2.Where are your citations of any research claiming that we have textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan in the Meroitic Sudan.
Answer:
If Meroitic is Nilo Saharan as cited from Rilly, then Meriotic script *is* textual evidence of Nilo Saharan in Sudan.
Consider the absurdity of denying Nilo - saharan language in Sudan. [what does Nilo saharan refer to if not the native languages of the people of the upper nile vally and surrounding sahara?]
It's like denying Germanic langauges are spoken in Germany. It's just bizarre.
Follow up question, which repeats MysterSolvers question, which you never answer:
You claim that Meroitic is based on Indo-European Kushana writing - Where is your textual evidence of Kushana writing in the Sudan? Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: And you wonder why your linguistic work is rejected or ignored?
LMAO Indeed. Why does Clyde spend most of his time arguing his ridiculous linguistic theories here in this board?? Why does he not do so in a forum for linguists? I visited one years ago, and after hearing what all those [valid] linguists said about him I felt really bad for the guy.
Seriously, Clyde has become a big joke in the academic world. This latest thread is just one of the biggest loads in the manure heap. Why do you guys even bother?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You are a racist troll. Don't you dare call me a Black supremist. I never defamed whites in anyway on this forum or anywhere else.
You do all the time when you say whites weren't responsible for any culture in Europe until the Middle Ages (?). According to you, this was when whites appear out of nowhere and replaced the black indigenous people of Europe. And I imagine this is the same with Asia with the "negroid Shang" etc.
quote:I demand that you produce right now any statement I have made herein to defame whites. I want an apology now for your lie.
I did not lie, nor do I have to apologize for stating truth.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You don't even read what your hero has written. Rilly is the one who says a dog was bought not me. If a dog was bought, that means the dog was purchased.
Rilly
quote: Wle qo phn 3 tlt Netror-se-l-o« this dog was bought (???) three talents, it is Netarura's ».
Okay, I misread that bit of the piece, but judging from the following unaddressed list, apparently you've misread [and lied about] the *entirety* of his piece:
Rilly has demonstrated relationship, which you haven't been able to refute. All you do, to recap, is...
Notwithstanding the robotic recitations, by pooling together previous postings, you were wrong:
*when you falsely charged Rilly with proclaiming to have 'fully' deciphered Meroitic script, at least according to the link presented.
*when you falsely charged him with attempting to read Meroitic by creating proto-Nilo-Saharan.
*when you falsely charged him with attempting to read Meroitic by creating proto-NES [proto-North Eastern Sudanic], naturally contradicting the above.
*when you falsely charged him with attempting to read Meroitic by simply using Nubian. Again contradicting the two above.
*when you falsely charged him with dating some proto-language.
*when you falsely charged him with just focusing on Sudan, simply because this was the geography where the Meroitic complex used to lie.
*when you falsely charged him, in relation to the above, about focusing on just Nilo-Saharan, Nubian, or proto-NES, when in reality, he first compared Meroitic lexicons with other superfamilies like Niger-Congo and Afrasan, which failed to show strong correspondence, prompting him to turn to Nilo-Saharan, starting with eastern Sudanic languages.
*when you falsely charged him with using 'proto-Meroitic' names to read Meroitic, when in reality, these were just part of the 'multicontextual approach' to extracting more words from associated cotexts in primary texts.
*when you falsely charged him with not being able to generate additional words to those which were established by previous researchers. In fact, presumably including those previously established words, he was able to come up with 39 Meroitic words 'whose meanings' were 'assured' for his lexical comparisons.
*when you falsely charged him with not being able to find potential cognates within the eastern Sudanic family. His tables prove this wrong.
*when you falsely charged him with using lexicostatistics or glottochronology to read Meroitic.
*when you baselessly charged his work to be a farce, simply because attempts by previous researchers failed, even though they didn't use Rilly's more refined 'multicontextual approach'.
*when you said lexicostatistics could be used to date languages descended from a proto-language.
*when you confused lexicostatistics with glottochronology. Glottochronology is the tool used to date languages using quantitative [mathematical] models, as well as making use of multidisciplines as additional tool for precision of dating language divergences.
*when you said that documentary evidence of other Nilo-Saharan languages during the Meroitic times was necessary, in order to establish its (Meroitic's) family association.
*when you spoke of the need for evidence to show that Nilo-Saharan precedes Meroitic, when Meriotic is supposed to be part of the Nilo-Saharan family, as demonstrated by Rilly.
*when you spoke of the need to "fully" reconstruct the lexical items and grammar of the ancestral language.
*when you spoke of using Tocharian, and then spoke of using Kharosthi, suggesting that you don't distinguish between the two.
*when you posted the diagram of Meroitic, Demotic, Kharosthi, Egyptian and Gebel, in order to support your dubious theorey of Meroitic derivation from Kharosthi; as it turns out, even from your own diagram, Meroitic not only has a distinct set of letters from that of Kharosthi, but also more closely resembles Demotic and Egyptian counterparts than Khorasthi.
^Basically, these are but just some of the seriously flawed claims that you've made throughout your hypothesis about Meroitic derivation from Tacharian(?), and/or what you now call Khorasthi(?). All your charges about Rilly can essentially be summed up as strawmen setups and phantom events, not professed in the link.
^All trivial distractive antics aside, the difference between you and I, is that I at least admit my error.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rilly has demonstrated relationship, which you haven't been able to refute. All you do, to recap, is...
The central issue is whether Meroitic is or is not related to Nilo Saharan.
Clyde is not in a position to engage this point, because he is using Kharosthi script, which is distinct from Meroitic, to translate Meroitic, without a Rosetta stone-type of scenario going on here, where one script in one language translates the very same text written in Meroitic script, just as hieroglyphics and Demotic was done with Coptic.
This not a good question. Researchers have already discovered that the languages are not related.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this ain't the world of "this isn't so, simply because I say so." You've failed to answer the question pertaining to the statement you just cited, earlier. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
quote:Clyde Winters:
As pointed out above Rilly made up some terms he claims are Meroitic. These make believe terms can not be used to prove this point.
You haven't pointed out such thing. You simply 'disputed' his interpretation of three parallel signs, saying that the table interprets that as "Y". Your interpretation of that term is even more dubious than Rilly's considering that he is basing it on examining other Meroitic texts, while you are proclaiming to translate from a totally different language through the Kharosthi script.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I placed the dog and rabbit in brackets because these are pictures.
Hence vindicating my point, when I replied Rasol, in the following:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Here you admit that Rilly has not faithfully described an object he is deciphering ( e.g., absence of 'y' and the rabbit), and you claim this is okay.
You lost me Dr. Winters,
There is no rabbit in your transliteration either - W, to be, exist, to drive, to conduct
L, indeed, or termination element
E, grant a boon, vouchsafe, favor
Qo, to live, to renew, to restore; noble, royal, honorable; to make , to form
Ph, intention
N, good, only
Y, bring
-t, you (personal pronoun)
tl, to elevate
Netror, name of person
Slo, meritorious
You put rabbit and dog in brackets to literally represent what is being referred to -
: [Dog] exist indeed to grant a noble boon [of rabbits with] the intention to bring elevation to you, meritorious Netror”.
What in your opinion is the actual word for Dog and Rabbit in meroitic?
Is it written in the text, yes or no?
quote:Winters: A rabbit being chased by a dog implies hunting not purchasing a dog.
-Exists as a noble boon- implies a benefit bestowed as a blessing [from God], or a gift [from man], [intention would imply the later]??
But your translation does not make this clear.
Likewise '3 talents' which Riley literally translates could relate to the skillset of the dog, including [implicitely] hunting.
But what we are discribing now is interpretation - not transliteration, correct?
Based on his previous practices, Clyde will likely say that the pictures themselves are the words, as if Meroitic has no terms for these items.
You're so predictable, it ain't funny.
quote:Clyde Winters:
The written message is simply: " Exist indeed to grant a noble boon (with)the intention to bring elevation to you, meritorious Netror".
I do not know the Meroitic word for dog.
And yet, you were prepared to question Rilly's interpretation, who did find out the meaning of the term, from examining one primary Meroitic text to another via the method I've already pointed out countless times now.
Your interpretation thus has 'neither' dog or rabbit. The text is simply descriptive of the image, and the images are not a substitute for the text.
You simply interpreted the image by mere guesswork as opposed to any methodological approach, as done by Rilly, and it shows. You are merely relying on the image, to build a story around it.
I could just as easily switched dog and rabbit in your interpretation in brackets, and who is to say that it would be any more dubious than your approach?!
And I reiterate, that though Rilly went ahead with translating the remainder of the text in his multicontextual approach, his main concern in that translation was the two words he presented in blocks, which are the words whose meanings were supposed to be assured through verification in one primary text to another. He isn't proclaiming to 'assure' the meaning of the rest of the interpretations in the text, which is why 'bought' [which you keep harping on about] was followed by question marks.
Rilly's finding revealed the word for dog, which is supposed to be 'wle', and you have 'none'.
Rilly is basing this on primary Meroitic texts, and you are basing this on a totally different language, which you presume is justified, simply because you proclaim to know the letters [and distinct ones at that] of another language, i.e. Kharosthi script. End of story.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
1.Where is the evidence that Prototerms can be used to decipher and read a dead language.
2.Where are your citations of any research claiming that we have textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan in the Meroitic Sudan.
3.Cite any research that the Nubian speakers were ever part of the Meroitic empire.
4. Cite any sources that dispute the fact that Classical writers said Indians were living in Meroe and contributed to their civilization.
5. Cite any sources disputing the fact that there was a large Indian community already living in Egypt during the Meroitic Empire.
6. You have not illustrated that the Kharosthi script does not agree with Meroitic writing.
7. You can not dispute the fact that Kharosthic was in use long before Meroitic came on the scene.
Mystery Solver/ Rasol when are you going to answer these questions.
Wrong question. You should have asked where I answered those incoherent questions. The answer is: you had already cited it when you repeated those questions. Where is your point-by-point answer to my point-by-point revelations of your lies and misinformation?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rily could be correct or he could be wrong, but Winters attempted refutations of him to date are simply strawfire distractions, which neither show that the translations are incorrect, nor that Meroitic is unrelated to other African languages - as *Winters*, and not Riley, claims.
I approach Rilly's interpretations as I do for any other science. By this, I mean that it should be falsifiable. Until this is done, I'd have to assume his methodological approach bore fruit here [and definitely has preponderance over Winters' approach], and he was able to determine the meanings of the 'emphasized' terms through the 'multicontextual' appraoch he proclaimed to have used.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Seriously, Clyde has become a big joke in the academic world. This latest thread is just one of the biggest loads in the manure heap. Why do you guys even bother?
Some folks have the tendency to assume that if they spew dubious claims, that the lack of negative feedback to this from others therefore means that the audience is buying it. For that reason, I speak out, to let it be known that I'm not a member of the presumed receptive sheep flock to disinformation propagation.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Winters and fanbase can always retreat behind megalomania - ie - "everyone else is jealous".
The reality is that his proposals meet with stark skepticism because his methods are unsound, and his agenda driven conclusions are outright ridiculous.
But I still must concede, that they are entertaining.
The manner in which he attributes Meroitic script to demic diffusion from Indo Europeans....and then brazenly reclassifies Kushana - to Dravidian [it's all about substratim you see], and further, Dravidian to Niger-Congo [via the lost continent, of course], in order to make it all "Afrikan" and all good again [whew!, that was close!],.... is and absolute hoot.
Kushana hypothesis -> Dravidian hypothesis -> Lemurian [Atlantis] hypothesis.
It's the mental equivalent of riding a roller coaster - you come away from it a bit dizzy, queasy, and laughing your silly head off. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Tocharian was probably a Lingua Franca.
There were many people who probably used Tocharian for purposes of communication including the Kushana and the "Ars'i/Asii". They probably used Tocharian as a lingua franca. You make it clear in your last post that numerous languages were spoken in Central Asia when the Tocharian was written in Kharosthi.
Most researchers believe that a majority of the people who lived in this area were bilingual and spoke Bactrian ,Indian languages among other languages. I agree with this theory, and believe that the Kushana Kings may have spoken a Dravidian language. Due to the possibility that the Kushana spoke a Dravidian language which is the substratum language of Tocharian; and the presence of a number of different terms in Tocharian from many languages spoken in the area-led me to the conclusion that Tocharian was a trade language. The Kushana always referred to themselves as the Kushana/Gushana. The name Kushana for this group is recorded in the Manikiala Stone inscription (56BC?), the Panjtar Stone inscription of 122 AD and the Taxila Silver Scroll. The Greeks called them Kushana in the Karosthi inscriptions, and Kocano. In the Chinese sources they were called Koei-shuang or Kwei-shwang= Kushana, and Yueh chih .
As you can see the term Kushana had been used to refer to these people long before Kujula Kadphises used the term as a personal name. This was over a hundred years after the Kushana had become rulers of Bactria. It would appear from the evidence that the nation of the Kushana was called Kusha.
If that coin were Roman would that prove that Latin is and African language, or that Romans were Black?
To whom would it prove this, a 7 year old?
Back to reality..... Kushan Empire Territories (full line) and expansion (dotted line, according to the Rabatak inscription of the Kushan Empire at its greatest extent. Languages Bactrian (Greek script) Greek (Greek script) Pali (Kharoshthi script) Sanskrit, Prakrit (Brahmi script) Possibly Aramaic Religions Iranian religions Buddhism Ancient Greek religion Hinduism Zoroastrianism Capitals Begram Taxila Mathura Area Central Asia Northwestern Indian subcontinent Existed 60 – 375 CE The Kushan Empire (c. 1st–3rd centuries) was a state that at its height, about 105–250, stretched from what is now Tajikistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan and down into the Ganges river valley in northern India. The empire was created by the Kushan tribe of the Yuezhi confederation, an Indo-European people from the eastern Tarim Basin, China, possibly related to the Tocharians. They had diplomatic contacts with Rome, Persia and China, and for several centuries were at the center of exchange between the East and the West
Origins Chinese sources describe the Guishuang (Ch: 貴霜), i.e. the "Kushans", as one of the five aristocratic tribes of the Yuezhi, also spelled Yueh-chi, (Ch: 月氏), a loose confederation of Indo-European peoples. The Yuezhi are also generally considered as the easternmost speakers of Indo-European languages, who had been living in the arid grasslands of eastern Central Asia, in modern-day Xinjiang and Gansu, possibly speaking versions of the Tocharian language, until they were driven west by the Xiongnu in 176–160 BCE. The five tribes constituting the Yuezhi are known in Chinese history as Xiūḿ (Ch: 休密), Guishuang (Ch: 貴霜), Shuangmi (Ch: 雙靡), Xidun (Ch: 肸頓), and Dūḿ (Ch: 都密). The Yuezhi reached the Hellenic kingdom of Greco-Bactria, in the Bactrian territory (northernmost Afghanistan and Uzbekistan) around 135 BCE, and displaced the Greek dynasties there, who resettled in Indus basin (in present day Pakistan) in the western part of the Indo-Greek Kingdom.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Kushana.
First, I would like to make it clear that the probable language of the Kushana was Tamil. According to Dravidian literature, the Kushana were called Kosars=Yakshas=Yueh chih/ Kushana. This literature maintains that when they entered India they either already spoke Tamil, or adopted the language upon settlement in India.
The Kushana and the Yueh chih were one and the same. In addition to North Indian documents the Kushana-Yueh chih association are also discussed in Dravidian literature. V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago, note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.
They allegedely arrived in India during the 2nd century BC. He makes it clear that the Yueh chih/ Kushana as noted on their coins worshipped Siva as seen on the coins of Kanishka. This is why we have a coin of a Kushana king from Taxila, dated to AD 76 that declares that the king was maharaja rajatiraja devaputra Kushana "Great King, King of kings, Son of God, the Kushana".
Kushana
King Kaniska of the Kushan
The term Tochara has nothing to do with the Yueh chih, this was a term used to describe the people who took over the Greek Bactrian state, before the Kushana reached the Oxus Valley around 150 BC . There is no reason the Kushana may not have been intimately familiar with the Kharosthi writing at this time because from 202BC onward Prakrit and Chinese documents were written in Kharosthi.
The Kushana and the Yueh chih were one and the same. In addition to North Indian documents the Kushana-Yueh chih association are also discussed in Dravidian literature.V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana. They allegedely arrived in India during the 2nd century BC. He makes it clear that the Yueh chih/ Kushana as noted on their coins worshipped Siva as seen on the coins of Kanishka.This is why we have a coin of a Kushana king from Taxila, dated to AD 76 that declares that the king was maharaja rajatiraja devaputra Kushana "Great King, King of kings, Son of God, the Kushana".
Some researchers believe that the Ars'i spoke Tocharian A, while Tocharian B was the "Kucha language" may have been spoken by the Kushana people. I don't know where you read that the speakers of Tocharian A were called Ars'i. This names have nothing to do with ethnic groups, they refer to the cities where Tocharian text were found: Tocharian A documents were found around Qarashar and Turfan, thusly these text are also referred to as Turfanian or East Tocharian; Tocharian B documents were found near the town of Kucha, thusly they are sometimes called Kuchean or West Tocharian.
Kanishka Casket
Linguist use the term Tochari to refer to these people, because they were given this title in Turkic manuscripts . They called themselves Kushana.
The observable evidence make it clear that the terms used to label the Tocharian dialects are not ethnonyms, they are terms used to denote where the Tocharian records were found. The use of the term Ars'i does not relate to the Kushana people. The terms: Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli, refer to the nomads that took away Bactria from the Greeks.
These nomads came from the Iaxartes River that adjoins that of Sacae and the Sogdiani .The Kushana people took over Bactria much later. It is a mistake to believe that Ars'i and Kucha were ethnonyms is under-standable given your lack of knowledge about Tocharian. And I will agree that there were a number of different languages spoken by people who wrote material in Tocharian. It is for this reason that I have maintained throughout my published works on Tocharian, that this was a trade language. This language was used by the Central Asians as a lingua franca and trade language due to the numerous ethnic groups which formerly lived in central Asia". Kharosthi was long used to write in Central Asia. It was even used by the Greeks. The use of the Kharosthi writing system in Central Asia and India, would place this writing contemporaneous with the tradition, recorded by the Classical writers of Indians settling among the Kushites of Meroitic Empire..
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Truth will always overcome a lie, no matter what the lie is.
quote: proto-: When prefixed to the name of language, this term serves to designate the earliest known, at times the earliest artificially reconstructed, form of that language.
Rilly’s use of Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani can not be used to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence this group of languages was ever spoken in the Meroitic Empire. Since we have no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan being spoken in the Meroitic period there is no way anyone can claim this family of languages was spoken in the Meroitic Empire in Meroitic times.
Rilly claims that lexicostatistics or glottochronology allows him to read Meroitic. Lexicostatistics is used to fit datable events among languages that theoretically are descendant from a common ancestor.
The basic vocabulary is that part of the lexicon that shows slow change. These terms relate to basic cultural practices and universal human experiences.
Rilly can not use this method to read Meroitic because there are only 26 attested Meroitic terms accepted by the establishment. None of these terms are cognate to Nubian or Taman terms except the name for a Meroitic god. With only 1 cognate Meroitic and Northern Eastern Sudani languages, there is no way you can date the time Meroitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers spoke a common ancestral language. Rilly claims to be able to decipher Meroitic using a method that compares basic culural words to date the time languages separated, can not be used to read Meroitic, because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nilo-Saharan cognates. The absence of Meroitic and Nubian cognates prevents any fruitful comparisons between these languages. Rilly Paper
There are three ways to verify a protolanguage is congruent with reality 1) there is documentary evidence of the ancestor or near ancestor of the target language that allows comparison of adctual terms and grammars to the construct (i.e., reconstructed lexical items and grammars); 2) written evidence in the form of inscriptions exist from systematic excavation that compare favorably to the contruct; and 3) the power of prediction that this or that construct will conforms to objective reality.
Rilly's ideas that he can read Meroitic based on Kushite names from Kerma, which he calls proto-Meroitic names (even though he knows full well that a protolanguage is artificial and comes from reconstruction); and a list of Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani terms from the Nubian, Nara, Taman and Nyima languages meets none of these standards. This meets none of the standards because there is no documentary evidence for Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani dating to the Meroitic period. Moreover, the principle language he hopes to use to read Meroitic text: Nubian, was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. A fact Rilly admits in his own paper where he notes that Nubians invaded the Meroitic Empire during the declining days of the empire.
Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics, wrote that ,"a protolanguage is no more than a theorectical construct designed to link by means of rules the systems of historically related languages in the most economical way. It thus summarizes the present state of our knowledge regarding the systematic relationships of grammars of the related languages....When dealing with past language states it is possible to assess the distance between construct and reality only in cases where we possess documentated evidence regarding an ancestor or a near ancestor, such as is provided by Latin, in the case of the Romance languages"(p.71).
We can reject Rilly's claim he can use this protolanguage to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence of Northern Eastern Sudani speakers ever living in the historic Meroitic Empire, until after the Meroitic Empire was in decline. The absence of documentary evidence of any Nilo-Saharan language spoken in the Meroitic Empire during the Meroitic period precludes any possibility that Rilly's alleged Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani has any relationship to Meroitic or reality for that matter.
Before my decipherment of Meroitic the attested vocabulary of Meroitic was only 26 terms. Researchers proved decades ago that none of these terms have Nubian and Nilo-Saharan cognates. This makes Rilly's ideas about deciphering Meroitic using Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani a farce.
This is a farce because we do have document evidence of Meroitic, but none for the Nilo-Saharan languages. As a result, any proto-term hfrom Northern Eastern Sudani Rilly compares with Meroitic will be conjecture since there is no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan languages being spoken in the Meroitic Empire.
H.H. Hock, in Principles of Historical Linguistics (1986), observed that there are two major arguments against the idea that comparative reconstructions recover the "prehistoric reality" of a language.
The first principle, is that languages change over time. This makes it almost impossible to "fully" reconstruct the lexcical items and grammar of the ancestral language. Secondly, there are few, if any dialect free languages. Constructs resulting from comparing lexical items and grammars from an available set of languages,produce a dialect free protolanguage, that is unnatural and "factually incorrect as shown by the insights of the wave theory" (p.568).
Granted, by comparing languages and associating them with a particular time period you can make comparative reconstructions that may eliminate dialectal diversity. But Rilly can not do this because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nubian cognates. This along with the fact that we have no textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan during the Meroitic period demonstrating that Nilo-Saharan languages were spoken in the Meroitic Empire, especially Nubian,precludes using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic. Using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic will fail to provide a linguistically realistic situation in Nubia 2000 years ago. This is especially true for Nubian, which was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. The Nubian speakers lived far to the north of the Meroitic Empire, a fact Rilly acknowledges in his paper.
As usual you don't know what you're talking about. The Kushana used the Kharosthi/Karosti script. Inscriptions written in Kharosti date back to 251 BC.
The first Meroitic inscription dates back to the reign of Shanakdakheto (c.177-155 BC). The date of the first Meroitic inscriptions is 100 years after people the Kushana were writing their works in Kharosti.
posted
^ I can post facts as fast as you can post fantasies.
Early Kushans Some traces remain of the presence of the Kushan in the area of Bactria and Sogdiana. Archaeological structures are known in Takht-I-Sangin, Surkh Kotal (a monumental temple), and in the palace of Khalchayan. Various sculptures and friezes are known, representing horse-riding archers, and significantly men with artificially deformed skulls, such as the Kushan prince of Khalchayan (a practice well attested in nomadic Central Asia). On the ruins of ancient Hellenistic cities such as Ai-Khanoum, the Kushans are known to have built fortresses. The earliest documented ruler, and the first one to proclaim himself as a Kushan ruler was Heraios. He calls himself a "Tyrant" on his coins, and also exhibits skull deformation. He may have been an ally of the Greeks, and he shared the same style of coinage. Heraios may have been the father of the first Kushan emperor Kujula Kadphises.
The Kushans are believed to have been predominantly Zoroastrian and later Buddhist as well. However, from the time of Wima Takto, many Kushans started adopting aspects of Indian culture like the other nomadic groups who had invaded India, principally the Royal clans of Gujjars. Like the Macedonians and Egyptians they absorbed the strong remnants of the Greek Culture of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, becoming at least partly Hellenised. The first great Kushan emperor Wima Kadphises may have embraced Saivism, as surmised by coins minted during the period. The following Kushan emperors represented a wide variety of faiths including Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and possibly Saivism.
The rule of the Kushans linked the seagoing trade of the Indian Ocean with the commerce of the Silk Road through the long-civilized Indus Valley. At the height of the dynasty, the Kushans loosely oversaw a territory that extended to the Aral Sea through present-day Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan into northern India.
The loose unity and comparative peace of such a vast expanse encouraged long-distance trade, brought Chinese silks to Rome, and created strings of flourishing urban centers.
Main Kushan rulers
Heraios (c. 1 – 30), first Kushan ruler, generally Kushan ruling period is disputed Kujula Kadphises (c. 30 – c. 80) Vima Takto, (c. 80 – c. 105) alias Soter Megas or "Great Saviour." Vima Kadphises (c. 105 – c. 127) the first great Kushan emperor Kanishka I (127 – c. 147) Vāsishka (c. 151 – c. 155) Huvishka (c. 155 – c. 187) Vasudeva I (c. 191 – to at least 230), the last of the great Kushan emperors Kanishka II (c. 226 – 240) Vashishka (c. 240 – 250) Kanishka III (c. 255 – 275) Vasudeva II (c. 290 – 310)
Vasudeva III reported son of Vasudeva III,a King,uncertain.
Vasudeva IV reported possible child of Vasudeva III,ruling in Kandahar,uncertainPosts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This not a good question. Researchers have already discovered that the languages [merotic and nilo saharan] are not related.
False statement obviously since researchers claim that Meroitic is a Nilo Saharan language.
It is you who claims that Merotic is unrelated to any other African language.
It is you who claims that the langauge is effectively Indo-European [notwithstanding your ludicrous dissembling in and effort to -HIDE- what you are actually implying.
It is you who failed to refute the affinities denoted between Merotic and other Nilo Saharan languages.
Therefore the problem is your failure to answer the question - not that the question is not *good*, , which is simply your excuse for not being able to answer it.
I am not the first one to claim that Meroitic was not related to an African language.It has been numerous researchers who have claimed Meroitic was not related to any African languages.
Researchers working on the Meroitic language do not believe that Meroitic was a member of the Afro-Asian group. Griffith and Haycock tried to read Meroitic using Nubian.
K.H. Priese, tried to read the Meroitic text using Eastern Sudani; and F. Hintze, attempted to compare Meroitic with the Ural-Altaic group. Siegbert Hummel, compared the "known" Meroitic words to words in the Altaic family which he believed was a substrate language of Meroitic.
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.
According to the most recent archaeological work carried out by the University of Geneva, Kerma was founded around 2400 years BC and did not undergo any dramatic ethnic or cultural changes until its final stage. So the origin of Meroitic can now be placed very probably around this date or even a little earlier. Meroitic is yet for the greatest part untranslatable. Of course, the words can be read since the script was deciphered in 1911 by the British egyptologist F. Ll. Griffith. But the very meaning of these words was nearly unknown. Apart from some names of places, kings and gods, and a few Egyptian loanwords, no more than three dozens of indigenous words could be translated with certainty.
The main problem with unknown ancient languages is to find related languages, ancient or modern, which are known. If an unknown language cannot be linked with any known language, and if there are no extensive bilingual texts, translation is probably impossible. A sad example is Etruscan, which still resists translation in spite of three centuries of hard work with various methods.
It is impossible to prove a genetic relation between given languages if only a few basic words are available, as was the case until recently. Moreover, in the list of the allegedly translated Meroitic words, some were actually wrong. In 1964, Bruce Trigger tried to prove that Meroitic was a Nilo-Saharan - and more specifically an Eastern Sudanic - language. He used a list of Meroitic words compared with Nubian and Nara, a language from Eritrea. But the list was still very scanty, and half the words he used, taken from Zyhlarz's articles, were erroneously translated - or simply did not exist at all. Although he was right in his conclusion, he was wrong in the way he reached them. So the question of the linguistic position of Meroitic remained open after his paper.
The only basic Meroitic words for which a solid translation had been given by Griffith and his successors are the following :
man / woman / meat / bread / water / give / big / abundant / good / sister / brother / wife / mother / child / begotten / born / feet.
The methods to increase the number of translated words cannot be fully explained in details here. To make a long story short, I would say that it is a « multicontextual approach ». The archaeological and the iconographical context can be very helpful, since very often, the short texts are the description with words of a painted or engraved image. Clyde: There is no way you can read an inscriptionusing iconography because often you do notknow the name for the items depicted in the engraving.
....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.
Clyde: This comment makes it clear that Rilly made up words and associated them with inscriptions.
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.
Clyde: Here Rilly admits that he "produced thirtynine purely Meroitic basic words'. If the 39 words did not exist before hand, he made them up. Again evidence Rilly is using nonexistent words to read Meroitic.
SOME RECENTLY TRANSLATED MEROITIC WORDS
arohe- «protect» hr- «eat», pwrite «life», yer «milk» ar «boy», are- or dm- «take, receive», dime «cow», hlbi «bull», ns(e) «sacrifice>>, sdk «journey», tke- «love, revere», We «dog»
Clyde : Supercar claims that Rilly does not admit he has translated Meroitic. Here is the evidence that Rilly does believe he has translated Meroitic words based on Northern Eastern Sudani. All of these words he has made up .
The second stage of the work was to reconsider the relation of Meroitic with NiloSaharan and possibly to spot inside this phylum a specific family where Meroitic could belong. Previous works, including mine, had shown that a link with other phylums like Niger-Congo or Afro-Asiatic was unlikely.
Clyde: Here Rilly admits you can not connect Meroitic to any African languages based on the available agreed upon Meroitic corpus. As a result, Rilly made up Meroitic terms so he could "translate" Meroitic witg his made-up terms.
For this purpose, lexicostatistical methods were used (see below). The most convincing similarities are with Eastern Sudanic, and more specifically with the northern branch including Nubian, Nara, Taman and Nyima. The best result is obtained with Midob (a member of the Nubian group), thanks to Roland Werner's excellent description of this language.
Clyde: Supercar/Mystery Solver claims I made up the fact that Rilly isusing Nubian to read Meroitic. Here Rilly supports my earlier statements.
The scores of Taman, Nara and Nyima could be higher if there were extensive lexical data available, but infortunately, only short wordlists have so far been published.
But at this stage of the work, two main obstacles were encountered. First, the distinction between the Northern and the Southern branches of Eastern Sudanic had to be firmly established. Obviously, the scores of some Southern languages like Surmic or Nilotic in the lexicostatistical comparison with Meroitic are high.
Clyde: How can the correspondence be high between Meroitic and Nilo-Saharan when the Rilly admits earlier was able to find ocrrespondence between African languages and Meroitic?
This distinction between both branches was first suggested by Bender in 1991, but on morphological, not lexical, bases. This obstacle is rather easy to overcome: a series of basic words such as « drink », « mouth », « burn », « tooth », « hand », « louse » etc., shows close connections inside the northern branch, but nothing else than scattered similarities with the Southern one. One can even wonder if it would not be relevant to consider North Eastern Sudanic as a single family within Eastern Sudanic, at the same level as Surmic, Nilotic, Daju or Temein.
The second problem was more difficult to solve. Lexicostatistics are a good method to identify a linguistic family for a language whose genetic nature is unknown.
Clyde: Please cite at least one linguistic article or text that says you can identify a linguistic famuly using Lexicostatistics.
But this approach does not provide definite evidence. The one and only way to get it for sure is the classical comparative method as illustrated by Meillet for the Indo-European family, by Guthrie for Proto-Bantu, etc. So it was necessary, first to find regular phonetic correspondences between North Eastern Sudanic languages, second to reconstruct the original phonology of Proto-North Eastern Sudanic, third to reconstruct, as much as possible, some Proto-North Eastern Sudanic words, and finally to compare these proto-forms with Meroitic words. The task is not easy because extensive data are missing for a majority of the dialects and even for some languages like Afitti or Tama.
How could he compare Meroitic terms to Nilo-Saharan, when he already proved that the agreed upon Meroitic terms do not agree with African languages. If he is talking about the 39 Meroitic terms he created, this is not proof because these terms were made up, without using any Meroitic evidence as a source.
Finally, close connections were found between some Meroitic words and their ProtoNorth Eastern Sudanic counterparts (see table below). Some regular phonetic correspondences are obvious. For instance, where Proto-North Eastern Sudanic had /g/ in initial position, it became in Meroitic the velar fricative /h/ or /h/: the example displayed in the table below is « meal » or « food », but there are other instances. Most of the time, the correspondences are simple : initial /k/ in Proto-North Eastern Sudanic is preserved everywhere except in Nyima, where it often turns into dental /t /. There are sometimes very impressive sets like the words for « take, receive », « woman », « slaughter » and particularly the name of the supreme god (Meroitic Apede-mk : « the God Apede »), a detail which indicates that the speakers of Proto-North Eastern Sudanic formed not only a linguistic, but also a cultural community.
Clyde: Apedemk, is the only attested Meroitic word in the list above. This statement is not supported by the evidence.
Other correspondences are less obvious. For example, original /g/ in internal position, if in contact with a labiovelar vowel [o] or [u], becomes /b/ in Meroitic. This phenomenon is known in other linguistic families, for instance Celtic among the Indo-European phylum (cf. Greek gune « woman )) vs Gaulish bena). Moreover, initial dental consonant /d/ becomes often the liquid /V in Meroitic. This change is also common in other languages, opposing for example the English word tongue (where /t / < /d n and its Latin counterpart lingua. According to both these phonetic rules, the Meroitic article -l pronounced /la/, plural -leb, pronounced /laba/, and Nara demonstrative te, plural tegu, are related, both issuing from Proto-North Eastern Sudanic *de, plural *degu. So the correspondences between Meroitic and living North Eastern Sudanic languages can be found not only in lexical items, but also in morphological elements.
In spite of the scanty available data, the result is obvious : Meroitic is more than probably a member of the North Eastern Sudanic family.
This claim is not supported by the evidence. He admits that he made-up 39 terms, that were not associated with the agreed upon Meroitic terms. This makes his constructions pure conjecture since they can not be verified by actual Meroitic text.
The decipherment of Meroitic by Rilly is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and can not be supported by linguistic methods and the textual evidence.
.
Moreover, the map of these languages [see above] shows an interesting feature. Nowadays, these languages are scattered from Chad to Eritrea, but in the past, there was a link between their present situations : the Wadi Howar, an ancient river, now dried up, once an important tributary of the Nile. In the fourth millenary BC, all the region around this river was still a green country convenient for cattle-breeding. But around this time, this part of the Sahara became arid. Very probably, the pastoral populations living in the region were progressively obliged to gather together along the banks of the Wadi Howar. There they lived together for centuries and acquired a common language : Proto-North Eastern Sudanic. But in the beginning of third millenary BC, the river itself progressively dried up. So a first population migrated to the Nile, where they founded the Kingdom of Kerma, not far from the confluence of the Wadi Howar and the Nile. The geographical, historical and climatic data offer a common support to this theory.
The Taman group went East, towards the springs of the river, to the place where they still live today. Another refugee group, the ancestors of Nubian and Nyima speakers, went South to Kordofan, where they still live today. Later on, in the first centuries AD, Nubian groups invaded the dying Kingdom of Meroe and founded their own kingdoms along the Nile. As for Nara people, I think they first went to the Nile, like the future Meroites, and later went up the Nile and the Atbara toward Eritrea, where they live nowadays.
Clyde
quote:
Rilly’s use of Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani can not be used to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence this group of languages was ever spoken in the Meroitic Empire. Since we have no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan being spoken in the Meroitic period there is no way anyone can claim this family of languages was spoken in the Meroitic Empire in Meroitic times.
Rilly claims that lexicostatistics or glottochronology allows him to read Meroitic. Lexicostatistics is used to fit datable events among languages that theoretically are descendant from a common ancestor.
The basic vocabulary is that part of the lexicon that shows slow change. These terms relate to basic cultural practices and universal human experiences.
Rilly can not use this method to read Meroitic because there are only 26 attested Meroitic terms accepted by the establishment. None of these terms are cognate to Nubian or Taman terms except the name for a Meroitic god. With only 1 cognate Meroitic and Northern Eastern Sudani languages, there is no way you can date the time Meroitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers spoke a common ancestral language. Rilly claims to be able to decipher Meroitic using a method that compares basic culural words to date the time languages separated, can not be used to read Meroitic, because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nilo-Saharan cognates. The absence of Meroitic and Nubian cognates prevents any fruitful comparisons between these languages. Rilly Paper
There are three ways to verify a protolanguage is congruent with reality 1) there is documentary evidence of the ancestor or near ancestor of the target language that allows comparison of adctual terms and grammars to the construct (i.e., reconstructed lexical items and grammars); 2) written evidence in the form of inscriptions exist from systematic excavation that compare favorably to the contruct; and 3) the power of prediction that this or that construct will conforms to objective reality.
Rilly's ideas that he can read Meroitic based on Kushite names from Kerma, which he calls proto-Meroitic names (even though he knows full well that a protolanguage is artificial and comes from reconstruction); and a list of Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani terms from the Nubian, Nara, Taman and Nyima languages meets none of these standards. This meets none of the standards because there is no documentary evidence for Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani dating to the Meroitic period. Moreover, the principle language he hopes to use to read Meroitic text: Nubian, was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. A fact Rilly admits in his own paper where he notes that Nubians invaded the Meroitic Empire during the declining days of the empire.
Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics, wrote that ,"a protolanguage is no more than a theorectical construct designed to link by means of rules the systems of historically related languages in the most economical way. It thus summarizes the present state of our knowledge regarding the systematic relationships of grammars of the related languages....When dealing with past language states it is possible to assess the distance between construct and reality only in cases where we possess documentated evidence regarding an ancestor or a near ancestor, such as is provided by Latin, in the case of the Romance languages"(p.71).
We can reject Rilly's claim he can use this protolanguage to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence of Northern Eastern Sudani speakers ever living in the historic Meroitic Empire, until after the Meroitic Empire was in decline. The absence of documentary evidence of any Nilo-Saharan language spoken in the Meroitic Empire during the Meroitic period precludes any possibility that Rilly's alleged Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani has any relationship to Meroitic or reality for that matter.
Before my decipherment of Meroitic the attested vocabulary of Meroitic was only 26 terms. Researchers proved decades ago that none of these terms have Nubian and Nilo-Saharan cognates. This makes Rilly's ideas about deciphering Meroitic using Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani a farce.
This is a farce because we do have document evidence of Meroitic, but none for the Nilo-Saharan languages. As a result, any proto-term hfrom Northern Eastern Sudani Rilly compares with Meroitic will be conjecture since there is no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan languages being spoken in the Meroitic Empire.
H.H. Hock, in Principles of Historical Linguistics (1986), observed that there are two major arguments against the idea that comparative reconstructions recover the "prehistoric reality" of a language.
The first principle, is that languages change over time. This makes it almost impossible to "fully" reconstruct the lexcical items and grammar of the ancestral language. Secondly, there are few, if any dialect free languages. Constructs resulting from comparing lexical items and grammars from an available set of languages,produce a dialect free protolanguage, that is unnatural and "factually incorrect as shown by the insights of the wave theory" (p.568).
Granted, by comparing languages and associating them with a particular time period you can make comparative reconstructions that may eliminate dialectal diversity. But Rilly can not do this because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nubian cognates. This along with the fact that we have no textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan during the Meroitic period demonstrating that Nilo-Saharan languages were spoken in the Meroitic Empire, especially Nubian,precludes using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic. Using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic will fail to provide a linguistically realistic situation in Nubia 2000 years ago. This is especially true for Nubian, which was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. The Nubian speakers lived far to the north of the Meroitic Empire, a fact Rilly acknowledges in his paper.
As usual you don't know what you're talking about. The Kushana used the Kharosthi/Karosti script. Inscriptions written in Kharosti date back to 251 BC.
The first Meroitic inscription dates back to the reign of Shanakdakheto (c.177-155 BC). The date of the first Meroitic inscriptions is 100 years after people the Kushana were writing their works in Kharosti.
posted
Instead of posting this information why don't you answer the following questions:
1.Where is the evidence that Prototerms can be used to decipher and read a dead language.
2.Where are your citations of any research claiming that we have textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan in the Meroitic Sudan.
3.Cite any research that the Nubian speakers were ever part of the Meroitic empire.
4. Cite any sources that dispute the fact that Classical writers said Indians were living in Meroe and contributed to their civilization.
5. Cite any sources disputing the fact that there was a large Indian community already living in Egypt during the Meroitic Empire.
6. You have not illustrated that the Kharosthi script does not agree with Meroitic writing.
7. You can not dispute the fact that Kharosthic was in use long before Meroitic came on the scene.
Troll I'm waiting.........
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I can post facts as fast as you can post fantasies.
Early Kushans Some traces remain of the presence of the Kushan in the area of Bactria and Sogdiana. Archaeological structures are known in Takht-I-Sangin, Surkh Kotal (a monumental temple), and in the palace of Khalchayan. Various sculptures and friezes are known, representing horse-riding archers, and significantly men with artificially deformed skulls, such as the Kushan prince of Khalchayan (a practice well attested in nomadic Central Asia). On the ruins of ancient Hellenistic cities such as Ai-Khanoum, the Kushans are known to have built fortresses. The earliest documented ruler, and the first one to proclaim himself as a Kushan ruler was Heraios. He calls himself a "Tyrant" on his coins, and also exhibits skull deformation. He may have been an ally of the Greeks, and he shared the same style of coinage. Heraios may have been the father of the first Kushan emperor Kujula Kadphises.
The Kushans are believed to have been predominantly Zoroastrian and later Buddhist as well. However, from the time of Wima Takto, many Kushans started adopting aspects of Indian culture like the other nomadic groups who had invaded India, principally the Royal clans of Gujjars. Like the Macedonians and Egyptians they absorbed the strong remnants of the Greek Culture of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, becoming at least partly Hellenised. The first great Kushan emperor Wima Kadphises may have embraced Saivism, as surmised by coins minted during the period. The following Kushan emperors represented a wide variety of faiths including Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and possibly Saivism.
The rule of the Kushans linked the seagoing trade of the Indian Ocean with the commerce of the Silk Road through the long-civilized Indus Valley. At the height of the dynasty, the Kushans loosely oversaw a territory that extended to the Aral Sea through present-day Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan into northern India.
The loose unity and comparative peace of such a vast expanse encouraged long-distance trade, brought Chinese silks to Rome, and created strings of flourishing urban centers.
Main Kushan rulers
Heraios (c. 1 – 30), first Kushan ruler, generally Kushan ruling period is disputed Kujula Kadphises (c. 30 – c. 80) Vima Takto, (c. 80 – c. 105) alias Soter Megas or "Great Saviour." Vima Kadphises (c. 105 – c. 127) the first great Kushan emperor Kanishka I (127 – c. 147) Vāsishka (c. 151 – c. 155) Huvishka (c. 155 – c. 187) Vasudeva I (c. 191 – to at least 230), the last of the great Kushan emperors Kanishka II (c. 226 – 240) Vashishka (c. 240 – 250) Kanishka III (c. 255 – 275) Vasudeva II (c. 290 – 310)
Vasudeva III reported son of Vasudeva III,a King,uncertain.
Vasudeva IV reported possible child of Vasudeva III,ruling in Kandahar,uncertain
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Some folks have the tendency to assume that if they spew dubious claims, that the lack of negative feedback to this from others therefore means that the audience is buying it. For that reason, I speak out, to let it be known that I'm not a member of the presumed receptive sheep flock to disinformation propagation.
This why you continue to post misinformation because you don't understand linguistics. If you did you would answer these questions.
Mystery Solver/ Rasol answer these questions.
1.Where is the evidence that Prototerms can be used to decipher and read a dead language.
2.Where are your citations of any research claiming that we have textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan in the Meroitic Sudan.
3.Cite any research that the Nubian speakers were ever part of the Meroitic empire.
4. Cite any sources that dispute the fact that Classical writers said Indians were living in Meroe and contributed to their civilization.
5. Cite any sources disputing the fact that there was a large Indian community already living in Egypt during the Meroitic Empire.
6. You have not illustrated that the Kharosthi script does not agree with Meroitic writing.
7. You can not dispute the fact that Kharosthic was in use long before Meroitic came on the scene.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Instead of posting this information
The factual information about the Kushana is extremely important because it refutes virtually everything you say about them. Unwary persons, who are not as cynical as I - need to understand the shameless lengths you will go to to bolster your dishonest thesis.
quote:Winters: why don't you answer the following questions...
Your questions about Rilly were properly addressed to Mystery Solver, and in my opinion he has already answered them.
On the other hand, i've asked you the same fundamental question several times now....
quote:You claim that Meroitic is based on Indo-European Kushana writing - Where is your textual evidence of Kushana writing in the Sudan?
quote:I am not the first one to claim that Meroitic was not related to an African language.
ROTFL! Do you realise how many times - in this conversation alone - you've reversed yourself on this question?
You have denied saying the Meroitic was not related to and African language.
You then re-assert it.
You deny saying that Meroitic is related to Indo European langauge, and then reassert it.
You deny attempting to reclassify Kushana from IndoEuropean - to Dravidian - and then reassert it.
You deny claiming that the Dravidians are really ex-pat West Africans who walked to India across the sunken continent of Lemuria - which pulls all the 'wackiness' together -
making Nilo Saharan Meriotic, Kushanian
Indo-European Kusanian Dravidan,
and Dravidian Niger-Congo.....
even though this is precisely what your bizarre rationale requires.... in order to take us back to your claim that Meroitic is *finally* Niger Congo -> even though you began by claiming it, *unrelated to any African language; a claim you also deny.
Forgive the run on sentense, but it was necessaray to do justice to your...well, there is no other word for it than -insanity- Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^A flip flopper is a symptom of one being forced to confront an idea purely setup on lies and dishonesty.
As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know.
—Feb. 12, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Department of Defense news briefing
^"What a tangled web we weave"!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Instead of posting this information
The factual information about the Kushana is extremely important because it refutes virtually everything you say about them. Unwary persons, who are not as cynical as I - need to understand the shameless lengths you will go to to bolster your dishonest thesis.
quote:Winters: why don't you answer the following questions...
Your questions about Rilly were properly addressed to Mystery Solver, and in my opinion he has already answered them.
On the other hand, i've asked you the same fundamental question several times now....
quote:You claim that Meroitic is based on Indo-European Kushana writing - Where is your textual evidence of Kushana writing in the Sudan?
....you fail to answer it.
Why is that?
I answered this question days ago. You just can't read.
The correspondence between the Kharosthi and Merotic signs is the proof of contact as is the Classical literature which made it clear that Indians came to the Meroitic Empire after the death of their king and participated in the Meroitic civilization.
This why you continue to post misinformation because you don't understand linguistics.
Then answer the point-by-point obliteration of your lies, as you were requested to do so, if you have the guts.
quote:Clyde Winters:
I'm waiting....... fake scientist.
You'll have to keep waiting, fake linguist.
I imagine I will--given your ignorance of basic comparative linguistic knowledge. You have yet to provide any documented evidence supporting the claims of Rilly that you can read a dead language using a protolanguage;that lexicostatistics can be used to decipher a dead language;that Nubians lived in the Meroitic Empire before it declined; and finally, that it is proper to make up 39 words and claim that they are Meroitic, when none of the terms agree with the attested Meroitic words deciphered and agreed upon by researchers in the field.
The specific problems with Rilly's method is the following. Rilly’s use of Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani can not be used to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence this group of languages was ever spoken in the Meroitic Empire. Since we have no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan being spoken in the Meroitic period there is no way anyone can claim this family of languages was spoken in the Meroitic Empire in Meroitic times.
Rilly claims that lexicostatistics or glottochronology allows him to read Meroitic. Lexicostatistics is used to fit datable events among languages that theoretically are descendant from a common ancestor.
The basic vocabulary is that part of the lexicon that shows slow change. These terms relate to basic cultural practices and universal human experiences.
Rilly can not use this method to read Meroitic because there are only 26 attested Meroitic terms accepted by the establishment. None of these terms are cognate to Nubian or Taman terms except the name for a Meroitic god. With only 1 cognate Meroitic and Northern Eastern Sudani languages, there is no way you can date the time Meroitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers spoke a common ancestral language. Rilly claims to be able to decipher Meroitic using a method that compares basic culural words to date the time languages separated, can not be used to read Meroitic, because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nilo-Saharan cognates. The absence of Meroitic and Nubian cognates prevents any fruitful comparisons between these languages. Rilly Paper
There are three ways to verify a protolanguage is congruent with reality 1) there is documentary evidence of the ancestor or near ancestor of the target language that allows comparison of adctual terms and grammars to the construct (i.e., reconstructed lexical items and grammars); 2) written evidence in the form of inscriptions exist from systematic excavation that compare favorably to the contruct; and 3) the power of prediction that this or that construct will conforms to objective reality.
Rilly's ideas that he can read Meroitic based on Kushite names from Kerma, which he calls proto-Meroitic names (even though he knows full well that a protolanguage is artificial and comes from reconstruction); and a list of Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani terms from the Nubian, Nara, Taman and Nyima languages meets none of these standards. This meets none of the standards because there is no documentary evidence for Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani dating to the Meroitic period. Moreover, the principle language he hopes to use to read Meroitic text: Nubian, was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. A fact Rilly admits in his own paper where he notes that Nubians invaded the Meroitic Empire during the declining days of the empire.
Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics, wrote that ,"a protolanguage is no more than a theorectical construct designed to link by means of rules the systems of historically related languages in the most economical way. It thus summarizes the present state of our knowledge regarding the systematic relationships of grammars of the related languages....When dealing with past language states it is possible to assess the distance between construct and reality only in cases where we possess documentated evidence regarding an ancestor or a near ancestor, such as is provided by Latin, in the case of the Romance languages"(p.71).
We can reject Rilly's claim he can use this protolanguage to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence of Northern Eastern Sudani speakers ever living in the historic Meroitic Empire, until after the Meroitic Empire was in decline. The absence of documentary evidence of any Nilo-Saharan language spoken in the Meroitic Empire during the Meroitic period precludes any possibility that Rilly's alleged Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani has any relationship to Meroitic or reality for that matter.
Before my decipherment of Meroitic the attested vocabulary of Meroitic was only 26 terms. Researchers proved decades ago that none of these terms have Nubian and Nilo-Saharan cognates. This makes Rilly's ideas about deciphering Meroitic using Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani a farce.
This is a farce because we do have document evidence of Meroitic, but none for the Nilo-Saharan languages. As a result, any proto-term hfrom Northern Eastern Sudani Rilly compares with Meroitic will be conjecture since there is no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan languages being spoken in the Meroitic Empire.
H.H. Hock, in Principles of Historical Linguistics (1986), observed that there are two major arguments against the idea that comparative reconstructions recover the "prehistoric reality" of a language.
The first principle, is that languages change over time. This makes it almost impossible to "fully" reconstruct the lexcical items and grammar of the ancestral language. Secondly, there are few, if any dialect free languages. Constructs resulting from comparing lexical items and grammars from an available set of languages,produce a dialect free protolanguage, that is unnatural and "factually incorrect as shown by the insights of the wave theory" (p.568).
Granted, by comparing languages and associating them with a particular time period you can make comparative reconstructions that may eliminate dialectal diversity. But Rilly can not do this because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nubian cognates. This along with the fact that we have no textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan during the Meroitic period demonstrating that Nilo-Saharan languages were spoken in the Meroitic Empire, especially Nubian,precludes using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic. Using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic will fail to provide a linguistically realistic situation in Nubia 2000 years ago. This is especially true for Nubian, which was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. The Nubian speakers lived far to the north of the Meroitic Empire, a fact Rilly acknowledges in his paper.
The evidence of faulty use of linguistic methods by Rilly is outlined above. It is evidence from linguists.
You have failed to provide any linguistic support for Rilly's methods based on comparative and historical linguistics. All you do is repeat Rilly's assertions without citing any discussion of linguistic knowledge.
I supported my decipherment by internal and external evidence:
1. Classical evidence that Indians influenced the Meroitic civilization after the death of their king.
2. Jaina textual evidence that an Indian group left their homeland after their king was killed supporting the statements of Classical writers.
3. Archaeological evidence of Indian communities in Egypt and Ethiopia (supported by textual evidence) that they were in close proximity to the Meroitic Empire and could have easily made their way to the the Empire.
4. Cognate Meroitic and Kushana, lexical items, grammar and verbs that agree with findings of other researchers.
5. Cognate Sudan and Central Asian toponyms.
6. Cognate signs from Kharosthi that relate to Meroitic symbols.
7. Finally, my decipherment allows any researcher to read all the Meroitic inscriptions .
posted
Wooley , provides us with a good picture of the Meroitic religion and style of writing. On the front of the funerary stelae of Karanog we find the depiction of a woman with her hair tied in a top-knot, necklace around her neck and bangles on her arms. Above the head of this female figure we find wings. This stelae has fourteen (14) lines. The stelae is dedicated to a woman named Tqewine/ Tqowine.
[IMG] [/IMG] Below we will first give the transliteration of the Karanog stelae and then a translation of Meroitic into English. At the end of the translation we will provide a vocabulary of the text.
Line 1. Woshi ne Shore yi-ne t-po m-i d.
Line 2. Tqowine s li-ne t si d e-ne te o d he.
Line 3. Lo wi-ne sl h m-ne...s-ne qo. Qo li-ne
Line 4. Terike lo wi-ne...i l pe rine si b lo.
Line 5. Tel-o wi-ne pq r ne ye mtetl...e ne ye.
Line 6. Lq-ne lo win-ne yet sn net e i ol ye e-ne.
Line 7. M ne lo wi-ne... ot p kr-ne yet ne-ne e-o wi-ne.
Line 8. Pe sto lt-ne yet m n e e-o wi-ne qo re.
Line 9. St s t lete-ne s-ne tq lo wi-ne hle mr.
Line 10. S-ne q lo-t to lo wi-ne mte h ne s-n pe.
Line 11. Sto li h wi-ne t e lo lo-a en-ne ye.
Line 12. Tb h re lo wi-ne ato mh enep si se-a.
Line 13. Te-ne ato mh enep wi h r ke te-ne h ml-o l-ne.
Line 14. P-Sin ote m-i ke te-ne Wosi ne. Shore o-i ine.
TRANSLATION
"(l). Isis the Good, and Osiris the Eternal (are) commanding the measure (of) the bequeathal. (2) Tqowine, the patron to transmit her satisfying bequeathal. She commands the beginning of the bequeathal of the He. (3) The solitary honorable patron (is) to behold the He-ne's (the abstract personality of man)...to prop up the renewal. Act to (make) the conveyance. (4) (Its) the Fashion to dispatch Awe...[h]i to remain to reproduce within satisfaction from a distance. (5) The solitary object of respect to make indeed a good voyage to Mtetl...[here] to be give(n) a good existence.(6) She is to witness solitary reverence capable of cleverly bowing in reverence (to the gods)--give leave to the /a grand journey (Oh) Commander. (7) Measure the good (of the ) lonely object of Honor [lying in the grave]...esteem and dignity. Adorn (her with) goodness, give opening to honor.(8) Your nonexistent patron goes to measure goodness. Give (its) beginning Now! The Object of Respect (Tqowine, to be) renewed indeed. (9) Endorse the embarkation of the (good) Supporter. Set in Motion the dispatch of this object of respect (Tqowine) to reverberate luck. (10) The patron, she is present (in) the grave. Send the Object of Respect to unlock H-ne [the place where the H, is kept]--the Patron begs you. (11) Protect her conveyance of the H. This honorable woman give (her) isolated departure. The Teacher (to take) a journey. (12) Announce in a lofty voice indeed, the dispatch of this Object of Respect (on the) path (of) the grand bestowal (of) atonement (and ) favor. (13) Rebirth is the path to grand bestowal of honor to the H , indeed give permission for the rebirth of the H, and the soul to exit. (14) Much satisfaction (and) wonder (to come) measure it. The permission (for its bestowal ) is arranged by Isis,( and) Osiris (is) the Opener of the Way." Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
This why you continue to post misinformation because you don't understand linguistics.
Then answer the point-by-point obliteration of your lies, as you were requested to do so, if you have the guts.
quote:Clyde Winters:
I'm waiting....... fake scientist.
You'll have to keep waiting, fake linguist.
I imagine I will--
Then so be it.
quote:Clyde Winters:
given your ignorance of basic comparative linguistic knowledge.
Apparently not as acute as your's; you can't even tell the difference between 'lexicostatistics' and 'glottochronology' for crying out loud. In fact, you've re-demonstrated both your ignorance of what lexicostatistics means, and the incapacity to read in the following:
You have yet to provide any documented evidence supporting the claims of Rilly that you can read a dead language using a protolanguage;that lexicostatistics can be used to decipher a dead language;that Nubians lived in the Meroitic Empire before it declined; and finally, that it is proper to make up 39 words and claim that they are Meroitic, when none of the terms agree with the attested Meroitic words deciphered and agreed upon by researchers in the field. - Clyde Winters
^Incoherent robotic babblings reveal your fullest potential of answering my [reiterated] simple requests and point-by-point obliterations of your lies and linguistic illiteracy.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
This why you continue to post misinformation because you don't understand linguistics.
Then answer the point-by-point obliteration of your lies, as you were requested to do so, if you have the guts.
quote:Clyde Winters:
I'm waiting....... fake scientist.
You'll have to keep waiting, fake linguist.
I imagine I will--
Then so be it.
quote:Clyde Winters:
given your ignorance of basic comparative linguistic knowledge.
Apparently not as acute as your's; you can't even tell the difference between 'lexicostatistics' and 'glottochronology' for crying out loud. In fact, you've re-demonstrated both your ignorance of what lexicostatistics means, and the incapacity to read in the following:
You have yet to provide any documented evidence supporting the claims of Rilly that you can read a dead language using a protolanguage;that lexicostatistics can be used to decipher a dead language;that Nubians lived in the Meroitic Empire before it declined; and finally, that it is proper to make up 39 words and claim that they are Meroitic, when none of the terms agree with the attested Meroitic words deciphered and agreed upon by researchers in the field. - Clyde Winters
^Incoherent robotic babblings reveal your fullest potential of answering my [reiterated] simple requests and point-by-point obliterations of your lies and linguistic illiteracy.
You have yet to provide any documented evidence supporting the claims of Rilly that you can read a dead language using a protolanguage;that lexicostatistics can be used to decipher a dead language;that Nubians lived in the Meroitic Empire before it declined; and finally, that it is proper to make up 39 words and claim that they are Meroitic, when none of the terms agree with the attested Meroitic words deciphered and agreed upon by researchers in the field. Please cite any articles that support Rilly's propositions.
The specific problems with Rilly's method is the following. Rilly’s use of Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani can not be used to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence this group of languages was ever spoken in the Meroitic Empire. Since we have no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan being spoken in the Meroitic period there is no way anyone can claim this family of languages was spoken in the Meroitic Empire in Meroitic times.
Rilly claims that lexicostatistics or glottochronology allows him to read Meroitic. Lexicostatistics is used to fit datable events among languages that theoretically are descendant from a common ancestor.
The basic vocabulary is that part of the lexicon that shows slow change. These terms relate to basic cultural practices and universal human experiences.
Rilly can not use this method to read Meroitic because there are only 26 attested Meroitic terms accepted by the establishment. None of these terms are cognate to Nubian or Taman terms except the name for a Meroitic god. With only 1 cognate Meroitic and Northern Eastern Sudani languages, there is no way you can date the time Meroitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers spoke a common ancestral language. Rilly claims to be able to decipher Meroitic using a method that compares basic culural words to date the time languages separated, can not be used to read Meroitic, because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nilo-Saharan cognates. The absence of Meroitic and Nubian cognates prevents any fruitful comparisons between these languages. Rilly Paper
There are three ways to verify a protolanguage is congruent with reality 1) there is documentary evidence of the ancestor or near ancestor of the target language that allows comparison of adctual terms and grammars to the construct (i.e., reconstructed lexical items and grammars); 2) written evidence in the form of inscriptions exist from systematic excavation that compare favorably to the contruct; and 3) the power of prediction that this or that construct will conforms to objective reality.
Rilly's ideas that he can read Meroitic based on Kushite names from Kerma, which he calls proto-Meroitic names (even though he knows full well that a protolanguage is artificial and comes from reconstruction); and a list of Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani terms from the Nubian, Nara, Taman and Nyima languages meets none of these standards. This meets none of the standards because there is no documentary evidence for Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani dating to the Meroitic period. Moreover, the principle language he hopes to use to read Meroitic text: Nubian, was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. A fact Rilly admits in his own paper where he notes that Nubians invaded the Meroitic Empire during the declining days of the empire.
Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics, wrote that ,"a protolanguage is no more than a theorectical construct designed to link by means of rules the systems of historically related languages in the most economical way. It thus summarizes the present state of our knowledge regarding the systematic relationships of grammars of the related languages....When dealing with past language states it is possible to assess the distance between construct and reality only in cases where we possess documentated evidence regarding an ancestor or a near ancestor, such as is provided by Latin, in the case of the Romance languages"(p.71).
We can reject Rilly's claim he can use this protolanguage to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence of Northern Eastern Sudani speakers ever living in the historic Meroitic Empire, until after the Meroitic Empire was in decline. The absence of documentary evidence of any Nilo-Saharan language spoken in the Meroitic Empire during the Meroitic period precludes any possibility that Rilly's alleged Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani has any relationship to Meroitic or reality for that matter.
Before my decipherment of Meroitic the attested vocabulary of Meroitic was only 26 terms. Researchers proved decades ago that none of these terms have Nubian and Nilo-Saharan cognates. This makes Rilly's ideas about deciphering Meroitic using Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani a farce.
This is a farce because we do have document evidence of Meroitic, but none for the Nilo-Saharan languages. As a result, any proto-term hfrom Northern Eastern Sudani Rilly compares with Meroitic will be conjecture since there is no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan languages being spoken in the Meroitic Empire.
H.H. Hock, in Principles of Historical Linguistics (1986), observed that there are two major arguments against the idea that comparative reconstructions recover the "prehistoric reality" of a language.
The first principle, is that languages change over time. This makes it almost impossible to "fully" reconstruct the lexcical items and grammar of the ancestral language. Secondly, there are few, if any dialect free languages. Constructs resulting from comparing lexical items and grammars from an available set of languages,produce a dialect free protolanguage, that is unnatural and "factually incorrect as shown by the insights of the wave theory" (p.568).
Granted, by comparing languages and associating them with a particular time period you can make comparative reconstructions that may eliminate dialectal diversity. But Rilly can not do this because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nubian cognates. This along with the fact that we have no textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan during the Meroitic period demonstrating that Nilo-Saharan languages were spoken in the Meroitic Empire, especially Nubian,precludes using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic. Using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic will fail to provide a linguistically realistic situation in Nubia 2000 years ago. This is especially true for Nubian, which was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. The Nubian speakers lived far to the north of the Meroitic Empire, a fact Rilly acknowledges in his paper.
The evidence of faulty use of linguistic methods by Rilly is outlined above. It is evidence from linguists.
You have failed to provide any linguistic support for Rilly's methods based on comparative and historical linguistics. All you do is repeat Rilly's assertions without citing any discussion of linguistic knowledge.
I supported my decipherment by internal and external evidence:
1. Classical evidence that Indians influenced the Meroitic civilization after the death of their king.
2. Jaina textual evidence that an Indian group left their homeland after their king was killed supporting the statements of Classical writers.
3. Archaeological evidence of Indian communities in Egypt and Ethiopia (supported by textual evidence) that they were in close proximity to the Meroitic Empire and could have easily made their way to the the Empire.
4. Cognate Meroitic and Kushana, lexical items, grammar and verbs that agree with findings of other researchers.
5. Cognate Sudan and Central Asian toponyms.
6. Cognate signs from Kharosthi that relate to Meroitic symbols.
7. Finally, my decipherment allows any researcher to read all the Meroitic inscriptions .
You have yet to cite any works that falsify my hypothesis or answer the questions to proving that Rilly's decipherment is correct.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^you can't even tell the difference between 'lexicostatistics' and 'glottochronology' for crying out loud. In fact, you've re-demonstrated both your ignorance of what lexicostatistics means, and the incapacity to read in the following:
You have yet to provide any documented evidence supporting the claims of Rilly that you can read a dead language using a protolanguage;that lexicostatistics can be used to decipher a dead language;that Nubians lived in the Meroitic Empire before it declined; and finally, that it is proper to make up 39 words and claim that they are Meroitic, when none of the terms agree with the attested Meroitic words deciphered and agreed upon by researchers in the field. - Clyde Winters
^Incoherent robotic babblings reveal your fullest potential of answering my [reiterated] simple requests and point-by-point obliterations of your lies and linguistic illiteracy.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^you can't even tell the difference between 'lexicostatistics' and 'glottochronology' for crying out loud. In fact, you've re-demonstrated both your ignorance of what lexicostatistics means, and the incapacity to read in the following:
You have yet to provide any documented evidence supporting the claims of Rilly that you can read a dead language using a protolanguage;that lexicostatistics can be used to decipher a dead language;that Nubians lived in the Meroitic Empire before it declined; and finally, that it is proper to make up 39 words and claim that they are Meroitic, when none of the terms agree with the attested Meroitic words deciphered and agreed upon by researchers in the field. - Clyde Winters
^Incoherent robotic babblings reveal your fullest potential of answering my [reiterated] simple requests and point-by-point obliterations of your lies and linguistic illiteracy.
[
Hymes, D. H. Lexicostatistics So Far Current Anthropology, Jan 1960. Vol. 1(1):3-44
This article provides an extensive and comprehensive survey of the field of lexicostatistics as of 1960. Hymes goes into a lot of detail explaining the methods involved, analyzing issues and problems, foreshadowing developments, and suggesting ideas and solutions. As a result, this article is very technical in nature and requires a background in lexicostatistics or glottochronology in order to grasp a firm understanding of what the author is trying to communicate. He begins by introducing the field of glottochronology, which he claims is one of several lexicostatistical methods. Glottochronology uses mathematical methods to analyze the differentiation between lists of basic words from different languages but of similar meanings. The aim is to track the rates of change in languages and aid in deducing the actual dating of common ancestral languages. Hymes discusses the use of the terms “glottochronology” and “lexicostatistics”. He states that glottochronology examines the rate of change in languages which may be used to infer historical timeframes and provide an analysis of relationships in a language family. Lexicostatistics involves the statistical study of vocabulary for historical implications. Obviously, these two fields are distinctive but closely related. Hymes continues by explaining the foundations of glottochronology: the use of basic vocabulary for the test list; the ongoing development of test lists; the examination of control cases which involve languages at different stages in a single line of development; and the retention rates of words in languages as they change. In the next section, Hymes goes into extensive detail explaining the application of the glottochronological methods. Using numerous examples and references from other published works, the author demonstrates the uses of glottochronology in examining test lists, evaluating cognates, deducing time depths, inferring relationships between languages, and comparing deductions with other historical evidence. The article’s final section describes some uses of lexicostatistics. Apart from glottochronology, lexicostatistics may be further developed to examine sub-groupings in language families, determine genetic relationships among languages, and analyze rates of lexical change. In conclusion, Hymes defends the developing character of lexicostatistics with its short history, but recognizes its potential in anthropology. He calls for further research and development in lexicostatistics.
[/quote]
As you can see the lexicostatistic is used to reconstruct genetically related languages or used to compare constructs and find prototerms.
quote: Hymes, D. H. Lexicostatistics So Far Current Anthropology, Jan 1960. Vol. 1(1):3-44
This article provides an extensive and comprehensive survey of the field of lexicostatistics as of 1960. Hymes goes into a lot of detail explaining the methods involved, analyzing issues and problems, foreshadowing developments, and suggesting ideas and solutions. As a result, this article is very technical in nature and requires a background in lexicostatistics or glottochronology in order to grasp a firm understanding of what the author is trying to communicate. He begins by introducing the field of glottochronology, which he claims is one of several lexicostatistical methods. Glottochronology uses mathematical methods to analyze the differentiation between lists of basic words from different languages but of similar meanings. The aim is to track the rates of change in languages and aid in deducing the actual dating of common ancestral languages. Hymes discusses the use of the terms “glottochronology” and “lexicostatistics”. He states that glottochronology examines the rate of change in languages which may be used to infer historical timeframes and provide an analysis of relationships in a language family. Lexicostatistics involves the statistical study of vocabulary for historical implications. Obviously, these two fields are distinctive but closely related. Hymes continues by explaining the foundations of glottochronology: the use of basic vocabulary for the test list; the ongoing development of test lists; the examination of control cases which involve languages at different stages in a single line of development; and the retention rates of words in languages as they change. In the next section, Hymes goes into extensive detail explaining the application of the glottochronological methods. Using numerous examples and references from other published works, the author demonstrates the uses of glottochronology in examining test lists, evaluating cognates, deducing time depths, inferring relationships between languages, and comparing deductions with other historical evidence. The article’s final section describes some uses of lexicostatistics. Apart from glottochronology, lexicostatistics may be further developed to examine sub-groupings in language families, determine genetic relationships among languages, and analyze rates of lexical change. In conclusion, Hymes defends the developing character of lexicostatistics with its short history, but recognizes its potential in anthropology. He calls for further research and development in lexicostatistics.
As you can see the lexicostatistic is used to reconstruct genetically related languages or used to compare constructs and find prototerms.
False. Lexicostatistics cannot be used in of itself to reconstruct any language. This is because lexicostatistics, I reiterate, is essentially a quantitative model for determining the frequency of lexical correspondence across the languages under study, using certain selected basic lexicons. It thereby allows linguists to discern relative distance between languages under study and a target language. Now, this doesn't mean it cannot be part of a comparative analysis, which is what is used by mainstream linguists to reconstruct proto-languages. Glottochronology is a totally different cat. It is a model used to determine when languages diverged, by noting the amount of basic terms retained and the rate with which terms change.
Even your own citation makes the above differences clear:
He states that glottochronology examines the rate of change in languages which may be used to infer historical timeframes and provide an analysis of relationships in a language family.
Whereas, as per your own citation,
Lexicostatistics involves the statistical study of vocabulary for historical implications. Obviously, these two fields are distinctive but closely related.
^Thus your own citation refutes you, because as noted...
Notwithstanding the robotic recitations, by pooling together previous postings, you were wrong:
*when you falsely charged him with using lexicostatistics or glottochronology to read Meroitic.
*when you said lexicostatistics could be used to date languages descended from a proto-language.
*when you confused lexicostatistics with glottochronology. Glottochronology is the tool used to date languages using quantitative [mathematical] models, as well as making use of multidisciplines as additional tool for precision of dating language divergences.
^Basically, these are but just some of the seriously flawed claims that you've made throughout your hypothesis about Meroitic derivation from Tacharian(?), and/or what you now call Khorasthi(?). All your charges about Rilly can essentially be summed up as strawmen setups and phantom events, not professed in the link.
Cheers, for shooting yourself in the foot...yet again. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lexicostatistics are a good method to identify a linguistic family for a language whose genetic nature is unknown. But this approach does not provide definite evidence. The one and only way to get it for sure is the classical comparative method as illustrated by Meillet for the Indo-European family, by Guthrie for Proto-Bantu, etc. So it was necessary, first to *find regular phonetic correspondences* between North Eastern Sudanic languages, second to *reconstruct the original phonology* of Proto-North Eastern Sudanic, third to reconstruct, as much as possible, *some* Proto-North Eastern Sudanic *words*, and finally to *compare these proto-forms with Meroitic words*. - C. Rilly
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: You claim that Meroitic is based on Indo-European Kushana writing - Where is your textual evidence of Kushana writing in the Sudan? ....you fail to answer it.
Why is that?
quote:Winters: I answered this question days ago.
No you haven't. You never answer any trenchant questions...you just bluff, bluster and spam around them, if you can.
But, not with me, as I won't let you.
quote:Winters:The correspondence between the Kharosthi and Merotic signs
That's a dodge, and not and answer because the question is not about wild minded allegations of 'correspondance' between langauges.
Your opinions on such matters can only *proof* your incompetenance as a linguist, and explain to us why Theophille Obenga and other intelligent people ignore your claims.
We asked for -> the [Khoroshthi] writings in Sudan.
How can you decipher and ancient script, if you can't even produce a straight answer to a direct question?
The correct answer you concede by *not* answering is-> You don't have any.
That being settled, whe can move on to other equally nonsensical aspects of your claims...
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hymes, D. H. Lexicostatistics So Far Current Anthropology, Jan 1960. Vol. 1(1):3-44
This article provides an extensive and comprehensive survey of the field of lexicostatistics as of 1960. Hymes goes into a lot of detail explaining the methods involved, analyzing issues and problems, foreshadowing developments, and suggesting ideas and solutions. As a result, this article is very technical in nature and requires a background in lexicostatistics or glottochronology in order to grasp a firm understanding of what the author is trying to communicate. He begins by introducing the field of glottochronology, which he claims is one of several lexicostatistical methods. Glottochronology uses mathematical methods to analyze the differentiation between lists of basic words from different languages but of similar meanings. The aim is to track the rates of change in languages and aid in deducing the actual dating of common ancestral languages. Hymes discusses the use of the terms “glottochronology” and “lexicostatistics”. He states that glottochronology examines the rate of change in languages which may be used to infer historical timeframes and provide an analysis of relationships in a language family. Lexicostatistics involves the statistical study of vocabulary for historical implications. Obviously, these two fields are distinctive but closely related. Hymes continues by explaining the foundations of glottochronology: the use of basic vocabulary for the test list; the ongoing development of test lists; the examination of control cases which involve languages at different stages in a single line of development; and the retention rates of words in languages as they change. In the next section, Hymes goes into extensive detail explaining the application of the glottochronological methods. Using numerous examples and references from other published works, the author demonstrates the uses of glottochronology in examining test lists, evaluating cognates, deducing time depths, inferring relationships between languages, and comparing deductions with other historical evidence. The article’s final section describes some uses of lexicostatistics. Apart from glottochronology, lexicostatistics may be further developed to examine sub-groupings in language families, determine genetic relationships among languages, and analyze rates of lexical change. In conclusion, Hymes defends the developing character of lexicostatistics with its short history, but recognizes its potential in anthropology. He calls for further research and development in lexicostatistics.
As you can see the lexicostatistic is used to reconstruct genetically related languages or used to compare constructs and find prototerms.
False. Lexicostatistics cannot be used in of itself to reconstruct any language. This is because lexicostatistics, I reiterate, is essentially a quantitative model for determining the frequency of lexical correspondence across the languages under study, using certain selected basic lexicons. It thereby allows linguists to discern relative distance between languages under study and a target language. Now, this doesn't mean it cannot be part of a comparative analysis, which is what is used by mainstream linguists to reconstruct proto-languages. Glottochronology is a totally different cat. It is a model used to determine when languages diverged, by noting the amount of basic terms retained and the rate with which terms change.
Even your own citation makes the above differences clear:
He states that glottochronology examines the rate of change in languages which may be used to infer historical timeframes and provide an analysis of relationships in a language family.
Whereas, as per your own citation,
Lexicostatistics involves the statistical study of vocabulary for historical implications. Obviously, these two fields are distinctive but closely related. Cheers, for shooting yourself in the foot...yet again.
I did not shoot myself in the foot I proved that lexicostatistics and glottochronogy are the same thing.Moreover it highlights the error in Rilly's methods.
Rilly made it clear that he could not compare the Meroitic words to the Nilo-Saharan lexical items until he made up 39 words he claims are Meroitic.
Rilly
quote: It is impossible to prove a genetic relation between given languages if only a few basic words are available, as was the case until recently. Moreover, in the list of the allegedly translated Meroitic words, some were actually wrong. In 1964, Bruce Trigger tried to prove that Meroitic was a Nilo-Saharan - and more specifically an Eastern Sudanic - language. He used a list of Meroitic words compared with Nubian and Nara, a language from Eritrea. But the list was still very scanty, and half the words he used, taken from Zyhlarz's articles, were erroneously translated - or simply did not exist at all. Although he was right in his conclusion, he was wrong in the way he reached them. So the question of the linguistic position of Meroitic remained open after his paper.
The only basic Meroitic words for which a solid translation had been given by Griffith and his successors are the following :
man / woman / meat / bread / water / give / big / abundant / good / sister / brother / wife / mother / child / begotten / born / feet.
The methods to increase the number of translated words cannot be fully explained in details here. To make a long story short, I would say that it is a « multicontextual approach ». The archaeological and the iconographical context can be very helpful, since very often, the short texts are the description with words of a painted or engraved image.
This is pure conjecture. The words associated with an inscription do not have to represent the picture the word is associated with. The words may refer to the image, but not mention the specific pictorial image in the text because the presence of the image itself would provide the context for reading the inscription.
Moreover, if you just look at an inscription how can you determine what word represents the picture and what word is simply part of the narrative. Rilly's use of this method makes it clear that he was just guessing if this or that word means this or that. This is not science. This is guessing.
If Rilly was correct in his assessment of Meroitic, as an Eastern Sudani language he would have found cognates to the attested Meroitic terms:
quote:
man / woman / meat / bread / water / give / big / abundant / good / sister / brother / wife / mother / child / begotten / born / feet.
He did not find any cognates to these terms. If he could not find cognates to these terms using his method, how can anyone believe that the terms he made up are Meroitic. If his methods were correct these terms should have been found in the Northern Eastern Sudani, if Meroitic was related to this group--but they were not found.
You still have not answered the following questions:
1.Where is the evidence that Prototerms can be used to decipher and read a dead language.
2.Where are your citations of any research claiming that we have textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan in the Meroitic Sudan.
3.Cite any research that the Nubian speakers were ever part of the Meroitic empire.
4. Cite any sources that dispute the fact that Classical writers said Indians were living in Meroe and contributed to their civilization.
5. Cite any sources disputing the fact that there was a large Indian community already living in Egypt during the Meroitic Empire.
6. You have not illustrated that the Kharosthi script does not agree with Meroitic writing.
7. You can not dispute the fact that Kharosthic was in use long before Meroitic came on the scene.
I did not shoot myself in the foot I proved that lexicostatistics and glottochronogy are the same thing.
Of course you have. Your own citation tells you that they are two distinct things, falsifying your claim. One would think that you'd at least understand what your own citation says before posting it.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Moreover it highlights the error in Rilly's methods.
How?
As I've cited him, he is quite aware of what lexicostatistics is, unlike yourself, and used it to the extent it could be used in a comparative method.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Rilly made it clear that he could not compare the Meroitic words to the Nilo-Saharan lexical items until he made up 39 words he claims are Meroitic.
And if he made that clear to you, what of it?
You need as many words from primary Meroitic texts [not Kharosthi] as possible, to make an informed assessment through a methodological approach, not guesswork as you do.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Rilly
quote: It is impossible to prove a genetic relation between given languages if only a few basic words are available, as was the case until recently. Moreover, in the list of the allegedly translated Meroitic words, some were actually wrong. In 1964, Bruce Trigger tried to prove that Meroitic was a Nilo-Saharan - and more specifically an Eastern Sudanic - language. He used a list of Meroitic words compared with Nubian and Nara, a language from Eritrea. But the list was still very scanty, and half the words he used, taken from Zyhlarz's articles, were erroneously translated - or simply did not exist at all. Although he was right in his conclusion, he was wrong in the way he reached them. So the question of the linguistic position of Meroitic remained open after his paper.
The only basic Meroitic words for which a solid translation had been given by Griffith and his successors are the following :
man / woman / meat / bread / water / give / big / abundant / good / sister / brother / wife / mother / child / begotten / born / feet.
The methods to increase the number of translated words cannot be fully explained in details here. To make a long story short, I would say that it is a « multicontextual approach ». The archaeological and the iconographical context can be very helpful, since very often, the short texts are the description with words of a painted or engraved image.
This is pure conjecture. The words associated with an inscription do not have to represent the picture the word is associated with.
English is your first language right? The man said "very often" [~ not necessarily "always"] short texts accompanying images, are descreptive words for the image, which is true. Besides, isn't that what you advocated earlier, saying that the texts should match the image, thereby complaining that Rilly's text had no 'rabbit' in it? Your fiasco of a debate is leading to incoherency.
quote:Clyde Winters:
The words may refer to the image, but not mention the specific pictorial image in the text because the presence of the image itself would provide the context for reading the inscription.
See post above. You were the one who complained about Rilly's interpretation of the image, upon which I informed you that, it was because from the letters he could gather from the text, it wouldn't have been mentioned. You were also informed as to which words was being assured in the translations, and which weren't.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Moreover, if you just look at an inscription how can you determine what word represents the picture and what word is simply part of the narrative.
I thought you proclaimed to have read his piece, where he just told you how. From names of figures, typological comparisons between Egyptic texts and their Meroitic counterparts, archaeology and iconography, the meanings of certain words of the cotexts could be extrapolated in one text, and then reconfirmed again in other primary texts. You've been told this countless times now, and it still doesn't penetrate your head...and to think that you're supposed to be a professor. Neither Kharosthi, Nubian, or Proto-NES are used to derive these words.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Rilly's use of this method makes it clear that he was just guessing if this or that word means this or that. This is not science. This is guessing.
That's an oversimplification and misinformation of the process used, as described above. You *guess* words using a totally different language and script, while Rilly used a 'multicontextual', hence *methodological approach*, to add to the vocabulary of understood Meroitic terms. There's a big difference between the two approaches. He's approach definitely has preponderance of credibility over yours, whatever may be the precision of his word translations vs. the acurate meanings.
quote:Clyde Winters:
If Rilly was correct in his assessment of Meroitic, as an Eastern Sudani language he would have found cognates to the attested Meroitic terms:
You are clueless, aren't you? What do you think those lexicostatistics and lexical correspondence tables represent? Family relationship, of course.
quote:Clyde Winters:
He did not find any cognates to these terms. If he could not find cognates to these terms using his method, how can anyone believe that the terms he made up are Meroitic.
False. Reference above.
quote:Clyde Winters:
If his methods were correct these terms should have been found in the Northern Eastern Sudani, if Meroitic was related to this group--but they were not found.
See above.
So now, how about answers to my point-by-point revelations of your lies and linguistic illiteracy!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Winters: I'm waiting.
Yes, we all are.....
quote:rasol: You claim that Meroitic is based on Indo-European Kushana writing - Where is your textual evidence of Kushana writing in the Sudan?
...but what's taking you so long ? [/QUOTE
We have two forms of evidence for Meroites using Kharosthi script in the Meroitic Empire. Firstly, the evidence of the correspondence between Meroitic and Kharosthi signs.
The chart above makes it clear that the following Meroitic and Kharosthi signs agree in shape and sound:
B
M
T
E
To
Te
H
The second source of evidence is the ability to read every Meroitic inscription using Kushana words. For example: [/IMG] Below I will first give the transliteration of the Karanog stelae and then a translation of Meroitic into English. At the end of the translation we will provide a vocabulary of the text.
Line 1. Woshi ne Shore yi-ne t-po m-i d.
Line 2. Tqowine s li-ne t si d e-ne te o d he.
Line 3. Lo wi-ne sl h m-ne...s-ne qo. Qo li-ne
Line 4. Terike lo wi-ne...i l pe rine si b lo.
Line 5. Tel-o wi-ne pq r ne ye mtetl...e ne ye.
Line 6. Lq-ne lo win-ne yet sn net e i ol ye e-ne.
Line 7. M ne lo wi-ne... ot p kr-ne yet ne-ne e-o wi-ne.
Line 8. Pe sto lt-ne yet m n e e-o wi-ne qo re.
Line 9. St s t lete-ne s-ne tq lo wi-ne hle mr.
Line 10. S-ne q lo-t to lo wi-ne mte h ne s-n pe.
Line 11. Sto li h wi-ne t e lo lo-a en-ne ye.
Line 12. Tb h re lo wi-ne ato mh enep si se-a.
Line 13. Te-ne ato mh enep wi h r ke te-ne h ml-o l-ne.
Line 14. P-Sin ote m-i ke te-ne Wosi ne. Shore o-i ine.
TRANSLATION
"(l). Isis the Good, and Osiris the Eternal (are) commanding the measure (of) the bequeathal. (2) Tqowine, the patron to transmit her satisfying bequeathal. She commands the beginning of the bequeathal of the He. (3) The solitary honorable patron (is) to behold the He-ne's (the abstract personality of man)...to prop up the renewal. Act to (make) the conveyance. (4) (Its) the Fashion to dispatch Awe...[h]i to remain to reproduce within satisfaction from a distance. (5) The solitary object of respect to make indeed a good voyage to Mtetl...[here] to be give(n) a good existence.(6) She is to witness solitary reverence capable of cleverly bowing in reverence (to the gods)--give leave to the /a grand journey (Oh) Commander. (7) Measure the good (of the ) lonely object of Honor [lying in the grave]...esteem and dignity. Adorn (her with) goodness, give opening to honor.(8) Your nonexistent patron goes to measure goodness. Give (its) beginning Now! The Object of Respect (Tqowine, to be) renewed indeed. (9) Endorse the embarkation of the (good) Supporter. Set in Motion the dispatch of this object of respect (Tqowine) to reverberate luck. (10) The patron, she is present (in) the grave. Send the Object of Respect to unlock H-ne [the place where the H, is kept]--the Patron begs you. (11) Protect her conveyance of the H. This honorable woman give (her) isolated departure. The Teacher (to take) a journey. (12) Announce in a lofty voice indeed, the dispatch of this Object of Respect (on the) path (of) the grand bestowal (of) atonement (and ) favor. (13) Rebirth is the path to grand bestowal of honor to the H , indeed give permission for the rebirth of the H, and the soul to exit. (14) Much satisfaction (and) wonder (to come) measure it. The permission (for its bestowal ) is arranged by Isis,( and) Osiris (is) the Opener of the Way."
posted
It is clear that you accept Rilly's use of made-up words to read Meroitic, and use of lexicostatistics to compare the same made-up words to Sudani words to construct prototerms to read Meroitic. We will let history decide on Rilly's decipherment.
You have failed to provide any linguistic support for Rilly's methods based on comparative and historical linguistics. All you do is repeat Rilly's assertions without citing any discussion of linguistic knowledge in support of his work.
I supported my decipherment by internal and external evidence:
1. Classical evidence that Indians influenced the Meroitic civilization after the death of their king.
2. Jaina textual evidence that an Indian group left their homeland after their king was killed supporting the statements of Classical writers.
3. Archaeological evidence of Indian communities in Egypt and Ethiopia (supported by textual evidence) that they were in close proximity to the Meroitic Empire and could have easily made their way to the the Empire.
4. Cognate Meroitic and Kushana, lexical items, grammar and verbs that agree with findings of other researchers.
5. Cognate Sudan and Central Asian toponyms.
6. Cognate signs from Kharosthi that relate to Meroitic symbols.
7. Finally, my decipherment allows any researcher to read all the Meroitic inscriptions .
You have not presented any evidence disputing these facts.
Moreover, you still have not answered the following questions:
1.Where is the evidence that Prototerms can be used to decipher and read a dead language.
2.Where are your citations of any research claiming that we have textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan in the Meroitic Sudan.
3.Cite any research that the Nubian speakers were ever part of the Meroitic empire.
4. Cite any sources that dispute the fact that Classical writers said Indians were living in Meroe and contributed to their civilization.
5. Cite any sources disputing the fact that there was a large Indian community already living in Egypt during the Meroitic Empire.
6. You have not illustrated that the Kharosthi script does not agree with Meroitic writing.
The correspondence between the Kharosthi and Merotic signs is the proof of contact as is the Classical literature which made it clear that Indians came to the Meroitic Empire after the death of their king and participated in the Meroitic civilization.
quote:rasol: You claim that Meroitic is based on Indo-European Kushana writing - Where is your textual evidence of Kushana writing in the Sudan?
...but what's taking you so long ?
I've stopped waiting for the answer to this question, because I've already arrived at the conclusion; he has NONE.
He is just looking for sheep to buy into his 'miraculous' decipherment of Meroitic using a totally foreign language, with no such foreign scripts ever found side-by-side Meroitic in Sudan, in order to fully translate Meroitic. Apparently, he came to the wrong place for that. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have two forms of evidence for Meroites using Kharosthi script in the Meroitic Empire. Firstly, the evidence of the correspondence between Meroitic and Kharosthi signs.
The chart above makes it clear that the following Meroitic and Kharosthi signs agree in shape and sound:
B
M
T
E
To
Te
H
The second source of evidence is the ability to read every Meroitic inscription using Kushana words. For example: [/IMG] Below I will first give the transliteration of the Karanog stelae and then a translation of Meroitic into English. At the end of the translation we will provide a vocabulary of the text.
Line 1. Woshi ne Shore yi-ne t-po m-i d.
Line 2. Tqowine s li-ne t si d e-ne te o d he.
Line 3. Lo wi-ne sl h m-ne...s-ne qo. Qo li-ne
Line 4. Terike lo wi-ne...i l pe rine si b lo.
Line 5. Tel-o wi-ne pq r ne ye mtetl...e ne ye.
Line 6. Lq-ne lo win-ne yet sn net e i ol ye e-ne.
Line 7. M ne lo wi-ne... ot p kr-ne yet ne-ne e-o wi-ne.
Line 8. Pe sto lt-ne yet m n e e-o wi-ne qo re.
Line 9. St s t lete-ne s-ne tq lo wi-ne hle mr.
Line 10. S-ne q lo-t to lo wi-ne mte h ne s-n pe.
Line 11. Sto li h wi-ne t e lo lo-a en-ne ye.
Line 12. Tb h re lo wi-ne ato mh enep si se-a.
Line 13. Te-ne ato mh enep wi h r ke te-ne h ml-o l-ne.
Line 14. P-Sin ote m-i ke te-ne Wosi ne. Shore o-i ine.
TRANSLATION
"(l). Isis the Good, and Osiris the Eternal (are) commanding the measure (of) the bequeathal. (2) Tqowine, the patron to transmit her satisfying bequeathal. She commands the beginning of the bequeathal of the He. (3) The solitary honorable patron (is) to behold the He-ne's (the abstract personality of man)...to prop up the renewal. Act to (make) the conveyance. (4) (Its) the Fashion to dispatch Awe...[h]i to remain to reproduce within satisfaction from a distance. (5) The solitary object of respect to make indeed a good voyage to Mtetl...[here] to be give(n) a good existence.(6) She is to witness solitary reverence capable of cleverly bowing in reverence (to the gods)--give leave to the /a grand journey (Oh) Commander. (7) Measure the good (of the ) lonely object of Honor [lying in the grave]...esteem and dignity. Adorn (her with) goodness, give opening to honor.(8) Your nonexistent patron goes to measure goodness. Give (its) beginning Now! The Object of Respect (Tqowine, to be) renewed indeed. (9) Endorse the embarkation of the (good) Supporter. Set in Motion the dispatch of this object of respect (Tqowine) to reverberate luck. (10) The patron, she is present (in) the grave. Send the Object of Respect to unlock H-ne [the place where the H, is kept]--the Patron begs you. (11) Protect her conveyance of the H. This honorable woman give (her) isolated departure. The Teacher (to take) a journey. (12) Announce in a lofty voice indeed, the dispatch of this Object of Respect (on the) path (of) the grand bestowal (of) atonement (and ) favor. (13) Rebirth is the path to grand bestowal of honor to the H , indeed give permission for the rebirth of the H, and the soul to exit. (14) Much satisfaction (and) wonder (to come) measure it. The permission (for its bestowal ) is arranged by Isis,( and) Osiris (is) the Opener of the Way."
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Winters: I'm waiting.
Yes, we all are.....
quote:rasol: You claim that Meroitic is based on Indo-European Kushana writing - Where is your textual evidence of Kushana writing in the Sudan?
...but what's taking you so long ?
I've stopped waiting for the answer to this question, because I've already arrived at the conclusion; he has NONE.
He is just looking for sheep to buy into his 'miraculous' decipherment of Meroitic using a totally foreign language, with no such foreign scripts ever found side-by-side Meroitic in Sudan, in order to fully translate Meroitic. Apparently, he came to the wrong place for that.
posted
Given no actual "Khorosthi" writing in Sudan, Winters offers the following apologia-hypothesis.....
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We have two forms of evidence for Meroites using Kharosthi script in the Meroitic Empire. Firstly, the evidence of the correspondence between Meroitic and Kharosthi signs.
This is false statement. You are offering and opinion on 'similarity', not proof of correspondence.
Similarities, whether between Kharosthi and Meroitic or Olmec and Mande is not proof of homogeneous [single] origin.
quote:The chart above makes it clear that the following Meroitic and Kharosthi signs agree in shape and sound
The above faulty statement is almost identical to your claims about "agreement" between Nigerian, and Japanese place names.
For the last time - these selective, subjective, arbitrary 'similarities' do not prove anything.
When you imply these are proofs, using words like 'clearly' and 'correspond' then you are making false statements.
quote:The second source of evidence is the ability to read every Meroitic inscription using Kushana words.
This is based on your assumption that your -translations are correct-, which is far from certain.
What I found most interesting is that after you made a big fuss about Rilly failing to translate the word 'dog' in Meroitic, you were forced to admit that you do not know what the word for dog is, in Meroitic.
Therefore at best your translation of Meroitic is incomplete, at worst...it's false.
^ I think most linguists would agree with the above assessment.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^For the life of me, I don't know why Clyde even bothers citing me in his posts, when the off-point driveling in those posts don't specifically answer what he is citing.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:The chart above makes it clear that the following Meroitic and Kharosthi signs agree in shape and sound
The above faulty statement is almost identical to your claims about "agreement" between Nigerian, and Japanese place names.
For the last time - these selective, subjective, arbitrary 'similarities' do not prove anything.
When you imply these are proofs, using words like 'clearly' and 'correspond' then you are making false statements.
Next, he'll claim that Demotic and Hieratic scripts also come from Kharosthi, because Meroitic most visually resembles those scripts than Kharosthi will ever come close to.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:The second source of evidence is the ability to read every Meroitic inscription using Kushana words.
This is based on your assumption that your -translations are correct-, which is far from certain.
That would be an understatement of the status quo. I say he is very conscious about his so-called translations being fake, but wants to latch onto it, in the hopes of getting credit for an astonishing 'breakthrough' disovery.
Recap: It would like me saying that since I'm well acquainted with the English alphabet, therefore I can automatically understand French without French-to-English translations of a French text...a proposition which would nonetheless be less fantastic than Clyde's. Whereas at least French and English share the same alphabets, the opposite is true regarding Meroitic and Karosthi, which couldn't more distinct from one another, for the most part.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I say he is very conscious about his so-called translations being fake, but wants to latch onto it, in the hopes of getting credit for an astonishing 'breakthrough' disovery
Agreed and will add, some many not have caught on to the fact that Winters discourse is - ego driven - not finally, so much Afrocentric as Ego-centric.
If Winters students will listen with alert minds they will see that what Winters is *asserting* is not the glory of Africa, but mere self-glorification.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is nothing more than your opinion. The visual evidence is striking i.e., the comparison of Meroitic and Kharosthi signs.
The chart above makes it clear that the following Meroitic and Kharosthi signs agree in shape and sound:
B
M
T
E
To
Te
H . In addition you still can not explain away the fact that the Classical writers claimed Indians influenced the Meroitic civilization and we find a writing system that includes Kharosthi signs and words that can be read using the Kushana language.
Confirmation of the Classical tradition of Indians in the Meroitic Sudan makes all of your opinions mute. The correspondence between script and language can not be explained away as " subjective, arbitrary 'similarities' ". The simple fact they were found in the Meroitic Sudan as predicted by the classical writers is confirmation of my decipherment.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Given no actual "Khorosthi" writing in Sudan, Winters offers the following apologia-hypothesis.....
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We have two forms of evidence for Meroites using Kharosthi script in the Meroitic Empire. Firstly, the evidence of the correspondence between Meroitic and Kharosthi signs.
This is false statement. You are offering and opinion on 'similarity', not proof of correspondence.
Similarities, whether between Kharosthi and Meroitic or Olmec and Mande is not proof of homogeneous [single] origin.
quote:The chart above makes it clear that the following Meroitic and Kharosthi signs agree in shape and sound
The above faulty statement is almost identical to your claims about "agreement" between Nigerian, and Japanese place names.
For the last time - these selective, subjective, arbitrary 'similarities' do not prove anything.
When you imply these are proofs, using words like 'clearly' and 'correspond' then you are making false statements.
quote:The second source of evidence is the ability to read every Meroitic inscription using Kushana words.
This is based on your assumption that your -translations are correct-, which is far from certain.
What I found most interesting is that after you made a big fuss about Rilly failing to translate the word 'dog' in Meroitic, you were forced to admit that you do not know what the word for dog is, in Meroitic.
Therefore at best your translation of Meroitic is incomplete, at worst...it's false.
^ I think most linguists would agree with the above assessment.
Recap: It would like me saying that since I'm well acquainted with the English alphabet, therefore I can automatically understand French without French-to-English translations of a French text...a proposition which would nonetheless be less fantastic than Clyde's. Whereas at least French and English share the same alphabets, the opposite is true regarding Meroitic and Karosthi, which couldn't more distinct from one another, for the most part.
This is a faulty statement firstly because I have already shown that the two writing systems share signs. A reality that was predicted by the Classical traditions of Indians settling in the Meroitic Sudan after the death of their king.
The French and English analogy does not apply to this situation. I have studied African languages and Kushana and can tell the difference between the two.
It does not apply because I can read French and English and would immediately tell the difference between the two language. For example,if you tried to translate a French document using English you would not be able to comprehend the text so you would know right away the French text was not written in the English language.
The same thing would occur if I tried to read a Meroitic document in Kushana.If the words were not cognate to Kushana words I would not be able to read Meroitic documents. But this is not the case you can read these documents using Kushana.
I supported my decipherment by internal and external evidence:
1. Classical evidence that Indians influenced the Meroitic civilization after the death of their king.
2. Jaina textual evidence that an Indian group left their homeland after their king was killed supporting the statements of Classical writers.
3. Archaeological evidence of Indian communities in Egypt and Ethiopia (supported by textual evidence) that they were in close proximity to the Meroitic Empire and could have easily made their way to the the Empire.
4. Cognate Meroitic and Kushana, lexical items, grammar and verbs that agree with findings of other researchers.
5. Cognate Sudan and Central Asian toponyms.
6. Cognate signs from Kharosthi that relate to Meroitic symbols.
7. Finally, my decipherment allows any researcher to read all the Meroitic inscriptions .
You have not presented any evidence disputing these facts.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Given no actual "Khorosthi" writing in Sudan, Winters offers the following apologia-hypothesis.....
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We have two forms of evidence for Meroites using Kharosthi script in the Meroitic Empire. Firstly, the evidence of the correspondence between Meroitic and Kharosthi signs.
This is false statement. You are offering and opinion on 'similarity', not proof of correspondence.
Similarities, whether between Kharosthi and Meroitic or Olmec and Mande is not proof of homogeneous [single] origin.
quote:The chart above makes it clear that the following Meroitic and Kharosthi signs agree in shape and sound
The above faulty statement is almost identical to your claims about "agreement" between Nigerian, and Japanese place names.
For the last time - these selective, subjective, arbitrary 'similarities' do not prove anything.
When you imply these are proofs, using words like 'clearly' and 'correspond' then you are making false statements.
quote:The second source of evidence is the ability to read every Meroitic inscription using Kushana words.
This is based on your assumption that your -translations are correct-, which is far from certain.
What I found most interesting is that after you made a big fuss about Rilly failing to translate the word 'dog' in Meroitic, you were forced to admit that you do not know what the word for dog is, in Meroitic.
Therefore at best your translation of Meroitic is incomplete, at worst...it's false.
^ I think most linguists would agree with the above assessment.
Not really. My decipherment not only includes the recovery of lexical items, it also outlines the grammar of Meroitic.
You can only decipher words you find in the text. There are a number of grifitti found in the Meroitic Sudan and many long text. The long text are religious documents or obituaries. Up to now I have not found any mention of dogs in these text.
Since Kushana is the cognate language of Meroitic I can only read words that are found in Meroitic textual material. I know the Kushana word for dog, so if it appears in a Meroitic text I will translate the word accordingly. I have deciphered hundreds of Meroitic documents and the term for dog has not appeared in any Meroitic text so I can not confirm what the Meroitic word for dog is.
Once the word for dog is mentioned in a text, I will tell you the term. I do not make up words just to translate a Meroitic text.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Indeed. Why does Clyde spend most of his time arguing his ridiculous linguistic theories here in this board?? Why does he not do so in a forum for linguists? I visited one years ago, and after hearing what all those [valid] linguists said about him I felt really bad for the guy. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
You do all the time when you say whites weren't responsible for any culture in Europe until the Middle Ages (?). According to you, this was when whites appear out of nowhere and replaced the black indigenous people of Europe. And I imagine this is the same with Asia with the "negroid Shang" etc.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[/IMG] ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic