posted
*sigh* It's also unfortunate that he does not realize how foolish he looks.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: In that Sabean ultimately derives from Phoenician, it is understandable that there will be some similarities here and there.
It doesn't, actually. It derives from Proto-Sinaitic but evolved separately as a South Semitic branch separate from Proto-Canaanite and Phoenician.
The earlier listed alphabets are all still related by way of Proto-Sinaitic and therefore Heiroglyphs, though.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I am not claiming that the Ethio-Semitic and Akkadian speakers should be classified as African languages based on race I am look at the deep structure of the semitic languages.
For example, one of the most outstanding features of Puntite, is the presence of a vowel following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k'ettl 'he kills'.
In Southwest Semitic, which include Arabic and Hebrew the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have the same hypothetical q-t-l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root. This results from the fact that the ancestor of the speakers of these languages spoke languages that had double consonants a feature unknown to most African languages that usually have a vowel following the consonant.
This evidence of different deep structure between Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic on the one hand, and Southwest Semitic on the other suggest that the ancestors of the speakers of these languages spoke two different languages, one related to Black African languages and the other non-Black African.
As you can see my proposal to include Ethio-Semitic into the Black African family of languages is based on linguistics.
.........
Can you please call it "Ge'ez" or "Archaic Ge'ez" or "Proto-Ge'ez" or "Proto-Ethiosemitic" or something like that? "Puntite" is not a language. Also, what's this about an "African language family?" Such a family would imply that all languages in it derived from a common ancestor which is not true. Nilo-Saharan is distinct from Afro-Asiatic, which is distinct from Niger-Congo, which is distinct from Khoisan. You're not speaking linguistics as you claim, but on race.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yom i was talking about the writings that they found in the Sinai and clyde winters told me that the Sabean script Derives from Phoenician. This cannot be like u said it actually derives from Proto-Sinaitic one thing i wanted to ask u Yom isnt there a cursive form of Geez i think i saw something written in Cursive during the times of Menelik how old is that script.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Yom i was talking about the writings that they found in the Sinai and clyde winters told me that the Sabean script Derives from Phoenician. This cannot be like u said it actually derives from Proto-Sinaitic one thing i wanted to ask u Yom isnt there a cursive form of Geez i think i saw something written in Cursive during the times of Menelik how old is that script.
There's no cursive as far as I know, but handwritten Ge'ez is much rounder and more "cursive" than the typewriters' or priests' handwriting. The letters never actually connect to each other, though, so I don't think you could call it "cursive."
There was a change in Ge'ez in the 17th century with the Gonderine dynasty, though. The letters became rounder like they are today, whereas before they were more blocky and square.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you propose to classify Canaanite as "African," then you must also classify Hebrew as an "African language," as the two languages were practically the same, the differences being more like those between dialects, as they were mutually intelligible.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde Winters were do u see the difference in the word He killed. You said Clyde Winters
For example, one of the most outstanding features of Puntite, is the presence of a vowel following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k'ettl 'he kills'.
So Clyde Winters are u saying that in the language of Puntite to say he kills it is YiKettl do u know that in Geez it is the same thing Yekettl.
The question i have is WHO IN THE HELL KNOWS WHAT THE PEOPLE OF PUNT SPOKE
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Sargon was a Bushman now?
LMAO That seems to be what Marc is implying.
quote:It doesn't, actually. It derives from Proto-Sinaitic but evolved separately as a South Semitic branch separate from Proto-Canaanite and Phoenician.
The earlier listed alphabets are all still related by way of Proto-Sinaitic and therefore Heiroglyphs, though.
^^This is EXACTLY what I said!! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
In that map your "Proto-Canaanite" is basically equivalent to a merger of "Proto-Sinaitic" and "Proto-Canaanite." Proto-Sinaitic refers to the script in the 3rd millenium and first half of the Second millenium. Proto-Canaanite is ca. 1400-1000 BC, where it arbitrarily becomes "Phoenician."
The one on your map is from 3rd c. BC to 1000 BC, so it seems to ignore the name "Proto-Sinaitic" (more accurate) for earlier scripts.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
In that map your "Proto-Canaanite" is basically equivalent to a merger of "Proto-Sinaitic" and "Proto-Canaanite." Proto-Sinaitic refers to the script in the 3rd millenium and first half of the Second millenium. Proto-Canaanite is ca. 1400-1000 BC, where it arbitrarily becomes "Phoenician."
The one on your map is from 3rd c. BC to 1000 BC, so it seems to ignore the name "Proto-Sinaitic" (more accurate) for earlier scripts.
The 'website', not "my" words or "my" map, which put forth aforementioned family tree map of various scripts, took into consideration recent discoveries in the Nile Valley, and not your false conclusion that the author had ignored "proto-Sinaitic", and this is what it had to say:
Time 1900 BCE to 1100 BCE
Proto-Sinaitic, also known as Proto-Canaanite, was the first consonantal alphabet. Even a quick and cursory glance at its inventory of signs makes it very apparent of this script's Egyptian origin. Originally it was thought that at round 1700 BCE, Sinai was conquered by Egypt, and the local West-Semitic population were influenced by Egyptian culture and adopted a small number of hieroglyphic signs (about 30) to write their own language. However, recent discoveries in Egypt itself have compounded this scenario.
Inscriptions dating to 1900 BCE written in what appears to be Proto-Sinaitic were found in Upper Egypt, and nearby Egyptian texts speak of the presence of Semitic-speaking people living in Egypt.
No matter where and when the adoption of Egyptian signs onto a Semitic language occurred, the process of adoption is quite interesting. Egyptian hieroglyphs already have phonetic signs (in addition to logograms), but the Sinaitic people did not adopt these phonetic signs. Instead, they randomly chose pictorial Egyptian glyphs (like ox-head, house, etc), where each sign stood for a consonant. How did they decide which sign get which consonant? A sign is a picture of an object, and the first consonant of the word for this object becomes the sound the sign represents. In short, this is called the acrophonic principle.
For example, the word for an ox is /'aleph/, which is the first sign on the left Proto-Sinaitic column. It stood for the sound /'/, which is the glottal stop (also written as /?/).
Proto-Sinaitic soon spread to Canaan, hence its other name, Proto-Canaanite, or Old Canaanite script. It evolved locally into the Phoenician script.
Phoenician was the immediately descendent of Proto-Sinaitic. Its major change is the more linear (less curved) shapes of its signs. Other than this cosmetic change, everything else remained pretty much the same. South Arabian was also an early offshoot of Proto-Sinaitic, as its letters are very different in shape and order from Phoenician.
posted
Relax Supercar. I've seen the map before, I wasn't proposing that you actually created it. It's just a manner of speaking.
As you quoted, the tree doesn't distinguish between Proto-Canaanite and Proto-Sinaitic, which is a distinction I'm making. South Semitic alphabets split off in the first half of the 2nd millenium or around the middle, I believe. If you define Proto-Canaanite as the script used until 1000 BC, then you could say South Semitic derived from it (relatively early), but it's more useful to make the distinction, I believe.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Relax Supercar. I've seen the map before, I wasn't proposing that you actually created it. It's just a manner of speaking.
No big deal; I just had to correct your conclusion about proto-Sinaitic not being taken into account.
quote:Yom:
As you quoted, the tree doesn't distinguish between Proto-Canaanite and Proto-Sinaitic, which is a distinction I'm making.
And the text tells you why.
quote:Yom: South Semitic alphabets split off in the first half of the 2nd millenium or around the middle, I believe. If you define Proto-Canaanite as the script used until 1000 BC, then you could say South Semitic derived from it (relatively early), but it's more useful to make the distinction, I believe.
Again, it is not what you 'believe' that interests me, but what you can prove. Are you contesting the deductions of the aforementioned website?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
The author's claim on the site that Proto-Sinaitic is also known as Proto-Canaanite is unsourced and conflicts with information from experts of writing systems like Peter T. Daniels. Here's Daniels:
AB suggests that the ultimate origin of the Ethiopic script is the so-called "Proto-Sinaitic," which dates to some time in the first half of the second millennium BCE and was found on some votive objects near mines in the Sinai (in this he reflects mainstream scholarship of the history of the alphabet, although many scholars are no longer certain that the "decipherment" of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions published by W. F.?Albright is successful). He seems, though, to have the impression that but a single such inscription exists, and that it is on a sphinx (p. 70); in fact, about twenty inscriptions have been found, on a variety of items that seem to have been dedicated to the Egyptian goddess Hathor. But, departing from the usual understanding (Daniels 1997) whereby Proto-Sinaitic represents the earliest attested state of the West Semitic script, from which or from something similar to which two descendants developed, one in the northern Semitic-speaking realm, which through Proto-Canaanite led to Phoenician, Aramaic, and eventually the Greek and Latin alphabets, and the other in the southern Semitic-speaking realm, which through the Old North Arabic inscriptions (Safaitic, Thamudic, Lihyanic) led to the script of the South Arabian inscriptions, which was brought into the Aksumite region and developed into the Ge`ez script (others prefer to derive this from Thamudic, references and discussion in Bernal 1990:63), AB would have Ge`ez script somehow come directly from Proto-Sinaitic, somehow passing through the Nile Valley without leaving a trace. Somehow, moreover, it crossed with hieroglyphs and took on pictographic properties.
The Proto-Sinaitic script is considered distinct from the Proto-Canaanite script, the latter descending from the former. The new, 1999 findings at Wadi el-Hol only show that there is an older, similar script to Proto-Sinaitic. It doesn't show that the Canaanite and Sinaitic scripts are actually one in the same. I've never seen anybody other than that website claim the names and the scripts being interchangeable. I, for one, challenge the conclusions of the author of ancientscripts.com on this subject.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Proto-Sinaitic script is considered distinct from the Proto-Canaanite script, the latter descending from the former.
How so?
quote:Qward:
The new, 1999 findings at Wadi el-Hol only show that there is an older, similar script to Proto-Sinaitic. It doesn't show that the Canaanite and Sinaitic scripts are actually one in the same. I've never seen anybody other than that website claim the names and the scripts being interchangeable.
Then, apparently you need to expand resources available to you, in expanding your research capabality.
Here's another source which doesn't seem to make a distinction between "proto-Sinaitic" and "proto-Canaanite":
quote:Qward: I, for one, challenge the conclusions of the author of ancientscripts.com on this subject.
Already. Let's see your comparisons between Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite. Brief us on why they need to be considered distinct.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm basing my infromation on Daniels and others work. Who's your source? Lawrence Lo, creator of ancientscripts.com? Lo, who says he is "NOT a linguist or an archaeologist, but instead [is] a software engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area." Or John Noble Wilford, science writer for the New York Times? Has he studied the history of writing systems?
If you think this:
quote: The previously oldest evidence for an alphabet, dated about 1600 B.C., was found near or in Semitic-speaking territory, in the Sinai Peninsula and farther north in the Syria-Palestine region occupied by the ancient Canaanites. These examples, known as Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite alphabetic inscriptions, were the basis for scholars' assuming that Semites developed the alphabet by borrowing and simplifying Egyptian hieroglyphs, but doing this in their own lands and not in Egypt itself.
from the NYT article is the same as Lo's claim, then you need to increase your reading comprehension abilities. The inscriptions are clearly regarded as seperate in the relevant text.
Show me a source that has at least half as much experience or knowledge as Daniels, who has degrees in linguistics from Cornell University and the University of Chicago, or give me some reason for why you are putting so much faith in your source.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qward: I'm basing my infromation on Daniels and others work. Who's your source? Lawrence Lo, creator of ancientscripts.com? Lo, who says he is "NOT a linguist or an archaeologist, but instead [is] a software engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area." Or John Noble Wilford, science writer for the New York Times? Has he studied the history of writing systems?
I'm basing my understanding on recent discoveries, and reconciling that with information gathered on the said website. However, since you obviously have access to "Daniels" and "others", how about sharing with us the details of what makes "Proto-Sinaitic" distinct from "Proto-Canaanite".
quote:Qward:
If you think this:
quote: The previously oldest evidence for an alphabet, dated about 1600 B.C., was found near or in Semitic-speaking territory, in the Sinai Peninsula and farther north in the Syria-Palestine region occupied by the ancient Canaanites. These examples, known as Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite alphabetic inscriptions, were the basis for scholars' assuming that Semites developed the alphabet by borrowing and simplifying Egyptian hieroglyphs, but doing this in their own lands and not in Egypt itself.
from the NYT article is the same as Lo's claim, then you need to increase your reading comprehension abilities. The inscriptions are clearly regarded as seperate in the relevant text.
Actually, it would appear that, it is you who is suffering from what you accuse others of. What is stated to be the difference between "Proto-Sinaitic" and "Proto-Canaanite" in the above?...the point I made in my comment that you are supposedly replying to! Matter of fact, we are told the "examples" are...
"These examples, known as Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite alphabetic inscriptions,..."
^^Name 'distinction' is influenced by location of the finds; nothing herein tells us that these are distinct from one another.
The scholars who have examined the short Wadi el-Hol inscriptions are having trouble deciphering the messages, though they think they are close to understanding some letters and words. "A few of these signs just jump out at you, at anyone familiar with proto-Sinaitic material," said Dr. F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, who teaches at the Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey and is a specialist in the languages and history of the Middle East. "They look just like one would expect."
quote:Qward:
Show me a source that has at least half as much experience or knowledge as Daniels, who has degrees in linguistics from Cornell University and the University of Chicago, or give me some reason for why you are putting so much faith in your source.
I just did. As the layman, I don't know the difference between "Proto-Sinaitic" and "Proto-Canaanite", and so, I'm looking to you, the obvious "professional", to lay out those distinctions through comparative methods. If you need "Daniels" material to demonstrate this, then by all means, please do so.
Ps - from another site:
Proto-Sinaitic, also known as proto-Canaanite, was the precursor of the alphabetic script later used to write Canaanite
MS in Canaanite West Semitic on bronze, Israel/Palestine, 18th - 17th c. BC, 1 axe, 19x5 cm, (2x3 cm), 1 line with 3 letters P or G, H and K in Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite consonantal alphabetic script.
Context: There are about 50 short inscriptions carved by miners at the turquoise mines at Serabit al-Khadim in Sinai, and less than 20 inscriptions found in Israel/Palestine (Shechem, Gezer, Lachish), all except 3 in public collections.
Provenance: 1. The Gil Chaya Collection, Jerusalem and Geneve.
Commentary: This is the earliest alphabetical writing known. There are less than 30 pictographs/letters. The invention might have come from knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs, which had signs for consonants, but the Egyptians never used these alphabetically. Since the language is Canaanite West Semitic and not Egyptian, the invention probably took place in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon. This might have been the only script and language available in Sinai (apart from Egyptian) when the 10 Commandments were written down 16th-13th c. BC. Phoenician alphabetical script, ca. 12th c. BC, is the direct descendant of the Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite alphabetical script (see MS 715), which again, developed into the Greek alphabet around 800 BC (see MS 108), that was the basis of the Latin alphabet. The developments of 1. language (spoken communication), 2. writing, 3. the alphabet, and 4. printing, are among the highest achievements and milestones in the evolution of humanity.
Published: To be published by Andrè Lemaire.
Exibited: The Norwegian Institute of Palaeography and Historical Philology (PHI), Oslo, 13.10.2003-06.2005.
MS 715 ARROWHEAD INSCRIBED: "THE ARROW OF ... ESH AZBA'AL"
MS in Canaanite West Semitic on bronze, Canaan, Israel/Lebanon, 11th c. BC, 1 arrowhead, 7,2x1,5 cm, inscribed on both sides with Proto-Canaanite script/early Phoenician script.
Context: A MS with Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite script is MS 5180.
Commentary: The about 50 known arrowheads are the most important link between the West Semitic early Proto-Canaanite and the Phoenician-Hebrew scripts, being critical for the study of the development of the alphabet. The owners of most of the known arrowheads were warriors, possibly under the command of the King of Amurru.
Exhibited: The Norwegian Institute of Palaeography and Historical Philology (PHI), Oslo, 13.10.2003-06.2005.
Source: Courtesy of Schoyen Collection
Note: Recent discoveries in Wadi el Hol, Upper Egypt, have brought forth a new understanding of these Proto-Sinaitic scripts.
quote: For example, one of the most outstanding features of Puntite, is the presence of a vowel following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k'ettl 'he kills'.
So Clyde Winters are u saying that in the language of Puntite to say he kills it is YiKettl do u know that in Geez it is the same thing Yekettl.
The question i have is WHO IN THE HELL KNOWS WHAT THE PEOPLE OF PUNT SPOKE
I call the speakers of these languages Puntite, because Punt was situated in areas which were predominately occupied by African Semitic speaking people. I coined this phrase to provide the proper content for the origination of the Semitic speaking people.
It is important to understand that if Akkadian and the Ethiopian semitic languages are cognate, the other languages like Arabic and Hebrew are slightly different because these languages were influenced by the Indo-European speaking Sea people, and the Gutians who adopted Semitic languages once the Akkadians took control of the Levant and Mesopotamia generally.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde Winters its funny that u say that Diop says the same thing but in a different way.
Consequently it is importatan to change our notions about the Semite. Whether in Mesopotomia Phoenicia or Arabia, the Semite insofar as he is discernible objectively, appears as the product of a Negro-White Mixture. It is possible that the Whites who came to crossbreed with the Negroes in that area of Western Asia were distinguished by certain ethnic features, such as the Hittite nose. The mixed character of the Semite languages could be explained in the same way. There are roots common to Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Germanic tongues. This common vocabulary is more extensive than might be suggested by this very short list. No contact between Nordics and Arabs within the historical period of Humanity explains it. It is an ethnic kinship. rather than a borrowing.
Arabic English German ain eye auge ard earth erde asfar fair beled land land Qasr castle
Southern Arabia from Saudi Arabia to Oman these places have been a Negro Ethiopian colony until the Birth of Muhammed.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Consequently it is importatan to change our notions about the Semite. Whether in Mesopotomia Phoenicia or Arabia, the Semite insofar as he is discernible objectively, appears as the product of a Negro-White Mixture. It is possible that the Whites who came to crossbreed with the Negroes in that area of Western Asia were distinguished by certain ethnic features, such as the Hittite nose. The mixed character of the Semite languages could be explained in the same way. There are roots common to Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Germanic tongues. This common vocabulary is more extensive than might be suggested by this very short list. No contact between Nordics and Arabs within the historical period of Humanity explains it. It is an ethnic kinship. rather than a borrowing.
This mixture probably came about during the Sea Peoples invasion of the Meditteranean . But even before the "Proto-Europeans " entered the Levant, there were Gutians already living in the region, that also contributed to the contemporary Syrian and Turkic appearence.
This 'word' in which the so-Called Jews cling to as though it were the gospel truth--though in reality is a clever coverup--because its use conceals their actual origin which is African.
"...In 1829, the Anglo-French anthropologist. F. W. Edwards, suggested that because Jewish people are racially different from Europeans, they must belong to a different race that anthropologists have not yet identified. In a private letter to his friend--Amedee Thierry--Edwards classified the Jewish people as Semites after the Semitic people that came to occupy the Middle East from where the Bible claims the Jewish people originated. It must be pointed out that once again this private classification was highly influenced by the false biblical narrative on where the Jewish people claim to have originated [see Genesis 11:31; 15:7].
The speculation of Edwards about the hypothetical origin of the Jewish people was made in a private letter that was not supposed to be made public. Amedee Thierry, who was himself a Jew, made it public by asserting that anthropologists have identified the Jewish people to be Semites. Instantly, the Jewish people accepted and began to propagate the idea that anthropologists have found out who they were, and that they were Semites, but this was false information. Throughout their history going back over two thousand years, there was no mention of a racial link of the Afrim people to any Semitic tribal group anywhere..." -- page 195, "The Africans Who Wrote The Bible, Dr. Darkwah-linguistic expert.
posted
^^Lazar, you contradict yourself. You are correct that 'Semitic' is purely a linguistic term, but then you turn around and try to attribute Jews to Africa.
How are modern day Jews "racially different" from Europeans?? Many Jews look no different from Germans and other Western Europeans with blonde hair and blue eyes, which is true of many modern day Israelis.
The Jewish people orginated in the Middle East. The Levant was a region where many peoples met and intermingled. True there are people in the Levant even today carry ancient African ancestry, but the Jewish language itself was concieved in the Near-East. Although the progenitor of all Semitic languages was in Africa as this thread discusses.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Clyde Winters its funny that u say that Diop says the same thing but in a different way.
Consequently it is importatan to change our notions about the Semite. Whether in Mesopotomia Phoenicia or Arabia, the Semite insofar as he is discernible objectively, appears as the product of a Negro-White Mixture.
Yeah, Diop says this alright. But then again, some white European racists from the 19th century (like the Frenchman Gobineau) said that Semites where a "Negro-White-Mongoloid mixture", which to their thinking, represented 'all' the world's races.
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Arabic English German ain eye auge ard earth erde asfar fair beled land land Qasr castle
Except that 'Qasr' and 'castle' are BOTH from the Latin 'castlellum' or 'castra' meaning camp.
Posts: 11 | From: california | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti u are right about the Jews but there are many different Jews in Israel. You have the Ashkanazi Jews which are german Jews u Have Ethiopian Jews who have the most oldest version of Judaism u have Yemen Sauid Arabia Egypt Iran India Russia Palestinian Morroco Tunisian Algerian there are even Afghanistan Jews. What i wanted to ask u Djehuti which one can we use to identify the original Jew and what i mean is which background.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your attempt to discredit, Lazar with your own lack of information--does not minimize the fact that the Jews/Hebrews did not come to be called such until "after" they migrated to Europe with the false proclamation that they were "the chosen people".
They were first called the "Afrim people" [i.e. which means "brake away from"]. The Akan people is who they broke away from. {i.e. interestingly they still follow the same dietary practices as the Akan people--with slight variations. I know the Akan people surely did not copy off the so-Called Jews).
In the late 50s and early 60s so-Called Jewish scholars were "secretly" running around Ghana looking for the connector tribes that matched their last names---which are--in--fact of Akan origin.
"The Africans Who Wrote the Bible" by Dr. Nana Banchie (Alex) Darkwah.
No doubt, to avoid being further ostracized the so-Called Jew did in fact mix himself amongst other ethnic cultures to create a sort of ethnic "facade" if you will. However, the "large" noses and "frizzy" hair still prevail as indicators of their true origin.
There is no such group as "the original Jew". There is only the Akan people with a sect that splintered off and became the "Afrim" people who then altered this word to "Irvim" and who then evolved into the Hellenized Jew/Hebrew/Semite.
The black African men in the Lemba Tribe have more validity that the so-Called Jew.
Q. Has anyone asked the so-Called Jew what he did with the arc?
A. The so-Called Jew can not solve this riddle because they are not authentic. Although they helped the Greeks fabricate and concoct the book of control called "the Bible" the arc was never in their hands and is safely nestled in the city of Axum, Ethiopia.
quote:Originally posted by Lazar: Semitic is used as a euphemism for "Caucasian'..." -- and is an oxymoron.
This is true in the sense that the concept of Semitic is played against "African".
A web site which attempted to discredit the notion of KM.t as Black Africans - did so by implying that they were "Semites".
Specifics were then denoted debunking the 'semite km't' argument:
- Semite is a language, not a race
- there are African Semites.
- there are Black Semites
- the Semitic languages are likely African in origin, and, more to the point.....
- the AE were not semitic anyway by *any* definition, nor are they claimed to be, in modern scholarship.
The web-site author countered with the following disclaimer: "I never said the Ancient Egyptians were a *pure* semitic race".
But this is called 'digging the hole deeper'.
What would constitute a 'pure' semitic race?
How does this juxtapose Africaness or Blackness?
For example - we know for a fact, that the semitic languages do not originate in Europe - so does this mean any European with Jewish ancestry is not a 'pure' European...is not 'pure' white?
Now this lead the web-page author to frantic backtracking leading to his 'conclusion' - "that there is only one race - the human race."
lol. Fine.
But this begs the question: How then, can you seek to separate Km.t from other Africans based on "race", to begin with?
What is the basis of opposing Black African Km.t, and [falsly] juxtaposing Semetic Km.t to begin with? If not race?
Racialists envariably become mired in internal contradictions, and here is why:
The argument over the ethnic identity of the Ancient Egyptians exist because of and ideological ruse created by Eurocentrists.
Race, allows Europeans to invent a self aggrandised past, and lay claim to African, Asian, even Native American civilisations - that, like Km.t - actually have nothing whatsover to do with Europeans.
Before the modern European ideology of race - both the Africaness - and the Blackness of Km.t were self evident, including to Europeans, to Jews, and most importantly to the KM.t themselves.
Always force the anti-african-ancient-egypt ideologues to reveal their dependance on racism - which they try to hide.
If they are then forced to deny this, they are, in fact left without any *coherent* argument whatsoever.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your attempt to discredit, Lazar with your own lack of information--does not minimize the fact that the Jews/Hebrews did not come to be called such until "after" they migrated to Europe with the false proclamation that they were "the chosen people".
I don't need to discredit you when you do a fine job discrediting yourself
quote:They were first called the "Afrim people" [i.e. which means "brake away from"]. The Akan people is who they broke away from. {i.e. interestingly they still follow the same dietary practices as the Akan people--with slight variations. I know the Akan people surely did not copy off the so-Called Jews).
In the late 50s and early 60s so-Called Jewish scholars were "secretly" running around Ghana looking for the connector tribes that matched their last names---which are--in--fact of Akan origin.
"The Africans Who Wrote the Bible" by Dr. Nana Banchie (Alex) Darkwah.
LMAO See what I mean! I suggest you discuss this with Winters since you two have a lot in common. I on the other hand deal with REAL scholarship and not some nonsense on Akan derived Jews and Mande derived Olmecs! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Racialists envariably become mired in internal contradictions, and here is why:
The argument over the ethnic identity of the Ancient Egyptians exist because of and ideological ruse created by Eurocentrists.
Race, allows Europeans to invent a self aggrandised past, and lay claim to African, Asian, even Native American civilisations - that, like Km.t - actually have nothing whatsover to do with Europeans.
Before the modern European ideology of race - both the Africaness - and the Blackness of Km.t were self evident, including to Europeans, to Jews, and most importantly to the KM.t themselves.
Always force the anti-african-ancient-egypt ideologues to reveal their dependance on racism - which they try to hide.
If they are then forced to deny this, they are, in fact left without any *coherent* argument whatsoever.
Then again Rasol, the exact same advise applies to ALL racialists, including some *Afrocentrists* Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Yom and Supercar, you may continue your debate about Ethiopia's historic relation to Yemen here.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
It's also unfortunate that he does not realize how foolish he looks.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That seems to be what Marc is implying.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't need to discredit you when you do a fine job discrediting yourself![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic