Absurd ideas of pronunciation
Matt Giwer
least clue as to its pronunciation by its fully literate readers today.
In fact you might have had to read that sentence more than once to
see exactly what I meant by it, that is, where the trailing "today" fits
into it.
Many people have declared they cannot understand my writing style
and all of them have been biblethumpers. These are most confusing
declarations for people claiming to be able to read and understand 3200 year
old Egyptian glyphs.
Were this other than a joke after the imagined pronunciation they
can then connect it with biblical Hebrew with no vowels at all.
Lets see. They will call names to their death on the phonetics of
the vowels in Egyptian and declare the name is identical with a langauge in
another language group which had no vowels at all.
What an incredible accomplishment. Incredible being the operative
word.
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Sun Nov 8 10:16:19 EST 2009
Brian M. Scott
<matt@localhost> wrote in
<news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c> in
soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology:
> It is not questionable that modern English writing does
> not give the least clue as to its pronunciation by its
> fully literate readers today.
The assertion is not only questionable: it is manifestly
false.
[...]
> Lets see. They will call names to their death on the
> phonetics of the vowels in Egyptian and declare the name
> is identical with a langauge in another language group
> which had no vowels at all.
All languages have vowels. Hint: writing systems aren't
languages.
[...]
LloydB
If a biblical archaeologist digs up a hobbyhorse,
what language will it speak?
Matt Giwer
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:31:01 -0500, Matt Giwer
> <matt@localhost> wrote in
> <news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c> in
> soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology:
>> It is not questionable that modern English writing does not give the
>> least clue as to its pronunciation by its fully literate readers today.
>
> The assertion is not only questionable: it is manifestly false.
Are words pronounced with the phonemes of the Scots, Irish, Welsh,
New Yorkers, Bostonians, Southerners, Texans or Australians?
> [...]
>> Lets see. They will call names to their death on the phonetics of the
>> vowels in Egyptian and declare the name is identical with a langauge in
>> another language group which had no vowels at all.
> All languages have vowels. Hint: writing systems aren't languages.
This is not clear from the context? If the Egyptians had used
Phoenician letters instead of their own glyphs it might be possible to
construct a rational argument no matter how tenuous. But they did not. One
therefore concludes, should the glyphs be interperated as representing
phonemes, there is no basis for connecting the phonemes with any equivalent
phoneme in another language group.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Sun Nov 8 23:50:32 EST 2009
Brian M. Scott
Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:31:01 -0500, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote in
>> <news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c> in
>> soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology:
>>> It is not questionable that modern English writing does not give the
>>> least clue as to its pronunciation by its fully literate readers
>>> today.
>> The assertion is not only questionable: it is manifestly false.
> Are words pronounced with the phonemes of the Scots, Irish, Welsh,
> New Yorkers, Bostonians, Southerners, Texans or Australians?
Tsk, tsk. You're moving the goalposts.
You claimed that English writing does not give the least clue to the
pronunciation. This is obviously false: it gives a great many clues.
That's why reading is taught using at least partly 'phonic' approaches.
It's why the range of likely mispronunciations of an unfamiliar word
is very narrowly limited.
>> [...]
>>> Lets see. They will call names to their death on the phonetics of the
>>> vowels in Egyptian and declare the name is identical with a langauge
>>> in another language group which had no vowels at all.
>> All languages have vowels. Hint: writing systems aren't languages.
> This is not clear from the context?
What's clear is that you made a false assertion.
[snip further display of ignorance]
Tiglath
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:31:01 -0500, Matt Giwer
> <matt@localhost> wrote in
> <news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c> in
> soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology:
>
> > It is not questionable that modern English writing does
> > not give the least clue as to its pronunciation by its
> > fully literate readers today.
>
> The assertion is not only questionable: it is manifestly
> false.
>
It's the tiresome "hyping up" of a smaller truth, which people like
Giwer, ADR, and others have adopted as mannerism.
English pronounciation is not easy to guess at times for a non-native
speaker, or even for native speakers when they find new words. Hence
the fact that English speakers can spell words lightning fast, for
they get a lot of practice. Native speakers of other languages, like
Spanish, where the spelling is a reliable reference to pronounciation
99.9% of the time, are very slow spellers because they rarely need to
spell a word.
Matt Giwer
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:56:05 -0500, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote in
> Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:31:01 -0500, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote in
>>> <news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c> in
>>> soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology:
>>>> It is not questionable that modern English writing does not give the
>>>> least clue as to its pronunciation by its fully literate readers today.
>>> The assertion is not only questionable: it is manifestly false.
>> Are words pronounced with the phonemes of the Scots, Irish, Welsh,
>> New Yorkers, Bostonians, Southerners, Texans or Australians?
> Tsk, tsk. You're moving the goalposts.
> You claimed that English writing does not give the least clue to the
> pronunciation. This is obviously false: it gives a great many clues.
> That's why reading is taught using at least partly 'phonic' approaches.
> It's why the range of likely mispronunciations of an unfamiliar word is
> very narrowly limited.
In the analogous case, which is obviously the one to which I refer,
not knowing ANY of the many ways to pronounce each letter there is no way to
establish the pronunciation of any word. You are invited to tell me how you
would do so in total ignorance of any pronunciation. That is the case for
the currently distracting inscription.
>>> [...]
>
>>>> Lets see. They will call names to their death on the phonetics of the
>>>> vowels in Egyptian and declare the name is identical with a langauge
>>>> in another language group which had no vowels at all.
>>> All languages have vowels. Hint: writing systems aren't languages.
>> This is not clear from the context?
> What's clear is that you made a false assertion.
> [snip further display of ignorance]
I will of course be expecting you to demonstrate your claim of
ignorance when you tell me how you will establish the pronunciation of
English with no knowledge whatsoever of how any letter or combination of
letters nor even knowing what constitutes a combination of letters.
Please let me know how you can accomlish this miracle.
After that you may tell me how you would do it for a non-Aryan
language.
Finally you can tell me how you will "discover" the same word in
both languages based upon pronunciation which is the claim for the magic
inscription.
--
Happiness is simple. Do not compare yourself to others.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4205
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Tue Nov 10 01:35:14 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Nov 8, 11:34 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:31:01 -0500, Matt Giwer
>> <matt@localhost> wrote in
>> <news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c> in
>> soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology:
>>> It is not questionable that modern English writing does not give the
>>> least clue as to its pronunciation by its fully literate readers today.
>> The assertion is not only questionable: it is manifestly false.
> It's the tiresome "hyping up" of a smaller truth, which people like Giwer,
> ADR, and others have adopted as mannerism.
> English pronounciation is not easy to guess at times for a non-native
You believers are claiming it can be done with no knowledge of any
pronunciation of English nor of any related langauge. That is what is
analogous to Egyptian.
> speaker, or even for native speakers when they find new words. Hence the
> fact that English speakers can spell words lightning fast, for they get a
> lot of practice. Native speakers of other languages, like Spanish, where
> the spelling is a reliable reference to pronounciation 99.9% of the time,
> are very slow spellers because they rarely need to spell a word.
You are claiming with no knowledge at all of any form of english
pronunciation you can divine how it is pronounced, do the same for another
language with again no knowledge of how it is pronounced and then declare
two words refer to the same thing because they sound alike.
You two can work together to explain how this miracle is to be
performed. Perhaps then you can explain how it was performed without
reference to the bible.
The "other" language in this case is one written in Aramaic script
without vowels and for which there is no evidence it was a spoken language.
That should do wonders for your pronunciation divining efforts.
Take all the time you need.
--
Which is better? Many gods or one swiss army knife god?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4202
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Tue Nov 10 01:54:46 EST 2009
Kendall K Down
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> You believers are claiming it can be done with no knowledge of any
> pronunciation of English nor of any related langauge. That is what is
> analogous to Egyptian.
Dear oh me! Not only is Matt the Pratt profoundly ignorant of history,
archaeology, linguistics, and just about anything else you can name,
but it now appears that he doesn't even know that Champollion knew
Coptic, which is descended from ancient Egyptian.
And this is the ignoramus who pontificates endlessly about
archaeology!
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
JTEM
Kendall K Down <webmas...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
> Dear oh me! Not only is Matt the Pratt profoundly ignorant
> of history,
Yes he is, every bit as ignorant as you, and just as
agenda driven...
> archaeology, linguistics, and just about anything else you
> can name, but it now appears that he doesn't even know
> that Champollion knew Coptic,
Really? Which dialect?
> which is descended from ancient Egyptian.
And to think, the last of the native Coptic speakers
were already more than four times as far removed
from the first Coptic speakers as we are from
Shakespearean English today!
They had four times the opportunities for changes
as we have for our own language since the time
of Shakespeare!
....and today's Coptic speakers are as far removed
from the last of those natives as we are from
Shakespeare...
> And this is the ignoramus who pontificates endlessly about
> archaeology!
Like you, his agenda leads him to state many falsehoods.
Remember your nonsense about "the Palace of David"?
Matt Giwer
>> which is descended from ancient Egyptian.
> And to think, the last of the native Coptic speakers were already more
> than four times as far removed from the first Coptic speakers as we are
> from Shakespearean English today!
And twice as far from Old English as we are.
> They had four times the opportunities for changes as we have for our own
> language since the time of Shakespeare!
And "halig" is perfectly understandable to anyone who speaks English
today and knowing what it means allows us to connect with ancient Coptic
words because they sound alike.
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Thu Nov 12 22:10:16 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c>
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> You believers are claiming it can be done with no knowledge of any
>> pronunciation of English nor of any related langauge. That is what is
>> analogous to Egyptian.
> Dear oh me! Not only is Matt the Pratt profoundly ignorant of history,
> archaeology, linguistics, and just about anything else you can name, but
> it now appears that he doesn't even know that Champollion knew Coptic,
> which is descended from ancient Egyptian.
>
> And this is the ignoramus who pontificates endlessly about archaeology!
You are also invited to tell the world how to know the pronunciation
of a dead language at all times in the years it was used. Any more miracles
you claim you can do. Like walk on shit and not sink?
You are a fraud who robs little old ladies telling them lies about
bibleland and you know it.
--
Which is better? Many gods or one swiss army knife god?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4202
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Thu Nov 12 22:27:48 EST 2009
Elijahovah
divine it as you say.
As for English if you had shown me how to spell the word shown this
century then i might not know what it means when I read William
Whiston's translation of Josephus when 200 years ago they had shewn me
how to spell shewn another way. But I would like to say that Vishnu
did not exist in 3102 BC on Julian Feb 17 (between Feb 16/18) as
gregorian Jan 22 (between Jan 21/23) because that is not the true
Flood year. (In Noah's 360-day calendar that is the date 9-01 traced
back 2400 Julian years before 702 BC = 2435x 360 days.) Noah's 40 days
for Hindu are Jan 8 to Feb 17 if we take the dates between Jan 7 to
Feb 16 and Jan 9 to Feb 18. But the true 40 days of global Flood are
2370-2369 BC Nov 27 to Jan 6, and the true 40 days of a seance at his
death are 2021-2020 BC Dec 24 to Feb 2. It is in 2020 BC that Noah
becomes called VishNu not in 3102 BC. And the 40-day seance is what
mixes VishNu up with the 40 days of Flood saying he raised to heaven
after the 40 days. The Hindu have the Venus formula wrong because they
are adding 60 days for every 1200 Julian years instead of subtracting
60 days for every 1200 egyptian years. It is a formula of Venus not of
Jupiter. Thus they take the date of Noah (9-01) in 3102 BC and it
becomes 11-01 in 1902 BC and 1-01 in 702 BC.
3102 BC Feb 17 = 9-01
1902 BC Feb 17 = 3-01 unless flipped to be 9-01
+60 = Apr 18 = 5-01 unless flipped to be 11-01
Aug 16 = 9-01 unless flipped to be 3-01
+60 = Sep 15 = 11-01 unless flipped to be 5-01
702 BC Feb 17 = 9-01
Apr 18 = 11-01
Jun 17 = 1-01
The fact that 60 days is added is found in 1437 BC when 600 years of 8-
year Venus is ignored as egyptian years of 365 days in which 584-day
Venus must have 30 days subtracted. The 600 years of July 2029 BC
(formula for Egyptian date 1-01-341, not for Noah's date 9-27-945) end
in Feb 1429 BC (on 1-04 but has become 7-09 by edict to move epagum
days in 1513 BC, 7th month becomes 1st month, so 1st month becomes
7th, and the 5 epagum days are moved). And the 584-day Venus date must
have 30 days subtracted back to Jan 1429 BC to be the real 583.92-day
Venus. But the Chinese and Hindu instead regard 592-year Venus as 600
years of 360 days which will end Dec 4 of 1438 BC as the date 9-27
before the absence and rise of Venus, which then requires they add 60
days to get a rising Venus on 11-27 (Feb 2). Later because these 60
days were added, itw is assumed to be the 60-day difference of 1200
years (2637-1437 BC). Which is false astronomy because the formula is
1200 egyptian (=1199 Julian 65 days) minus 60 days is 1199 Julian 5
days on an Egyptian date 60 days back from original. Thus the Hindu
formula is the basis for calculation of 3102 BC in 702 BC by a very
incompetent priest.
This is why language MUST be recognized as twisted by people for 4000
years instead of always arguing that certain current scholars are
twisting words. The words have already been twisted by every scholar
now dead in the millenia before us. But these are easy to find if you
compare false words to real truth instead of trying to make these
false words as our truth. This is why you do not see that the spirit
of God Jehovah declares the astral impact for this year.
Matt Giwer
> Well Giwer, I would rather define a pronunciation than think me God to
> divine it as you say.
Now tell me how you can determine the pronunciation of English 3200
years ago without knowing a single thing about it or any related language.
--
If the world adopts Israel's view of the Goldstone report then the world
at least owes Milosevic a posthumous apology and possibly also to Hilter.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4206
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sun Nov 15 06:53:23 EST 2009