posted
Why are all alphabets alive today that all origin from the same place (besides the chinese) called "proto sinaitic" when we know that "proto sinaitic" itself originated from the Egyptian heiratic script?
According to webster dictionary "proto" means:
1 a: first in time <protohistory> b: beginning : giving rise to <protoplanet>
2: parent substance of a (specified) substance <protactinium>
3: first formed : primary <protoxylem>
Therefore how can these scripts be owed their existnce to "sinaitic" or "proto-Sinatic" (that is in the Sinai desert a corridor that seperates Egypt from the levant) when we know that "proto-Sinaitic" is a direct descendant of the Egyptian heiratic script which was the script between hieroglyphs and demotic?
Shouldn't a more suitable name be used, like "Proto-Hieratic", since we know where "proto-sinaitic" originated from? According to webster's definition of the term "proto" is "first formed" which all scholars know was hieratic or better yet hieroglyphs not "sinai" a barren desert with only nomads untill today. I've been there and it's a wasteland (other than the resorts on the red sea facing egypt) it only has some scattered arab bedouins who entered this place recently some two thousand or so years ago.
Yonis2 Member # 11348
posted
Hallooo.. any comments on "proto sinatic" vs it's origin/copy of heiratic of Egypt?
rasol Member # 4592
posted
Heiratic descends from Proto Heiratic.
Proto Sinaitic descends from Heiratic.
Sinaitic descends from Proto Sinaitic.
Yonis2 Member # 11348
posted
So you agree that the term "proto-sinaitic" is a fitting term? Why would for example the Ge'ez script in Eritrea be called "a development of proto-sinaitic" rather than a development of proto-hieratic? Same with the phoenician alphabet? Since "proto" means first in time.
Yonis2 Member # 11348
posted
Obviously rasol doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone?
It's these type of times i miss Mystery solver/Supercar and Djehuti.
Ausarian Member # 13266
posted
"Proto-Sinaitic" is a fitting term, only in that it is the term for the "precursor" script which was supposed to have formed the basis of the script that is determined to be the fully developed "sinaitic" script.
Now of course, some people continue to call "proto-Sinaitic" by yet another name, which is "proto-Canaanite". Based on examinations, it is generally perceived that both the scripts of "proto-Sinaitic" found in the Sinai region and those found in the Canaanite region appear to be largely indistinguishable. So most observers see proto-Canaanite as merely 'proto-Sinaitic' script that was brought into the Canaanite region; the designations merely reflect the locations where these scripts were located at the time of the recoveries of these scripts.
While Proto-Sinaitic was developed from Heiratic, it is distinct enough from Heiratic to be deemed a new form of [Hieratic] script...just as Heiratic is deemed to be a new form of script, that was developed from Heiroglyphics.
^So, "Proto-Sinaitic" is not the same as "proto-Heiratic", which is the "precursor" script of Heiratic.
Likewise, Sinaitic script - presumably deemed to be a fully developed script - is supposed to be distinct enough from "proto-Sinaitic" so as to warrant it a new form or development of the "proto-Sinaitic".
rasol Member # 4592
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Obviously rasol doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone?
Wow. No one answered your question, so I did.
And you return the courtesy with and insult.
I didn't know you were so bitter.
And now that I know...hmm?
I thought I cared, for a sec, but the feeling passed.
rasol Member # 4592
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian: "Proto-Sinaitic" is a fitting term, only in that it is the term for the "precursor" script which was supposed to have formed the basis of the script that is determined to be the fully developed "sinaitic" script.
Now of course, some people continue to call "proto-Sinaitic" by yet another name, which is "proto-Canaanite". Based on examinations, it is generally perceived that both the scripts of "proto-Sinaitic" found in the Sinai region and those found in the Canaanite region appear to be largely indistinguishable. So most observers see proto-Canaanite as merely 'proto-Sinaitic' script that was brought into the Canaanite region; the designations merely reflect the locations where these scripts were located at the time of the recoveries of these scripts.
While Proto-Sinaitic was developed from Heiratic, it is distinct enough from Heiratic to be deemed a new form of [Hieratic] script...just as Heiratic is deemed to be a new form of script, that was developed from Heiroglyphics.
^So, "Proto-Sinaitic" is not the same as "proto-Heiratic", which is the "precursor" script of Heiratic.
Likewise, Sinaitic script - presumably deemed to be a fully developed script - is supposed to be distinct enough from "proto-Sinaitic" so as to warrant it a new form or development of the "proto-Sinaitic".
Very nicely said, and correct. Don't understand what Yonis is angry about, perhaps and argument carried forth from another site. (?)
Yonis2 Member # 11348
posted
quote:Ausarian wrote: call "proto-Sinaitic" by yet another name, which is "proto-Canaanite". Based on examinations, it is generally perceived that both the scripts of "proto-Sinaitic" found in the Sinai region and those found in the Canaanite region appear to be largely indistinguishable. So most observers see proto-Canaanite as merely 'proto-Sinaitic' script that was brought into the Canaanite region; the designations merely reflect the locations where these scripts were located at the time of the recoveries of these scripts.
By this mumbo jumbo you think you've answered my question? Relationship between Canaanite region and Sinai was not my inquery.
My question was (if i could make it simple.) If the Heiratic is known to be the base of all major alphabets living today then why is "Sinaitic" (a cheap copy of heiratic) been given all the credit of being the originater of all modern scripts instead of the source it copied from? Considering we know the source and it's existance. If we didn't know a prior script of "sinatic" then the story would be different, But we do know. So why not call all modern scripts a derivation of proto-heiratic instead of the usual proto-sinaitic? None of these are similar to each other besides the basic foundation which lies in Egypt and not Sinai(a barren desert that's today controlled by Egyptian government).
Yonis2 Member # 11348
posted
quote:Ausarian wrote: Proto-Sinaitic" is a fitting term, only in that it is the term for the "precursor" script which was supposed to have formed the basis of the script that is determined to be the fully developed "sinaitic" script.
And this "precursor" script originated from?
Ausarian Member # 13266
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Ausarian wrote:
call "proto-Sinaitic" by yet another name, which is "proto-Canaanite". Based on examinations, it is generally perceived that both the scripts of "proto-Sinaitic" found in the Sinai region and those found in the Canaanite region appear to be largely indistinguishable. So most observers see proto-Canaanite as merely 'proto-Sinaitic' script that was brought into the Canaanite region; the designations merely reflect the locations where these scripts were located at the time of the recoveries of these scripts.
By this mumbo jumbo you think you've answered my question?
Nope, this "mumbo jumbo" is just selective reading on your part; it is but a part of a fuller answer that I gave to this "mumbo jumbo" question:
Shouldn't a more suitable name be used, like "Proto-Hieratic", since we know where "proto-sinaitic" originated from? - Yonis
...and this:
So you agree that the term "proto-sinaitic" is a fitting term? - Yonis
I urge you to go back and re-read the full answer provided.
quote:Yonis writes:
My question was (if i could make it simple to be understood) if the Heiratic is known to be the base of all major alphabets living today then why is "Sinaitic" (a cheap copy of heiratic) been given all the credit of being the originater of all modern scripts instead of the source it copied from?
For the reasons I already relayed in that "mumbo jumbo" spelt out in plain English. Tell me, which part of that answer did you have a hard time understanding?
quote:Yonis writes:
Considering we know the source and it's existance. If we didn't know a prior script of "sinatic" then the story would be different, But we do know. So why not call all modern scripts a derivation of proto-heiratic instead of the usual proto-sinaitic?
Because that would ignore the simple fact that "proto-Sinaitic" is not "proto-Hieratic" - again, a point made in my answer, that eluded you. It is not "proto-Hieratic" any more than Hieratic being the same as Hieroglyphics...from which it was developed -- understand?
quote:Yonis writes:
None of these are similar to each other, besides the basic foundation which lies in Egypt and not Sinai(a barren desert that's today controlled by Egyptian government).
Which makes me wonder why you simply couldn't understand the answers given to your question that even an intellectual lightweight ought not have a problem understanding.
As a side note: Rasol is quite observant when he says that your attitude speaks of bitterness. Quite simply, any one of us could have seen this behavior coming, and hence, continued to ignore this thread--as was the case before anyone bothered to answer--but we didn't. You can raise questions or rebuttals without the condescending tone; let's start acting like the adults that we all are [I hope], shall we!
Habari Member # 14738
posted
Yonis, Ausarian is Supercar...
argyle104 Member # 14634
posted
Ausarian wrote:
------------------------------ Which makes me wonder why you simply couldn't understand the answers given to your question that even an intellectual lightweight ought not have a problem understanding. ------------------------------
He's a SoSmalie, does anyone actually expect intelligence from him?
a wala wala, a walaheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
awaaliaaxixiiixilizaiil
Yonis2 Member # 11348
posted
quote:Habari wrote: Yonis, Ausarian is Supercar...
LOL, really?
Yonis2 Member # 11348
posted
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ausarian wrote:
------------------------------ Which makes me wonder why you simply couldn't understand the answers given to your question that even an intellectual lightweight ought not have a problem understanding. ------------------------------
He's a SoSmalie, does anyone actually expect intelligence from him?
a wala wala, a walaheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
awaaliaaxixiiixilizaiil
Don't you have some liquor store to rob, kunta kinte?
Yonis2 Member # 11348
posted
quote:Because that would ignore the simple fact that "proto-Sinaitic" is not "proto-Hieratic" - again, a point made in my answer, that eluded you. It is not "proto-Hieratic" any more than Hieratic being the same as Hieroglyphics...from which it was developed --
posted ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)