posted
Meroitic – an Afroasiatic language? Kirsty Rowan, Linguistics School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 14 (2006): 169-206
Conclusion from article:
Crucially, this investigation highlights that within the field of Meroitic research many assumptions that have been taken as factual have to be re-examined, deconstructed and verified. The case in point is the investigation into an affiliation with a related language, which has consistently focused upon Nilo-Saharan languages with no fundamental results. Hintze’s (1955) refutation of Zhylarz’s (1930) data was interpreted as refuting the overall premise, further Griffith’s (1911) statement that there are no ‘Semitic’ consonants in Meroitic has led researchers to conclude that if there are no ‘Semitic’ consonants in Meroitic then Meroitic is not an Afroasiatic language. This paper has contributed to this line of research by specifically outlining that there is no strong evidence against Meroitic not being a member of Afroasiatic, and that on the contrary, the investigation into consonantal compatibility restrictions shows a strong possibility for its inclusion, as this phonological process is a distinctive trait amongst Afroasiatic languages. This paper does not make any claims as to the likeliest individual candidate for relatedness with Meroitic, but hopes to redirect this research with promising results.
posted
It is interesting, to note that Rowan discusses Meroitic within 6 pages, while the paper is 38 pages long.
Rowan attempts to imply that a typological relationship exists between Meroitic and Afro-Asiatic due to alleged consonantal compatibility restrictions. Although this is her opinion I don't believe that it is supported by the evidence, since she uses imagined Meroitic terms as her data. Since the terms Rowan uses in her analysis are "made up" she can say they have any feature she chooses and be "right".
Moreover, finding only one feature common to Meroitic and AA languages does not support a connection.
The major problem with the thesis is that Rowan failed to discuss Meroitic based upon the agreed upon vocabulary of Meroitic. Failure to do this has led her to make conclusions that can not be supported by the evidence since some words she uses as examples in her paper are based on conjecture or are hypothectical/imagined Merotic terms. Moreover, the failure to acknowledge that most Meroitic consonants are probably associated with a schwa, except when a Meroitic vowel is joined to a consonant e.g., -i.-e, - a, makes any discussion of Meroitic phonology suspect.
Failure to present examples from agreed upon Meroitic lexical items, especially given the clear Meroitic examples of Egyptian loan words in Meroitic is quite strange. This is further compounded by the fact that she fails to provide a cognate language to read the script and therefore provide a firm foundation for her spurious conclusions.
In general the paper is a good discussion of the state of research relating to Afro-Asiatic. But in my opinion it offers little support for the posibility that Meroitic is related to Afro- Asiatic, or Nilo-Saharan for that matter, given the phantom/imagined words she provides as Meroitic lexical items.
Publication of this article, given its flaws make it clear that Rowan has a powerful advisor, given the fact that the abstract makes it clear that she is not providing any direction on a possible candidate for relatedness with Meroitic. Publication of this article adds little to the previous scholarship on Meroitic, eventhough its publication will make her a new "expert" on Meroitic.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Winters' hypothesis makes little sense. Modern descendants of the Meroites speak Nilo-Saharan languages today which they have likely spoken since before the Arab invasion. If the Meroites didn't speak Nilo-Saharan nor Afro-asiatic then what did they speak?
Perhaps a language isoloate? All of this was discussed before
And please don't tell me they spoke Manding!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I challenged you on this issue before, and you were never able to make an adequate come back. However, to put it simply, if Meroitic language wasn't a native Nile Valley language, but just a lingua franca, then which other places spoke Meroitic language outside of the Nile Valley, and what is your evidence of this?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Modern descendants of the Meroites speak Nilo-Saharan languages today which they have likely spoken since before the Arab invasion
And they completely lack the genetic lineages found in Dravidians....who in turn completely lack lineages native to Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I challenged you on this issue before, and you were never able to make an adequate come back. However, to put it simply, if Meroitic language wasn't a native Nile Valley language, but just a lingua franca, then which other places spoke Meroitic language outside of the Nile Valley, and what is your evidence of this?
quote: Modern descendants of the Meroites speak Nilo-Saharan languages today which they have likely spoken since before the Arab invasion
This is conjecture. There is evidence that Niger-Congo was also spoken in this area. What evidence exist supporting the continued presence of descendants of the Meroites in the Sudan.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I challenged you on this issue before, and you were never able to make an adequate come back. However, to put it simply, if Meroitic language wasn't a native Nile Valley language, but just a lingua franca, then which other places spoke Meroitic language outside of the Nile Valley, and what is your evidence of this?
I challenged you on this issue before, and you were never able to make an adequate come back. However, to put it simply, if Meroitic language wasn't a native Nile Valley language, but just a lingua franca, then which other places spoke Meroitic language outside of the Nile Valley, and what is your evidence of this?
First of all I never said that Meroitic was spoken outside of the Nile Valley. It was a lingua franca that allowed the diverse people of the Meroitic Empire to communicate in a common language.
I have never argued that the Kushites abandoned their native language or that Meroitic was spoken anywhere except in the Meroitic Sudan. I have argued, and supported with evidence the fact that the Kushites. never wrote their inscriptions in a Kushite language.
They used lingua francas to unite the diverse speakers in the Napatan and Meroitic civilizations first Egyptian and later Meroitic. This is supported by the abundance of Kushite documents written in Egyptian before the introduction of Meroitic.
As I point out in post below, the Napatans and Meroites wrote their inscriptions in Egyptian until the Egyptians became a sizable minority in the Meroitic Empire. The Kushites had a tradition of using a non-Kushite language to record their administrative and political religious activities due to the numerous and diverse subjects from different tribes they ruled. Since the Meroitic and Napatan documents were written in Egyptian there is no lexical evidence of the languages spoken by the Kushites and other groups in the inscriptions left by these people.
Below is my original answer to this question. What don't you understand about this answer.
quote:
Literacy in the Napatan and Meroitic Civilizations
Ancient Kush extended across a large part of the Sudan. In this vast region encompassing the Napatan and Meroitic civilizations there were many different nationalities, that spoke a myriad of languages.
Due to the ethnic diversity of the Napatans, it is clear that at least from the Napatan period of Kush the rulers of the empire had decided that no single language spoken in the empire would be used to record political, administrative and religious information. To maintain an equilibrium within and among the Napatan nationalities Egyptian was used as the lingua franca of the empire. The leaders of the Napatan empire probably used Egyptian because it was an international language, and few Kushites were of Egyptian ethnic origin.
Egyptian remained the lingua franca for the Kushites during the Napatan and early Meroitic periods in Kushite history. After the Assyrians defeated the Egyptians the ethnic composition of the Kushite empire began to change. As a result, many Egyptians began to migrate into Kushite, to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large number of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These people began to take over many Egyptian settlements, while other Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other political and military conflicts after the Assyrians led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deserters moved into Kush. Moreover, the archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testify to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush.
In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). These rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC and led to many Egyptians migrating back into Egypt.
By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled. Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule (Torok, 454-456). This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt.
The Kush was a multi-ethnic society. It included speakers of many languages within the empire. During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.
As more and more Egyptians, led by Egyptian nationalists, fled to Kush as it became under foreign domination the Egyptians formed a large minority in the Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
By the rise of Greeks in Egypt, the cultural ideology , like the people were changing. This is supported by the transition from Demotic writing (7th 5th Centuries BC) to Coptic (4th BC-AD 1400). The Coptic people are the best evidence for the change in the Egyptian population.
After the Egyptians became a sizable minority in Kush, the Kushites abandoned Egyptian as a lingua franca. Egyptian was replaced by the Meroitic writing.
Due to the fact that Meroite leaders were trying maintain unity within the Meroitic Confederacy/Empire they did not record any ethnic lexical items in the Meroitic inscriptions , that I have read so far, except ethnonyms and toponyms.
Now explain to me what's not understandable about this answer?
First of all I never said that Meroitic was spoken outside of the Nile Valley. It was a lingua franca that allowed the diverse people of the Meroitic Empire to communicate in a common language.
Okay then, I can agree with that, given that you aren't implying that Meriotic isn't a native Nile Valley language.
quote:Clyde:
Below is my original answer to this question. What don't you understand about this answer
quote:
Literacy in the Napatan and Meroitic Civilizations
Ancient Kush extended across a large part of the Sudan. In this vast region encompassing the Napatan and Meroitic civilizations there were many different nationalities, that spoke a myriad of languages.
Due to the ethnic diversity of the Napatans, it is clear that at least from the Napatan period of Kush the rulers of the empire had decided that no single language spoken in the empire would be used to record political, administrative and religious information. To maintain an equilibrium within and among the Napatan nationalities Egyptian was used as the lingua franca of the empire. The leaders of the Napatan empire probably used Egyptian because it was an international language, and few Kushites were of Egyptian ethnic origin.
Egyptian remained the lingua franca for the Kushites during the Napatan and early Meroitic periods in Kushite history. After the Assyrians defeated the Egyptians the ethnic composition of the Kushite empire began to change. As a result, many Egyptians began to migrate into Kushite, to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large number of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These people began to take over many Egyptian settlements, while other Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other political and military conflicts after the Assyrians led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deserters moved into Kush. Moreover, the archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testify to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush.
In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). These rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC and led to many Egyptians migrating back into Egypt.
By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled. Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule (Torok, 454-456). This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt.
The Kush was a multi-ethnic society. It included speakers of many languages within the empire. During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.
As more and more Egyptians, led by Egyptian nationalists, fled to Kush as it became under foreign domination the Egyptians formed a large minority in the Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
By the rise of Greeks in Egypt, the cultural ideology , like the people were changing. This is supported by the transition from Demotic writing (7th 5th Centuries BC) to Coptic (4th BC-AD 1400). The Coptic people are the best evidence for the change in the Egyptian population.
After the Egyptians became a sizable minority in Kush, the Kushites abandoned Egyptian as a lingua franca. Egyptian was replaced by the Meroitic writing.
Due to the fact that Meroite leaders were trying maintain unity within the Meroitic Confederacy/Empire they did not record any ethnic lexical items in the Meroitic inscriptions , that I have read so far, except ethnonyms and toponyms.
Now explain to me what's not understandable about this answer?
.
What is there not to understand? You didn't provide answer to my question the first time around when it was asked here, until just now; what part of that didn't you understand?
As far as the passage is concerned, I would like to point out that, there are indications that Kushites had used their own languages for official purposes as well, but just used Egyptic script as medium to write it, i.e. prior to developing their own script [influenced by Demotic script], the "Meroitic" script.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
As far as the passage is concerned, I would like to point out that, there are indications that Kushites had used their own languages for official purposes as well, but just used Egyptic script as medium to write it, i.e. prior to developing their own script [influenced by Demotic script], the "Meroitic" script.
This is news to me. Please provide us with a discussion of the Kushite language you claim was recorded for official purposes in the Egyptian script, especially the Kushite lexical items contained in these texts.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I have never argued that the Kushites abandoned their native language or that Meroitic was spoken anywhere except in the Meroitic Sudan. I have argued, and supported with evidence the fact that the Kushites. never wrote their inscriptions in a Kushite language.
They used lingua francas to unite the diverse speakers in the Napatan and Meroitic civilizations first Egyptian and later Meroitic. This is supported by the abundance of Kushite documents written in Egyptian before the introduction of Meroitic.
I see that you modified your response, after I had responded to the original format. Clyde, there is no need to pretend that this is where the point of our disagreement lay, for this is the reason I asked the question, which you just responded to. The idea of a Kushitic lingua franca is nothing new here, as you can see from my own earlier post in the following, so there is no reason for me to question that:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
The Kushites were more ethnically heterogenous than their lower so-called "Nubian" counterparts, as can readily be seen in Kemetian art. Now, as the likes of Claude Rilly have pointed out, there are clues as to Meroitic being a spoken language in the Nile Valley long before the corresponding script was adopted for it. **With these different ethnic groups, it would make sense that the Kerma social complex, from the start was able to amalgamate the related language groups of its societal occupants under a regional/Nile Valley lingua franca.** It would seem that after the decline of Meroe, that the said Nilo-Saharan 'affiliated' lingua franca broke down as the region became increasingly subjected to foreign invasions, for example, Afrasan speakers from southwest Asia, European imperialists, and groups from west Saharan regions. On that backdrop, elements of the [defunct] Meroitic script and Kushitic names on Egyptian papyri come out as being related, and linguistic reconstructions done, as that done by Mr. Rilly, show 'relationship' with several languages now spoken in the region. What is your thoughts on this?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Supercar
quote:
As far as the passage is concerned, I would like to point out that, there are indications that Kushites had used their own languages for official purposes as well, but just used Egyptic script as medium to write it, i.e. prior to developing their own script [influenced by Demotic script], the "Meroitic" script.
This is news to me. Please provide us with a discussion of the Kushite language you claim was recorded for official purposes in the Egyptian script, especially the Kushite lexical items contained in these texts.
Not sure why it is news to you, as it has been pointed out to you in the very link you posted, of an earlier discussion on the subject. In particular, this piece communicated the idea:
From Claude Rilly, courtesy of ARKAMANI Sudan Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology; An Arabic/English Review on Archaeological and Anthropological Research in the Sudan:
Meroitic was the language of the successive kingdoms of Kush. It was not written before the last stage of the civilization of Kush, the so-called « Kingdom of Meroe ». However, there is evidence for a much earlier date for the appearance of this language (Rilly, 8th Nilo-Saharan Conference, Hamburg, 2001), although it was not yet written with a script of its own. A list of Proto-Meroitic names of persons, obviously important figures of the first Kushite state, the Kingdom of Kerma, appears in an Egyptian papyrus from the sixteenth century BC.[I assume the one provided below]
The problem is that you don't pay attention to detail, when you are busy trying to propagate your own viewpoints...usually questionable ones at that.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judging from his past posts, it seems Winters claims the Meorites to be different from Kushites even though all evidence both historical and material show that the Meroitic culture was founded by Kushites and so their language had to be a form of Kushite.
Winters declares the Meroitic language to be Niger-Congo, and while it certainly is possible, exactly how likely is this scenerio. We know that the only languages of the Niger-Congo family spoken in Sudan are those of the Kordofanian group found in western Sudan. Winters, are you therefore proposing these languages to be Kordofanian? I hope you aren't saying they are Manding!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: A list of Proto-Meroitic names of persons, obviously important figures of the first Kushite state, the Kingdom of Kerma, appears in an Egyptian papyrus from the sixteenth century BC.
The problem is that you don't pay attention to detail, when you are busy trying to propagate your own viewpoints...usually questionable ones at that.
This has nothing to do with detail. It has to do with the absence of Kushite langauge material.
We have always been aware of Kushite/Meroitic names. These names can not provide insight into the Meroitic language.
They can not provide insight into the Meroitic language because they were not written as a bilingual text. The text only records Kushite names.
quote: A list of Proto-Meroitic names of persons, obviously important figures of the first Kushite state, the Kingdom of Kerma, appears in an Egyptian papyrus from the sixteenth century BC.
We have always been aware of Kushite/Meroitic names. These names can not provide insight into the Meroitic language.
.
Use your common sense at least; why one would need a lingua franca, if it weren't important for official use? Moreover, you acknowledged that the Kushites wouldn't have abandoned their own language, which would have been this 'lingua franca', and now you contradict yourself. The Kushites weren't under Egyptic control; they were for the most part, an autonomous polity throughout much of the dynastic period. So again, why would Kushitic elites need to speak Egyptian to their own people?...I can understand if they used 'Egyptian' as a communication line with Egyptians to the north, but not for their own polity [and general populace], when the idea of a lingua franca for Kushites would have been developed in the first place for this purpose. The names show that the language was in use quite early on, and that is the point. The rest should follow, via common sense.
quote:Clyde:
They can not provide insight into the Meroitic language because they were not written as a bilingual text. The text only records Kushite names.
Duh, it is an "Egyptian" papyrus!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Use your common sense at least; why one would need a lingua franca, if it weren't important for official use? Moreover, you acknowledged that the Kushites wouldn't have abandoned their own language, which would have been this 'lingua franca', and now you contradict yourself. The Kushites weren't under Egyptic control; they were for the most part, an autonomous polity throughout much of the dynastic period. So again, why would Kushitic elites need to speak Egyptian to their own people?...I can understand if they used 'Egyptian' as a communication line with Egyptians to the north, but not for their own polity [and general populace], when the idea of a lingua franca for Kushites would have been developed in the first place for this purpose. The names show that the language was in use quite early on, and that is the point. The rest should follow, via common sense.
quote:Clyde:
They can not provide insight into the Meroitic language because they were not written as a bilingual text. The text only records Kushite names.
Duh, it is an "Egyptian" papyrus!
Yes it is an Egyptian papyrus, not a Kushite papyrus. Keep this fact in mind.
As a result, except for the Kushite names in the text, the entire text was written in Egyptian and read in Egyptian--not Kushite.
I can write a story and give the characters Native American names, use of the names tell us very little about the language spoken by the Native American. Use of Kushite names in this story only tell us there were characters in the story of Kushite origin nothing more.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yes it is an Egyptian papyrus, not a Kushite papyrus. Keep this fact in mind.
As a result, except for the Kushite names in the text, the entire text was written in Egyptian and read in Egyptian--not Kushite.
I believe you are misdirecting that post; it is you who didn't seem to have noticed this, I guess, until now. Can't be emphasized enough: pay attention to detail.
quote: I can write a story and give the characters Native American names, use of the names tell us very little about the language spoken by the Native American.
If "Native American" names are 'distinctive' of an indigenous language, as indicated by your terminology, my friend, how can it not reflect a language?
quote:Clyde:
Use of Kushite names in this story only tell us there were characters in the story of Kushite origin nothing more.
You always miss the obvious points, whether through intellectual inadequacy or purposefulness; continuity between the Kushitic names and the Meroitic. See post above, for more 'obvious' insights that evaded you.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If "Native American" names are 'distinctive' of an indigenous language, as indicated by your terminology, my friend, how can it not reflect a language?
It is clear you lack any critical reasoning. A name is simply a word and reflect only a name unless the name is interpreted in the language from whence it came.
For example, Michael is biblical name. Its roots lay in Hebrew. Yet the average person does not know the meaning of the word Michael unless they have studied Hebrew.
The average joe names their son Michael because to them it sounds nice. For these people what can they learn about Hebrew from reading this name, unless they know Hebrew and the meaning of the word Michael ="god like".
To these people its just a pretty name from the Bible, that they chose to name their child. Unless they know Hebrew they wouldn't even know how the word was contructed and I guarantee that just by knowing the name Michael, they could not converse in Hebrew. Given this reality your claim about knowing a language through a name must be a joke or evidence of a juvenile mind or intellectual inadequacy.
The same can be said for the names in the papyrus. They may be Kushite, but they tell us nothing about the Kushite language unless the author translates these names into Egyptian, and even then we only know the meaning of these names--not the entire language which can be made up of thousands of words.
Please explain how these terms provide us insight into the Kushite language. Also give us the meanings of these names which you believe can provide us with an understanding of the Kushite language. The reason we can read many Meroitic names is the fact that elements of the names include the names of Egyptian dieties or Kushite dieties mentioned by the Egyptians . Without this knowledge the names would be silent. It provides us with knowledge of personal names, but very little in the way of language.
To study a language you need bilingual text or the cognate language of a dead language as in the case of Coptic=Egyptian. Names alone will not provide anyone with keen insight into a spoken or written language dead or alive.
quote: If "Native American" names are 'distinctive' of an indigenous language, as indicated by your terminology, my friend, how can it not reflect a language?
It is clear you lack any critical reasoning. A name is simply a word and reflect only a name unless the name is interpreted in the language from whence it came.
Names are only just that, and have no language affiliation; you are off your rocker! For instance you say:
quote:Clyde:
For example, Michael is biblical name. Its roots lay in Hebrew. Yet the average person does not know the meaning of the word Michael unless they have studied Hebrew.
How do you know its roots lay in "Hebrew". Is "Hebrew" not a language?
quote:Clyde:
Given this reality your claim about knowing a language through a name must be a joke or evidence of a juvenile mind or intellectual inadequacy.
Your 'reality' is not always in touch with 'reality' of the natural world, if you know what I mean. Sheer intellectual breakdown on your part to assume that names have no linguistic basis, and then go on to casually speak of "Native American" names, and names of "Hebrew" origins: how on earth would you make such claims in the first place, if names aren't distinctive of languages of origin? How does a "Native American" name become one in the first place, duh?
quote:Clyde:
Please explain how these terms provide us insight into the Kushite language. Also give us the meanings of these names which you believe can provide us with an understanding of the Kushite language.
Names are but one of the tools that hint to continuity, as presented by Rilly:
list of Proto-Meroitic names of persons, obviously important figures of the first Kushite state, the Kingdom of Kerma, appears in an Egyptian papyrus from the sixteenth century BC...
Typological similarity between Egyptian texts and their Meroitic counterparts can also be useful. Of course, the elements of the texts that are known, for example names of persons and gods, can help towards clarifying the grammatical nature and the semantic field of the unknown words. Most of the time, all these elements are insufficient. But in a few cases, a meaning can be suggested for new words and be confirmed in various inscriptions. Although very slow, this approach recently provided new translations. A set of thirtynine purely Meroitic basic words was finally produced, not including of course too specific words such as « prince » or « great priest », which are useless for comparative purpose.
Of course, all this has been presented to you before. That you never get it, can only be attributed to two things: Actual obtuseness or pretending to be obstuse.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your 'reality' is not always in touch with 'reality' of the natural world, if you know what I mean. Sheer intellectual breakdown on your part to assume that names have no linguistic basis, and then go on to casually speak of "Native American" names, and names of "Hebrew" origins: how on earth would you make such claims in the first place, if names aren't distinctive of languages of origin? How does a "Native American" name become one in the first place, duh?
This proves your illiteracy. A name is just a word and can provide you little information with out translation of that name, any insight into a language.
For example, a common Afro-American name for a female is Shenika and Shenique. Afro-Americans speak English. They have distinct names they use, but this name tells us little if anything about the Afro-American language. People who use these Afro-American names don't even have a meaning for them.
If names tell us so much about a language why don't these terms provide us with insight into Afro-American language.
You know names by themselves can't provide us with any linguistic evidence for a language. You just want to keep arguing due to your pompous arrogance.
Supercar
quote:
Typological similarity between Egyptian texts and their Meroitic counterparts can also be useful. Of course, the elements of the texts that are known, for example names of persons and gods, can help towards clarifying the grammatical nature and the semantic field of the unknown words. Most of the time, all these elements are insufficient. But in a few cases, a meaning can be suggested for new words and be confirmed in various inscriptions. Although very slow, this approach recently provided new translations. A set of thirtynine purely Meroitic basic words was finally produced, not including of course too specific words such as « prince » or « great priest », which are useless for comparative purpose.
Your acceptance of this passage shows that you can't read. To read a dead language you have to find the cognate language. To read Egyptian Champollion used Coptic. To read the cuneiform writing Col. Rawlinson used Oromo and a South Semitic language.
You accept this statement as valid when :
1) Rilly has not found a cognate language for Meroitic;
2) Rilly has reconstructed Meroitic when there is not enough Meroitic lexical items to reconstruct a Proto-language;
3)Rilly has reconstructed Meroitic terms using South Sudanic languages especially Nubian, that were not even spoken in the Meroitic Empire;
4) Proto-terms are imagined words that can not even be proved to have ever existed; and
5) How can you read Meroitic text and discovery new word when you don't even know the language.
This makes any readings by Rilly conjecture. And your acceptance of his theory clear evidence of your lack of linguistic knowledge--and need to believe that just because an authority says something it must be true.
I am waiting for you to answer my questions.
1)Please explain how the terms Rilly has reconstructed based on Nubia provide us insight into the Kushite language, when Nubians were not even part of the Meroitic empire.
2)Give us the meanings of these names which you believe can provide us with an understanding of the Kushite language.
3) Provide us with a list of the 39 words Rilly uses to read Meroitic.
4) Name ancient languages deciphered and read using a Proto-Language.
5) Name a Proto-language supported by textual evidence from an actual document written in a Proto-language.
I am waiting........hmm.....
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recently Claude Rilly is being given credit for presenting a method to decipher Meroitic, I already deciphered Meroitic years ago. Rilly believes that he can decipher the Meroitic language language using the Proto-NorthEastern Sudanic, which he has reconstructed.
According to Rilly, since the people presently living in the Sudan today speak languages associated with the Nilo Saharan Superfamily of languages, the Meroites probably spoke a language associated with this family. This was a radical decision, because research has shown that none of the attested Meroitic terms accepted by mainstream scholars are related to any living language in the Sudan (there are some Meroitic terms borrowed from Egyptian).
Because there are no cognate Meroitic terms and lexical items in the Eastern Sudanic Languages, Rilly has begun to reconstruct Proto-Eastern Sudanic, and attempt to read Meroitic text using his Proto-Eastern Sudanic vocabulary. Even if I hadn’t deciphered the Meroitic writing this method would never lead to the decipherment of this or any other language.
First, it must be stated that no “dead “ language has been deciphered using a proto-language. These languages were deciphered using living languages, Coptic in the case of Egyptian, Oromo and (Ethiopian) Semitic was used to decipher the Mesopotamian Cuneiform scripts.
The basic problem with using a proto-language to read a dead language results from the fact that the proto-language has been reconstructed by linguist who have no knowledge or textual evidence of the alleged proto-language. Secondly, there are subgroups in any family of languages. This means that you must first establish the intermediate proto-language (IPL) of the subgroup languages in the target language family. Once the IPLs have been reconstructed, you can then reconstruct the superordinate proto-language (SPL). You can only reconstruct the SPL on the basis of attested languages. In addition, before you can reconstruct the IPLs and SPL a genetic relationship must be established for the languages within the Superfamily of languages, e.g., Nilo Saharan.
The problem with Rilly’s method, is there is no way he can really establish the IPLs in Eastern Sudanic because we have not textual evidence or lexical items spoken by people who lived in the Sudan in Meroitic times. As a result, the languages spoken by people in this area today may not reflect the linguistic geography of the Sudan in the Meroitic period. This is most evident when we look at modern Egypt. Today the dominant language is Arabic, and yet Arabic has no relationship to Egyptian. If we accept Rilly’s method for deciphering Egyptian we would assume that once me reconstructed proto-Semitic , we could read Egyptian—but as you know Egyptian is not a Semitic language.
Secondly, researchers have compared the “attested Meroitic” terms to all the Nilo-Saharan languages. The results were negative, they do not relate to any Eastern Sudanic language. If the lexical items attested in Meroitic are not cognate to Eastern Sudanic terms, there is no way to establish a genetic relationship between these languages. Absence of a genetic relationship means that we can not reconstruct the imagined IPLs of Meroitic sister languages, since these researchers failed to find a connection between Meroitic and the Eastern Sudanic. As a result, Rilly’s reconstructions of Nilo-Saharan can offer no insight into the language spoken by the Meroites.
My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory. The Kushana theory is that a group of “East Indian” scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites.
The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence, 1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic 2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asia and Africa; 3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.
Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who lived in the Meroitic empire, failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites. It also makes it impossible for us to accept Rilly’s contention that he can read Meroitic using Proto-Eastern Sudanic.
Flavius Philostratus, the writer of the Vita Apollonii, Vol. 1,cliamed that the Gymnosophists of Meroe originally came from India (see F.C. Conybeare, Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (p.45),1950). Given the fact that the Kushana had formerly ruled India around the time that the Meroitic writing was introduced to the Kushite civilization, led to the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gymnosophist may have been Kushana philosophers.
The historical evidence of the Kushana having ruled India made the Classical references to Indians in Meroe, an important source for the construction of alternative theories about the possible location of the cognate language of Meroitic.
There is external evidence, which supports my theory. A theory explains observed phenomena and has predictive power. I have theorized that due to the claims of the Classical writers that some of the Meroites came from India (F.C Conybeare (Trans.), Philostratus: The life of Apollonius of Tyana Vol.2, (1950) pg.271). According to the Life of Apollonius, the Indian Meroites were formerly led by a King Ganges, who had "repulsed the Scythians who invaded this land [India from] across the Caucasus" (Conybeare, Vol.1, Pg.273). Pilostratus also made it clear that the Indians of Meroe came to this country after their king was killed.
The presence of this tradition of an Indian King of the Indian-Meroites conquering the Scythians predicts that the Indian literature should record this historical episode. This prediction is supported by a Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka, which reports that when the Scythians invaded Malwa, the King of Malwa, called Vikramaditya defeated the Scythians (H. Kulke & D. Rothermund, History of India (London, Routledge: 1990, pg.73). This king Vikramaditya may be the Ganges mentioned in the Life of Apollonius.Confirmation of the Ganges story, supports the Classical literary evidence that their were Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites.
Moreover, there were other Indians in North Africa in addition to Kush/Meroe. For example, at Quseir al-Qadim there was a large Indian speaking community (see: R. Salomon, "Epigraphic remains of Indian traders in Egypt", Journal of the American oriental Society, (1991) pp.731-736; and R. Salomon, Addenda, Journal of the American Oriental Society, (1993) pg.593). These Indians were in Egypt writing messages in their own language, around the time we see a switch from Egyptian hieroglyphics to the Meroitic writing system.
The evidence that the Classical references to an Indian-Meroite King who conquered the Scythians is supported by the Indian literature, provides external corroboration of the tradition that some of the Meroites were of Indian origin. The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade language did not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state. In relation to the history of linguistic change and bilingualism, it is a mistake to believe that linguistic transfer had to take place for the Meroites to have used Tokharian, when it did not take place when they wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics.
In summary the classical literature makes it clear that there was a connection between the Gymnosophists (of Meroe) and the Indians. The fact that historical events mentioned in the classical sources are found in the Indian literature confirm the view that there were Indian-Meroites who could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites.
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers is supported by the Indians themselves if further strong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis.
The hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis. The predicting power of the original theory, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified.
The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.
I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia]. I constructed five testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these five variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis. Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
My confirmation of the above five variables: the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe; cognate lexical items; cognate verbs and cognate grammatical features indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
You can read more about my decipherment of Meroitic in the following articles:
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (Juin 1984b). "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques , No.23 , pages 18-21.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989b). "Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet: Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, pp. 149-152.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1998). Meroitic funerary Text. Part1, Inscription Journal of Ancient Egypt 1,(1), pp. 29-34.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1998). Meroitic funerary Text. Part1, Inscription Journal of Ancient Egypt 1,(2), pp. 41-55.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388.
My most recent article discussing Meroitic history and deciphering Meroitic documents titled the Meroitic Evidence for a Blemmy Empire in the Dodekaschoinos can be found at the following site:
quote: Your 'reality' is not always in touch with 'reality' of the natural world, if you know what I mean. Sheer intellectual breakdown on your part to assume that names have no linguistic basis, and then go on to casually speak of "Native American" names, and names of "Hebrew" origins: how on earth would you make such claims in the first place, if names aren't distinctive of languages of origin? How does a "Native American" name become one in the first place, duh?
This proves your illiteracy. A name is just a word and can provide you little information with out translation of that name, any insight into a language.
...this would pale considerably to your dirt stupidity for saying that there exists such a thing as "Native American" names, and names of "Hebrew" origin, while at the same time claiming that names have no linguistic basis.
quote:Clyde:
For example, a common Afro-American name for a female is Shenika and Shenique. Afro-Americans speak English. They have distinct names they use, but this name tells us little if anything about the Afro-American language. People who use these Afro-American names don't even have a meaning for them.
Immaterial. What is the primary language of black Americans? What is the origin of the names you just mentioned; I highly doubt they are African names.
quote:Clyde:
If names tell us so much about a language why don't these terms provide us with insight into Afro-American language.
A stupid question you might want to consider answering.
quote:Clyde.
You know names by themselves can't provide us with any linguistic evidence for a language.
Indeed, I do. The real question is whether you do.
quote:Clyde:
You just want to keep arguing due to your pompous arrogance.
Nope, I just want to exhibit your stupidity and lack of intellectual integrity, and it works like charm all the time.
quote:Clyde:
Supercar
quote:
Typological similarity between Egyptian texts and their Meroitic counterparts can also be useful. Of course, the elements of the texts that are known, for example names of persons and gods, can help towards clarifying the grammatical nature and the semantic field of the unknown words. Most of the time, all these elements are insufficient. But in a few cases, a meaning can be suggested for new words and be confirmed in various inscriptions. Although very slow, this approach recently provided new translations. A set of thirtynine purely Meroitic basic words was finally produced, not including of course too specific words such as « prince » or « great priest », which are useless for comparative purpose.
Your acceptance of this passage shows that you can't read.
Really; what does it say, you tell us. Let's examine how literate you are.
quote:Clyde:
You accept this statement as valid when :
1) Rilly has not found a cognate language for Meroitic;
2) Rilly has reconstructed Meroitic when there is not enough Meroitic lexical items to reconstruct a Proto-language;
3)Rilly has reconstructed Meroitic terms using South Sudanic languages especially Nubian, that were not even spoken in the Meroitic Empire;
4) Proto-terms are imagined words that can not even be proved to have ever existed; and
5) How can you read Meroitic text and discovery new word when you don't even know the language.
This makes any readings by Rilly conjecture. And your acceptance of his theory clear evidence of your lack of linguistic knowledge--and need to believe that just because an authority says something it must be true.
Ah, so you now admit that the citation really has nothing to do with my reading ability, but rather, your unwillingness to acknowledge what it is relaying to you. It seems that the reading issue is on your end after all. I don't really have to do much but stand aside, and allow you to do what you are best at doing: exposing yourself as one heck of an individual full of b.s.
quote:Clyde:
I am waiting for you to answer my questions.
1)Please explain how the terms Rilly has reconstructed based on Nubia provide us insight into the Kushite language, when Nubians were not even part of the Meroitic empire.
2)Give us the meanings of these names which you believe can provide us with an understanding of the Kushite language.
3) Provide us with a list of the 39 words Rilly uses to read Meroitic.
4) Name ancient languages deciphered and read using a Proto-Language.
5) Name a Proto-language supported by textual evidence from an actual document written in a Proto-language.
I am waiting........hmm.....
It'll be one heck of a wait, for I owe you no more than what has already been provided [along with the link], as evidence by a linguist who utilized names, amongst other elements, to assist in reconstructing Kushitic language, in addition to what your own clumsy blunders about name 'origins' reveal about your utterly intellectually bankrupt standpoint.
quote: Clyde:
In summary the classical literature makes it clear that there was a connection between the Gymnosophists (of Meroe) and the Indians. The fact that historical events mentioned in the classical sources are found in the Indian literature confirm the view that there were Indian-Meroites who could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites.
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers is supported by the Indians themselves if further strong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis.
The hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis. The predicting power of the original theory, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified.
The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.
I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia]. I constructed five testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these five variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis. Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
This is just another hogwash, as exemplified by this very contradictory response to my earlier question, with respect to "Meroitic" language being spoken outside the Nile Valley, which you later proclaimed to have answered:
Clyde earlier said...
First of all I never said that Meroitic was spoken outside of the Nile Valley. It was a lingua franca that allowed the diverse people of the Meroitic Empire to communicate in a common language.
I have never argued that the Kushites abandoned their native language or that Meroitic was spoken anywhere except in the Meroitic Sudan....
^Busted with your pants down!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian.
Meroitic script isn't Tocharian script. You haven't shown any shred of evidence of "Meroitic" script being used outside of the Nile Valley.
quote:[i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence.
Easy, you have no textual Kushitic or artistic Kushitic evidence of Indians in Kush. You have no genetic evidence to that extent either.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are intellectually bankrupt and naked in your total ignorance of Meroitic. If not for your troll existence on this forum attacking anyone you disagree with you would not have any thing to contribute to the forum. Your troll existence is obvious when you write: Supercar
quote: Easy, you have no textual Kushitic or artistic Kushitic evidence of Indians in Kush. You have no genetic evidence to that extent either.
This is a retarded statement when I already posted the textual sources supporting Kushana/Indians in Meroe above. Textual information you might understand if your were not blinded by white supremacy to accept any statement made by a European [Rilly] supported by other Europeans as fact. I already noted:
quote:
My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory. The Kushana theory is that a group of “East Indian” scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites.
The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence, 1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic 2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asia and Africa; 3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.
Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who lived in the Meroitic empire, failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites. It also makes it impossible for us to accept Rilly’s contention that he can read Meroitic using Proto-Eastern Sudanic. Flavius Philostratus, the writer of the Vita Apollonii, Vol. 1,cliamed that the Gymnosophists of Meroe originally came from India (see F.C. Conybeare, Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (p.45),1950). Given the fact that the Kushana had formerly ruled India around the time that the Meroitic writing was introduced to the Kushite civilization, led to the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gymnosophist may have been Kushana philosophers.
The historical evidence of the Kushana having ruled India made the Classical references to Indians in Meroe, an important source for the construction of alternative theories about the possible location of the cognate language of Meroitic.
There is external evidence, which supports my theory. A theory explains observed phenomena and has predictive power. I have theorized that due to the claims of the Classical writers that some of the Meroites came from India (F.C Conybeare (Trans.), Philostratus: The life of Apollonius of Tyana Vol.2, (1950) pg.271). According to the Life of Apollonius, the Indian Meroites were formerly led by a King Ganges, who had "repulsed the Scythians who invaded this land [India from] across the Caucasus" (Conybeare, Vol.1, Pg.273). Pilostratus also made it clear that the Indians of Meroe came to this country after their king was killed.
The presence of this tradition of an Indian King of the Indian-Meroites conquering the Scythians predicts that the Indian literature should record this historical episode. This prediction is supported by a Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka, which reports that when the Scythians invaded Malwa, the King of Malwa, called Vikramaditya defeated the Scythians (H. Kulke & D. Rothermund, History of India (London, Routledge: 1990, pg.73). This king Vikramaditya may be the Ganges mentioned in the Life of Apollonius. Confirmation of the Ganges story, supports the Classical literary evidence that their were Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites. Moreover, there were other Indians in North Africa in addition to Kush/Meroe. For example, at Quseir al-Qadim there was a large Indian speaking community (see: R. Salomon, "Epigraphic remains of Indian traders in Egypt", Journal of the American oriental Society, (1991) pp.731-736; and R. Salomon, Addenda, Journal of the American Oriental Society, (1993) pg.593). These Indians were in Egypt writing messages in their own language, around the time we see a switch from Egyptian hieroglyphics to the Meroitic writing system.
The evidence that the Classical references to an Indian-Meroite King who conquered the Scythians is supported by the Indian literature, provides external corroboration of the tradition that some of the Meroites were of Indian origin. The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade language did not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state. In relation to the history of linguistic change and bilingualism, it is a mistake to believe that linguistic transfer had to take place for the Meroites to have used Tokharian/Kushana, when it did not take place when they wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics. In summary the classical literature makes it clear that there was a connection between the Gymnosophists (of Meroe) and the Indians. The fact that historical events mentioned in the classical sources are found in the Indian literature confirm the view that there were Indian-Meroites who could have introduced the Tokharian/Kushana trade language to the Meroites.
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian/Kushana to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian/Kushana, they would not have had to abandon Nubian.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers is supported by the Indians themselves if further strong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis.
The hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis. The predicting power of the original theory, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified.
The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction. I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian/Kushana as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia]. I constructed five testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these five variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis. Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
My confirmation of the above five variables: the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe; cognate lexical items; cognate verbs and cognate grammatical features indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
Although I have met my burden of proof Supercar like most trolls, you continue making reckless uninformed claims that you won't back up with sources.
You hide behind authorities and believe everything they say is the gospel. It is not so. Like most weak people when you are confronted with the defects in the statements of your Eurocentric gods then you become rude and like a rabid dog you go on the attack . Blindly attacking anything your narrow mind can not understand.
Your insidious statements are hollow since they lack the substance necessary to provide them with a factual basis and betray the deceitful nature trolls like you present in a debate when you don't have a clue about what you are debating.
Like most other trolls your unsound propositions are frequently posted on this forum and people refuse to respond to them because you contemptuously dismiss them with a put down, or negative comment which is supported by your cheerleaders. Without these cheerleaders you are just a puppy, barking wildingly to cover up the empty rhectoric you tender in many threads.
Supercar
quote:
quote:Clyde:
I am waiting for you to answer my questions.
1)Please explain how the terms Rilly has reconstructed based on Nubia provide us insight into the Kushite language, when Nubians were not even part of the Meroitic empire.
2)Give us the meanings of these names which you believe can provide us with an understanding of the Kushite language.
3) Provide us with a list of the 39 words Rilly uses to read Meroitic.
4) Name ancient languages deciphered and read using a Proto-Language.
5) Name a Proto-language supported by textual evidence from an actual document written in a Proto-language.
I am waiting........hmm..... ---------------------------------------------------
It'll be one heck of a wait, for I owe you no more than what has already been provided [along with the link], as evidence by a linguist who utilized names, amongst other elements, to assist in reconstructing Kushitic language, in addition to what your own clumsy blunders about name 'origins' reveal about your utterly intellectually bankrupt standpoint.
Due to your ignorance about Meroitic and refusal to answer my questions I will no longer discuss this matter with you. I don't have time to waste with people who have no competence in an area their arrogance has made them feel they are capable of debating.
You may continue to troll this thread as long as you wish. Then more and more people can drink of your ignorance--or throw it up.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You are intellectually bankrupt and naked in your total ignorance of Meroitic. If not for your troll existence on this forum attacking anyone you disagree with you would not have any thing to contribute to the forum. Your troll existence is obvious when you write: Supercar
LOl. We are suppose to trust that you know what Meroitic script is, when you can't even tell the difference between "Meroitic" script and 'Tocharian' script?
quote:Clyde:
quote: Easy, you have no textual Kushitic or artistic Kushitic evidence of Indians in Kush. You have no genetic evidence to that extent either.
This is a retarded statement when I already posted the textual sources supporting Kushana/Indians in Meroe above.
You can't even tell the difference between a 'request' or a 'challenge' and 'statement', and you are talking of 'retarded'; a request you are intellectually incapable of delivering!
quote:Clyde:
Textual information you might understand if your were not blinded by white supremacy to accept any statement made by a European [Rilly] supported by other Europeans as fact. I already noted:
You have not provided any basis for this claim, but I've amply demonstrated that you are blinded by stupidity.
quote:Clyde:
My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory. The Kushana theory is that a group of “East Indian” scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites.
...which is totally out of this universe in terms of intellectual bankrupcy, because the so-called Kushanas didn't write in "Meroitic" script, and you haven't shown even a 'straw' of evidence of this.
quote:Clyde:
The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence, 1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic 2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asia and Africa; 3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.
For the first point, of course Rilly's reconstruction and the fact that "Meroitic" language is "African" makes you look silly. For the second and third point, you have no textual or artistic evidence from the Kushites of Indian presence, nor do you have any genetic evidence to support the idea of 'Indian' Meroites.
quote:Clyde:
Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who lived in the Meroitic empire, failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites. It also makes it impossible for us to accept Rilly’s contention that he can read Meroitic using Proto-Eastern Sudanic.
You haven't falsified jack. In fact, you've contradicted yourself, in claiming that the Kushites didn't abandon their language, only to then imply that the Kushites didn't speak the same language as the "Meroites". Moreover, your idea that there would be no contemporary language in the region that is related to the Kushitic "lingua franca", is intellectually bankrupt when you have shown no evidence of 'population replacement' or population 'extinction'. You act like Meroites didn't leave descendants behind who would today speak related languages. Even Egyptians today, while they speak Arabic, speak one that is infused with words carried over from Egyptic, and then there are Coptic holdouts. Where is your evidence that none of the people who now live in northern Sudan at least, are descendants of Meroites?
quote:Clyde:
The historical evidence of the Kushana having ruled India made the Classical references to Indians in Meroe, an important source for the construction of alternative theories about the possible location of the cognate language of Meroitic.
Pseudo science contradicts itself: did you not moments ago, claim that you never argued for the use of "Meroitic" outside of the Nile Valley? The Kushana aren't Africans or natives of the Nile Valley. If Kushana didn't speak "Meroitic", how on this green earth can you claim to use them to decipher "Meroitic"? If "Meroitic" hadn't been used outside of the Nile Valley, how do you use an outside source to 'decipher' Meroitic. Also, where is your evidence of "Meroitic" script found outside of the Nile Valley?
quote:Clyde:
Although I have met my burden of proof Supercar like most trolls, you continue making reckless uninformed claims that you won't back up with sources.
You must have been holding a mirror to your face when you were writing this piece, super-troll one.
quote:Clyde:
You hide behind authorities and believe everything they say is the gospel.
Better than hiding behind pseudo-scientistific sources and taking their unsubstantive claims as 'gospel'; asking me to accept your peculiar theories, would amount to doing just that.
quote:Clyde:
It is not so. Like most weak people when you are confronted with the defects in the statements of your Eurocentric gods then you become rude and like a rabid dog you go on the attack . Blindly attacking anything your narrow mind can not understand.
You see the act of challenging questionable material as weakness; I on the other hand, see it as a sign of strength and intellectual alertness.
quote:Clyde:
Your insidious statements are hollow since they lack the substance necessary to provide them with a factual basis and betray the deceitful nature trolls like you present in a debate when you don't have a clue about what you are debating.
I've actually produced more substantive material on this board in a short period of time than you have in your entire lifetime. You are the same person who confused mtDNA with Y chromosomes, and then act like you know what you are talking about. You are the same person who claims Dravidian and African connection, turning to genetics, when there isn't a shred of evidence in this regard. You are the same person who talks of Mande speaking Olmecs, when there is no evidence of this either. You are the same person who talks of "Indian" Meroites, when there isn't even a straw to cling on.
quote:Clyde:
Like most other trolls your unsound propositions are frequently posted on this forum and people refuse to respond to them because you contemptuously dismiss them with a put down, or negative comment which is supported by your cheerleaders
This is of course a boldface lie, because I've confronted so many posters here and refuted or challenged their claims deemed questionable by me. And in any case, even if your questionable claim was given consideration, well then, it only paints the 'hypothetical' people you speak of, as copouts or cowards. This is a forum; you can either speak out, or forever remain silent; it is that simple. I am not going to concern myself with 'potential' copouts. Their silence would be their prerogatives, not mine. Mine is to dispel myths, like yours.
quote:Clyde:
Without these cheerleaders you are just a puppy, barking wildingly to cover up the empty rhectoric you tender in many threads.
...which beats a chicken and copout, as you've just proven yourself to be.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree . But when resident trolls like Supercar and his cheerleaders start the name calling I will respond.
Once these trolls prove that they don't know what their talking about in relation to a thread I will no longer discourse with them.
All Clyde, the mother of all trolls, can possibly do now, is to simply come back with nothing more than meaningless name calling; basically nothing that can humanly be considered coherent or relevant to his obligation to produce 'substance'. Make no mistake, I don't sit idly while childish names are thrown at me; I'll strike back in ways that will only make your head spin.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
You must understand why you are an easy target--because this place is crowded with wannabes scholars and you provide tolls by participating on this forum. I do not agree with everything you write but I'll not go that point by using name calling.
I see you have discovered new fields to research but as you can see you need a lot works to do.
Reagarding cheerleaders, you are right about that there are people on this forum who lack backbone.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wannabes, scholars, cheerleaders, trolls' or whatever, all get equal treatment here; nothing said and nobody is above questioning.
Frankly, I give no qualms about what label any person wishes to attach to me, I go about doing business as usual.
Clyde hasn't provided jack to support his bizarre theories, and that is the way it will be treated. Not a single sole has found "Meroitic" inscriptions outside of the Nile Valley, and yet Clyde will have folks here believe that some "naked" Indians introduced this script into the Nile Valley. Just sheer comedy.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the cheerleading, if you speak of the people on hear who disagree with Clyde Winters, whose posts (about anything I could comprehend) I liked when I was new, I took a lot of time to deliberate with whom I'd agree with on alot of the debates before (rarely) posting on them (I'm a laymen ). And I hate to jump on bandwagons, I typically think for myself, if anything, I'm rebelious . I just like to be correct .
I was actually surprised when Winters ended up wrong (in my observations and opion). With all the recent knowledge I'd been verifying at the time, the black or 'afrocentric' side seemed to be winning.
Plus I think just about everyone in that group has disagreed over something or another at some point in time.
It seems to me that people who side with Clyde W. are the cheerleaders and sidekicks who aren't looking for info, just supporting his agenda.
He still makes some good posts, I just disagree with him on a couple things, especially the Negroid definition of african, it's just so senseless.
In my opinion it would make much more sense to Include everything african, but unlike afrocentrists eurocentrists would be alot quicker (you'd think, at their own game,) to realize the uselessness, since alot physical types of groups overlap. Winters is really knoledgeable and it surprises me that he would not get this. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling nameless people 'cheerleaders', 'trolls' or 'wannabes', supposedly meant to be a cheap shot at opponents of Clyde Winters, is what's actually a blatant indication of a person who is insecure, dishonest and has yet to develop a backbone, hiding behind unfounded generalizations and unspecified points.
Speaking out in support of truth and objectivity, is a cheerleading worth the effort in my book and one which I would gladly indulge in.
That Clyde directs cheap shots at experts in their absence, reveals what about Clyde’s character and security?…calling the idea of citing a linguist like Claude Rilly, catering to ‘white supremacy’. On what basis does Clyde assume Mr. Rilly is a proponent of ‘white supremacy’, when it is ironical that this ‘white’ person is not deliberately looking towards non-African explanation for a blatant African development without placing emphasis first and foremost on the region in question, and then seek to get answers elsewhere outside of the said region, while Clyde, a self-proclaimed “Afro-centrist” seeks a non-African solution to an African development, even when it is clear that a non-African explanation is quite meager. Is it not the expectation of ‘white supremacy’ to first seek a non-African explanation or solution for all things African which have been imparted with any degree of meaningfulness, before begrudgingly accepting or conceding, if at all, to facts or truth to the contrary?
“Truth” knows no gender, class or ethnic affiliation, and THAT'S THE WORD!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Yep, indeed there's hypocrisy goin on. I couldn't agree more, especially with that last part about truth.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:On what basis does Clyde assume Mr. Rilly is a proponent of ‘white supremacy’, when it is ironical that this ‘white’ person is not deliberately looking towards non-African explanation for a blatant African development without placing emphasis first and foremost on the region in question, and then seek to get answers elsewhere outside of the said region, while Clyde, a self-proclaimed “Afro-centrist” seeks a non-African solution to an African development, even when it is clear that a non-African explanation is quite meager.
Because the best rhetorical defense is a good offense.
By accusing you of catering to and anti-African agenda, the focus is taken off the fact that what is being advocated is that the Meroitic script is Indian, and not African, in origin. This in spite of and abscense of any proof of and Indian progenator.
I pointed out awhile ago that one of the scholars cited to this effect went so far as to suggest that *all the civilisations of the Sudan* are the product of Indian migrants.
The argument is in fact rooted in the assumption that Sudanese could not possibly have developed their own writing system.
Ironic isn't it, to foster such a notion in the name of "Afrocentrism"?
The proponents are aware of, and embarrassed by the irony.
But they have and "answer".
They further confound the issue by proclaiming Indians to be Africans - 'anway', and so related to proto-Mandingo who migrated from the Sahara, which is yet another fabrication unsupported by evidence. Thus Indian Meriotic is really African because Indians are Africans.
It's important to understand that these two lies are interdependant - and moreover lead directly to the need for other fabrications.
And example is the notion that the Berber are not native to AFrica, but rather to Yemen, or was it...Germany? [anywhere but Africa.]
Thus this vision of Africa - the Dravidians live in the Sahara, whereas the Berber live in Yemen and/or Germany.
Somehow all the Berber migrate into North Africa, and all the Dravidians leave Africa and migrate to India.
Genetic evidence to the contrary can simply be ignored via panderings to anti-intellectualism - ie - genetics is too hard [for Black folk?] and can't be trusted.
For those who claim to 'believe' the total hypothesis, the true wonder is how they manage the mental juggling act necessary to prevent the whole thing from crashing down and shattering into a million pieces?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: Professor Winters: This fragmented votive tablet shows Meroitic inscriptions, could you translate for me please? Thank you
King Tanyidamani [Tanwetamani] Meroitic Period 110-90 BC
.
Reading this same inscription right to left we find the following:
TRANSLITERATION OF THE VOTIVE TABLET OF KING TAÑYIDAMANI
1……..
2. d lm…….
3. tñyi[dmni]……
4. d h ni
5. lw r i n
6. p e ĥ n
7. d qr i
8. to….wi
9. to…..no
10. qo…. l e
11. W-ne lw kl
12. Mo k-i* nea
13. tb d tm k-i*
Translation 1.[ ………]
2. Leave a legacy firmly established……..
3. Tañyidamani………
4. Bequeath a radiant offering.
5. Indeed send out glory and Good.
6. Vouchsafe Blessings and Good.
7.Leave this legacy Monarch (as is the) tradition.
8.To ignite[……] honor
9. To ignite[……] anew.
10. The Renewer[Apedemak]….to grant a blessing.
11. The Commander bears Glory.
12.Initiate (this) great obligation at this moment.
13.Announce out loud/in a lofty voice this lasting legacy to produce (this) duty.
*In Meroitic the affix /-i/ is used to form agent nouns. The Meroitic k= ‘necessary’, with the addition of the /-i/, e.g., k-i= ‘oblig
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The statement that was cut off reads as follows: *In Meroitic the affix /-i/ is used to form agent nouns. The Meroitic k= ‘necessary’, with the addition of the /-i/, e.g., k-i= ‘obligation, duty'.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought his name was on it. Their belief system was deep.
Stela of Queen Amanishaketo
The temple of Amon (1st cent. BC/ 1st cent. AD). Hypostyle Hall.
(left) Goddess Amesemi (right) Amanishaketo
Amesemi - Woman with falcon on head, sometimes also with crescent moon
Amesemi was a Meroitic goddess, who was the wife of Apedemak, lion god of Meroë. The Egyptians never worshiped her. Amesemi wears a crown shaped like a falcon or a falcon standing on a crescent moon. (The falcon is a symbol of kingship and of the god Horus.) The moon was known as the Eye of Horus, as was the cobra on the ruler’s crown. People believed that the moon and the cobra were forms of their ruler’s protective goddess. Because Amesemi wore the falcon and the moon on her crown, many people believe that Amesemi was this protective goddess.
Can you read this one? I like to pick your brain. You are so kind about it. I might have to blow it up for you which I can do later tonight for I am at work.
Stela of queen Amanishaketo. Reverse
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: I thought his name was on it. Their belief system was deep.
Stela of Queen Amanishaketo Can you read this one? I like to pick your brain. You are so kind about it. I might have to blow it up for you which I can do later tonight for I am at work.
Stela of queen Amanishaketo. Reverse
.
I will try to read the stela. I will tell you now that the decipherment is tentative because it is hard read the Meroitic letters. In the future some of this decipherment may have to be done over.
Transliteration
1. nišheto qo-ne qo
2. n-ne he ñk e li-ne ml o
3. ps e o-ne a r-i te
4. k-ne a ine rm i l-ne t d b e šo
5. sli n0 tene q en ne-n
6. te ši-ne ht nk tone n h-ne
7. tek ……ok…….nm…..n h n om-ne
8. hl[e]…. O h p ne š m r
9. m ……. Te r h tl k-ne l tene
10. [………….. ……]
11. h ne m e ter h te m n š nel l
12. w-ne q š-ne l h mete o om-ne
13. sl lne tek nei h r tne š
14. k ñh d ne ate h te ši kne
15. r-ñ h ne-ñ kne ane e-m bo
Translation
1. Anishkheto noble and good restored
2.Manifest the external spirit now; command the transmittal of the sould to commence.
3. Give guard the accession (of the) apparition—may it go forth.
4. The Object of Supplication and Good [Anishkheto] goes to witnee [a new] existence. Arrange to leave a legacy [and] blessed life.
5. Leave to set in motion now the Rebirth. Act to command Good to manifest.
6. The propitiation to pour out. God ignites and manifest the abstract personality of man.
7. To investigate…….a new…..reverence and Good the offering’s only acquisition.
8. Reverberate…….initiate the offering a good pray[er] [for] the patron’s luck
9. m… …. ..te indeed the blessings to elevate the Object of Supplication’s rebirth.
10. [……….. ….. …. … …]
11. The abstract personality of man to unlock indeed the great holy place (of) good (to) merit existence
12. The Commander acts to uplift Greatness, unlock from a distance (its) acquisition.
13. Set in motion (her) existence to investigate benevolence (and) dignity. Lay Good (on) the patron.
14. It (is) obligatory at this time to leave a legacy at this moment dispensing (your) satisfaction.
15. Certainly her abstract personality of man to manifest the Object of Supplication’s spirit much favor (and) increase.
The inscription on the edge
Transliteration
1. ah
2. e k p
3. k h
4. š ne nek e
5. [………..]
6. [….. …… ]
7. […. …… ..]
8. a šne
9. š
10. [… ….. …..]
11. [….. ….. ….]
12. [… ….. …. ..]
13. ñ l li
14. l d
15. b ene
Translation
“The blessed dead [Anishkheto] prays (for) nourishment (of) the obligatory offerings…..to merit……patron……retire exalted. (Her) lasting legacy is abundant almsgiving.”
posted
Myra could you blow up the front of the Stela of Queen Amanishaketo. I would like to see what is written in hierglyphics. The smaller picture of the tablet has a lot of shadows which make it difficult to read.
I was suprised that companion was not mentioned in the text.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
And please don't tell me they spoke Manding!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). And I hate to jump on bandwagons, I typically think for myself, if anything, I'm rebelious . I just like to be correct ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic