by mP 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
bohm:
mp:
there is not 4 consonants in "El". I got no idea why you base your entire argument on words with 4 consonants but whatever.
mP:
I never said there were 4 consonants in El, i dont think its necessary to state the obvious.
BOHM:
try and compute colissions between two vocabularies of a reasonable size and you will properly be surpriced how common it is.
mP:
I gave Ra = Rei(king in romantic) , if its so easy find one another or two.
It is kinda like the old days isn't it.
mP, I'm not trained in linguistics, but Leolaia is, and I think you need to respect that she is speaking from a place of substantial knowledge. If you want to be pedantic, then yes, it's her opinion, as much as everything ever said is the opinion of that person. But the points she is making are in line with the majority opinions of scholars. So really, you aren't arguing with her, but with her field as a whole. You completely disregarded a specific quote from Thompson on the subject of Abraham's name being typically Semitic, and then claim you haven't seen any disproof of your ideas from Leolaia. You also seem to refuse to read any books on the subject. So what right do you have to be so assertive with your opinions? There's no prize awarded to people who challenge decades of progressive scholarship with willful ignorance and somehow turn the status quo on their heads. That's because that never happens. Your logic is also inside-out; one does not "explain" a coincidence. A statment like that's bordering on failure to understand basic word definitions.
Its an insult to me because you spend so much time telling me im wrong and assuming that you are an authority. If only you followed thru with proofs which i a have stated i am willing to read, but you often dont provide. Claiming authority or knowledge is not enuff when someone asks to see it. I also fail to see why you continue to repeat these opinions, not facts. As long as you fail to back it up with stuff everyone can read its YOUR OPINION.
When I post to this forum, I never want to make my posts rest on any supposed "authority" I have. That's no better than "It's true because the Society says so". I really dislike arguments from authority. I always want to make it about the logic, the evidence, and explain how my opinion is reached. That is why my posts here are often long essays because I try to show how I come to my views, and if there are other disagreeing opinions, then the discussion would be directed towards the evidence and logic that were supplied. But the way you understand language is so fundamentally different from mine, it would take a lot of explanation of linguistics basics, methodologies, etc. and I really am not interested in doing that in the way I normally do. When we had that discussion last year on the Flavian hypothesis it was a similar thing, I wrote some very long essays about historical methodology and how evidence is assessed in order to distinguish between coincidence and genuine connections, and that was very time-consuming, and I really don't have the time and energy to do something like that again here. I don't mean that at all as an insult to you; I am just more than happy to agree to disagree, while pointing to some resources that could further explain where I'm coming from. I've already posted an article showing mathematically how easy it is for coincidences to arise at random and here is a list of "amazing coincidences" between unrelated languages that have absolutely no etymological connection. You find almost any coincidence meaningful, whereas linguists have principles and methodologies for establishing genetic relationship and borrowing. If you are interested in learning more about these, I would recommend you read some basic introductions to linguistics and comparative linguistics (such as this one or this, both of these books have discussions on how to determine relatedness, as well as the arbitrariness between sound and meaning). Other than that, I would just like to agree to disagree on this.
Just to give a quick example, you say that "Ra" is the source of the Spanish word for king rey and English words related to royalty like "reign" and "royal". There is no evidence for this, and no serious historical linguist has ever proposed such an etymology. Your opinion is simply based on a superficial phonetic similarity. The etymology of the English and Spanish words is well-understood. Both derive from Latin re:x, re:gis (gen.) "king" through normal attested sound changes (cf. Spanish ley "law" from Latin le:x, le:gis). This Latin word was not borrowed from Egyptian (and why would they borrow a word for "king"? why from Egyptian? why not the Egyptian word for "king"? Why not then take the name of the Egyptian god most associated with kingship, Horus?), but goes all the way back to Proto-Indo-European, a language spoken long before historical Egypt. How do we know the word is that ancient? Through normal comparative methodology that shows regular sound correspondences; e.g. PIE *re:g- (*re:gs, nominative singular) "tribal king" > Sanskrit ra:j "king, ruler" ra:jya "royal", Latin re:x, re:gis "king", re:gius "royal", Gaulish ri:x, ri:g (gen.), Old Irish ri: "king", Welsh rhi "prince, lord", rhiain "queen, lady" (cf. Latin re:gina "queen"), Gothic reiks "king", Old High German ri:hhi "realm" (whence German reich), etc. Nor was the word borrowed from another language, this noun was derived straightforwardly from a verbal root; Latin re:x, re:gis "king" is related to the Latin verb regere "to lead straight, guide, rule". PIE *re:g- is a lengthened form of the PIE verbal root *reg- "to move in a straight line, straighten, direct, lead" (with adjectival derivative *rek-to), which equally has sound correspondences across the board: Sanskrit rjyati "stretches itself", irayjati "arranges, orders, decrees", raji:yas "straight", raji "straight", Avestan raz- "sort, order, arrange", razan "command, alignment", rašta- "straight", Greek ορεγω "to reach, stretch out, stretch forth" (with a prothetic vowel), Latin regere "to lead straight, guide, rule", rectus "right, straight", re:gula "a straight piece of wood", rige:re "to be stiff, erect", Old Irish reg- "stretch out", recht "law, authority", Welsh rhaith "law", Breton reiz "order, law", Proto-Germanic *ro:kjan, *rekinaz "stretch, set straight" > Gothic rakjan "reach up, stretch", Old High German recchen "raise, lift up, define", Old Norse rekja "stretch, declare", Old English gerecenian "arrange in order, recount" (whence English "reckon"), Proto-Germanic *rehtaz > Gothic raihts "right, straight", Old High German reht "right, straight", Old Icelandic rettr "true, right", Old English riht (whence English "right"), etc. This is a native PIE word, the derivation is normal, whatever vague resemblence you find with Egyptian Re (which even lacks the /g/ found in the PIE roots) is purely coincidental.
Apog:
, I'm not trained in linguistics, but Leolaia is, and I think you need to respect that she is speaking from a place of substantial knowledge.
mP:
Im sorry if she is a scholar then she should be able to provide some examples to back her assertions. She has written much text here in this post, but only a single broad quote appears and that hardly backs her assertion. Its extremely broad and does not in anyway imho close the case.
I find it hard to believe a scholar cant provide more quotes and references for me to check, read and learn. Ive asked several times here and none appear. On th eother hand she continues her lame appeal to authority and sly comments. If only she typed less of these and provided stuff to share.
Apog:
But the points she is making are in line with the majority opinions of scholars. So really, you aren't arguing with her, but with her field as a whole.
mP:
And on what material are you basing this assertion ? Could you give me a few references ? Until the references are given we dont really know what linguists say.
Apg:
You completely disregarded a specific quote from Thompson on the subject of Abraham's name being typically Semitic, and then claim you haven't seen any disproof of your ideas from Leolaia .
mP:
T does not mention Abraham, semetic names, its a broad quote about potential similarities. It only says caution must be used. It does not rule out the possibility nor does it make a defniiitve comment on names or words or potential origins and so on. Thats down right dishonest to claim that addresses the question.
Leolaia . You also seem to refuse to read any books on the subject.
Apg:
You also seem to refuse to read any books on the subject.
mP:
When did i say i refuse to read ? I asked for quotes but she gives one line from one book ? If she gave links then i could read it online here and now and this culd all be settled but none of those appear.
You should apologise for making such pathetic lies as i have said nothing to remotely back your point of view. Ive asked for refs multiple times, how is that a refusal ? You are being as liberal with the truth as the WTS when quoting scripture. Shame on you.
Apg:
So what right do you have to be so assertive with your opinions?
mP:
I never claimed to be right or an authority. Im just discussing. Its reasonable to think that this possibility exists. Others are free to chip in and show me up if they want. This is not a battle of who can shout the loudest and claim authority without refs. Its lame when the best you can do is label a person, and this same person asks for refs but you dont provide.
Apog:
So what right do you have to be so assertive with your opinions? There's no prize awarded to people who challenge decades of progressive scholarship with willful ignorance and somehow turn the status quo on their heads. That's because that never happens.
mP:
But without quotes from scholars that i can read, how can i verify her opinion ? Its that simple.
If so many scholars share this opinion and have written on the matter, then it should be easy to quote references ? There is only a one liner. Your comments seem to imply there are dozens of refs given above but that is simply not true. You can write long sentences claiming authority but instead oftalking about it show the refs.
Its that simple.
Leo:
I dont have the time to address your post. A quick look shows not a single reference, just claims. Please incl references so i can read the remainder of the text and save you the trouble of typing everything.
So where are the r eferences ?
There are no references from scholars I know of disputing the idea that the name Abram/Abraham derives from Brahma just there aren't scores of references from scholars discussing how the Spanish word rey doesn't come from the name of the Egyptian god Ra. There are lots and lots and lots of popular ideas out there that scholars don't address directly (such as the idea that "Israel" is a concatenation of the names Isis, Re, and El, or the Anglo-Israelist idea that "British" comes from a Hebrew expression meaning "man of the covenant"), because there is no reason for them to show interest in such claims. Knowing a little something about the subject, I don't find the Abraham/Brahma suggestion to be credible, and so I gave my reasons explaining why I don't find it credible. That is not making an argument from authority; it is an attempt to address the problems in the claim as I see it. But for you to truly understand where I am coming from, it would take a lengthy discussion of methodology on how one goes about assessing claims of linguistic relatedness. When I tried a similar discussion in the Flavian thread about historical methodology, you found that to be derailing, as I am sure you find my discussion of such things in this thread to be. So I'm really not that interested in discussing this subject further. But I wanted you to know, since you seemed to take personal offense, that I meant no offense at all to you, and if you felt insulted, I apologize for any language I used that was taken to be offensive.
mP, you're simply not going to find quotations from people that specifically discredit all of your pet theories. That's like if I say, "Why aren't there any scholarly works addressing the idea that black cars are driven by government agents and used to spy on the American people? They should be doing these studies to prove me wrong!" The only way someone could help me is if they reasoned with me on the subject, using statistical math, psychological concepts like confirmation bias, and common sense ("What is the government doing in black cars when they have much more sophisticated surveillance technology?"). You have to think critically and use information that is available to you instead of demanding to be spoon-fed.
When most linguists fail to see a connection between certain languages or sounds, the burden of proof is on you to do much more than post some similar words and say, "Eh? Eh? Come on!" You'd have to demonstrate that the cultures intersected in a meaningful way, and show archaeological evidence of one language influencing another, or demonstrate laws of phonological shift that could be reverse-extrapolated to show how two words connect in the past. Since you continue to bring up bad examples like Ra=Rei which don't have support in the literature, you only demonstrate why it's a waste of time for someone to engage you in discussion.
Apog:
Given LEO has admitted that she cannot find or give references that debunk my opinon, its obvious that she is merely giving her conclusions and opinions. This is quite different from claiming ALL or MOST scholars agree with her, when the truth is none have explicitly written anything remotely close to that.
You really should apologise for writing such utter lies, especially claiming i have rejected her material when she doesnt give it. She has copy/pasted the text from a website, the question remains why cant she just give the link ?
Its a joke a scholar cant figure out giving a link is a nice way to share the information.
Its plain dishonest to represent your conclusions as the concensus when you cant provide a single proof.
Shame on you. Now be decent and apologise.
Leo:
Can you add labels to what each of us say, its messy when there are several levels of replies.
mP: Firstly proto indo means it came from the east towards India way which also happens to pass the NME. You have not shown a source from a completely path.
Leo:
It does not mean that at all (look up any introductory text). And the migration of Indo-Iranians was eastward to India.
mP:
This is silly, you know very well i was referring to a general area. When we stand in Europe, India is East past the NME ,thats what i meant. Here we go again, i have to qualify eery statement perfectly and yet you dishonestly claim words from scholars that they never said. Now which is the worse form in any honest discussion ?
