Subject: Re: "Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology" 1996 edition
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 03:39:29 GMT
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> I recently found a reference work in the Library which goes
> back beyond the usual Greek and Latin. I was blown away.
> A fast perusal (becuse it was a reference work I couldn't
> take it out) showed Semitic Etymologies, Tocharian etymologies,
> Egyptian Etymologies, Middle Egyptian Etymologies, the list
> of languages went on for several pages.
>
> The author explained that for anyone with a knowledge of
> Semitic languages there were quite a few English words
> with Semitic roots. As I said, I was stunned. Saida
> far from presenting an outrageous premise is just in
> line with current thinking.
Steve, no one doubts that. And I would bet that 99% of them are either
Arabic or Hebrew, and maybe even some Aramaic. Here's a bunch of Arabic
ones that I posted previously --
admiral, albacore, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, alfalfa, algebra,
algorism, alkali, almanac, amalgam, aniline, arsenal, artichoke,
assassin, attar, aubergine, azimuth, azure, bard (horse armour, not the
singer -- that's Gaelic), bedouin, benzoin, borax, burnoose, cable,
calabash, calibre, calif, camphor, candy (from Farsi via Arabic),
carafe, caraway, carob, carrack, cinnabar, cipher, coffee, cotton,
crimson, crocus, cumin, damask, elixir, gauze, gazelle, genii, gerbil,
ghoul, giraffe, guitar, halva, hareem, hashish, henna, howdah, jar,
jasmine, julep, kismet, kohl, lacquer, lapis lazuli (only the "lazuli"
part, and that is prob. of Farsi origin), lemon, lilac, lime, lute,
magazine, marzipan, mattress, minaret, mohair, monsoon, mosque, mummy,
myrrh, nadir, natron, olibanum, orange (goes back to Farsi actually),
popinjay, racket (as in 'tennis'), ream (as in 'paper') safari, saffron,
sap (as in "to dig/mine"), satin (Chinese via Arabic), sash, scallion,
sequin, sesame, sherbert, sofa, spinach, sugar, sumac, syrup, talc,
tabby, talisman, tamarind, tambourine, tarboosh, tariff, typhoon
(Chinese via Arabic), zenith, zero......
And every single one of them is a loan word.
Troy
Subject: Re: Origins of Europeans..
From: Claudio De Diana
Date: 11 Oct 1996 07:38:01 GMT
hvlcrt@axess.com (H.V) wrote:
>In article <53b08e$pjf@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>,
>sniper@tep.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de says...
> so for example we know for sure that the Celti were
>> red-haired, pale white skin and very tall (this at least confirmed
>>
>Aren't those traits more characteristic of the germanic tribes of that
>time ? For example. i read somewhere that the typical red hair of the
>Irish isnt't a celtic trait, but rather a scandinavian one, from the
>Viking invasions.
Well, I am not an expert of the history of that area
however if you allow me some time to dig out
the original quote I'll show the phrase of a latin
author speaking of "red-haired and pale Celts".
What I want to point out that he was referring
to the tribe of Celts --> the Roman were fighting at that
time(*) <-- however it seems quite sure that these characteristic
were quite spread.
>
>Another point is this :
>France was known as Gaul, a celtic country. So, i assume that from the
>earliest times, even with the various invasions that have happened,
>most Frenchmen are of "celtic stock". Now, most of them do not have
>red/blond hair with blue eyes. Why ?
Actually because there are no more Celts.
France was a Celtic country before the arrival of the Romans
and we have to say that they made no attempt in "incorporating"
the pre-existing Celtic population (I want to say that sometimes
the Romans tried more to get an "ally" putting a "local king"
in a position of control - a kind of protectorate. In the
case of Gaul they preferred more to fight to gain direct control).
Secondly, after the collapse of the WRE the German Tribes
arrived and the tribe that took control of Gaul was known
as "Franchi". Then in "Francia" developed a different CULTURE
than in "Germania" or "Italia" but the genetic background
was basically similar although with different percentage.
This is an attempt of a brief and fair explanation,
clearly if you consider nationalism then you will see,
let's say, "different" views. In order to build up
a nation first you have to find "your ancestors", possibly
different from the ones of the neighbouring countries
(Spain - Hiberi // Germany - Germans // Italy - Latins etc..)
but if you look at history then you see that there were
so many wars and migrations that it is IMPOSSIBLE(**) in Europe
to pick up a "genetically pure" population (the only people who do
this are, now and in the past, extreme right wing people),
so I do understand why you put the disclaimer :=)
>
>disclaimer : i ask these question simply out of curiosity. I have NO
>political or racialist goals at all. Also, i'm not a specialist of
>anthropology orpopulation genetics, so please forgive any huge mistakes
>i might have made in this post.
>
I hope that my post help but take care that I was referring
to a particular tribe in a particular moment.
Best Regards,
Claudio De Diana
>H.V
>
(*) Actually these tribes were located in the NW of Italy
and along the Po river.
(**) And you cannot imagine how happy I am when I think
this, the differences are in the culture (and NOT in the genetic)
unfortunately some of these cultures were not compatible but
it is amazing to see the way in which the leader of aggresive countries
used "genetical" arguments, eventually bullshitting about
population that probably did not exist (or were not
in the area they pretended, z.b. "Arians"), sometimes I
wonder if a better knowledge of history could prevent the
rise of Fascism .. but this I think is a little off-topic.
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 11 Oct 1996 11:49:14 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
writes:
>
>>>>where NINDA is an ideograph for bread.
>>>Piotr denies such things as ideographs existed.
>
>> Where did he do that?
>
>I actually have to agree with Steve for a change. The notion of
>"ideaograophs" is not a very good one. The cuneiform system that was used
by
>the Hittites, adapted from Babylonian (possibly through Hurrian hands),
>consisted of syllabic signs, classifiers (such as "wood"), and logograms, or
>"word signs". In Hittite writing the latter are a bit complex as they would
>write frozen Sumerian as well as Akkadian words either by themselves or with
>syllabic indicators to express certain Hittite lexemes. In most cases we
know
>what the Hittite words that hide under these logograms were, but in a few
>cases, where no syllabic variant has been preserved, apparently
Hittitologists
>have not been able to reconstruct the word.
What we are talking about ...
Petroglyphs
Glyphs
Hieroglyphics
Pictographs
Ideographs - "ideaograophs"
Syllabic signs
Classifiers
Syllabic indicators
Lexemes
Logos
...can best be described as symbols.
My point would be that outside of their linguistic value
they remain symbols. Cultures which share a symbolic
vocabulary, whether it is the Logo of a god or city,
recognize familiar symbols which mark each others
territory in much the same way that dogs do.
On the Phaistos Disk there are several of the same
symbols that mark the Kassites kudurru. If they serve
only the function of letting the gods witness a boundary
on the kudurru, then that is probably their function on
the Phaistos Disk as well. If they serve a larger function
on the Phaistos Disk, which is dated several centuries
earlier than the kudurru, then it would be interesting to
know what that is.
Put aside for the moment the idea that this Phaistos Disk
represents language just deal with it as clusters of symbols.
Begin by just identifying the glyphs on the Phaistos
Disk which are clearly the logos of Mesopotamian cities or gods,
Note that some of them are recognized in Egypt as well.
Add to that the glyphs which are Akkadian or Sumerian
pictographic symbols.
Note that some of them are present on statues, vases and
cylinder seals running into the Old Babylonian period c 1750 BC
and that some of them are recognized in Egypt as well.
For good measure check the Hittite/Luwian, Syrian and Canaanite
hieroglyphics, and logos in the same way.
I would be interested to know if there are let's say ten
such matches out of as I recall 45 some odd glyphs, is
that significant?
steve
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:56:34 -0700
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > at least as sensible as those silly Europeans building memorials to the
> > > torture and death of their God, who doesn't even walk among them in
> > > physical form, contemporaneously, as Pharaoh did.
> > You wrote: "SILLY Europeans"
> > their God
> > What kind of an atheistic European-hater are you?
> Atheist, yes; hater, no (I am of mostly European descent). Just
> reflecting your own arguments from a different angle.
Firstly, I don't evoke someone else's God, and say that he can't
even do something any pharaoh could.
Europeans don't build memorials to the torture and death of their God,
but they build churches, etc., to worship in. To commemorate the
death of Jesus - they have the cross-symbol.
> > Mister, in all due respect, what kind of a silly goose are you anyway?
> > Your style of rudeness doesn't belong on sci.archy, and I just don't
> > feel like wasting time on a racist.
>
> Rudeness? You disparage the "sensibility" and question the motives of
> ancient Egyptians, and call me rude?
No, I call you rude, but I defend the Egyptians, and Ancients
in general, as I think that they had a lot more class than you do.
> I submit that you have ilttle
> imagination for theistic thought and ways of life other than your own,
> if you can't grasp the analogy I was offering.
I grasped it alright, but it was like smelling mental miasma.
There are only a few well behaved atheists, when it comes to
discussing religion in general, and you ain't one of them.
> And as for what belongs
> where, I advise you to consider the newsgroup list you're spamming with
> this discussion.
Spamming - eh? Please send me a dollar for each of your insults.
BTW, I see that your reply was addressed to four groups.
Good, this way more people get to read this interesting, instructive
and trendy subject. Should they not want to read the thread, they
can always bypass it. That's all.
To return an advice, consider that you are spamming no matter what
you try, because you are always so vacuous.
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: Linguistic time depth
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 11 Oct 1996 12:43:26 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <53cats$c2p@shore.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>In article <53bdu0$5ok@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>>>Let's take Linear B. I think we're all agreed the language of the
>>>Linear B tablets is Greek.
>
>>Yes, But what is Greek at that point in time?
>
> Mycenaean Greek.
Where is Mycenean Greek spoken? What dates are we talking?
Keep in mind the close link between the Mycenean Greeks
and the Minoans. There is Mycenean protogeometric pottery
along the coast of Palestine. There are Mycenean Hearths,
Was Mycenean Greek spoken here?
What about Cyprus? Anatolia? Syria? Libya and Egypt?
Did the Mycenean Greeks have emporia in those places?
The Mycenean Greeks were organized in terms of families,
households and brotherhoods. If a family moved somewhere
else did it cease to be a Mycenean family?
>
>[Hittite being noticeably different from Mycenaean Greek despite
>them being contemporaries...]
>>There are both similarities and differences. At least as many
>>similarities and differences in language as in script seems likely.
>
>A trivial statement. And let us NEVER forget that language != writing.
Good, so when we look at the writing of the Phaistos Disk we
don't need to worry about what language its in, we don't even
need to assume it represents a language at all. That is the point
of analysis which I wish to see used to examine it.
>
>>>As a matter of fact, one could argue that the Linear B tablets are so
>>>characteristically Greek, that in many ways they more closely resemble
>>>Modern Greek than they do Hittite.
>
>>To me Linear A and B resemble a hieratic form of the characters seen
>>in Hieroglyphic form on the Phaistoes Disk. This has a resemblence
>>to Luwian, Hieroglyphic Egyptian, even Pictographic Akkadian. That
>>admittedly does not mean the languages are related, but it does
>>show some cultural interface and contact.
>
>Resemblances in Mr. Whittet's imagination more than anything else.
I can only ask that those of you who have access to the glyphs
and pictographs and and hieroglyphics referenced here join me
in the comparison. For those who don't have them but wish to join
the discussion, I have put the Phaistos Disk on some web pages
starting with http://www1.shore.net/~whittet/rkology.htm
>
> If he's so sure the resemblances exist, he ought to make pictures
>from all the writing systems and put them up on his website
>(black-and-white GIFs would be fine). I've been willing to post detailed
>discussions of Proto-Indo-European; why can't Mr. Whittet do anything
>else but obfuscate like some ink-squirting squid?
The Phaistoes Disk has been up for some years now Loren,
and I have posted references to it several times in the past.
>
> [Language distances...]
>>I don't know that this necessarily follows. Suppose that language
>>changes at a decreasing rate as writing becomes more common
>>locking in the grammar and vocabulary.
>
>>>That takes us to approximately 5000 BC as the point where Greek and
>>>Hittite "meet", give or take a thousand years (Renfrew argues for
>>>7000/6500 BC, Mallory for 4000/3500 BC).
>
>>Suppose that Greek and Hittite meet c 1500 BC. Suppose that at that
>>time there is a great deal of liguistic flux like the chatter before a
>>meeting is called to order but that later on things quiet down and
>>after that point things proceed with but a single voice speaking.
>
>That's bullshit! Compare Greek and Hittite some time -- they are
>just too damn different to diverge so fast.
Compared to what? Both apparently have enough similarities to fall
in the same general category. They are Indo European as Arabic and
Hebrew are both Semitic. In the case of Arabic and Hebrew, how long
did that transition take?
> If you want historical examples, consider languages and language
>families with a long paper trail, like Latin and the Romance languages,
>Greek, Sanskrit and the modern Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi, etc.
The only evidence we have for written languages goes back as far
as writing. Here we are discussing some of the earliest examples
of writing. We are discussing the language now and not the writing
but the writing provides the evidence.
What makes you think the rate of change of language occurs always
at the same rate?
>
> [some more ink-squirting obfuscation deleted...]
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Pictographs, was Re: Linguistic time depth
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 11 Oct 1996 14:31:28 GMT
In article <325C0323.52D7@nic.smsu.edu>, mac566f@nic.smsu.edu says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>>
>> Whoops... looks like Michael Roaf is in trouble with you again!
>> The above reference is a table with three rows of glyphs labled
>> 3100, 2400 and 700 BC which he uses to show how the glyphs evolved.
>>
>
>These tables, which I think derive from the one published in S. Kramer's
>_The Sumerians_ (he borrowed the idea from Poebel), are the source of a
>great deal of misunderstanding about cuneiform writing. For one thing,
>they suggest a linear development of signs from Protoliterate line
>drawings to Neo-Assyrian cuneiform.
The more I look at the different systems the more struck I am by
the idea of there having been logos, much like modern corporate
logos, associated with different groups of people.
A city had a city god. The logo of the god represented the city.
A trader engaged in shipping lumber, grain, metal, amphora full
of olive oil probably had a seal which represented his phratra.
There may have been a gradual association of things like cattle
brands and the clay seals on clay pots with groups rather than
individuals.
> While this is generally true, some kinds of inscriptions,
>particularly seals and stamped bricks, often use linear forms
>of the signs.
The discussion was that writing in clay it is easier to draw
straight lines than curves. This was the first of several
transformations. At this stage the original image was still
recognizable even though somewhat abstracted.
A second transformation involved rotating the glyphs 90 degrees
the glyphs remained recognizably "pictographic"
>This does not mean that those inscriptions are *pictographic.*
I would say that if you can recognize pictorially what is being
represented, the glyph remains a pictograph. When it becomes so
abstracted that you cannot recognise what it represents, it is no
longer a pictograph.
In saying this you have to allow that someone who is familair
with a wider range of symbols may recognize a symbol through
several more transformations than someone who is not used to
reading symbols.
In that sense, architects like Michael Ventris who work with
drawings covered with symbols as a shorthand way of identifying
commonly used materials and components, have something of an
edge in following the development of glyphs.
>A table in the most popular Western Civilizations
>textbook actually labels Protoliterate characters
>as pictographs, ED III signs as ideograms, and
>Neo-Assyrian signs as phonetic characters!
Lets make this simple. Define the terms.
>
>The issue really comes down to what terms such as pictopraph,
>ideograph, and logograph mean. I follow Gelb in this.
>Writing systems, for instance,
Whoah. That's too big a jump. Define the terms first,
then tell everyone how you follow what Gelb says,
then move on to writing systems.
> Protoliterate Sumerian, which are composed of characters which
>look like the items they represent are called pictographic. This term
>merely speaks to the outward form of the writing, not its system for
>representing ideas.
So characters which look like the items they represent are
always considered pictographic, or just in protoliterate
Sumerian? Are the same characters considered pictographic
when they are found in Akkadian after the reign of Sargon
for example?
> Even the earliest Uruk texts show complete ideas, on
>the order of "Personal-Name (has) 10 sheep."
>Gelb calls the internal system of this writing logographic.
So the combination of several logographic glyphs to communicate
a complex idea is considered a writing system. How is this different
from the combination of several pictographs to communicate a complex
idea as for example in Hieroglyphic Egyptian?
>In later Sumerian and Akkadian writing, linear forms of cuneiform
>characters for writing in stone or stamping in bricks were based
>on the contemporary form of the cuneiform sign.
As late as c 2100 BC I found examples of what I would call
pictographic writing used to communicate such complex ideas
as the dedication of the temple of the goddess Geshtinanna
refurbished by Gudea. The "dingir, an" glyph for Star, a glyph for
amphora, the "se" glyph for ear of barley, the du, gin, gub glyph
for lower leg (Egyptian letter b) are all recognizable pictographs.
>Even if the dingir sign still looks starlike
>(Real stars look like points to me, not asterrisks -
>the ancients needed glasses.) the rest of the linear corpus
>is anything but pictographic.
In general I agree. There is a definite trend toward the cuneiform
but what's of interest is that there are still some recognizably
pictographic glyphs still in use.
> Cuneiform scripts are not pictographic.
Not entirely, no. Some elements in some cuneiform scripts dating
to as late as c 2100 BC clearly are.
>
>As for the Phaistos Disk which you have written about several times: The
>characters look like pictures, but probably represent syllables.
Yes, I agree. I think some of those are the same symbols found on
Kassite kudurru and some go back to the Pictographic Akkadian I
mentioned earlier.
>Gelb calls such writing outwardly pictographic, though the inner
>system is syllabic.
I would agree that the use of a systematic sylabic structure
eventually emerges. The symbolic structure remains however.
>Though the writing may look to you to be similar to early
>Sumerian, not only is the inner system completely different, but the
>character forms are divorced from the values which they represent.
I am not so much interested in the writing, as in the symbols.
If the symbols remain they could be picked up and used in the
form of logos to represent groups of people, places and functions.
Keep in mind the architects template with symbols for things like
building materials and components (Architectural Graphic Standards)
>Also, there may be some resemblance between some disk signs and Linear A
>signs, but there is not enough resemblance to show any connection
>between them.
I think there is, some have the same sorts of transformations you see
in Egyptian between Hieroglyphic and Hieratic forms.
> And why should there be? The Linear A characters seem to
>have been developed from hieroglyphic Minoan.
I think the Linear A, Linear B and Phaistoes Disk glyphs are
related. If you just take the recognizable logos of gods and
goddesses, and the recognizable Summerian/Akkadian/Egyptian
glyphs, you have perhaps 10 out of 45 glyphs on the disk.
Some of the other glyphs such as the boat, the ingot, the fish,
may be specific adaptations to Mycenean or Minoan references.
The dotted triangle of Asherah is a Canaanite reference.
It really is worth taking a look at.
> More likely the Phaistos Disk is evidence of an independent
>Minoan script which was replaced by Linear A, just as Elamite
>writing was replaced by cuneiform.
Do the investigation first, then draw the conclusion.
>
>Marc Cooper
steve
Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 11 Oct 1996 20:42:53 GMT
Stella Nemeth (S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:
: >: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?
: >Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:
: >: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]
: >: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
: >: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
: ....[sigh]...
: We've got a grammer problem here. And a badly written sentence. But,
: as far as I can see you aren't in disagreement about the facts.
: Steve said:
: 1. Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium.
: 2. Jehrico in Palestine.
: 3. Sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC.
: 4. Sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolitic.
: Although I also originally read the statement about the pottery as
: referring to Jerico, it is obvious from what Steve said later that
: they were two different statements in a series of four.
: This is Usenet guys. No one does four drafts of every message before
: they post it.
Naturally not. But a brief instant of reflection on draft #1 might be
nice.
Decent try to rehabilitate Steve, Stella, but I don't think it works. In a
part of the post you ellided, it's clear that his conception is that
pottery in the Near East dates back to 10,000 BC. As I pointed out, and
as Roaf makes clear at various points, that is incorrect.
Anyway, by this account, we have, in a thread on "Egyptian origins" a
sentence which is supposed to be construed as [claim about the Near East],
[non sequitor situated in Near East], [wildly out of context, very
indirect, and inaccurate claim about Japan], [claim about the Near East].
If this is so, then Steve has reached a new level of incomprehensibility,
one that places anything he might say out of reach of examination, even if
one were willing to make the effort (which grows increasingly unlikely).
Or, he could just admit he made a mistake.
Ben
Subject: Re: A State of Denial, or finding it hard to accept the facts: was Re: Linguistic diffusion: was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Karl Kluge
Date: 11 Oct 1996 17:08:25 -0400
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) writes:
> Thank you for hellping me make my point. This kudurru is from the 12th
> century, way after the Phaistos disk. If you read the book carefully, you
> would have learned that these "boundary stones" (actually they are land
> donations set up in temples) mostly come from between the 14th and 12th
> centuries. Actually, the side that is illustrated has NO WRITING on it.
> These are not "AKkadian pictograms" but symbols of the major deities of the
> time. The top row has Nanna (the moon), Ishtar (Venus), and Shamash (the
> sun), the next row, Anu, Enlil, Ea, and Ninhursag, and on it goes. None of
> this has anything to do with cities, trade, or anything of the sort, nor
> does it have anything to do with Egypt.
Piotr,
Since we're on the subject, what do you think of V. S. Tuman's claim that
these symbols indicate the ordering of the associated planets along the
Zodiac, and hence give the data? (See, for instance, V.S. Tuman and
R. Hoffman, "Rediscovering the Past... Astronomical Dating of Kudurru
SB22...", _Archaeoastronomy_ (College Park) X, 1987-8, pp. 124-138.)
Karl