Amedeo

The land designated by the term "Canaan" is not constant in history. I don't know of any NORMAL designation. In that paragraph of mine, I thought of Canaan as the promised land --which is as fictitious as the divine giver of the land. It stretches from the Euphrates to the Nile.

I heard from somebody like you that said tha the Canaanite language includes Hebrew and Phenician -- which in my ind means that Hebrewland and Phenicia were part of Cannan, which, therefore, stratches from the land of the four rivers, or Eden, by the northern part of the Euphates to what, above, I called Palestine. This would means that, some time or other, Canaan strretches from the Euphrates river to the Gaza strip -- as I said in my above paragraph to begin with. But I still prefer the land, in the no-time zone, from the Euphates river to the Nile Rives [which has not been fully occupied yet by Israel].


Let x be y. This is a postulation discourse, which is neither true nor false; it serves to establish the denotation of certain words.
"So," in this case means "From what had been asserted, it follows that..." What had been asserted was that a country or people was superimposed by some other country of people. The superimposed country was non-Semitic in language; the superimposing people [Akkadians and Babylonians] were Semitic in language.
So, the superimposing or invading people were Araboid [not Caucasoid] people such as the Arabs or the Egyptians [or others].
this presupposes that the Akkadians and Babylonians are so named inasmuch as they establish their new countries. Before the occupations, they might have been called Arabs, Egyptians, Akkadians [of the Araboid breed], Babylonians, or something else [of the Araboid Breed]. I did not say or imply that Arabs, or prehistoric Arabs, were ever occupiers of Sumer. In fact, I spoke of Araboid people precisely in order not to affirm that a definite people called Arabs occupied Sumer.
I find the term Araboid [analogous to Caucasoid, Negroid, Nordicoid, etc.] very convenient and I invented it to avoid a thosand confusions. I don't know what racist organizations use it, since I invented it for my own purposes. Araboid, Caucasoid, Negroid, etc. are my names for different races. If you think that one who NAMES races is a racist, then you don't know what a racist is. If you think that there are no races [which I describe in terms of physiognomy and coloration], then I am wrong in namying something that does not exist, just as people are wrong is calling god or soul something that does not exist. But if you know WHAT I NAME when I say that someone is Caucasoid or Negroid or Araboid, or something else, namely a person's person's physiognomy and color, or when I call somebody a Semitic-speaking person or an Indo-European-speaking person, what the hell does it mean to be a racist -- to be attributing inferiority to a person?

The Jews conceive thelselves as a race, and they have been called a Semitic race, and by virtue of their coomon language [that is fallaciously] Jews and Arabs have been called people of the Semitic race. To avoid this fallacy, I would say that Arabs are Araboid people.; Jews are... what I have been trying to say all along: a mixture and hybrids of Caucasoid people and Araboid people (more so the ancient Galileans and others than the Judeans).
I know that Aryans (that mythical people who used to speak Aryan or Proto-Indo-European) thinks that the Jews are Semitic people, and I know that Jews think that they are on race of people... not to mention the belief that they have only one God and their own language. Both of them are racists and both of them are in error. One who seeks or speaks the truth is not
a racist. Believe it or not!

I thank you for advertising some of my writings on another Forum. The interested reader should find, under my name, the hundreds of messages I posted on a variety of subjects. As for your warning to the readers that they will be sorry to check out the thread you refer to, I have the impression that you did NOT read the thread and others that I posted. That means that you missed the opportunity to read the records of processes of thinking and searchings for truth that many people are unable to undertake.

(I have another half a dozen forums, including on etymology, that I can refer the readers to.)

spin

To stop you further assertions, can you supply a primary historical source for a meaning of Canaan which stretched from the Nile to the Euphrates?

Smettere con queste cazzate.

It doesn't.

Look for example at the Merneptah Stele which talks of Canaan then moves on to Syria (Hurru)

The term as you would use it is inppropriate.

Cazzata.

This was you saying silly things.

The "so" was your fallacious conclusion, ie "so we can say that the Semitic language was brought there from invading Arabs". This is rubbish.

Pure cazzate. "Superimposed" this and that.

Ma questa e' la merde di merda. What is the propagandistic point of this puerile tripe? You state this balderdash with a certain audacity.

Both Babylon and Akkad were places -- Babylon a city, Akkad a small region. Why don't you just buy a copy of Liverani's "Antico Oriente" and learn something?

Brooklynoid, Bronxoid, Queenzoid...

Why didn't you use a term that was meaningful and cut the b/s?

Oh I see. To avoid confusion, eh? Obviously you failed in your stated purpose.

Is "Nordicoid" a "race"?

What is your precise interest in "race"?

Why have you gone from incoherent discourse about language to "race"? Was the talk of language only a front for your real interest?

People talked about race in the 19th century and they also measured the bumps on people's heads and made prognostications.

Naming has the effect of separating what you name from te rest, whether the name is meaningful or not.

It usually means a person who makes discriminations based on received notions of physiognomy, discriminations which lead to different treatment.

Geneticists seem to disagree with this last proposition. And I doubt that you have any evidence based reason to make such statements.


I didn't set out to find such material; I got there trying to find anyone who used the term "araboid". What was especially interesting about it was the white supremacist position of the board. The reason why I mentioned it here was to prepare readers for the sorts of disgusting stupidity that comes from white supremacist idiots.

I have enough to read already. Like now.


spin

Amedeo

Of course, I have been insisting that the Hebrew-speaking people were not the bringers or spreaders of the Semitic language to other peoples (or that the opposite is true), but the reason for my saying so is NOT the reason you just presented, namely that Phoenician cam firt [or was the first Semitic language whence the others sprang or emanated]. Indeed,

I understand that the Phoenicians were established in Lebanon around 1200 B.C. and that this was a population from the Arabian peninsula. Now, I do not know if it valid to speak of Phoenicians before 1200 B.C., but if they were a Semitic-speaking population from the Arabian peninsula, I'd say that Arabic [or proto-Arabic] CAME before the language of the Phoenicians. At any rate, the semitic speaking people of Ebla [in modern Syria] were already flourishing in 3500 B.C. So, the Eblaite language is older than the Phoenician language.... and now we can see that "older" or "prior" really refers to the incidence, the occurrence, of the speaking of Semitic in terms of the speakers (the time when Semitic-speaking populations, distinct by name, existed).

Now, when was Hebrew spoken? That is, when did the Hebrew-speaking people begin to exist??? Well, in 3500 , there may have been existing a people denominated by "Hebrews" "Israelites" or otherwise, which was Semitic speaking. Let us suppose so. Well then, at that time, was there any of these languages which was older than the others in the group? "Arabic, Phoenician, Eblaite, Akkadian, Hebrew, and some other"?

We cannot rely on the Bible to find an answer to this question, since the whole Biblical "history" of early mankind is false: it does not correspond to what we have discovered about humanity-in-time. The Biblical earliest children, Cain and Abel, were a farmer and a shepherd. In real history, farmers began to exist {after a long course of human history} in Sumer some 8-10 thousand years ago. The Biblical variety of humans, with their own languages, originated with Noah. In real history, the variety and languages started hundreds of thousands of years earlier. So, whatever is said or implied about languages, in the Bible, is worthless. The theory that the language of the race (bloodline) of people from Adam through Noah, through Shem, and through Abraham is Hebrew is based on the erroneous Biblical anthropology.

My view is that the real Hebrews/Israelites (as a distinct ethnic group) had a pre-history [a life which is not described or otherwise revealed in extant documents]. The historical Hebrews were a clan of Canaanites in language, religion, and territory. [Their Semitic language is the dialect called Aramaic or Hebrew.] In their pre-history, the Hebrews -- obviously unknown to us by any name -- were ethnically different, as they had a different language and a different religion.

Now, the variety of Semitic languages -- Hebrew, Eblaite, Phoenician, Arabic, etc. -- are NOT such that one of these dialects existed before the others. Any of the dialects does NOT COME from one of them. What is rather true is that the Semitic language [let's call it Proto-Arabic] spread from the Arabian peninsula to the Levant. Thus we find, at some historical time of other, the particular Semitic dialects which we call Eblaite, Hebrew, Phoenician, etc. (Akkadian is also Semitic, and we know that it was imported into Sumer. Wherever it geographically came from, it did not descend from Eblaite or Hebrew, etc.) In eastern Mesopotamia, there was a commingling of Caucasoids and Araboids, of Sumerian and Semitic, and an accumulation (if not a blending) of religions. However, people who have not investigated Akkadian to a great depth believe that Akkadian is a PURELY Semitic languague. People who have not investigated Hebrew at great depth believe that Hebrew is a PURELY Semitic language. (Some people strenuously uphold the primacy of Hebrew over the other Semitic languages, and Hebrew as a pure Semitic language. They also hold that the Hebrews are a pure biological race, if not a human species at all; that the Biblical Hebrews had only one God; and that --consistently indeed -- God is the exclusive God of the Hebrews. The real Hebrews were not really the same as the Biblical Hebrews, as we can read between the lines.)

To put the situation in a different way. If we consider ancient Arabic to be a PURELY SEMITIC language, then, by comparisons we can determine what is non-Semitic in Akkadian, in Hebrew, and in Eblaite. My contention is that these are NOT pure Semitic languages; their linguistic sunbtrate is the language which was spoken by the historic or non-historic predecessors who occupied the lands of the Akkadians (namely Sumer), of the Hebrews, and of the Eblaites. In the latter two cases, the pre-historic populations are obviously not known by name. They might be Aegeans; and some of the Aegeans who were not overtaken by Semitic-speaking peoples would be the historical Philistinians. -- To go in search of their pre-history, we must dismiss the perspective implied by the Bible, by which the Hebrews and the Cananites have NO pre-history. For the Bible, there is no such a thing as any people's pre-history: the Bible IS TELLING their history. Even people who deliberatly reject the Bible as a book of truth often unwittingly preserve what they learned from it -- as the present thread clearly shows.

premjan

I have heard some good arguments based on linguistic diversity that Semitic languages are Ethiopian in origin. The same sorts of arguments are used to trace Pacific Islanders to an origin in 2nd millennium BC Taiwan.

Amedeo

I have not INVESTIGATED Ethiopic and Semitic. So, I can't tell if one came (developed) before the other. But I suppose that there is a principle of ethnology which says. Any group of people which is autonomus -- living and growing in isolation from other other groups develops its own culture, namely its mores (behavioral manners and tasks), language, religion, technology, etc.
I suppose that today there are few, if any, autonomous or aboriginal ethnic groups. Anyway, the living together of people in isolation from others implies intermarriages and, therefore, the perpetuation of certain biological ethnic [i.e., racial] qualities.

Today there are some pure race-groups; hybridation is the general rule of mankind. But today's existence if more of less distinct races definanle perceptually in tems of head physiognomy andf surface coloration -- points to the ancient existence of GROUPS which were racially distinct from one another. Such groups would be aboriginal ethnic groups, each developing its own culture: its language, religion, technology, and what not. Such groups would be relatively small in size as compared with the racial populations of today. So, for instance, if the South-Saharian Negroid people are a pure race, certainly the quantity of the population and the space they occupied originally [when they were acquireing thei racial qualities and developing their own culture] was much smaller. Today they do not have one language but, aside from imports, a laguage of their would be partly a derivation from the original languauge and partly an invention along the way.

By the way, definitions of races by DNA beg the question, because if one say that this or that genetic marker (X) is the marker of race Y, one has to assume that you have a knowledge or definition of race Y apart from any genetic factor. One has to define races anthropologically, perceptually, because one can sensibly refer to any genetic factor as belong to one race or another. I use my own classification of race in terms of physiognomy and color: [S. Saharian] Negroid, Araboid, Caucasoid [North Mediterraneans, Armenians, Sumerians, etc.], Nordicoid, etc. etc. etc.

To my estimate, the Araboid race comprises these later or historical populations: Ancient Ethiopians, Arabs [the desert people across Ethiopia], Egyptians, possibly Cretans [or Cretans were part of the ancient Egyptians], etc.

If humans originated in Ethiopia, probably the Araboid people are those who inherited the original racial qualities, while the other races were formed amongst the migrants in different directions. (Possibly there were two human orgins in Africa and one in Indonesia.) Anyway, the aboriginal race of the Araboids would develop its own language -- which today would not be recognizable by the Semitic speaking populations. So, I think that the historic languages called Ethiopic, Arabic, and others, do have a common origin, rather than one language (such as Ethiopic) being the source of Arabic or other Semitic languages. I still think that ancient [historical] Egyptian is one later stage of the primordial language of the Araboids (which might be called proto-Arabic, Arabesque, or whatever). The distance of Egyptian from either Ethiopic or Arabic may be much greater than the distance between, say, French and German.

In my estimate, the proto-language of the Caucasoids was a language the buildings upon which are called Sumerian and Greek. (An accretion was made by Akkadian.) Further ramifications include Etruscan, Latin and the romance languages, Gerrmanic [languages], and Slavic languages.

The book on the history of languages is yet to be written.

Amedeo

...

spin

For someone who knows next to nothing about diachronic linguistics, it's very hard for you to say anything meaningful on the subject.


spin

Amedeo

THE PHONOLOGICAL METHOD OF ETYMOLOGY IN ACTION
Exemplifications
=========================================

Examples taken from
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DIC-TION-AR-Y OF INDO-EUROPEAN ROOTS.
(Its Index lists English words which are then referred to roots
listed in the main text of the book.) A prefixed asterisk indicates
that the root is constructed from various words.)
---

JUNE < yeu- : vital force, youthful vigor. (yeu- <*^e-eyu; suffixed:
*yuwen) these are simple or complex words which contain the root:
-- young < Old English: geong.
-- Old high German: junc (=young).
-- Middle Dutch: jonc. // Germanic = *junga.
-- Welsh: ieuanc, < Celtic: yowanko.
-- Latin: iuvenis (=young). (*yun)
-- Latin Juno (the deity, probably meaning: the young one), and its
derivative month: Iuniis, whence JUNE.

Comments:
(1) Here are three basic root sources: Germanic, Celtic, and Latin,
which seem to coincide. (They coincide phonetically and are
synonymous -- hence:cognates.) Thus the inference is made that the root word is PIE (Troto-Indo-European).
(2) The Germanic, Celtic, and Latin cognates do not include any
cognate with Perso-Indian languages, which must have basically
different words for Young or Vigorous. The are called Indo-European
simply because they are cognates in SOME of the languages which are called Indo-European in advance.
(3) These historically abstract cognates do not consider the fact
that any Germanic word was written down in the present era (in the
last 2000 years or so), and since their literate history is also
lacking, there is no way of telling from whom any Germanic population
received any (authentic) PIEword.
Whereas Germanic speaking people may be interested in determining the
co-PIE components in their languages, these languages themselves
are useless for the global lexicologist. Similarly, most of the
Romance languages are useless as a study basis for the lexicologist
of PIE, since it is historically known that these languages are
preponderantly from Latin. (Multiplying cognates is pointless.)
(4) Since Latin has been called an Indo-European language, it is
erroneouly assumed that its words are "Indo-European." A case in
point is precisely JUNO (which may be spelled YUNO in phonetic
English). Not knowing the history of the word, some lexicologist saw
the identity of "Yun(o)" and "YUN(c)" [= young] and considered
JUNO to be an Indo-European word. The fact is that those two words
are homonyms: phonetically similar and meaningwise dissimilar. (Even
if JUNO were an authentic cognate of the other word, the fact would
remain that, in the absence of Perso-Indian cognates, there is no
reason for considering JUNO Indo-European.)
We know that JUNO is from the Etruscan UNI.
The Latin "month of Juno" is one of the four Roman agricultural months or stages, namely the months of Mars [inseminator/sawer], Aprilis [that I deciphered elsewhere], of Maia [incubator/growing], and of Juno [bearing offspring or seed; generatrix]. [The names of the numina are Etruscan, which at least up to now, are not considered Indo-European words.]

Incidentally, yesterday I noticed that some very ancient Maltese
architecture is quite similar to the Sardinian nuraghi. I would not
be surprised if proto-Etruscan were current in Lydia, Sardinia,
Albania, Etruria and Malta as well -- before the influx of Semitic in
the B.C. era. Before the end of the Glacial Age, about 13,000 B.C.,
Malta was connected to Sicily and was likely to be inhabited (one of
the best spots in the Mediterranean Sea). Preliminary underwater
explorations suggest mega-structures which were then submerged --
just as many others were around the world. My own interpretation,
some ten years ago, of a painting in a cave of Levanzo, now also an
island, is that it bespeaks of a great flooding. At that time I
thought of tidal waves following the immense eruption of Santorini.)

---
SEED < se-: to sow.
-- This "se-" is nor identifified. I presume it is the constructed
root of "seed" and "sow." No germanic roots have been adduced here.
-- The suffixed Latin word Semen, and related ones, are mentioned.
No elaborations have been made.

Comments:
No Perso-Indian words are in sight here either, but this is
understandable as many agricultural terms are Sumerian or Sumerian-
derived. And yet, the lexicologist assumed that SEED, SEMEN, and the
like are Indo-European.
---
BARLEY < probably from bhars-: projection, bristle, point -- since
some Germanic words refer to spiny dorsal fins, points, or bristles.
[Comment: But then any ear of corn would be called Barley!]
Mention is made of the Latin Far (<farr-) = spelt; grain.

Comments:
The conceit that Germanic is more Indo-European than any other language leads to forced or nonsensical etymologies.

There is such a thing as not knowing enough and being unable to
derive a word from some other word. At the same time, if we looked
for "barley" in some other language, then it may dawn on the
lexicologist that "barley" and a synonymous non-cognate cannot be
both "Indo-European," that Barley need not be "Indo-European" just
because it exists in English.

The Latin for Barley is Hordeum (orzo, in Italian). Either one or
both words are not of PIE descent.
---
RYE < wrughyo- // <O.E. ryge < *rugi

Comments:
-- Rye in Greek = sekalis [long E].
-- Rye in Italian = segale [stressed first E], from the Latin: secale,
whose etymology is stated by Italian lexicologists as unknown.
RYE and SEKALIS [etc.] cannot be both Indo-European...

Sumerian :
-- Barley = u; se [she]/seg.
The "se" seems to be the root of both the Latin se-men {seed} and the
Latin se-cale. Even admitting that "secale" might designate either
rye or barley, more expert knowledge is needed to establish the
derivation.
-- To plow = uru. [Latin; aru/aro; ar(are)]
-- Ear of barley or any grain = essu. [On the other hand, Latin:
spica.]

Amedeo

continued
examples of the bankrupt Phonological Method of Etymology
=============================================

JOVE < dyeu: to shine (and derivatives like Sky, Heaven, God).
--Basic form *dyeu- : Jove, the name of the god of the bright [day]
sky, head of the Indo-European pantheon.
-- *deiwas (formed from *diw). Tiu, Tuesday, from Old English Tiw.
Tyr from Old Norse Tyr (sky god), from Germanic Tiwaz.
-- Latin Deus, diva, divine.
-- Suffixed: *diw-yo: heavenly, Diana (moon goddess).
-- Devi, Deodar, Devanagari < Sanskrit devah (god); deva- (divine).
-- Variant form: * dye (< *dyee-):
Diary, Diurnal, ... [Latin: Dies, Day].

Comments:
-- The movemevent of "Indo-European" linguistics started some
centuries ago when some Europeans discovered a correspondence between
the Latin deus/divus (god/divine) and the Sanskrit [Indi] daeva (a
type of goddess). Then the root was found also in other Latin words:
dies, Diana, etc. The Latin root concept is that of the bright
[daytime] sky.
In Greek, Ouranos is simply the divine Sky, the upper hemisphere of
the world who separated from Earth --as in previous oriental myths.
His grandson Zeus -- in Hesiod's Theogony -- is also the Sky. As in
early Greek expressions: Zeus rains, Zeus thunders, etc. There are
definite conceptual identities between Zeus, Jupiter (Jove), and
Yawveh, as the ancient Romans discovered.
-- Jove was practically understood as the sky-god, but not
specifically as the Bright One: DI- or DYEU/DIW is more properly the
Bright One, in contradistinction to Night. (In one of the Greek --
inherited -- theogonies, the world started out of the mighty, divine,
NIGHT; DAY replaced NIGHT. "Coming into the light" is an old
expression which means to be born. Etc., etc.) The derivation of Jove
from Dyeu or the like is forced and erroneous, based on the mere fact
that Jove was understood as the Sky.
In some situations, the error is based on the similarity of sound
(when in fact the considered words or roots are homonymous);
presently, the error is based on a similarity of concept
(connotation), when in fact the considered words are not cognates.
-- The kinship of Tiu with Tiw/Diu is obviously plausible; the Old
Norse Tyr [or, for that matter, the Etruscan Tin] remains to be
decided. [The e of the Latin Deus must have been acute, high-pitched,
since is easily became diu/dio in subsequent dialects; Di(es) was
already a variant of De(us)].
Granted that
DE/ZE//DI/TI is a common root in PIE and in Etruscan ], the fact remains that Jove has nothing to do with Deus,
--We can pair Deus and Zeus. In fact, the genitive case of Zeus is
Dios. As an adjective, Dios = Divine. Deus and Zeus are synonyms;
Deus and Jove are not. [The Dioscuri are the chiaro-scuri..., not
little Joves.]
(I have worked out my own etymology of Jove; the above one is erroneous.)

Amedeo

continued
examples of the Phonological Method of Etymology gone haywire
=================================================

FULMINATE < *bhel- (= to shine, etc., etc.)
[ in part ]
-- Beluga < Russian Belyi (=white).
-- *bhle-wo < Old French Bleu (= blue); Germanic *Blewaz (=blue).
-- Old English Blaese.
-- Latin Flavus (= yellow).
-- Blush < Old Englis Blyscan (= to glow red) < Germanic *Blisk (=
to shine, burn).
-- Greek Phlegein (= to burn).

Comments:
-- Here we have quite distinct concepts (white, blue, yellow, to
shine, and to burn), wherefore the cited words or roots are not
synonyms. Of course, there is the possibility that someone who
acquired a word modified its sound and used to say something
different from what it originally meant. It is also possible that the
laryngeal acrobat went from Bhel to either Phleg or Blisk. But the
kinship of the compiled words or roots is assumed and baseless. As a
rule, non-synonyms cannot be authentic cognates.
-- In particular, the lineages of derivation may be erroneous. For
example, as in most cases, Germanic (as an ancient language) is
constructed from related modern languages and resides in other
languauges. There is no evidence that the word Blisk ever existed;
deriving the English Blush from it is preposterous. Rather, it is
English and some other languages which are the basis from which
Germanic is invented. (The pre-literate Germanic populations had a
relatively small vocabulary; the huge invented Germanic vocabulary
ignores that the original Germanic received more later on than it
contained originally.)
-- In the Dic-tion-nar-y's long list of words under BHEL there is no
Perso-Indian word -- which leaves it an open question whether any of
the cited words is PIE in origin.

To continue with the listing:
-- Latin: Fulgere (to shine), fulgur [= light blast], fulmen
(lightning).
-- Latin: Conflagrare (to blaze); Greek: phlegein (to burn); flamma
(flame).

Comments:
-- Conflagrare and phlegein are feasible cognates, since blazing (to
be aflame, to fire-spread) has much in common which burning, and the
phonetic common element is FLAG/PHLEG. The given etymology of Fulmen
is: *FULG. Presumably, by the L inversion, FULG --> FLUG, which
occurs in Greek as PHLOK (phlox = phloks = flame). But even if all
this is correct, how can one derive Flag/Fleg from *BHEL? Probably
from BHEL/FEL and the subsequebt variants, FUL(G) and PHlO(G). Having
disregarded meaning, one can conceive of any laryngeal change.

More realistically:
FULMIN(ATE) < Fulmen.
Latin: fulgere = fu + luc [light] + infinitive verb ending.
Latin: the noun from the above: fulgur = fu + luc + ur.
Latin: fulmen = fu + lumen [luminosity]= fu + luc + men.

The prefixing FU indicates a sudden appearence, arising, or occurrence.
Thus Fulgere = to flash, and as the light continues, it = to shine.
The idea of arising or starting is present in Fugio (= I run away; I
escape) of Fugo (I drive away, I chase away). The Italian or Latin Fui (= I
was) is not based on Esse (to be); it is remotely connected with Fieri
[fio; factus sum]= to become, to arise, to come into being.
[fiat lux = May light arise.]

The Latin FU- is equivalent to the Greek PHY-, which occurs in the verb
which means To Grow; the sound hovers between FU and FI (and is
transliterated into Latin in either way). Significantly it was used
in the 6th century B.C. by the Ionian Anaximander, who wrote "Peri
Physeos" = "About Physis." The topic is physis, namely emerging,
ARISING, coming into being, as well as passing away. The term was
translated into Latin as Natura [from Nascor], meaning the condition
of being born. Henceforth, the physical world or nature was always
understood as the realm of what begins or is born as well as what
passes away.

Fu-/phy- is neither in sound nor in meaning the same as *bhel, *Blisk, or other phonologically constructed fantasies.