Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Synoptic-L] "oxon"

Expand Messages
  • lmbarre@gmail.com
    Language LM Barré The divine name is attested as yhw at Soleb in the 15th century as yhw which corresponds to the vowels iaw as we find in the Elephantine
    Message 1 of 34 , Jan 29, 2013
      Language
      LM Barré
      The divine name is attested as yhw at Soleb in the 15th century as yhw which
      corresponds to the vowels iaw as we find in the Elephantine papyrus and in a
      Greek fragment at Qumran. The use of three-classes of vowels is common in
      Egyptian, Ugaritic, Phoenician (Punic),paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic, and Masoretic
      Hebrew. Metaphysically, the Tetragrammaton is an evil distortion of 3 to 4.

      Egyptian is basically a combination of logorgrams and west-Semitic.
      Logograms are of two types. Those which do not end a word and those which do
      A logogram can be indicated by a vertical dash under it. In the above glyph
      the vocalic Trigrammaton is not understood as vowels but as three
      consonants, because it was written by Egyptians, not by a Shasu of venerated
      yhw=iaw. A logogram is used also as a "determinative" which indicates a
      class of things. In the above glyph, the bird is the determinative.
      Apparently, it is a bird of whose particular specification I do not yet know
      But as you can see, the two reeds in Egyptian = yod in Semitic. The next
      glyph is perhaps a "house" and corresponds to the Hebrew letter, heh. The
      third glyph I am not sure what it is, but phonetically corresponds to waw.
      (It is to be read right to left as in Semitic languages. Ugaritic, is read
      left to right. Glyphs combine the Semitic alphabet of three class vowels by
      combining logograms and an alphabet, a sort of built-in interlinear. Glyphs
      are such that the they are transitional from a language of logograms to an
      alphabet. The earliest alphabet is proto-Siniatic of the 18th century. The
      Semitic language is essentially the glyphs stripped of their logograms.
      Proto-Semitic is essentially a 3+3+3 language. Three radicals, three vowel
      classes (a i u) and three stems (G,D,C). It was invented by the Egyptians
      and is as old of any attestation of a glyph, c 3200 BCE. The logographic
      system, predates this an stems from Africa. This indicates that the
      Egyptians migrated from Africa to the Nile go become Egypt in the
      north-western tip of Africa. Thus, in a search for the origins of language,
      we should look for a logographic system that can be demonstrated to
      informing Egyptian glyph logograms. Prior to that, we should look for
      pictograms as we find in earliest Sumerian. This suggest that the Sumerians
      were also from Africa and sailed there on their famous barges. So
      civilization is very much "Out of Africa" as indicated by the linguistic
      trail of pictorgrams-->logograms--Semitic alphabet. Afroasiactic implies a
      migration to north-west Africa.
      Semitic culture goes back at least to Ebla in the third Century. I have not
      yet discovered a source to learn about Eblite. (Where are those 15,000-20
      000 texts I have read about?) I would conjecture taht the Eblite language
      was a combination of a Semitic system based upon Egyptian. Sumerian
      pictorgraphic and logographic systems developed into a phonetic system of
      consonants and vowels. However, they did not separate consonants and vowel
      but use them together in various combinations. It is not clear where the
      Semite Akkadians came from, but Narum-Sin, a successor of Sargon of Akkad
      (thus Akkadians) adopted Sumerian and applied their linguistic system to
      create something of a bilingual language known as East-Semitic, a
      complicated system that descends from complicated Sumerian whose signs
      render CV or VC or VCV or CVE. I do not know all that much about Sumerian
      and Akkadian, but can only mention what I have discovered about it at this
      time.
      The Canaanites used Ugaritic, which its an larger alphabet of 30 letters
      that the Phoenicians reduced to 22 and so created the actual 22 letter
      alphabet. However, we do not know how many letters were present in
      proto-Siniatic. In any case, the Canaanites created their system based upon
      Egyptian, and used cuneiform script invented by the Sumerians.
      Egyptian is basically a combination of logograms and west-Semitic. Logograms
      are of two types. Those which do not end a word and those which do. A
      logogram can be indicated by a vertical dash under it. In the above glyph,
      the vocalic Trigrammaton is not understood as vowels but as three consonants
      because it was written by Egyptians, who did not understand the vocalic
      nature of the NAME of Shasu, monotheistic iaw.
      A logogram is used also as a "determinative" which indicates a class of
      things and is a logogram placed at the end of word. In the above glyph, the
      bird is the determinative. Apparently, it is a chicken or a hawk. I do not
      yet know the significance of this determinative. But as you can see, the two
      reeds in Egyptian = yod in Semitic. The next glyph is perhaps a "house" and
      corresponds to the Hebrew letter, heh. The third glyph I am not sure what it
      is, but phonetically corresponds to waw or an u-class vowel. (It is to be
      read right to left as in Semitic languages. Ugaritic, is read left to right.
      Glyphs combine the Semitic alphabet of three class vowels by combining
      logograms and an alphabet, a sort of built-in interlinear.
      Glyphs are such that the they are transitional from a language of logograms
      to an alphabet. The earliest alphabet is proto-Siniatic of the 18th century.
      The Semitic language is essentially the glyphs stripped of their logograms.
      Proto-Semitic is essentially a 3+3+3 language. Three radicals, three vowel
      classes (a i u) and three stems (G,D,C). It was invented by the Egyptians
      and is as old of any attestation of a glyph, c 3200 BCE. The logographic
      system, predates this an stems from Africa. This indicates that the
      Egyptians migrated from Africa to Egyptian, the north-western tip to the
      Nile valley. Thus, in a search for the origins of language, we should look
      for a logographic system that can be demonstrated to informing Egyptian
      glyph logograms. Prior to that, we should look for pictograms as we find in
      earliest Sumerian. This suggest that the Sumerians were also from Africa and
      sailed there on their famous barges. So civilization is very much "Out of
      Africa" as indicated by the linguistic trail of
      Pictorgrams-->Logograms-->Semitic alphabet.
      West-Semitic culture goes back at least to Ebla in the third century. The
      Eblites language was a combination of a Semitic system based upon Egyptian.
      Sumerian pictorgraphic and logographic systems developed into a phonetic
      system of consonants and vowels. However, they did not separate consonants
      and vowel but use them together in various combinations. It is not clear
      where the Semite Akkadians came from, but Narum-Sin, a successor of Sargon
      of Akkad (thus Akkadians) adopted Sumerian and applied their linguistic
      system to create something of a bilingual language known as East-Semitic, a
      complicated system that descends from complicated Sumerian whose signs
      render CV or VC or CVC so far as I understand Sumerain and Akkadian, which
      is not much.
      The Canaanites wrote Ugaritic, which its an larger alphabet of 30 letters
      that the Phoenicians (later Canaanites) reduced to 22 and so created the
      actual 22 letter alphabet. However, we do not know how many letters were
      present in proto-Siniatic. In any case, the Canaanites created their system
      based upon Egyptian, and used cuneiform script invented by the Sumerians.
      The cuneiform letters of the alphabet are visually based upon the letters
      found in proto-Siniatic, but rendered vertically and horizontally. Howver,
      the Egyptians, and this is no surprise, actually invented the alphabet and
      proto-Semitic and based it upon a 3+3+3 system.
      We can deduce that proto-Semitic that words were composed of three
      consonants and three vowels where words had this original symmetry. So in
      Ugaritic, the 3 m s form is qatala(h) and 3 f s is qatalat. so our
      archetypical language, we suspect, would be one in which we have three
      vocalized consonants, with the vowels being a i u. Furthermore, each vowel
      sound be either long or short. The vocalic range covers sounds of "howling"
      iii eee aaa uuu ooo," where the sound extends from the top front of the
      mouth behind the teeth to the sound made from the diaphram: teeth to
      diaphram. This is also why vocal instructors call for one to sign from their
      diaphram, for maximum "push" and also to "open" the throat, so that one
      signs with maximum, phonetic power.
      Thus, language seems to have started with "caveman" grunting and was a
      language of pure, vocalic phonetics Apes also exploit this range: "oo oo oo
      ah ah."
      This vocalic range is celebrated still in the child's ditty, "Old Macdonald
      had a farm, e i e i o." In his farm, he had several different animals who
      were identified by the sound they made. This shows that human language, at
      least the vowel system, was based upon animal sounds, whose language may be
      interpeted by understanding the vowel system and interpreting animals
      phonetic expressions. Howling is too a good example of vocalic animal speech
      Indeed, animal language is entirely vocalic. Primitive man learned to speak
      from the animals, who are indeed a higher life form that human beings.
      How did I learn this? I accepted a large dose of pain as a spirit before the
      foundation of the world. Or at least that is my current theory. Nor do I
      know where I am from. I suspect Pluto, the "land of the dog people." But
      then again, I have quite an imagination, stemming from the 5th dimension,
      which can certainly be extrapolated.
      Greetings Earthlings. We come and go in peace. We, or I at least, represent
      the unknown god. Now you know. Sort of like "The Day the Earth Stood Still"
      without Gort the robot, or perhaps not. It's getting hard to tell.
      Any information regarding the 11 Dimensions would be most welcomed.
      luv,
      "puppet."
      Cf. "On the Existence of the Puppet People"
      http://www.academia.edu/2325883/On_the_Existence_of_the_Puppet_People
      PS. Currently I have no money. To quote the Lord, "Bring me a coin." Note he
      didn't say "please." He was disgusted with "unrighteous mammon." "Mammon"
      What is that? It doesn't sound good. I recommend bartering as the basis for
      a sounder, economic system. I understand that it is to some extent illegal.
      Hmm.
       
       
       




      -------Original Message-------

      From: Joseph
      Date: 1/28/2013 7:27:23 PM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] "oxon"


      This is just the weirdest thread here in awhile. Must. ignore. trollish.
      post.

      And, of course we're all [quietly] jealous of JG... though not all of us for
      the same reason.

      Joe Weaks [insert abbrev. here]
      Raytown Christian Church

      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Matson, Mark (Academic)" wrote:
      >
      > Still am quietly jealous. I admit.
      >
      > Mark A. Matson
      > Milligan College
      > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Frank Jacks
      A few exegetical comments ... I am curious about the or you slip in between current address and institutional affiliation, since the text in questions
      Message 34 of 34 , Jan 29, 2013
        A few exegetical comments
        > To: Synoptic
        > On: Protocol
        > From: Bruce
        >
        > A great deal of nonsynoptic time seems to have been spent, and to continue
        > to be spent, on this "Oxon" issue. I quote one relevant item of the list
        > protocol as recently posted:
        >
        > 8. It is essential to provide a full signature for every Email message
        > sent
        > to Synoptic-L. This signature should identify yourself, your address and,
        > where appropriate, your institutional affiliation and homepage
        >
        > Please note that this is a requirement to identify those posting by their
        > name, and current address or institutional affiliation (which functions as
        > an address for most academics).
        I am curious about the "or" you slip in between "current address"
        and "institutional affiliation," since the text in questions has an
        "and," the qualification here being only "where appropriate." Does
        this not mean that both are to be given? (???) So when your "or"?
        >
        > It turns out that "Oxon" is not an address, and it is not an institutional
        > affiliation. Despite one recent comment, it does not appear that there is
        > anything in list protocol to require the routine posting of a curriculum
        > vitae.
        Another exegetical anomaly I fear, for while "Oxon" is indeed not
        an address or institutional affiliation, why is is not included in the
        first portion of the sentence, "to identify" oneself. While it is true,
        that this is not specifically required, where is it precluded? In fact,
        why not an abbreviated vitae, which I have always found to be most
        helpful. (???)
        >
        > Another relevant item of list protocol is the following, and again I quote:
        >
        > 10. Please avoid all critical comments of a personal nature. While the
        > "cut
        > and thrust" of academic argument is welcome, this should never descend into
        > personal attack.
        >
        > There have been repeated instances, on this list as well as on others which
        > overlap with it in membership, of attempts to discredit participants on the
        > basis of their academic qualifications, rather than on the substance of
        > their arguments. That would appear to be a violation of the prohibition of
        > ad hominem attacks. If a member making an argument is in fact incompetent
        > with respect to the topic being discussed, that can be brought out, and can
        > only properly be brought out, by demonstrating the inaccuracy or irrelevance
        > of some points of the argument, by an argument which *goes to* the argument,
        > and not to the person making it. It cannot validly be brought out by calling
        > in question the educational background of the person making that argument.
        >
        > This repeated violation has consistently gone unrebuked by the respective
        > list managers. I venture to call it to their attention now, as a matter
        > deserving their consideration.
        Here you have raised my curiosity for I can not think of any
        such ... although that might be the product of my poor old mind.
        Perhaps you might share with me some "for instances" in an
        off-board e-mail, which I surely would appreciate.
        >
        > Respectfully submitted,
        >
        > E Bruce Brooks
        > Warring States Project
        > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        >
        >
        Frank

        Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union Theological Seminary, NYC)
        Professor Of Religion, Emeritus
        Pikeville College,
        Pikeville, KY

        (but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.