Subject: Re: Bible Chronology vs. Archeology History, Intro (was: Part 1b)
From: dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:50:34 GMT
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 19:23:29 GMT, chiksika@tir.com (chiksika) wrote:
>Xina wrote:
>
>
>>There was no "Flood" of the bible. There is NO archeological,
>>geological, or biostratographic evidence. Next....
>
> While I have no intention of involving myself in this "debate" and
>admire your dueling with a closed mind who seems to think they have a
>direct channel to god him/herself,many cultures have a flood
>myth/story. Chinese,Sumerian,Chaldean,Mayan,Norse, and Native American
>cultures all have flood sories that have been handed down.My native
>tribe(Shawnee) has a flood story.
True, and these vary widely, eg the main Chinese flood myth has the Emperor
defeating the flood by building dykes, etc.
And, of course, most major civilizations grew up on flood plains.
Now I don't intend to sit here and
>call this absolute "proof",however my personal studies have shown IN
>MOST CASES there is at least a certain amount of truth in this type of
>data. At the end of the last ice age there was a tremendous amount of
>water which was either directly melted into the various bodies of
>water or through evaporation found it's way into the atmosphere.
But slowly -- so slowly, I've been told, that the typical nomadic group
wouldn't even notice it.
Still there were probably exceptions to this at various times, and of course
floods can occur in locations other than plains.
Subject: Re: Bible Chron scale versus Earth Chron, Intro2 (reply to SORTING)
From: Xina
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 07:23:49 -0600
Eliyehowah wrote:
> I accept God's nature as my sources.
This means I bow or humble myself
> to any scholar who presents physical data requiring me to find an answer> to any contradictions. I do not bow to mere hypothesis, nor to popular view,> nor to famed authors or scholars. Data MUST be from God (meaning physical).
Then this means you must produce the physical data that proves several
different things that your now oft published Gifs contain. One of them
being the (in)famous biblical flood, the other is the age of certain
humans on earth (if anything mankind lives longer now than he did in
ancient times), and the incredibly underestimated time frame that you
have for mankind's existence. Where are the evidences outside of these
gifs? These are wrong, and if the are not wrong, where are their root
sources at?
> Such data is dendrochron and C-14 etc. Yes, I humbly agree they must be> explained as to why their results. And I will admit the fields I have yet to know. If you wish to feel this makes me inadequate to represent my God that is your choice, but I will still present the case rather than sit back and watch.
You havent presented much of anything. You just admited the C-14 does
not match your figures, how is it that thousands of independant
scientists or even ones affiliated with established organizations have
not seen fit to prove these things that you think are correct. The
answer is, I would imagine, is that there *is* no proof outside of your
faith in your religion.
The bible was never intended to be taken as a literalism, and those who
take it as such are simply unable, or unwilling to see what is
underneath. This is not fault of their own, the data has been so
manipulated over history that its very difficult to ascetain what is
metaphor and what is history,it is blended.
There is an excellent book for any people of faith who have a difficult
time resolving it with what they know is the truth and what has been
scientifically proven, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop
Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture" by John Shelby Spong, (a bishop in
Episcopal Church) 1991, Harper Collins Publishing, ISBN 0-006-067518-7.
It is an excellent book, it is written objectively and by someone who
does have faith in his God and in what he knows is the truth. These
things are not incompatible, its just that he realizes (as some do not)
that to know what is in the mind of the Creator at all times is the
height of arrogance. I choose to be less arrogant, and just go by what
I can know now, and wait for the endresults whenever that time is.
> I will too. Chicago Oriental Institute's Richard Parker's from the Americana.
The OI has a wide range of study on the Near East. It will be
interesting to see who comes up with what.
Ankh udja seneb em Hotep!
Xina
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: "Paul E. Pettennude"
Date: 16 Nov 1996 08:24:08 GMT
Group,
I think you will find the following of interest....
Paul Pettennude
Some asked me to post my observations re: the script on the Olmec celts
identified by Chen, Hanping as Chinese in US News & World Report Nov. 4,
pp.
46-8. I have finally seen the article with the reproduction of the Olmec
grapsh and the section that Chen believed was similar to the oracle bone
script of the Shang.
1. the graphs isolated by Chen are not Chinese. They bear some
graphic similarity to some archaic Chinese graphs or parts of graphs but as
single graphs equal nothing and do not have the equivalents he assigned to
them. It is bogus.
2. obviously, the graphs/glyphs pulled out by Chen should be
considered within the context of the entire "inscription." This is
impossible as the rest of the marks bear none but a few isolated
similarities. In fact, the Olmec "script" may not represent language at
all, but like the Naxi and other ur-scripts, be more a code for
storytelling
than an actual transcription of language. The Shang oracle bone script, on
the other hand, is very advanced and unquestionably qualifies as belonging
to a writing system.
3. finally, the "inscription" must be considered within the context
of the sculptures. there is very little beyond an occasional face of human
representation in Shang period art (some carved jade figures, but these are
kneeling, often incised, and covered with animal decor, tatoos, clothes,
etc.). One famous bronze has a shaman like figure in the mouth of an
animal,
but there is no similarity to the Olmec representations. The only set of
free standing statues I know about belong to the neolithic Hongshan culture
discovered in the northern borderlands of present day China...separated
from
the Shang by thousands of years and from the Shang "homeland" by hundreds
of
miles (and certainly not "Chinese"). These naked sculptures are female,
some pregnant, and do not have the tall malformed cranium. They were found
in a temple/mortuary complex. There was no evidence of any script. (for
articles in English see works by Elizabeth Childs-Johnson or Tong,
Eng-sheng).
4. a point of correction: the US News & WR article claims that
Chen
is the foremost authority of only about 12 scholars worldwide who are
trained in ancient script (podunck Lehigh Univ. has two!). First, Chen is
a
very minor scholar. Second, there are more than 12 scholars in the US alone
who can read Shang script, many many more in China and elsewhere. There is
a leading authority on Shang script visiting Dartmouth college right now:
Qi, Wenxin. If you are at UBC, talk to Ken Takashima in Asian Studies.
off to class,
C. Cook, Assoc. Prof. of
Chinese
Lehigh Univ.
D. Tschudi wrote in article
...
>
> In Article, write:
> > Path:
news1.epix.net!news4.epix.net!cdc2.cdc.net!news.stealth.net!www.nntp.primene
t.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsf
eed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.lsa.umich.
edu!umich.edu!piotrm
> > From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
> > Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology
> > Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
> > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:03:03
> > Organization: University of Michigan
> > Lines: 22
> > Message-ID:
> > References: <19961101032000.WAA24439@ladder01.news.aol.com>
<55fplj$ish@news1.io.org> <55s2eo$q8k@news1.io.org>
<563pc6$ari@midland.co.nz>
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: pm036-14.dialip.mich.net
> > X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
> > Xref: news1.epix.net sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:4355
sci.archaeology:55449
> >
> > In article <563pc6$ari@midland.co.nz> gblack@midland.co.nz (George
Black)
> writes:
> >
> > >>I won't get too excited just yet. There have been others who have
claimed
> > >>that they too can "read" Olmec inscriptions. However, some of these
have
> > >>claimed they can read them because they are written in an *African*
> dialect.
> > >>So the Olmec were borrowing their writing from not only the Chinese
but
> > >>the Africans as well. How interesting....
> > >>
> >
> > Actually, there has been some serious work on this
> > writing system, which is the earliest deciphered writing system in
> > Mesoamerica, if I understand things correctly. Since the script
includes
> > syllabic as well as logographic values, and can be demonstrably shown
to be
> > represent "pre-proto-Zoquean", that is a stage of an ancestor to
languages
> > still spoken in the area today, I wonder how anyone could read them in
> another
> > language, especially Chinese, which, unless I am mistaken, is hardly
related
>
> > to any Mesoamerican language. A short report on the decipherment can
be
> > conveniently found in John B. Justeson and Terrence Kaufman, "A
Decipherment
>
> > of Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing," Science 259 (1993) 1703ff. One
> sometimes
> > wonders why anyone bothers with serious research, when even articles on
> > Science are not read, but all sorts of sensationalist nonsense brings
on
> > myriads of comments!
>
> Of course, "written language" containing syllabic and logographic values
could
> be interpreted by speakers of many languages if familiar with logographic
> values. The amount of content understood would be in inverse proportion
to the
> amount of syllabic information contained in the document. Ideograms are
read
> accurately to this day by people speaking widely diverse languages.
> So, was Shang at time of Olmec writings primarily logographic? Is there a
> significant number of matches between the two? Do we really need someone
> fluent in Shang to look at these matches? Pictographic evolution is
available
> for Asian writings...Olmec should reveal close matches of same...Is Dr.
Chen
> available for lectures? ;0
>
> Serious research becomes part of a body of knowledge and is available to
those
> few who can and will pursue its meanings...the comradeship of researchers
is
> a smaller circle than that of people who read Discover/Omni/chariots of
the
> dogs and these huge numbers of people have access to newsgroups...you can
> exchange information in a newsgroup, but you can't find validity and
> respect...that comes from your peers who see your postings or read your
> publications and ultimately validity and respect come from your interior.
> Although I am not a scholar or any sort, I feel I see more
cross-pollenization
> of info going from the serious to the dilettante than from d. to d. (if
we
> weed out all that repetition) or d. to s., and I thank the s. for that.
>
>
>
Subject: IMPORTANT READ THIS
From: Serge Perreault
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 08:44:42 -0500
Im a student,age of 16,serious,mature,and fascinated by
archeology.
Id like to get a job this summer,working on archeologic project,in any
country of this world.
If you want me to help you this summer,feel free to mail me or
leave a message at this newsgroups.
if you mail me,dont forget to say that the e-mail is for Charles
Perreault
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:33:43
In article seagoat@primenet.com (John A. Halloran) writes:
>One would have to compare the vocabulary in a modern compilation of literature
>with the vocabulary of the Hebrew bible. It is true that there are certain
>standardized expressions that are frequent within certain books, so it is
>easier to read because one does not encounter the kind of variety that is
>common in modern Hebrew literature. It is also true that in ancient
>literature in particular, the prose category was a late invention, with
>literature having to belong to a particular genre to be created at all. The
>study of literary genres is one of your fields of expertise, is it not?
I am sorry, but this misses the point. There is no way of relating the
stylized poetic language of the Old Testament, which was composed in different
periods, and which has very specific poetic elements, as well as a limited
vocabulary, with spoken Hebrew of any particular time.
>>That is quite incorrect. The first writing system is not a full represenation
>>of any spoken language, but a new semiotic system. It has hardly any verbs
>>and was devised to notate only a limited official set of transactions.
>Actually, I found 1,119 distinct Sumerian logograms, and have seen the
>estimate that by the Old Babylonian period 60 percent of Sumerian words
>consisted of compounds, making a total known vocabulary by the Old Babylonian
>period of 2800 words.
Again, this misses the point. The early writing is not a direct
representation of any spoken utterance, and in any case it was devised for
very limited purposes. Old Babylonian Sumerian is a different story, it is
almost exclusively poetry, and it was not spoken in any speech community. e
also have many words in lexical texts that may have never existed in
the spoken language. Whatever the vocabulary of Sumerian was at any given
time, one could not use the written language to establish that. As for the
rest of your argument about "compounds" and the number 2800, I am afraid I
have no idea what his means. The whole argument. or what I have seen of it
here, is based on very strange notions of relationships between language and
society and about development from "simple" to "complex". There are unwritten
languages in many societies that are not highly "complex," in the way it has
been used in this discussion, that have extremely developed vocabularies.
Moreover, linguistic complexity is a subjective matter. I find Arabic
morphology much more "complex" that, let us say, Turkish, and English very
simple compared to Russian or Polish, but someone else might have a very
different personal point of view on such matters. In essence, all languages
are equally "difficult" or "complex," just as all serious musical instruments
are equally difficult to master well. It might be easier to learn a few
chords on the guitar than to get a one really good tone out of a French Horn
or clarinet, but to play any of them well takes years of practice.
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: ev-michael@nrm.se (Mike Noreen)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 20:41:24 GMT
Replying to jimamy@primenet.com
: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
:
: >Today, this pattern of reproduction is found among elephant populations
: >that are being hunted.
:
: I've no knowlege of the study discussed so I ask: Are the elephants that
: are being hunted subject ONLY to the hunting stress, OR, are they ALSO
: suffering from stress due to habitat loss?
I don't know about the elephants, but the same pattern is seen in, for
instance, Plaice in the north atlantic. The response to increased
predation is reproduction at younger age and smaller size. Atleast for
the plaice loss of habitat isn't an issue, but heavy predation by
trawling is.
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-michael@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Proud to have been dubbed 'Incorrigible', 'idiot',
and 'IQ below 50' by that most "complex" of
Black Knights - Peter Nyikos!
Subject: Re: Need Near Eastern Texts on Covenants, Holiness, Judgment & Reconciliation
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:47:02
>naomis444@aol.com wrote:
>>Looking for assistance in finding Near Eastern texts on the subjects of
>>covenants, holiness, judgment, and reconciliation. I am fairly aware of
>>the Gilgamesh Epic and it's similiar texts, but looking for others from
>>the various archaeological periods in the Near East. Any assistance will
>>be most appreciated.
The subjects you list could be interpreted in different ways, so you will have
to be the judge as to what texts might be appropriate. The best place to
start would be Jack Sasson, et al, eds., Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East. There are a number of articles there, with bibliography, that will lead
you to specific texts in translation. A number of interesting treaties from
the 2nd millennium have been published recently and they might be of use to
you.
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: tkoetje@grove.iup.edu
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:02:17 GMT
In article <56fas9$6ta@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
>Michael Clark wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>>> To my mind, the ONLY physical anthropologist who possessed scientific
>>> integrity in a search for honest answers to legitimate questions about
>>> man's origin and ancestry was the late Dr. Earnest A. Hooton, longtime
>>> professor of anthropology at Harvard University.
>>>
>>(T)ed? Do you know any LIVING anthropologists?
>
>Quite frankly, no!
>Oh, I do know of some who are still walking and talking because
>I see them on TV every once in a while, usually after an ``incredible
>discovery" like the time they claimed to have found Little Lucy's
>fossilized babushka.
>
>But, unfortunately, as anyone who follows their rather mechanical
>straight-from-the-book irrational establishment-protecting commentary
>is well aware, they're actually brain dead zombies.
>
>To be honest, I found their unusual condition so intriguing that some
>time ago I sought an explanation from Clayton Lennon because of
>his expertise in explaining the cause of abnormalities such as this.
>
>Well, let me tell you, Michael, what he told me was was rather
>shocking, to say the least.
>
>Apparently, the zombie-like condition is the result of a disconnection
>between the brain and another (unmentionable)( part of the body.
>
>It just so happens that the anthropologists' years of abnormal
>absorption of nonsensical incorrect data has disrupted the Fornix
>Optic Thalmus -- located in the interior of the brain -- and has
>adversely affected the rather complex Human Services system.
>
>In turn, it has triggered the spontaneous growth of miniscule
>purplish-shaped hourglass-like embers on the north and southeast
>walls of the large intestine.
>
>Consequently, nauseous gases usually emitted from the rectum,
>accompanied by ``popping" noises but oftimes even louder -- are
>required to take a detour to you know where but have no alternative
>and have to find a different route.
>
>Amazing as the human body is -- God bless God for creating evolution!
>-- they found a way.
>
>Most amazingly, these gases shift to reverse, re-enter the stomach,
>bean-stalk up the spinal cord, enter the Limbic Lobe, make a almost
>perfect U-turn -- sort of like a Cho Cho coming 'round the mountain --
>and enter the Fornix Optiic Thalmus.
>
>It's then that they relocate the entrance to spinal cord, zip down the
>bean-stalk, make a bee-line to the oxyntic glands of the stomach and
>race like helll to the outer limits of the large intestine where they
>finally find the Exit.
>
>I know it sounds incredible, Michael. But, as we both know, truth
>indeed IS stranger than fiction.
>
Guys that write for small town newspapers on the other hand, are well known for
their generally wonderful ability to portray complex issues simply, and awesome
overall intelligence.
Subject: Re: Horses (was: Etruscans)
From: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:43:10 GMT
>Believe me, it gets better. The two species in question are *Equus
>asinus*, the true ass, and *Equus hemionus*, the onager, or Asiatic
>half-ass.
I always thought a half-ass was a mule. The OED thinks so too, but
calls it obsolete! It says "tr. Gr. hemionos", too. My Greek
dictionary says the latter means "a half-ass, a mule".
--
Joe Fineman jcf@world.std.com
495 Pleasant St., #1 (617) 324-6899
Malden, MA 02148
Subject: Sorting Out Archeo Facts: Intro3, C-14 (is knowing God an arrogance)
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:51:46 +0000
I take it we can begin building upon our timelines we have now provided.
And you will understand then why I then regard some things AFTER this Flood
that by numeric year you would view as BEFORE my year for the Flood.
And thus avoid confusion when you call my shots. Rather than forcing each other
into the goal of being a farce...the science world versus religious world....
let us understand first what we are each claiming. Though Creationists cannot speak for me
and my God (so please dont insult me by presuming I have their beliefs, it
will run us into a tangent), may I presume you *DO* have the scientific beliefs of
the world....or are you too as individual as I am in your beliefs?
I do not consider the Flood quite yet a debate in our topic but rather C-14.
Debating whether C-14 is in error or not, and WHERE is it in error.
If you know C-14, you will know we both (science/religion) believe it to be in error.
C-14 does NOT match your ancient history of epoch 3000 BC to 2000 BC,
nor does it match mine as Flood 2370-2000 BC.....
(note the 3000 BC epoch = 2370 BC epoch equation)
but rather falls between the two. (Closer to mine than yours.)
However, you will NOW see how I can scrutinize and criticise my own work.........
The chart --appears-- to match MY chronology perfectly with no adjustment.
But as a realist towards the Bible I must recognize the C-14 method as dating
Egyptian DEATH, (not Egyptian life) and that a curve of increase
(to explain pre-Flood dates of man's works as 20,000 years)
does not spread thru earth's atmosphere in but one year.
For this reason, the charts I will present
from the C-14 convention of your scientists cannot proudly be claimed by me
as perfectly matching my work. [Simply, my Egypt doesnt begin in 2370 BC
when Noah walked off the ark. And so C-14 Egyptian dates which proudly
support 2370 BC (not 3000 BC) cannot be used by me to produce a 2370 BC Egypt.
This means that the C-14 results which God supplies speaks equally to me
as it does you to come up with an explanation. Your people say the trees
in dendrochronology are accurate in count and that their C-14 in them
is 720 years off. I contend that the trees are off, and that the C-14 is
BASICALLY correct for planet earth (yet for these Egyptian Pharaohs
(biblical generations 1 thru 4 living 400 years all die during 12th dynasty Egypt),
the C-14 dates of these Pharaohs MUST be regarded by me as 2170 BC Giza
to 2030 BC as 5th dynasty death,
to 2020 BC as the inaugurated HOUSE (pharaoh by Mena)
to 1943 BC inaugurating the 12th dynasty during which the 1st thru 4th dynasty kings died
down til 1824 BC. Restoring human longevity is the claim I make for my God.
A restoration of what was lost.
Below is the short replies to your last post.
If you wish to present C-14 at this time, please do so. Otherwise with your
permission I will proceed to present the C-14 for Egypt epoch (flood) and down
past 2000 BC, so that you may scrutinize as you wish and ask me where I get this crap.
>Eliyehowah wrote:
>> I accept God's nature as my sources.
> This means I bow or humble myself
>> to any scholar who presents physical data requiring me to find an answer
> to any contradictions. I do not bow to mere hypothesis, nor to popular view,
> nor to famed authors or scholars. Data MUST be from God (meaning physical).
>Then this means you must produce the physical data that proves several
>different things that your now often published GIFs contain. One of them
>being the (in)famous biblical flood, the other is the age of certain
>humans on earth (if anything mankind lives longer now than he did in
>ancient times), and the incredibly underestimated time frame that you
>have for mankind's existence. Where are the evidences outside of these
>GIFs? These are wrong, and if they are not wrong, where are their root
>sources at?
WELL PUT
>> Such data is dendrochron and C-14 etc. Yes, I humbly agree they must be
> explained as to why their results. And I will admit the fields I have yet to know. If you wish to feel this makes me inadequate to represent my God that is your choice, but I will still present the case rather than sit back and watch.
>You havent presented much of anything. You just admited the C-14 does
>not match your figures, how is it that thousands of independant
>scientists or even ones affiliated with established organizations have
>not seen fit to prove these things that you think are correct. The
>answer is, I would imagine, is that there *is* no proof outside of your
>faith in your religion.
>The bible was never intended to be taken as a literalism, and those who
>take it as such are simply unable, or unwilling to see what is
>underneath. This is not fault of their own, the data has been so
>manipulated over history that its very difficult to ascertain what is
>metaphor and what is history,it is blended.
>There is an excellent book for any people of faith who have a difficult
>time resolving it with what they know is the truth and what has been
>scientifically proven, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop
>Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture" by John Shelby Spong, (a bishop in
>Episcopal Church) 1991, Harper Collins Publishing, ISBN 0-006-067518-7.
>It is an excellent book, it is written objectively and by someone who
>does have faith in his God and in what he knows is the truth. These
>things are not incompatible, its just that he realizes (as some do not)
>that to know what is in the mind of the Creator at all times is the
>height of arrogance.
I consider this an excuse. And it places Jesus at the height of
arrogance for knowing the mind of God. I presume the bishop is
therefore Catholic and believes Jesus *IS* God so as to eliminate
this problem using the trinity. No wonder your frequent quoted
Catholic church has committed its crimes and excused itself.
But you dont have to be Catholic nor even believe in God to
excuse yourself with doctrines. Science has its worshipped doctrines.
That includes the doctrine I am sick of hearing about our viscious
animal instincts back to cave man and desires without morale.
>I choose to be less arrogant, and just go by what
>I can know now, and wait for the end-results whenever that time is.
>> I will too. Chicago Oriental Institute's Richard Parker's from the Americana.
>The OI has a wide range of study on the Near East. It will be
>interesting to see who comes up with what.
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
Subject: Re: Best Introduction to Akkadian?
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:57:31
In article <56kbd4$6qo@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> lkataja@cc.helsinki.fi (Laura Kataja) writes:
?
>One possibility is Rykle Borger's "Akkadische Lesestücke". In my
>opinion it is better than Riemschneider. The choice of texts is wiser,
>vocabulary is good and it does not try to learn all the phases of
>language at once. And it contains cuneiform -- redrawn with Neo-Assyrian
>type signs. Only I suppose it hasn't been translated into
>English.
>Unfortunately there is no introduction on "Teach yourself" -type. All
>books mentioned need some previous linguistic competence and hard work!
I would second that. None of the books currently available are really suited
to self-insruction. It depends on what one wants. If someone has linguistic
knowledge and just wants an idea of the language, a good grammar will do. If
someone wants to read texts in the original at some level of competence, it
would be best to take some lessons from someone. It is virtually impossible
to learn the writing system properly without help from a teacher, as there are
so many little things one has to learn that are not in any textbook. John
Huenhgard's new Akkadian primer was supposed to be out about now, and I may
simply have missed it. This is an extremely detailed book. I could not use
it as I cannot work with the way it is organized, but if someoe does not mind
the structure, it is excellent. I have used an earlier version in classes as
supplementary reading and it works very well.
Subject: Re: Etruscans (or something)
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 16:12:48 GMT
In article <56gmto$k7r@scream.auckland.ac.nz>, drc@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz
says...
>
>Can we get a little respect for New Guinea here, please, Mr Whittet?
>It is not a "small island".
I don't believe I ever said it was a small island...
At the time population first arrived in New Guinea
it was actually connected to Australia by land.
> It is the second largest island in the world...
>But by any criterion the language diversity in New Guinea
>(and Melanesia generally) is the highest in the world.
That really is a qualitative as opposed to guantitative
measure and thus not very useful in this discussion.
What we are looking at is the correlation between the
need for language and the use of language, the number
of words in a single language as opposed to the number
of words in a geographic area helps us to assess that..
>
>This thread seems to be moving off into a discussion of
>relative vocabulary size, but before this happens can I
>get something clear? It appears that Mr Whittet has somewhat
>modified his original claim, from
>
>
>(A) Human language only began when people started living in cities.
Can you find anyplace in the preceeding thread where
I actually said that? If not why not use what I actually said?
>
>to the less startling
>
>(B) Vocabularies got larger when people started living in cities.
>
>Am I right about this change of position?
No. Since that really isn't what I said, perhaps a few
quotes from previous threads will help clear that up for you.
I began by saying:
1.)"Language c 7000 - 3500 BC is not likely to be ahead of the curve.
Levels of social organization provide a good way to judge its
effectiveness. Essentially, things like social stratification,
politics, trade, industry, science, which require language,
build language.
All of these things are associated with urbanization. The rise
of urban centers is thus a good clue as to where language is
developing. Placing language building among the steppe nomads
does not work."
Then there was some discussion:
I asked Loren Petrich:
:>
>>Care to put a number on it in terms of the number of vocabulary
>>words used?
>
>>Lets try number of vocabulary words in a culture
>> number of cities of 25,000 plus people
>>c 7000 BC
>>c 3000 BC
>>c 1200 BC
>>c 500 BC
>
>>and then compare that with any modern language you care to name.
This is where New Guinea came into the conversation.
Loren said:
>
> Why not study some New-World or Australian or New-Guinean
>languages some time? These are spoken by people whose technology is (or
>at least had been when they were discovered by European explorers)
>comparable to that of eastern-Mediterranean peoples at the earlier times
>on your list.
I replied
Just plug the numbers in, that should answer the question.
I don't happen to have a dictionary listing the number of words
in a native american language, or for that matter aboriginal
Australian. I think Tagalog is spoken in some parts of New Guinea
and the Philipines.
(By the way, to answer an earlier question which was raised,
A better phrasing might have been: "I think Tagalog is spoken in
the Philipines and some parts of New Guinea", but both sentences
are symantically equivalent in the sense I intended)
The vocabulary of Tagalog will do, or Vietnamese
if you prefer. Compare the number of words in those languages to the
number of words in English, Latin, Greek and Sumerian.
I would be suprised if you do not find a correspondence between
population size and vocabulary size for any culture you care to look at.
Then an exchange with Ben:
What I said was that things which require language, build language.
If you think about this for a moment you will realise that the very
essence of language is interaction with other people. The more people
you are surrounded by the more likely you are to encounter new words.
>
>Do you suppose that every one of these New Guinean hunter-gatherer groups
>are getting their languages from their urbanized cousins?
No, I expect they have the ability to communicate with others about
all the things that are important to them. My guess is they might have
a vocabulary of thousands of words. I don't expect them to have a
vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words which is about average
or at least not uncommon among people who do a lot of reading.
I would suggest that language probably evolved at about the same rate
people did. A Neolithic village or group of hunter gatherers may talk
to one another less often than they gesture.
...
Sophistication is related to urbanization. The frequency of
interaction with others is related to our ability to communicate.
...
Consider what we actually use language for.
What would a city be without politics? What would politics be
without language?
...
I think you will find that language is intimately linked to the
structures which make urbanization possible.
The number of words people use as a quantitative measure of
the complexity of their language is by no means a qualitative
measure of the complexity of their language.
Which sections of the curve I described get lumped together depends
on your perspective. If you look at the whole curve, hunter-gatherers,
can describe everybody between c 200,000 and 20,000 BC. Nomadic
pastoralists and neolithic village farmers generally come along
after 10,000 BC. Urban centers emerge after about 3,000 BC. We
come along after the curve has gone vertical. Today you can go off
to the middle of New Guinea and find the tribesmen with cell phones
talking to their brokers in Singapore.
...
Language in New Guinea took hundreds of thousands of years to evolve
and in the last few hundred years has been overwhelmed by western
influences to the point where it may well not survive in its
indiginous form another century.
I hope that helps clear up your confusion.
>
>Ross Clark
>
steve
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 16:48:43 GMT
Mike Wright wrote:
>.... If I have a larger vocabulary than you
>do, is my English more sophisticated than yours?
Generally the answer to that question is yes. The more educated and
the more sophisticated you are, the more likely you are to have a
large vocabulary. The less educated and the less sophisticated you
are, the more likely you ae to have a small vocabulary.
Think about it for a minute. If the size of your personal vocabulary
didn't mean something, why did they test you on vocabulary and word
usage before they let you go to college, or for that matter in some
states before they let you go to high school.
The idea that languages with large vocabularies are more sophisticated
than languages with small vocabularies isn't a new one.
And yes, you count the 40 words for snow or the 50 camel handling
jargon words in the word count. The people who have 40 words for snow
probably don't have as many scientific terms as 18th Century English
had. And certainly 20th Century English has move scientific terms
than the language of two centuries ago.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Bible Chron scale versus Earth Chron, Intro2 (reply to SORTING)
From: rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 18:03:07 GMT
Eliyehowah (elijah@wi.net) wrote:
[...]
: I regard all C-14 readings from 20,000 BC to be postFlood 2370 BC.
Eliyehowah,
I've read your theory on how cosmic radiation creates new C14 atoms and hence
distorts the C14 dating by shifting the balance between C12 and C14.
Unfortunately this is scientifically impossible.
Cosmic radiation consists mostly of gamma rays (extremely high energy light)
and elementary particles (smaller than protons and neutrons).
This means they cannot add mass to any atom exposed to them. Beta radiation
can't do that either (high energy electrons or positrons). Alpha radiation
could in theory (He4 nuclei), but the process of 2 protons and 2 neutron
tunneling through the electron shell (rather than picking up a couple of
electrons and becomeing an ordinary atom) is extremly unprobably - quite appart
from these particles not reaching the surface of the earth (mean free path in
air is a few centimetres - a couple of inches).
C14 could theoretically be also formed by adding a neutron to C13, but since
the half life time of a neutron is only 10.6 minutes (we are about 15 minutes
light travel away from the sun) and the scattering crossection is comparatively
high (with air) I would not expect to find any neutrons penetrating the
atmosphere.
So we cannot add any mass to the atoms we are looking at unless we bring the
radiation source close enough to the atom that the mean free path is longer
than the distance from the source to the atom (and the traveltime is shorter
than the half life time). So under laboratory conditions we can produce C14 by:
adding a neutron to C13; adding an alpha particle to Be9 (although unlikely
to be successful); or adding a beta- to N14.
The only way we can produce C14 is by radioactive decay from other nuclids.
If you have a look at a nuclid chart you will see that out of 8 other nuclids
surrounding C14 3 are stable (C13, N14, N15). So C14 can't be a product of
decay from any of those. The other 5 all decay by emitting beta- (electrons).
This means one neutron froms a proton and emits an electron. So we are actually
now looking at an atom from one element changing into one of another element
(e.g. C14 -> N14 + beta-). The converting a neutron into a proton also means
the mass is not changed. So the only source for generating C14 is B14 which in
turn can only be formed from Be14 (all of them decay under emission of an
electron).
We cannot create C14 by alpha decay (the only possible source, O18, is stable),
we cannot do it by beta+ (positron) decay (N14) is stable, there are no nuclids
in that area which decay by gamma emission, so there ore no other options for
generating C14.
: Radiologists are very cautious
: to go beyond the lower figure of 50,000 (biblical 30,000).
The reason for that is te nature of the decay. Radioactive decay is
exponential. If you have 100 atoms to start with and you count again after the
half life time (C14: 5730 years) you will be left with half the atoms. if you
count another 5730 years later the number will have halfed again (you've only
got a quarter of the original amount left) and so on.
If you draw a diagramm you will see the curve gets flatter and flatter.
Now any measurement has its errors in it which are usually shown by error bars.
If my counting is only accurate to +-5 atoms Any dating beyong the presence of
at least five atoms becomes scientifically unsound. Also well before reaching
that point the error bars are so large (compared to the actual measurements)
that a small variation would make a difference of several thousands of years.
So giving a precice date is impossible (or cheating). And since the Number of
C12 (and C13) doesn't change with time (and the C14) percentage is measured
against these) small errors (+- a few %) in the analysis would really make a
difference of millenia! No scientist would dare claim an accuracey which is
beyond the measurement.
Ralf
Subject: Re: GIGANTIC SPECULATION?
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 18:04:47 GMT
In article <56krip$nd0@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM
says...
>
>rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Nold Egenter wrote:
>
>>>...Their fixation on 'durability'
>>> widely makes their finds a scattered tohuwabohu! Have a look at our site
>>> which reconstructs cultural evolution SYSTEMATICALLY with the assumption
>>> of a pre-lithic "fibroconstructive" age:
>
>>Ahhh...real archaeology is speculation because we don't have
>>fibroconstructive artifacts (i.e. baskets), so I am going to
>>systematically reconstruct cultural evolution by ASSUMING such
>>artifacts.... Sorry, I just don't see the difference.
>
>Fibroconstuctive artifacts are baskets???
>
>No way!!
How about some dates?
First five knots used were what?
First leaf wrapped around food and tied?
First cord woven from grass? bark? hair?
First rope woven from leather?
First use of straw with clay to make daub?
First woven net?
First use of wool fiber as yarn or felt?
First use of flax?
First use of cotton?
First use of silk?
First sewn stitch?
First basket?
First wattle?
First thatch?
First paper?
First woven fabric?
>
>I am absolutely, positively NOT going to discuss textile techniques on
>this newsgroup again!! Nope! Not going to do it!!!!
aww come on...do it for us...
>
>
>Stella Nemeth
steve
>
Subject: Re: FOSSIL human skull, old as coals carbon-14 biblical Flood (Ramses vs. Moses)
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 16 Nov 1996 07:59:10 GMT
Ah, Jack, it appears that you have not met EJ before.
This latest appearance is one of the most coherent posts I've seen from
him. ( No, really)
He exhibits all the behavior of someone who goes off his meds, gets worse
and worse, then gets locked up for a few days (when he disappears) and is
put back on track.
I said this in jest the first time I ran across him but am beginning to
believe I was right.
Jack Campin wrote in article
<1942@purr.demon.co.uk>...
>
> Eliyehowah writes:
> > This is a reply. I have not chosen the header newsgroups this thread is
> > found in.
>
> Yes you have, fuckwit. You can't weasel out of your responsibility by
> saying "the other guy started it".
>
> > I have added alt.religion.christian to share with them
>
> I'm sure that group's readers are all *really* grateful. I don't think.
>
> Now edit your goddamn headers before continuing this discussion.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Jack Campin
jack@purr.demon.co.uk
> T/L, 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE, Scotland (+44) 131 556
5272
> --------------------- Save Scunthorpe from Censorship
---------------------
>
>
Subject: Re: The Yo-Yo "convention." or He loves us, he loves us not.
From: Xina
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 13:59:54 -0600
Marc Line wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, at 10:41:55, Eliyehowah cajoled electrons into this
>
> >Your dinosaurs versus my dinosaurs.
>
> Choice of weapons......Dinosaurs at dawn!
LOL! Well, actually my Dino is on vacation in the bahammas at the
moment. I can reach him by pager however! ;)
>
> >PUBLIC NOTICE: this convention is now closed.
>
> Loud cheers can be heard!!!! The sun comes out. Birds are singing.
> God is in his heaven and all is well with the world! :)))
And it *is* closed. I have quit....I cannto argue with someone who is
mentally and emotionally so ill equipped. Please forgive me my soft
heart! ;)
t
> these years!! This chap has the truth!! He alone knows the TRUE
> history of the Earth. When asked what he put his longevity down to,
> Adam replied, "Clean livin' sonny, a good woman and that fruit diet!"
Dont forget however that an all-fruit diet has a tendency to cause acute
diarrhea! ;)
>
> >So Xina, you are absolutely
> >valueless if some scholar would send you into the world to gather data.
> Yeah, a contention is only valid if you accept it without seeking
> evidence to substantiate it. This logic also explains much.
I dont particularly value your scholarhip nor ELijah's opinion, so I
personaly dont care how I appear as a scholar to him or any other JW.
The fact remains he nails his own coffin shut with every word he utters.
> >And as Paul says my weapon is my tongue,
Be careful how you waggle it, there are others that are not so
tolerant.
> Stand down the paramedics! Close the field hospital. No casualties
> expected!
Not when one side decides to withdraw from the battle seeing that it is
not worthy of effort!
Xina
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: Saida
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:50:22 -0600
Piotr Michalowski wrote:
>
> In article seagoat@primenet.com (John A. Halloran) writes:
>
> >One would have to compare the vocabulary in a modern compilation of literature > >with the vocabulary of the Hebrew bible. It is true
that there are certain > >standardized expressions that are frequent
within certain books, so it is > >easier to read because one does not
encounter the kind of variety that is > >common in modern Hebrew
literature. It is also true that in ancient > >literature in
particular, the prose category was a late invention, with > >literature
having to belong to a particular genre to be created at all.
I would be the last one to say that Hebrew (or Arabic) is easy to learn,
but, in case anybody is interested, the Hebrew Bible is written in
simple prose, not much resembling the fancy, stilted language of, say,
the King James version.
The
> >study of literary genres is one of your fields of expertise, is it not? > > I am sorry, but this misses the point. There is no way of
relating the > stylized poetic language of the Old Testament, which was
composed in different > periods, and which has very specific poetic
elements, as well as a limited > vocabulary, with spoken Hebrew of any
particular time.
The vocabulary is "limited" only to the terms known in those days.
Otherwise Hebrew is as rich as any other ancient language. Modern
Hebrew is much the same as the old in structure, only it was forced to
invent new terminology for things and concepts that have come into being
over the last few millenia, sometimes borrowing from other languages.
Again, do not be confused by the "poetic", stilted translations of the
Hebrew made by other nations of the Old Testament. The actual Hebrew
seems "modern" in comparison.
>
> >>That is quite incorrect. The first writing system is not a full represenation > >>of any spoken language, but a new semiotic system. It
has hardly any verbs > >>and was devised to notate only a limited
official set of transactions.
I hope you are not including Hebrew or ancient Egyptian in this.
>
> >Actually, I found 1,119 distinct Sumerian logograms, and have seen the > >estimate that by the Old Babylonian period 60 percent of Sumerian
words > >consisted of compounds, making a total known vocabulary by the
Old Babylonian > >period of 2800 words.
>
> Again, this misses the point. The early writing is not a direct
> representation of any spoken utterance, and in any case it was devised for > very limited purposes.
If you are talking about the Hebrew Bibile--wrong.
(snip)
> here, is based on very strange notions of relationships between language and > society and about development from "simple" to "complex".
There are unwritten > languages in many societies that are not highly
"complex," in the way it has > been used in this discussion, that have
extremely developed vocabularies.
> Moreover, linguistic complexity is a subjective matter. I find Arabic
> morphology much more "complex" that, let us say, Turkish, and English very > simple compared to Russian or Polish, but someone else might have
a very > different personal point of view on such matters. In essence,
all languages > are equally "difficult" or "complex," just as all
serious musical instruments > are equally difficult to master well. It
might be easier to learn a few > chords on the guitar than to get a one
really good tone out of a French Horn > or clarinet, but to play any of
them well takes years of practice.
Arabic and Hebrew are by far the most complex languages I have ever
studied. Polish is easier--but not to pronounce! To me, it is the
toughest pronunciation of any language I am familiar with!
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: Kathy McIntosh
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:51:36 +0000
In article <56fch2$5v2@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com>, "Richard P. Hanson"
writes
>Why do I read Ed Conrad's posts? They never seem to contain any
>information, just personal (or impersonal) attacks.
>
>--
Richard,
you probably read them for the same reason that I do - because your
brain cannot allow you to belive that a supposedly educated human being
can spout such utter, unbelievable, paranoid crap over and over again,
without being confined in some form of institution.
Youre brain is hoping you are going to read the words
"I'm not going to post any more. I am a complete and utter idiot.
Goodbye. Ed".
Unfortunatly, your brain, and mine, and everyone elses, will no doubt
have to wait a long long time for this joyous post.
I assume I am right in saying he isn't in an institution? Might he have
gained access to a Doctor's computer?
--
Kathy McIntosh
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Robert Byrne.
