Subject: Re: Sitchin, Hancock and Bauval on Art Bell tonight (9/27/96)
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 21:19:08 GMT
Baron Szabo wrote:
>Also, how is the roughly 400 year period (according to the show) of
>weathering, between its creation and restoration, accounted for. The
>show showed about 2.5 to 3 feet of weathering in that time, and stated
>that Egyptologists account for it as weathering within about 400 years.
>Do you think this is correct?
I noticed that no one answered this. What 400 years are they talking
about?
The Sphinx was carved in the Old Kingdom. Roughly 2500 BC. The first
restoration I am aware of was in the New Kingdom. Roughly 1380 BC.
That comes out to roughly 1100 years, not 400.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Mesa Verde Questions
From: scriptu@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 21:42:21 GMT
In article <530vnc$cgp@scooby.beloit.edu>,
Todd K Van Horne wrote:
>Hi there! I'll be leading a trip for the Beloit College Anthropology Club
>in mid-October to Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon. Was wondering if anyone had
>tips for me while we are there. I've been there before, so I know the
>tourist stuff. What I'm looking for is connections on how to see the burn
>area, if this is possible, or maybe some ranger-guided tours given by an
>experienced archaeologist in the area. We've only got a week, so it needs
>to be kept short.
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>-Todd Van Horne
Just a couple of suggestions. The "road" into Chaco is very poor, and
worse if it has rained recently, as it might have in mid-October.
Best to have vehicles with lots of clearence from the ground. At
Chaco, large parts of most sites are open to visitors, so reasonable
prior preparation will allow you to see a lot, and have some notion of
what you are seeing. Be prepared for _a lot_ of walking. Chaco is
spread all over the place. As I recall, most of the sites are
self-guiding, with moderately useful pamphlets.
Mesa Verde, on the other hand, is a major tourist site. Visiting most
of the sites there, especially the more famous ones, is an exercise in
being herded around by Park Service Personnel, who are very nice about
it, and sometimes informative, but whose main job is to move herds of
people through. Also, access to most parts of most sites is closed.
That is, to anything but visual inspection from a distance.
So I suggest that arranging for a special tour at Mesa Verde would be
worth the time and energy, if it is possible to do, which I don't
happen to know.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 18:54:36
In article <01bbb2ef$bb5a3640$050b0792@oberon> "Marc Cooper" writes:
>
snip
. Lugal does not, and as Piotr
>pointed out, there is no evidence that lugal was ever borrowed into any
>other language. This is particularly odd because the famous Ur III rulers
>used the title lugal in their inscriptions, and even appear to have been
>called lugal-gu, my king, in their own courts. Considering the way in which
>titles such as caesar, or in our own day, president, have been borrowed,
>why not lugal?
>One possible answer, and Piotr alluded to it when he said,
>> >If so, then we have only the time span between, let
>> >us say, 2600 and about 1900, ***to be generous***, when the living
>language
>> >could have been the source of the word as a loan.
>is that Sumerian was already an extinct language by the Ur III period.
>Lugal appears in the ED II, but the Sargonic kings were known by the
>Akkadian term sharrum. If Sumerian was already extinct by the beginning of
>the Ur III period, then lugal would not have been vocalized for several
>hundred years with respect to an important king. If this were really the
>case, the Babylonians would not have had any reason to borrow lugal since
>they already had the time honored title sharrum. Another possibility is
>that the lugal sign represents a Sumerian borrowing of sharrum from
>Akkadian and was never actually pronounced as it is written.
That is an attractive idea, as clearly in other places the logogram was read
differently (e.g. rubum in certain Amorite places), but I believe that there
are syllabic spellings of lugal in syllabic versions of humns and even a royal
inscription to make it unlikely. I like the idea, however!
Subject: Re: A State of Denial, or finding it hard to accept the facts: was Re: Linguistic diffusion: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 17:17:09 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >
> > Steve Whittet wrote:
> >
> > > As all of us have now pointed out to you repeatedly, the fact
> > > that some or many Egyptian words may have been the root of
> > > some English words should really not suprise you.
> > >
> > > It tends to show that Egyptian is not as easily compartmentalized
> > > as you might like and that there may be many ways in which the
> > > foundations of our modern world go back past the Greeks and Romans.
> > >
> > > Why is that so difficult for you to accept?
> >
> > I admit that I find it very strange, also. We have not asked anyone to
> > accept that ancient Egyptian is the *basis* of the IE language group or
> > that Egyptian was *primarily* an IE language in itself.
Troy:
>
> But you *have* claimed in a previous post:
No, Troy, never.
>
> > >that Egyptian IS partly an Indo-European language. It
> > >is also partly Semitic. This is precisely what troubled scholars when
> > >they first began to study it. It just wouldn't be classified.
>
> Just because there are a handful of Egyptian words that find their ways
> into English does **not** make Egyptian "partly IE". There are a large
> number of Arabic words in English as well (mainly via Latin and Spanish,
> some French too) -- does that make Arabic "partly IE"?
The number of Arabic words in English does not seem large to me--perhaps
because I am not aware of them, although I do have a fair knowledge of
Arabic.
>
> > I challenge anyone
> > in this group to say that, as far as they know, NO Egyptian terms are
> > found in the English language.
>
> No one is claiming that at all. But a few **borrowed** words does not
> change the fact that English is IE and Egyptian is AA.
I see this differently than you do, Troy. I see a substantial number of
Egyptian words that remind me of English and German words of like or
exact meaning. Egyptologists of 60-odd and more years ago, like Budge,
saw this same thing, but, of course, they were all *idiots* and we ought
to take no notice of them. Just remember, though, in Egyptology it
always seems that today's sage turns out to be tomorrow's fool. For the
last time, I do not believe Egyptian is an IE language--no more do I
believe it is a Semitic one or Afro-Asiatic.
>
> > I think I wrote something yesterday that was significant but, as with
> > most of my posts that could not be denied, it was totally ignored. I
> > said that, after the Norman conquest of Britain, Norman French
> > influenced whatever language was being then spoken in England, which I
> > assume was Anglo-Saxon. This seems to be accepted by everyone.
>
> But this doesn't change the fact that English is a North Germanic
> language and French is a Romance language. Maltese is filled with IE
> lexical items (thanks to Italian), but still remains an AA language
> (thanks to its Arabic origins).
>
> [snip]
>
> Troy
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 16:14:49 -0700
Bob Casanova wrote:
>In article <5354bh$fo1@trojan.neta.com>, blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton) wrote:
>>Except that "you will live" has to be reduced to "I will
>>pay you grain so you can feed your family." There was no
>>(evident) forced labor in the building of the pyramids.
>
>Sorry; it was intended as a joke.
Yeah, but you know how some people can get the
wrong inference.
>>It's more likely the job was a perk handed out by the
>>priests to the faithful amongst the famished.
>
>I've gotten the impression (from my admittedly sparse reading on the period)
>that hunger wasn't usually a major problem in the area, due to the regularity
>of the Nile flood and the associated regular harvest, and the techniques
>developed for food storage.
Correct. Still, to those who are in their off-season,
a job is something to be competed for.
>The labor force would thus consist of all of the
>agricultural workers during that part of the year when agriculture wasn't
>being practiced. Is this incorrect?
Probably not all. It wouldn't take that many to build
the pyramids. And some of the pyramid-building force
would have been skilled craftsmen and engineers.
--Blair
"Or maybe it was Sontarans
with hyperspatial chisels
and levitating backhoes..."
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 23:45:32 GMT
On 5 Oct 1996 22:55:16 GMT, Martin Stower
wrote:
>fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
>
>[Sekhemkhet]
>
>>ok...that's one sealed sarcophagus with no body in it, but with
>>treasure left laying about...that sarcophagus was found in the middle
>>of a necropolis surrounded by the tombs of lesser officals...
>
>That's one sarcophagus in an unfinished pyramid, which seems itself to have
>been entered and resealed (this from the masonry blocking the passage).
martin, i've browsed your website...your supplying of the facts
against which one can weigh some of the wild theories of ancient
doings, that sprout so thickly in the modern mind, is a valuable
service to the net...perhaps you might perform a similar service here
by supplying us with facts...would you please list for us all those
still sealed sarcophagi, that were found within pyramids, and that did
contain bodies...i'm sure such a list would help us to understand how
much importance we might place on the finding of the "sekhemkhet"
sarcophagus...
>The treasure was hardly `left laying around'.
>
nor did i use the phrase "left laying around"...a keen perusal of the
compared definitions should indicate why i used the other word...
>Was this unfinished pyramid really surrounded by tombs?
>
is your intention here to quibble over what percentage of the 360
degrees surrounding that pyramid is subtended, within some arbitrarily
defined horizontal distance out from that pyramid, by tombs??...i'll
leave that sort of game to the scholars...suffice to say: the
necropolis at sakkara is both so vast and, except for the nile side,
so inexactly delimited, that it is, in our present state of knowledge
about this site, a reasonable use of language to say that everything
at sakkara is surrounded by tombs...
>We're talking about pyramids, right? The tomb of Hetepheres - call it
>something else if you insist - was not a pyramid. It seems we have a
>problem with Egyptian tombs in general, not just pyramids.
>
>The body was absent from the sarcophagus, but the canopic chest was present,
>complete with contents. That does tend to suggest a tomb.
yes...and prior to the opening of the sarcophagus, as at sekhemkhet,
it tended to suggest the presence of a body within the
sarcophagus...but, as at sekhemkhet, no body was found within...
>The following recycled for the second time:
>
and here, martin, you give cogent evidence for the existence of the
coffer, and of a similar one in khafre...but the existence and
description of those coffers is not what is at question here...if you
have any evidence (and having seen your presentation of evidence on
the existence of the coffers, i trust that you fully understand the
difference between factual evidence, on the one hand, and
interpretation, opinion, and argument on the other) then please state
what evidence you have that the coffer in khufu (or the one in khafre)
ever held a body...
frank
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 16:24:48 -0700
Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>>Engineering model?!
>
>Yes, a legitimate term, even if you don't understand it. It has to do with
>design techniques and the technology needed to make something work.
I understand it more than just fine, thank you. My surprise
was that you seem to believe they performed a methodology in
creating this engineering model. Seems to me they just built
a ship; a damn fine one at that, to look at her successful
sisters; and that this refutes your idea that scale caused
her demise.
--Blair
"And as far as I can tell,
the pyramids are in no
danger of sinking, either,
unless there are icebergs
lurking beneath the sand..."
Subject: Re: No Moths Allowed (was Egyptian Tree Words)
From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir"
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 06:15:49 +0100
In article <3256E687.2493@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>, Saida
writes
>I may be dense, but I can't quite get the connection between geese and
>cloth.
From the OED:
[ME. gos(e)somer(e, app. f. goose n. + summer n. Cf. the synonymous Eng.
dial. summer-goose (Craven), summer-colt, G. mädchensommer (lit. ‘girls’
summer’), altweibersommer (‘old women’s summer’); also G. sommerfäden,
Du. zomerdraden, Sw. sommartråd, all literally ‘summer thread’.
The reason for the appellation is somewhat obscure. It is usually
assumed that goose in this compound refers to the ‘downy’ appearance of
gossamer. But it is to be noted that G. mädchen-, altweibersommer mean
not only ‘gossamer’, but also a summer-like period in late autumn, a St.
Martin’s summer; that the obs. Sc. go-summer had the latter meaning; and
that it is in the warm periods of autumn that gossamer is chiefly
observed. These considerations suggest the possibility that the word may
primarily have denoted a ‘St. Martin’s summer’ (the time when geese were
supposed to be in season: cf. G. Gänsemonat ‘geese-month’, November),
and have been hence transferred to the characteristic phenomenon of the
period. On this view summer-goose (which by etymologizing perversion
appears also as summer-gauze) would be a transposition.]
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Subject: Re: Stop trashing Henry Lincoln!
From: John Ritson
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 10:28:27 +0100
In article <3256e54e.27207962@nntp.netcom.net.uk>,
davep@corp.netcom.net.uk writes
>On Sat, 5 Oct 1996 14:36:16 +0100, John Ritson >>
>>>If you're going to tear their theories apart then you'll have to do
>>>better than rely on examples of "weasel-words".
>>>
>>
>>But these are symptomatic of the approach. Multiple 'it is possible'
>>statements (rough translation 'I do not accept that it has been
>>conclusively shown to be impossible') piled on top of one another do not
>>strengthen the argument: their cumulative improbability marks the whole
>>edifice as fatally flawed.
>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>
>>John
>
>John, I again ask you to give examples of where their work is "fatally
>flawed". Of course they have made no 'discoveries' themselves but have
>rather taken various theories AND historical facts and, from them,
>build a picture of what might well have transpired back in those early
>times. They have presented their pictures and shown how they reached
>the conclusions they have. If you want to shoot them down in flames
>then it is not enough to accuse them of using "it is possible" rather
>a lot. They really DON'T know for certain so they are hardly going to
>say "it is a fact" rather than "it is possible". All they do is
>postulate theories based on their research and if much of that
>research is based on others work then before condemning them for that,
>remember that all research tends to be extensions of earlier
>discoveries or theories. It seems to me that Bauval, Hancock, Gilbert
>and others are not being judged by the same criteria as perhaps more
>orthodox scholars are.
>
>Show me where they are WRONG and I will accept what you say.
>
>Dave
Of course if one never says 'X happened' but 'It is possible that X
happened' it is rather hard to be proved wrong. Such unfalsifiability
is one of the things that distinguishes pseudo-science from science.
But if we take the Orion Belt 'match' with the three Giza Plateau
pyramids, Hancock says that Bauval 'showed that the three pyramids were
an unbelievably precise terrestial map of the three stars of Orion's
belt, accurately reflecting the angles between each of them and even(by
means of their respective sizes) providing some indication of their
individual magnitudes.' He follows this with a diagram showing the star
positions matched to the pyramid positions, two large pyramids of
approximately the same size (Khufu then Khafre), then a much smaller one
(Menkaure) and two large stars of approximately the same size (Alnitak
then Alnilam) , then a much smaller one (Mintaka). Looks pretty
conclusive, but if you look at the actual figures you get
Khufu 756 ft sq
Khafre 708 ft sq
Menkaure 356 ft sq
Alnitak magnitude 2.0
Alnilam magnitude 1.7
Mintaka magnitude 2.2
Lower magnitudes mean brighter, each one magnitude difference
representing a difference of 2.5 times.
In other words, the middle star is the 'greatest' differing from the
second by slightly more than that differs from the third.
To say that the pyramid sizes are 'providing some indication of their
individual magnitudes' and producing a diagram that purports to show
such an indication is WRONG.
On a more general level Hancock says that his postulated early advanced
civilisation 'simply could NOT have evolved on an insignificant
landmass' and 'a continent had to have got lost somewhere... I used the
obvious working hypothesis that it might be under some other ocean.'
(after accepting that 'modern oceanographers had thoroughly mapped the
floor of the Atlantic Ocean and there was definitely no lost continent
lurking there') But 'Ditto every other ocean and every other sea'.
This left him with no alternative to a lost civilisation hidden under
the ice of Antarctica that thrived prior to 10,000 BC in a largely ice-
free continent.
But if you read Paul Heinrich's excellent postings on the subject you
will see that ice-core and sediment data (among other things) completely
preclude this possibility.
So the facts, and Hancock's own logic prove his whole edifice to be
fatally flawed.
John
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 20:58:19
In article <536f04$npu@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>>>>Luwian? I may be wrong about this, but so far as I remember the Luwian
>>>>texts are rather late - later, for example, than the main cuneiform
>>>>hittite archives.
>>>>
>>>>Gareth
>>
>>>I guess the answer to this depends on whether or not you agree with
>>>Best and Wouznian that the Phaistoes Disk is Luwian. Since the disk
>>>dates to c 1700 BC and is quite possibly a precursor of both Linear
>>>A and B and Luwian Pictographs, it is certainly worth some attention
>>>in this discussion.
>>
>>
>>-- lots and lots snipped --
>>
>>Call me fussy - but if you want to redate the Luwian texts, I'd like
>>to see your stratigraphical evidence - because in the end, that is
>>what counts.
>>
>>Gareth
>>
>What stratigraphic evidence?'
>In 1894 clay tablets were found at Bogazkov in Anatolia by the French
>archaeologist Ernest Chantre.
The clay tablets are mostly in "Hittite" (Nesite), and that is not Luwian.
>In 1945 in Karatepe in southern Turkey inscriptians in Hittite-Luwian
>and in the Phoenician alphabetic script were found.
>The dating is by reference to the Armana letters.
I do not understand how Karatepe is dated by the Amarna letters. Please
elaborate,
Subject: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 00:38:13 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
...snip...
>
>In article <538g5e$f9e@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>>I was thinking of "Ptah r" where "r" is more of a verb
>
> Actually, Mr. Whittet shows his ignorance of the structure of the
>Egyptian language, whose preferred syntax was verb-subject-object.
Ms. Beasley, my fourth grade English teacher would be ashamed of me,
Though it is the first rule of the Egyptian grammar that the Egyptian
language is built up largely from unchangable verb stems to which the
necessary inflexions are appended as suffixes, the second rule is that
this is not always the case.
While unchangable stems are in the majority
they are by no means universal.
The classification of Egyptian verbs is generally by the mutability
or immutability of the stem and secondarily by the gender of the
infinitives.
>
>>The glyphs "p","t","h" should have the sense of make,
>>create, father, cause to come into being.
>
> For any reason other than the name of the god "Ptah"?
Interesting question. I guess you mean "do the letters themselves
convey individual shades of meaning which can be added to their
combination as a word?"
The Egyptians are said to have loved word play and might
have enjoyed those added shades of meaning.
By itself "p" has the sense of base or pedestal. The god Ptah
built the base or pedestal on which the sky is supported of iron.
"t" by itself is a phonetic "t" and represents a loaf of bread rising
which now that I think of it is a well known image of genesis.
"h" is the twisted flax which forms the wick of a candle so in a
way it has the sense of potential energy
"pt" "sky", or "heaven"
"Pth" is the god Ptah; His titles include "father of fathers"
and the opener of days cognate with the semitic "pathakh"
and is used in Egyptian to mean to mean "to engrave", "to carve",
"to chisel" "to inscribe the name", "to create"
"tp ptr"
"Let that which I command be performed in Het ka Ptah
(The house of the ka of Ptah, [or the mind of Ptah])
"p-t-h-ka" in the glyph for house, "r":
"Book of the Dead", Budge "Papyrus of Ani", p 438
"ptr" means "behold", "see", "watch me do it"
"Pth r" is a good choice for this discussion
"ptr wrt r abt h3t-i m t3 ms-kwi im-f"
or paraphrasing "bury me not, on the lone prarie..."
The verb "iri" "make", "do" is usually written without the
expected phoenetic compliment as "r"
>
>>Hence Latin, "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware" lest the
>>value of the purchase peter out.
>
> emptor is an agent noun derived from emere "to buy", from IE *em-
>"to take, distribute"
to buy is to make a deal or contract with an offer and acceptance
of the price which creates an agreement or a meeting of the minds
>
>>words with b replacing p
>
> Widen the phonetic and semantic net enough, and you will be able
>to match anything with anything.
that is a common replacement in Semitic languages.
>
>>Ptah, btah, beta
>>Ptah, btah, beth
>>This is the second letter of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets
>>which the Semitic languages exchange for P.
>
> True, Arabic uses "b" to represent borrowed "p", but Hebrew has
>both "p" and "b" (Hebrew p > Arabic f).
>
>>betroth = make arrangements to wed, possible kinship term
>
>from be- (< IE *bheu@-) and troth (
>>Are the following words ending in "ter" kinship terms or creation terms?
>
>>better = make improvements
>
> from IE *bhad- "good"
>
>>bitter = make a bad taste
>
> from IE *bheid- "to split"
>
>>Are the following words considered a "ter" ending?
>
>>bother = make trouble
>
> possibly of Celtic origin
>
>>brother = make from wedlock a sibling.
>
> < IE *bhra:ter-
>
>>both = make a choice
>
> from Old English ba: neuter of begen "both" and tha:, plural of
>thaet "that" (< IE *to-)
>
>>breath = make air enter the lungs
>>breathe = make a soft utterance
>>breather = one who breathes
>
> < IE *gwhre:- "to smell, breathe"
>
>>brethren = make brothers
>
> old plural of "brother"
>
> One thing to be noted about Mr. Whittet's "definitions" is his
>amazing willingness to reveal how semantically unconnected they are. Not
>to mention how wrong some of them are.
what I am looking for here are the patterns you so love Loren...:)
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Land Folk and Sea People, two different demographics, was Re: Mr. Whittet's Absurdities about Migrations...
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 00:46:48 GMT
In article <5394vs$2er@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>In article <538lgk$i8t@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>>>I thought the following, which I posted to sci.lang some weeks ago
>>>might be relevant to the discussion. This was a long thread about
>>>Slavic expansions versus Iranians and Turks, under the rather
>>>inappropriate heading of "Etymology of Warsaw and Kiev".
>
>[article on Central Asian ("steppe") archaeology and linguistics;
>interrupted by Steve's comments on "sea people"]
>
>I really don't see what the relevance of "sea people" is to an
>article dedicated to the history of the inner Eurasian land mass.
The "sea people", people defined as making their living on the
water, found rivers a natural extension of the sea. The rivers
were highways running for hundreds of miles into your "Eurasian
land mass", much as a penninsula sometimes juts out into the sea.
>
>>All of the peoples in these regions originally placed their
>>settlements along rivers. The rivers provided easy mobility
>>and the trade probably was about equally divided between
>>routes along the banks of rivers and the shores of seas.
>
>Not to mention drinking water for man and beast.
Yes, though before you drank water from a river downstream
of a number of middle bronze age settlements you might want
to boil it first. I think most drinking water then as now
came from wells.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Nomadic sedentism
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 01:06:16 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <53925c$685@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> [buying something ~ making a contract]
>
> A purchase, especially of soemting cheap, is often a rather quick
>act. Contracts are long-term.
In the "soukh" or bazaar nothing is purchased without the appropriate
ritual even today. Making a deal was considered quite an art form.
>>>And "beth" means "house", not "father" or "Ptah" or "creator".
>>It means something larger than house, more like place, Bethlehem,
>>Beth Shean, etc; and it has the sense of founded lehem, founded Shean.
>>in the sense of making a settlement.
>
> So what?
So the operative sense of the word is recognition of the process of
making, founding or creating not just the end result of owning a house.
>
>>>>betroth = make arrangements to wed, possible kinship term
>>>be- is a common Germanic prefix. The root is "troth", related to
>>>"truth".
>
>>hmmm, you mean as in the Egyptian Thoth? ...
>
> Then how did that r get in there???
That's a good question. I think the answer is the Egyptian verb
"iri" meaning to make or do, is usually written without the expected
phonetic compliment as "r". Thoth (thought) in action makes "truth"
>
>>Keep in mind that Egyptian gods are specific instances or examples
>>(ideas of the good if you will) of general principles like truth, beauty,
>>and in the case of Thoth wisdom. ...
>
> I don't see how that is the case.
Here a little light reading might be in order. Might I recomend
you start with Budge 'Gods of the Egyptians" and work up to
Gardiner and Faulkner?
>
>>>>better = make improvements
>>>From Germanic *bat-iza
>>So we have Germanic bat means "make"?
>
> Of course not. This is a comparative, and the bat- part is
>ultimately derived from IE *bhad- "good".
bhad= good? sounds a little batty to me...:)
>
>>>>bitter = make a bad taste
>>>Related to "bite", i.e "biting taste" (*bit-er).
>>Ok, it begins to appear that the vowels are of some importance here...
>
> As if that was some great discovery [sarcasm].
>
>>without the vowels, given just "btr", how do you know, other
>>than by context, whether or not to add some seasoning?
>>Does it taste better? or bitter?
>
> Not to mention batter or butter.
>
>>>>brethren = make brothers
>>>Related to brother, of course.
>
> The old plural, complete with Germanic umlaut.
>
>>but yet given just the consonants how would I know
>>whether or not I was the brthr or the brthr
>
> So what?
I am sure whichever I chose you would claim it were the "other"
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Land Folk and Sea People, two different demographics, was Re: Mr. Whittet's Absurdities about Migrations...
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 01:11:22 GMT
In article <539jto$pm4@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>The "sea people", people defined as making their living on the
>water, found rivers a natural extension of the sea. The rivers
>were highways running for hundreds of miles into your "Eurasian
>land mass", much as a penninsula sometimes juts out into the sea.
Yes, a great aquatic empire that is conveniently hidden from
written record [sarcasm].
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Nomadic sedentism
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 01:18:56 GMT
In article <539l28$pm4@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>>>And "beth" means "house", not "father" or "Ptah" or "creator".
>>>It means something larger than house, more like place, Bethlehem,
>>>Beth Shean, etc; and it has the sense of founded lehem, founded Shean.
>>>in the sense of making a settlement.
>> So what?
>So the operative sense of the word is recognition of the process of
>making, founding or creating not just the end result of owning a house.
That's absolute baloney. "House" seems to be metaphorically
extended to something like "place" here; none of that blah-blah-blah
about making someting need figure here.
["Thoth" > troth...]
>> Then how did that r get in there???
>That's a good question. I think the answer is the Egyptian verb
>"iri" meaning to make or do, is usually written without the expected
>phonetic compliment as "r". Thoth (thought) in action makes "truth"
But that does not explain how the r got *inside* the word. What
idiocy.
["better"...]
>> Of course not. This is a comparative, and the bat- part is
>>ultimately derived from IE *bhad- "good".
>bhad= good? sounds a little batty to me...:)
Why not? :-) Proto-Indo-European != modern English.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Linguistic question - LONGEST WORD
From: malloy00@io.com (MA Lloyd)
Date: 6 Oct 1996 20:14:30 -0500
millerwd@ix.netcom.com(wd&aeMiller;) writes:
>I have a rather odd request for someone who speaks Kechua (sp?).
>I am not a specialist in any way in mesoamerican antrhopology, so I
>figured someone here could answer this question.
>Is this the longest word in the world?
>UKYAYSINAYAWASQAYKIMANTAPACHAPUNTAQSI
Not even close. Chemical names are a single word, and complicated organic
molecule names, if written out in full, could be pages long. Really though
this is a meaningless question, it falls apart for the same reason you can't
find the longest sentence in English (one can always keep adding more
copies of 'very' to an adjective), since some languages allow you to fuse
the intensifiers into a single word, and allow more than one....
--
-- MA Lloyd (malloy00@io.com)
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 01:29:16 GMT
In article <539jdl$pm4@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>By itself "p" has the sense of base or pedestal. The god Ptah
>built the base or pedestal on which the sky is supported of iron.
>"t" by itself is a phonetic "t" and represents a loaf of bread rising
>which now that I think of it is a well known image of genesis.
>"h" is the twisted flax which forms the wick of a candle so in a
>way it has the sense of potential energy
Where does all this come from?
>"pt" "sky", or "heaven"
Doesn't fit your hypothesis of pedestal + rising bread.
>"Pth" is the god Ptah; ...
So?
>"ptr" means "behold", "see", "watch me do it"
Doesn't fit semantically with that would-be decomposition.
>The verb "iri" "make", "do" is usually written without the
>expected phoenetic compliment as "r"
That's because of omitting the vowels.
>> emptor is an agent noun derived from emere "to buy", from IE *em-
>>"to take, distribute"
>to buy is to make a deal or contract with an offer and acceptance
>of the price which creates an agreement or a meeting of the minds
Mr. Whittet, I don't see the relevance of that comment. Now why
don't you learn some Latin grammar and see for yourself where the -ptor
of emptor came from?
>> One thing to be noted about Mr. Whittet's "definitions" is his
>>amazing willingness to reveal how semantically unconnected they are. Not
>>to mention how wrong some of them are.
>what I am looking for here are the patterns you so love Loren...:)
So what?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Land Folk and Sea People, two different demographics, was Re: Mr. Whittet's Absurdities about Migrations...
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 01:59:57 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <539jto$pm4@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>>The "sea people", people defined as making their living on the
>>water, found rivers a natural extension of the sea. The rivers
>>were highways running for hundreds of miles into your "Eurasian
>>land mass", much as a penninsula sometimes juts out into the sea.
>
> Yes, a great aquatic empire that is conveniently hidden from
>written record [sarcasm].
Is it?
Are you arguing that there is no evidence for the use of waterways
in Europe in the Bronze Age?
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Nomadic sedentism
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 02:25:01 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <539l28$pm4@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>>>>And "beth" means "house", not "father" or "Ptah" or "creator".
>>>>It means something larger than house, more like place, Bethlehem,
>>>>Beth Shean, etc; and it has the sense of founded lehem, founded Shean.
>>>>in the sense of making a settlement.
>
>>> So what?
>
>>So the operative sense of the word is recognition of the process of
>>making, founding or creating not just the end result of owning a house.
>
> That's absolute baloney. "House" seems to be metaphorically
>extended to something like "place" here; none of that blah-blah-blah
>about making someting need figure here.
The difference is between thinking in process terms and simply
looking at the end result. The ideograms such as those on the
Palette of Narmer and the stele of Naram Sin which show the
symbol of the adze (phonetic "mr") make clear that the building
of canals and walled cities was viewed as a process requiring
organization and leadership. Building was a verb, not just a noun.
>
> ["Thoth" > troth...]
>>> Then how did that r get in there???
>
>>That's a good question. I think the answer is the Egyptian verb
>>"iri" meaning to make or do, is usually written without the expected
>>phonetic compliment as "r". Thoth (thought) in action makes "truth"
>
>But that does not explain how the r got *inside* the word. What idiocy.
Forsooth! You are of course right to chide me here Loren.
Who ever heard of a word being composed of parts which could
be broken off and then reassembled into other compositions...:)
...snip...
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Sumerian, Ur, Excavation Graves of Kings
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 02:33:25 GMT
Uwe Schuss wrote:
>Hy,
>My name is Yvonne and I'm new in this News-Group.
>I look for some Web-Sites with Information about the Excavations
>(1927-1929 in Ur) of the Graves of the King of Ur (A-bargi, Schub-ad).
>Do some one know something about this Ecavations?
>Excuse me, if I made some errors in the NewsGroup-nettikette.
>Thank You for your help
You are doing fine.
I'm doing a search right now and I think I've found one useful site so
far in English. In addition I located several sites in German, but
since I don't read German, I've got no idea if they are relevant or
not. Try:
http://www.taisei.co.jp/cg_e/ancient_world/ur/aur.html
There are three clickable pictures on this page from Ur, and links to
what looks like a general ancient history site.
later...
I checked out a bit more. This looks like a rather nice picture site.
Not much in the way of words, but the pictures are nice and cover a
good part of the ancient world.
Still later...
Also try:
http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/ABZU/ABZU_REGINDX_MESO.HTML#1
Which is a link page from the University of Chicago for Ancient
Mesopotamia. I don't know how much Ur stuff they've got, but it looks
like a very good starting place.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar...Craftah
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 03:01:50 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <539jdl$pm4@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>>By itself "p" has the sense of base or pedestal. The god Ptah
>>built the base or pedestal on which the sky is supported of iron.
>
>>"t" by itself is a phonetic "t" and represents a loaf of bread rising
>>which now that I think of it is a well known image of genesis.
>
>>"h" is the twisted flax which forms the wick of a candle so in a
>>way it has the sense of potential energy
>
> Where does all this come from?
Gardiner, with a little Faulkner and Budge thrown in for good measure.
>
>>"pt" "sky", or "heaven"
>
> Doesn't fit your hypothesis of pedestal + rising bread.
Doesn't it? Look at an elementary science text trying to explain
the Big Bang. See the Raisin's move apart as the bread rises...
>
>>"Pth" is the god Ptah; ...
>
> So?
>
>>"ptr" means "behold", "see", "watch me do it"
>
> Doesn't fit semantically with that would-be decomposition.
>
>>The verb "iri" "make", "do" is usually written without the
>>expected phoenetic compliment as "r"
>
> That's because of omitting the vowels.
No, it is because in Egyptian tertiae infirmae verbs, or verbs
in which the third and last radical consonant is a weak i or w
the weak final radical is but rarely written out.
>>> emptor is an agent noun derived from emere "to buy", from IE *em-
>>>"to take, distribute"
>
>>to buy is to make a deal or contract with an offer and acceptance
>>of the price which creates an agreement or a meeting of the minds
>
> Mr. Whittet, I don't see the relevance of that comment. Now why
>don't you learn some Latin grammar and see for yourself where the -ptor
>of emptor came from?
The point, Loren, is where did it come from before it reached
your latin grammar. Emo, ere, emi, emptus...
aptus,= fitted, suitable, apt (well made crafted) a pt, ptah
creator, craftor, cra ftor, 'ptor, (or craftah, ptah)
It's your basic Boston accent...:)
>
>>> One thing to be noted about Mr. Whittet's "definitions" is his
>>>amazing willingness to reveal how semantically unconnected they are. Not
>>>to mention how wrong some of them are.
>
>>what I am looking for here are the patterns you so love Loren...:)
>
> So what?
you are right Loren, the giver should be thankful...:)
>
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Land Folk and Sea People, two different demographics, was Re: Mr. Whittet's Absurdities about Migrations...
From: August Matthusen
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 21:03:46 -0700
I hate to interrupt this debate, but I have to object to
the use of the term "Land Folk." The correct
spelling is LandFolk and this is a trademarked term (i.e.,
LandFolk(tm)). This phrase was defined in a post long ago
and, as such, the previous post holds a priority on the defintion.
I apologize for the waste of bandwidth by reposting
most of this (after all, for what other purpose
does bandwidth exist except to be wasted?). Without
further ado, brought to you by the wonders of Dejanews:
Subject: Technology of the LandFolk(tm)
[snip]
..... the contribution provided to civilization by the
predecessors to the Chacoans, who were among the greatest
of the LandFolk(tm).
These people were great wanderers. They left their home in the desert
Southwest and began wandering east across the face of America searching
for
the rising sun. They reached the shores of the Atlantic, and this
saddened
them greatly, for they saw the great water as an impediment in their
search
for the rising sun. Not knowing of boats, like sea-faring peoples, they
knew not what to do and they contemplated deeply. They knew of
traversing
great stretchs of land by walking and had often bridged rivers so they
could walk over them. Thus it came to them to bridge the ocean with a
pontoon bridge; picking the last pontoons and placing them in the
front.
In this way they entered into the Atlantic and began crossing it on foot
on
their pontoons.
They came to a great island in the Atlantic which the poor native
inhabitants knew of as Atlantis. The Proto-Chacoans made their home
there
and found that it was easier to build roads on land than on the water.
They
built roads which crisscrossed Atlantis. They built great spires and
towers
with roads leading to every level of the towers and spires. They built
so
much on the island that it began to experience isostatic subsidence and
sank
slowly beneath the ocean under its own weight. The Proto-Chacoans saw
the
land sinking and got while the getting was good, once more moving to the
east
on their pontoons. They passed through the "Pillars of Herakles" and
continued east until they came to the land to be known as Italy. They
settled
on seven hills which would come to be known as Rome. They continued
their
road building, but after their experience in Atlantis they decided that
they
would limit it to one or two levels.
They built a great road system and aqueducts. The native Romans began
using
the roads for commerce and then discovered that they could transport
large
numbers of troops on the roads quickly and easily. The Romans began to
dominate the world on the roads built by the Proto-Chacoans. Such
blatant
aggression saddened the Proto-Chacoans.
They traveled more to the east and in an attempt to stem waves of
aggressive
mongols, they built the Great Wall of China. This being done they
continued
traveling to the east and came to the Pacific. They crossed this on
their
pontoons and returned to their desert southwest lands where they knew
the
sunlight was bright and pure. They returned to the Chaco area and using
their practical experience, they built a great system of roadways.
They
governed wisely and peacfully living in harmony.
However, the idyllic utopia of Chaco was finally disrupted. A huge mass
of
windblown calcareous dust(tm) came from nowhere and settled upon the
land and
choked all the people, in effect snuffing them out with the exception of
one
small band who lived to tell the story. The next day a second storm
came up
and blew most of the dust away and rain washed away the rest as quickly
as it
had come. The survivors called this series of events the great white
out or
as it was know in Chacoan the "whitt^et" which literally meant a great
blinding snow storm of inconsequential tiny bits of unrelated material
which
when closely scrutinized or studied vanishes leaving little or nothing
behind.
Nowdays the legend of the whitt^et is used to frighten small children
and the
feeble minded.
Small quantities of the windblown calcareous dust(tm) have been
lithified and
are commonly known as whittetite. Legend has it that people give
whittetite
to others whom they do not like to induce a state of confusion and
bafflement.
Regards ;-),
August Matthusen
PS this previous post, of course, ignores the contributions of the
LandFolk(tm) in constructing pyramidical roadways currently
found on the Giza plateau; their whimsical excursions
into surrealistic/Dadaistic roadways at Nazca; and does not discuss at
all the ongoing conspiracy to hide all the achievements of the
LandFolk(tm).
Subject: Re: ABC & racist pseudoscience
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 17:04:14 -0700
Martin Stower wrote:
> Steve_Graham@setanta.ac.ie (Steve Graham) wrote:
[. . .]
> >I think that von Daniken's emphasis on non-European sites was more
> >because he could only spin theories where facts were sparse and his
> >readership was unfamiliar with the subject.
> >By using examples remote from Europe and North America, he could sell
> >his books in Europe and North America...
> >My opinion: Not a Nazi, just a buffoon.
> A vulgarian repeating vulgar prejudice, and recycling a genre stuffed with
> vulgar prejudice.
Danniken's only semi-original idea is not that we were visited by
Aliens, but that they had engineered us genetically. Such idea
translates to a vulgarity from many a viewpoint. E.v.D also omits
to include the Apes in the said gen. engineering to account for
the tiny difference between the genes of humans and chimpanzees.
Curiously, at the time of Daniken's going public, it was fashionable
to discuss the inevitability of genetical engineering in order
to "improve" one's populations to compete with other rival nations
also "improving" their own standards.
On the whole, such theories strike me by their introduction of
artificial differences into humankind.
Imagine that everyone believes E.v.D.'s theory of "improvement
through genetical ingineering": Then, how do you account for racial
differences, and for differences between many other subgroups?
Who is the "Latest Model"? Who was designed primarily as a slave?
Such beliefs would indeed quickly lead to attitudes, which humanists
don't see as pretty..
IMO, Danniken's rise to stardom was due not so much to his books,
as to his TV-film.
Jiri
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 17:36:23 -0700
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >Stella Nemeth wrote:
> >> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >> There are two small problems with this objection to the Egyptians
> >> building the pyramids.
> >Sheesh, Stella it's not an objection to the Egyptians building
> >the pyramids..
> No? Don't tell me that we've finally convinced you... Should I
> declare victory??
If you enjoy Pyrrhic victories :)
> >> One, if you are building a tomb for a living god, nothing is too good
> >> or too expensive for him. Especially if the living god in question
> >> has total control of the purse strings. Just because you think that
> >> building a pyramid is silly doesn't mean that it didn't make perfect
> >> sense to the Egyptians who continued building expensive tombs for
> >> every king (sometimes more than one per king) and for most of the
> >> king's family and the local nobles for several thousand years.
> >Ahem, Stella, it's reactionary to think that Egyptians enjoyed
> >such senseless labor. I am appalled that some around here are this
> >much politically incorrect!
> Kindly remember that we are not them and they are not us. You would
> consider it senseless labor to work on building a pyramid. They
> thought it was a good job with great benefits. After all, if you
> worked for the living god, you got to serve him in the afterlife too.
If you had to slave on the pyramid hauling blocks, you probably dreaded
his afterlife projects.. You'd rather go to Hell!
> >However, were the kingdom's subjects imbued with some spirit, such
> >as dwells in the Pyramid, and only if their own children would have
> >some benefit from all this labor - they would pull the hempen ropes
> >with some heart.
> Well, the kids did get to eat well and live in a nice "suburban" town.
> We've found the ration lists and a workman's village.
Sensational - ration lists from the Great Pyramid - found!
How come I haven't heard of this stupendous discovery?
> >The sense of purpose is all over the Pyramid. It is so obvious.
> >It precludes the possibility of being a tomb quite clearly.
> >a: The way to the King's Chamber was sealed by the granite plugs.
> >b: There was no body, nor any kind of a lid for the granite coffer
> >furnishing the chamber. This heart of the pyramid serves a different
> >purpose. It is still alive
> We don't know if there was a body or not originally. The three
> pyramids at Giza have been open for so many centuries we have no idea
> what was found when they were first opened even where we do have some
> records as a result of the opening.
The material evidence - the tunnels - is still there. We see the tunnel
Al Mamoun's men had dug in bypassing the granite plugs enroute to
the King's chamber. There is no other possible approach.
> The absence of a body for each pyramid today means nothing.
Just the absence of a lid from the coffer in the K.C. eclipses all
doubts by itself, as there is no opening for the lid to have been
taken out through. Yet, the pyramid was completed and sealed..
> We don't even know if we have located all of the chambers in all of
> the pyramids.
Where is the secret chamber containing flexible glass, non-rusting
weapons, super-accurate maps, secrets of magic (science), etc? So said
rumours collected on the streets of 8th century Cairo by Al Mamoun's
informers.
Isn't this amazing? It means that there were "pyramidiots" on the
streets of Cairo in 800's A.D.! Can this be the same Christian population,
which had burned down the Alexandrian library, led by fanatics? Did some
actually read the books while burning them?
> >> very easy to tell when the economy was in trouble in Egypt. The tombs
> >> got smaller.
> >I don't think so, because temples got bigger.
> Actually when the temples got bigger, so did the tombs. When the
> tombs got really small (late in the Third Intermediate Pyramid, for
> example) they weren't building much in the way of temples either.
Mastery of architecture didn't cease after the IV. dynasty. Many big
and fabulous structures were built later. And many MINI-pyramids.
Those must have been razor-sharpening shops! :)
> >> Two, before you build granite forts, you need to have enemies against
> >> whom a fort is a reasonable response. The Egyptians were the meanest,
> >> baddest folk around. And the Egyptians had a desert on two sides for
> >> protection, a huge inland sea on the third side, and a mass of white
> >> water and mountain ranges on the fourth to protect them. In short,
> >> they laughed at their enemies for millennia without the forts. They
> >> didn't need them.
> >Yet, they were invaded from all over, not long after. Again, there were
> >horses, ships, and armies, which could travel long distances. The
> >deserts were somewhat smaller, had more oases, and the Nubians could be hostile
> >at times, too. In short, the point is still moot.
> Actually not. They weren't invaded from all over. And it was several
> centuries later. It only looks like a short time because it was all
> so very long ago. But put it into perspective. Just how much use
> would a 300 year old fort do us today if we were invaded tomorrow?
An Egyptian granite fort would protect admirably from Scuds, etc.
Recall, how a building in Grozny, Chechnya lasted through lengthy
bombardment recently. It was built of granite. We witnessed it on TV.
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: Nomadic sedentism
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 05:01:32 GMT
In article <539plt$205@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
[responding to me]
[Hebrew "Beth <>" place names...]
>> That's absolute baloney. "House" seems to be metaphorically
>>extended to something like "place" here; none of that blah-blah-blah
>>about making someting need figure here.
>The difference is between thinking in process terms and simply
>looking at the end result. ...
Pure squidlike ink-squirting. And absolutely irrelevant, of course.
>> ["Thoth" > troth...]
>>>> Then how did that r get in there???
>>>That's a good question. I think the answer is the Egyptian verb
>>>"iri" meaning to make or do, is usually written without the expected
>>>phonetic compliment as "r". Thoth (thought) in action makes "truth"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is rather bizarre, to say the least. "Thought" is the past
tense of "think", which looks less like "Thoth".
>>But that does not explain how the r got *inside* the word. What idiocy.
>Forsooth! You are of course right to chide me here Loren.
>Who ever heard of a word being composed of parts which could
>be broken off and then reassembled into other compositions...:)
For the first time ever, Mr. Whittet has shown some humility.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Land Folk and Sea People, two different demographics, was Re: Mr. Whittet's Absurdities about Migrations...
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 05:04:45 GMT
In article <539o6u$205@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>In article <539jto$pm4@shore.shore.net>,
>>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>>The "sea people", people defined as making their living on the
>>>water, found rivers a natural extension of the sea. The rivers
>>>were highways running for hundreds of miles into your "Eurasian
>>>land mass", much as a penninsula sometimes juts out into the sea.
>> Yes, a great aquatic empire that is conveniently hidden from
>>written record [sarcasm].
>Are you arguing that there is no evidence for the use of waterways
>in Europe in the Bronze Age?
So what if there was? This supposed aquatic empire has yet to
show up in the archeological or historical or linguistic records.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Father=Creator=Pater=Ptah=Pitar...Craftah
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 05:15:44 GMT
In article <539rqu$6qk@shore.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>>By itself "p" has the sense of base or pedestal. The god Ptah
>>>built the base or pedestal on which the sky is supported of iron.
>>>"t" by itself is a phonetic "t" and represents a loaf of bread rising
>>>which now that I think of it is a well known image of genesis.
>>>"h" is the twisted flax which forms the wick of a candle so in a
>>>way it has the sense of potential energy
>> Where does all this come from?
>Gardiner, with a little Faulkner and Budge thrown in for good measure.
All that's going on here is taking the phonetic spelling of
"Ptah" and interpreting it ideographically -- and coming up with some
absolutely perverted semantics.
Try doing that with English some time, using the ideographic
meanings of the letters in the ultimate ancestor of the Roman alphabet.
Thus, "bad" becomes house-ox-door, "bag" becomes house-ox-camel, etc. I'm
sure that one can go further and find Whittetian etymologies for many
English words this way.
>>>"pt" "sky", or "heaven"
>> Doesn't fit your hypothesis of pedestal + rising bread.
>Doesn't it? Look at an elementary science text trying to explain
>the Big Bang. See the Raisin's move apart as the bread rises...
The Big Bang was not proposed until this century.
>> Mr. Whittet, I don't see the relevance of that comment. Now why
>>don't you learn some Latin grammar and see for yourself where the -ptor
>>of emptor came from?
>The point, Loren, is where did it come from before it reached
>your latin grammar. Emo, ere, emi, emptus...
Indo-European.
>aptus,= fitted, suitable, apt (well made crafted) a pt, ptah
From Latin apere "to fasten".
>creator, craftor, cra ftor, 'ptor, (or craftah, ptah)
Absolute crap. English "creator" is borrowed from Latin, where it
is an agent noun formed from crea:re "to create", and this is from IE
*ker- "to grow".
>It's your basic Boston accent...:)
Sure, sure [sarcasm].
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Stop trashing Henry Lincoln!
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 23:37:15 -0700
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> [some snipped]
> If you do a DejaNews search for this newsgroup you will find a thread
> that was here a few months ago where several people, who had
> personally done extensive checking of this theory explained why the
> idea that the Old Kingdom pyramids are a "star chart" is false.
>
> From my memory of that thread, it turns out that if you take a map of
> the pyramids and superimpose a map of the relevant portion of the
> heavens (using several different viewpoints as the people who checked
> out this theory did) you discover that it is impossible to match the
> pyramids with the stars. In fact, some of the pyramid/star
> correspondences in the book are so impossible to match that they turn
> out to be on opposite sides of the two superimposed diagrams.
Another thing that shows Hancock et al are a little less than purely
honest I had noticed when watching one of those Hancock sphinx
"documentaries". In light of what Stella just said about the star chart
being less than accurate, read this not-very-exaggerated paraphrasing of
Dr. G. Hancock:
"...and when the entire Giza necropolis, the pyramids, the sphinx, the
temples, [etc], are compared to a star map of the heavens, we are shown
a PRECISE[he really EMPHASIZES these words] mirror image of the EXACT
locations of the star chart with PHENOMENAL ACCURACY that could only be
achieved by peoples with an INCREDIBLY..." etc etc.
Kinda tips you off, no?
For the record, I certainly don't throw out Bauvals ideas, or Hancock's
either, but you certainly can't take them at their word. They like
money as much as the next guys.
--
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
Copy the linklist page if you want! (do not publish though)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/