Freethought & Rationalism Archive

premjan · 03-13-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

I just had add this point. The Hebrew word written, without vowels, as YHVH is usually rendered with vowels in the Roman script. To begin with, there is the Biblical occurrence of Y, which is then rendered as Ya (or Yah specifically for English readers), Yaw [yau](as a TV rabbi pronounced it), Yo, and sometimes Ye (or Yeh, as in Yehuda). There is no such a thing as one correct spelling in the Roman-script rendition of Y or, for that matter of YHVH. The next thing I am going to be told is that I mispell Zeus. The fact is that the sound of the Greek Y varies and is, therefore, transcribed into the Roman script as either Y [i] or U, as in Physica and Zeus.
Nevertheless, in this whole page I have been admittring that I am INCORRECT about just about anything I wrote. So, "Yaveh" may as well stand retracted with all the rest.

You deserve to know that "Yahvah" (like Shivah) is a God of the Rig Veda which AFAIK is not reliably dated and may be prior to Moses or Abraham or whoever is supposed to have thought it first. proto-IE is dated as early as 8000 BC by some people (though some of those people may be nutcases). Just to show that there are people with the opposite contradictory pole to Amedeo's indicating the opposite end of the fruitcake spectrum.

spin · 03-13-2005, 04:32 PM

There's little need to comment on most of Amedeo's post, other than to suggest a course in linguistics.

However, the following rationalisation I will comment on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

The Hebrew word written, without vowels, as YHVH is usually rendered with vowels in the Roman script.

Actually, if you'd bothered to look at the original, you'd find that it should be transliterated YHWH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

To begin with, there is the Biblical occurrence of Y, which is then rendered as Ya (or Yah specifically for English readers), Yaw [yau](as a TV rabbi pronounced it), Yo, and sometimes Ye (or Yeh, as in Yehuda).

This is too confused and shows that you simply don't know what you are talking about. Those renderings you give, some spoken, some written, are all derived not from the YOD alone, but from the YOD HEH. The name due to religious choice of the practising Jews hasn't been pronounced in the original for a few millennia, so modern pronunciations are irrelevant. We do however have the original Hebrew form of the tetragrammaton, so if you want a form to represent it, you should use a transliteration which is consistent with the Hebrew, ie YHWH. Writing it with vowels won't have much meaning other than to allow you to give some form to say in order to allude to the name. Practising Jews usually say ha-shem, "the name", which is unmistakeable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

There is no such a thing as one correct spelling in the Roman-script rendition of Y or, for that matter of YHVH.

There are certain correct transliterations of the original. Yours certainly wasn't one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

The next thing I am going to be told is that I mispell Zeus. The fact is that the sound of the Greek Y varies and is, therefore, transcribed into the Roman script as either Y [i] or U, as in Physica and Zeus.

Actually the Roman script didn't have a Y. The Romans regularly transliterated the upsilon as a U. You mightn't know it, but you're covered by Roman consistency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

Nevertheless, in this whole page I have been admittring that I am INCORRECT about just about anything I wrote. So, "Yaveh" may as well stand retracted with all the rest.

That's very noble of you, Amedeo Amendola de' Maddamma.

spin

Weltall · 03-13-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

As is implicitly the case, All posts of mine are copyrighted by me, Amedeo Amendola de' Maddamma, as of the date of posting. As it goes without saying, All of my authorship rights are reserved.

I'm just curious, does this level of pretention come naturally or are you working at it? I just ask because this statement is about as ridiculous as anything I've seen on II.

EverLastingGodStopper · 03-13-2005, 07:23 PM

Yeah, because... http://www.infidels.org/infidels/copyright.html

Amedeo · 03-13-2005, 07:44 PM

The Phonological Method of Etymology is phony!

------Reasoning By Analogy----------

Those who employ the phonological method purely and simply do not
realize that they are involved in a fallacious reasoning: the fallacy
of analogy. For example:

We know an ancient word and a modern word which are slightly different in
sound but have essentially the same meaning -- a set of cognates such
as the Latin Fruct(us) and the Italian Frutt(o). Here and in other
sets of cognates (Pactus/Patto; etc.) we notice the sound shift from
CT to TT which occurred in the corse of history. Now we take a modern word with TT and, without even having
to consider meanings, we can find its parent (with CT). [ Some phonologists on systemtically ignoring meanins and to concentrate of the sonic nature of words!) For example:

Italian MATTO must come from *Mact(us). In other words, we infer the EXISTENCE of a word or root by analogy with known (attested) words.

The truth of the matter is that Matto comes from Matus or Mattus (not
Mactus), a Latin word akin to or derived from the Latin Madius (=
wet, soft; intoxicated). Indeed, Matto means Foolish or Mad (like an inebriated person).

It happens there is the Latin verb Mactare (one of whose forms is
Mactus). Is it true, then, that *Mactus is actually attested in Latin? If we are concerned with meanings, we find that Mactare means to glorify/immolate and, therefore, to kill. "*Mactus" and "Mactus" are homonyms, not cognates.

Interestingly, Italian dictionaries point out that Mattare (in
Italian) or Mactare (in Latin) has an uncertain origin. But Italian
has another "matto": scacco matto [=checkmate], which comes from the Pharsi or Persian "Shah Mat" (= the king is dead; the king is beaten).

Could the Latin Mact(are) be a cognate of the Persian Mat?

Semerano informs:

--- Mact(are) (= to beat down; to sacrifice). Old Akkadian: Maqtu (=
beaten; fallen; heruntergefallen).

So: {chess-game} Mact(are) <-- Maqtu --> Mat -->Matt(o)]

--- Mad(ere) (to be rotten wet;...) Akkadian Maza'u (to cause to drip; to squeeze); Hebrew Masa (to wet).

So, here comes the fool: Matto; Mad.

Conclusion:

Rules are of generalized phonological changes. When one applies them to a word in order to find its ancestor, one REASONS BY ANALOGY and fabricates the ancestor. Thus proceeding, even gods have been invented.

If fact he who sees that a table or an animal have a beginning, and that they begin to be inasmuch as they are made or generated, when he conteplates the whole universe and thinks of it analogically, he infers that it has a beginning and that an agent (a god) produced it.*

When an etymologist has two words from two languages and finds them homonymous but he does not know the meaning one of them, he applies phonological rules to determine whether one is the ancestor of the other. Thus he reasons analogically and end up fabricating a meaning for the previously meaningless word.

A phonologists creates either lexical existences or lexial essences. His method is fallacious, PHONY!
---------------
I just checked the phonological dictionary to find out how they derived MAD (fool):

MAD < Old Engl. *gemaedan:to make insane or foolish, < Germanic *ga-maid-jan, < ga-maid-az: changed (for worse), abnormal.

And:
Suffixed MAD: MATTE. CASEMATE, from Latin Madere(> Mattus: drunken, stupefied.
This really takes the cake: The English word CASEMATTE has been taken to be composed of these elements: CASE + MATTE, and "matte" is derived from the Latin Mattus. This is phonologically correct. Of course, the author did not bother to consider the meaning of "casematte." One of its denotations is "a vault of stones or brickwork." It appears distorted in the Italian "arte cosmatesca," and it comes from the Greek "Chasmate", from Chasma/-atos, which contains ONE etym, which designates an opening or a chasm. The "-mate" or "-matte" is PARTIALLY a grammatical case-ending and has nothing to do with the Latin etym "Mad(ere)" or "Matt(us)".

This goes to show that phonologists thrive on the SOUNDS of homonyms!

====================
P.S. By the Phony Method one fabricates the ancestral words of those which are shared by various countries from Europe to Iran to northern India. The underlying words are PIE: they are called the Proto-Indo-European language. The are words which were spoken by humans.
In the 18th century, a pious linguist classified various languages as being either Semitic or Aryan. Aryan was then renamed Indo-European, which is the language of the Indo-Europeans of our times. The underlying language is called Proto-Indo-European, which is then spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans -- which is the same as the Proto-Aryans, or simply Aryans.
The Indo-Europeans are not necessarily the biological descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but the language of the latter was diffused among the Indo-Europeans.
Who were the Aryans or Proto-Aryans? They lived somewhewhere between Europe and Asia some time prior to the diffusion of their spoken language; were great conquerors or diffusers; had blond hair and blue eyes; left no trace of tools, artworks, pottery, buildings, or vehicles; did not invent agriculture; did not leave any written document; like Jesus Christ, they were not attested in the writings of foreigners; their vocabulary was at best that of Paleolithic humans; their great accomplishment was the PIE which their modern offsprings fabricate.

God and the Aryans are the transcendental realities -- beyond human expererience -- which reasoning by analogy leads to. The Medieval Cajetan I think it was that wrote a whole book on Analogy [I've read it], such is its efficacy in the pre-rational way of thinking! Today it is the PIE-Phonyologists, not the theologians, that use it.

There must be some other transcendental reality that can be discovered by baking pies. Until then, all the Cherubim of heaven shall sing in choir: Credo in unum deum patrem omnipotentem, Elohim, factorem coeli et terrae, et in Aryopopulum, verbum sempiternum, unum, sanctum, fulvum, et insolentem.

premjan · 03-14-2005, 02:33 AM

This may be true to an extent, there is a lot of phony phonology out there and should be taken with a pinch of salt always. However the broad similarities of some root words across PIE seem too strong to be completely fabricated.

spin · 03-14-2005, 03:07 AM

I thought we'd seen the last of your comments in this thread, after you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

So, as far as I am concerned, this thread will rest in peace.

But no, you're back doing the same sort of thing, rehashing someone else's linguistic work, when you don't know anything about the subject in general.

But as you are back and still telling us miraculous things about this word or that which you are apparently extracting from your source, Semerano, and rehashing with a few comments, let me to spend a little time elsewhere. I have collected a few simple core words from English (as a representative of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family). Can you complete the table for me?

Code:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
        :  Latin  :  Greek  : Avestan : Sanskrit:  Akkad. : Etruscan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
mother  :         :         :         :         :         :         :
father  :         :         :         :         :         :         :
brother :         :         :         :         :         :         :
night   :         :         :         :         :         :         :
foot    :         :         :         :         :         :         :
one     :         :         :         :         :         :         :
two     :         :         :         :         :         :         :
three   :         :         :         :         :         :         :
eye     :         :         :         :         :         :         :
heart   :         :         :         :         :         :         :
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Are the core words in English also core words in the other languages?

spin

Chris Weimer · 03-14-2005, 03:40 AM

Heh, spin, you're asking for a lot there, especially with that last column of yours. There is still dispute, but I'll help him out. am, at... ok, I'm done, the rest is yours

premjan · 03-14-2005, 04:37 AM

Code:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
        :  Latin  :  Greek  : Avestan : Sanskrit:  Akkad. : Etruscan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
mother  :         :         :         :         :         : ati     :
father  :         :         :         :         :         : apa     : 
brother :         :         :         :         :         : Ruva    : 
night   :         :         :         :         :         :         :
foot    :         :         :         :         :         :         :
one     :         :         :         :         :         :         :
two     :         :         :         :         :         : thu     : 
three   :         :         :         :         :         : ci      : 
eye     :         :         :         :         :         :         : 
heart   :         :         :         :         :         :         :
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Etruscan Glossay

Chris Weimer · 03-14-2005, 06:12 AM

There's been some controversy, if I recall correctly, although it has been several years since I let down Zacharie Mayani's The Etruscan's Begin to Speak. I could have sworn it was at and am for father and mother, but my memory fails me so much, apa and ata aren't too far from it. :worried:

03-13-2005, 07:44 PM	#45
Amedeo Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: US Citizen (edited) Posts: 1,948	P.S. to the Phony PIE The Phonological Method of Etymology is phony! ------Reasoning By Analogy---------- Those who employ the phonological method purely and simply do not realize that they are involved in a fallacious reasoning: the fallacy of analogy. For example: We know an ancient word and a modern word which are slightly different in sound but have essentially the same meaning -- a set of cognates such as the Latin Fruct(us) and the Italian Frutt(o). Here and in other sets of cognates (Pactus/Patto; etc.) we notice the sound shift from CT to TT which occurred in the corse of history. Now we take a modern word with TT and, without even having to consider meanings, we can find its parent (with CT). [ Some phonologists on systemtically ignoring meanins and to concentrate of the sonic nature of words!) For example: Italian MATTO must come from Mact(us). In other words, we infer the EXISTENCE of a word or root by analogy with known (attested) words. The truth of the matter is that Matto comes from Matus or Mattus (not Mactus), a Latin word akin to or derived from the Latin Madius (= wet, soft; intoxicated). Indeed, Matto means Foolish or Mad (like an inebriated person). It happens there is the Latin verb Mactare (one of whose forms is Mactus). Is it true, then, that Mactus is actually attested in Latin? If we are concerned with meanings, we find that Mactare means to glorify/immolate and, therefore, to kill. "Mactus" and "Mactus" are homonyms, not cognates. Interestingly, Italian dictionaries point out that Mattare (in Italian) or Mactare (in Latin) has an uncertain origin. But Italian has another "matto": scacco matto [=checkmate], which comes from the Pharsi or Persian "Shah Mat" (= the king is dead; the king is beaten). Could the Latin Mact(are) be a cognate of the Persian Mat? Semerano informs: --- Mact(are) (= to beat down; to sacrifice). Old Akkadian: Maqtu (= beaten; fallen; heruntergefallen). So: {chess-game} Mact(are) <-- Maqtu --> Mat -->Matt(o)] --- Mad(ere) (to be rotten wet;...) Akkadian Maza'u (to cause to drip; to squeeze); Hebrew Masa (to wet). So, here comes the fool: Matto; Mad. Conclusion: Rules are of generalized phonological changes. When one applies them to a word in order to find its ancestor, one REASONS BY ANALOGY and fabricates the ancestor. Thus proceeding, even gods have been invented. If fact he who sees that a table or an animal have a beginning, and that they begin to be inasmuch as they are made or generated, when he conteplates the whole universe and thinks of it analogically, he infers that it has a beginning and that an agent (a god) produced it. When an etymologist has two words from two languages and finds them homonymous but he does not know the meaning one of them, he applies phonological rules to determine whether one is the ancestor of the other. Thus he reasons analogically and end up fabricating a meaning for the previously meaningless word. A phonologists creates either lexical existences or lexial essences. His method is fallacious, PHONY! --------------- I just checked the phonological dictionary to find out how they derived MAD (fool): MAD < Old Engl. gemaedan:to make insane or foolish, < Germanic ga-maid-jan, < ga-maid-az: changed (for worse), abnormal. And: Suffixed MAD: MATTE. CASEMATE, from Latin Madere(> Mattus: drunken, stupefied. This really takes the cake: The English word CASEMATTE has been taken to be composed of these elements: CASE + MATTE, and "matte" is derived from the Latin Mattus. This is phonologically correct. Of course, the author did not bother to consider the meaning of "casematte." One of its denotations is "a vault of stones or brickwork." It appears distorted in the Italian "arte cosmatesca," and it comes from the Greek "Chasmate", from Chasma/-atos, which contains ONE etym, which designates an opening or a chasm. The "-mate" or "-matte" is PARTIALLY a grammatical case-ending and has nothing to do with the Latin etym "Mad(ere)" or "Matt(us)". This goes to show that phonologists thrive on the SOUNDS of homonyms! ==================== P.S. By the Phony Method one fabricates the ancestral words of those which are shared by various countries from Europe to Iran to northern India. The underlying words are PIE: they are called the Proto-Indo-European language. The are words which were spoken by humans. In the 18th century, a pious linguist classified various languages as being either Semitic or Aryan. Aryan was then renamed Indo-European, which is the language of the Indo-Europeans of our times. The underlying language is called Proto-Indo-European, which is then spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans -- which is the same as the Proto-Aryans, or simply Aryans. The Indo-Europeans are not necessarily the biological descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but the language of the latter was diffused among the Indo-Europeans. Who were the Aryans or Proto-Aryans? They lived somewhewhere between Europe and Asia some time prior to the diffusion of their spoken language; were great conquerors or diffusers; had blond hair and blue eyes; left no trace of tools, artworks, pottery, buildings, or vehicles; did not invent agriculture; did not leave any written document; like Jesus Christ, they were not attested in the writings of foreigners; their vocabulary was at best that of Paleolithic humans; their great accomplishment was the PIE which their modern offsprings fabricate. God and the Aryans are the transcendental realities -- beyond human expererience -- which reasoning by analogy leads to. The Medieval Cajetan I think it was that wrote a whole book on Analogy [I've read it], such is its efficacy in the pre-rational way of thinking! Today it is the PIE-Phonyologists, not the theologians, that use it. There must be some other transcendental reality that can be discovered by baking pies. Until then, all the Cherubim of heaven shall sing in choir: Credo in unum deum patrem omnipotentem, Elohim, factorem coeli et terrae, et in Aryopopulum, verbum sempiternum, unum, sanctum, fulvum, et insolentem.

03-14-2005, 02:33 AM	#46
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	phonology is phony This may be true to an extent, there is a lot of phony phonology out there and should be taken with a pinch of salt always. However the broad similarities of some root words across PIE seem too strong to be completely fabricated.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2005, 07:23 PM	#44
EverLastingGodStopper Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 16,665	Yeah, because... http://www.infidels.org/infidels/copyright.html

03-14-2005, 03:40 AM	#48
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Heh, spin, you're asking for a lot there, especially with that last column of yours. There is still dispute, but I'll help him out. am, at... ok, I'm done, the rest is yours

03-14-2005, 06:12 AM	#50
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	There's been some controversy, if I recall correctly, although it has been several years since I let down Zacharie Mayani's The Etruscan's Begin to Speak. I could have sworn it was at and am for father and mother, but my memory fails me so much, apa and ata aren't too far from it. :worried:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.