Gods FIRST name
Aggie-Tom
Greek is considered by most people as the root of all Indo-European
languages. Similarly Hebrew can be considered as the root to the Semitic
languages.
If we compare words in these language groups which have similar meaning it
may be possible to deconvolve the original Pan-Euro-Asiatic language which
they originated from.
The reason for me coming to do this occurred when I read certain passages
from the Bible which I found disturbing since they implied that Jesus Christ
was Lucifer the Morning Star.
Here they are in the King James Version and in the original Greek (7=psi,
8=theta).
Revelation 2:28 And I will give him the morning star.
Revelation 2:28 kai dwsw autw ton astera ton prwinon
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the
bright and morning star.
Revelation 22: 16 egw ihsous epem7a ton aggelon mou marturhsai umin tauta
epi tais ekklhsiais egw eimi h riza kai to genos dauid o asthr o lampros o
prwinos
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! {O
Lucifer: or, O day star}
Isaiah 14:12 pws exepesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforos o prwi anatellwn
sunetribh eis thn
ghn o apostellwn pros panta ta e8nh
On translating the Greek passage from Isaiah it is clear that it bares no
resemblance to the Authorised Version.
Isaiah 14:12. how did it fall from Ouranos, the bringer of the morning rise,
wisdom to
earth, the teacher of all nations.
Why all the Epithets, teacher of men and all that for one supposedly evil
according to he Authorised Version.
The passage after this goes.
13 su de eipas en th dianoia sou eis ton ouranon anabhsomai epanw twn astrwn
tou ouranou 8hsw ton 8ronon mou ka8iw en orei u7hlw epi ta orh ta u7hla ta
pros borran
Isaiah 14:13. but you said in your heart, to Ouranos I ascend, above the
star of Ouranos I set my throne, to sit on a high mountain among the highest
mountains to the north.
Clearly the Only way to resolve this contradiction within Christianity and
the way by which the early Christian s brought it about in the first palace
is to assume that the Greek word Ournaos is the name of the God Uranus.
The story of Uranus goes like this. Created by Mother Earth, Gia, he took
her as his wife and first fathered the Hekatonscheries and the Cyclopes,
which he then imprisoned in Tartarus. After this he fathered the Titans
including Chrons, whose name is the corruption of the Greek Coronis or Crow.
Chronos then with the help Hekatonscheries and the Cyclopes, the Archons, he
and the Titans completely overthrew Uranus and Chronos made sure he could
have no further offspring by castrating him with a stone sickle.
Uranus thus was NEVER worshipped in the Greek pantheon in any form.
After his castration by Chronos, the goddess Aphrodite was born from his
testicles and the froth of the ocean when they fell into the sea of Cyprus.
Now back to the association of Christ with Lusicfer, Latin for bringer of
light.
In Greek the Morning Star is Eosphoros, and he seems to be without any form
of parentage or relation to the other Gods.
Eosphoros who is the father of Ceyx who was given the task of looking after
to sons of Herakles after his apothesis.
Now funnily enough after his own death Ceyx was brought back to life as
bird, a kingfisher, some say a gull.
When Jesus received the Holy Spirit it came to him in also the form of a
bird.(This is also mentioned in the Koran). So you get the association with
the mysterious Fisher King in Christian/Arthurian Mythology the keeper of
the Holy Grail.
Everything seems to be pointing one way, that Uranus is another Name for
Jehovah, like Sabaoth, Shaddai, Olam, Gibbor, Elyon.
All that is missing is the epithet YHWH or El to denote Godhood. So why
would this epithet be missing.
One plausible explanation is that the YHWH hides the name of the real God
who s power Jehovah has usurped. Jehovah overpowers an existing deity and in
the name of YHWH this deity does as he is commanded. If the actual name of
Jehovah were to be invoked, so that he was acting in his own capacity then
why would the YHWH be required.
One example of this comes form Isaiah 14:14
Isaiah 14:14 anabhsomai epanw twn nefelwn esomai omoios tw u7istw
Isaiah 14:14 I rise up above the clouds: I live like the Most High.
The Greek U7istw is used to denote the Most High. This quote also defines
that you need to go towards the sky to reach Jehovah.
Jehovah must clearly be the Sky god. So how doe we fit everything else in
with Uranus a god that had no cult in Greece.
If Jesus was supposed to be the direct offspring of Uranus it would be
impossible since Uranus/Jehovah was now sterile after being castrated.
>From the Bible we learn that after Jehovah created the universe he became
barren. No new Angels were added to Heaven to replace the ones he sent to
Hell after the Nephilim (an analogue to the Titans came down to earth to
teach man new ways and father Giants and Great Kings. In the Bible story
Jehovah defeats Azazel whereas in the Greek version Chronos defeats Uranus
with the help of the Archons who after being freed by Chronos are sent down
to Tartarus once more.
Aside to this the Hebrew word Nephilim word looks like its is a corruption
of Nephelon or clouds. This give us yet another possible translation for
Isaiah 14:14 "I rise up above the Nephilim: I live like the Most High."
Anyway the Bible makes it seem that Jehovah won his victory without paying a
price. But what if the Greek story is a truer version of what occurred.
What if the price of victory for Jehovah was Impotence or Sterility. Since
Jehovah could have no children his cult collected Foreskins in-order to
stimulate his masculinity. So the way in which he procreated was through the
symbolic circumcision of his worshipers.
Jacob worships Jehovah as a Phallic rock he names Bethel, or Place of God
(See the Essay "The Pagans of the Jehovah" Chapter 1, which I posted in
soc.culture.greek last year). Obviously this rock Bethel and other pillars
erected throughout the period of the Old Testament represents Uranus slain
member that fell to earth.
The Cult of the Sky God was clearly a fertility cult. The rain from the Sky
was seen as a means of fertilising mother Earth. But if the Sky became
impotent then famine would ensue. Most Fertility Cults also promote the
worship of Serpents and that of Jehovah is no exception.
The Biblical tale of Eden derives from an older Sumerian garden where the
serpent (cosmic fertilising power) is consort to the mother-goddess (Eve).
The rod Jehovah gave Moses becomes a serpent when cast down on the ground;
in the desert, when the Israelites complained, he sent fiery serpents among
the people, and the bit the people, so that many people died Jehovah
commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. This idol was
long revered in Jerusalem, until King Hezekiah (719-691 BC), broke it in
pieces. The chief protagonists of the Jehovah cult were the priestly tribe
of Levi, ie of Leviathan.
When Christ was born the circumcision custom ended indicating that Jehovah
had lost his impotence and had no
need for foreskins.
The Morning Star of Uranus was Venus, ie Aphrodite the daughter of Uranus
and also the Babylonian goddess Ishtar
Ishtar was the daughter of Anu and sister of Shamash the sun God and wife of
Moon God Sin. She was also a Virgin Mother (virgin meaning unmarried) and
the head of a prostitution cult.
Thus the unmarried Virgin Mary was none other than Aphrodite or Ishtar (the
Whore Of Babylon) and daughter of Jehovah/Uranus. Born from his testis, they
are reunited and Jehovah s fertility is restored.
"Anu" meaning "Sky" is also the central part of "UrANUs" also meaning Sky
and is the Sumerrian personification of Heaven. This deity was later adopted
by the Assyrio-Bablyonian pantheon.
"Shamash" is also the Hebrew word for Sun. "Helel ben-Shahar" is the Hebrew
for Lucifer or Eosphoros.
Hel was a Norse Goddess who ruled Nifleim (mist-world) north of the Abys.
Nifleim is Similar to Nephilim who were the Archons or Giants of the Old
Testament, now residing in Hell.
Helel can also be associated with the Hellenes or Greeks, and thus the
connectio with the goddess Aphrodite is more apparent.
Play around with the translation of Eosphoros and you have Son of Light and
Epithet for Christ. Play around with Jesus and you have Ye Zeus, Son of God.
So who was God.
Comparative analysis of religion sugests that at one time the Pan-Eurasians
were all in one place worshipping in the same Matriarchal System. Uranus or
Ourano(s) [Anu] was the primary male fertility god of that age.
I suspect that the Greek Ouranos was closer original name of God rather than
Anu or Jehovah since Greek is the root of the Proto-Indo-European
Pan-Eurasian language and is found in languages all the way to Japan and
South America.
The following example in whie I show that Uiranuse and Jehovah are one and
the same is based on the law of consonantal shift.
Going from steps 15 through to 1 we can see that the name Ourano can be
corrupted though speech into Jehovah. Not only that but the name of one of
the primary founders of Judaism emerges shortly before the name Jehovah
takes on its modern form, as well as other interesting anomalies which I
will talk about later.
15) Uranus - comes via the Latin of Ouranos.
14) Ourano - OU and U sounds are the same.
13) URano - going down an h is added to give "a" the pronunciation of soft
ah rather than sharp a.
12) URhano - going down a Y is added, That is so is the U is pronounced You
rather than Ur.
11) YURhano - going down the R is dropped. R's are often missed because of
speech impediments
10) Yuhano = Johan
9) Juhuno - there is no reason why we cant switch vowel sounds especially
since written language at this time thought them unnecessary. Y now becomes
a Polish J
8) Jehuno - another vowel change occurs. Juno the Roman with of Jupiter.
7) Jehuwno - the combination "un" becomes pronounced like "one" as in the
Spanish John (hwan)
6) Jehuwvo - W becomes V like in Germanic
5) Jehuvo - the old Cornish name Jethrow or the name Jesu emerges after n is
lost.
4) Jehovo = Jacob - Jehovah is Jacob. Again there is no reason why we cant
switch vowel sounds.
3) Jehovao - Cange in sound of the v from vo to vAo, while later the a
becomes extended to vaho
2) Jehovaho - theres is no reason not to pre-suppose that YHWH ended with a
vowel or began with one even.
1) Jehovah
[Assuming: J(ur) -> Our, Vos -> Wos -. Nos, H(u) -> (R)a]
Of cause I have been over presumptuous to assume that the Greek Ouranos
would; remain unchanged over time and be the original name for God.
Obviously both Jehovah and Ouranos have an other common ancestor and my best
guess at the moment would be somewhere between steps 7) and 6), that is
something between Jehuwno and Jehuwvo, like JEHUWAO.
Jehuwao -> Jewaoh -> Jew
But this is not the end of the search. We can go further.
Jehuwao must have originally been a cry of foreboding awe at the sky.
Something like Wow or Wahoo, or the cry of a Baby
Thus the primitive form "WOW" is the original name of God. All of the names
Jehovah, Ouranos, and Anu can be derived from that one word.
Not just that but we also have:
from (2)
Jehovaho -> Ehovaho -> Ehovarho -> Ehowvarhoo -> Ehobrhoo -> Ehebrhoo ->
Hebrew
from (6)
Jehuwvo -> Wehuwvo ->Deuwavo
-> Deuwavol -> Deuwavolo -> Diwavolo -> Diavolo
|
Dewevol -> Devil
[assuming: J(u) becomes D(u)]
It also very auspicious that if we take Jehuwvo. It is possible to obtains
Diavolo, or Devil.
This is not surprising really since the worship of the Sky as a fertility
God was also associated with the worship of Serpents. The Sky would be the
diabolical one if he chose to ruin mother earth s harvests by not sending
rain or by sending flood.
Everything fits together like a glove !
And still we can go yet further.
The Biblical story of Noah resemble the Hellenic story of Deukalion almost
in it entirety. Both build Wooden Arks and Both father an new nation to
replace the one destroyed by God, Wow.
So how can the names Noah and Deukalion be different. Infact the are not
different. They are the same as you shall see.
First step its to know the Greek pronunciation of Deukalion is Dhougaleeon
So: Deukalion -> Dhougaleeon -> Wugaleeon
Next we dismiss the ending since this is a later addition so we now have:
Wugal -> Wugah -> NuGah -> NouGah -> NoGah -> Noah
(g changes from the English g to G the Greek style Gamma pronounced ghu)
The intermediate form from Wugah -> NuGah is OuGah
OUGAH is our original Noah and our original Deukalion. Both name flow off
the tongue of Ougah.
(Major Source: "The Encyclopaedia of Myths and Legends" by Stuart Gordon
(Headline))
aphri...@my-deja.com
> Next we dismiss the ending since this is a later addition so we now
have:
>
> Wugal -> Wugah -> NuGah -> NouGah -> NoGah -> Noah
Thanks, you made my day
ooga wooga
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve
> Greek is considered by most people as the root of all Indo-European
> languages. Similarly Hebrew can be considered as the root to the Semitic
> languages.
Greek is hardly the 'root' of all Indo-European languages, similarily Hebrew
is not considered as the 'root' to the Semitic languages!
Steve
Aggie-Tom
Steve wrote in message ...
>
>> Greek is considered by most people as the root of all Indo-European
>> languages. Similarly Hebrew can be considered as the root to the Semitic
>> languages.
>
>Greek is hardly the 'root' of all Indo-European languages, similarily
Hebrew
If you asked, most people from soc.culture.greek would say it was. Only the
revisionists will say otherwise because they deliberately set out to portray
the Greek contribution to western culture as worthless..
>is not considered as the 'root' to the Semitic languages!
>
I said can be. (for the purposes of my argument). I gave examples of Hebrew
words that were common to other languages. Is that not enough to suggest a
common root.
>Steve
>
Empress Nympho
"Steve" <sed...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lK3v5.284438$8u4.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
I don't know about Gawd, but Jesus' *middle* name is Harold.
As in Jesus H. Christ. As is "Harold Be Thy Name."
Francis Cameron
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> writes
>If you asked, most people from soc.culture.greek would say it was. Only the
>revisionists will say otherwise because they deliberately set out to portray
>the Greek contribution to western culture as worthless..
In that case 'most people from soc.culture.greek' are ignoring the
linguistic evidence. And in all my years of study I have never *never*
encountered the portrayal of Greek culture as worthless.
--
francis freespirit
Francis Cameron
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> writes
>Greek is considered by most people as the root of all Indo-European
>languages.
This sentence is a good stopping point. Greek is but part of one family
of the Indo-European languages. Sanskrit is nearer the mark as the
origin. And I don't have the right reference books handy to be any more
precise.
Whether there is anything of importance in the rest of the message, I
cannot say.
--
francis freespirit
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> If you asked, most people from soc.culture.greek would say it was. Only the
> revisionists will say otherwise because they deliberately set out to portray
> the Greek contribution to western culture as worthless..
I'm sorry, but I believe I've read (sorry, no citation possible at
present since I don't remember where) that paleolinguists - without in
the least meaning "to portray the Greek contribution to Western culture
as worthless" - may be more inclined to think that the language in which
the Vedas were written may be the closest *yet discovered* to a "root
language" in the Indo-European family.
> I said can be. (for the purposes of my argument). I gave examples of Hebrew
> words that were common to other languages. Is that not enough to suggest a
> common root.
No, not in my opinion - no more than Spanish might be one or the root
languages for American English because we've borrowed and put to our own
uses such words as "patio." The borrowing by a language that lacks a
word for a certain concept from a language that has a word for it is
common - witness the frustration of the Acadamie Francais with the creep
of "Franglais."
I believe that Hebrew may be shown to be a descendant of but one of a
number of languages common to the ancient Fertile Crescent, many of
which survived at least into historical times (old Persian would be one
such, as I think may Arabic). This suggests to me that Hebrew may have
a common root with those languages rather than being, in itself, that
common root.
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Like science fiction and fantasy fiction? Read my reviews at
<http://www.bairdstafford.com>
Aggie-Tom
Francis Cameron wrote in message ...
You havent been reading s.c.g then.
>--
>francis freespirit
>
Aggie-Tom
Francis Cameron wrote in message ...
><cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> writes
>>Greek is considered by most people as the root of all Indo-European
>>languages.
>
>This sentence is a good stopping point. Greek is but part of one family
>of the Indo-European languages.
>Sanskrit is nearer the mark as the
>origin. And I don't have the right reference books handy to be any more
>precise.
>
The point that I was trying to make is that almost all attempts to
reconstruct Proto-Indo-European are based on GREEK since its documentation
goes furthest back in time.
I am sick an tired of so-called Revisionists trying to re-write history to
demean the Greeks.
>From Encyclopaedia Britannica
http://www.britanicca.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,118105+3,00.html
Relationship of Greek to Indo-European
Ancient Greek is, next to Hittite, the Indo-European language with documents
going furthest back into the past. By the time it emerged in the second half
of the 2nd millennium BC, it had already acquired a completely distinct
character from the parent Indo-European language. Its linguistic features
place it in a CENTRAL REGION on the dialect map that can be reconstructed
for Proto-Indo-European; the ancient languages with which it has the most
features in common are little-known ones such as Phrygian. In the study of
Indo-European dialectology, phonetic data are the most readily available and
provide the most information. In this respect the position of Ancient Greek
is as follows. The vowels of a and o quality, both short and long, remain
distinct, whereas they are completely or partially confused in Hittite,
Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic. Greek is the only language that
distinguishes by three different qualities (e, a, o) the secondary short
vowels resulting in certain positions from the three laryngeal sounds, *H1,
*H2, *H3, of Indo-European. (An asterisk preceding a sound or word indicates
that it is not an attested, but a reconstructed, hypothetical form. For a
discussion of these laryngeal sounds, see Indo-European languages.) Greek
keeps the distinction between the original voiced stops and voiced aspirated
stops of Indo-European (e.g., Indo-European *d becomes Greek d, and
Indo-European *dh becomes Greek th), whereas Iranian, Slavic, Baltic, and
Celtic confuse them. (Some linguists, however, assume that Greek th
continues Indo-European th and that Greek d goes back to an Indo-European
glottalized stop.) Greek avoids the general shifts of stop consonants that
are displayed, independently, by Armenian and Germanic, as well as the
change of palatal stops (k, etc.) into affricates (ts, etc.) or spirants (s,
etc.) in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Baltic, and Slavic. In these respects
Ancient Greek is conservative, as are, generally speaking, the western
Indo-European languages (Italic and Celtic). On the other hand, it does show
innovations. One of these, the devoicing of the original voiced aspirated
stops, is shared with Italic, although it is realized in different ways
(*dh- yields Greek th-, Latin f-, Osco-Umbrian f-); but others are foreign
to Italic. The latter include, for example, the weakening of spirants and
semivowels at the beginning of words before a vowel, the evolution of *s- to
h- (pre-Mycenaean), and *y- to h- (contemporary with Mycenaean).
Morphological criteria must, of course, be taken into account in defining
the position of a language. It should be noted that there are few
grammatical innovations shared by Greek and Italic, apart from the extension
to nouns of the pronominal ending of the genitive feminine plural *-asom
(Greek -aon; Latin -arum, Umbrian -aru, Oscan -azum) and of the pronominal
ending of the nominative masculine plural *-oi (Greek -oi; Latin -i). The
last innovation, however, is not shared with Osco-Umbrian but is found
instead in Germanic (in the strong declension of adjectives) and partly in
Celtic. The dialectal individuality of Greek is very clearly marked in the
organization of the verb, which is without parallel except for an
approximation in Indo-Iranian.
<< Previous | Next >>
Aggie-Tom
Baird Stafford wrote in message <1egukzg.ap5oba1vh46l4N%ba...@gate.net>...
>Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If you asked, most people from soc.culture.greek would say it was. Only
the
>> revisionists will say otherwise because they deliberately set out to
portray
>> the Greek contribution to western culture as worthless..
>
>I'm sorry, but I believe I've read (sorry, no citation possible at
>present since I don't remember where) that paleolinguists - without in
>the least meaning "to portray the Greek contribution to Western culture
>as worthless" - may be more inclined to think that the language in which
>the Vedas were written may be the closest *yet discovered* to a "root
>language" in the Indo-European family.
No you are wrong. The Anatolian group including Hittite predates the
Indo-Iranian group which includes Sanscrit.
The classification of Indo-European language groups as far as I'm aware is
based only on the age of the known texts.
http://www.britanicca.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,118097+1+109767,00.html
If you accept Linear A as being a dialect of Greek then, Greek becomes the
Proto-Indo-European Language, (which is not to say that other dialects
didn't exist before it) since Linear A predates Hittite
http://www.britanicca.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,49525+1+48378,00.html
"Linear A is attested in Crete and on some Aegean islands from approximately
1850 Bcto 1400 BC. Its relation to the so-called hieroglyphic Minoan script
is uncertain. It is a syllabic script written from left to right. The
approximate phonetic values of most syllabic signs used in Linear A are
known from Linear B, but the language written in Linear A remains unknown.
It must have been a pre-Hellenic language of Minoan Crete. Its eventual
relation with the Eteocretan language of the 1st millennium BC is also
unknown."
"Hittite language,
most important of the extinct Indo-European languages of Anatolia; it was
closely related to Luwian, Lydian, Lycian, and Palaic. Hittite is known
primarily from the approximately 25,000 cuneiform tablets or fragments of
tablets preserved in the archives of Bogazkoy (the ancient Hattusa, in
modern Turkey), the majority of which are from the period of the Hittite
empire (c. 1400-c. 1190 BC) and are concerned with religious and other
subjects. Old Hittite texts, from about 1650 to 1595 BC, are preserved in
copies from the empire period and are the earliest Indo-European texts that
have thus far been found.
Bedrich Hrozny, a Czech Orientalist, concluded in 1915 that Hittite was an
Indo-European language because of the similarity of its endings for nouns
and verbs to those of other early Indo-European languages. Hittite has
provided significant information about the early Indo-European sound system.
"
Since 1850BD predates 1650BC, Linear A is the root of Indo-European.
Assuming that Linear A is an Indo-European language that is. So far all the
recent evidence I have read points to it being related in some way to Linear
B, thus making it Greek
I think other posters to soc.culture.greek may have more to say about this
than me.
>
>> I said can be. (for the purposes of my argument). I gave examples of
Hebrew
>> words that were common to other languages. Is that not enough to suggest
a
>> common root.
>
>No, not in my opinion - no more than Spanish might be one or the root
>languages for American English because we've borrowed and put to our own
>uses such words as "patio." The borrowing by a language that lacks a
>word for a certain concept from a language that has a word for it is
>common - witness the frustration of the Acadamie Francais with the creep
>of "Franglais."
>
>I believe that Hebrew may be shown to be a descendant of but one of a
>number of languages common to the ancient Fertile Crescent, many of
>which survived at least into historical times (old Persian would be one
>such, as I think may Arabic). This suggests to me that Hebrew may have
>a common root with those languages rather than being, in itself, that
>common root.
Point taken. I never said I disagreed with this view.
Bart Lidofsky
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Baird Stafford wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I believe I've read (sorry, no citation possible at
> present since I don't remember where) that paleolinguists - without in
> the least meaning "to portray the Greek contribution to Western culture
> as worthless" - may be more inclined to think that the language in which
> the Vedas were written may be the closest *yet discovered* to a "root
> language" in the Indo-European family.
Which is the source of H. P. Blavatsky naming the current human
race the "Aryan" race, an unfortunate terminology leading psuedo-scholars
like Peter Washington to link Theosophy to Naziism (Blavatsky CLEARLY
included Africans, Asians, Native Americans, etc. as part of the
"Aryan" race; "Aryan" referring more properly to the civilization).
Bart Lidofsky
silveroak
Actually I think he may have latched onto something more significant.
Note that the words which maintain commonality tend to be the names of
deities...
Sort of ironic that when little other linguistic crossover occurred that
these names would be common to so many cultures...
Aggie-Tom wrote in message <8pjknq$7ah$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
paghat
Ravennestar
University of Pennsylvania, and because I can speak Arabic and know some
hebrew, I can safely say that Akkadian is the root of both arabic and
Hebrew...(Akkadian is a ancient language if the fertile cresent as Baird
mentioned.)
We had to learn Akkadian in order to learn Sumerian which is a much older
but somewhat related language....Both are cuneiform languages....
Ravennestar
Baird Stafford <ba...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:1egukzg.ap5oba1vh46l4N%ba...@gate.net...
R. Eamon Graham
> If you accept Linear A as being a dialect of Greek then, Greek becomes the
> Proto-Indo-European Language, (which is not to say that other dialects
> didn't exist before it) since Linear A predates Hittite
And...
> Since 1850BD predates 1650BC, Linear A is the root of Indo-European.
> Assuming that Linear A is an Indo-European language that is.
All that would prove is that if Linear A is an Indo-European
language, and if it is a Greek dialect, then it is the Indo-European
language for which the earliest records exist. This is not the same
thing as being "the Proto-Indo-European Language." The
Proto-Indo-European language is, by definition, a language that was
unwritten, and was the _source_ of what we today call the
Indo-European languages; therefore simply finding the oldest written
record of an Indo-European langauge doesn't make it *the*
Proto-Indo-European language. If we later find a rune-stone that
pre-dates all Linear A material, then we could say that Norse is the
IE language for which the earliest records exist, but it is still
not _the_ Proto-Indo-European language. The fact is that we have a
pretty good idea of what the PIE language looked like, and although
Greek, Vedic and the Baltic Languages are all quite close to to it,
they are not "the same thing as" _the_ Proto-Indo-European language
and in some ways are radically different from PIE. For one of the
best resources on the Internet about the IE languages including a
huge amount of information about the original PIE language including
sketches of what the grammar and phonology would have looked like,
go to:
Saying that Greek is _the_ Proto-Indo-European language is saying
that Greek is the source of all IE languages, which is obviously not
true and is rather like a Greek version of the Turkish "Sun Language
Theory."
Cheers,
Eamon
Thom Marrion
>
> First name's Bob. Bob Yahweh.
drinking buddies and owe each other money, that doesn't make them the same
Deity.
They do kind of look alike though.
Thom
R. Eamon Graham
> If you accept Linear A as being a dialect of Greek then, Greek becomes the
> Proto-Indo-European Language, (which is not to say that other dialects
> didn't exist before it) since Linear A predates Hittite
And...
> Since 1850BD predates 1650BC, Linear A is the root of Indo-European.
> Assuming that Linear A is an Indo-European language that is.
All that would prove is that if Linear A is an Indo-European
Aggie-Tom
Raistlynn wrote in message <39bf1d46...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 05:00:26 CST, "Aggie-Tom"
><cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
>
>>Wugal -> Wugah ->
>
>Woden
Thank You.
I didnt want to post this in my original darf but here goes.
>From Noah to God !!!!!!!!!
Having derived Noah we can now derive the orginal name of the Moon.
I concluded that Ougah was the original Noah before I found out later that
Noah began life as Nuah a Sumerian moon-goddess. Noahs Wooden Ark or Argo
was the Sanskrit Argah meaning Crescent.
Based on these assumption I have come to the following conclusions.
Nuah Noah
| /
Wugah <- NuGah <- (Ougah) -> Louga -> Luna -> Luner
|
Wougah -> Woodah -> Wota -> Wotan -> Otan -> Odin
| \
Wood <- Woodh -> Woden God
Ougah was the European word for moon. From this the name of the Gods, Wotan
and Odin can be derived, as can the words Wood, and Other, which all come to
us in the direction of Deukalion. In a completely different direction we can
derive the Latin word Luner.
Odin is a one eyed sky God, the Sun being the eye of day, the Moon the eye
of night.
Interestingly the city of Ur of the Chaldees is named after the Moon-God
Hur.
This allows us to the possibility to join everything together and prove that
Nuah or Noah is indeed a moon deity.
Ougah <- Ouwah <- Houwah -> Houwer -> Hur
|
Wer-> Hwr
Its quite possible that Wer is the original name for the Moon and the "W"
was responsible for the corruption we have. The "W" is non-existent in Latin
and in Greek the closet match is the now extinct little used Double-Gamma.
Since Ur was also the City of Abraham we can conclude that Abraham's Jehovah
Trinity originated from there or should I say Hur.
>
>Class dismissed.
>
>
>Raistlynn
>
PS: this all arose from my original draft:
The Biblical story of Noah resembles the Hellenic story of Deukalion almost
in it entirety. Both build Wooden Arks which come to rest on a mountain top
and Both father an new nation to replace the one destroyed by God, Wow.
So how can the names Noah and Deukalion be different. Infact the are not
different. They are the same as you shall see.
First step it to know the Greek pronunciation of Deukalion is Dhougaleeon
So: Deukalion -> Dhougaleeon -> Wugaleeon
Next we dismiss the ending since this is a later addition so we now have:
Wugal -> Wugah -> NuGah -> NouGah -> NoGah -> Noah
(g changes from the English g to G the Greek style Gamma pronounced ghu)
The intermediate form from Wugah -> NuGah is OuGah
OUGAH is our original Noah and our original Deukalion. Both names flow off
the tongue of Ougah.
Raistlynn
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>Wugal -> Wugah ->
Woden
Class dismissed.
Raistlynn
Jessica Lavarnway
Start reading Vedic languages and you'll notice quite a few cognates
(similar words in each language) between Sanskrit, German, and English
. . . I'm not into Anthropology and am definitely not a languages
scholar (I'm not even fully bilingual -- what a statement on American
education -- most Europeans I know are fluent in at least three
languages), but I've seen some notes on this, and I find it
interesting.
I'm wondering if there is a similar language to proto-Indo-European
that explains the drastic differences between Germanic and Romance
languages (you see very few historical cognates between the Romance
languages and the Germanic languages -- you see them now mostly
because the words like compact-disc, et cetera, just spread :)) . . .
Anyone more scholarly than I am willing to look at this?
Blessed be,
Jess
p.s. Rereading this post, I'm proud that I still HAVE my mind . . .
after spending day after day chasing my three year old around, I
haven't even used words with more than three syllables in conversation
for weeks :)
Jessica Lavarnway
j...@lavarnway.mv.com
http://www.mv.com/ipusers/lavarnway/jal/
He is YOUR god, they are YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell.
Francis Cameron
<j...@lavarnway.mv.com> writes
>I'm wondering if there is a similar language to proto-Indo-European
>that explains the drastic differences between Germanic and Romance
>languages (you see very few historical cognates between the Romance
>languages and the Germanic languages
The short answer is 'No'. Germanic and Romance languages both stem from
the Indo-European root. Romance languages are derivatives of Latin.
There are some historical cognates between Romance and Germanic
languages. Mother. Father. Some of the numbers we count with. There are
others but I don't have the right reference books handy to put you on to
them. If you are interested and if you have contact with a good library,
talk to the Librarian and ask for a book on [pre]historic linguistics.
There will probably be at least one chart there which lays the whole
scenario out for you.
--
francis freespirit
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism Baird Stafford <ba...@gate.net> wrote:
[snip]
:> I'm sorry, but I believe I've read (sorry, no citation possible at
:> present since I don't remember where) that paleolinguists - without in
:> the least meaning "to portray the Greek contribution to Western culture
:> as worthless" - may be more inclined to think that the language in which
:> the Vedas were written may be the closest *yet discovered* to a "root
:> language" in the Indo-European family.
Hmm... Indo-European Linguistics 101 was a loooong time ago, I admit, but I
vaguely remember something about this being an outdated view not accepted
by most (all?) scholars any more...
CU,
Julia 8-)
(who still remembers some Sanskrit-centric
reconstruction attempts where vowels other than
<a> were few and far between and laryngeals were
conspicuously absent. Avis akvasaska, anyone?)
--
Julia Simon --- Hyppääjätär --- Sprachen-Freak vom Dienst
si...@cc.helsinki.fi, http://www.lingsoft.fi/~simon/
Don't you just love the way everything I say sounds important?
--- Mustafa, "You Wish"
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism silveroak <silv...@feist.com> wrote:
:> Actually I think he may have latched onto something more significant.
:> Note that the words which maintain commonality tend to be the names of
:> deities...
:> Sort of ironic that when little other linguistic crossover occurred that
:> these names would be common to so many cultures...
Why do you think that's ironic? (No, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really
curious.)
Deity names (and the occasional religious technical term) wandering across
language borders aren't quite that uncommon... For example, some words from
the Germanic religion may have Finnish, or at least Finno-Ugric, roots
(e.g. "seidhr", a form of magic; and also the name Loki). Robert
Schmitt-Brandt (in "Einführung in die Indogermanistik") makes out an IMNSHO
convincing case for the non-Indo-European origin of some of the Greek
deities' names. And IIRC the name for the Christian god in some South
American Indian languages is "Dios" (or a variant thereof).
CU,
Julia 8-)
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism Ravennestar <Raven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
:> We had to learn Akkadian in order to learn Sumerian which is a much older
:> but somewhat related language....Both are cuneiform languages....
Actually Akkadian and Sumerian aren't related... They were written using
(more or less) the same writing system, and Akkadian contained many loan
words (and AFAIK also loan translations of phrases etc.) from Sumerian, but
the last time I checked, Sumerian still hadn't been convincingly proven to
be genetically related to *any* other known language.
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-spam-trap> wrote:
[snip]
:> Greek is considered by most people as the root of all Indo-European
:> languages. Similarly Hebrew can be considered as the root to the Semitic
:> languages.
As others have pointed out already, neither can Greek be considered the
root of all IE languages nor Hebrew the root of all Semitic languages by
anyone with some understanding of historical linguistics...
[snip]
:> Now funnily enough after his own death Ceyx was brought back to life as
:> bird, a kingfisher, some say a gull.
:> When Jesus received the Holy Spirit it came to him in also the form of a
:> bird.(This is also mentioned in the Koran). So you get the association with
:> the mysterious Fisher King in Christian/Arthurian Mythology the keeper of
:> the Holy Grail.
It would be interesting, to say the least, if a connection between these
myths could be proven (or has it? Anyone?); but the "resurrected/reborn
person coming back as a bird" and "bird as divine messenger" motif can be
found all over the world. I hesitate to conclude from this fact that all
peoples' mythologies come from a common source. ;-)
[snip]
:> When Christ was born the circumcision custom ended indicating that Jehovah
:> had lost his impotence and had no
:> need for foreskins.
I beg to differ. The circumcision custom has definitely not ended; it's
alive and well (so to speak) in present-day Judaism.
[snip]
:> "Anu" meaning "Sky" is also the central part of "UrANUs" also meaning Sky
You're using very questionable methods here. The Finnish word "kappale",
meaning "piece", contains the English word "pale", but that doesn't mean
that all pale things are bits of something, or that if you break something
up into several pieces, they will be paler than the whole, or whatever.
[snip]
:> I suspect that the Greek Ouranos was closer original name of God rather than
:> Anu or Jehovah since Greek is the root of the Proto-Indo-European
:> Pan-Eurasian language and is found in languages all the way to Japan and
:> South America.
Do you have any (scientific, please) sources for this? Apparently you're
not referring to the Nostratic theory...
[snip]
Now, for some phonology...
:> The following example in whie I show that Uiranuse and Jehovah are one and
:> the same is based on the law of consonantal shift.
I'd like to see those laws... Where did you find them, resp. if you
formulated them yourself, on what basis? They look to me suspiciously like
something based on a much-too-small sample and twisted to fit into the
theory you wanted to prove. :-(
:> Going from steps 15 through to 1 we can see that the name Ourano can be
:> corrupted though speech into Jehovah. Not only that but the name of one of
:> the primary founders of Judaism emerges shortly before the name Jehovah
:> takes on its modern form, as well as other interesting anomalies which I
:> will talk about later.
:> 15) Uranus - comes via the Latin of Ouranos.
:> 14) Ourano - OU and U sounds are the same.
We could argue about that, but let's just say for the sake of argument that
while I wouldn't say they're the same, they're close enough.
:> 13) URano - going down an h is added to give "a" the pronunciation of soft
:> ah rather than sharp a.
Huh? What sounds do you mean here; could you please give their SAMPA or
ASCII IPA equivalents so I know what you mean by "soft" and "sharp" a?
:> 12) URhano - going down a Y is added, That is so is the U is pronounced You
:> rather than Ur.
Why? And also, what does your "ur" sound like?
:> 11) YURhano - going down the R is dropped. R's are often missed because of
:> speech impediments
Any particular reason to believe this is a systematic sound change in the
languages you're looking at? I don't think the scientific community would
accept "most of the <some population or another> had a certain speech
impediment" without being shown good reasons to support this claim... (On
the other hand, if you do have information that supports this, I'd be
genuinely interested in seeing it.)
:> 10) Yuhano = Johan
:> 9) Juhuno - there is no reason why we cant switch vowel sounds
No, really. All vowels are of course freely interchangeable because they're
allophones of each other anyway. (Heavy sarcasm, in case anyone hasn't
noticed.)
What are your reasons for postulating this particular vowel change? Is it
systematic?
:> especially
:> since written language at this time thought them unnecessary.
Most modern Arabic and Hebrew texts are written without vowel marks too,
but that doesn't mean at all that vowels aren't important! It just means
that if you know the language, then you don't need vowel marks in order to
understand a written text, much in the same way as someone who speaks, say,
Russian doesn't need little acute accent marks on stressed vowels in order
to understand a written Russian text.
:> Y now becomes
:> a Polish J
What sound would that be, please (for those of us who happen to know little
or no Polish)? And also, what does your <y> sound like next to that?
:> 8) Jehuno - another vowel change occurs. Juno the Roman with of Jupiter.
Again, what sound law is this, and what do you base it on?
:> 7) Jehuwno - the combination "un" becomes pronounced like "one" as in the
:> Spanish John (hwan)
Why?
:> 6) Jehuwvo - W becomes V like in Germanic
:> 5) Jehuvo - the old Cornish name Jethrow or the name Jesu emerges after n is
:> lost.
Why does the <n> get lost? Systematics, sound laws, see above.
:> 4) Jehovo = Jacob - Jehovah is Jacob. Again there is no reason why we cant
:> switch vowel sounds.
No, as I've already mentioned, vowels are quite a random phenomenon anyway.
(NOT!) Again, why this change of all possible ones, why here?
:> 3) Jehovao - Cange in sound of the v from vo to vAo, while later the a
:> becomes extended to vaho
Where does the <a> come from? Any further evidence of diphthongization,
addition of euphonic non-labials between labials, or anything else that may
justify this claim?
:> 2) Jehovaho - theres is no reason not to pre-suppose that YHWH ended with a
:> vowel or began with one even.
On the other hand, there's no reason to presume that it ended with a
consonant, either. Or if there is, please tell us.
:> 1) Jehovah
:> [Assuming: J(ur) -> Our, Vos -> Wos -. Nos, H(u) -> (R)a]
That's a pretty wild sequence! Can you back it up in any way (post more
detailed explanations resp. cite scientific literature that contains these
explanations)?
:> Of cause I have been over presumptuous to assume that the Greek Ouranos
:> would; remain unchanged over time and be the original name for God.
Without more detailed linguistic evidence, I can only say that that's not
the only place where you've been over-presumptuous. :-(
[snip]
:> Jehuwao -> Jewaoh -> Jew
Of course this doesn't take into account that in Hebrew (the language of
Judaism and therefore hopefully the language retaining the least corrupted
form of this word) the word for a Jew is y@hUdhI (my own transliteration;
in Hebrew letters it's spelled yodh with sheva na`, he with shuruq, daleth
with hiriq male). How does your theory account for the /D/?
[snip]
:> Jehovaho -> Ehovaho -> Ehovarho -> Ehowvarhoo -> Ehobrhoo -> Ehebrhoo ->
:> Hebrew
Whoa! What sound laws are at work here, and what are they based on?
[snip]
:> Everything fits together like a glove !
Now why does the quote, "If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer" come to
mind?:-(
:> And still we can go yet further.
:> The Biblical story of Noah resemble the Hellenic story of Deukalion almost
:> in it entirety. Both build Wooden Arks and Both father an new nation to
:> replace the one destroyed by God, Wow.
That may be so; but as with the bird motifs, the "flood kills everybody
except the Righteous (tm)" motif is far from unique to the eastern
Mediterranean.
:> So how can the names Noah and Deukalion be different. Infact the are not
:> different. They are the same as you shall see.
:> First step its to know the Greek pronunciation of Deukalion is Dhougaleeon
:> So: Deukalion -> Dhougaleeon -> Wugaleeon
:> Next we dismiss the ending since this is a later addition so we now have:
:> Wugal -> Wugah -> NuGah -> NouGah -> NoGah -> Noah
:> (g changes from the English g to G the Greek style Gamma pronounced ghu)
Again, please give some more details. I'd be especially interested in
seeing how a dental occlusive turned into what I assume to be a rounded
semivowel and from there to a dental nasal, and why you took the scenic
route, so to speak, instead of just assuming that the dental occlusive
got nasalized for some reason.
And incidentally, the letter <delta> was pronounced /d/, not /D/ (that is:
as an occlusive, not as a fricative), in Classical and earlier times;
unless you're proposing that Noah's name dates back to, say, the Byzantine
period or later (which I assume you aren't), why did you think it necessary
to include the modern pronunciation?
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-spam-trap> wrote:
:> Francis Cameron wrote in message ...
:>>In article <8phtjs$1qi$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, Aggie-Tom
:>><cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> writes
:>>>Greek is considered by most people as the root of all Indo-European
:>>>languages.
:>>
:>>This sentence is a good stopping point. Greek is but part of one family
:>>of the Indo-European languages.
:>>Sanskrit is nearer the mark as the
:>>origin. And I don't have the right reference books handy to be any more
:>>precise.
:> The point that I was trying to make is that almost all attempts to
:> reconstruct Proto-Indo-European are based on GREEK since its documentation
:> goes furthest back in time.
All attempts to reconstruct PIE that I'm aware of are based on Greek
_and_other_IE_languages_with_sufficiently_old_written_records_. That is,
Gothic, Latin, Vedic Sanskrit, Hittite, Old Church Slavonic, etc. From
Greek alone, all you would be able to reconstruct is Proto-Greek.
:> I am sick an tired of so-called Revisionists trying to re-write history to
:> demean the Greeks.
Why do you feel that stating that Greek is not the language all other IE
languages developed from is in any way demeaning to any Greeks?
:>>From Encyclopaedia Britannica
:> http://www.britanicca.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,118105+3,00.html
I'm too tired to point out that this article in no way proves or even
suggests that Greek is the "mother" of the IE language family. Suffice it
to add that not all scholars agree on the number of laryngeals to be
postulated for PIE and that AFAIR some (Ancient) Greek dialects did undergo
consonant shifts reminiscent of those found in the Germanic languages, but
I'd have to look up the latter in order to be sure.
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-spam-trap> wrote:
[snip]
:> The classification of Indo-European language groups as far as I'm aware is
:> based only on the age of the known texts.
Exactly what do you mean here? That the languages aren't classified by
similarity, as I remember being taught in Historical Linguistics 101, but
instead sorted by the order in which their first written records appear?
*Please* tell me I misunderstood you.
:> http://www.britanicca.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,118097+1+109767,00.html
:> If you accept Linear A as being a dialect of Greek then,
That's a very big "if". On what do you base this assumption? Last time I
checked, it still wasn't sure exactly what language it was that was written
in Linear A, only that it was spoken (or at least understood) in Minoan
Crete and that it may or may not be related to other languages that exist
or existed in the Mediterranean.
:> Greek becomes the
:> Proto-Indo-European Language, (which is not to say that other dialects
:> didn't exist before it) since Linear A predates Hittite
As others have mentioned before me, "the PIE language" doesn't mean "that
member of the IE language family with the oldest surviving written
records", but instead it's an assumed "mother" from which all the
"daughter" languages (i.e. all the known IE languages) developed.
[snip]
:> Since 1850BD predates 1650BC, Linear A is the root of Indo-European.
:> Assuming that Linear A is an Indo-European language that is. So far all the
:> recent evidence I have read points to it being related in some way to Linear
:> B, thus making it Greek
:> I think other posters to soc.culture.greek may have more to say about this
:> than me.
Please do your research and, if possible, base it on scientific evidence
instead of statements by people with a presumably nationalist agenda and
(from the looks of the arguments you present) little to no background in
linguistics.
CU,
Julia 8-)
(who gets this sneaking suspicion why the original
article was crossposted all over the place but
sci.lang was conspicuously absent from the list)
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-spam-trap> wrote:
[snip snip]
:> Ougah was the European word for moon. From this the name of the Gods, Wotan
:> and Odin can be derived, as can the words Wood, and Other, which all come to
:> us in the direction of Deukalion. In a completely different direction we can
:> derive the Latin word Luner.
You mean "luna", of course...
:> Odin is a one eyed sky God, the Sun being the eye of day, the Moon the eye
:> of night.
Within the context of your theory, where do Sunna/Sol (the Germanic Sun
goddess) and Mani/Mano (the Germanic Moon god) come from? Also, where in
the Lore is Odin established as a sky god? (Wind god (among other things),
yes, but the sky god *I* was told about is Tyr. Whose name, incidentally,
is related to various IE words for "god", "divine", and AFAIR even "day" or
"light", and also to whichever form it was that was borrowed into Finnish
to denote "sky" (taivas).)
[more snippage]
:> So: Deukalion -> Dhougaleeon -> Wugaleeon
[...]
:> Wugal -> Wugah -> NuGah -> NouGah -> NoGah -> Noah
:> (g changes from the English g to G the Greek style Gamma pronounced ghu)
:> The intermediate form from Wugah -> NuGah is OuGah
Again, could you please elaborate? Why do you include the modern Greek
pronunciation of the name "Deukalion"; why does a dental stop change to a
labial semivowel or approximant and only then to a dental nasal; and also,
how did the final /l/ get lost?
I notice that the sound change you do explain (velar occlusive to velar
fricative to zero) is one that's well-established in other language
families (the first step in German (cf. the Standard German and Berlin
dialect pronunciations of words like "Wagen" or "Regen"); both steps in
Finnish (cf. the diachronic explanation of gradation (astevaihtelu) of
short /k/ between non-labial vowels). So, since you apparently did think
about the linguistic justification of your theory at some point, could you
please show us the rest of your evidence so we can tell you whether we
think it's good or bad (resp. which parts are good or bad) instead of "this
runs contrary to established science and s/he doesn't back up hir claims,
so they're questionable at best"?
CU,
Julia 8-)
silveroak
Julia A M Simon wrote in message <8pqi7i$m0i$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...>:> Actually I think he may have latched onto something more
significant.
>:> Note that the words which maintain commonality tend to be the names of
>:> deities...
>:> Sort of ironic that when little other linguistic crossover occurred
that
>:> these names would be common to so many cultures...
>
>curious.)
>
>Deity names (and the occasional religious technical term) wandering across
>language borders aren't quite that uncommon... For example, some words from
>the Germanic religion may have Finnish, or at least Finno-Ugric, roots
>(e.g. "seidhr", a form of magic; and also the name Loki). Robert
>Schmitt-Brandt (in "Einführung in die Indogermanistik") makes out an IMNSHO
>convincing case for the non-Indo-European origin of some of the Greek
>deities' names. And IIRC the name for the Christian god in some South
>American Indian languages is "Dios" (or a variant thereof).
>
What is missing here is a mechanism- how do the names wander farther
than the language? If, just for argument, one were to assume that Gods and
Goddesses did once walk the earth (or at least show up sporadically) would
not the sudden appearance or the course of movement of their names give some
indication of where they were? Then, checking against this assumption, could
we not derive evidence for either their existence (no conclusions
contradicting the original hypothesis) or else disprove the hypothesis?
I think this would be an interesting study- if nothing else to determine
the possibility that these names referred to real and present entities.
WebSlave
> Deity names (and the occasional religious technical term)
wandering across
> language borders aren't quite that uncommon... For example,
some words from
> the Germanic religion may have Finnish, or at least Finno-Ugric,
roots
> (e.g. "seidhr", a form of magic; and also the name Loki).
Interesting. Can you give us the Finnish/Fenno-Ugric roots, or
rather possible modern derivations of those roots? Couldn't think
of any myself, unless 'seidhr' is related to 'seita'. How and when
did these get loaned? Germanic traders took them back to their
homelands with them or through a closer contact at Baltia (was
there any, or were the Baltic-speaking people 'always' in the
middle)?
> Robert
> Schmitt-Brandt (in "Einführung in die Indogermanistik") makes
out an IMNSHO
> convincing case for the non-Indo-European origin of some of the
Greek
> deities' names. And IIRC the name for the Christian god in some
South
> American Indian languages is "Dios" (or a variant thereof).
Err... isn't that 'God' in Spanish? A derivation of Latin 'Deo'. So the
indians would have picked the word from their converters.
WebSlave
--------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
WebSlave
Deja (or takes a very long time). A good thing really, because I
made a bit of an error there, due to the hurry I was in. A new try
then.
Julia A M Simon wrote:
> For example, some words from
> the Germanic religion may have Finnish, or at least Finno-Ugric,
roots
> (e.g. "seidhr", a form of magic; and also the name Loki).
Interesting. Can you tell us which (modern) words of Finnish might
come from the same roots as 'seidhr' and 'Loki'? How and when
this loaning would have taken place? Were there at some point
direct connections between Germanic and Fenno-Ugric people
(other than trade connections)? I have a vague impression that the
Baltic people were 'always' in between. Could be wrong on that. Or
did they come through Saami people, via Lapland?
Naturally us Finns were under Swedish rule later, but I assume
this loaning would have happened a lot earlier.
> Robert
> Schmitt-Brandt (in "Einführung in die Indogermanistik") makes
out an IMNSHO
> convincing case for the non-Indo-European origin of some of the
Greek
> deities' names. And IIRC the name for the Christian god in some
South
> American Indian languages is "Dios" (or a variant thereof).
Isn't 'Dios' 'God' in Spanish? Derivation of Latin 'Deus'? When
conquered and perhaps converted it would seem logical to adopt
the name the conquerer/converter uses? Of course it's not a
proper name, but for a polytheistic person it could easily work like
one (as the proper name was rarely or never used). Was that
sentence supposed to be connected with the idea of
'non-European origin' somehow? If not, then what did you try to say
?
WebSlave
--------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Aggie-Tom
Julia A M Simon wrote in message <8pquep$48e$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
Ohh come on. You know perfectly wee that its that sort of argument infact
ones that are even more convoluted that have been used to reconstruct PIE.
My example of Anu and Uranus both being Sky Gods and thus related is the
same one applied to PIE.
Its the same argument thats used for the 3 H's in PIE.
The "R" becomes more guttural in nature and the breath is extended before
the "a" softening the a which is more of a "ha" than an "a".
>
>:> 12) URhano - going down a Y is added, That is so is the U is pronounced
You
>:> rather than Ur.
>
>Why? And also, what does your "ur" sound like?
it goes from "ou" as in "food" which is how the Greeks pronounce Ouranosm to
a "u" as in "you" so it becomes like "Uranus" the Latin form.
Anyway, sinece you are replying to the preliminary drat you may not be aware
that I have revised my derivation based on new evidence connecting the God
"Hur" who was the local deity of Abraham to the God "Anu" given us
"Hur-Anu".
Hur thus give use the root of both the Greek and Lating variants, and also
the Jeh in Jehovah.
This analysis should now start at 13) with the an intermediate stag between
that and 14) which is "Hur-Anu", the root of both.
>
>:> 11) YURhano - going down the R is dropped. R's are often missed because
of
>:> speech impediments
>
>Any particular reason to believe this is a systematic sound change in the
>languages you're looking at? I don't think the scientific community would
>accept "most of the <some population or another> had a certain speech
>impediment" without being shown good reasons to support this claim... (On
>the other hand, if you do have information that supports this, I'd be
>genuinely interested in seeing it.)
OK. The Guttural "Rha", with the h pronounced as in the Greek word "Hrostao"
(I owe) is a pain in the throughout, so naturally some people drop the "R"
since its in the middle of a transition between two vowels.
vis. Newcastle changes from "Newcarsoul" in Londons to "Newcasl" in
Newcastle.
>:> 10) Yuhano = Johan
>
>:> 9) Juhuno - there is no reason why we cant switch vowel sounds
>
>No, really. All vowels are of course freely interchangeable because they're
>allophones of each other anyway. (Heavy sarcasm, in case anyone hasn't
>noticed.)
>
>What are your reasons for postulating this particular vowel change? Is it
>systematic?
The change is caused by accent changes caused by laziness.
As an example Australians change "Day" to sound like "Die". Yu can yse the
same teqneiq to recret most accents. Jim Davidson does a brilliant comedy
routine where he goes from Cornwall, to London, Birmingham, Manchester,
Liverpool, Newcastle, Scotland slowly changing the accent as he goes along.
Threes an obvious systematic transition present.
>:> especially
>:> since written language at this time thought them unnecessary.
>
>Most modern Arabic and Hebrew texts are written without vowel marks too,
>but that doesn't mean at all that vowels aren't important! It just means
>that if you know the language, then you don't need vowel marks in order to
Refer to my Jim Division example. The routine is only possible because of
rotation of vowel sounds. Possibly the Hebrews had many variants of accent
and thus the easiest way to write down all variations and keep the words
recognisable in written form was to drop all the vowels and let the local
speaker reinsert them as he pleased. Since modern Hebrew has been
standardised there is less chance for regional variations.
Lokk at Greek for instance which has dozen of regional dialects and is still
the same language.
As a Cypriot speaker I have become very used to it and use Cypriot as a
route to translate ancient Greek by looking for common variants.
>understand a written text, much in the same way as someone who speaks, say,
>Russian doesn't need little acute accent marks on stressed vowels in order
>to understand a written Russian text.
>
>:> Y now becomes
>:> a Polish J
>
>What sound would that be, please (for those of us who happen to know little
>or no Polish)? And also, what does your <y> sound like next to that?
>
The Polish name spelled "Jan" is pronounced "Yan", ie J is Y. Later on J
takes on a separate character to make it into more into chu (ju), rather
than a yu sound.
>:> 8) Jehuno - another vowel change occurs. Juno the Roman with of Jupiter.
>
>Again, what sound law is this, and what do you base it on?
its back to the guttural H's again which when combine with consents change
the vowel..
>
>:> 7) Jehuwno - the combination "un" becomes pronounced like "one" as in
the
>:> Spanish John (hwan)
>
>Why?
Do I have to say it again.
guttural H's
>
>:> 6) Jehuwvo - W becomes V like in Germanic
>
>:> 5) Jehuvo - the old Cornish name Jethrow or the name Jesu emerges after
n is
>:> lost.
>
>Why does the <n> get lost? Systematics, sound laws, see above.
>
>:> 4) Jehovo = Jacob - Jehovah is Jacob. Again there is no reason why we
cant
>:> switch vowel sounds.
>
>No, as I've already mentioned, vowels are quite a random phenomenon anyway.
Listen to Jim Division.
>(NOT!) Again, why this change of all possible ones, why here?
Do I have to keep repeating it.
>
>:> 3) Jehovao - Cange in sound of the v from vo to vAo, while later the a
>:> becomes extended to vaho
>
>Where does the <a> come from? Any further evidence of diphthongization,
>addition of euphonic non-labials between labials, or anything else that may
>justify this claim?
The V is still in a transition stage from a "W". It may be pronounced ouWu
or ouVu.
ouVu becomes ouVa thus you get ova-o
>
>:> 2) Jehovaho - theres is no reason not to pre-suppose that YHWH ended
with a
>:> vowel or began with one even.
>
>On the other hand, there's no reason to presume that it ended with a
>consonant, either. Or if there is, please tell us.
In another discussion in scg it was suggested to me that Jehovah may have
been Jehovaho. I have concurred with that opinion.
>
>:> 1) Jehovah
>
>:> [Assuming: J(ur) -> Our, Vos -> Wos -. Nos, H(u) -> (R)a]
>
>That's a pretty wild sequence! Can you back it up in any way (post more
It no more wild than PIE.
>detailed explanations resp. cite scientific literature that contains these
>explanations)?
>
>:> Of cause I have been over presumptuous to assume that the Greek Ouranos
>:> would; remain unchanged over time and be the original name for God.
>
>Without more detailed linguistic evidence, I can only say that that's not
>the only place where you've been over-presumptuous. :-(
>
>[snip]
>
>:> Jehuwao -> Jewaoh -> Jew
>
>Of course this doesn't take into account that in Hebrew (the language of
>Judaism and therefore hopefully the language retaining the least corrupted
>form of this word) the word for a Jew is y@hUdhI (my own transliteration;
>in Hebrew letters it's spelled yodh with sheva na`, he with shuruq, daleth
>with hiriq male). How does your theory account for the /D/?
>
Its probably and accusative form of Jew. - Jewod = the worshipers of
Jehovah.
>[snip]
>
>:> Jehovaho -> Ehovaho -> Ehovarho -> Ehowvarhoo -> Ehobrhoo -> Ehebrhoo ->
>:> Hebrew
>
>Whoa! What sound laws are at work here, and what are they based on?
>
Same as above. Since the Jews were nomades and came into contact with
Egyptians and Hittites and many other peoples, living as parasites within
thos civilisations, corruption of the original nams of the Jews God occurred
when the host races took up the Jehovah as one of their Gods. Think of it as
being like a French mans Speaking English with a French accent.
I have since revised the derivation and found a better root for both Noah
and Deukalion, "Wer" using the fact the Hur was the original God of Abraham.
Its back to these guttural H's and W's again.
Having derived Noah we can now derive the orginal name of the Moon.
I concluded that Ougah was the original Noah before I found out later that
Noah began life as Nuah a Sumerian moon-goddess. Noahs Wooden Ark or Argo
was the Sanskrit Argah meaning Crescent.
Nuah Noah
| /
Wugah <- NuGah <- (Ougah) -> Louga -> Luna -> Luner
|
Wougah -> Woodah -> Wota -> Wotan -> Otan -> Odin
| \
Wood <- Woodh -> Woden God
If Ougah was the European word for moon. From this the name of the Gods,
Wotan
and Odin can be derived, as can the words Wood, and Other, which all come to
us in the direction of Deukalion. In a completely different direction we can
derive the Latin word Luner.
Odin is a one eyed sky God, the Sun being the eye of day, the Moon the eye
of night.
Interestingly the city of Ur of the Chaldees is named after the Moon-God
Hur.
This allows us to the possibility to join everything together and prove that
Nuah or Noah is indeed a moon deity.
Ougah <- Ouwah <- Houwah -> Houwer -> Hur
|
Wer-> Hwr
Its quite possible that Wer is the original name for the Moon and the "W"
was responsible for the corruption we have. The "W" is non-existent in Latin
and in Greek the closet match is the now extinct little used Double-Gamma.
Since Ur was also the City of Abraham we can conclude that Abraham's Jehovah
Trinity originated from there or should I say Hur.
>
>And incidentally, the letter <delta> was pronounced /d/, not /D/ (that is:
>as an occlusive, not as a fricative), in Classical and earlier times;
>unless you're proposing that Noah's name dates back to, say, the Byzantine
>period or later (which I assume you aren't), why did you think it necessary
>to include the modern pronunciation?
How Germanic linguists can acutely speak Greek as a native. I think I as a
native Cypriot (that being the closet related dialect to ancient Greek)
speaker I should know pretty well hoe it was actually proniinced.
Have you ever considered that Latin was pronounced the Greek way rather than
the unnatural way the Germanics want us to think it was spoken, like an
English upper class toff.
>
>CU,
> Julia 8-)
>
>--
> Julia Simon --- Hyppaajatar --- Sprachen-Freak vom Dienst
Aggie-Tom
Julia A M Simon wrote in message <8pqi7i$m0i$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
>Hello!
>
>In soc.religion.paganism silveroak <silv...@feist.com> wrote:
>
significant.
>:> Note that the words which maintain commonality tend to be the names of
>:> deities...
>:> Sort of ironic that when little other linguistic crossover occurred
that
>:> these names would be common to so many cultures...
>
>curious.)
>
Not just Deity names.
Most of the examples I've seen for inferring PIE are words involving
Religion, Sacrifice (inducing animals), and those related to foreign
military rule, command, and overlordship.
>the Germanic religion may have Finnish, or at least Finno-Ugric, roots
>(e.g. "seidhr", a form of magic; and also the name Loki). Robert
>Schmitt-Brandt (in "Einführung in die Indogermanistik") makes out an IMNSHO
>convincing case for the non-Indo-European origin of some of the Greek
>deities' names. And IIRC the name for the Christian god in some South
>American Indian languages is "Dios" (or a variant thereof).
>
Possibley because the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were visitors to South
America long before the Fraudulent claims that Columbus was there first.
>CU,
> Julia 8-)
>
>--
> Julia Simon --- Hyppääjätär --- Sprachen-Freak vom Dienst
Aggie-Tom
WebSlave wrote in message <8pr61r$cvh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Isn't 'Dios' 'God' in Spanish? Derivation of Latin 'Deus'? When
>conquered and perhaps converted it would seem logical to adopt
>the name the conquerer/converter uses? Of course it's not a
>proper name, but for a polytheistic person it could easily work like
>one (as the proper name was rarely or never used). Was that
Not only were the foreign God's names taken but they were also associated
with local God to give new compound names. After this the local Gods name
became redundant and became just concepts of thought like Almighty,
Everlasting etc....
Almighty God - El Shaddai
Everlasting God - El Olam
Mighty God - El Gibbor
Most High, or
Most High God - El Elyon
or the different Gods were joined permanently or Gods name were joined with
local words (possible also Gods).
Zeus-pater - Jupiter (Deius=Zeus pater = father)
Dioni-Zeus - Dionysus (Dioni=Thigh or could have also been Goddess Dioni)
Hera-Kali - Herakles - Hercules (Hera wife of Zeus and Kali the Hindus death
goddess.) Greek mythology tell of the Journeys of Hercules to India and his
rebirth from Hera is the source of that relationship. I dont have an
explanation yet for the change from female to make.
Thom Marrion
>:> Odin is a one eyed sky God, the Sun being the eye of day, the Moon the eye
>:> of night.
>
> Within the context of your theory, where do Sunna/Sol (the Germanic Sun
> goddess) and Mani/Mano (the Germanic Moon god) come from? Also, where in
> the Lore is Odin established as a sky god? (Wind god (among other things),
> yes, but the sky god *I* was told about is Tyr. Whose name, incidentally,
> is related to various IE words for "god", "divine", and AFAIR even "day" or
> "light", and also to whichever form it was that was borrowed into Finnish
> to denote "sky" (taivas).)
>
Good point. There is a tradition in European mythologies to have a triad of
gods representing the celestial, terrestrial and the chthonic. In Hellenistic
myths you have Zeus, Poseidon and Hades. In Norse you have Thor, Frey and
Odin. Thor is a Sky God. Tiwaz is a Sky God. Odin is the head of a Pantheon,
and a Death God, and a God of Divine Madness, but he is not a Sky God.
Thom
vasif@fisav
dimensions like god itself.
i said itself so nobody can accuse me of sexist chauvinism. what the
bloody hell does it matter about the creator's name, let alone his
first or middle names, beats me...
give this useless argument up the whole bloody lot of you. there IS no
god. and there is NO god. just the creator which is the creation
itself. in fact it is the whole universe. and nobody registered its
birth let alone give him a name or names. how you refer to this force
of nature which is nature itself, is upto the individual.
it you want to prey to it, that's upto you. i don't think it cares
much one way of the other.
as we say in turkish, the hodja will read out what he knows. nothing
will change whether you believe in a god or not. and nothing will ever
change no matter how much you prey.
the only thing preying is good for is to convince yourself to become a
better person but quite often people become bloody bastards and hope
that preying will atone for their sins.
it's all a myth. you can be a better person with or without god. the
choice is upto the individual.
--
vasif@fisav
**************
The triumph of mediocrity is represented by the body politic.
*********************************************************************
Politics is the art of trying to unravel the repercussions of
yesterdays' policies.
*********************************************************************
Thom Marrion wrote in message <39C16B05...@yahoo.com>...
Baird Stafford
> The first attempt to post this doesn't seem to have made it through
> Deja (or takes a very long time). A good thing really, because I
> made a bit of an error there, due to the hurry I was in. A new try
> then.
It made it. One of the groups to which it is crossposted (srp) is a
moderated group and it was delayed in queue for a few hours.
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Possibley because the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were visitors to South
> America long before the Fraudulent claims that Columbus was there first.
I require documentation on this assertion, please - preferably with
tangible artifacts and scholarly reports of same to support it.
Otherwise it really isn't worth the bandwidth to send.
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism WebSlave <webs...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> Julia A M Simon wrote:
:>> Deity names (and the occasional religious technical term) wandering across
:>> language borders aren't quite that uncommon... For example, some words from
:>> the Germanic religion may have Finnish, or at least Finno-Ugric, roots
:>> (e.g. "seidhr", a form of magic; and also the name Loki).
:> Interesting. Can you give us the Finnish/Fenno-Ugric roots, or
:> rather possible modern derivations of those roots?
Sorry, I haven't found the roots (yet), but Jan de Vries, in his
"Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch", cites an article by W. Wüst (in
Ural-altaisches Jahrbuch 26, 1955, pages 135-138) where a connection
between "seidhr" and some Fenno-Ugric words (e.g. the Finnish verbs "soida"
(to sound) and "soittaa" (to play an instrument, etc.); Hungarian "zaj"
(sound, noise); and others) is proposed; de Vries suggests that the
Germanic word, and also Lithuanian "saitas" (magic, witchcraft) and
"saistu"/"saisti" (to interpret signs or omens, if I understand de Vries
correctly) and Welsh "hud" (magic), may have been loaned from a Fenno-Ugric
language.
As for Loki, his name has several possible explanations... but then again,
we shouldn't expect any less from a trickster god. ;-) Among other things,
the name is suspiciously close to "lukki", the Finnish word for a
phalangid; this is supported by Loki's giving birth to an eight-legged
horse, which may or may not have been a phalangid (for which eight legs
would be *much* more natural than for a horse) in a (lost) older version of
the story...
:> How and when
:> did these get loaned?
No idea. If there really *is* a connection between the Fenno-Ugric and
Germanic resp. Celtic words I gave, it must have been a long time ago
(either that, or the Celts borrowed the root from the Germans, or maybe
vice versa, after they got it from some Fenno-Ugric people).
:>> Robert
:>> Schmitt-Brandt (in "Einführung in die Indogermanistik") makes out an IMNSHO
:>> convincing case for the non-Indo-European origin of some of the Greek
:>> deities' names. And IIRC the name for the Christian god in some South
:>> American Indian languages is "Dios" (or a variant thereof).
:> Err... isn't that 'God' in Spanish? A derivation of Latin 'Deo'. So the
:> indians would have picked the word from their converters.
Yes, that's what I assume too. Interesting, though, that the Bible
translators didn't use the words for "god", "deity", "powerful spirit", or
something along those lines that the target languages already had... (I
don't want to suggest that maybe these specific languages *didn't* have any
such word. But maybe the translators wanted to use it for "demon" or
"devil" instead, as can happen to the names from the original pantheons of
people who are converted to something else...)
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism Baird Stafford <ba...@gate.net> wrote:
:> Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
:> <snip>
:>> Possibley because the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were visitors to South
:>> America long before the Fraudulent claims that Columbus was there first.
:> I require documentation on this assertion, please - preferably with
:> tangible artifacts and scholarly reports of same to support it.
:> Otherwise it really isn't worth the bandwidth to send.
I second that.
Aggie-Tom, in the beginning I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but by now
it has become clear that the only kind of response you apparently wanted to
get would have been, "Oh, wow, of course! How could I have missed *that*
connection before? All hail the mighty Greeks, without whom we wouldn't
even have a language today."
Here's some free advice:
1. Read up on the do's and don't's of scientific discourse. Hint: excitedly
gushing out wild theories that run more or less 180 degrees contrary to
the state-of-the-art of whatever science you're dealing with, with
flimsy or no evidence to back them up, is one of the don't's.
("Evidence" is defined by the scientific community whose established
theories you're challenging, *not* by you.)
1b. Stating whatever credentials you may have in the fields whose
established theories you are challenging can only help your cause.
(So, what *is* your background in religious studies and linguistics?
I'm an advanced student of Language Technology (a.k.a. Computational
Linguistics), but in the course of my not-so-long but still very
eventful life I've also gathered credits in Comparative Linguistics,
General Linguistics, Phonetics, Near Eastern Linguistics, and Germanic
Linguistics. Speaking of which: concerning your remark about my alleged
German pronunciation of Latin, I've moved beyond that phase when I
graduated high school; a researcher at the university where I started
my studies, one of whose specialties is the reconstruction of the
historical pronunciation of "dead" languages such as Latin, Classical
Greek, or Sanskrit, made quite sure of that. - But I digress.)
2. While you're at it, read up on the basics of linguistics, specifically
comparative linguistics and phonology. I promise, your theories can only
benefit from that.
3. It can't be stated often enough that political agendas and scientific
research don't mix well. And did you know that personal attacks won't
help your cause either?
4. And even more generally speaking, it is considered polite on Usenet not
to quote lengthy parts of articles one *doesn't* refer to in one's
replies and to use a real name and an e-mail address that actually
exists; also, spell-checking your articles may result in people taking
you more seriously.
In conclusion, I suggest that you *seriously* revise your research methods
(and your debating style) instead of continuing to build higher and higher
structures on a foundation that won't withstand serious scrutiny (since you
seem to be very familiar with the Bible, you should know the phrase "feet
of clay"); and, as I said, whatever results you come up with will be *much*
better if you first learn to separate your political opinions from your
research.
But until then, I will treat you as the troll you are and simply ignore
you.
Aggie-Tom
Baird Stafford wrote in message <1egz4uc.u4uesl11d8g2zN%ba...@gate.net>...
>Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Possibley because the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were visitors to
South
>> America long before the Fraudulent claims that Columbus was there first.
>
>I require documentation on this assertion, please - preferably with
>tangible artifacts and scholarly reports of same to support it.
>Otherwise it really isn't worth the bandwidth to send.
Check the postings in s.c.g or visit the following site which backs up my
point of view:
An den milas Ellinika Click on the link at the site for the English Version
The Greek version which is more extensive also lists several dozen
publications.
Gale
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>(snip)
>
>Check the postings in s.c.g or visit the following site which backs up my
>point of view:
>
>http://www.ancientgr.com/
>
>An den milas Ellinika Click on the link at the site for the English Version
>
>The Greek version which is more extensive also lists several dozen
>publications.
>
Von Daniken would be proud.
Yes, that was nasty. However, what my layman's eye saw at the
website was similar use of standard geometrical patterns (I
think fascination with the spiral is found among a *very* broad
cross-section of human cultures; all sorts of folks built
pyramids, but they didn't build the same sort of pyramids,
etc.). I'm very cautious about calling Minoan relics "Greek."
I think I have a book about by someone with some real
credentials suggesting that the Hopi were late-arriving
Orientals (that one is at least slightly more believable than
Greeks). I have seen suggestions by folks trying to do real
research that *either* the Phoenicians or Egyptians *may* have
crossed the Atlantic on an occasion or two, but I've never seen
anyone claiming physical evidence of extensive or continued
inter-cultural contact. And I notice that at least one of the
sources listed on the page is someone caught up in some version
or another of the Atlantis myth.
Your evidence is not something that I, a gullible layman, can
take seriously. I would hope you would have something more
substantial to offer if you indeed have any sort of expertise in
the field.
Blessed Be,
Gale
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html (original
Tarot, poetry, fiction)
ga...@arwm.net
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Check the postings in s.c.g or visit the following site which backs up my
> point of view:
I see. As far as articles posted to most newsgroups on usenet are
concerned, I'm afraid I place very little stock in the accuracy of their
claims unless I've the background and means to check 'em for myself.
I've been here too long - over a decade, now - and, for my sins, I
moderate two of 'em. I know almost exactly how much opinions expressed
on the newsgroups other than the strictly moderated groups in the sci.*
hierarchy are worth. Opinions in the exception have at least the
benefit of a modicum of peer review.
> http://www.ancientgr.com/
Speculations about potential similarities, which is all that's listed on
this site, do not in my mind constitute "proof" - neither the logically
consistent proof that might be accepted by a layman nor the more
rigorous scientific version. This particular site seems to me to be
highly analogous to CHARIOTS OF THE GODS - except this one might better
be called CHARIOTS OF THE GREEKS.
Without wishing in the least to downplay the contributions made by the
Greeks to Western culture - aren't a direct influence on most modern
languages, systems of government, theologies and even, via the writings
of Aristotle, science itself, as well as a host of other fields enough?
- I fail to find in the "documentation" presented here anything more
than wishful thinking.
<sigh!> I suppose I shouldn't be surprised in a couple of years to read
that according to someone-or-other, the figures at Nazcaa (sp?) have
been translated to prove that Odysseus was really, really, truly the
first man to walk on the moon....
Aggie-Tom
>
eye
>>:> of night.
>>
>> Within the context of your theory, where do Sunna/Sol (the Germanic Sun
>> goddess) and Mani/Mano (the Germanic Moon god) come from? Also, where in
>> the Lore is Odin established as a sky god? (Wind god (among other
things),
>> yes, but the sky god *I* was told about is Tyr. Whose name, incidentally,
>> is related to various IE words for "god", "divine", and AFAIR even "day"
or
>> "light", and also to whichever form it was that was borrowed into Finnish
>> to denote "sky" (taivas).)
>>
> Good point. There is a tradition in European mythologies to have a triad
of
>gods representing the celestial, terrestrial and the chthonic. In
Hellenistic
>myths you have Zeus, Poseidon and Hades. In Norse you have Thor, Frey and
>Odin. Thor is a Sky God. Tiwaz is a Sky God. Odin is the head of a
Pantheon,
>and a Death God, and a God of Divine Madness, but he is not a Sky God.
>
Thor was primarily a Thunder God as was Zeus.
Odin WAS a Sky God under the Tutoninc names Wotan or Woden.
(Encyclopaedia of Myths and Legends by Stuart Gordon (Headline))
>Thom
>
Aggie-Tom
Julia A M Simon wrote in message <8pr0ff$67k$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
>Hello!
>
>In soc.religion.paganism Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-spam-trap>
wrote:
>
>
>:> Ougah was the European word for moon. From this the name of the Gods,
Wotan
>:> and Odin can be derived, as can the words Wood, and Other, which all
come to
>:> us in the direction of Deukalion. In a completely different direction we
can
>:> derive the Latin word Luner.
>
>
eye
>:> of night.
>
>Within the context of your theory, where do Sunna/Sol (the Germanic Sun
>goddess) and Mani/Mano (the Germanic Moon god) come from? Also, where in
According to the Penguin Book of Norse Mythys:
A man called Maundilfari lived Mildgrad had two children that he thought so
beautiful that he called the so Moon and the daughter he named Sun, who
marrie a man called Glen..
Odin, his brothers and their offspring the Asir were so angered that they
snatched both children and placed them in the sky to guide the chariots of
the sun and moon.
>the Lore is Odin established as a sky god? (Wind god (among other things),
Thor was primarily a Thunder God as was Zeus.
Odin WAS a Sky God under the Tutoninc names Wotan or Woden.
(Encyclopaedia of Myths and Legends by Stuart Gordon (Headline))
Theres also a story about Ask and Embla who Odin breathed life into
(Penguin).
Odin also hoisted th Frost Giant in Ginnungagap (the emptiness) inoreder to
create the Earth and also place the sune and moon there. Obviously Odin was
some sort of Sky god at one time or other..
>yes, but the sky god *I* was told about is Tyr. Whose name, incidentally,
>is related to various IE words for "god", "divine", and AFAIR even "day" or
>"light", and also to whichever form it was that was borrowed into Finnish
>to denote "sky" (taivas).)
>
>[more snippage]
>
>:> So: Deukalion -> Dhougaleeon -> Wugaleeon
>
>[...]
>
>:> Wugal -> Wugah -> NuGah -> NouGah -> NoGah -> Noah
>
>:> (g changes from the English g to G the Greek style Gamma pronounced ghu)
>
>:> The intermediate form from Wugah -> NuGah is OuGah
>
>Again, could you please elaborate? Why do you include the modern Greek
>pronunciation of the name "Deukalion"; why does a dental stop change to a
>labial semivowel or approximant and only then to a dental nasal; and also,
>how did the final /l/ get lost?
I expect that Deukalion was a compound name. "Lion" could be the Greek for
lesser (ligon), or another deity, that was added on. Two similar flood myths
were probable merged in a similar way the the Perseus myth was merged with
the Hercules myth, and later the Thesus myth was derived.
>
>I notice that the sound change you do explain (velar occlusive to velar
>fricative to zero) is one that's well-established in other language
>families (the first step in German (cf. the Standard German and Berlin
>dialect pronunciations of words like "Wagen" or "Regen"); both steps in
>Finnish (cf. the diachronic explanation of gradation (astevaihtelu) of
>short /k/ between non-labial vowels). So, since you apparently did think
>about the linguistic justification of your theory at some point, could you
>please show us the rest of your evidence so we can tell you whether we
>think it's good or bad (resp. which parts are good or bad) instead of "this
>runs contrary to established science and s/he doesn't back up hir claims,
>so they're questionable at best"?
Will you explain to me what you are talking about in plain English. What
exactly dont you agree with. I dont particularly like you your of linguistic
terminology that computer programmers researching in speech synthesis ad
modelling have found inadequate to describe methods of generating
recognisable words. You wouldn't want me to start describing things in terms
of Fourrier Series and Fourier Transforms to simulate the effects of
apertures, wave form generation and filtering would you, so please speak in
English and indicate the part of the word you are referring to. Also bear in
mind that I prefer to use Greek inflection as my reference point so if you
have Greek fonts working please you those to illustrate the and Greek sound
that you may be referring to.
As for my qualifications. I'm a Physicist.
Aggie-Tom
Julia A M Simon wrote in message <8ptlj5$o4e$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
>
>:> <snip>
>
>:>> Possibley because the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were visitors to
South
>:>> America long before the Fraudulent claims that Columbus was there
first.
>
>:> I require documentation on this assertion, please - preferably with
>:> tangible artifacts and scholarly reports of same to support it.
>:> Otherwise it really isn't worth the bandwidth to send.
Here's your documentation
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~greekaus/incas.html
>
>I second that.
>
>Aggie-Tom, in the beginning I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but by now
>it has become clear that the only kind of response you apparently wanted to
>get would have been, "Oh, wow, of course! How could I have missed *that*
>connection before? All hail the mighty Greeks, without whom we wouldn't
>even have a language today."
>
>
>1b. Stating whatever credentials you may have in the fields whose
> established theories you are challenging can only help your cause.
BSc(Hons), Physics.
>
>3. It can't be stated often enough that political agendas and scientific
> research don't mix well.
I'm not the one who's following them. You are. Your are so afraid that your
cosy theories that you regurgitate like a parrot might be upset that you
refuse to listen to anyone that proposes something new.
You can't except that the God of the Jews may have been one that evolved
from one of the Gods of the Babylonians, or Summeriains or even the Greeks.
What religion are you. An please dont say atheist. If you grew up in one of
the couture of one of the three major YHWHist faiths then you cannot fail to
be tainted by them. Since the established theories were created by YHWHists
it is THEIR political and religious agenda that has motivated them. I
already showed that the Authorised translation of Isaiah bares NO RESEMBLES
WHATSOEVER to the text of Septuagint. I have also shown that the text of the
Vulgate was either tampered with or deliberately mistranslated the
Septuagint so that it gives the complete opposite interpretation that the
original followers of Jesus Christ used. I have also shown that my
conclusions can not only be justified linguistically but also theologically
based on the fact that Abraham the religion founder was full familiar with
the Gods that I have used. There has been attempt made by the establishment
to cover up the fact that th Jews were infact Pagan and that their God was
in NO WAY a single God or even considered as the highest God. The Jews
worship many god from different pantheons and their Jehovah God, Uranus was
infact part of a Trinity or Sun, Moon and Air God's of various kinds which
to this day they still continue to deny.
>
>4. And even more generally speaking, it is considered polite on Usenet not
> to quote lengthy parts of articles one *doesn't* refer to in one's
> replies and to use a real name and an e-mail address that actually
I dont know what your complaining about. I've been on the usenet for long
enough to know the rules.
My e-mail address works perfectly if only you could be bother to read it and
follow the institutions about avoiding SPAM.
> exists; also, spell-checking your articles may result in people taking
> you more seriously.
Its not my fault that Microsoft cant program their spell checker to
recognise body text between quoted passages, so it keeps skipping it.
Now I'll leave you with this to ponder
Isaiah 45
AV
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the LORD do all these things.
LXX
7 egw o kataskeuasas fws kai poihsas skotos o poiwn eirhnhn kai ktizwn kaka
egw kurios o 8eos o poiwn tauta panta
Literal Translation
I (am) the spreader of light, and remover of darkness, all that is peace,
and whatever is bad I the Jehovah Elohim am that also.
Tetraplan
<va...@fisav.swinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>it looks like this thread is eternal and omnipresent i.e. of infinite
>dimensions like god itself.
>
>i said itself so nobody can accuse me of sexist chauvinism. what the
>bloody hell does it matter about the creator's name, let alone his
>first or middle names, beats me...
>
>give this useless argument up the whole bloody lot of you. there IS no
>god. and there is NO god. just the creator which is the creation
>itself. in fact it is the whole universe. and nobody registered its
>birth let alone give him a name or names. how you refer to this force
>of nature which is nature itself, is upto the individual.
>
>it you want to prey to it, that's upto you. i don't think it cares
>much one way of the other.
>
>as we say in turkish, the hodja will read out what he knows. nothing
>will change whether you believe in a god or not. and nothing will ever
>change no matter how much you prey.
>
>the only thing preying is good for is to convince yourself to become a
>better person but quite often people become bloody bastards and hope
>that preying will atone for their sins.
>
>it's all a myth. you can be a better person with or without god. the
>choice is upto the individual.
I agree. But it's an interesting myth, though.
======================================================
email: dwaes(at)dds(dot)nl
ICQ 66463663
Brought to you by M&M enterprises
"What's good for M&M Enterprises, is good for the World"
/\/\/\
/ \/ \ the owls are not what they seem
Aggie-Tom
Gale wrote in message <39c26d66....@news.futuresouth.com>...
>On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:58:53 CST, "Aggie-Tom"
><cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
>>(snip)
>>
>>point of view:
>>
>>
>inter-cultural contact. And I notice that at least one of the
>sources listed on the page is someone caught up in some version
>or another of the Atlantis myth.
One of the sources out of about 100
===============ARTICLE BIBLIOGRAPHY===============
ENCYCLOPAEDIAE
Papyrus-Larus-Britannica (63 volumes)
Epistimi kai Zoi (16 volumes)
Haris Patsis: Nea Elliniki (kai Pagkosmios) egkyklopaedia
Nea Domi (1996 edition)(35 volumes)
Papyrus: Hellas (Α volume)
BOOKS
Psilakis B.: Istoria tis Kritis (4 volumes)
Detorakis Theoh.: Istoria tis Kritis
Spanakis St.: Istoria tis Kritis (2 volumes)
Kriti: Istoria kai Politismos ( Vicaelean Library Edition) (2 volumes)
Ekdotiki Athinon: Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους (16 volumes)
Hrist. Buodelmonti: Enas gyros tis Kritis sta 1415
Rοbert Pashley:<<TAKSIDIA STIN KRITI>>,Α,Β volume
John Chadwick: Linear B and relative scriptures
J.T.Hooker: Introduction to linear B (National Bank)
Arthur Evans: and the palace of Minos, Oxford editions (Ashmol.Museum)
Walter Burkert: Ancient Greek Religion
Alexiou St..: Minoikos politismos
Paul Phor: I Kathimerini Zoi stin Kriti tin Minoiki epohi
G. Panagiotaki : Diketo Antro
M.P.Nilsson: History of the Ancient Greek Religion
M.P.Nilsson: The Mycaenean origins of the Greek Mythology
Agg. Lempesi: Kriton Politia
Unesco: History of Humanity (24 volumes)
Dikigorikos Syllogos Herakliou: H Megali Dodekadeltos Epigrafi tis Gortynos
D. Papaditsas-E.Ladia: Homerikoi Hymnoi
D. Papaditsas-E.Ladia: Orphikoi Hymnoi
I.Passas: Ta Orphica
I.Passas: Alithini Proistoria
Aris Poulianos: The origins of the Cretans
Papadakis N.: Ierapetra
Efi and I. Sakellarakis : Arhanes
Zah. Simandirakis: Georgioupolis
Periklis Rediadis: O Kritikos Labyrinthos kai oi sxetikoi mythoi
J-P.Olivier: The disc of Phaestus (Photo Edition 1992)
Sinclair Hood: The art in Perhistoric Greece
Gian. Sakellarakis: Kritomykinaika (Vicaelean edition)
V.Berard: Kritikes Hypotheses (Odoiporiko 1897)
F. W. Sieber: Travelling the Crete island in 1817
C.Rochfort Scott: Periigises stin Kriti (Odoiporiko 1834)
Stef. Xanthoudidis: Epitomos historia tis Kritis (1909)
Kritika Hronika: volume ΚΑ issue 2 year 1969, volume ΚΗ-ΚΘ years 1988-1989,
volume Λ year 1990.
Eilapini: 2 volumes (1987)
Hristakis Gian-Pateraki Γ.: Kriti kai h Historia tis
Panagopoulos Andr.: Platon kai Kriti
Panagopoulos Andr.: Aristotelis kai Kriti
Louis Godart: The disc of Phaestus (The Enigma of an Aegean Scripture) (July
1995)
Philip P. Betancoyrt :The history of the Minoan ceramic art (1985)
Sakellarakis Giannis: Anaskaptontas to parelthon
Sakellarakis Giannis: Eisagogi stin arhaia helliniki thriskia (Oi kritikes
rizes). 1995 Edition Vicael. Lib.
Zois Ant..: "Knossos" To ekstatiko orama (University Publications of Crete
1996)
K.G. Stefanakis : E Kriti mesa apo ton Omiro
Paul Phor (Vicaelean); Sacred caverns of Crete (1996)
Jan Ellen Harrisson: Ancient greek celebrations (1996) .
Papageorgiou Kostis; Ta nisia tis Kritis (1996)
Hatzidakis Iosif: Periigisis eis Kritin (1881)
Pavlos Vlastos 1893: O gamos en Kriti (Ithi Ethima Kriton)
Pantazi Kontomihi; Hesiodou erga (Emmetri metafrasi)
Claud Mose-Anni Snappe Courbougnone: Epitomi istoria tis arheas Hellados
(1996).
The Times: Atlas of ancient civilizations 7 Issues
The Times: Atlas of medieval civilizations 5 Issues
The Times: Atlas of world history 6 Issues
Newspaper <<Kathimerini>>; Epta meres (Issues 1995,1996,1997,1998 )
Vittorio Simonelli: Kriti-1893 Oi periigitikes anamneses tou Vittorio
Simonelli. Rhethymno 1996. Translatio:, Fountoulaki Ioanna.
Company of Cretan Historical Studies: 1)Pepragmena touυ Ε' diethnous
Kritologikou synedriou (Agios Nikolaos 1981).
Heraklion 1985 Volumes Α,Β,C. 2) Pepragmena tou Ζ' diethnous Kritologikou
syndedriou, volume Α1 (Rhethymno 1995)
Emily Vermeule : Hellas, Copper Era (1996)
Kathimerini: Pagkosmios historikos Atlas
Epitheorisis Ios : Kriti (1964)
Rene Treuil-Pascal Darcque-J.Cl.Poursat-Gilles Touchais: The Aegean
Civilizations (Kardamitsas 1996)
J.B.Bury&Russwell Meiggs: History of ancient Greece (Kardamitsas 1992)
Dimitrios Tsiroglou : Lexiko, arhaistikon phraseon, Tis Neas Hellinikis
Glossas (Savvalas Editions 1997)
B.Traeger: The Cretan Labyrinth, (1996)
Georg. Siettos: Ta Kritika Mystiria
Kritiki Estia: volume 5, 1994/96
Efi Sapouna-Sakellaraki: Minoikon Zoma (1971)
Nik. Platon: Zakros, the new minoan palace (1974)
N.Platon-W.C.Brice: Enepigraphoi pinakides kai pithoi grammikou systimatos
Α', ek Zakrou (1975)
Siettos George : Yakinthia mystiria
Syllogos daskalon & nipiagogon N. Herakliou: Historia tis Kritis
Anna Strataridaki-Kylafi: Arhea Helliniki Istoria, Apo th Minoiki os tin
Arhaiki periodi. Rhethymno 1996
John Chadwick: The Mycaenean world, Gutenberg 1997
Papathanasopoulos Thanasisς: Callimachou Hymnoi (Nefeli 1996 ).
Manolis Andronikos: Herakleio museum (Ekdotiki Athinon 1995)
Hristou Tsounta: Historia tis arheas hellinikis tehnis ("Athens" 1928)
Bοtsford & Robinson : Ancient greek history (National Bank 1995)
Aggeliki Vorning: Mia syntomi istoria tou hellinikou politismou (Kastanioti
Editions 1997)
Giannis & Efi Sakellaraki : Arhanes. Mia nea matia sti minoiki Kriti (Ammos
Editions 1997)
Sakellarakis Giannis: Archaeologikes agonies stin Kriti tou 19ou aiona
(University Publications of Crete 1998)
J.J. Pollit : The art in the Hellenistic era (Papadimas 1994)
Alexander Farnoux: Knossos, unearthing a legend
John Griffiths Pedley : Greek Art and Archaeology (London 1998)
John Chadwick: Linear B, and related scripts (1987 The Trustes of the
British Museum)
Tomas Taylor : Eleusinian Bacchic Rites
Vasilakis Antonis of Thomas: <<THE CRETAN DICTIONARY>>
Vasilakis Antonis of Thomas: <<THE 147 CITIES OF ANCIENT CRETE>>.
MAGAZINES
Periscope of Science
Davlos
Archaeologia
Anexigito
Epistimi & Tehnologia (Science & Technology)
Papyrus Pressς: Historia iconographimeni
Tote: Magazine about the hellenic history...and not only
Kri-Kri
Kameiros
Experiment
Kriti
Chronos
Kritikes icones: articles by St. Spanakis et al..
Astronautiki
Vimata stin Anaptyksi (Herakleion Epimelitirion edition)
Epoches
Cosmos kai Tourismos
Dipetes
Panta
Stigmes
Kritopolis (issue 2)
Eptakyklos
Apollonio phos
Archipelagos
Stratiotiki historia
Sky Lab
Nexus
Helliniko panorama
GUIDES
Davaras K.: Phaestus, Ag.Triada, Gortyna
Davaras K.: Malia
frieda Vandenabeele: The Wondrous world of CreteΟ Θαυμαστός κόσμος της
Κρήτης
Ant. Sp. Vasilakis: Malia etc.
Ant. Sp. Vasilakis: Knossos
Ant. Sp. Vasilakis: Phaestus, Ag.Triada, Gortyna etc.
Hatsi-Vallianou D.: Phaestus
Hatsi-Vallianou D.: Levina
Sakellarakis Ι.: Mouseio Herakleiou
Soso Logiadou-Platonos: Knossos
Soso Logiadou-Platonos: Kriti
Soso Logiadou-Platonos and Nanno Marinatou: Kriti
Koufou Anna: Kriti
I. Papapostolou: Kriti
Mihailidou Anna: Knossos
Ekdotiki Athinon: Ta Hellinika Mouseia
Mondadori-Fytrakis: Mouseia tou kosmou (12 Mouseia)
Adam Ekdoseis: Kriti (small shape)
N. Psilakis: Monastiria kai Erimitiria tis Kritis (2 volumes)
N. Psilakis: Spinalogka
Drosou Bros: Kritis
Hr. Mathioulakis: Kriti
P. Karolidou: Historikos Atlas
Mprompoudakis Manolis: Panagia Kera
Drosou Bros o.e.: Nomos Chanion, archaeologia-istoria-periigisis
Drosou Bros o.e.: Nomos Rhethymnis # # #
Drosou Bros o.e.: Nomos Lasithiou # # #
Davaras K..: To Spileo tou Psyhrou
Ant. Plymakis: To Pharaggi tis Agias Eirinis (Anat. Eparhia Selinou, 1994)
Markatatou P-Hristaki.: " E Kriti mas" (G. Lettorakis 1981)
M. Toumpis ΑΕ: Kriti (1990)
Panagiotakis G.: Kriti (1996)
M. Toumpis AE: Helliniki Mythologia (1995)
Adam Editions: Samaria, Faraggi .
Adam Editions: Kriti (big shaped)
Ant. Sp. Vasilakis: Kriti (I. Mathioulakis 1997)
Haitalis Dim.: Kriti
G. Despyris-N.Dramitinou: Kriti, stous palmous tis kardias tis (Toumpis M.
1996)
Marmataki Bros: Kriti
Andrianakis Mihail: E palia poli ton Hanion (Adam editions, 1997).
>
>Your evidence is not something that I, a gullible layman, can
>take seriously. I would hope you would have something more
>substantial to offer if you indeed have any sort of expertise in
>the field.
You just want to read it with closed eyes:
The following passage backs up my own theories worked out independently..
http://www.ancientgr.com/Unknown_Hellenic_History/Eng/Geodetic_system_Knosso
s.htm
"The consecutive Thera volcano eruptions have caused such a confusion to the
attempts for chronological definition of the great disaster, that even today
they assume it has occurred in 1450 B.C. Moreover it still has not been
defined whether the destruction of Crete happened because of the direct
volcanic activity or the results of the falling dust and earthquakes, that
were also escorted by great fires. Since however neither human victims of
the final disaster or of the previous were discovered, it seems that the
people found time to escape, since they managed to hide numerous treasures
under the house floors of Knossos, with the hope to seek for them in the
future. The view that because in the tomb depictions of Egyptian officers
under the service of King Tuthmosis III (1481-1447 B.C.) , Kefti (Cretans)
have been presented carrying pottery similar to the Zakros findings, the
century of the palace destruction is proven, is not valid. The reason is
that we should not exclude the case that the Minoans had created a city
worthy of their civilization in Middle East and had continued their
exchanges with various people same as before. I have indications for this
case, that such a city with a flourishing port was Haifa under the name Ako
or Akho, which I believe was also the Minoan city of Knossos. Knossos was
called by the name we know her today by Mycenaeans. The graveyard of this
city was at Aharnes according to the etymological analysis of the word
(Akh-arnes->Aharnes->Arhanes=Hades of Ako=graveyard of Ako). I read the name
of the Minoan «Knossos» at a coin of the «historic» times, which carries the
design of the Labyrinth, on the left it as we see it the letter A, on the
right R and under the design the word KNOSION. Below the letters A and R,
there are two hieroglyphs which, when read from right to left (meaning from
R to A), they give us the word Ako. It appears that during historic times, a
coin of the «prehistoric times» was copied, on which the name of the
Mycenaean Knossos (preserved until today) was additionally written using the
Greek alphabet. I should also add that Knossos = destroyed Ako, in the
Mycenaean dialect. (Initially we have a-ko-no-so = a-ko no-so = Ako
nosos(meaning illness, disaster) = Ako destroyed)"
What I believe is that Aku was also the Sky God "Anu"
"Ako nosos" refers to the castration of Uranus or Hur-Anu.
Also on the subject of Tuthmosis III. It seem to me that the names that the
Pharaohs of the 18th and 19th dynasties of the New Kingdom were actually
named in Greek. The Hieroglyphs of the Kartuches mealy approximated the
Greek names.
For example Amenhotep is "an me enhonte" If they'll let me
Does anyone know what these names mean in Egyptian.
Alice Turner
"vasif@fisav" <va...@fisav.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8ps3un$l3t$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> give this useless argument up the whole bloody lot of you. there IS no
> god. and there is NO god. just the creator which is the creation
> itself. in fact it is the whole universe. and nobody registered its
> birth let alone give him a name or names. how you refer to this force
> of nature which is nature itself, is upto the individual.
That's an awfully silly rant to post to alt.mythology where most of what
we talk about is gods (plural) of many countries and past ages, while we
don't necessarily admit to any creator at all. Of *course* we are
interested in their names and assignments and comparisons and
parallels--why else would we be here?
Alice
Ravennestar
hours staring at a clay tablet that has cuiform on you will see the
simularities. I also said that it was required to take Akkadian before you
could take Sumerian...it still is the requirement at the University Of
PA....
The fact stiill remains that Akkadian is the root of arabic and hebrew.
Ravennestar
Julia A M Simon <si...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:8pqigg$m0i$2...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> Hello!
>
> In soc.religion.paganism Ravennestar <Raven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>:> We had to learn Akkadian in order to learn Sumerian which is a much
older
>:> but somewhat related language....Both are cuneiform languages....
>
> Actually Akkadian and Sumerian aren't related... They were written using
> (more or less) the same writing system, and Akkadian contained many loan
> words (and AFAIK also loan translations of phrases etc.) from Sumerian,
but
> the last time I checked, Sumerian still hadn't been convincingly proven to
> be genetically related to *any* other known language.
Thom Marrion
> You can't except that the God of the Jews may have been one that evolved
> from one of the Gods of the Babylonians, or Summeriains or even the Greeks.
OK, I will try this one more time.
There is probably nobody on this list that will deny that the modern concept
of God as worshiped by half the population of this planet is derived from
earlier pagan sources, at least in the way that we concieve of him. The
portrayel of God in the Old Testement is derived from the earlier worship of
El. El is more or less the same diety as Il who becomes Allah after Mohommed
has his One on One with the angel Jibral (Gabriel). Modern western ideas of
God are also most likely influenced by Zeus and Tiwaz, derived from Dyaus,
hence the latin Deus.
Anyone with a strong enough faith will not be threatened by this anyway.
Karen Armstrong (I'm hoping I got the name right here) makes the argument that
God already exists, it's just our concept of God that evolves and that concept
has to beased on the culture it first develops. So even if El Shadei is
derived from El, or Deus is derived from Dyaus, it does not automatically
negate anybody's current belief system.
Nobody is saying that the words and names for God aren't derived from
earlier sources. What everybody here has been trying to tell you is that your
particular conclusions about what those sources are, and what the connections
are, and what that means, are faulty and illresearched. I live near the
Asssocuiation for Research and Enlightenment and I have heard arguments for
the Bimini Islands being the Ruins of Atlantis that have made more sense. I've
talked to UFO Abductees that are more coherent then you.
You are just bulldozing your way to prove some agenda and Upset The Status
Quo. The Rebel Voice of Truth. I don't know if you have noticed this in the
last couple of years, but the masses are just a lot harder to upset now.
Things that would have drawn protests and book burnings ten or twenty years
ago, nobody cares anymore.
If you managed to get this diatrabe of yours published, would it shock the
masses? No. Would it upset the status quo of a hidebound community? No. It
would sit on a shelf and gather dust and everybody would say, "Hoo hum.
Whatever." Want to tell the world that Jesus and his prostitute girlfriend had
a bunch of kids that ruled France? Want to tell me that God is really and
alien? Christ was really a lesbian feminist from Crete whose teachings were
pervewrted by icky old men? It is just going to roll off the public conscience
like water off a duck because nobody cares and it will just be ignored.
I realize that you want to be the voice crying in the wilderness, but the
world just doesn't work that way anymore.
Thom
Joe Jefferson
>
> <snip>
>:>> Robert
>:>> Schmitt-Brandt (in "Einf絹rung in die Indogermanistik") makes out an IMNSHO
>:>> convincing case for the non-Indo-European origin of some of the Greek
>:>> deities' names. And IIRC the name for the Christian god in some South
>:>> American Indian languages is "Dios" (or a variant thereof).
>
>:> Err... isn't that 'God' in Spanish? A derivation of Latin 'Deo'. So the
>:> indians would have picked the word from their converters.
>
> Yes, that's what I assume too. Interesting, though, that the Bible
> translators didn't use the words for "god", "deity", "powerful spirit", or
> something along those lines that the target languages already had... (I
> don't want to suggest that maybe these specific languages *didn't* have any
> such word. But maybe the translators wanted to use it for "demon" or
> "devil" instead, as can happen to the names from the original pantheons of
> people who are converted to something else...)
To understand that you'd probably have to know something about the
pre-Christian beliefs of the tribes in question. If they did have a
supreme creator god (which is itself not certain by any means), it's
quite likely that he/she had too many associations which would not be
appropriate to the Christian creator. For example, one would not use
"Odin" when attempting to convert Vikings, because Odin and the
Christian God are very different and it would be confusing to use the
same name. OTOH, it would be quite appropriate to use "Allah" for an
Arabic Bible because Christian and Islamic conceptions of God are very
similar (although still not identical, so some explanation would still
be required by the missionaries).
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Joe Jefferson
>
> Julia A M Simon wrote in message <8ptlj5$o4e$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
> >Hello!
> >
> >In soc.religion.paganism Baird Stafford <ba...@gate.net> wrote:
> >
> >:> <snip>
> >
> >:>> Possibley because the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were visitors to
> South
> >:>> America long before the Fraudulent claims that Columbus was there
> first.
> >
> >:> I require documentation on this assertion, please - preferably with
> >:> tangible artifacts and scholarly reports of same to support it.
> >:> Otherwise it really isn't worth the bandwidth to send.
>
>
> http://www.ancientgr.com/
>
> http://home.vicnet.net.au/~greekaus/incas.html
>
> >
> >I second that.
> >
> >Aggie-Tom, in the beginning I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but by now
> >it has become clear that the only kind of response you apparently wanted to
> >get would have been, "Oh, wow, of course! How could I have missed *that*
> >connection before? All hail the mighty Greeks, without whom we wouldn't
> >even have a language today."
> >
>
> >
> >1b. Stating whatever credentials you may have in the fields whose
> > established theories you are challenging can only help your cause.
>
> BSc(Hons), Physics.
Okay, I'm curious as to how a physics degree makes one any more
qualified to speak on linguistic drift than, say, a background in auto
mechanics?
WebSlave
>> Interesting. Can you give us the Finnish/Fenno-Ugric roots, or
>> rather possible modern derivations of those roots?
> Sorry, I haven't found the roots (yet), but Jan de Vries, in his
> "Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch", cites an article by
W. Wüst (in
> Ural-altaisches Jahrbuch 26, 1955, pages 135-138) where a
connection
> between "seidhr" and some Fenno-Ugric words (e.g. the Finnish
verbs "soida"
> (to sound) and "soittaa" (to play an instrument, etc.); Hungarian
"zaj"
> (sound, noise); and others) is proposed; de Vries suggests that
the
> Germanic word, and also Lithuanian "saitas" (magic, witchcraft)
and
> "saistu"/"saisti" (to interpret signs or omens, if I understand de
Vries
> correctly) and Welsh "hud" (magic), may have been loaned from
a Fenno-Ugric
> language.
If this didn't come from someone who knows linguistics, I'd say it
sounds too incredible to be plausible. I assume the sources you
mention also explain the connection between 'to sound' and
'magic'.
A loan to Welsh sounds especially suspicious.
BTW, I'm in impression that the theories of language derivation (or
at least the way languages spread) have somewhat changed
since 1955. Am I wrong? If not, then would a writing that old work
as a credible reference?
> As for Loki, his name has several possible explanations... but
then again,
> we shouldn't expect any less from a trickster god. ;-) Among
other things,
> the name is suspiciously close to "lukki", the Finnish word for a
> phalangid; this is supported by Loki's giving birth to an
eight-legged
> horse, which may or may not have been a phalangid (for which
eight legs
> would be *much* more natural than for a horse) in a (lost) older
version of
> the story...
I don't know a thing about linguistics, but that connection seems
even more strange than the 'seidhr' thing.
>> How and when
>> did these get loaned?
> No idea. If there really *is* a connection between the
Fenno-Ugric and
> Germanic resp. Celtic words I gave, it must have been a long
time ago
> (either that, or the Celts borrowed the root from the Germans, or
maybe
> vice versa, after they got it from some Fenno-Ugric people).
This whole idea seems rather weak to me. Even if there was a
direct connection between these language families. Are these the
best conclusions that the linguistics have come to concerning
those two words?
> Interesting, though, that the Bible
> translators didn't use the words for "god", "deity", "powerful
spirit", or
> something along those lines that the target languages already
had... (I
> don't want to suggest that maybe these specific languages
*didn't* have any
> such word. But maybe the translators wanted to use it for
"demon" or
> "devil" instead, as can happen to the names from the original
pantheons of
> people who are converted to something else...)
That seems only logical to me. As the conquerers/converters saw
any non-Christian religion coming from the Devil, loaning a word
from such a religion to represent God would not do. The idea of
non-Christian deities was absurd, so those words had to mean
demons. However positive their meaning originally might have
been, to a Christian they were negative spirits.
That of course refers mainly to the colonizing period. I suspect that
modern translators use such words.
Tetraplan
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>1b. Stating whatever credentials you may have in the fields whose
>> established theories you are challenging can only help your cause.
>
>
>BSc(Hons), Physics.
So where do linguistics come in?
>
>>
>>3. It can't be stated often enough that political agendas and scientific
>> research don't mix well.
>
>I'm not the one who's following them. You are. Your are so afraid that your
>cosy theories that you regurgitate like a parrot might be upset that you
>refuse to listen to anyone that proposes something new.
Is the classic response of the pseudo-scientist.
>
<snip>
>
>
>Its not my fault that Microsoft cant program their spell checker to
>recognise body text between quoted passages, so it keeps skipping it.
Use a better newsreader.
Aggie-Tom
Joe Jefferson wrote in message <39C397...@primenet.com>...
>Aggie-Tom wrote:
>>
>> Julia A M Simon wrote in message
<8ptlj5$o4e$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
>> >Hello!
>> >
>> >In soc.religion.paganism Baird Stafford <ba...@gate.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >:> <snip>
>> >
>> >:>> Possibley because the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were visitors to
>> South
>> >:>> America long before the Fraudulent claims that Columbus was there
>> first.
>> >
>> >:> I require documentation on this assertion, please - preferably with
>> >:> tangible artifacts and scholarly reports of same to support it.
>> >:> Otherwise it really isn't worth the bandwidth to send.
>>
>>
>> http://www.ancientgr.com/
>>
>> http://home.vicnet.net.au/~greekaus/incas.html
>>
>> >
>> >I second that.
>> >
>> >Aggie-Tom, in the beginning I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but by
now
>> >it has become clear that the only kind of response you apparently wanted
to
>> >get would have been, "Oh, wow, of course! How could I have missed *that*
>> >connection before? All hail the mighty Greeks, without whom we wouldn't
>> >even have a language today."
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > established theories you are challenging can only help your cause.
>>
>> BSc(Hons), Physics.
>
>qualified to speak on linguistic drift than, say, a background in auto
>mechanics?
It shows that I am capable of qualitative and quantitative analysis of the
facts or ideas and able to implement methods of deductive reasoning to reach
a solution accepted by my pears as applicable to the situation.
Secondly why are you trying to demean car mechanics. The ones working in
Formula 1 are qualified engineers who have perused 4 or 5 year long CEng or
MEng degree courses. I doubt that your linguist friend could even meet the
entry requirements of such a courece.
Maybe you should have said manual labourer instead. (Not that I wish to
demean manual labourers of course).
Gale
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
(snip)
>
>One of the sources out of about 100
>
>===============ARTICLE BIBLIOGRAPHY===============
>(snip)
Okay, that's a bibliography list. Now, how many of those
sources actually *support* your interpretation?
Or are you trying to be intimidating by posting a long list,
figuring I couldn't possibly investigate it all? (Lists of
encyclopedias??? Come on, now. Which one of them claims the Hopi
are Egyptian? Tell us --- PRECISELY, with complete
bibliographic citation down to the page number!)
You're right, I'm not investigating that list, but the one item
I could easily investigate, that web page, had more in common
with the _National Enquirer_ than with a scholarly journal.
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> It shows that I am capable of qualitative and quantitative analysis of the
> facts or ideas and able to implement methods of deductive reasoning to reach
> a solution accepted by my pears as applicable to the situation.
Would that be a pair of pears or a peck of pears?
The problem with your articles is that you appear not only to theorize
ahead of the data, but also to invent data to fit your theories. One
would have guessed that employment in a field requiring rigorous proofs,
such as physics, would inculcate understanding of the scientific method.
Apparently, one would have guessed wrong....
Ravennestar
Just a side note on this thread in response to joe jefferson's
comment.......
Actually in the middle east they use the world Allah for god in both the
christian bible and of course in the Koran.
The interesting thing about the word Allah is that it is spelled Alef lam
lam temarbuta. The temarbouta denotes femininity and can be
pronounces ---ah or ---at so that the world Allah could technically be
pronounced Allat (who was an ancient arabian goddess)
> "Odin" when attempting to convert Vikings, because Odin and the
> Christian God are very different and it would be confusing to use the
> same name. OTOH, it would be quite appropriate to use "Allah" for an
> Arabic Bible because Christian and Islamic conceptions of God are very
> similar (although still not identical, so some explanation would still
> be required by the missionaries).
>
Ravennestar
maybe start a new conversation........
the tetragram YHWH reflects the goddess.....Y (yod=I) and HWH...HWH (the
root word) means both woman and life...the Y = I (the Y also mans "O" as in
O Lady)....YHWH therefore can mean both "I am woman" and "I am life"
....ie the goddess....so her name is the word of creation.
For the Eve (howah from the root HWH) means the "mother of all
Life"....she is also known as Nin-Eveh "holy
lady eve" (like the city in the bible) the meanings of her name mean "the
very beginning" ; Lady of eden; "the earth"
;
Eve in the ancient middle east ranges from Havov (the earth) to Hawwah
(stress on the wa sound) (life) to Howah (the mother of all living). In
turkey she was Hebat or
hepat and in greece Hebe
Of course I mentioned in another post that Allah is a feminine world can can
be pronciounced Allat...what is also interesting is that the protectors of
the Kaaba area in Mecca were the Koresh.....which means children of Kore.
What is of further interest is that when Mohammad distroyed the "idols of
the kaaba" he smashed the goddess statues of every tribe that housed their
goddess in the Kaaba. Mecca was a trade city so in order to make it
accessible to warring tribes the statues of the goddess were placed there to
make Mecca a holy city. It was the Koresh's job to protect the
Kaaba......Mohammad was from this family....a bit ironic...
So much for the dab of history
Ravennestar
Tetraplan
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
>
>
>It shows that I am capable of qualitative and quantitative analysis of the
>facts or ideas and able to implement methods of deductive reasoning to reach
>a solution accepted by my pears as applicable to the situation.
>
>Secondly why are you trying to demean car mechanics. The ones working in
>Formula 1 are qualified engineers who have perused 4 or 5 year long CEng or
>MEng degree courses. I doubt that your linguist friend could even meet the
>entry requirements of such a courece.
>
>Maybe you should have said manual labourer instead. (Not that I wish to
>demean manual labourers of course).
Boy did you ever miss the point.
======================================================
email: dwaes(at)dds(dot)nl
Project Mayhem
paghat
Sagrillo <mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <GR2x5.37302$_e4.16...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> "Ravennestar" <Raven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course I mentioned in another post that Allah is a feminine world
> > can can be pronciounced Allat...
>
> Only of course that disagrees with all the evidence from cognate Semitic
> languages.
Eloh is feminine singular & a name of Asherah & the same as Elath or
Allat. In Arabic the "ah" or "oh" is not feminine so Allah was always a
male name & indeed he was in the pantheon subsidiary to Allat at Mecca
even before he was upraised by Mohammed. So while the statement that Allah
is a feminine word is wrong, it is not that far from the semitic Eloh
which is a feminine divine name of God in scripture. It can be read as a
name for a goddess of oaks (elah) or as a femine form of El, so that Eloh
or Eloah is El's bride. "El & Eloah" would once have evoked a divine
couple, but among Yahwists all divine names were either epithets for
Yahweh, if not banned as idolatrous names.
Among the several names of god in scripture are several that are
definitively female. Not just the best known Shekhinah (feminine name
meaning "Presence") which occurs in earliest in the Targums, but also
Sabaoth (a feminine plural of indeterminate meaning usually said to mean
"hosts" but may actually relate to the Sun-mother Shapash, whose name
means to do battle or to judge so that Sabaoth would be "Her Judges" &
refers either to the stars or to the rephaim who were Shapash's subjects
in the underworld & were both judges & healers though in scripture their
name came to mean "shades" or ghosts). Or Sabaoth may relate to the
festival of the goddess Zarpanitu which was called Shabattu indicating the
Mother's restful holiday, which is at least what the Sabbath is named
after. Even YHWH (Yahweh) may be only the masculine form of HWH (Eve)
named for the Hittite Great Goddess Hepatu (diminished into Hebe, bearer
of immortality, among the Greeks). Hepatu's Zorastrian name was as the
demoness Yeh or Jeh & I have wondered if there might not be at least some
intentional homonymous relationship to Yah as Eve, but that's pretty hard
to prove across languages. "Kavod" the Glory is also a feminine name & in
kabbalah is generally assumed to be a reference to Binah (Understanding)
the Upper Shekhinah. Kavod is described by Isaiah as the breasts of god.
"You may suck & be satisfied with her consoling breasts; you may drink
deeply with delight from the abundance of Kavod" [Isa 66:11]. And what do
we make of the assertion in Job about god: "His breasts are full of milk"
[Job 3:12] but that some of these old verses weren't changed quite enough
when adapted by Yahwists from older divine poetry for the Mother Goddess,
with which Job especially is rich.
The most telling feminine name of God in scripture is Shaddai (which as
with Jeh to Yah finds a homonymous relationship to Shiddah, "Concubine", a
demoness of Jewish myth. Shaddai is traditionally translated "Almighty"
but this is late intrusion of meaning universally agreed to be inaccurate.
It is a feminine name that means literally "Breasted One" from shad,
"breast," & by inference a breast-shaped mountain.
-paghat the heretically pagan ratjew
> > what is also interesting is that the
> > protectors of the Kaaba area in Mecca were the Koresh.....which means
> > children of Kore.
>
> really now? Funny that an Arabic speaking tribe adopted a Greek word as
> their tribal name, the only ones in the entire area. I always thought it
> came from the Arabic root qrS, such as in the verb qarasha "to gnash,
> grind, nibble, crunch." Any reason why they decided to stick that [q] on
> the end of Kore? I guess it just looked nicer.
>
> BTW, how come no-one wants to make Satan female?? "Man, don't piss off
> Satan; she gets really mad if you do..."
Alex
"Joe Jefferson" <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:39C397...@primenet.com...
> Aggie-Tom wrote:
> >
> > Julia A M Simon wrote in message
<8ptlj5$o4e$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
> > >Hello!
> > >
> > >In soc.religion.paganism Baird Stafford <ba...@gate.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >:> <snip>
> > >
> > >:>> Possibley because the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were visitors
to
> > South
> > >:>> America long before the Fraudulent claims that Columbus was there
> > first.
> > >
> > >:> I require documentation on this assertion, please - preferably with
> > >:> tangible artifacts and scholarly reports of same to support it.
> > >:> Otherwise it really isn't worth the bandwidth to send.
> >
> >
> > http://www.ancientgr.com/
> >
> > http://home.vicnet.net.au/~greekaus/incas.html
> >
> > >
> > >I second that.
> > >
> > >Aggie-Tom, in the beginning I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but by
now
> > >it has become clear that the only kind of response you apparently
wanted to
> > >get would have been, "Oh, wow, of course! How could I have missed
*that*
> > >connection before? All hail the mighty Greeks, without whom we wouldn't
> > >even have a language today."
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >1b. Stating whatever credentials you may have in the fields whose
> > > established theories you are challenging can only help your cause.
> >
> > BSc(Hons), Physics.
>
> Okay, I'm curious as to how a physics degree makes one any more
> qualified to speak on linguistic drift than, say, a background in auto
> mechanics?
>
I don't want to take sides (so don't missunderstand me) but following your
reasoning:
I am curius as to how one, having as a background the history knowledge of
his country, which obviously is not Greek make him more qualified to speak
on linguistic drift in the soc.culture.greek NG than, say, with somenone who
was learning about the history and language of his country (modern and
ancient) for almost 12 years.
(6 years in school and 6 years in highschool. No Greek student is an
exception to this)
If you don't follow my reasoning, then I guess, you don't follow your's
either.
You don't need to write a a couple of papers nor to be a qualified linguist
(showing your credentials) in
order to express your views (maybe in a scientific or linguistic if you
prefer forum but not in this NG).
Alex.
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> I am curius as to how one, having as a background the history knowledge of
> his country, which obviously is not Greek make him more qualified to speak
> on linguistic drift in the soc.culture.greek NG than, say, with somenone who
> was learning about the history and language of his country (modern and
> ancient) for almost 12 years.
If textbooks and the training of teachers are similar in Greece to the
methods in the only country with the educational system of which I am
personally familiar, the information presented in primary and secondary
schools is a distillation (frequently, alas! at least a decade out of
date) of the work done by *both* foreign and domestic researchers.
In any case, the discussion at that point was of linguistic theory, the
generalities of which (in theory) hold true for all languages.
<snip>
> You don't need to write a a couple of papers nor to be a qualified linguist
> (showing your credentials) in
> order to express your views (maybe in a scientific or linguistic if you
> prefer forum but not in this NG).
This thread was cross posted to no fewer than three newsgroups other
than soc.culture.greek, and the portion of it to which exception is
being taken originated not in that newsgroup but (probably, since I know
one of the posters) in soc.religion.paganism. This is one of the perils
of cross posting, and one reason why the practice should be undertaken
only with much forethought.
I suspect the "forethought" in this case may have involved the
unexpressed hope that regulars on soc.culture.greek would leap to the
defense of the original poster's theories in just such a fashion as is
illustrated here.
paghat
Stafford) wrote:
> Alex <givennam...@nxx.nokia.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I am curius as to how one, having as a background the history knowledge of
> > his country, which obviously is not Greek make him more qualified to speak
> > on linguistic drift in the soc.culture.greek NG than, say, with somenone who
> > was learning about the history and language of his country (modern and
> > ancient) for almost 12 years.
>
> If textbooks and the training of teachers are similar in Greece to the
> methods in the only country with the educational system of which I am
> personally familiar, the information presented in primary and secondary
> schools is a distillation (frequently, alas! at least a decade out of
> date) of the work done by *both* foreign and domestic researchers.
Linguistics are frought with many complex theories that thoroughly
contradict one another, but often only the most agreeable & conservative
theories are taught in introductory or rudimentary courses. If someone
keeps at it for 12 years, though, they just might indeed have been exposed
to the actual complexities of things. It doesn't mean concensus or that
any one person has a definitive take; indeed the opposite would be true; &
any tendency to argue one's position vohemently needn't express
condemnation for all opposing views, though the environment of UseNet, &
even the environment of academe, does sometimes invoke "You're stupid, I'm
not" assessments of creditably debatable or mutually exclusive positions.
Some of the more radical ideas get trounced on at first then years later
the trounced viewpoints become the standard or preferred take. In
particularly ancient languages a new "usage" of a known word can suddenly
create reevaluation of that word's usage in all surviving texts;
assumptions about rootwords can change completely (not to mention that
some rootwords are merely speculative & have never been encountered in
use). And in Semitic languages that delight in praising & condemning puns
& homonymous double-meanings not always related to a shared root, it
becomes all the more a matter of debate who meant what while saying
something else. The study of ancient languages is almost more a science of
philosophy & attitude than of rock-solid immutable facts.
-paghat
Ravennestar
writing since I was a child......If my computer could do arabic lettering I
could show you the Ha and the temarbouta. the temarbouta does denote
femininity...
Troy Sagrillo <mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:meshwesh-57F5E1...@mindmeld.idcomm.com...
> In article <Sy2x5.37299$_e4.16...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> "Ravennestar" <Raven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > uh, no. It is NOT spelt with a ta-marbutah, but with a normal ha', much
> as in Aramaic and Syriac. Sorry.
>
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism Ravennestar <Raven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> The structure of the cuniform is the simularity and until you spend several
:> hours staring at a clay tablet that has cuiform on you will see the
:> simularities.
Please don't make the mistake of confusing languages and writing systems.
Of course written Sumerian and written Akkadian look very similar (unless
you're looking at very early Sumerian), since they are both written in
cuneiform; but that does NOT mean they're any more closely related than,
say, English and Nahuatl, which both happen to be written with the Latin
alphabet.
For some more examples of language pairs with similar or (near) identical
writing systems as well as a book recommendation, see the relevant section
of the sci.lang FAQ: http://www.zompist.com/lang9.html#9 .
:> I also said that it was required to take Akkadian before you
:> could take Sumerian...it still is the requirement at the University Of
:> PA....
And if you read my article again, you'll see that I never contested that.
(How could I - I've never even been to PA (which I assume means
Pennsylvania?). I've taken Sumerian at the University of Helsinki and
wasn't required to take Akkadian before; however, if Ancient Near Eastern
Studies were my major, I'd probably have to take both languages, but AFAIK
in no particular order.)
:> The fact stiill remains that Akkadian is the root of arabic and hebrew.
The root? I'm not sure (I don't know enough about the internal structure of
the Afro-Asiatic family tree to decide one way or the other); but I do
agree that all three are related. And I never contested that fact either...
Julia A M Simon
In soc.religion.paganism WebSlave <webs...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> Julia A M Simon wrote:
:>>> Interesting. Can you give us the Finnish/Fenno-Ugric roots, or
:>>> rather possible modern derivations of those roots?
:>> Sorry, I haven't found the roots (yet), but Jan de Vries, in his
:>> "Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch", cites an article by W. Wüst (in
:>> Ural-altaisches Jahrbuch 26, 1955, pages 135-138) where a connection
:>> between "seidhr" and some Fenno-Ugric words (e.g. the Finnish verbs "soida"
:>> (to sound) and "soittaa" (to play an instrument, etc.); Hungarian "zaj"
:>> (sound, noise); and others) is proposed; de Vries suggests that the
:>> Germanic word, and also Lithuanian "saitas" (magic, witchcraft) and
:>> "saistu"/"saisti" (to interpret signs or omens, if I understand de Vries
:>> correctly) and Welsh "hud" (magic), may have been loaned from a Fenno-Ugric
:>> language.
:> If this didn't come from someone who knows linguistics, I'd say it
:> sounds too incredible to be plausible. I assume the sources you
:> mention also explain the connection between 'to sound' and
:> 'magic'.
The 3rd Canto of the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala, describes
magic-by-sound (to be precise, singing) quite nicely. (The Finnish original
can be found on the Web at
http://www.kaapeli.fi/maailma/kalevala/KOLMAS.html, and actually lots of
other places; unfortunately I haven't been able to find any translations
online. You wrote about "us Finns" in an earlier article, though, so the
link will probably be of some use to you. Apologies to anybody reading this
who can't read Finnish...)
I like this etymology because the term for the other kind of ancient
Germanic magic, "galdr", is usually assigned to an Indo-European root *kal-
(AFAIR), which has a similar meaning (to call, sound, etc.).
de Vries lists another possible etymology for "seidh", this time deriving
the meaning "magic" from an older/underlying meaning "to tie" or "to bind".
Apparently there's a connection between the concepts of magic and binding
in a number of languages; de Vries gives Lat. "fascia" (tie) : "fascinum"
(evil spell) and Sanskrit "yukti" (to tie; means of magic) as examples. And
I hope that the third volume of the Finnish Etymological Dictionary, the
one containing words starting with S, will be published soon, because now
I'm wondering whether the Finnish word family "sitoa, side etc." may be
connected to this...
:> A loan to Welsh sounds especially suspicious.
Not really; if I understood de Vries correctly, the word wasn't borrowed
from Finnish into Welsh (which would indeed be highly suspicious), but
instead from an older Fenno-Ugric language to an older Celtic language, and
just happens to have no known cognates in any other Celtic language...
which is a lot more probable than the word somehow wandering across most of
northern Europe without leaving any traces.
:> BTW, I'm in impression that the theories of language derivation (or
:> at least the way languages spread) have somewhat changed
:> since 1955. Am I wrong? If not, then would a writing that old work
:> as a credible reference?
If you can point me to a more modern etymological dictionary for Icelandic
or Old Norse, I'll be very happy. :-)
Yes, the theories of language derivation have changed in the last 50 years;
and in the 50 years before that; and so on. But that doesn't invalidate the
*whole* of an older work. (Disclaimer: I'm pretty sure that I haven't read
*all* available literature on the etymology of "seidh", so it is possible
that there is a more modern theory that is totally different; all I can say
is that what de Vries has to say about this word sounds plausible enough to
me and I haven't found anything better yet.)
:>> As for Loki, his name has several possible explanations... but then again,
:>> we shouldn't expect any less from a trickster god. ;-) Among other things,
:>> the name is suspiciously close to "lukki", the Finnish word for a
:>> phalangid; this is supported by Loki's giving birth to an eight-legged
:>> horse, which may or may not have been a phalangid (for which eight legs
:>> would be *much* more natural than for a horse) in a (lost) older version of
:>> the story...
:> I don't know a thing about linguistics, but that connection seems
:> even more strange than the 'seidhr' thing.
Well, the other etymologies I've heard (except for the "fire" one) seem
even stranger, at least to me... ;-)
To de Vries, the origins of this name are "unexplained"; he lists the
following possibilities:
- related to ON "logi" (fire), and thus, I assume, also to German "Lohe"
(raging flames); this is sort of supported by the story of Loki's birth
(his parents Fárbauti (Cruel-Striker) and Laufey (Leafy-Island) can be
interpreted as lighning striking trees), but it could also be a folk
etymology, since there seems to be no evidence of Loki as a fire god in
the Eddas and Sagas;
- related to ON "lúka" (to lock);
- related to some Baltic and Slavic words for mud or a swamp (Russ. "luZa"
(Z = z with ogonek), Lith. "liñgas");
- related to ON "lok", which would lead to an original meaning "destroyer";
deemed "highly unlikely" by de Vries;
- short for one of the names Loptr and Lódhurr.
And we can probably safely discard the folk-etymological connection to
"lying" mentioned in Wagner's "Rheingold". ;-)
:>>> How and when
:>>> did these get loaned?
:>> No idea. If there really *is* a connection between the Fenno-Ugric and
:>> Germanic resp. Celtic words I gave, it must have been a long time ago
:>> (either that, or the Celts borrowed the root from the Germans, or maybe
:>> vice versa, after they got it from some Fenno-Ugric people).
:> This whole idea seems rather weak to me. Even if there was a
:> direct connection between these language families.
Well, at least there doesn't seem to be much discussion about this "if"
anymore (cf., for example, pretty much everything written by Jorma
Koivulehto)... There is more than enough evidence of contact between
Fenno-Ugric and Germanic languages (from ancient ones like Fi. "pyhä",
sacred (I'd have to look up which language that came from - Proto-Germanic
or one of which we have actual written sources, such as e.g. Gothic), to
all those Swedish and English words that found their way into colloquial
Finnish). I don't know of any evidence for or against direct contact
between speakers of Fenno-Ugric and Celtic languages, but there *is*
evidence for contact between Proto-Uralic-speaking and
Proto-Indo-European-speaking peoples, and of course words could also have
been "transported" by other languages (for example, from Baltic-Finnic to
Germanic to Celtic). (I found most of this information in
R. Schmitt-Brandt's "Einführung in die Indogermanistik"; unfortunately I
don't know any similar books in other languages that I could recommend.)
:> Are these the
:> best conclusions that the linguistics have come to concerning
:> those two words?
The best (actually only) ones that I've found so far...
[rest snipped, because I agree with it]
Ravennestar
understand the the Sumerian. I am not confused at all..
Ake Sjoberg is a tough teacher.........and a tough director of the program
and the Tablet room......It has been many years since I have been there
Alex
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baird Stafford" <ba...@gate.net>
Newsgroups: alt.mythology,alt.pagan,soc.culture.greek,soc.religion.paganism
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Gods FIRST name
> Alex <givennam...@nxx.nokia.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I am curius as to how one, having as a background the history knowledge
of
> > his country, which obviously is not Greek make him more qualified to
speak
> > on linguistic drift in the soc.culture.greek NG than, say, with somenone
who
> > was learning about the history and language of his country (modern and
> > ancient) for almost 12 years.
>
> If textbooks and the training of teachers are similar in Greece to the
> methods in the only country with the educational system of which I am
> personally familiar, the information presented in primary and secondary
> schools is a distillation (frequently, alas! at least a decade out of
> date) of the work done by *both* foreign and domestic researchers.
>
The amount of information you can get from those textbooks in the Greek
educational
system during the 12 year of continuous study in the Greek (modern and
ancient) Language
and History aspects is enormous ! So enormous that it is difficult for me
to imagine that a
lot of other educational systems are similar in these aspects (not
impossible though).
> In any case, the discussion at that point was of linguistic theory, the
> generalities of which (in theory) hold true for all languages.
>
> <snip>
>
> > You don't need to write a a couple of papers nor to be a qualified
linguist
> > (showing your credentials) in
> > order to express your views (maybe in a scientific or linguistic if you
> > prefer forum but not in this NG).
>
> This thread was cross posted to no fewer than three newsgroups other
> than soc.culture.greek, and the portion of it to which exception is
> being taken originated not in that newsgroup but (probably, since I know
> one of the posters) in soc.religion.paganism. This is one of the perils
> of cross posting, and one reason why the practice should be undertaken
> only with much forethought.
>
I have to admit that I didn't know that this was a cross posting between
different
groups. On the other hand I believe that the point of my message remains
valid.
You are talking about "forethought" when you qualify a computational
linguistic (do you
really know what that is, I wonder ???) which obviously has studied other
aspects of language
but not a physicist which has also studied his language and others.
To me, computational linquistic has a much stronger SCIENCE than art
background.
Please spare us the qualification theories and reconsider for the sake of
our conversation.
> I suspect the "forethought" in this case may have involved the
> unexpressed hope that regulars on soc.culture.greek would leap to the
> defense of the original poster's theories in just such a fashion as is
> illustrated here.
>
Does the following part of the sentence mean anything to you ?
> I don't want to take sides (so don't missunderstand me)
Self explanatory, I guess, but too much forethought ... and you miss the
obvious.
In my previous email I am only stating the facts of how the Greek
educational system is.
If you believe that this acts as a defense ofr the original poster's
theories then so be it.
> Blessed be,
> Baird
>
>
> --
> Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
> Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
> Like science fiction and fantasy fiction? Read my reviews at
> <http://www.bairdstafford.com>
>
I wrote my previous post just to express that I don't believe that the
ironic tone
of yours about who is qualified and who's not was totally unjustifiable.
I've tried to explain this politely stating the (linguistic and history)
knowledge that
some people get during their primary education (School - HighSchool). That
ofcourse,
if you don't take into account the amount of knowledge one can gain by
reading books
in his spare time.
Further on, in terms of the academic qualifications Computational
Linguistics - Physics,
(if you really know what you are talking about) one can say that they are
both SCIENCE
based.
I understand that the knowledge of Ms Simon extends to other linguistic
sections as she
clearly explains but this I believe is not part of her Degree (but from my
understanting
a course that she followed because she was interesting). This can be true
with anybody
who has a genuine interest in what he/she is doing.
Finally, for one more time, I would like to state that I am not supporting
any of the theories
of this thread (the fact that I don't have a PhD in Linguistics is not the
reason).
In simple words (to make it easier for some people to understand) I am not
supporting the
views of Mr Agamemnon nor that of Ms J Simon.
Regards,
Alex.
WebSlave
>> I assume the sources you
>> mention also explain the connection between 'to sound' and
>> 'magic'.
> The 3rd Canto of the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala,
describes
> magic-by-sound (to be precise, singing) quite nicely.
I thought this would come up as an example (I thought of it myself
too). Actually I referred to the same Canto at the end of August
myself, on a thread called 'music in myths' in alt.mythology (with
another link included).
But, as you say, in this particular Canto, the magic works through
singing. The only word used is 'laulaa' (to sing). All that it might
prove is that 'laulaa' may have (had) a meaning 'to spell'. It tells us
nothing about 'soida'-related words. (A connection in the concept
isn't enough, is it, in a linguistic sense?)
> unfortunately I haven't been able to find any translations
> online.
Me either. Some excerpts yes, but not the 3rd Canto.
The problem I see with this connection (sound-magic) is the fact
that both your examples on Fenno-Ugric languages ment 'to
sound', 'sound', 'noise'. No relation to 'magic' within the
Fenno-Ugric family. To have a connection I assume there should
be some trace of a change of meaning somewhere, a related
word with a meaning closer to 'magic'. Otherwise all we can
conclude is that 'soida' has a very old Fenno-Ugric roots (as it
means about the same in the furthermost branches).
> I like this etymology because the term for the other kind of
ancient
> Germanic magic, "galdr", is usually assigned to an
Indo-European root *kal-
> (AFAIR), which has a similar meaning (to call, sound, etc.).
Hmmm. There might be a difference there. 'To call' is a totally
different thing. It might have a connection to 'to summon', 'to call
the spirits or some forces' (kutsua).
> de Vries lists another possible etymology for "seidh", this time
deriving
> the meaning "magic" from an older/underlying meaning "to tie" or
"to bind".
> Apparently there's a connection between the concepts of magic
and binding
> in a number of languages; de Vries gives Lat. "fascia" (tie) :
"fascinum"
> (evil spell) and Sanskrit "yukti" (to tie; means of magic) as
examples. And
> I hope that the third volume of the Finnish Etymological
Dictionary, the
> one containing words starting with S, will be published soon,
because now
> I'm wondering whether the Finnish word family "sitoa, side etc."
may be
> connected to this...
This would make more sense to a layman like me. FED you
mention is/will be available in public libraries?
>> A loan to Welsh sounds especially suspicious.
> Not really; if I understood de Vries correctly, the word wasn't
borrowed
> from Finnish into Welsh (which would indeed be highly
suspicious), but
> instead from an older Fenno-Ugric language to an older Celtic
language, and
> just happens to have no known cognates in any other Celtic
language...
Wouldn't that be rather strange, if the word was borrowed at a
relatively early stage (before the anchestors of the Brythonic
branch moved to the British Isles - probably even before it
separated from the larger Celtic group)? The closer connection
between the two groups must have been at a very early stage, so a
single example of such a loan that has survived is not very
convincing. At least one should explain why it didn't survive
anywhere else.
[Loki]
> And we can probably safely discard the folk-etymological
connection to
> "lying" mentioned in Wagner's "Rheingold". ;-)
Why? Doesn't it fit to how words have developed. Swedish 'ljuga'
and German 'lügen' seem close. Or is it that such a name is not fit
to a god? (Would 'Vipunen' as in 'Antero Vipunen' be something
similar?)
>(I found most of this information in
> R. Schmitt-Brandt's "Einführung in die Indogermanistik";
unfortunately I
> don't know any similar books in other languages that I could
recommend.)
Well, unfortunately I have no time to get deeper into this anyway.
It's very interesting of course, but with all my hobbies trying to get
my attention and time, I simply couldn't take another one. For me
this is just learning and entertainment in one package. So bear
with me.
Martin G. Diehl
>
> Hello!
>
> In soc.religion.paganism WebSlave <webs...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>:> Julia A M Simon wrote:
>
>:>>> Interesting. Can you give us the Finnish/Fenno-Ugric
>:>>> roots, or rather possible modern derivations of those
>:>>> roots?
>
>:>> Sorry, I haven't found the roots (yet), but Jan de
>:>> Vries, in his "Altnordisches etymologisches
[snip]
>:> mention also explain the connection between 'to sound'
>:> and 'magic'.
>
> The 3rd Canto of the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala,
> describes magic-by-sound (to be precise, singing) quite
> nicely. (The Finnish original can be found on the Web at
> http://www.kaapeli.fi/maailma/kalevala/KOLMAS.html, and
> actually lots of other places; ...
Sibelius also explains "magic-by-sound" in "Four Legends
from the Kalevala"
[snip]
> And we can probably safely discard the folk-etymological
> connection to "lying" mentioned in Wagner's "Rheingold". ;-)
I hope that does not mean that we must ignore Tom Holt's
"Expecting Someone Taller" <g>
[snip]
--
Martin G. Diehl
I am what I am. All expressed opinions are strictly my own.
J.B. Hemlock
In message <vjNx5.39760$_e4.18...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, "Ravennestar"
<Raven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You have to learn the Akkadian language to even begin to learn and
> understand the the Sumerian. I am not confused at all..
they share the same writing system, the languages are about as closely related
as Basque and Cherokee (ie: not at all)...
J. B. Hemlock
bl...@narcosislabs.org
mark...@io.com
Hemlock) wrote:
while i don't know either sumerian or akkadian, i can guess why you
might want to learn akkadian first.
modern people can understand akkadian much better. much more of it has
survived for analysis and it can be compared to living semetic
languages.
therefore, the most complete information about a given sumerian word
may be that we know the akkadian equivalant, but that we are only
partially certain of its sumerian meaning.
J.B. Hemlock
>> while i don't know either sumerian or akkadian, i can guess why you
> might want to learn akkadian first.
>
> modern people can understand akkadian much better. much more of it has
> survived for analysis and it can be compared to living semetic
> languages.
>
> therefore, the most complete information about a given sumerian word
> may be that we know the akkadian equivalant, but that we are only
> partially certain of its sumerian meaning.
>
other Semitic languages, and while I don't dispute the idea that a knowledge
of Akkadian is useful to a student of Sumerian, I don't at all agree that
you need to know Akkadian to learn Sumerian. People tend to look at all the
languages that used written cuneiform characters as being similar, but this
is not the case. Sumerian is not a Semitic language , while Alhkadian is.
When the "Akkadian People" conquered Sumeria, they had their own spoken
language (Akkadian), but adapted cuneiform characters to write it. A good
way to think about it is modern written Vietnamese, which uses a Latin-based
alphabet. This isn't as far from the truth as you would think, either. The
difficulties of adapting cuneiform characters (which were designed for
Sumerian, a language which forms words by tacking meaningful syllables together
in a way German can only dream of), and Akkadian (a Semitic language that
forms words, as do all Semitic languages, by interleaving consonant patterns
with vowel patterns) has been likened to writing English with Chinese
characters!
Jon deMalo
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote about Re: Gods FIRST
name:
<snip>
>According to the Penguin Book of Norse Mythys:
>
>A man called Maundilfari lived Mildgrad
You mean, perhaps, Midgard?
>had two children that he thought so
>beautiful that he called the so Moon and the daughter he named Sun, who
>marrie a man called Glen..
>Odin, his brothers and their offspring the Asir
I think you mean Aesir.
<snip>
Jus' pointing out some spelling mistakes in the Norse names :)
There might have been more, but these are the ones I'm more familiar
with.
Jon deMalo: j...@fullcircuit.com
---------------------------------
Owner of Midgard: Tales of Albia:
http://www.geocities.com/jon_demalo