OT: Origin of the Alphabet
John Varela
froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet. The
article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite workers
at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't understand
hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs and stelae like
their betters.
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
&ArticleID=6
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
--
John Varela
Mike Lyle
Hmm. This is actually something on which Petey Daniels' opinion would be
valuable, if he can keep off the insults. If anybody agrees, take this
posting as a vote in favour of cross-posting to sci.lang.
--
Mike.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Some of the readers' comments are a bit Bible-thumping, however, this
one is not:
nach SHon — USA (3/3/2010 3:07:07 PM)
interesting article, but it is very hard to have an faith in an
author who does not know the the difference between bring & take, or
that there can not be 2 UNIQUE items the same.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
HVS
FWIW, my vote's for "not".
(Well, actually, my vote's for "feel free", as I decided a while back to
kill-file all messages crossposted to/from sci.lang. I realised that faced
with inadvertently opening another post in such threads, combining the
words "eyes", "needles" and "sticking" into a sentence would have started
to sound like a jolly fine idea.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Opinicus
wrote:
> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of this
For those who would like to save a copy of the complete article on
their computer:
Display the complete article rather than just the sections. Click on
the "Print" button. When the print window opens, hit "control-A" to
select all of the text, then "control-C" to copy it. Open a fresh Word
document and hit "control-V". Be patient--it may take Word a few
minutes to process all of the HTML coding.
I saved the resulting document in .docx format resulting in a file
1,035,204 bytes in size. .html or .mht format may be more efficient--I
haven't tried.
--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com
Peter Moylan
> On 17 Mar 2010, Mike Lyle wrote
>> John Varela wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
>>> &ArticleID=6
>>>
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>> Hmm. This is actually something on which Petey Daniels' opinion would be
>> valuable, if he can keep off the insults. If anybody agrees, take this
>> posting as a vote in favour of cross-posting to sci.lang.
>
> FWIW, my vote's for "not".
>
> (Well, actually, my vote's for "feel free", as I decided a while back to
> kill-file all messages crossposted to/from sci.lang. I realised that faced
> with inadvertently opening another post in such threads, combining the
> words "eyes", "needles" and "sticking" into a sentence would have started
> to sound like a jolly fine idea.)
>
AOL. At the moment I haven't killfiled sci.lang, only one person; but
I'm starting to realise that I'm still getting all the people who argue
with him.
On the original topic: I can't decide whether the fellow who said that
only Hebrew was spoken before the Babel episode was a crank or writing
tongue-in-cheek. I suspect the latter, because it's hard to believe that
anyone in a non-primitive country could still be pushing that idea. A
couple of the other respondents, though, brought up the point that there
was known alphabetic writing prior to the Canaanite examples in that
article. It would be interesting to know what an expert would say about
that.
Not interesting enough, though, to bring PTD into the conversation. His
expert opinions, no matter how expert, tend to be buried in the crud.
My non-expert opinion, for what it's worth, is that we're dealing here
with that fuzzy boundary between alphabetic symbols and whole-word
symbols. (Didn't the ancient Egyptians themselves have some hieroglyphs
that had phonetic rather than ideographic significance?) That means, I
suspect, that the truth or otherwise of the assertion in the article
that this is the earliest known example of an alphabet will boil down to
a matter of opinion.
Here's something that somebody here will probably be able to answer
without going outside the newsgroup. I was under the impression that
Hebrew writing (and some others such as Greek) was derived from
Phoenician script. Is that still a defensible position?
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> For those who would like to save a copy of the complete article on
> their computer:
>
> Display the complete article rather than just the sections. Click on
> the "Print" button. When the print window opens, hit "control-A" to
> select all of the text, then "control-C" to copy it. Open a fresh Word
> document and hit "control-V". Be patient--it may take Word a few
> minutes to process all of the HTML coding.
>
> I saved the resulting document in .docx format resulting in a file
> 1,035,204 bytes in size. .html or .mht format may be more efficient--I
> haven't tried.
>
Good suggestion. I'd love to know how to do this in OpenOffice. (I can't
afford M$-Office.) When I saved the file in html format it was only
about 67 KB in size, but it looks to me as if the images weren't
included - the HTML source was still pointing to files on other
computers. There does not appear to be an option to save it in
StarOffice document format.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of this
> froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet. The
> article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite workers
> at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't understand
> hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs and stelae like
> their betters.
>
> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
> &ArticleID=6
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&ArticleID=6
what does Peter Daniels think of it?
HVS
> In message <j2g3q5p3aqobjv8a0...@4ax.com>
> Opinicus <gez...@spamcop.net.which.is.not.invalid> wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2010 21:56:51 GMT, "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of this
>>> froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet. The
>>> article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite workers
>>> at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't understand
>>> hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs and stelae like
>>> their betters.
>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
>>> &ArticleID=6
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>>> Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
>>> it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>
>> For those who would like to save a copy of the complete article on
>> their computer:
>
><http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>
>
> Really, use it. It will change your web experience for the better.
I can see an excellent use for that, but in this case it strips out out all
of his supporting illustrations -- some of which are relevant to the points
he's making.
J. J. Lodder
How complicated.
Mac OS X will save to .pdf directly,
and almost instantly,
Jan
CDB
> On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of
>> this froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet.
>> The article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite
>> workers at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't
>> understand hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs and
>> stelae like their betters.
>>
>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
>> &ArticleID=6
>
> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&ArticleID=6
>
> what does Peter Daniels think of it?
>
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>>
Fascinating article. The suggestion that there were earlier
"alphabetic" systems in scripts like cuneiform is interesting too, but
only addresses the author's claim that only one alphabet was ever
invented. This alphabet is the one that became ours.
>
[sci.lang removed]
HVS
It did seem a tad involved; Firefox can save the page (or a selected frame)
locally as an .htm file, with no fuss at all.
Pablo
> Opinicus wrote:
>
>> For those who would like to save a copy of the complete article on
>> their computer:
>>
>> Display the complete article rather than just the sections. Click on
>> the "Print" button. When the print window opens, hit "control-A" to
>> select all of the text, then "control-C" to copy it. Open a fresh Word
>> document and hit "control-V". Be patient--it may take Word a few
>> minutes to process all of the HTML coding.
>>
>> I saved the resulting document in .docx format resulting in a file
>> 1,035,204 bytes in size. .html or .mht format may be more efficient--I
>> haven't tried.
>>
> Good suggestion. I'd love to know how to do this in OpenOffice. (I can't
> afford M$-Office.) When I saved the file in html format it was only
> about 67 KB in size, but it looks to me as if the images weren't
> included - the HTML source was still pointing to files on other
> computers. There does not appear to be an option to save it in
> StarOffice document format.
>
In Firefox - Save as - will save the page and all images, scripts etc. You
can then just view it in a browser.
Or of course, you could just view it where it is.
--
Pablo
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of this
> > froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet. The
> > article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite workers
> > at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't understand
> > hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs and stelae like
> > their betters.
>
> >http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
> > &ArticleID=6
>
>
> what does Peter Daniels think of it?
He has not seen the magazine itself (it wasn't at the bookstore the
day after the text of the article was posted to an ANE-interest list),
but the article is an ordinary popularization with a typically
sensationalized headline.
Loath as I am to provide any support whatsoever to the magazine BAR,
which is a for-profit enterprise run by an ignorant attorney in
Washington, DC, that is supported by advertising from unscrupulous
antiquities dealers, I was willing to spend the $5 for any new
photographs it might contain.
> > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
truth of the Bible. It claims to collect funding to support excavation
work, but you'll look in vain for either an expedition it has
financed, or an accoutning for its funds. And since it's not a non-
profit, it doesn't have to account for its donations.
Opinicus
wrote:
> It did seem a tad involved; Firefox can save the page (or a selected frame)
> locally as an .htm file, with no fuss at all.
So will Internet Exploder. The procedure that I described is to
capture a copy that can easily be edited by Word.
--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of this
> > > froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet. The
> > > article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite workers
> > > at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't understand
> > > hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs and stelae like
> > > their betters.
>
> > >http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
> > > &ArticleID=6
>
> >http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&...
>
> > what does Peter Daniels think of it?
>
> He has not seen the magazine itself (it wasn't at the bookstore the
> day after the text of the article was posted to an ANE-interest list),
> but the article is an ordinary popularization with a typically
> sensationalized headline.
the full article is found at:
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=06&Page=0&UserID=0&
OR:
I think that the proto-Siniatic script is derived from the Egyptian
Hierogylyphs and that this led to the Canaanite / Phoenician alphabet
(or abjad) is not new. what I learend from the article was that proto-
Sinaitic like signs and language was found inside Egypt proper.
the former TV series (in Histoery-International) "the Naked
Archaeologist" had tried to go one step further that the people of the
Exodus were responsible for the proto-Sinaitic script!
is it definite that proto-Siniatic is Canaanite or is it an
independent Semitic language?
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of
> >> this froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet.
> >> The article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite
> >> workers at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't
> >> understand hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs and
> >> stelae like their betters.
>
> >>http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
> >> &ArticleID=6
>
>
> > what does Peter Daniels think of it?
>
> >>http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>
> A neat illustration of the difference between freedom and democracy.
> Fascinating article. The suggestion that there were earlier
> "alphabetic" systems in scripts like cuneiform is interesting too, but
cuneiform systems were not alphabetic, they were syllabic (except IIRC
Old Persian)
> only addresses the author's claim that only one alphabet was ever
the relation to the Ugaritic script is discussed in the section
i.e.
> invented. This alphabet is the one that became ours.
>
> [sci.lang removed]
sci.lang restored (it's more relevant to that group)
Joachim Pense
>
> cuneiform systems were not alphabetic, they were syllabic (except IIRC
> Old Persian)
>
Old Persian was syllabic. Babylonian Cuneiform was logographic with phonetic
elements. AFAIK Ugaritic was alphabetic.
Joachim
--
My favourite # 22: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzNEgcqWDG4>
My favourite # 99: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs7RwHC-nOQ>
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey (read in alt.usage.english):
>
>
>
> > cuneiform systems were not alphabetic, they were syllabic (except IIRC
> > Old Persian)
>
> Old Persian was syllabic. Babylonian Cuneiform was logographic with phonetic
OK.
> elements. AFAIK Ugaritic was alphabetic.
yes, Ugaritic was alphabetic consonantal, with the glottal stop shown
with three different vowels.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Mar 18, 1:04 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > Yusuf B Gursey (read in alt.usage.english):
>
> > > cuneiform systems were not alphabetic, they were syllabic (except IIRC
> > > Old Persian)
>
> > Old Persian was syllabic. Babylonian Cuneiform was logographic with phonetic
>
> OK.
>
> > elements. AFAIK Ugaritic was alphabetic.
the syllabic elements gradiually came to be dominant. I think it was
Sumerian that the logographic elements were dominant ?
Yusuf B Gursey
CDB
> "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of
>>>> this froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet.
>>>> The article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite
>>>> workers at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't
>>>> understand hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs
>>>> and stelae like their betters.
>>
>>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
>>>> &ArticleID=6
>>
>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&...
>>
>>> what does Peter Daniels think of it?
>>
>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>>
>> A neat illustration of the difference between freedom and
>> democracy. Fascinating article. The suggestion that there were
>> earlier "alphabetic" systems in scripts like cuneiform is
>> interesting too, but
>
> cuneiform systems were not alphabetic, they were syllabic (except
> IIRC
> Old Persian)
>
thing that made me uncomfortable about the article was its use of
"alphabetic" for a script that made no regular provision for vowels.
I don't know what the proper term would be -- perhaps "alephbetic."
I have heard it argued that such a system is in practice a form of
syllabary which makes no distinction in the symbol with respect to
following vowels (although I think the claim I remember may have been
made with respect to the Devanagari). I hoped to rely on the
quotation marks, which in the case you responded to may have amounted
to double scare-quotes, to let me get past that point to what I was
referring to: the author's claim that
>
"The alphabet was invented only once. All alphabetic scripts derive
from this original one, which we may call the Serabit alphabetic
script."
>
I suppose he may have been using "alphabetic" to mean "ancestral to
the alphabet".
>
>> only addresses the author's claim that only one alphabet was ever
>
> the relation to the Ugaritic script is discussed in the section
>
adaptation, not an invention.
>
> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=06&Page=0&UserID=0&#BSBA360208
>
> i.e.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9839b2
>
>> invented. This alphabet is the one that became ours.
>>
>> [sci.lang removed]
>
> sci.lang restored (it's more relevant to that group)
>
about whether or not to crosspost. I would have voted in the
negative, because I expected that we would get the response from
Daniels that we did in fact get: not the general evaluation that an
expert might produce for non-initiates (the thread was an AUE
discussion, as was clear from your crosspost) but the taking of an
opportunity to proclaim his superiority while offering very little
useful information. Good luck with your further attempts at digging
some out.
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> > i.e.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/y9839b2
>
> >> invented. This alphabet is the one that became ours.
>
> >> [sci.lang removed]
>
> > sci.lang restored (it's more relevant to that group)
>
> There had been a short debate in AUE, ended by your decisive action,
> about whether or not to crosspost. I would have voted in the
> negative, because I expected that we would get the response from
> Daniels that we did in fact get: not the general evaluation that an
> expert might produce for non-initiates (the thread was an AUE
> discussion, as was clear from your crosspost) but the taking of an
> opportunity to proclaim his superiority while offering very little
> useful information. Good luck with your further attempts at digging
> some out.
I just noticed the "debate". not crossposting to sci.lang was cowardly
IMO.
CDB
> "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>>> "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of
>>>>>> this froup is a current article about the origin of the
>>>>>> alphabet. The article argues that the alphabet originated
>>>>>> among Canaanite workers at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian
>>>>>> empire, who didn't understand hieroglyphs but wanted to be
>>>>>> able to write epitaphs and stelae like their betters.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
>>>>>> &ArticleID=6
>>
>>>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&...
>>
>>>>> what does Peter Daniels think of it?
>>
>
>>>> [sci.lang removed]
>>
>>> sci.lang restored (it's more relevant to that group)
>>
>> There had been a short debate in AUE, ended by your decisive
>> action, about whether or not to crosspost. I would have voted in
>> the negative, because I expected that we would get the response
>> from Daniels that we did in fact get: not the general evaluation
>> that an expert might produce for non-initiates (the thread was an
>> AUE discussion, as was clear from your crosspost) but the taking
>> of an opportunity to proclaim his superiority while offering very
>> little useful information. Good luck with your further attempts at
>> digging some out.
>
> I just noticed the "debate". not crossposting to sci.lang was
> cowardly IMO.
>
crossposting is that some people in AUE, who have killfiled crossposts
to SL because they find Daniels's manner distasteful, do not see the
rest of the discussion. It began, as I said, as a thread in our
group.
>
[followups restricted to AUE, AEU]
Yusuf B Gursey
then don't read them, some benefit from Daniels's opinions. I don't
find his manner distasteful, he only gets irritated when people insist
on crackpot.
CDB
>>
>>> I just noticed the "debate". not crossposting to sci.lang was
>>> cowardly IMO.
>>
>> I don't think anyone here is afraid of anyone there. One effect of
>> crossposting is that some people in AUE, who have killfiled
>> crossposts to SL because they find Daniels's manner distasteful,
>> group.
>
> then don't read them, some benefit from Daniels's opinions. I don't
> find his manner distasteful, he only gets irritated when people
> insist on crackpot.
>
the group in which the discussion began of access to further
contributions by fellow-members of their group.
>
It isn't his rudeness that I dislike, personally, but his dishonesty
in debate. As for benefiting from his opinions: have we had anything
yet from him on the subject that would justify your decision? A
condescending dismissal of the article as ordinary, popularising, and
sensationalistic, and some irrelevant, and condescending, talk about
the publishers. Very helpful.
>
When you change the groups posted to, or followed-up to, it is
customary to note the fact in your posting.
Prai Jei
continuum:
> Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
Some of us would welcome such a reference.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Brian M. Scott
<belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
<news:hnu2pe$qqm$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,sci.lang:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> [crossposting to SL]
>>>> I just noticed the "debate". not crossposting to sci.lang was
>>>> cowardly IMO.
>>> I don't think anyone here is afraid of anyone there. One effect of
>>> crossposting is that some people in AUE, who have killfiled
>>> crossposts to SL because they find Daniels's manner distasteful,
>>> do not see the rest of the discussion. It began, as I said, as a
>>> thread in our
>>> group.
>> then don't read them, some benefit from Daniels's opinions. I don't
>> find his manner distasteful, he only gets irritated when people
>> insist on crackpot.
> That is my approach. As I said, crossposting deprives some members of
> the group in which the discussion began of access to further
> contributions by fellow-members of their group.
Seems to me that that's their problem: killfiles aren't set
in stone.
> It isn't his rudeness that I dislike, personally, but his dishonesty
> in debate. As for benefiting from his opinions: have we had anything
> yet from him on the subject that would justify your decision? A
> condescending dismissal of the article as ordinary, popularising, and
> sensationalistic, and some irrelevant, and condescending, talk about
> the publishers. Very helpful.
Since the dismissal comes from an expert, it *is* helpful.
And the information about the publishers isn't altogether
irrelevant.
> When you change the groups posted to, or followed-up to, it is
> customary to note the fact in your posting.
When you're arguing with someone whom you know to be another
group, it's inappropriate to exclude that group from the
follow-ups.
Brian
Yusuf B Gursey
well, you know from an expert that the article is not as original as
it comes out to be. that's useful
Vinny Burgoo
> >> For those who would like to save a copy of the complete article on
> >> their computer:
>
> ><http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>
>
> > Really, use it. It will change your web experience for the better.
Thanks! A very useful and elegant tool.
> I can see an excellent use for that, but in this case it strips out out all
> of his supporting illustrations -- some of which are relevant to the points
> he's making.
It does. It doesn't always strip out every photo, but in this case ...
I went looking for an alternative. If you use Firefox (for which a
Readability plugin is also available), TidyRead is a promising add-on.
Brief tests suggested that TidyRead generally handles photos etc.
better than Readability but overall it's buggier, less elegant and
less predictable. But that's only after brief tests. TidyRead is also
more configurable. I'm going to keep both loaded for a while.
*
Talking of saving Web pages, here's Zotero's motto: 'Leveraging the
long tail of scholarship'.
I think this is supposed to mean that Zotero (another excellent free
tool) can give neglected scholarship more clout but what sense of
'leverage' is being used there, in English usage? The thing smacks of
jargon-abuse. If the cityboy sense was intended then ... No, I can't
get past the image the motto first summoned, which was of raising a
dead rat by its tail to look at scholarship's arse. Perhaps someone
less rodent-obsessed can parse it logically.
--
VB
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mar 18, 7:49 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of this
> > > > froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet. The
> > > > article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite workers
> > > > at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't understand
> > > > hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs and stelae like
> > > > their betters.
>
> > > >http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
> > > > &ArticleID=6
>
> > >http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&...
>
> > > what does Peter Daniels think of it?
>
> > He has not seen the magazine itself (it wasn't at the bookstore the
> > day after the text of the article was posted to an ANE-interest list),
> > but the article is an ordinary popularization with a typically
> > sensationalized headline.
>
> the full article is found at:
>
>
> OR:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ya5lrl8
I got the magazine today ($5.95). It contains the _very_ surprising
assertion that the Wadi el-Hol inscription(s) can be dated slightly
_later_ than the Serabit el-Khadem ("Proto-Sinaitic") ones and can be
read as "Canaanite." I have just written to the scholar credited with
this claim to find out whether it's accurate (since John Darnell, the
discoverer of el-Hol, said nothing of the sort in a lecture at
Columbia a year or so ago).
It also has a less than good photo of the "earliest Hebrew
inscription," an ostracon found last year at Qeiyafah.
> I think that the proto-Siniatic script is derived from the Egyptian
> Hierogylyphs and that this led to the Canaanite / Phoenician alphabet
> (or abjad) is not new. what I learend from the article was that proto-
> Sinaitic like signs and language was found inside Egypt proper.
>
> the former TV series (in Histoery-International) "the Naked
> Archaeologist" had tried to go one step further that the people of the
> Exodus were responsible for the proto-Sinaitic script!
>
> is it definite that proto-Siniatic is Canaanite or is it an
> independent Semitic language?
All we can say on the basis of the few extant words is that it's
probably West Semitic. No reason to suspect there was a "Canaanite"
subbranch yet at that time.
Peter T. Daniels
Would you prefer that I not crosspost my discussion of the article to
whichever group you and your fellow philistines inhabit?
mm
<hlu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 8:09 am, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2010, Lewis wrote
>> > Opinicus <gez...@spamcop.net.which.is.not.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> For those who would like to save a copy of the complete article on
>> >> their computer:
>>
>> ><http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>
>>
>> > Really, use it. It will change your web experience for the better.
>
>Thanks! A very useful and elegant tool.
I've looked at it a little, only at their webiste, but it looks
useful. Thanks.
My friend has asked me about how to read the entire width of the text.
That is, iiuc, addressed here by teh margin control.
>
>> I can see an excellent use for that, but in this case it strips out out all
>> of his supporting illustrations -- some of which are relevant to the points
>> he's making.
>
>It does. It doesn't always strip out every photo, but in this case ...
>
>I went looking for an alternative. If you use Firefox (for which a
>Readability plugin is also available), TidyRead is a promising add-on.
Thanks for that too. Maybe it will get better later.
>Brief tests suggested that TidyRead generally handles photos etc.
I enlarge graphics in firefox with the add-on Image Zoom. It works
real well.
>better than Readability but overall it's buggier, less elegant and
>less predictable. But that's only after brief tests. TidyRead is also
>more configurable. I'm going to keep both loaded for a while.
Also with firefox, it already had a size control Cntl-, cntl+ and
cntl0, to make smaller, larger, and original size. To a very limited
extent this can allow one to see beyond the edge of the screen.
BTW, PDF Download used to work great for me. Now it doesn't even
appear. Anyone know about that?
>*
>
>
>.... to mean that Zotero (another excellent free tool)
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
Peter T. Daniels
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>> "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of
> >>>> this froup is a current article about the origin of the alphabet.
> >>>> The article argues that the alphabet originated among Canaanite
> >>>> workers at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian empire, who didn't
> >>>> understand hieroglyphs but wanted to be able to write epitaphs
> >>>> and stelae like their betters.
>
> >>>>http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
> >>>> &ArticleID=6
>
> >>>http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&...
>
> >>> what does Peter Daniels think of it?
>
> >>>>http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>
> >> A neat illustration of the difference between freedom and
> >> democracy. Fascinating article. The suggestion that there were
> >> earlier "alphabetic" systems in scripts like cuneiform is
> >> interesting too, but
>
> > cuneiform systems were not alphabetic, they were syllabic (except
> > IIRC
> > Old Persian)
>
> Which came later, I would suppose (without actually knowing). One
Well, since you asked so nicely for my contribution, here it is.
Old Persian was created partway through the reign of Darius I, well
over 1000 years later than the materials considered in the article.
OP is neither alphabet nor syllabary. A few of the consonants have a
complete array of Ca, Ci, and Cu signs. A few have signs for Ca and Ci/
u. A few have signs for C with any of the vowels. There are no signs
for C without any vowel. (Clusters are written with one of the CV
signs.) The corpus is so restricted that we don't know how a few CV
syllables would be written.
> thing that made me uncomfortable about the article was its use of
> "alphabetic" for a script that made no regular provision for vowels.
The notion that a separate term for such a script (e.g. Proto-Sinaitic
or Phoenician) should be designated by a separate typological term is
due entirely to me, and the term I proposed is "abjad," borrowed from
an Arabic term for a related phenomenon.
> I don't know what the proper term would be -- perhaps "alephbetic."
I considered that first, but it's too similar to "alphabetic."
> I have heard it argued that such a system is in practice a form of
> syllabary which makes no distinction in the symbol with respect to
> following vowels
That was the solution proposed by my teacher I. J. Gelb ("syllabary
with indeterminate vowel"), which he had to do in order to preserve
his (purely imaginary) "Principle of Unidirectional Development,"
which claimed that a syllabary could develop only from a logography,
and an alphabet could develop only from a syllabary. Not only are the
redefinitions counterintuitive, but also the claim is counterfactual.
> (although I think the claim I remember may have been
> made with respect to the Devanagari).
Devanagari (and Ethiopic writing) belong to the type I dubbed
"abugida" (borrowed from an Ethiopic word), in which a basic symbol
represents Ca and the other vowels are denoted by appendages or
alterations to the basic symbol. Traditionally they are called either
syllabaries or alphabets, and more recently a raft of terms suggesting
that they are a hybrid -- such as "alphasyllabary" -- have been used
by people who recognize that they are neither. But from a historical
point of view, it is far more useful to consider them another separate
type (so there are five basic types in all).
> I hoped to rely on the
> quotation marks, which in the case you responded to may have amounted
> to double scare-quotes, to let me get past that point to what I was
> referring to: the author's claim that
This seems to refer to a part of the argument that was not crossposted
hither.
> "The alphabet was invented only once. All alphabetic scripts derive
> from this original one, which we may call the Serabit alphabetic
> script."
>
> I suppose he may have been using "alphabetic" to mean "ancestral to
> the alphabet".
I suppose he is using "alphabetic" the way it has always been used,
since not everyone has caught up with my suggestions, which were first
published in 1990; though "abjad" has caught on nicely (so nicely that
I find it used in reference works without attribution, a sure sign
that a term has been accepted; and so nicely that someone from the OED
emailed me to verify the initiatory 1990 quotation).
> >> only addresses the author's claim that only one alphabet was ever
>
> > the relation to the Ugaritic script is discussed in the section
>
> If I reead it correctly, the claim is that Ugaritic script was an
> adaptation, not an invention.
That is correct. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see
letterforms -- for me, South Semitic letterforms -- underlying the
cuneiform shapes of the Ugaritic abecedary.
And an example of the Ugaritic letter-set has been discovered written
with the distinctive _South Semitic_ letter order (beginning h l H m)
-- and a few of the letters are more South Semitic-shaped rather than
orthodox Ugaritic-shaped.
> >http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02...
>
> > i.e.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/y9839b2
>
> >> invented. This alphabet is the one that became ours.
>
> >> [sci.lang removed]
>
> > sci.lang restored (it's more relevant to that group)
>
> There had been a short debate in AUE, ended by your decisive action,
> about whether or not to crosspost. I would have voted in the
> negative, because I expected that we would get the response from
> Daniels that we did in fact get: not the general evaluation that an
> expert might produce for non-initiates (the thread was an AUE
> discussion, as was clear from your crosspost) but the taking of an
> opportunity to proclaim his superiority while offering very little
> useful information. Good luck with your further attempts at digging
> some out.-
Do you really think that an authority on a subject would comment on a
presentation of that subject without seeing the presentation?
Peter Moylan
> One thing that made me uncomfortable about the article was its use of
> "alphabetic" for a script that made no regular provision for vowels.
> I don't know what the proper term would be --
Lphbtc.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
John Varela
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>
> It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> truth of the Bible.
That is a statement contrary to fact.
--
John Varela
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>
> > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> > truth of the Bible.
>
> That is a statement contrary to fact.
they insisted that the James Osuary was genuine even after it was
proven to be a fake and their insistence led totheir losing their
press credentials or something like that.
>
> --
> John Varela
John Varela
<pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> John Varela set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
> > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>
> Some of us would welcome such a reference.
Read the magazine. A free issue of the print magazine is offered on
the web site.
--
John Varela
Peter T. Daniels
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>
> > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> > truth of the Bible.
>
> That is a statement contrary to fact.
Exactly what do you contest?
Look at its very title.
Look at the advertisers in it.
James Hogg
> CDB wrote:
>
>> One thing that made me uncomfortable about the article was its use of
>> "alphabetic" for a script that made no regular provision for vowels.
>> I don't know what the proper term would be --
>
> Lphbtc.
That's pointless.
--
James
CDB
> CDB <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> [crossposting to SL]
>
>>>>> I just noticed the "debate". not crossposting to sci.lang was
>>>>> cowardly IMO.
>
>>>> I don't think anyone here is afraid of anyone there. One effect
>>>> of crossposting is that some people in AUE, who have killfiled
>>>> crossposts to SL because they find Daniels's manner distasteful,
>>>> do not see the rest of the discussion. It began, as I said, as a
>>>> thread in our group.
>
>>> then don't read them, some benefit from Daniels's opinions. I
>>> don't find his manner distasteful, he only gets irritated when
>>> people insist on crackpot.
>
>> That is my approach. As I said, crossposting deprives some
>> members of the group in which the discussion began of access to
>> further contributions by fellow-members of their group.
>
> Seems to me that that's their problem: killfiles aren't set
> in stone.
>
>
>> It isn't his rudeness that I dislike, personally, but his
>> dishonesty in debate. As for benefiting from his opinions: have
>> we had anything yet from him on the subject that would justify
>> your decision? A condescending dismissal of the article as
>> ordinary, popularising, and sensationalistic, and some irrelevant,
>> and condescending, talk about the publishers. Very helpful.
>
> Since the dismissal comes from an expert, it *is* helpful.
> And the information about the publishers isn't altogether
> irrelevant.
>
example or two, would have been helpful. All we learned from Daniels
was that the article was beneath him. The information about the
publishers was not shown to be relevant to the article enquired about.
>
>> When you change the groups posted to, or followed-up to, it is
>> customary to note the fact in your posting.
>
> When you're arguing with someone whom you know to be another
> group, it's inappropriate to exclude that group from the
> follow-ups.
>
only appeared there until he crossposted it. It is still customary to
post notice of changes.
CDB
> CDB wrote:
>
>> One thing that made me uncomfortable about the article was its use
>> of "alphabetic" for a script that made no regular provision for
>> vowels. I don't know what the proper term would be --
>
> Lphbtc.
No need to be rude about it.
CDB
no doubt that it was a popularisation.
>
[...]
CDB
pin down.
>
Some members of the two usage groups would probably prefer that.
Personally, since you ask, I would prefer that you behave yourself. I
accept that the esteem some members of your group have shown for you
may be justified, and I find it frustrating to see that a potential
source of enlightenment on subjects of interest usually just can't be
bothered. As I have said, the rudeness doesn't bother me much.
>
As you may not know, this subthread began on the subject of
crossposting. The PDD abuse was only a sidebar.
>
[...]
CDB
> John Varela spake unto the multitudes:
>
>> Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
>> it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>
> Some of us would welcome such a reference.
>
Peter T. Daniels
Once again, do you expect an expert to comment on a text said expert
has not seen?
> As you may not know, this subthread began on the subject of
> crossposting. The PDD abuse was only a sidebar.
What is "PDD abuse"?
CDB
[...]
>
> It was obvious that Yussuf was reading AUE or AEU, since the thread
> only appeared there until he crossposted it. It is still customary
> to post notice of changes.
>
Sorry. Yusuf.
CDB
> On Mar 19, 7:58 am, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 4:31 pm, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
[cross talk]
>>
>>>> It isn't his rudeness that I dislike, personally, but his
>>>> dishonesty in debate. As for benefiting from his opinions: have
>>>> we had anything yet from him on the subject that would justify
>>>> your decision? A condescending dismissal of the article as
>>>> ordinary, popularising, and sensationalistic, and some
>>>> irrelevant, and condescending, talk about the publishers. Very
>>>> helpful.
>>
>>> Would you prefer that I not crosspost my discussion of the article
>>> to whichever group you and your fellow philistines inhabit?
>>
>> First Talmudic nitpickery and now philistinism. We seem to be hard
>> to pin down.
>>
>> Some members of the two usage groups would probably prefer that.
>> Personally, since you ask, I would prefer that you behave
>> yourself. I accept that the esteem some members of your group have
>> shown for you may be justified, and I find it frustrating to see
>> that a potential source of enlightenment on subjects of interest
>> usually just can't be bothered. As I have said, the rudeness
>> doesn't bother me much.
>
> Once again, do you expect an expert to comment on a text said expert
> has not seen?
>
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&ArticleID=6
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>> As you may not know, this subthread began on the subject of
>> crossposting. The PDD abuse was only a sidebar.
>
> What is "PDD abuse"?
>
I've been expecting Rey to come down on me for the lack of a hyphen
there. I wanted to leave it ambiguous as to who the abuser was, and
who the victim. PDD is "Pee Dirty Daniels", remember? You probably
don't deserve quite all the contumely you have gotten from this group,
but you certainly do provide excuses for it, from time to time.
tony cooper
wrote:
>As you may not know, this subthread began on the subject of
>crossposting. The PDD abuse was only a sidebar.
A poor choice of words. Now PTD will want to change the sidebar to a
topbar or a bottombar, insist that this can't be done, reject all
suggestion offered by people who can do it, and then claim that -
while the suggested instruction do work - that people were not
expressing themselves in terms he could understand.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> As you may not know, this subthread began on the subject of
>> crossposting. The PDD abuse was only a sidebar.
>
> A poor choice of words. Now PTD will want to change the sidebar to
> a topbar or a bottombar, insist that this can't be done, reject all
> suggestion offered by people who can do it, and then claim that -
> while the suggested instruction do work - that people were not
> expressing themselves in terms he could understand.
>
until I get what I want or the system crashes.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
Why have you not responded to my lengthy message about the article?
> >> As you may not know, this subthread began on the subject of
> >> crossposting. The PDD abuse was only a sidebar.
>
> > What is "PDD abuse"?
>
> I've been expecting Rey to come down on me for the lack of a hyphen
> there. I wanted to leave it ambiguous as to who the abuser was, and
> who the victim. PDD is "Pee Dirty Daniels", remember? You probably
> don't deserve quite all the contumely you have gotten from this group,
> but you certainly do provide excuses for it, from time to time.-
So you can't even make up your own asinine attemptes at insults, but
have to copy them from Cunningham?
Peter T. Daniels
I am not interested in websites, but in the magazine article, which is
far fuller.
> >http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&...
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>
> Why have you not responded to my lengthy message about the article?
Correction: Two messages. One responding to everything you asked about
the article, and another with some additional comments on it
Yusuf B Gursey
he explained it wa sknown before. it he gave background on the
publishers. he also gave more detail later.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >> When you change the groups posted to, or followed-up to, it is
> >> customary to note the fact in your posting.
>
> > When you're arguing with someone whom you know to be another
> > group, it's inappropriate to exclude that group from the
> > follow-ups.
>
> It was obvious that Yussuf was reading AUE or AEU, since the thread
> only appeared there until he crossposted it. It is still customary to
> post notice of changes.
I only read it on occassion.
Yusuf B Gursey
the original poster gave an address for only part of the article. the
address I gave says it gives the full article.
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=06&Page=0&UserID=0&
OR
CDB
form of abuse I referred to.
CDB
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Mar 19, 7:58 am, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 18, 4:31 pm, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> [crossposting to SL]
>>
>>> [cross talk]
>>
>>
>>> The URL was posted. Here it is again:
>
> I am not interested in websites, but in the magazine article, which
> is far fuller.
>
version. I will have to read that too, before responding.
>
>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&...
>>
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>>
>> Why have you not responded to my lengthy message about the article?
>
> Correction: Two messages. One responding to everything you asked
> about the article, and another with some additional comments on it
>
posted only to SL (a lesson for me?), and I won't have time to read
and respond now. I will certainly do so, as soon as possible.
CDB
referred to a fuller version. Still, the version you asked P*T*D to
respond to was the one I posted, I think.
>
[to be responded to elsewhere]
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> > OR
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/ya5lrl8
>
> Thank you. I will have to look at it. I hadn't caught that it
> referred to a fuller version. Still, the version you asked P*T*D to
> respond to was the one I posted, I think.
yes, I hadn't realized at first it was only a partial version, and
after PTD's first response, I responded by posting the URL of the full
version.
Peter T. Daniels
March 18 at 6:04 and 6:24 pm (my time). Each one to all three
newsgroups.
Brian M. Scott
<belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
<news:hnvon4$2b4$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> CDB <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
>>> It isn't his rudeness that I dislike, personally, but
>>> his dishonesty in debate. As for benefiting from his
>>> opinions: have we had anything yet from him on the
>>> subject that would justify your decision? A
>>> condescending dismissal of the article as ordinary,
>>> popularising, and sensationalistic, and some
>>> irrelevant, and condescending, talk about the
>>> publishers. Very helpful.
>> Since the dismissal comes from an expert, it *is* helpful.
>> And the information about the publishers isn't altogether
>> irrelevant.
> A dismissal on substantive grounds, possibly even with a specific
> example or two, would have been helpful.
It would have been *more* helpful.
> All we learned from Daniels was that the article was
> beneath him.
That's a somewhat tendentious reading of 'an ordinary
popularization with a typically sensationalized headline'.
> The information about the publishers was not shown to be
> relevant to the article enquired about.
I consider the company kept to be relevant unless it's
specifically shown not to be.
[...]
Brian
John Varela
wrote:
> On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >
> > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
> >
> > > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> > > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> > > truth of the Bible.
> >
> > That is a statement contrary to fact.
>
> they insisted that the James Osuary was genuine even after it was
> proven to be a fake and their insistence led totheir losing their
> press credentials or something like that.
It has not been proven fake nor has it been proven genuine. The
supposed counterfeiter is on trial. Wait to learn the verdict.
In any case, the James Ossuary controversy is irrelevant to PTD's
assertion.
--
John Varela
John Varela
Your sentence, which is untrue.
> Look at its very title.
Dated nomenclature, to be sure, but so what?
> Look at the advertisers in it.
So what?
Read the articles. Read the letters column.
--
John Varela
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:08:15 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>
> > > > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> > > > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> > > > truth of the Bible.
>
> > > That is a statement contrary to fact.
>
> > Exactly what do you contest?
>
> Your sentence, which is untrue.
Then whom do you think it's aimed at?
> > Look at its very title.
>
> Dated nomenclature, to be sure, but so what?
The respected journal *Biblical Archaeology* (published since the
1940s by the American Schools of Oriental Research, the leading
organization of American "biblical archeologists), the popular
companion to the *Bulletin* of the ASOR, changed its name a decade or
so ago to *Near Eastern Archaeology*.
> > Look at the advertisers in it.
>
> So what?
Inside front cover: a 2-DVD set "Jesus: The Lost Years." Facing that:
"Learn Biblical Hebrew Online. Read the Bible in God's Words!" P. 2:
"Walk the pages of Holy Scripture" (Christian HolyLand Tours LLC More
that a Tour, a Spiritual Journey."
> Read the articles. Read the letters column.
Read what actual archeologists and biblical scholars say about it.
For instance in the Yahoo Group ANE-2.
Peter T. Daniels
Of course it isn't irrelevant. Herschel Shanks probably made mucho
moolah off the publicity he generated for the fake.
(Proving in legal terms that the object is a forgery is a very
different matter from demonstrating that fact to the satisfaction of
any expert in 1st-century epigraphy.)
CDB
> "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Somewhat off topic, but probably of interest to many readers of
>>>>>> this froup is a current article about the origin of the
>>>>>> alphabet. The article argues that the alphabet originated
>>>>>> among Canaanite workers at the eastern fringes of the Egyptian
>>>>>> empire, who didn't understand hieroglyphs but wanted to be
>>>>>> able to write epitaphs and stelae like their betters.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2
>>>>>> &ArticleID=6
>>
>>>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&...
>>
>>>>> what does Peter Daniels think of it?
>>
>>>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yclvx73
>>
>>>> A neat illustration of the difference between freedom and
>>>> democracy. Fascinating article. The suggestion that there were
>>>> earlier "alphabetic" systems in scripts like cuneiform is
>>>> interesting too, but
>>
>>> cuneiform systems were not alphabetic, they were syllabic (except
>>> IIRC
>>> Old Persian)
>>
>> Which came later, I would suppose (without actually knowing). One
>
> Well, since you asked so nicely for my contribution, here it is.
>
Thank you. Your posting had not appeared in SL when I was online
earlier.
>
> Old Persian was created partway through the reign of Darius I, well
> over 1000 years later than the materials considered in the article.
>
Yes. Without actually knowing, as I said, I associated the Persians
roughly with the early classical period, or slightly before.
>
> OP is neither alphabet nor syllabary. A few of the consonants have a
> complete array of Ca, Ci, and Cu signs. A few have signs for Ca and
> Ci/ u. A few have signs for C with any of the vowels. There are no
> signs for C without any vowel. (Clusters are written with one of
> the CV signs.) The corpus is so restricted that we don't know how a
> few CV syllables would be written.
>
>> thing that made me uncomfortable about the article was its use of
>> "alphabetic" for a script that made no regular provision for
>> vowels.
>
> Proto-Sinaitic or Phoenician) should be designated by a separate
> typological term is due entirely to me, and the term I proposed is
> "abjad," borrowed from an Arabic term for a related phenomenon.
>
And managed to include two extra letters. Well done, that man.
>
>> I don't know what the proper term would be -- perhaps "alephbetic."
>
> I considered that first, but it's too similar to "alphabetic."
>
>> I have heard it argued that such a system is in practice a form of
>> syllabary which makes no distinction in the symbol with respect to
>> following vowels
>
> That was the solution proposed by my teacher I. J. Gelb ("syllabary
> with indeterminate vowel"), which he had to do in order to preserve
> his (purely imaginary) "Principle of Unidirectional Development,"
> which claimed that a syllabary could develop only from a logography,
> and an alphabet could develop only from a syllabary. Not only are
> the redefinitions counterintuitive, but also the claim is
> counterfactual.
>
>> (although I think the claim I remember may have been
>> made with respect to the Devanagari).
>
> Devanagari (and Ethiopic writing) belong to the type I dubbed
> "abugida" (borrowed from an Ethiopic word), in which a basic symbol
> represents Ca and the other vowels are denoted by appendages or
> alterations to the basic symbol. Traditionally they are called
> either syllabaries or alphabets, and more recently a raft of terms
> suggesting that they are a hybrid -- such as "alphasyllabary" --
> have been used by people who recognize that they are neither. But
> from a historical point of view, it is far more useful to consider
> them another separate type (so there are five basic types in all).
>
>> I hoped to rely on the
>> quotation marks, which in the case you responded to may have
>> amounted to double scare-quotes, to let me get past that point to
>> what I was referring to: the author's claim that
>
> This seems to refer to a part of the argument that was not
> crossposted hither.
>
Simply an explanation that I had used quotation marks to indicate that
I was using a term I had some doubts about, regarding both the
author's use (as above) and my own. Therefore "double".
>
>> "The alphabet was invented only once. All alphabetic scripts derive
>> from this original one, which we may call the Serabit alphabetic
>> script."
>>
>> I suppose he may have been using "alphabetic" to mean "ancestral to
>> the alphabet".
>
> I suppose he is using "alphabetic" the way it has always been used,
> since not everyone has caught up with my suggestions, which were
> first published in 1990; though "abjad" has caught on nicely (so
> nicely that I find it used in reference works without attribution,
> a sure sign that a term has been accepted; and so nicely that
> someone from the OED emailed me to verify the initiatory 1990
> quotation).
>
Congratulations; although it would be pleasant to be remembered for
it. My own modest contributions to civilisation have been entirely
anonymous, although there are a few corners of the Canadian Commons
Standing Orders that will have my fingerprints all over them until
somebody amends the sections.
>
>>>> only addresses the author's claim that only one alphabet was ever
>>
>>> the relation to the Ugaritic script is discussed in the section
>>
>> If I reead it correctly, the claim is that Ugaritic script was an
>> adaptation, not an invention.
>
> That is correct. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see
> letterforms -- for me, South Semitic letterforms -- underlying the
> cuneiform shapes of the Ugaritic abecedary.
>
> And an example of the Ugaritic letter-set has been discovered
> written with the distinctive _South Semitic_ letter order
> (beginning h l H m) -- and a few of the letters are more South
> Semitic-shaped rather than orthodox Ugaritic-shaped.
>
>>> http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02...
>>
>>> i.e.
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/y9839b2
>>
>>>> invented. This alphabet is the one that became ours.
>>
>>>> [sci.lang removed]
>>
>>> sci.lang restored (it's more relevant to that group)
>>
>> There had been a short debate in AUE, ended by your decisive
>> action, about whether or not to crosspost. I would have voted in
>> the negative, because I expected that we would get the response
>> from Daniels that we did in fact get: not the general evaluation
>> that an expert might produce for non-initiates (the thread was an
>> AUE discussion, as was clear from your crosspost) but the taking
>> of an opportunity to proclaim his superiority while offering very
>> little useful information. Good luck with your further attempts at
>> digging some out.-
>
> Do you really think that an authority on a subject would comment on
> a presentation of that subject without seeing the presentation?
.
No, but I was hoping that you would read the online version and then
respond, as you have done. Thank you very much for an interesting
expansion of, and commentary on, some of what was in the article, and
for clarifying a couple of my own vague impressions.
>
I think the other posting you referred to was a response to Yusuf, not
to me; and at first glance it appears to be somewhat over my head. I
will read it again and see if there is any useful response I can make.
In any case, I thank you for it, and I am sure he does too.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:31:12 UTC, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>
> > > > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> > > > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> > > > truth of the Bible.
>
> > > That is a statement contrary to fact.
>
> > they insisted that the James Osuary was genuine even after it was
> > proven to be a fake and their insistence led totheir losing their
> > press credentials or something like that.
>
> It has not been proven fake nor has it been proven genuine. The
the Israeli Antiquities Authority and experts have declared it a fake,
or rather a genuine artifact that was mainpulated.
> supposed counterfeiter is on trial. Wait to learn the verdict.
the legal aspect is a different matter, as PTD pointed out.
>
> In any case, the James Ossuary controversy is irrelevant to PTD's
> assertion.
it's relevant to the atitude of BAR
>
> --
> John Varela
Yusuf B Gursey
it failed not only on the grounds of epigraphy but also scientific
tests on the patina.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Good suggestion. I'd love to know how to do this in OpenOffice. (I
> can't afford M$-Office.)
It's not free, but it's not terribly expensive for home use.
US$117.54 at Amazon for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint on up to three
non-commercial computers.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them.
| Albert Einstein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Hatunen
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> writes:
>
>> Good suggestion. I'd love to know how to do this in OpenOffice. (I
>> can't afford M$-Office.)
>
>It's not free, but it's not terribly expensive for home use.
>US$117.54 at Amazon for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint on up to three
>non-commercial computers.
OpenOffice gets updated for free, wich is nice. We've had no
trouble at all using it for Word, Excel and PP files. Although I
haven't created any PP so I don't know about it, OO does save in
Word and Excel formats as well as in its own formats.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Nick
> On Mar 19, 4:03 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:08:15 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>>
>> > Look at the advertisers in it.
>>
>> So what?
>
> Inside front cover: a 2-DVD set "Jesus: The Lost Years." Facing that:
> "Learn Biblical Hebrew Online. Read the Bible in God's Words!" P. 2:
> "Walk the pages of Holy Scripture" (Christian HolyLand Tours LLC More
> that a Tour, a Spiritual Journey."
He's got a point you know. They won't be advertising those things - or
in those words - unless they think there's a good chance of the readers
buying them.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Brian M. Scott
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote in
<news:87fx3vw...@temporary-address.org.uk> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>> On Mar 19, 4:03 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:08:15 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> Look at the advertisers in it.
>>> So what?
>> Inside front cover: a 2-DVD set "Jesus: The Lost Years."
>> Facing that: "Learn Biblical Hebrew Online. Read the
>> Bible in God's Words!" P. 2: "Walk the pages of Holy
>> Scripture" (Christian HolyLand Tours LLC More that a
>> Tour, a Spiritual Journey."
> He's got a point you know. They won't be advertising those
> things - or in those words - unless they think there's a
> good chance of the readers buying them.
Which says something about the expected audience.
Brian
Nick
Er yes. That was what I thought I was saying.
Brian M. Scott
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote in
<news:877hp7v...@temporary-address.org.uk> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes:
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:10:42 +0000, Nick
>> <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote in
>> <news:87fx3vw...@temporary-address.org.uk> in
>> sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>> On Mar 19, 4:03 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:08:15 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>> Look at the advertisers in it.
>>>>> So what?
>>>> Inside front cover: a 2-DVD set "Jesus: The Lost Years."
>>>> Facing that: "Learn Biblical Hebrew Online. Read the
>>>> Bible in God's Words!" P. 2: "Walk the pages of Holy
>>>> Scripture" (Christian HolyLand Tours LLC More that a
>>>> Tour, a Spiritual Journey."
>>> He's got a point you know. They won't be advertising those
>>> things - or in those words - unless they think there's a
>>> good chance of the readers buying them.
>> Which says something about the expected audience.
> Er yes. That was what I thought I was saying.
Ah. Since you were responding to Peter, I took 'He' to
refer to John. Now I see that you were simply commenting as
a bystander.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:10:46 +0000, Nick
> <news:877hp7v...@temporary-address.org.uk> in
> sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> writes:
> >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:10:42 +0000, Nick
> >> <news:87fx3vw...@temporary-address.org.uk> in
> >> sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage:
> >>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> >>>> On Mar 19, 4:03 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:08:15 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>>>> Look at the advertisers in it.
> >>>>> So what?
> >>>> Inside front cover: a 2-DVD set "Jesus: The Lost Years."
> >>>> Facing that: "Learn Biblical Hebrew Online. Read the
> >>>> Bible in God's Words!" P. 2: "Walk the pages of Holy
> >>>> Scripture" (Christian HolyLand Tours LLC More that a
> >>>> Tour, a Spiritual Journey."
> >>> He's got a point you know. They won't be advertising those
> >>> things - or in those words - unless they think there's a
> >>> good chance of the readers buying them.
> >> Which says something about the expected audience.
> > Er yes. That was what I thought I was saying.
>
> Ah. Since you were responding to Peter, I took 'He' to
> refer to John. Now I see that you were simply commenting as
> a bystander.
How would Nick's second sentence have cohered with his first sentence
if his first sentence referred to John?
John Varela
wrote:
Another statement contrary to fact. The epigrapher on the IAA
committee has admitted that he just went along with the geologist.
--
John Varela
John Varela
wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:58 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:31:12 UTC, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >
> > > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > > > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
> >
> > > > > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> > > > > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> > > > > truth of the Bible.
> >
> > > > That is a statement contrary to fact.
> >
> > > they insisted that the James Osuary was genuine even after it was
> > > proven to be a fake and their insistence led totheir losing their
> > > press credentials or something like that.
> >
> > It has not been proven fake nor has it been proven genuine. The
>
> the Israeli Antiquities Authority and experts have declared it a fake,
> or rather a genuine artifact that was mainpulated.
The IAA has a hard on for Heschel Shanks as, apparently, does PTD.
Outside experts disagree.
> > supposed counterfeiter is on trial. Wait to learn the verdict.
>
> the legal aspect is a different matter, as PTD pointed out.
Everything is different.
> > In any case, the James Ossuary controversy is irrelevant to PTD's
> > assertion.
>
> it's relevant to the atitude of BAR
Not with regard to "proving the Bible" it's not.
--
John Varela
Peter T. Daniels
Who is that?
Peter T. Daniels
??
Do you know what the inscription actually _says_?
Yusuf B Gursey
AFAIK the case is clsoed as far as the consensus of experts, both
epigraphic and scientific.
>
> > > supposed counterfeiter is on trial. Wait to learn the verdict.
>
> > the legal aspect is a different matter, as PTD pointed out.
>
> Everything is different.
>
> > > In any case, the James Ossuary controversy is irrelevant to PTD's
> > > assertion.
>
> > it's relevant to the atitude of BAR
>
> Not with regard to "proving the Bible" it's not.
hih?
>
> --
> John Varela
Yusuf B Gursey
ther e were doubts about the epigraphy and the dialect of Aramaic
before the scientific doubts. at any rate, the patina is a clincher.
>
> --
> John Varela
Al in St. Lou
<y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>On Mar 19, 3:58 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:31:12 UTC, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
>>
>> > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
>> > > > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
>>
>> > > > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
>> > > > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
>> > > > truth of the Bible.
>>
>> > > That is a statement contrary to fact.
>>
>> > they insisted that the James Osuary was genuine even after it was
>> > proven to be a fake and their insistence led totheir losing their
>> > press credentials or something like that.
>>
>> It has not been proven fake nor has it been proven genuine. The
>
>the Israeli Antiquities Authority and experts have declared it a fake,
>or rather a genuine artifact that was mainpulated.
You meant "that had been manipulated." The misspelling bothers much
less than the error in tense.
>> supposed counterfeiter is on trial. Wait to learn the verdict.
>
>the legal aspect is a different matter, as PTD pointed out.
>
>>
>> In any case, the James Ossuary controversy is irrelevant to PTD's
>> assertion.
>
>it's relevant to the atitude of BAR
Who is BAR?
Yusuf B Gursey
englsih is not my native language.
>
> >> supposed counterfeiter is on trial. Wait to learn the verdict.
>
> >the legal aspect is a different matter, as PTD pointed out.
>
> >> In any case, the James Ossuary controversy is irrelevant to PTD's
> >> assertion.
>
> >it's relevant to the atitude of BAR
>
> Who is BAR?
Biblical Archeaological Review, the magazine in question.
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> writes:
>
>> Good suggestion. I'd love to know how to do this in OpenOffice. (I
>> can't afford M$-Office.)
>
> It's not free, but it's not terribly expensive for home use.
> US$117.54 at Amazon for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint on up to three
> non-commercial computers.
>
out so much when a free office suite can already handle more file
formats than Microsoft's one? Hmm, and I see that the MS-Office price
increases noticeably if you want database support, something that is of
course free in OpenOffice.
Besides, OpenOffice also works on my main computer. Microsoft's product
requires one to install Windows inside a virtual machine, and that's
something that slows down your computer painfully.
Besides^2, it's hard these days to buy a version of MS-Office where you
can find anything on the menus. I've seen a friend's Office 2007, and
spent about an hour trying to help her find the "print" function. How
bad can a menu system get? Why didn't they keep the one that worked?
(Initially I told her to click on "Help", but she couldn't find that
either. Eventually I found it, but it took a lot of wasted time.)
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
John Holmes
>
> Besides^2, it's hard these days to buy a version of MS-Office where
> you can find anything on the menus. I've seen a friend's Office 2007,
> and spent about an hour trying to help her find the "print" function.
> How bad can a menu system get? Why didn't they keep the one that
> worked?
If you are prepared to pay extra, you can upgrade to a menu that looks
just like the old one. How's that for progress?
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Al in St. Lou
wrote:
Back in December, I found a Micros**t web page that displays the old
version of Word above a depiction of Word 2007. If you point at a
command in the old menu, a pop-up shows you where to find it in the
new "ribbon." It's saved me a lot of frustration.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA100744321033.aspx
You have to click a link named "Start the Guide." In December, I had
to download and install MS version of Flash, Silverlight or somesuch,
but today, I tried it and it worked with Adobe Flash.
BTW, I still hate the "ribbon."
Al in St. Lou
<y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>On Mar 20, 9:48 pm, Al in St. Lou <alfargn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
[big snip]
>> Who is BAR?
>
>
>Biblical Archeaological Review, the magazine in question.
Thank you. I think I missed the beginning of this thread.
John Varela
I don't have his name committed to memory. You'll find it in a back
issue of BAR.
--
John Varela
John Varela
wrote:
That's also conroversial, with experts who argue the opposite. And
the expert on the IAA committee wasn't, it turns out, as expert as
all that. Again, I don't recall names but you can find them in back
issues of BAR.
--
John Varela
John Varela
Yes. Do you?
--
John Varela
John Varela
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 4:03 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:08:15 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >
> > > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > > > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
> >
> > > > > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> > > > > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> > > > > truth of the Bible.
> >
> > > > That is a statement contrary to fact.
> >
> > > Exactly what do you contest?
> >
> > Your sentence, which is untrue.
>
> Then whom do you think it's aimed at?
>
> > > Look at its very title.
> >
> > Dated nomenclature, to be sure, but so what?
>
> The respected journal *Biblical Archaeology* (published since the
> 1940s by the American Schools of Oriental Research, the leading
> organization of American "biblical archeologists), the popular
> companion to the *Bulletin* of the ASOR, changed its name a decade or
> so ago to *Near Eastern Archaeology*.
>
> > > Look at the advertisers in it.
> >
> > So what?
>
> Inside front cover: a 2-DVD set "Jesus: The Lost Years." Facing that:
> "Learn Biblical Hebrew Online. Read the Bible in God's Words!" P. 2:
> "Walk the pages of Holy Scripture" (Christian HolyLand Tours LLC More
> that a Tour, a Spiritual Journey."
>
> > Read the articles. Read the letters column.
>
> Read what actual archeologists and biblical scholars say about it.
>
> For instance in the Yahoo Group ANE-2.
Let's recapitulate. You made an untrue statement and I called you on
it. Instead of responding to the challenge, you have argued with
your usual sophistry by, along with your sock puppet, misdirecting
the discussion to advertisers, the James ossuary, and Herschel
Shanks.
Even you know the difference between advertising and editorial
content, the James ossuary is entirely irrelevant to the point
(everyone admits that all three names were common and even if the
inscription is authentic it proves nothing), and Herschel thrives on
controversy so if you dislike him you're not alone.
I'm not going to pursue this wasteland of a discussion any further
unless you return to the point, which was whether or not the
magazine is "aimed at conservative Christians and Jews who still
expect that archeology will "prove" the
truth of the Bible."
You made a statement. Defend it or shut up.
Above, you cite ASOR. It happens that this afternoon I went to a
lecture by Eric Cline. You've probably never heard of him, but you
could Google him and learn that he's on the board of ASOR. He was
lecturing about the results of his last five years of digging at Tel
Kabri, an early to middle late bronze age Canaanite site in northern
Israel. I think he's an "actual archaeologist". His most recent book
debunks the people who go around finding Noah's ark, the remains of
Pharaoh's army beneath the Red Sea, and the like. He is not trying
to "prove" the Bible.
After the lecture I asked him his opinion of the article that's
supposed to be the subject of this thread. He said he has the
magazine but has no opinion because he hasn't read the article yet.
So I've consulted an "actual archaeologist" who reads BAR and has
published in it.
Your move.
--
John Varela
Yusuf B Gursey
well, there may be some controversy, but it is usually only publisized
by BAR, indicating that the mainstream considers it a forgery, or
rather an osuary with the name "Jesus" in Aramaic (an unremarkable
name for the period), tampered with.
>
> --
> John Varela
Peter T. Daniels
Not any more; it was several years ago. It was exactly the sort of
thing a forger would put on an artifact to increase the price of an
illicitly obtained artifact on the antiquities market.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:45:08 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 4:03 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:08:15 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 18, 8:23 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:09 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 18, 3:24 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:56 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Do not be put off by the word "biblical" in the magazines's title;
> > > > > > > > it is not Bible-thumping: far from it.
> > > > > > It may not be "Bible-thumping," but it's aimed at conservative
> > > > > > Christians and Jews who still expect that archeology will "prove" the
> > > > > > truth of the Bible.
>
> > > > > That is a statement contrary to fact.
>
> > > > Exactly what do you contest?
>
> > > Your sentence, which is untrue.
>
> > Then whom do you think it's aimed at?
>
> > > > Look at its very title.
>
> > > Dated nomenclature, to be sure, but so what?
>
> > The respected journal *Biblical Archaeology* (published since the
> > 1940s by the American Schools of Oriental Research, the leading
> > organization of American "biblical archeologists"), the popular
> > companion to the *Bulletin* of the ASOR, changed its name a decade or
> > so ago to *Near Eastern Archaeology*.
>
> > > > Look at the advertisers in it.
>
> > > So what?
>
> > Inside front cover: a 2-DVD set "Jesus: The Lost Years." Facing that:
> > "Learn Biblical Hebrew Online. Read the Bible in God's Words!" P. 2:
> > "Walk the pages of Holy Scripture" (Christian HolyLand Tours LLC More
> > that a Tour, a Spiritual Journey."
>
> > > Read the articles. Read the letters column.
>
> > Read what actual archeologists and biblical scholars say about it.
>
> > For instance in the Yahoo Group ANE-2.
>
> Let's recapitulate. You made an untrue statement
What statement did I make that you think is untrue?
> and I called you on
> it. Instead of responding to the challenge, you have argued with
> your usual sophistry by, along with your sock puppet, misdirecting
> the discussion to advertisers, the James ossuary, and Herschel
> Shanks.
I did not bring up the ossuary, but it is an excellent example of
Shanks's profiteering.
> Even you know the difference between advertising and editorial
> content, the James ossuary is entirely irrelevant to the point
> (everyone admits that all three names were common and even if the
> inscription is authentic it proves nothing), and Herschel thrives on
> controversy so if you dislike him you're not alone.
Since you're on a first-name basis, you're clearly not a disinterested
observer, and I will have nothing futher to do with you.
The two times we were in the same room, he acted despicably and made a
fool of himself -- the first was at a NYPL DSS symposium sponsored by
the Dorot Foundation (where he defended his practice of taking
advertising dollars from unscrupulous antiquities dealers and
completely misstated the positions of the AIA, the ASOR, and the AOS
on the publication of unprovenanced items), and the last was at the
Philadelphia SBL presentation of the Tell Zayt abecedary, where he
made a comment that I do not remember but that was nonsensical (which
is probably what made it unmemorable).
> I'm not going to pursue this wasteland of a discussion any further
> unless you return to the point, which was whether or not the
> magazine is "aimed at conservative Christians and Jews who still
> expect that archeology will "prove" the
> truth of the Bible."
>
> You made a statement. Defend it or shut up.
Was _that_ the point??? I thought the point was the nature and origin
of the alphabet (see thread title).
As for that point, there's no question that it's perfectly true, as is
evident from the content -- both editorial and advertising -- of every
issue, and from the unscrupulous _non_-disbursement of the funds
allegedly collected for the purpose of supporting archeology in "the
Holy Land" (a euphemism used by certain conservatives to avoid
mentioning the name of Israel).
> Above, you cite ASOR. It happens that this afternoon I went to a
> lecture by Eric Cline. You've probably never heard of him, but you
> could Google him and learn that he's on the board of ASOR. He was
You're a real jackass, you know that?
It was Cline who set your buddy "Herschel" straight about the ASOR's
antiquities policy at that symposium back in 1998.Or wait, maybe it
was Eric Meyers. It was more than 10 years ago. What I recall was that
Shanks lied. (I had to report what the AOS had voted just a few weeks
before, as Maynard Maidman, who at the time was the AOS's ANE Section
chair, hadn't arrived yet.)
> lecturing about the results of his last five years of digging at Tel
> Kabri, an early to middle late bronze age Canaanite site in northern
> Israel. I think he's an "actual archaeologist". His most recent book
> debunks the people who go around finding Noah's ark, the remains of
> Pharaoh's army beneath the Red Sea, and the like. He is not trying
> to "prove" the Bible.
And is he a frequent contributor to BAR?
> After the lecture I asked him his opinion of the article that's
> supposed to be the subject of this thread. He said he has the
> magazine but has no opinion because he hasn't read the article yet.
> So I've consulted an "actual archaeologist" who reads BAR and has
> published in it.
>
> Your move.
And what, in your opinion, qualifies an archeologist to have an
opinion on the question? Do you not know the difference between an
archeologist and an epigrapher? (Let alone a historian/theoretician of
writing.)
Jerry Friedman
> On Mar 21, 6:02 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
[Herschel Shanks]
> > Herschel thrives on
> > controversy so if you dislike him you're not alone.
>
> Since you're on a first-name basis, you're clearly not a disinterested
> observer, and I will have nothing futher to do with you.
>
> The two times we were in the same room, he acted despicably and made a
> fool of himself
...
I hope you're not suggesting we ignore people who have been seen to
act despicably and make fools of themselves. We'd miss some
interesting information when the people know what they're talking
about.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
That, however, does not apply to Herschel Shanks.
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> As for that point, there's no question that it's perfectly true, as is
> evident from the content -- both editorial and advertising -- of every
> issue, and from the unscrupulous _non_-disbursement of the funds
> allegedly collected for the purpose of supporting archeology in "the
> Holy Land" (a euphemism used by certain conservatives to avoid
> mentioning the name of Israel).
>
most christian conservatives are now very pro-Israel. "the Holy Land"
is indeed used by certain academics I know to avoid getting into
politics in their work, especially when they want to talk of the whole
of historical Palestine, without wanting to sound advocating a one
Palestinian state, or recognizing the legality or finality of the
present siutuation and advocating that all of it is Israel.
tony cooper
I think PTD is saying that it's OK to killfile him. It's the
suicide-by-cop of newsgroupery.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
Most "academics" refer to the region as the Levant. Only religiously
inclined people would have any reason to call it "the Holy Land" in
the first place.