences (not as many
>>>Sanskrit borrowings have gotten into English as Latin ones).
>
>>Think about it for a second.
>
>I just did. And it only indicates that I don't have as many
>Sanskrit examples available as Latin examples, or, for that
>matter, Greek examples.
>
>>Ptah was the Egyptian god responsible for making or creating
>>the sky. In that sense he was the sky father or creator in the
>>same sense the Bible uses the word father or creator.
>
> What's the relevance of that?
>
>>The Egyptians believed that things were created by giving them
>>a name "r". Thus the act of creation or naming by Ptah was
>>written as "Ptah" "r".
>
> Where did you get *that*?
>
>>As Saida has pointed out your analysis would be greatly improved
>>by an introductory course in Hieroglyphic Egyptian, and some
>>familiarity with their culture and religion, science, mathematics,
>>philosophy and technology would not hurt either.
>
> Not to mention some serious comparative linguistics.
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <52s3bs$b...@halley.pi.net>, m...@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>>>All the action in the development of farming in the 3rd and 4th
>>>millenia BC is to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
>>
>>All the action? What about Sherratt's "Secondary Products Revolution"
>>in Europe?
[lots of quotes and a bibliography, mostly about the Aegean.]
What about the "Secondary Products Revolution" in the non-Aegean part
of Europe, which I was referring to? That's "action" too, isn't it?
>Why do you presume that the cognate is "father" used in the
>sense of kinship as oposed to "father" used in the Biblical
>sense of "creator"?
Because we were discussing the relation to pita and pater.
>Why is the suffix of more interest than the root of the word?
See my reply to one of Saida's posts.
>>>The European Culture at this time consists of Balkan painted and
>>>Impressed ware cultures, Funnel rim pottery cultures, early painted
>>>ware cultures and Urnfields.
>>
>>Urnfields? The Central European Urnfield culture is dated
>>c. 1400 BC (1100 bc).
>Yes. The period of discussion is the development of language.
You were discussing the 3rd and 4th millennia, mentioned explicitly
twice in your post (not counting one reference to the 4th alone).
What period is "the development of language"?
>The development of language might go back before the development
>of farming but could be safely termed undeveloped prior to about
>the 7th millenium BC when farming began in Europe.
Nonsense. What about language in Africa, in Eastern/Southeastern
Asia, in Australia, in the Americas?
>>J.P. Mallory, in his book "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", talks at
>>large of the connections between the IE homeland theory and the
>>archaeological record. For the Southern Ukraine, the relevant
>>archaeological cultures are the Bug-Dniestr, Dniepr-Donets, Tripolye,
>>Sredny Stog and Yamnaya.
>All of these cultures to the east of the Dniester are characterized
>by funnel rim pottery as described above are they not?
No they are not. Funnel rim pottery is characteristic of the North
European TRB (TRichterBecher = Funnel Rim pottery) culture. The
Bug-Dniestr and Dniepr-Donets cultures antedate TRB. The Tripolye
culture is closely linked to the Balkan neolithic cultures (like
Vinca), and only partially crosses the Dniestr. The Sredny Stog
culture is closely related to the Khvalynsk culture to the East, and
the subsequent Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) culture encloses the area of both.
>> For the Caspian area, the Seroglazovo, Samara and Khvalynsk.
>> For Central Asia, the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures.
>None of these cultures are characterised by funnel rim pottery
>do you disagree?
No, the only culture "characterized" by funnel rim pottery is TRB.
The Seroglazovo culture is characterized by egg-shaped pottery and has
connections south of the Caspian. The Samara and Khvalynsk cultures
are contemporary with and similar to the Dniepr-Donets and Khvalynsk
cultures in the west.
>So are we are agreed, there is no ceramic connection between the
>cultures to the east and west and there is a change in lifestyle
>from agrarian to pastoral nomadism as well between these regions.
Dniepr-Donets/Samara (5000-4500), Sredny Stog/Khvalynsk (4500-3500)
and Yamnaya (3500-2500) are all semi-agrarian semi-pastoralist.
Pastoral nomadism in the "classical" sense only became possible after
the domestication of the horse, probably sometime during the Sredny
Stog/Khvalynsk phase. After that, it's a straight line from the
Yamnaya culture to the Cimmerians and Scythians of historical times.
Greg Reeder
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Loren Petrich
>
>> Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>
>Saida Yes, but an open mind is bliss!
Loren then must be very sad?
--
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
ree...@sirius.com
Loren Petrich
In article <32542F...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
[some early Egyptologists who had attempted to relate Egyptian to
Indo-European and Semitic...]
So what? Why not do a comparison of word morphology (conjugations,
declensions) and basic (and I mean *basic*) vocabulary some time -- words
such as pronouns, prepositions, and so forth. And also words for body
parts, "Sun", "Moon", "star", "day", "night", "fire", "water", "name", and
maybe other such well-preserved words. I am willing to supply
Indo-European examples of many of these.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
Loren Petrich
In article <531gh4$s...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>> [a lot of squidlike obfuscation deleted]
>Usually people put their "sig" at the end of their message...
Am I touching a raw nerve with my squid comparisons? You
obfuscate to avoid criticism with all the skill of a squid squirting ink
to distract would-be squid-eaters.
>>Just check out some textbook on comparative linguistics.
>And the textbook which compares English and Egyptian is ???
Does there have to be such a textbook? What you can get from such
a textbook is the methodology for doing comparisons.
>I have been watching Saida do that with Egyptian and English
>and have to admit she is doing a fairly good job!
What can one expect from someone who considers Egyptian the
Mother Tongue of Europe? :-)
And I will give Ms. Saida one thing. She has a bit more humility.
>>>Nomadic hordes are not a good mechanism to explain the diffusion
>>>of language which it is reasonable to assume flows from more
>>>highly civilized and complex cultures with large vocabularies
>>>down to less highly civilized and complex cultures with smaller
>>>vocabularies.
>> Counterexamples: Arabs and Turks.
>Arabs and Turks what?
They were less "civilized" than many of the peoples they conquered.
Loren Petrich
In article <325434...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
>> On what grounds is it partly IE and partly Semitic? Is this the
>> isolated-comparison gimmick all over again? :-)
>This is the truth, Loren, believe it or not. It's a strange language.
>Go talk to the ancient Egyptians about it. I am not responsible :-)
That's news to most linguists who have ever looked at Egyptian in
detail.
>> ... The word for "mother", of
>> >course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
>> Where is the final r?
>You will not find it in the Indian languages, either.
The final r drops out of Sanskrit in the nominative singular,
where it would have no suffix, but it is present in all other numbers and
cases, where there *are* suffixes. I may note that a similar phenomenon
happens in Slavic (Russian mat', Serbo-Croatian mati in the nom. sing.;
mater- in all other numbers and cases; interestingly, it is lost in the
word for brother, brat), and that Latin drops a final n instead of a final
r in such a circumstance.
>> >Interestingly, when I was a very small child and spoke no English yet, I
>> >called my parents "Tate" and "Mutti".
Excellent baby-talk :-)
>> What was your original language?
>Actually, I was multi-lingual from childhood. There was no "one"
>language.
You can at leat list them.
I'd like to add that, despite my knowledge of bits and pieces of
other languages, I am only fluent in English.
Kaare Albert Lie
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>> ... The word for "mother", of
>> >course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
>>
>> Where is the final r?
>You will not find it in the Indian languages, either.
What kind of nonsense is this? Why do so many people feel obliged
to demonstrate their fathomless linguistic ignorance on
sci.archaeology?
Of course you will find that 'r' in Indian languages. If you do
not know what you are writing about, you may of course open a
Sanskrit dictionary and find that the 'r' is lacking in
nominative, which is the standard lexical form. My guess is,
however, that you have never been near a Sanskrit dictionary -
for if you had, you would probably have seen mentioned other
grammatical forms of the word.
But check the full paradigm, and you will see that the 'r' is
present in all the other forms of the declension - either as
'full' consonant or reduced to the semivocalic '.r'.
You mentioned 'Indian languages' so let us first take a look at
the closely related early Indian indoeuropean languages Sanskrit
and Pali. Here is the singular declension of 'mother' in both
these languages:
Sanskrit Pali
Nominative: maataa maataa
Vocative: maatar maataa
Accusative: maataram maataram
Instrumentalis: maatraa maataraa
Dative: maatre maatu
Ablative: maatur maataraa
Genitive: maatur maatu
Locative: maatari maatari
Modern Hindi has lost most of these declensional forms, and kept
the basic form maataa. But even here, the 'r' lingers in
composita like maatribhaashaa (mother-tongue), although, to be
exact, in the semivocalic form '.r (.ri)'.
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
ka...@sn.no
R. Gaenssmantel
Steve Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
[...]
: > And Turkish is *very* closely related
: >close the Romance languages are (I'm not exactly sure, however).
: Perhaps, but the connection would be trade across the Caspian sea
: and up the Aras river.
That's in a word bull shit. The turks are a Turkic people who used to live in
central Asia. Other Turkic peoples lived in that region and spoke very closely
related languages just like say Germans and Austrians - shareing parts of their
history. If you can speak Turkish you can basically talk and understand all the
Turkic peoples between Turkey and West China. There was no need for trade links
to spread the same language between related peoples - connections help keep it
up, but they were'nt necessary for establishing it.
Ralf
: >--
: >Loren Petrich
: steve
--
R. Gaenssmantel
Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
[...]
: Mr. Whittet shows yet again that he can *only* imagine contacts
And we all know how busy a canal the Silk Route was.
Ralf
: --
: Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
: pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
: My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
: Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
--
Saida
Kaare Albert Lie wrote:
>
> Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >> ... The word for "mother", of
> >> >course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
> >>
> >> Where is the final r?
>
> >You will not find it in the Indian languages, either.
>
> What kind of nonsense is this? Why do so many people feel obliged
> to demonstrate their fathomless linguistic ignorance on
> sci.archaeology?
>
> Of course you will find that 'r' in Indian languages. If you do
> not know what you are writing about, you may of course open a
> Sanskrit dictionary and find that the 'r' is lacking in
> nominative, which is the standard lexical form. My guess is,
> however, that you have never been near a Sanskrit dictionary -
> for if you had, you would probably have seen mentioned other
> grammatical forms of the word.
My, aren't we the rabid one? You are quite right, I don't have a
Sanskrit dictionary. But I do have an Egyptian one, which I think is
more than most people participating in this discussion, including
yourself, have. Anyway, I couldn't care less what the various
grammatical forms of the word "mother" in Sanskrit are. The actual
word, itself, is lacking one. Would you, being an expert in Sanskrit,
care to explain why? Never mind. Many Indians seem to call their
mothers just plain "ma".
MA Lloyd
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> writes:
>Just keep in mind that Egyptian IS partly an Indo-European language. It
>is also partly Semitic. This is precisely what troubled scholars when
>they first began to study it. It just wouldn't be classified.
Huh? So far as I know nobody has ever maintained that Egyptian was
closer to IE than Semitic was to IE. Its now quite agreed they are
coordinate branchs of Afro-asiatic, and the earlier classifications of
Egyptian in Hamitic usually maintained that Hamitic was a mixture of
Semitic and West Sudanic or some other proposed family of Africa, not IE.
>The Egyptians used "iti" or "tef" for "father". "Teftef" evidently was
>"grandfather". I don't know when one or the other was called for, if
>both terms were interchangeable or what. Later on, it appears, the
>Semitic "abba" was also used. Strangely, if the "f" and the "t" were
>reversed in "tef", we'd have something. The word for "mother", of
>course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
Unfortunately ma, na, ta, da, and pa are found all over the world as
various kinship terms. Whether that is because they are among the first
sounds infants babble (the conventional theory) or because all human
languages are genetically related (Ruhlen et al) I won't debate, but unless
you can demonstrate a regular sound law, nobody will ever accept /mV/ and /tV/
for mother and father as evidence of particularly close genetic relationship.
--
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
Saida
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <32542F...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
> Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>
> [some early Egyptologists who had attempted to relate Egyptian to
> Indo-European and Semitic...]
>
> So what? Why not do a comparison of word morphology (conjugations,
> declensions) and basic (and I mean *basic*) vocabulary some time -- words
> such as pronouns, prepositions, and so forth. And also words for body
> parts, "Sun", "Moon", "star", "day", "night", "fire", "water", "name", and
> maybe other such well-preserved words. I am willing to supply
> Indo-European examples of many of these.
>
We have already done this, Loren, and, if we do it some more, it is
going to be just as inconclusive. (Although it is kind of fun).
After the Norman conquest, Norman French influenced Anglo-Saxon, but I
doubt if that influence will show a pattern in orderly lists, either.
But that doesn't mean it never happened, n'est-ce pas?
Saida
Loren Petrich wrote:
Loren Petrich wrote:
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> >I have been watching Saida do that with Egyptian and English
> >and have to admit she is doing a fairly good job!
>
> What can one expect from someone who considers Egyptian the
> Mother Tongue of Europe? :-)
>
> And I will give Ms. Saida one thing. She has a bit more humility.
You are more impressed with my humility than most people ;-) Yet, when
you refer to me as "someone who considers Egyptian the Mother Tongue of
Europe", you are just trolling because I have already stated that I do
not believe this in a general way--only in specific instances.
Saida
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <325434...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
> Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> On what grounds is it partly IE and partly Semitic? Is this the
> >> isolated-comparison gimmick all over again? :-)
> >This is the truth, Loren, believe it or not. It's a strange language.
> >Go talk to the ancient Egyptians about it. I am not responsible :-)
>
> That's news to most linguists who have ever looked at Egyptian in
> detail.
Baloney! Here is a little bit from my "Egyptian Grammar" by Sir Alan Gardiner:
"The Egyptian Language is related, not only to the Semitic tongues (Hebrew, Arabic,
Aramaic, Babylonian,etc.) but also to the East African languages (Galla, Somali, etc.)
and the Berber idioms of North Africa. It's connection with the latter groups, together
known as the Hamitic family, is a very thorny subject, but the relationship to the
Semitic tongues can be fairly accurately defined...In spite of these resemblances,
Egyptian differs from all the Semitic tongues a good deal more than any one of them
differs from any other, and at least until its relationship to the African languages is
more closely defined, Egyptian must certainly be classified as standing outside the
Semitic group."
In other words, old Stern was right when he wrote, in German "Egyptian has gone its own
way." It doesn't take a genius to see what is going on here. The old Egyptologists who
concerned themselves with the language, Stern, Budge et al, were struck by Egyptian's
resemblance to IE at times and were not afraid to say so. But, by Gardiner's day, the
Egyptian scholars got scared off (probably by people like you who were always insisting
Greek and Latin was the end of the road) and began to look for the part of Egyptian that
wasn't Semitic in Africa with, as you can perceive, indifferent results. I am sure, at
this very moment, the question is still being debated among Egyptologists, but, in my
opinion, the impressions of the turn-of-the-century scholars were no more misguided than
those of the present-day ones. No doubt African terms found their way into ancient
Egyptian, but the bulk of the language will never be sueezed into this mold or any
other.
>
> >> ... The word for "mother", of
> >> >course, is "mut", which is very IE. "Muti" means "my mother".
> >> Where is the final r?
>
> >You will not find it in the Indian languages, either.
>
> The final r drops out of Sanskrit in the nominative singular,
> where it would have no suffix, but it is present in all other numbers and
> cases, where there *are* suffixes. I may note that a similar phenomenon
> happens in Slavic (Russian mat', Serbo-Croatian mati in the nom. sing.;
> mater- in all other numbers and cases; interestingly, it is lost in the
> word for brother, brat), and that Latin drops a final n instead of a final
> r in such a circumstance.
Doesn't this just go to show that there is no set pattern in all of this borrowing?
>
> >> >Interestingly, when I was a very small child and spoke no English yet, I
> >> >called my parents "Tate" and "Mutti".
>
> Excellent baby-talk :-)
Yes, this is baby-talk, like Mama and Dada. Egyptian had baby-talk, too, without doubt.
But "mother" and "father" are bonafide words in every language As the Egyptian "Iti"
(the "i's" may have been pronounced as glottal stops)and "mut" are not Semitic like
"abba" or "ima, um", I wish someone would come forward and advise me what "African"
language they come from.
>
> >> What was your original language?
> >Actually, I was multi-lingual from childhood. There was no "one"
> >language.
>
> You can at leat list them.
Lists...always lists...
>
> I'd like to add that, despite my knowledge of bits and pieces of
> other languages, I am only fluent in English.
There is nothing wrong with that. One language is perfectly respectable as long as one
speaks it correctly. You have a better command of English than most people and a love
of language, which is obvious. I have this love, myself, but I sometimes forget what a
powerful weapon for agression language can be and, that those of us who have a facility
with it, could try to save our jabs for those who actually come in punching.
Steve Whittet
In article <53200d$l...@halley.pi.net>, m...@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article <52s3bs$b...@halley.pi.net>, m...@pi.netÁ says...
>>>
>>>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>>
>>>>All the action in the development of farming in the 3rd and 4th
>>>>millenia BC is to the south of the Black and Caspian seas.
>>>
>>>All the action? What about Sherratt's "Secondary Products Revolution"
>>>in Europe?
>
>[lots of quotes and a bibliography, mostly about the Aegean.]
>What about the "Secondary Products Revolution" in the non-Aegean part
>of Europe, which I was referring to? That's "action" too, isn't it?
These are good points well taken, and actually tending toward
the line of reasoning I wished to take.
The use of secondary products represents a shift from nomadic
pastoralism to sedentary and settled lifestyles. Nomads tend
not to want to lug a bunch of crockery around with them.
Secondary products also tend to be associated with the stockpiling
of surpluses, social stratification, specialization and trade.
Early agrarianism is well represented by Nelson Gluecks
"Rivers in the Desert" where he shows how a nomad will
sow some seeds in a wind protected pocket in the sand
and come back a season later to reap some cereal grains.
The invention and use of a plow requiring a domesticated animal
to pull it and all the other secondary inovations seem to have
originated south of the Black and Caspian seas and gradually
spread northward.
Civilization generally seems to emerge south of the Black
and Caspian seas.
If Civilization generally leads to inovations which diffuse to
the north, to what mechanism should we ascribe the innovation
of language in the north and its diffusion to the south?
===========================================================
>>Why do you presume that the cognate is "father" used in the
>>sense of kinship as oposed to "father" used in the Biblical
>>sense of "creator"?
>
>Because we were discussing the relation to pita and pater.
My question is why would we not include Ptah or Ptah r
in the sense of the word of creation which fathers everything?
>
>>Why is the suffix of more interest than the root of the word?
>
>See my reply to one of Saida's posts.
I lack Saidas linguistic brilliance, please explain it to me slowly...
=======================================================================
>>>>The European Culture at this time consists of Balkan painted and
>>>>Impressed ware cultures, Funnel rim pottery cultures, early painted
>>>>ware cultures and Urnfields.
>>>
>>>Urnfields? The Central European Urnfield culture is dated
>>>c. 1400 BC (1100 bc).
>
>>Yes. The period of discussion is the development of language.
>
>You were discussing the 3rd and 4th millennia, mentioned explicitly
>twice in your post (not counting one reference to the 4th alone).
>What period is "the development of language"?
>
>>The development of language might go back before the development
>>of farming but could be safely termed undeveloped prior to about
>>the 7th millenium BC when farming began in Europe.
>
>Nonsense. What about language in Africa, in Eastern/Southeastern
>Asia, in Australia, in the Americas?
Language prior to the development of sedentism,
existed among nomadic bands of hunters in the form of
monosylabic grunts and growls amplified by a great deal
of body language. It was unsophisticated and undeveloped.
Look at the studies of communication among for example
chimpanzees. There is considerable social organization,
expectations of behavior, roles, sharing of resources,
the use of tools. Body language provides the bulk of the
necessary communication.
Consider how sign language as an amplification of body language
depends upon making things simple, not complicated. The development
of language as we know it was a very complicated process.
In Africa, in Eastern/Southeastern Asia, in Australia, in the
Americas the emergence of language as we know it seems to have
been associated with the creation of the symbols, patterns, graphic
associations and pictures we call petroglyphs.
The earliest evidence of these goes back to the cave paintings
of the paleolithic. Every one of the societies and cultures you
named goes through a phase of rock painting petroglyphs before
language really seems to coalesce. The forms of the glyphs are
what some have called universal symbols, spirals, whorls, animals,
people, stars, geographic contours, body parts, ...language seems
to have a symbolic element right from its earliest beginnings.
>
>>>J.P. Mallory, in his book "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", talks at
>>>large of the connections between the IE homeland theory and the
>>>archaeological record. For the Southern Ukraine, the relevant
>>>archaeological cultures are the Bug-Dniestr, Dniepr-Donets, Tripolye,
>>>Sredny Stog and Yamnaya.
>
>>All of these cultures to the east of the Dniester are characterized
>>by funnel rim pottery as described above are they not?
>
>No they are not. Funnel rim pottery is characteristic of the North
>European TRB (TRichterBecher = Funnel Rim pottery) culture.
The key thing I was trying to establish was the chronological
sequence of ceramic dates as related to the diffusion of language.
"Early incised ware" is found in Anatolia Crete and the Aegean
c 7000-6000 BC
"Impressed ware" cultures are associated with the Mediterranean
and North African coasts and the islands of the Mediterranean,
c 6000-5000 BC. Balkan "painted and impressed ware" cultures
also show up on the Vandar and the Moravia c 6000-5000 BC.
The Danubian "linear incised pottery" cultures show up upstream
but not at the mouth of the Seine, the Rhine, the Weser, the Elbe,
the Oder, the Vistula, the Danube and the Sava c 5000-4000 BC.
Britain, Gaul, Most of Northern Iberia is generally catagorized as
the "bowl cultures" c 4000 - 3000 BC and this corresponds to the
area of megalithic chambered tombs. The rest of Europe has other
pottery classifications
"Bowl cultures to" the east of the funnel rim pottery cultures show
up from the Pripet north to the Baltic c 3000-2000 BC
Now overlay this ceramic distribution with the presence of wheeled
carts and with the developing activity in the mining of metals,
secondary products, trade in copper and amber, and language diffusion
The pattern which emerges is that between 6000 and 5000 BC one
relatively homogeneous culture is spread along the Mediterranean
coasts from Anatolia to Iberia including all of the Mediteranean
islands.
In the next millenia between 5000 and 4000 BC this culture spreads
up the rivers from the Mediterranean and Black sea to the interior
of Europe but not yet so far north and west as the Baltic, the
North Sea and the Atlantic. This is not to say there are no people
there, just that they are not yet connected to this ceramic culture.
In the next millenium between 4000 and 3000 BC The bowl cutures in
the west and the funnel rim pottery cultures in the north and east
reach the shores of the Atlantic, the North Sea and the Baltic.
What we are talking about is the beaker trading network being
a separate culture from the nomadic groups of the steppes.
East of the Dneiper the nomadic groups of the stepes are not a
part of this ceramic culture within this time frame.
"It was only after 4500 BC that communities depending on animal
domestication and cereal cultivation began to appear in the southern
Russian Pontiac steppe around the mouth of the Amu Dara south of
the Aral Sea." TAA p 148. The earliest settlements in Russia are
around the mouths of the Dneister, Dneipr and Don rivers where
they enter the Black Sea.
At Dereivka a settlement and cemetary on the middle Dneiper
belonging to the Sredney Stog culture c 4400-3500 BC there is
evidence of domestic animals including the horse which appears
to have been primarily used for food.
In the period 4500-1800 BC on the Dneiper you have Kolomiyschina,
Nadporiznkha, Dzvonetskaya Balka,Dereivka, Storozhevaya Mogila,
and Kobyakovo, and Zhdanov on the Don, most located close to
where the rivers meet the Black sea.
>The Bug-Dniestr and Dniepr-Donets cultures antedate TRB. The Tripolye
>culture is closely linked to the Balkan neolithic cultures (like
>Vinca), and only partially crosses the Dniestr.
Between 4000 and 3000 BC the bowl cutures in the west and the
funnel rim pottery cultures in the north and east are among the
last of the ceramic cultures to join the Beaker people. The
Danubian "linear incised pottery" cultures show up on the
Dneister c 5000-4000 BC.
> The Sredny Stog
>culture is closely related to the Khvalynsk culture to the East, and
>the subsequent Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) culture encloses the area of both.
The Sredny Stog pit grave culture and the subsequent variant the
catacomb grave culture is associated with the burial of ox drawn
carts and copper artifacts in the 3rd millenium BC. The later
timber graves are generally dated to after c 1800 BC.
By the time of the Urnfields we can think of this distribution
in terms of Western Europe with Thracian, Illyrian, Baltic Germanic,
Early Italic, Celtic and Slavic peoples in a stable agricultural
cultural continuum which is identifiable with the earlier recognizable
pottery styles.
Look to their north where there were the Finno Ugarian hunters, and
to their east where there were the nomadic pastoralists, and to the
south of the Black and Caspian seas, where Urban Civilization was
developing. Which is the most likely source of linguistic developments?
>
>>> For the Caspian area, the Seroglazovo, Samara and Khvalynsk.
>>> For Central Asia, the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures.
The earliest sites on the Caspian were Khodzhasu, Chaganak and Djanak
near the terminus of the modern RR ferry to Baku.
Near the Aral sea the site of Dzhan-Basa Kala; In and around the
Andronovo region were Karasuk and Afanas Yeva Gora, Barnat and Biyusk
The Andronovo culture which covered a huge area from the Urals to
Lake Baikal and south west into Fergana originated in about 1500 BC.
>
>>None of these cultures are characterised by funnel rim pottery
>>do you disagree?
>
>No, the only culture "characterized" by funnel rim pottery is TRB.
Again, the point was the broader chronological development.
What is there to the east of the Dnieper and the north of the
Black and Caspian seas which suggests a mechanism for the
diffusion of language through Europe or India?
>The Seroglazovo culture is characterized by egg-shaped pottery and has
>connections south of the Caspian. The Samara and Khvalynsk cultures
>are contemporary with and similar to the Dniepr-Donets and Khvalynsk
>cultures in the west.
There is also some connection between the Namazga culture and the
Zaman Baha culture associated with the mining of tin between
Tashkent and the Pamirs between 1800 and 1200 BC and its
distribution down the Atrack river (which used to form the
southern boundary of the Soviet Union with Iran) to the Caspian.
>
>>So are we are agreed, there is no ceramic connection between the
>>cultures to the east and west and there is a change in lifestyle
>>from agrarian to pastoral nomadism as well between these regions.
>
>Dniepr-Donets/Samara (5000-4500), Sredny Stog/Khvalynsk (4500-3500)
>and Yamnaya (3500-2500) are all semi-agrarian semi-pastoralist.
This is the region which later became known as Cimmeria. The
interesting features of the culture are a dependence on secondary
products (the use of animals to draw carts) and the use of metals.
It is not generally considered to be typified by its ceramics.
>Pastoral nomadism in the "classical" sense only became possible after
>the domestication of the horse, probably sometime during the Sredny
>Stog/Khvalynsk phase. After that, it's a straight line from the
>Yamnaya culture to the Cimmerians and Scythians of historical times.
I would consider the Cimmerians and Scythians less than likely
candidates for the transmission of linguistic inovations to the
more civilized areas to their south and west despite their use
of metals and horses.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Kaare Albert Lie
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>My, aren't we the rabid one? You are quite right, I don't have a
>Sanskrit dictionary. But I do have an Egyptian one, which I think is
>more than most people participating in this discussion, including
>yourself, have.
Hmm .... rabid? I am delighted by seeing some creative thinking
and daring new theories from time to time - but confess being
rather impatient with blatant ignorance and stubborn idiocies.
Your comments on Egyptian are totally irrelevant here. I guess my
copy of Gardiner should help me a little on my way, if necessary,
but I am not discussing Egyptian with you. I gave a reply to your
completely false statement about Indian languages.
> Anyway, I couldn't care less what the various
>grammatical forms of the word "mother" in Sanskrit are. The actual
>word, itself, is lacking one.
Try to understand this: In an inflected language, there exist no
"actual word itself" outside of its grammatical forms. You can
analyse the inflected word into root, stem, pre-, in- or
suffixes, but none of these are the "actual word itself". Taking
the nominative singular as "the actual word itself", as you seem
to do, is downright stupid. The nominative singular is just the
conventional lexical form, and takes no special precedence of the
other forms. If you say don't care about the various grammatical
forms of Sanskrit words, you are only showing the world that you
do not understand the subject you write about.
>Would you, being an expert in Sanskrit,
>care to explain why?
I have just explained why your question is meaningless.
>> But check the full paradigm, and you will see that the 'r' is
>> present in all the other forms of the declension - either as
>> 'full' consonant or reduced to the semivocalic '.r'.
>>
>> You mentioned 'Indian languages' so let us first take a look at
>> the closely related early Indian indoeuropean languages Sanskrit
>> and Pali. Here is the singular declension of 'mother' in both
>> these languages:
>>
>> Sanskrit Pali
>>
>> Nominative: maataa maataa
>> Vocative: maatar maataa
>> Accusative: maataram maataram
>> Instrumentalis: maatraa maataraa
>> Dative: maatre maatu
>> Ablative: maatur maataraa
>> Genitive: maatur maatu
>> Locative: maatari maatari
I could of course have added the dualis and plural forms, too,
but somehow I do not think it would have been of much help to
you.
Saida
Piotr Michalowski wrote:
>
> In article <3253BB...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> writes:
>
> >Hang on! Egyptian IS an Indo-European language, in part, and also, in
> >part, a Semitic one. Since it goes its own way and could not be
> >classified, a new designation, Hamitic, had to be assigned to it.
>
> Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Where did you get the idea that Egyptian
> was IE? It is a separate branch of the Afroasiatic family. Forget about
> Hamitic, as a)it never had anything to do with IE and b) the way in which the
> term (now obsolete) was applied to languages is unrelated to what you are
> trying to say. SOme people still use the term Hamito-Semitic, but no proper
> linguistic classification of the family recognizes any separate Hamitic
> branch. That is linguistic prehistory.
The "problem" still remains the same. If the "Hamitic" that Egyptian
was relegated to turned out to be a mistake, that is not surprising. I,
myself, would not want to be the one to classify this language. I'll
just repeat to you, Piotyr, what I said to Loren Petrich:
never be squeezed into this mold or any other.
Meanwhile, I would appreciate if you would look at the thread "The
Exorcist" and use your expertise to help me try to figure out what short
of a place name "Bekhten" might be. It is not Egyptian, but supposedly
somewhere in the environs of Mesopotamia.
Steve Whittet
In article <532vl5$i...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg1...@cus.cam.ac.uk says...
>
>Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
>[...]
>: Mr. Whittet shows yet again that he can *only* imagine contacts
>: by trade along bodies of water.
>
>And we all know how busy a canal the Silk Route was.
Actually a major part of the silk was transported either by sea
or using rivers. Caravans which crossed deserts did so to avoid
the bandits which preyed on the trade taking the easier well
established routes.
Steve Whittet
In article <532vip$i...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg1...@cus.cam.ac.uk says...
>
>Steve Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
>[...]
>: > And Turkish is *very* closely related
>: >to the Central Asian Turkic languages, something on the order of how
>: >close the Romance languages are (I'm not exactly sure, however).
>
>: Perhaps, but the connection would be trade across the Caspian sea
>: and up the Aras river.
>
>That's in a word bull shit. The turks are a Turkic people
>who used to live in central Asia. Other Turkic peoples lived
>in that region and spoke very closely related languages just
>like say Germans and Austrians - shareing parts of their
>history.
The question is why would people from Cental Asia want to
migrate to Turkey in the first place? Once you realise that
there is a major trade route from the Namazga culture across
the Caspian to what is to the Kura or Aras river leading to
Mt Arat as documented by a line of closely associated sites
dating to the 3rd millenium BC it seems simplistic to hypothesis
this had no role in the decision making process.
> If you can speak Turkish you can basically talk and understand
>all the Turkic peoples between Turkey and West China.
That is because of a much later development called the Silk Road
which provides a mechanism connecting these peoples together.
> There was no need for trade links to spread the same language
>between related peoples - connections help keep it up, but they
>were'nt necessary for establishing it.
The question is what relation can you produce prior to the
3rd millenium BC when the trade route appears?
>
>Ralf
>
>: >--
>: >Loren Petrich
>
>: steve
>
>
>--
steve
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>The use of secondary products represents a shift from nomadic
>pastoralism to sedentary and settled lifestyles. Nomads tend
>not to want to lug a bunch of crockery around with them.
The way Mallory interprets it is the exact opposite: as a shift from
agriculturalism to pastoralism (or at least "mixed farming"). I would
agree as far as the whole of "temperate Europe" is concerned: ever
since the "Danubian" Linear Ware expansion of agriculture over these
areas up to the present day, there has _never_ been question of
nomadic pastoralism as the predominant lifestyle there, and the area
has been solidly agricultural. The "Secondary Products Revolution" is
merely a shift to more advanced subsistance techniques, resulting in
the "mixed farming" model.
>"Early incised ware" is found in Anatolia Crete and the Aegean
>c 7000-6000 BC
>"Impressed ware" cultures are associated with the Mediterranean
>and North African coasts and the islands of the Mediterranean,
>c 6000-5000 BC. Balkan "painted and impressed ware" cultures
>also show up on the Vandar and the Moravia c 6000-5000 BC.
[etc.]
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm still not sure about how you stand
on some aspects, especially the linguistic ones. Let me put the
following "questionnaire" to you to straighten things out. I have
already supplied the answers given by Mallory and by Renfrew (as I
interpret them), as these are the last two widely publicized attempts
to explain the current distribution of the IE languages in relation to
archaeological matters. The areas and aeras are for my convenience,
and I don't claim any exactitude for them. You may have preferred to
make other divisions, but please humour me, as long as you understand
what I'm referring to and can provide a reasonable answer.
c. 7000 BC >
============
Anatolia Coyonu/Catal Huyuk
Mallory: --
Renfrew: Proto-IE (Proto-Anatolian)
Whittet: [ ]
Greece Sesklo
M: --
R: PIE (<= Anatolia)
W:
Balkans Karanovo/Starcevo
M: --
R: PIE (<= Greece, Anatolia)
W:
Italy Impressed Ware/Red Painted
M: --
R: PIE? (Proto-Italic?) (<= Greece)
W:
W/S France Impressed Ware/Cardial Ware
M: --
R: PIE? (Proto-Celtic?) (<= Italy)
W:
Iberia Impressed Ware
M: --
R: PIE? (Proto-Celtic?) (<= France)
W:
Britain [Mesolithic]
M: --
R: --
W:
N/C Europe [Mesolithic]
M: --
R: --
W:
E. Europe [Mesolithic]
M: --
R: --
W:
Pontic Bug-Dniestr
M: PIE?
R: PIE? (Proto-Indo-Iranian?) (<= Balkans)
W:
C.Asia Seroglazovo
M: PIE?
R: --
W:
c. 5000 BC
==========
Anatolia Middle Neolithic
M: --
R: Proto-Anatolian
W:
Greece Dhimini
M: --
R: Proto-Greek
W:
Balkans Vinca
M: --
R: Proto-Illyrian
W:
Italy Fiorano/Square Mouth...
M: --
R: Proto-Italic?
W:
W/S France Chaseen
M: --
R: Proto-Celtic?
W:
Iberia Almerian/Megalithic
M: --
R: Proto-Celtic? (Iberian, Basque)
W:
Britain Windmill Hill
M: --
R: Proto-Celtic? (<= France)
W:
N/C Europe LBK/Ertebolle
M: --
R: Proto-Germanic (<= Balkans)
W:
E. Europe Narva/Valdai/Comb-Pricked Ware
M: --
R: Proto-Balto-Slavic (<= Balkans, N/C. Europe)
W:
Pontic Dniepr-Donets
M: PIE
R: Proto-Indo-Iranian
W:
C.Asia Samara
M: PIE (<= Pontic)
R: Proto-Indo-Iranian
W:
c. 4000 BC
==========
Anatolia Late Neolithic
M: --
R: Proto-Anatolian
W:
Greece Larisa
M: --
R: Proto-Greek
W:
Balkans Ezero-Cernavoda/Tripolye
M: Proto-Anatolian? (<= Pontic)
R: Proto-Illyrian
W:
Italy Diana/Lagozza
M: --
R: Proto-Italic
W:
W/S France Chasseen/Michelsberg
M: --
R: Proto-Celtic
W:
Iberia Almerian/Megalithic
M: --
R: Proto-Celtic?
W:
Britain Windmill Hill
M: --
R: Proto-Celtic?
W:
N/C Europe TRB/Baden
M: (Baden: IE?) (<= Pontic)
R: Proto-Germanic/Celtic
W:
E. Europe TRB
M: --
R: Proto-Balto-Slavic
W:
Pontic Sredny Stog
M: Indo-European (Proto-Indo-Iranian?)
R: Proto-Indo-Iranaian
W:
C.Asia Khvalynsk
M: Indo-European (Proto-Indo-Iranian/Tocharian?)
R: Proto-Indo-Iranian
W:
c. 3000 BC
==========
Anatolia Troy I
M: Proto-Anatolian (<= Balkans)
R: Proto-Anatolian
W:
Greece Early Helladic
M: (Minoan?)
R: Proto-Greek
W:
Balkans Balkan "Battle Axe"
M: Proto-Illyrian/Greek (<= Pontic)
R: Proto-Illyrian
W:
Italy Remedello/Rinaldone
M: Proto-Italic? (<= Balkans, C.Europe)
R: Proto-Italic
W:
W/S France SOM/Beaker
M: Proto-Celtic? (<= NC. Europe)
R: Proto-Celtic
W:
Iberia Millaran/Beaker
M: (Iberian, Basque), Proto-Celtic? (<= France)
R: (Iberian, Basque), Proto-Celtic
W:
Britain Petersborough/Beaker
M: (?), Proto-Celtic? (<= France)
R: Proto-Celtic
W:
N/C Europe Corded Ware/Beaker
M: Proto-Germanic/Proto-Celtic (<= Balkans, Pontic)
R: Proto-Germanic/Proto-Celtic
W:
E. Europe Corded Ware/Baltic Battle Axe
M: Proto-Balto-Slavic (<= NC. Europe, Pontic)
R: Proto-Balto-Slavic
W:
Pontic Yamnaya
M: Proto-Indo-Iranian
R: Proto-Indo-Iranian
W:
C.Asia Yamnaya/Afanasievo
M: Proto-I-I/Proto-Tocharian
R: Proto-I-I/Proto-Tocharian?
W:
c. 2000 BC
==========
Anatolia Troy VI
M: Anatolian
R: Anatolian
W:
Greece Middle Helladic
M: Greek (<= Balkans)
R: Greek
W:
Balkans Balkan EBA/MBA
M: Illyrian/D-Thr
R: Illyrian/D-Thr
W:
Italy Proto-Appenine
M: Etruscan?, Italic
R: Etruscan, Italic
W:
W/S France EBA
M: Celtic
R: Celtic
W:
Iberia Argaric/Beaker
M: Iberian, Basque; Celtic (<= France)
R: Iberian, Basque; Celtic
W:
Britain EBA
M: Celtic (<= France)
R: Celtic
W:
N/C Europe EBA/Unetice
M: Germanic, Celtic
R: Germanic, Celtic
W:
E. Europe Late Corded/Fatyanovo
M: Balto-Slavic
R: Balto-Slavic
W:
Pontic Srubnaya (Timber Grave)
M: Cimmerian
R: Cimmerian
W:
C.Asia Andronovo
M: Indo-Iranian
R: Indo-Iranian
W:
Linguistic status c. 1500 BC
============================
Anatolia Hittite (Anatolian)
Greece Mycenaean (Greek)
Balkans Illyrian/Daco-Thracian
Italy Italic/Etruscan
W/S France Celtic
Iberia Iberian/Celtic
Britain Celtic
N/C Europe Germanic/Celtic
E. Europe Balto-Slavic
Pontic Cimmerian
C.Asia Scythian (Iranian)/Tocharian
Steve Whittet
In article <325547...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net says...<sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> writes:...snip...
>
>Meanwhile, I would appreciate if you would look at the thread "The
>Exorcist" and use your expertise to help me try to figure out what short
>of a place name "Bekhten" might be. It is not Egyptian, but supposedly
>somewhere in the environs of Mesopotamia.
How about "Bakhtaran" located in the Zagros Mountains at the
headwaters of the Simareh river? It is jast over the Iranian
border about 200 miles to the northeast of modern Baghdad.
In antiquity it may have been called "Ecbatana" and was
the point from which Alexander the Great launched his
campaign east into Parthia.
steve
MA Lloyd
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:
>>>Latin and Sanskrit correspond a heck of a lot better than English
>>>and Egyptian.
>>Prove it.
> Just check out some textbook on comparative linguistics. Compare
>a lot of grammar and vocabulary, and Indo-European will stick out like a
>sore thumb.
You don't even need a lot of either. I suspect anybody can detect the 300
or so low level families of the world and the more obvious high level ones
like Indo-European and Afro-asiatic by comparing small word lists.
Pick a list of common words and make lots of copies (try for example every
5th word on the Swadesh basic word list, that would be: I, who, one, woman,
dog, root, bone, feather, foot, nose, breasts, bite, die, come, say, rain,
smoke, mountain, black, new) go to a big university library and find bilingual
dictionaries for 2 or 3 languages in each branch of AA and IE (20 or 30
languages), look up the words and fill them in, writing the names of the
languages on the backs of the card. Get a linguistics book with a table of
vowels (close together vowels can be treated as plausible shifts) and learn
the types of consonents (changes from one liquid to another, one fricative
to another etc. are also plausible). Ideally you would want better rules
than that, but these will probably work.
Shuffle, wait a week so you don't remember which card is which language,
and group the languages by how many cognates you can find in the lists.
I did a variation of this during one semester break once upon a time and
found I had most of the relationships in my sample in agreement with the
standard classification at the time. I haven't actually tried it on this
set, but would be very suprised if you discover Egyptian groups with IE
better than the rest of Afro-asiatic. If you do, post your word lists
and proposed cognates.
Piotr Michalowski
>>There is no evidence at all that all the Hittite and Babylonian
>>records are wrong and Hurrians rather than Hittites attacked Babylon.
>This raises the question of how we know the Hittite records refer
>to Babylon and how you know the Babylonian records refer to Hittites.
No, it does, not. You, against all historians, have attributed the
destruction of Babylon to the Hurrians. You prove it
>> The Kassites have nothing to do with Hurrians and it is absurd to
>>say "people with Hurrian names who we call Kassites." People with Kassite
>>names are called Kassites. Ugh!
>Also, some people considered a part of the Kasite occupation
>levels at some sites apparently had Hurrian names.
This is a reason to assume that? Kassite occupation levels is a
chronological, not ethnic term.
>>
>>>Because Piotr thinks the Hurrians are limited to the Caucasus
>>>Mountains he doesn't look at the possibility that the Hurrians
>>>were spread throughout the mountains of the region much as are
>>>the modern Kurds.
>
>According to some sources the Hurrians appear to have defined
>their territory as the mountains, meaning any and all mountains
>were where they felt most at home.
>>
What sources? What sources do you know of where Hurrians define their
territory in the maountains?
>>>Do you have any examples of Kassites with Hittite names?
>>>Why not allow that the Kassites and the Mittani were Hurrian
>>>if that is what the preponderence of the evidence suggests?
>>
>>I am sorry, but words fail me. What do Hittites have to do with
>Kassites????
>Nothing, and that is the issue. There is a lot of interaction
>between Hurrians and Kasites and Mittani. It is thus reasonable
>to find Kassites and Mittani with Hurrian names. There is not a
>lot of interaction between Hittites and Kassites, thus it seems
>unlikely that there would be many examples of Kassites with
>Hittite names.
This is completely illogical. What is he point of all of this?
>>What single piece of evidence is there that Kassites were Hurrian?
>The people of Kassite occupation levels share a certain similarity
>of ceramic, organic, stone, metal, and ethnalogical artifacts with
>the Hurrian sites.
What are you talking about? What pottery is Kassite and what pottery is
Hurrian? No one that I know of has shown what may be a conplex Hurrian and
what may be a complex of "Kassite" artifacts/
> Another invention like your Hutur river?
>Hutur River? As I recall we were discussing the Terqa texts, economic
>and administrative texts contemporary with the events that were happening.
>I said
>"They may have been called Hittites (Hatur) by Babylonians, but
>this may simply have been a reference to the location of their
>capital (Hana) on the Hatur river ..."
>The river we call the Habur today could have had any number of
>possible etymologies. Is it your position that you can show it
>was called the Habur c 1595 BC? Habur, Haptur, Hatur, all seem
>like possibilities, If the texts that you refer to use a term
>like "hatur" to refer to the people attacking Babylon, perhaps
>it was a reference to the people of the "hatur" rather than Hittites.
Why to you persist in this? You invented the word Hatur. It is unattested in
any ancient text that I know of and the Babylonians never called Hittites by
that name! You then propose that it may have been the name of the habur
river. Why, on what basis? This is all fantasy. Your "possibilities"
are not possibilities at all. First, as I said, your "Hatur" is something
you simply invented. Second, we know what the ancient name of the Habur was,
and it was indeed Habur, spelled syllabically as ha-bu-ur in the Mari,
sometimes with the classifier for "watercourse", id2.
>>>>>>Certainly there was not a sizable Kassite element in Babylonia
>>>>judging by the number of such names and they never wrote
>>>>their own language.
>>
>>>The center of the Kassite sphere of influence does not seem
>>>to have been Babylon. Rather it is associated with the Dilmunite
>>>sphere of influence to the south, the Mittani sphere of influence
>>>to the west, the Hurrian sphere of influence to the North, all
>>>combining to cut off Babylon from any source of trade.
>>
>>That is pure nonsense.
>And again the profusion of facts in rebuttal
You cannot simply invent things and then ask everyine to refute unfounded
allegations.
>>and I as said before no connection with Hurrians.
>The fact is that there is a connection between Hurrians
>and Kassites because some Kassites have Hurrian names.
>There is a connection between Kassites and Dilmun because
>the city of Qal'at al Bahrain on the island of Bahrain
>contains Kassite Occupation levels.
Once again, without all this nonsense, how do you recognize a Kassite with
Hurrian name? Kassite occupation levels, as I have told you a number of
times, does not refer to Kassites but to Kassite period Babylonia!
>>>
>>
>>>So you know about the school and administrative texts and yet you
>>>claim there is no complete sentence in the Kassite Language?
>>
>>Are we speaking the same language? Name me one text that has a
>>sentence in Kassite. Don't post some encyclopedia entry from
>>the net, just give us one simple reference!
Here is the great reference:
>"The texts from Bahrain itself refer to a Burnaburis and to a
>Kastiliasu. The former is presumably Burnaburis II c 1359-1333 BC
>since the older Burnaburis ruled prior to the occupation of the
>Sealands and thus before his presence on Bahrain was geographically
>possible. The later is probably Kastiliasu IV c 1232-1225 BC"
>"Bahrain and the Arabian Gulf", C Edens, BTTA p 200
>"Furniture made of mesu-wood a commonly imported item of the
>third millenium trade, appears in a handful of Kassite texts from Nipur
>(collected in the Chicago Assyriological Dictionary M, 237), Leemans
>(1968:216)" Ibid, p 213-214
>>
How does the mention of Kassite kings of Babylon answer this question? How
does the mention of mesu wood answer it? The Nippur texts in question are
Kassite period, but they are all written in Babylonian. So where are these
Kassite language texts?
>In fact the bulk of the evidence which I have seen such as
>eyestones, pearls, shell seals, shells from Indo Pacific species,
>carnelian and agate coming from India, tin, ebony, even the lapis
>which came down the rivers to the sea from the mountains, all
>argues emphatically for the Gulf trade. Nutmeg found at Terqa
>for example, elephant hides and ivory, frankincense and myhrr,
>baboons and mesu wood; are these the trade goods of Iran, Piotr?
>>with very little information about any trade with the Gulf.
>>You learn nothing.
>You are in denial
What period are you talking about? How does lapis from Afranistan, which we
know came by land through Iran prove anything. Most of the things you are
talking about are from other periods. As for nutmeg, you have invented still
one more fact, as you have confused the putaitive find of cloves (still not
proven by analysis, as far as I know) at Terqa, from the Old Babylonian
period, if I remember correctly, with Middle Babylonian i.e. Kassite times.
>
>>If you insist on doing this, perhaps you could read a book or two
>>on the subject (no, please do not post a list of unread entries
>>from a bibliography, we have seen those already).
>Actually you are quite right to chide me Piotr, I quess I will
>have to reprogram the bot which retrieves my cites for me to be
>more erudite:)
Please do that. Since almost all facts that you spot are incorrect, it makes
it extremely difficult to debate any theories you might base on them.
Piotr Michalowski
>The question is why would people from Cental Asia want to
>migrate to Turkey in the first place? Once you realise that
>there is a major trade route from the Namazga culture across
>the Caspian to what is to the Kura or Aras river leading to
>Mt Arat as documented by a line of closely associated sites
>dating to the 3rd millenium BC it seems simplistic to hypothesis
>this had no role in the decision making process.
Excuse me, but what is the significance of this for a migration? Moreover,
what does the third millennium BC have to do with the migration of Turkic
speaking peoples to Anatolia?
Loren Petrich
Loren Petrich
In article <533hgo$r...@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <532vip$i...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg1...@cus.cam.ac.uk says...
>The question is why would people from Cental Asia want to
>migrate to Turkey in the first place? ...
Ever hear of wars of conquest?
>> If you can speak Turkish you can basically talk and understand
>>all the Turkic peoples between Turkey and West China.
>That is because of a much later development called the Silk Road
>which provides a mechanism connecting these peoples together.
Horseshit. Trade links do NOT produce the remarkable linguistic
similarities that Mr. Graessmantel had mentioned. Consider Japanese, and
how it has acquired numerous words first from Chinese, and now from
English. Yet its basic vocabulary and grammar remain distinct from both --
none of the mutual intelligibility or semi-intelligibility of the Turkic
languages (how does Turkic compare to the Romance or the Continental
Scandinavian languages?). For example, despite acquiring a lot of English
words and learning English words, there are not many Japanese motivated to
put verbs in the middles of sentences instead of at the ends of them (the
normal order in Japanese).
Loren Petrich
In article <32551F...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Baloney! Here is a little bit from my "Egyptian Grammar" by Sir Alan Gardiner:
>"The Egyptian Language is related, not only to the Semitic tongues
(Hebrew, Arabic, >Aramaic, Babylonian,etc.) but also to the East African
languages (Galla, Somali, etc.) >and the Berber idioms of North Africa.
That's NOT the same thing as a close relationship to Indo-European.
Stern, Budge et al, were struck by Egyptian's
>resemblance to IE at times and were not afraid to say so.
WHAT resemblances?
I remember doing the pronouns, and finding little IE-Egyptian
resemblance, but some more Egyptian-Semitic resemblance.
If I ever find some accessible introduction to the Egyptian
language somewhere (any online one?), I'll see how much I can find.
You have a better command of English than most people and a love
>of language, which is obvious.
I'm flattered.
Loren Petrich
In article <325512...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
I'm sorry to have slammed you in that fashion; I had meant to
slam Steve Whittet, who is a true master of the art of ink-squirting,
squidlike obfuscation.
Loren Petrich
In article <325510...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>My, aren't we the rabid one? You are quite right, I don't have a
>Sanskrit dictionary. But I do have an Egyptian one, which I think is
>more than most people participating in this discussion, including
>yourself, have.
An Egyptian grammar would also be helpful.
... Anyway, I couldn't care less what the various
>grammatical forms of the word "mother" in Sanskrit are. The actual
>word, itself, is lacking one.
That's just one form of the word; I wonder if the languages Ms.
Saida knows includes a heavily inflected one; if so, she would have
direct experience with that phenomenon.
... Would you, being an expert in Sanskrit,
>care to explain why?
I will. That final r is a final consonant, and final consonants
sometimes get dropped. The same sort of thing happens in Latin with nouns
with a stem ending in -o:n- -- the nominative singular ends with -o: . A
good example would be the noun-making suffix -tio:, with (for example)
accusative case -tio:nem . All the Romance versions of that suffix are
derived from the accusative form, -zione (Italian) -cio'n (Spanish) -tion
(French, borrowed into English).
... Never mind. Many Indians seem to call their
>mothers just plain "ma".
Like English speakers calling their mother "Mom" or "Ma"?
Stella Nemeth
pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>In article <52oi81$7...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>What I was questioning was how old was the oldest known IE language
>>that the Egyptians could have been in contact with? The reason I ask
>>is that as far as I understood the Egyptians where in the area FIRST,
>>and the IE speakers arrived AFTERWARDS. Did I get that backwards?
>You are perfectly right.
Well, that is a relief. You had me scratching my head there for a
while. <g>
>As far we we know, the earliest IE speakers in
>Western Asia were members of the so-called Hittite branch, from which we get
>Nesite, Palaic, and Luwian. The first inkling of their coming is known only
>from a few personal names in the Old Assyrian tablets from Cappadocia. We
>have to reconstruct much of this early history from later Hittite materials,
>such as the copy of the Anitta inscription. Quite recently more documentation
>on the earliest "Hittite" rulers has been found in tablets from Kultepe. This
>is all late as far as Egypt is concerned. It is also far away. There was a
>lively interchange between the Egyptian and Hittite courts, with princesses
>coming and going for marriage purposes, but most of the long distance contact
>was done in Akkadian, which was the diplomatic language of the day.
OK. That is pretty much what I thought was the accepted theory based
on the information that we currently have. The Hittites were IE
speakers. They arrived on the scene after the Egyptians had self
distructed at least one, and possibly two versions (with a little help
from their local enemies) of their culture and were on version three
(New Kingdom).
I'm aware that the diplomatic texts we have from Egypt from the New
Kingdom are in Akkadian. And that just about everyone else's
diplomatic texts were in that language too.
I know that princesses came to Egypt in the 18th Dynasty, but thought
that none left Egypt for other kingdoms until the late 19th Dynasty.
Is that right or wrong?
I doubt if those princesses went anywhere without escorts, however, so
I'd expect that there was a bit of diplomacy occurring in person in
both Egypt and Hatti. Would you disagree?
>>Actually, I'd expect that a bunch of Bronze Age Greek traders (you
>>remember those trading wrecks off the coast of Turkey we were
>>discussing before I got interrupted by my daughter's wedding, don't
>>you) trading on the Egyptian coast and even down the Nile would have
>>to speak a bit of Bronze Age Egyptian. That means Middle Kingdom
>>through 19th Dynasty, I believe. And we aren't talking about late
>>forms of Egyptian and we aren't talking about even Classical Greek,
>>much less late forms of Greek. There is no question about the traders
>>since we've got physical evidence (the wrecks) and pictorial evidence
>>of the Minoans doing trading in addition to several other peoples.
>We have no idea who the traders on these boats were. In fact, I once asked
>George Bass if he had any idea and he told me that it was impossible to
>discern what was cargo and waht might have belonged to the crew.
Did you ask George Bass if he knew what nationalities and/or ethnic
groups the crews consisted of? Or did you ask him what was cargo and
what belonged to the crew? Those are two different questions.
>...I suspect
>that all sorts of interlanguages existed in the Aegen at the time, but there
>is no reason to be certain that these mixed language had to have an effect on
>any of the home tongues.
There is no reason to believe in the hermitically sealed home tongue
either. And plenty of historical experience to cite that makes it
unlikely that a culture heavily into trading didn't take on loan
words.
>>Were the traders literate? Good question. They did find writing
>>materials on the trading ship I cited before. Unfortunately the wax
>>in the wax tablet was gone.
>This is only an opinion, but I am quite dubious that this was tablet was
>actually crew property as opposed to cargo. It is a luxary item, and if the
>swabs could read and write, which I really doubt, they would have made use of
>wooden versions of such tablets.
I doubt if the swabs could read and write myself. I rather imagine
that the ship's Captain, and/or the resident merchant could and did.
Also, a single wax tablet doesn't sound like luxury goods to me. It
sounds like the place the ship's Captain and/or the resident merchant
kept his account books. On a ship with a circular trading route, what
was on the ship would constantly change, and there would be a need for
a place to keep the records that could also change. I doubt if there
was a ready stack of ceramic shards and/or leaves of slate that would
have provided "scrap paper" on land available on a ship.
>This is very much like the inscribed Kassite
>cylinder seals found at Thebes, which were simply a trade item. One of them
>even gave rise to a silly linguistic article claiming that Kiddin-Marduk,
>whose name is on one of the seals was the origin of the name Kadmos, the
>legendary founder of Thebes! Not only is this linguistic nonsense, but it is
>also historically strange, as the man was a high officer of the Babylonian
>court, and there is no evidence that he was ever near Thebes, but only his
>ornate seal, which got pinched and traded off to the Aegean. Ooops, I should
>not have mentioned it here, as who knows what will be made of it!
I wouldn't worry. We've already discussed those Theban cylinder seals
to death on this newsgroup. What's another round? <g>
Someone described them to me as a set of "samples".
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Stella Nemeth
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <324FD4...@pioneerplanet.infi.net>,
>Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>>Loren Petrich wrote:
> [Differences between Greek and Egyptian mythology...]
>>What has this to do with our linguistic debate?
> Steve Whittet is claiming that such well-known Greek thinkers as
>Plato had gotten essentially *all* their ideas form Egypt; he does not
>address the question of which ideas were original with them.
I suggest you reread what Steve said. He said the Greeks built upon
what they learned from the Egyptians, NOT that they got "essentially
*all* their ideas from Egypt."
I don't understand the rest of that sentence I'm quoting. Are you
asking Steve to address what ideas were original to the Egyptians? Or
to address what ideas were original to the Greeks?
In either case, the question is absurd. Every culture borrows from
the cultures that went before it. In the case of Egypt, there wasn't
much in the way of earlier cultures to borrow from, but they did
borrow from their neighbors from time to time. In the case of Greece,
there was quite a bit to be borrowed from the Egyptians, and others,
but what they made out of the borrowings was purely their own
creation.
In the same way, a loaned word, borrowed from another language, be it
Egyptian or Greek, becomes part of the language of the people who
borrowed it, and after a while, might change sounds and even parts of
its meanings.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Loren Petrich
In article <534rc5$k...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
Stella Nemeth <S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> Steve Whittet is claiming that such well-known Greek thinkers as
>>Plato had gotten essentially *all* their ideas form Egypt; he does not
>>address the question of which ideas were original with them.
>I suggest you reread what Steve said. He said the Greeks built upon
>what they learned from the Egyptians, NOT that they got "essentially
>*all* their ideas from Egypt."
However, he has yet to describe what he thinks they did NOT get
from Egypt.
Ber...@cyberix.com
In article <32542F...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>> I can quote dozens of non-IE languages where "mother" is something
>> like "ma" or "mu". Father seems to vary a bit more ("pa(pa)" and
>> "ta(ta)" being the most common). These words are almost universal
>> ("baby talk").
They are indeed universal; but, they are by no means "baby talk". Babies don't
make words. Adults do. And, the adults then operantly condition the baby's
first utterance of the already accepted morpheme to the mother or father.
If such words had been determined by babies, you would find that they were
constructed evenly from utterances like "gah-gah", "hoo-hoo", and "coo-coo".
Kinship terms must, thus, be considered biologically determined "parallel
formations" extant from millennia of operant conditioning by adults. A study
of the way adults shape prattle into kinship terms was presented by John
Rosenman, M.D., in The Onomatopoeic Origins of Language, -- wherein you will
find scores of other examples of such parallel formations.
DELETE
What _is_ characteristic of
>> Indo-European, is the *-ter suffix added on to these baby-talk words
(p@-ter, ma:-ter, bhra:-ter, etc.). If you'd find *that* in Egyptian, then
you'd have something.
He wouldn't have anything more than he already has or needs: the suffix -ter
is neither necessary or sufficient for identifying an Indo-European word as a
kinship term. It is, thus, not the least bit instructive or predictive.
That's why I asked: "what "other" Egyptian
>> kinship terms end in -tah [besides Ptah, which isn't a kinship term,>>
obviously]."
Have you ever heard anyone speak of the deity as "Our Father, Art, In Heaven".
Ptah was once clearly the Egyptian Heavenly Father. Also, if you try
pronouncing the "-tah" of "Ptah" as they pronounce "pita" in NY's Greek diners
(i.e. peter) -- its Pter. The Greeks secularized the Egyptian root or its
ancestor, and added vowels to it, thereby yielding a variety of words that
originally inhered in the notion of the Heavenly Father, Pater, or Peter. Nor
is it coincidental that "peter" is a vulgar slang word for "penis".
Yes, i already know what the American Heritage Dictionary says about these
words, Loren. And, i also know that i don't need to learn any more about the
current linguistic paradigm than i've learned from deconstructing and
reconstructing it in light of the archaeological and mythological record over
last 20 or so years. This, for the same reason i don't need to learn the
principles of Ptolemaic Astronomy to understand modern astronomy.
And, yes, the analogy is more than appropriate.
Steve Berlant