Subject: Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:44:13 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> > What! The vulture is no longer an "a"? I daresay the people in
> > Ptolemaic times thought it was, as it is clearly visible (twice) in the
> > name of "Kleopatra". That ought to be a telling clue as to what the
> > glyph was used for or the Greeks would have adopted another closer one
> > for spelling out the name of the queen. What evidence, preceeding this,
> > makes linguists think the vulture was not an "a"???
>
> That is absolutely correct. It is no longer the vowel "a" and never was.
> Egyptian does not *normally* write vowels, just like ARabic, Hebrew, Syriac,
> Aramaic, etc. The vulture /3/ is a consonant. The /i/ reed, and the /w/ chick
> are also consonants. The *only* time that the /3/, /i/, or /w/ are written to
> indicate vowels is in **non-Egyptian** words such as Kleopatra. Arabic is the
> same -- alif, ya', and waw are all consonants, but are used as vowels in
> foreign words. The Egyptians had a special system of writing foreign words
> (primarily Semitic) called "group writing" or "syllabic orthography" --
> "Kleopatra" is written is a very late, and much simplified, variety of this.
>
> What makes linguists think this?? Well, here are some examples from my
> previous posting (n.b., the Arabic words are *cognates* NOT loanwords):
>
> > > b3q (bright, white) = Arabic baraq (shining, lusterous, sparkling)
> > > bk3 (morning) = Arabic bakir (early); bukrah (early morning)
> > > k3m (vineyard) = Arabic karm (vineyard, grapevines)
> > > zb3 (flute) = Arabic zamr, zummarah (flute)
> > > w3D (green) = Arabic waraq (foliage, greenery, leafage)
>
> and to clench it:
>
> `k3m = Semitic `Akram (a Semitic name written in Egytian)
> y3mt = Semitic Yarmuta (a Semitic toponym written in Egyptian)
>
> Since these are *Semitic* words (not cognates) written in Middle Egyptian with
> the /3/ for the Semitic /r/, the Egyptians must have been hearing the "r" and
> wrote it with the grapheme ("letter") most close to that sound in Egyptian --
> in this case the /3/ vulture.
>
> As you can see above, the Middle Egyptian /3/ (the vulture) is equated with
> the Arabic /r/ (other Afro-asiatic languages could be subistuted, not just
> Arabic -- it was the most convient for me). However, this pronunciation falls
> out by Late Egyptian (and the trend apparently is well underway in Middle
> Egyptian). By that point the /3/ has lost its phonetic value of /R/ and has
> shifted into being a glottal stop (Arabic hamzah) -- and for this reason is
> used as an "a" in foreign words in the New Kingdom to the Ptolemaic Period.
Well, I think Budge was still right with his "a", ya sahibi. The
vulture is still the "ah" sound, be it consonant or vowel, and I'll tell
you why. Your compelling examples do show a clear pattern. Every time
"3" appears in Egyptian, it ends up as "ar" in Arabic. That must mean
either that "3" represents "ar" or that it signifies a sound somewhere
between "aw" or "ah" that wound up being pronounced as "ar" by
"r"-loving Arabic speakers. Even if the vulture is really supposed to
be "ar", from what we already suspect about ancient Egyptian, they loved
their "r's" about as much as a public-school educated Brit, so it,
essentially, became "ah" and was very useful in writing the name of that
legendary gal, Kleopatra. BTW, "ah" can be turned into "r" just on
account of a sort of national habit. Ever hear an Englishman say the
name "Julia", for instance? Often, one may hear an "r" on the end of
it, where it most certainly doesn't actually belong. Well?
Subject: Re: Help!!! Question reference Ancieny Egyptian Sculpture...
From: grenvill@iafrica.com (Keith Grenville)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 22:53:57 GMT
> What is the meaning of having the left foot forward on standing Ancient
> Egyptian statues.. any help is welcome
> Please respond by EMAIL
Firstly, the apparent forward movement was energized which indicates life. All "living" statuary has
the left foot forward - all "dead" statuary has the feet together, in other words dead and/or mummified.
In the convention of Egyptian art, based on wall paintings, the whole body had to be shown, all the
limbs. Ancient Egyptian art was formulated from the rules of primitive art and remained so for 3000
years. Apart from the Amarna period, it was the Greeks who developed sculpture. Their earliest pieces
can be viewed in Athens Archaeological Museum, with the left foot forward. So you see all tomb
paintings stylized with two arms, two legs. Indeed, only the face is in profile with the eye full
frontal. A statue could also be viewed in profile and both legs could be seen. Also, it can be
considered that having a leg forward gave the sculpture stability. It is interesting to note that
seated statuary did "not" have a leg forward at all. Hope this throws some light on your question.
----
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa
Subject: Re: Norse sailings to Vinland/Markland (Was: Deep Sea Sailing in Palaeolith)
From: system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Date: 12 Sep 1996 21:10:14 GMT
mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) writes:
>In <516qrp$nug@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
>Silberstein) writes:
>>
>>In sci.archaeology mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>
>>[discussion of Norse in North American mostly snipped]
>>
>>>The peoples of Eastern Canada and Maine are matrilineal and matrilocal,
^^^
we are interested in "were"
>>>meaning that the status of women was much more elevated than it would
>>>have been among women from patriarchal societies such as the Norse.
>>>What then would be the impetus for these women to marry Norsemen?
>>
>>MaryBeth I pretty much agree with you. However, I disagree with the
>>implications of your question. If there had been Norse living in the
>>area then I can imagine many reasons "gene mixing". Love, lust,
>>attraction, politics, and social pressure create all kinds of
>>interesting situations.
>
>And familiarity also is known to breed contempt... Where would be the
>attraction for women raised under egalitarianism
Not that I don't believe you, but what are your sources for this?
>to marry
>hygenically-challenged, vermine-infested,
kindly provide documentation that the Vikings were dirtier and
more vermint infested than the locals.
>hairy,
Hey, its different, might be kinda interesting :)
>patriarchal,
assuming your comments on the egalitarianism of the locals are correct,
this is a reasonable objection.
>socially-clueless, status-less,
Gee, I thought they were egalitarian, you are making them out to be
snobs, but these are reasonable objections to large amounts of
"gene-swapping"
>etc., etc. Norsemen?
> By the time that
>Verazzano arrived along the coast of Maine in 1524, it was obvious the
>level of contempt local Indians (purportedly, my ancestors, btw ;-D)
>held for Europeans, as they stood on the shore and *mooned* the
>visiting ship's crew,
Over how many hundreds of years later?
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
Subject: Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Saida
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 16:43:48 -0500
Saida: Hmmm...well, maybe you
> > can tell me what constituted a definite long "a" or "ah" in Dynastic
> > times.
Troy:
>
> I dealt with Kleopatra in the post you mention and the issue of Group
> Writing (the special writing system for non-Egyptian words), so I will drop
> it here. However, your question about "what constituted a definite long 'a'
> or 'ah' in Dynastic times" *is* valid here. The answer is nothing -- vowels
> (long or short) were *not* indicated in *standard* Egyptian orthography. For
> non-Egyptian words, the *non-standard* Group Writing system I mentioned
> seems to have indicated vowels to a certain degree. In Old and Middle
> Egyptian Group Writing the vulture /3/ is used to render "r" and on occasion
> "l" (as might be expected) -- the vowel "a" is not rendered at all. In Late
> Egyptian Group Writing the /3/ *is* used to indicate "a" (as the /R/ had
> been lost in pronunciation) -- this trend continues into Ptolemaic and Roman
> practice. However, I must emphasise, with only a very few exceptions, this
> practice is *only* for non-Egyptian terms and standard Egyptian does not
> indicate vowels of any sort.
>
> > > Moreover, the /i/ in /i3m/ need not be "y" either. Yes, sometimes it was:
> > > Egypt. /imn/ (right) = Arabic "yamin". But it could also be a glottal stop
> > > (hamzah): /idn/ (ear) = Arabic " 'udhn"
> >
>
> > Troy, having to do with the vowel "i", you gave me the Arabic "hamzah"
> > sound as an example. But that is the "i" sound before a consonant, in
> > this case "d".
>
> No, hamzah is NOT a vowel either, not the "i" or any other -- it is a
> glottal stop (the sound of the "h" in the English word "hour"). Arabic, like
> every other Semitic language, *never* starts a word with a vowel. (However
> to be fair, I really should have noted that the /'/ = the glottal stop.) And
> just to be clear, I am *not* saying that the transliteration of Egyptian
> /idn/ begins with a vowel "i", but with the glottal stop followed by an
> unrepresented vowel of some sort ("a", "i", or "u").
Whether one calls something a consonant or not doesn't really matter if
it has the sound of a vowel. In Hebrew, for example, words do begin
with an "i" sound, but it is represented by the "yod", which I suppose
you will call a consonant, such as in the word "Israel". However,
wherever there is an "aleph" following this "yod" or some of the dots or
dashes indicating vowels, the word will ALWAYS begin with the sound of a
"y".
Saida:
>
> > It is really not possible for us to know whether the
> > reed or "i" before a consonant (not the alif vulture, though) was
> > pronounced very short as in Arabic or longer. Yet before a vowel "i"
> > must really become "y".
Troy:
>
> The problem is that you are treating the reed leaf (commonly transliterated
> as /i/ with a hook instead of a dot on top) as the vowel "i" (or the
> consonant "y"). Again, it is not a vowel; vowels were not written. What is
> clear is that it very frequently is used to indicated a glottal stop (the
> hamzah (aka, alif hamzatun) of Arabic, the aleph of Hebrew). Here are some
> Semitic loans written in Egyptian -- the Egyptians were hearing the Semitic
> glottal stop as their reed leaf:
>
> Egyptian /ibi/ = Semitic loanword "father": Arabic 'ab, Ugaritic 'ab, Sabaic
> 'b (vowels unknown), Amorite 'abum, Ethiopic 'ab
>
> /ibti/ = "to perish; destroy; go away": Ugaritic 'abd, Akkadian abatu,
> Phoenician 'bd, Arabic 'abada (to run away)
>
> /ixti/ = "sister": Ugaritic 'ukht, Arabic 'ukht, Akkadian ahatu (with a
> rocker under the "h" for "kh"), Sabaic 'ht (read as 'kht)
>
> As you can see the Egyptian /i/ is equated with a Semitic glottal stop (and
> yes, it is even followed by a vowel (in those languages where we know the
> vowelling, though it is not normally written)).
>
> However, to get back to the original point, the /i/ could be used for both
> the glottal stop or as /y/ -- we just might not know which the Egyptians had
> intended in some words, and it may have varied as time marched on.
Written or not written, a language requires vowels. We have to use our
best judgment about the reed or reeds at the beginning of a word.
Sometimes, I have seen it before a name or a title, for instance, and I
would imagine it would correspond to the appellation "ya" used in
Arabic, but again, I am not eager to hitch the Egyptian wagon to the
Arabic star, and perhaps we start to imagine glottal stops where there
were only European-style vowels such as in modern Hebrew, which has even
gotten rid of the "ayin". As I have said previously in this thread,
just when you expect Egyptian to do the Semitic waltz all the way across
the floor, it breaks into a funny little dance of its own, having
nothing to do with anything Semitic.
All the same, as an independent student of Egyptian, I rarely have the
opportunity to discover the opinions of others much less the accepted
changes in the conventional wisdom, so I am glad that you are taking the
trouble to make these explanations.
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:21:27 GMT
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Peter, congratulations on another promotion to baron.
Thanks! They just keep shifting me around up here!
> Were the Alvarezes Canadian? I didn't know that. With regard to the
> impact in the Yucatan, you've got the cart a bit before the horse. An
> iridium layer was persistently found in strata worldwide at the K/T
> boundary, first. This was noted and led to the impact hypothesis in
> 1980. However, it wasn't until 11 years later that the Chicxulub
> impact site was suggested as an impact site at the proper time frame
> (this too was the subject of debate: was the time right, is it an
> astrobleme, etc.). In the mean time there were alternate hypotheses
> that the iridium had been the result of flood basalts in India or the
> impact was at the Manson site in Iowa. There is also some evidence
> that the dinosaurs were already gone when the impact occurred.
Thanks for the real info. Let me quote a recent source of my vastly
imperfect interpretation:
--
Canadian joins probe of crater left by comet......Vancouver Sun,Sept.9
OTTAWA---In the 1980s, Alan Hildebrand said the evidence proving that a
comet killed off the world's dinosaurs 65 million years ago could be
found on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula
Noone believed him --- not the bigwigs in geology who know craters, nor
the editors of leading scientific journals like Science and Nature.
But when the geologist with the Geological Survey in Ottawa goes back to
the Yucatan this week ... etc
--
> Sulphurous layer or iridium? Sulphur could be from the Indian
> volcanism.
Sorry, bad assumption and bad memory.
> They're still writing papers on the K/T boundary event seeking to fully
> understand what happened. If you want some references, let me know.
Perhaps I'll get by with my crappy newspaper articles...
(truthfully, I don't have the time, but thanks)
(PS: I'm enrolled in Classical Studies in college!
Am currently doing Latin and History of Greece with much more next
semester! Thanks, August, for the prompting.)
--
zoomQuake....220+ of the best ancient history related links on the net.
http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/index.html
Subject: Re: Norse sailings to Vinland/Markland (Was: Deep Sea Sailing in Palaeolith)
From: billb@mousa.demon.co.uk (Bill Bedford)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:06:29 +0000
Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> In <516qrp$nug@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
> Silberstein) writes:
> >
> >In sci.archaeology mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
> >
> >[discussion of Norse in North American mostly snipped]
> >
> >>The peoples of Eastern Canada and Maine are matrilineal and
> matrilocal,
> >>meaning that the status of women was much more elevated than it would
> >>have been among women from patriarchal societies such as the Norse.
> >>What then would be the impetus for these women to marry Norsemen?
> >
> >MaryBeth I pretty much agree with you. However, I disagree with the
> >implications of your question. If there had been Norse living in the
> >area then I can imagine many reasons "gene mixing". Love, lust,
> >attraction, politics, and social pressure create all kinds of
> >interesting situations.
>
> And familiarity also is known to breed contempt... Where would be the
> attraction for women raised under egalitarianism to marry patriarchal,
> hygenically-challenged, hairy, vermine-infested, socially-clueless,
> status-less, etc., etc. Norsemen?
Ooooh Mary Beth you can't be refering to the same Norsemen that
complained that the English only bathed once a year, can you?
--
Bill Bedford billb@mousa.demon.co.uk Shetland
Brit_Rail-L list autoshare@mousa.demon.co.uk
Looking forward to 2001 -
When the world it due to start thinking about the future again.
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: matthuse@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen)
Date: 13 Sep 1996 00:12:16 GMT
In <5197o9$s9f@bignews.shef.ac.uk> Martin Stower
writes:
>
>matthuse@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Not to mention "the top of the pyramid being older then the bottom"
>>which appears to imply that the top was built first????
>>
>>Regards,
>>August Matthusen
>
>He's alluding to the results of the Pyramids Radiocarbon Dating
Project.
>The samples of organic material (charcoal) from the mortar got older,
>the higher the course they were taken from.
>
>I have a theory, which is mine, which is my theory . . .
"Ahem, ahem, ahem, the theory which is mine by Ann Elk" shades
of MPFC.
>
>The charcoal was a chance contaminant of the materials used to make
>the mortar. As building progressed, they dug deeper and deeper into
>the deposits of this material, so the charcoal got older and older.
Did they mention how much apparent age diference there was among the
layers?
>
>On the other hand, if the sand was radioactive enough to skew the
>results, some people must have absorbed a hell of a lot of rads.
I saw your other post about Yoshimura referring to the sand. My
library doesn't have the Waseda papers. Off-hand o you remember any
thing about the radioactive sand? For example, how much of it, how
radioactive, its origin, etc??
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: Norse sailings to Vinland/Markland (Was: Deep Sea Sailing in Palaeolith)
From: kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 23:03:08 GMT
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>Another report says that in 1189 the Greenlander Asmund
>>Kastanrasti came to Iceland in a ship that was nailed together
>>solely with wooden nails, and bound together with sinews. Wooden
>>nails instead of iron nails was unusual, and again indicates that
>>Asmund's ship was built far away from available iron supplies.
>>The most probable place would again be Markland.
>Wooden nail? Not pegs? Do you have a reference for this since I would
>like to read up on the technology.
Well, pegs may perhaps be the correct word. My English surely
could be better - sorry. I quote from Kaare Prytz, _Lykkelige
Vinland_, Oslo 1975, p. 73:
I 1189 kom grønlendingen Asmund Kastanrasti til Island med et
skip som var "sømmet sammen alene med trenagler, bortsett fra at
det også var bundet sammen med sener".
The word is "trenagler", composed by "tre-" = wooden, and
"-nagler" = nails. But of course, "pegs" may be a better
translation.
Prytz does not give any further reference here. But in the
passage just before this, where he tells about the ship without
anchor, he refers to the Skaalholt Annals of Iceland. I suppose
Icelandic annals should be the place to look.
I agree that an anchor could just have been lost or dropped, but
the report of a ship built without iron nails (which were normal
in Norse ships) suggests that both ships may have built in an
area with enough wood, but with little or no iron available. One
of them belonged to a Greenlander, the other was reported sailing
between Markland and Greenland. There is a high probability that
both ships were built in Markland. Or can you suggest another,
more likely place?
To build a ship, materials have to be sought out and dried before
construction work can be started. This took time, and the
shipbuilders would probably have to stay over the winter in
Markland. As far as I remember, L'Anse-aux-Meadows was not
inhabited that late (1189 - 1349) - correct me if my memory plays
tricks on me here. If so, there should be remains of other
Norse/Greenlandic dwellings in Markland waiting for the
archaeologists to find them.
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no
Subject: Lost City of Ubar Lecture
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 12 Sep 1996 22:51 UT
Jet Propulsion Laboratory's
Public Information Office
von Karman Lecture Series
"The Road to Ubar"
a film directed by
Nick Clapp
Introduced by Dr. Ron Blom & Nicholas Clapp
Thursday, September 19, 7pm
JPL's von Karman Auditorium
4800 Oak Grove Blvd.
Pasadena, California
Free admission
(818) 354-5011 for information
Emmy-award winning director Nick Clapp presents an exciting film describing the
discovery of the lost city of Ubar in ancient Arabia. Ubar, a major center in
Arabia for the frankincense trade thousands of years ago, existed only in myth
until its discovery in the early 1990's, when its location was revealed by
various remote sensing technologies, historical research, and traditional
archaeology. Dr. Ron Blom is a remote sensing specialist and a geologist at
JPL, whose participation in expeditions to Ubar in 1991-92 helped to locate,
excavate and further understand the lost city.
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:42:20 GMT
Peter Van Rossum wrote:
>
> In article <323740CD.44CF@iceonline.com> Baron Szabo
> >And sometimes they are still dismissed even when it IS an expert in the
> >field.
>
> Hey, what a surprise, scientists don't always jump on a bandwagon every
> time someone proposes a new theory. They actually make the person
> proposing the theory demonstrate with real data, that the theory is in
> accordance with other data, and it is superior to other theories. Boy, what
> a bunch of arrogant snobs. BTW - read above with sarcasm.
So, do you think that stands as a catch-all excuse for pathetically slow
acknowledgement of facts? I'll answer for you: No. We can't be too
general. Instead, we need to evaluate cases separately. My example was
a specific one that I stand by.
> >A good example of this, and of the failure of science, the arrogance of
> >the specialists, and the absence of obvious logic, would be the
> >difficulty the Canadian researcher had in proving his Yucatan impact
> >theory that explained the extinction of the dinosaurs.
>
> Mighty judgemental aren't we now. And what, pray tell, have you contributed
> to our understanding of the world to put in such a superior position?
What does the average court judge contribute to our understanding of the
world? Regardless of the answer to this rhetorical question, you're
point is irrelevant. Nor does one need to be in a "superior position"
to express his "judgement"/opinion.
> >I mean, there is a clear sulphurous layer seperating the relevant strata
> >that mark the dissapearance of most saurian species! And it took him
> >almost ten years to convert the stiffies!
>
> Duh, that's how science works - read above.
Getting defensive, are we?
> >So! What is it gonna take to get the establishment stiffies to
> >postitively prove or disprove the cocaine/nicotine evidence and all of
> >its implications?
>
> For starters, how about proof that it could not be due to contamination, and
> that nolocally available plants could give similar results when the same test
> is applied. Golly shucks, that just might take a little bit of research before
> there's enough evidence to make the theory solid, or disprove it. But if it
> is disproved, no doubt the hyperdiffusionist/Altantis crowd will claim that
> the truth is being hidden. Judging from the drivel that gets spouted out
> here, that seems to be the usual tact.
I understand contamination has been ruled-out. I agree the local plant
scene needs a more detailed analysis, though.
I think the difference between you and I, Peter V.R., lies in our trust
of the established system. Not really a reason to spout insults, but if
we stop now that won't happen! ;>
--
zoomQuake....220+ of the best ancient history related links on the net.
http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/index.html
Subject: Re: Lost City of Ubar Lecture
From: will@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Will Morse)
Date: 12 Sep 1996 18:23:30 -0500
We presume this is no relation to the famous lost city of Fubar.
Will
In article <12SEP199622511279@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Ron Baalke wrote:
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory's
> Public Information Office
> von Karman Lecture Series
>
>
> "The Road to Ubar"
> a film directed by
> Nick Clapp
>
> Introduced by Dr. Ron Blom & Nicholas Clapp
>
> Thursday, September 19, 7pm
> JPL's von Karman Auditorium
> 4800 Oak Grove Blvd.
> Pasadena, California
> Free admission
> (818) 354-5011 for information
>
>Emmy-award winning director Nick Clapp presents an exciting film describing the
>discovery of the lost city of Ubar in ancient Arabia. Ubar, a major center in
>Arabia for the frankincense trade thousands of years ago, existed only in myth
>until its discovery in the early 1990's, when its location was revealed by
>various remote sensing technologies, historical research, and traditional
>archaeology. Dr. Ron Blom is a remote sensing specialist and a geologist at
>JPL, whose participation in expeditions to Ubar in 1991-92 helped to locate,
>excavate and further understand the lost city.
--
# Gravity, # Will Morse
# not just a good idea, # BHP Petroleum (Americas) Inc.
# it's the law. # Houston, Texas
# # will@starbase.neosoft.com
#
# These are my views and do not necessarly reflect the views of BHP !