Posts by Leolaia

Oh I can't stand Mumford and Sons. I used to like them, but I'm just tired of their sound and songs, so I turn to a different radio station whenver they come on.

I ran into Pat Carney from the Black Keys at an airport last year. I was like, hey thats the Black Keys guy. Then I checked his twitter and sure enough he tweeted that he was landing at that airport just minutes before.

38

Quickly becoming one of my favorite bands.

by dazed but not confused in

jw
friends

i don't usually like folk bands but i love these guys.

the lumineers.

they were just on snl this last saturday.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvcbsswgtg4.

Leolaia

Of Monsters and Men is another folk indie band I like. I saw them live last summer and they were fun and good-natured.

I am getting into Cat Power's new album right now. I've been into her since Moon Pix. My favorite cut right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65AUxPCFD3o

43

Would you believe Abraham and Sarah existed before the Bible and King David etc.

by mP in

believers, take a guess which and explain how this is possible..

Leolaia

She claims scholars support her etc and cant provide. If she believes in those she shouldnt misreprsent her conclusions as the beliefs of scholars. They are separate.

*sigh* You seem to misconstrue everything I say. I never said scholars agree with me that it is doubtful that Abraham was derived from "Brahma". I don't know of any scholar who has given an opinion on this claim specifically. What I did say what this: "No philologist I know of has suggested that the names are not Semitic but borrowed from an Indo-Iranian language". The specific reasons I gave why I have strong doubt are my own. I think they are good reasons. One of the points is that Abraham is a normal West Semitic name in its etymology and grammatical construction. I gave you a scholar who lays this out, and I am sure if you Google you can find more. The other more general points I made about language rest on general principles and methodologies, and I pointed you to at least two books that discuss that in detail, one paper that mathematically shows how easy it is for coincidences to happen, and another list that shows "amazing coincidences" that are not meaningful at all. What I presented as the etymologies of the words for "elder" and "royal/rey/rex" are precisely the beliefs of scholars. You can find this set forth in any good etymological dictionary on Indo-European, or English (you could start with the unabridged American Heritage dictionary). Anyway, I don't want to keep going back and forth on this, I just wanted to give my opinion on this Brahma/Abraham thing on p. 1 of this thread, and didn't get want to get mired into another long, drawn-out, time-consuming, and frustrating discussion where we end up just talking past each other.

16

How to fight biblical ignorance??

by srd in

jw
friends

the bible this; the bible that; 'tis the word of the almighty.

we all be following its every word... blah, blah, blah.

many biblical scholars lament the fact that the bible is the most misunderstood, abused, and appropriated text by numerous different religious communities, each one claiming to provide its right interpretation, while ironically supporting their own belief system.

Leolaia

It's an interesting blog. Great work.

3

The deuterocanonical book of Wisdom

by Pterist in

having done a little research on the book of wisdom, i decided to read it very morning as part of my daily spiritual reading.

the greek period and it's influence tested the jewish community and yet after many objections the people of god acquired a new awareness of their own path.. at first i felt a little uneasy as the wisdom of god is presented in the feminine gender.

however the recognised book of proverbs (chapter 8) does the same.

Leolaia

It's a very interesting book, and yes, the Hellenistic influence is quite obvious.

At first I felt a little uneasy as the WISDOM of God is presented in the feminine gender

There is an oracle in Matthew 23:33-38 regarding Jerusalem and Jesus there uses a feminine metaphor of a hen gathering her chicks under her wings. The version of this oracle in Luke divides up the oracle into two pieces (found at Luke 11:49-51 and 13:34-35), and attributes it to the "Wisdom of God".

The book of Wisdom anticipates some of the christological statements about Jesus in the OT, doubtlessly contributing to the cluster of ideas and terms that were later applied to the Son:

Wisdom 7:25-26, 30: "She is the breath of the power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty....She is the radiance of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God's power, and image of his goodness, ... over Wisdom evil can never triumph".
John 1:5, 9: "The Word was the true light ... a light that darkness could not overpower".
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the unseen God and the firstborn of all creation".
Hebrews 1:3: "He is the radiance of God's glory and the perfect copy of his nature, and upholds all things by the word of his power".

43

Would you believe Abraham and Sarah existed before the Bible and King David etc.

by mP in

believers, take a guess which and explain how this is possible..

Leolaia

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.

43

Would you believe Abraham and Sarah existed before the Bible and King David etc.

by mP in

believers, take a guess which and explain how this is possible..

Leolaia

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.

43

Would you believe Abraham and Sarah existed before the Bible and King David etc.

by mP in

believers, take a guess which and explain how this is possible..

Leolaia

A few quick points.

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.

It does not mean that at all (look up any introductory text). And the migration of Indo-Iranians was eastward to India.

The Europeans copied much from the NME, alphabets, gods and as you shown the entire language has sources from that way.

Has nothing at all to do with genetic relationships. Your premises are wrong.

Again you have only dug back to the Latins which are at the very least 1500 years after El of Canaan. You also mention Greek links. I cant help but see the pattern that your heading further and futher east and closer to the NME.

Your premises are wrong. Some knowledge of comparative linguistics would help here.

Perhaps continuing the search back from those two cultures will find more semetic sources.

There are none for the PIE root in question. And you would be looking for a word meaning "to grow, nourish". There is absolutely no reason to suspect any connection with a particular West Semitic deity (which incidentally dates to a time long after PIE).

Wow because Abraham starts with an "A" and Brahma does not that makes the match impossible, and yet your variations from Germanic and Irish roots which diverge significantly more are perfectly compatible.

There is a consonant there, not just an "a". There is no relationship established between the two different names, whereas there are between genetically related languages (like the Germanic languages). And here an education on comparative lingusitics and sound correspondences would help; the "divergences" are predictable and explicable. There is a ton of material on comparative Indo-European.

Abraham is a very normal West Semitic name. See Thomas L. Thompson, posted above. "Because of this typical character, and the fact that it is a specifically West Semitic form of the name, caution must be used in comparing it with names (even when the resemblence is striking) that are derived from other linguistic groups".

And as mentioned above, I am doubtful there was even a pairing of Brahma and Saraswati in India before the Pentateuchal sources were written (much less the tradents that preceded them).

Your introducing noise and avoiding proofs by continually bringing these labels up.

Trying to explain why your thinking is erroneous is not "introducing noise". So I see no reason to spend hours trying to do just that.

I dont think i need to show that Allah is a moon good. We can see in Arabic with the above example that they honour their God by using a contraction of his name as the definitive article.

More sound symbolism nonsense. This was already discussed a year ago. Here, I'll copy and post what I wrote then, "That is simply a phonological assimilation rule that by convention is named after two very common everyday words (that are related in concept). Its just a grammatical rule that has a memorable mnemonic; why must every reference to the 'sun' or 'moon' have some religious sun-worship meaning read into it?"

We can see this tradition extending to Spansih, French and other romantic languages, where "la" and "el" are also the definitive article. We can see "Ra" also honoured as the source of the word for king in Spansih, Fr and in other forms related to royalty in English, royal, reign, regal and so on.

Again, more sound symbolism.

Another cut 'n' paste from a year ago: "Of course its chance...you are finding meaning in lots of chance similarities. That's what I've been telling you. Etymology and historical roots of Indo-European words are VERY well understood after hundreds of years of study; this isn't a matter of guessing blindly at what might seem like amazing coincidences....it is a matter of linguistic evidence and proper methodology. You can take two random languages and compare them find all sorts of totally amazing coincidences (which of course, aren't that amazing) when you don't have any methodology of determining what is chance "similarity" and what is evidence of actual historical relationships". Also: "As for your premise, you think that there are sun and moon connotations all over the place in English and other languages because you are looking for them and are willing to find them almost anywhere. If one were looking for cat and dog references, one would be equally inclined to amazingly find references to cats and dogs all over the place in English. That doesn't mean they are really there; it means that those words have that kind of resonance with you. And that's the awesome thing about language, that it can carry lots of different meanings for people, but etymology is about word history and the facts show the kind of claims you've made don't correspond to the actual word origins."

Really, this is where an education in linguistics would help. Saussure and everything else.

We can see Japanese often have problems and use L for R because they are both formed in the mouth in a very similar way.

Some knowledge of phonology would help here. I have no idea why you mention shorthand.

Last but not least look up the LPA charts. Sorry the table comes out badly formatted here but the link above shows in clear detail that L and R are clearly grouped together. The chart also shows the consonant pairs that i was alluding too in my previous statement that certain transpositions occur like TD, PB, FV etc.

Those are general similarities in articulation. Those are generalities, I'm talking about specifics of the languages in question. Specifics in phonemic inventories, specifics on sound correspondences, specifics of sound mergers, etc. Whatever is going on in Japanese has little to do with specifics of Germanic, Greek, etc.

Here i am open, receptive asking for proofs and the best you can do is insult me with a lame personally targetted observation. Im happy to read anything, all that i ask is show me, instead of telling me what you want me to think. I never run away, but you have again shut up and gone home because you claim to base your assertions on facts but as soon as they are challenged you cant.

I don't think you realize what it would take to "prove" to you where your thinking is wrong. I don't have the interest and energy to write long essays on basics of linguistics; I would rather comment on things I find interesting. If you wish to learn more about the subject, there are some good books out there, or college courses on the subject.

I fail to see how stating the obvious somehow contributes to disproving my observation. Mohammad is nearly 2000 years after Abraham which is itselfstill after the Hindu traditions. Discussing Islam doesnt help add weight to your argument.

This has nothing to do with your observations, whatever they are. This is a response to PP. Mohammad has nothing to do with Abraham. I was giving an obvious example of how a sacred site can change its meaning or religious affiliation. There are scores of others; this is a more general anthropological phenomenon.

43

Would you believe Abraham and Sarah existed before the Bible and King David etc.

by mP in

believers, take a guess which and explain how this is possible..

Leolaia

I was not insulting you by saying you do not understand linguistics; I was making an accurate statement of fact. It's not an insult to lack knowledge about something...I'm similarly ignorant in biology, computer science, or many other specialized areas. The problem is that you are making challenges and claims based on things you don't understand, and I really don't have the energy or interest to write long essays explaining the basics of phonology, semantics, and historical linguistics, because it would take that to respond adequately to what you have just written because we are literally poles apart on this. Hence my polite suggestion to be educated somewhat on linguistics, perhaps by reading an introductory textbook, or several.