squiz

What do you mean by Caucasian here? Do you mean Caucasian_race, an obsolete and much overused term for the "white" race, which would include middle eastern people anyway?

Or perhaps you mean the Languages_of_the_Caucasus, eg. Georgian etc.?

Or do you mean Indo-European_languages?

Please clarify.

spin

The /v/ is untenable. It stems from a late development by way of German impact on Yiddish pronunciation of Hebrew. However, from the ancient transliterations of the Hebrew letter WAW into Greek, it is usually omega or the omicron/upsilon combination.

What parallels are evinced to justify a syllable between the second and third conconants of a quadri-consonantal Hebrew word?

It's not the background that is important, it is the evidence. The widely-accepted scholarly etymology of Jove has been pointed out by Chris. It is based on an enormous corpus of comparative linguistics.

To propose a connection instead between Yahweh-Jove would require evidence for a trajectory from Hebrew into early Latin and its preference to the obvious and readily available evidence for the connection between Sanskrit dyaus-pitr and Jupiter along with the related Greek Zeu pater. Where is the evidence for such a trajectory?


spin

Steven Avery

There have been discussions on this on the b-hebrew list where different posters gave the cases for three-syllable and two-syllable. That is the only place I know where there has been a direct back-and-forth interaction on the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin To propose a connection instead between Yahweh-Jove would require evidence for a trajectory from Hebrew into early Latin

As I said earlier "I am not sure if he sees any etymological linkage rather than a pronunciation linkage (similarity) which can have a spiritual component". If the latter then Nehemiah was not proposing the trajectory you request.

Shalom,
Steven

Chili

That was predicted and confirmed by Jesus in John 5:39-40 (or they would no longer be Jews) when Jesus said "you search the scriptures wherein you think you have eternal life--they testify on my behalf. Yet you fail to come to me to get that that life."

The 'me' in this context is the mythical Jesus that our pope talked about (who has been coming ever since the paraclete-to-be was "assumed" under the care of this favorite disciple named John.

It would be a contradiction to the Blessed Assumption to maintain the existence of a female Goddess if indeed She moved to Rome where She is the wherewithal of Christ to serve as paraclete in evidence that the Word is among us. The presence of this Word makes the Church Infallible which is a necessary condition with Christ among us who, yes, is the messiah that was denied by the Jews when they crucified the JESUS OF NAZARETH KING OF THE JUDEANS in effort to set the messiah of Israel free to be accepted by believers in the strict definition of the word believe.

Amedeo

===>> = reply
Do you have any evidence for this reading? You are aware that elohim can take a singular verb, right?

===>> Given the poverty of the language in question, "elohim" may mean also deity/divinity as well as the adjective "divine". But all this is besides the point. The Canaanite religion is polytheistic and includes the said "archangels". While Bible theologians take "elohim" the equivalent of El, it is clear in Genesis-1 that the Elohim are TWO people, one male and one female. The "we" is not rhetorical. If it is, then El is hermaphroditic ,for "it" created, in its own image, a human male and a human female, which, if I am not mistaken, are TWO in number. // Most frequently, the Bible employs the singular EL, precisely because the people no longer recognized a divine couple... and "el" is also used as an adjective [in English lexical style], as in "eliya": O god Yah; O divine Yah (as somebody exclaimed upon the birth of a baby).
-------------------------------------------
See this and this for a much better treatment.

===>> Whatever others say, I know from Eblaite and other sources that there was a god in the Levant, earlier than the Biblical Yahweh. (With a lexical variant, Yaweh also appears in the minor or largely superseded Greek pantheon... but I did not make it my task to presently write a whole page on what I know as a matter of fact. I can certainly make a better treatment of the one I did. What I stated is not incorrect.)
--------

This is patently, ridiculously false.

===>> This is also patently ridiculous, actually funny: Ray Charles, the blind musician, said to a fellow next to him, "Let me take a look at the music sheet."

What you should have said is, for example: In view of the biblical accout, which is undeniably true, the Hebrews ( the people before Shem and Abraham) descend from Adam and Eve and is mono-ethnic. To which you should add that Adam and his family clearly belong to the Agricultural Age, not to the paleolithic age of mankind. Secondly, you should say that, according to the Bible perspective and the perspective of the 18th century linguist who divided languages into Semitic and Aryan, Semitic is the original language of the the Hebrews, wherefore, it is erroneous to consider their language a derivative of proto-Arabic and Ethiopic. Thirdly, according to the Bible truth, El is the one and other god that ever existed; it is the god of the Hebrews and, by covenant, the god of the Semites; wherefore, the Hebrews were never infected by Araboid genes, by some proto-Arabic language, and by some proto-Arab religion. (At the same time, the Hebrews were not caucasoids who inherited some caucasian language and some Caucasian religion.) In plain words, the Bible teaches that the Hebrews are one unique race, with a unique language, and with a unique God. Hence, you are bound to falsify what is written in the Bible and proclaim that the Elohim are ONE god, and that it and Yahweh are two different names of a single god, and that the descriptions of their ways of creating are figurative: The Bible does not literally mean that, in one case, God created a human couple, and that, in another case, God created a human male and, after creating a few more animals, extracted a human female out of Adam's body. You should also add, that in the real Age of Agriculture, it was the male that generated other humans, not the female, as humans had always thought on the basis of experience. So, Yahweh was under the constraints of agrarian thinking, and had to produce a human male first. If Eve came first, there would not have been the human species, since a female was only an incubator of the male seed. So much for the Bible as the book of truth; it is patently ridiculous.
-----------------------------------------
No, on the contrary, the Tower of Babel myth explains the diffusion of languages, not the "commingling" of them.

===>> The Tower of Babel story literally tells of a God-caused CONFUSION in the language of the builders, so as to make further construction impossible, since they had the audacity to build a tower that would reach the sky. Now, just look at the presuppositions of the story-teller (who supposedly reported what God did and why): A "skyscraper" was deemed possible, since the sky is the upper vault of the world (where the night firmament is). The endeavors of certain men were like the endeavors of the Giants who tried to scale the heavens. (In the Biblical accounts of creation, no giants or talking serpents were ever created, but then they appear.... obviously from non-Genesis sources. The most ancient Hebrews had more theological beliefs than the belief in Yahweh; there is a whole caucasian cultural background that has nothing to with the Elohim and the "Semitic" culture, even though the giants and other things are named in Semitic. He who investigates the non-human agents or persons in the Bible, can surely find two cultures, which are associated with the two languages, the two theologies, and two ethnicities. I have only hinted at some facts; I have not written my ethnological treatise. // I said that the story of Babel ALLUDES to what was really a commingling of languages, for, liteally speaking, there is NO MEMORY in the Bible of the true history of the Hebrews or, for that matter, of the "nations."// The Biblical account of the nations attempts to formulate a genealogy of peoples, which are full formed, with their distinctive languages and religions. There is no Biblical explation as to how different languagea and different religions arose: There is no history of the neolithic Middle East (alias The World).
-----------------------------------
Wild speculation that is utterly defeated by both modern genetics and the historical record.

===>> Vague generalities, maybe; speculations, not at all.

It it a fact that the People that occupied the territory later called Palestine eventuall split into the Kingdom of Judah, the kingdom of Israel (Galilee), and Samaria. It is a fact that the Galileans (and especially the Essenes) considered themselves the authentic People of God, the Israel founded by Abraham.... whose God was El. In conventional Jewish history, the division of the kingdoms was a political affair. As far as I know, they do not ascribe that division to a theological dissension. But the fact remains that it was the Judeans that erected the temple of Yahweh in Judea. At the same time, there was no strict theological schism, as the life of the Galilean Jesus exemplies. He, whose explicit god was El, went to the Temple and chided those who conducted business there. Obviously he identified El and Yah; still, the religious-political society that Abraham instituted
was understood as excluding the Judeans. And to this day, the Jews do not call themselves Israelites. They belong to a new Israel, which is called Zion.// When the Temple was destroyed, the Galileans had no reason to leave their land. They stayed on and blanded with the Saracens that later occupied the land. (Today's Palestianian are a mixture of former Israelites and Arab populations -- something the Zionists couldn't care less.) Many Judeans remained in Judea and were to be found in 12th century Jerusalem, when the city was occupied by the Crusaders (and treated as badly as the Saracens -- the sword does not discriminate).

As for my statement that, unlike the (majority of) the Galileans, the (majority of) the Judeans was ethically Caucasian, I was speaking of races in terms of color and face physiognomy. Arab types are certainly found amongst the Jews, but they are not prevalent. I would say that the Arab types prevailed amongst the Galileans. Jesus may have looked more like bin Laden than Charles Heston.

I also know, but I did not mention that European Jewish [presumed Judean] males and females differ genetically. It looks as though the male Jews married only European Caucasoid females , since the female offsprings are genetically Caucasoid, whereas the male polulation has half if its chomosomes similar to those of the Araboid people in the Middle East [despite their Caucasoid looks]. As European inter-marriages have been relatively few, one must conclude that the females in old Judea, Syria, Lebanon, etc., had Caucasoid genes... that various populations in the Levant were genetically HYBRID.... exactly as I suspected for the Hebrews, the old Canaanites, and indeed tha Akkadians (who are historically know to be cultural, linguistic, and biological HYBRIDS). The idea of the pure Semites and of a pure Semitic language is a Biblical myth. [I am not witing the other 90% of what I should write. Everybody can do his own research; I don't accept or preach dogmas.) A critique should be made by presenting DETAILS to the contrary of what is asserted. Saying that this or that is ridiculous, or that this or that is contrary to genetic or the historical record is NONSENSICAL. Is the historical record you are referring to the BIBLE? (That's a rhetorical question.)
--------------------

[QUOTE]
Both are false etymologies. Jove is the anglicized form of the oblique form of Iuppiter, being derived from the latter. It has nothing to do with ius (law, not right or rectitude), and is never found as ious nor ever in the nominative, which is always iuppiter, an Italic form of Dyeus-pitr "day-father", an IE compound. It is totally unrelated in every way from YHWH.

===>> For the record, I presented a brief etymology of Jove and a comparison with [not an etymology] of "yahweh."

FIRST: "Jove" is a Latin word in the vocative case, whereas it is used in English in the nominative case [as the name of a god). The sound of the Latin J is like that of the English Y. So, the word could be spelled as either Jove or Yove. The declension of the Latin name is:

Nominative: JUS, formely [as attested] JOUS, just as the classical Latin JUSTUS [= just] was formely JOUSTOS.

The Latin U is a variant of the old Latin V, or, to put it different, there is a Latin sound which alternates between V and U (just as the Greek Y alternates between the i-sound and the u-sound). So, in the actual classical Latin languages:

Nominative: JUS [< Jous]
Genitive: JOVIS
Accusative: JOVEM [whence the Italian Giove, English Jove, etc.]
Vocative: JOVE (= O Jous!)

The supreme god of the Latins is Juppiter or Jupiter:

Jupiter = jus + pater. [The form "juspiter" occus also.]

The Sanskrit DYEUS-pitr is NOT a cognate of Jupiter; only -pitr and -piter are cognates. the JU-of Jupiter is NOT a sound-variation of Dye(us).
Only if the consonants of two words are identical, the two words are cognates: they are ONE word with some slight variation. On the contrary, dye(us) is an etym cognate of the Latin DIES... and Dies is not a cognate of Ju-
The Sanskrit Dyeus is specifically related to the Latin DIVUS (= a divine being) and the adjective DIVINUS (= divine)

I also stated that the word "yahweh" (which a TV rabbi pronounces -- in Latin spelling -- jaue) is equivalent to the Latin Jove. I did not say identical, because yau- is not jo-. But noted that the first part of "yahweh" could be YAh, YOh, or YEh.; and that the Latin V is sometimes pronounced U. Therefore, the word "yah-ueh" is equivalent to yo-ve (spelled Jove in Latin).

In order for two sonorically equivalent words to be cognates [to be ONE word], their meaning has to be basically the same. I know what Jove means; nobody knows what Yahweh means, except for the fact that both words denote a god, and that in many Biblical texts, Yahweh is understood and spoken of as the Righteous One, and the one that gave Moses the Laws. (He is justice personified!) We could not get any closer identity of meaning between two foreign words than these. (And I am not even giving an account of the cognate Greek words.) Yah or Jo(us) was a Levantine god prior to the hybrid Canaanites, Hebrews, and others. It/He survived in the cultural traditions of the ancient Syrians, Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins.

Chris Weimer

I sincerely hope that everyone can see just how wrong everything Amadeo wrote is, and that it needs no reply.

And just to make sure he fools no one on etymology:

Ius doesn't have a "v" (referred to as consonantal "u") in it. It is ius, iuris, iuri, iurem, iure, iures, iurum, iuribus, iures, iuribus. And the "r" comes about from the change in "s" between two vowels (cf. ara from asa). So you originally had ius, iusis, iusi, etc...

Finally, even in the Latin one sometimes sees Diespiter instead of Iuppiter. Amadeo is dead wrong on this issue.

spin

What the fuck do you mean by "poverty of the language"? Can you give me specific examples, or are you simply farting around making ugly noises??

Wow, such poverty! If I say "the green is green today", then naturally you have the same phonological sequence having two grammatical categories, noun and adjective. This is so common in English it's not worth a whinge. You are merely sputtering contempt for a language you don't appreciate for ome unaccountable reason. Besides, as you say:
Yup, it's beside the point, but you had to say it.

Maybe not, but you have no way of knowing who he was talking to. Before the creation started the wind of god was hovering on the water, so at least there was the personified wind present at the creation. Who else?

Non sequitur. As you should understand, in the second creation (the older one) god created man first and because he was lonely he eventually created woman as an adjunct. There is no necessity that the image referred to was concerned in specifically sexually delineated terms. In fact god says he would create man in his own image, then as an afterthought the text says after he created man in his own image, that he created man and woman in his own image. He created them. There is no two doing the creating. The text doesn't allow it. So you are talking rot.

Did you dream this stuff up or did someone else bring it up for you? The )LHYM form is much more frequent than the )L form and it would seem that the )L material is generally older.

Actually, it isn't a fact at all. You are slavishly accepting the biblical propaganda. The archaeological evidence suggests that it was with the destruction of the Samarian kingdom at the hands of the Assyrians did the Judahites fill the vacuum.

What on earth makes you think the Essenes were Galileans??

It might be useful if you took a look at the Oxford Latin Dictionary or similar before talking rubbish. Earlier forms included Diouis and Diouem. As late as Livy you'll find Diiou-. Forms such as Diespater and Dispiter were found in the epigraphy.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that they are all cognates. While you're there, check out the O.L.D. for Dies, you'll find the introductory section briefly informative.

Hey, no shit!? A modern rabbi can't say yahweh? That's bad.

In what sense equivalent? They aren't derived from the same source. They don't have similar meanings.

This is utter fabrication. Is it yours or someone else's?

Really? Have you got a source for this?

All you've done is perform a parlor trick equating one modern rabbi's pronunciation of yahweh with the vocative of *Iovis. Impressive.

Apparently not.

I must admit this is a cute attempt at a folk etymology (one that you may even be aware of is patently false).

Considering they are not close at all, I'd say you're not trying hard enough, or you are being willful. I'd guess for both.

Would it be just as imaginative?

What crap is the third word?

And you end on another non sequitur. This post of yours seems down to your usual standard.


spin

Amedeo

Speak to your equals like that, so that you will be clearly understood.
I will answer only one question in order to point to your ignorance of elementary things: A language is lexically poor when it has to use ONE word for a singular noun, a plural noun, and an adjective; when it has only some grammatical cases; when it does not even have three verb tenses, or the tense for the past before the past, or the tense for the past before the future...
===============================

Chris Weimer

So you say, but just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Amedeo

I am sure your warning will be heeded by people who cannot judge by themselves, but you should have revealed also that you are tone-deaf, since you do not hear the difference between

DIESpiter and IUppiter.