Can making a meritless claim be any simpler than it already is? Lol.
Rather, what you probably mean by that, is that you'll try to twist or retract your original claim more convincingly than you've been able to so far. Trust me though, that would be a futile thing to do.
quote:Doug M writes:
My claim is that the cursive form of Arabic and other scripts from Syria and Palestine are DIRECTLY related to the cursive forms of Egyptian scripts
To make it simple: You're lying to yourself.
This is your claim: Arabic *directly descends from ancient Egyptian, and so did other cursive scripts.
Lying to oneself does not erase the record.
quote:Doug M writes:
I am not claiming that they are of the SAME language families or DIRECTLY related in a linguistic sense.
And nobody is saying that you are; it's just needless red herring.
quote:Doug M writes:
The ONLY connection I am referring to is the STYLISTIC one, where CURSIVE FORMS OF WRITING are concerned, nothing else.
That connection means nothing, if you can't prove that one script actually derived from another as such.
quote:Doug M writes:
THAT is what I meant by Arabic as directly descended from ancient Egyptian.
In other words, you were basing it on meritless casual first glance observation, not on substance.
quote:Doug M writes:
And AS POSTED, there are STRONG STYLISTIC similarities between the two that makes SUCH DIRECT INFLUENCE very likely.
On the contrary, close examination of alphabets of the cursive scripts within the proto-Sinaitic lineage of Aramaic show closer affinities in relation to one another than they do with Hieratic or Demotic. This falsifies your unproven superficial claim.
quote:Doug M writes:
All this distraction about straw men is irrelevant.
I agree; stop making them.
quote:Doug M writes:
If you don't agree then so be it, but I know what I meant and it has not changed.
Is it possible that you don't know how to read? - I believe I just told you that one cannot disagree with what hasn't yet been proven to be. Let me know, if I need to simplify this further.
And oh, from the way you flip flop; nope, you don't seem to know what you mean. Prove me wrong.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Can making a meritless claim be any simpler than it already is? Lol.
Rather, what you probably mean by that, is that you'll try to twist or retract your original claim more convincingly than you've been able to so far. Trust me though, that would be a futile thing to do.
quote:Doug M writes:
My claim is that the cursive form of Arabic and other scripts from Syria and Palestine are DIRECTLY related to the cursive forms of Egyptian scripts
To make it simple: You're lying to yourself.
This is your claim: Arabic *directly descends from ancient Egyptian, and so did other cursive scripts.
Lying to oneself does not erase the record.
quote:Doug M writes:
I am not claiming that they are of the SAME language families or DIRECTLY related in a linguistic sense.
And nobody is saying that you are; it's just needless red herring.
quote:Doug M writes:
The ONLY connection I am referring to is the STYLISTIC one, where CURSIVE FORMS OF WRITING are concerned, nothing else.
That connection means nothing, if you can't prove that one script actually derived from another as such.
quote:Doug M writes:
THAT is what I meant by Arabic as directly descended from ancient Egyptian.
In other words, you were basing it on meritless casual first glance observation, not on substance.
quote:Doug M writes:
And AS POSTED, there are STRONG STYLISTIC similarities between the two that makes SUCH DIRECT INFLUENCE very likely.
On the contrary, close examination of alphabets of the cursive scripts within the proto-Sinaitic lineage of Aramaic show closer affinities in relation to one another than they do with Hieratic or Demotic. This falsifies your unproven superficial claim.
quote:Doug M writes:
All this distraction about straw men is irrelevant.
I agree; stop making them.
quote:Doug M writes:
If you don't agree then so be it, but I know what I meant and it has not changed.
Is it possible that you don't know how to read? - I believe I just told you that one cannot disagree with what hasn't yet been proven to be. Let me know, if I need to simplify this further.
And oh, from the way you flip flop; nope, you don't seem to know what you mean. Prove me wrong.
You need to stop kidding yourself.
Arabic in stylistic form directly descends from ancient Egyptian cursive forms of writing and so do other members of that same language family.
Period.
It is not my fault YOU cannot understand what I said. You haven't challenged it, notwithstanding your long winded attempts to avoid the point and refute what I have posted.
Arabic as a LANGUAGE directly descends from the semitic languages of EAST AFRICA. Arabic STYLISTIC WRITTEN FORM directly descends from the CURSIVE FORMS of writing developed in Egypt.
Now. I have clarified my point, there is no need to continue to distract with endless what I said and whether I said it nonsense. Just address what I said, which you haven't.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Off your rocker. Requesting you to deliver proof was first a "strawman", and now you call it "kidding"? Either your education system is broken, or it's just you.
quote:Doug M writes:
Arabic in stylistic form directly descends from ancient Egyptian cursive forms of writing and so do other members of that same language family. Period.
Why; because you're all high & mighty and say so, and you don't have to answer to science? Lol.
quote:Doug M writes:
It is not my fault YOU cannot understand what I said.
Wishful ignorance. Never complained about not understanding you.
quote:Doug M writes:
You haven't challenged it
Of course, I have; which is why you now cite me without reading, and why *retracted* your claim - aka Arabic [& other cursive scripts] *directly descended* from ancient Egyptian script. You obviously reverted back to it, to save face - understandable, but futile.
quote:Doug M writes:
, notwithstanding your long winded attempts to avoid the point and refute what I have posted.
What long-winded attempt: directly addressing you point by point...which you then cite without reading?
quote:Doug M writes:
Arabic STYLISTIC WRITTEN FORM directly descends from the CURSIVE FORMS of writing developed in Egypt.
Meritless.
quote:DougM writes:
Now. I have clarified my point, there is no need to continue to distract with endless what I said and whether I said it nonsense.
Repeating a meritless claim is not clarification; it's simply babyish stubborness.
quote:Doug M writes:
Just address what I said, which you haven't.
Willful denial notwithstanding, you've been falsified. Nope, you don't have to accept it, but deal with it.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
2) 1900 BC Proto Sinaitic developed from Egyptian heiroglyphs and are very angular in form, without any hint of cursive form:
3) 1100 BC Phoenician script develops into a more linear, non pictorial, non-cursive form from proto-sinaitic
4) 1000 BC Aramaic script develops from Phoenician, with the early form being very close to its parent:
4) 700 BC Demotic script develops from the older hieratic cursive script.
5) [500BC=100BC[/b] Aramaic splinters into many offshoots, coined by different names by various linguists: Imperial Aramaic, Official Aramaic, Standard Aramaic, Egyptian Aramaic. Many of these variants begin to take on a more cursive form, similar to the cursive forms already found in Egypt. In fact, most of the Aramaic documents found during this period comes from Egypt, which attests to the possibility to the influence of Egyptian cursive forms in the family of Aramaic scripts. The key is that during this time that Persia conquered Egypt and was a major power in the Levant and Mesopotamia and these scripts became common among all parts of the empire.
6) 200 BC Nabatean develops in Jordan from the variants of late Aramaic. It has adopted the cursive form found in later forms of Aramaic and develops it further.
7) 600 AD Arabic script develops and many of the oldest Arabic manuscripts, written in naskhi, the ancestor to modern Arabic are found IN EGYPT:
It is quite possible that early arabic developed as a result of writing arabic using nabatean script, but the unique form of Arabic script did not get refined and become the basis of what you see today until it was developed further in Egypt, as the papyri from Egypt are the earliest consistent evidence of the development and existence of modern arabic. The other form of early Arabic is called Kufic and was found in Arabia and Syria at an early period and also became prominent in the Maghreb and Moorish Spain, where most of the early period are from North Africa and Spain.
And keep in mind that the two largest spoken and written forms of Arabic are Egyptian and Maghrebi Arabic.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
As expected, you still haven't addressed what I pushed as evidence.
Rather, just your childish stubborn latching onto willful ignorance of reality. Simply rehashing a bunch of falsified claims, will merely be re-addressed by rehashing how they were falsified...as follows:
Hieratic:
...to be compared with:
^Comparisons between Nabataean, Aramaic, Arabic and Syriac alphabets...
Gist: Arabic has closer resemblances to the mentioned “Near Eastern” proto-Sinaitic descended examples than it does to either Hieratic or Demotic.
Show [not tell] me:
— how Arabic script could not possibly have developed from Nabataean script and its predecessor, but directly from Hieratic.
— That all cursive scripts, including those of the Indus Valley, could have only developed from a single ancestor: Hieratic!
Outcome: You couldn’t deliver the first request, because it doesn’t exist. You didn’t bother answering the second, for the same reason. In fact, this was your answer:
Arabic may have developed from the nabataean script - by Doug M
Hence, admitting that Arabic script doesn’t directly descend from ancient Egyptian script; that is, falsifying your claim.
You moved the goal post and said.
the cursive form of the Syriac and other members of this branch of the Afro Asiatic family are derived from the Egyptian INVENTION of cursive writing. - Doug M
My reply: I've already laid out tables for hieroglyphics, and hieratic, to be compared with Aramaic, Nabataean, Arabic, and Syriac. There, Syraic doesn't appear to be any closer to Hieratic than the others
Gist: Again, nullifying your claim.
You then posted images of Aramaic, Syriac and Demotic scripts, making the argument that Syraic and Demotic scripts show more similarities in form than either do to Aramaic…upon which I posted this:
Upon closely examining the letters in the images posted, here's my estimation of similarities based on alphabetic correspondences, not mere random resemblances of letters upon visualization:
code:
Alpha. Demotic "Near Eastern" scripts k- 1 0 r - 0 1 n - 1 0 m - 0 1(Nabataean) q - 0 1 p - 0 1(first Arabic, then others) t(dot) 0 1 b - 0 1 y - 0 0 ` - 0 1 (Nabataean) g- 0 1(Aramaic, then Nabataean) s - 0 1(Nabataean) l- 0 1 w- 0 .5(partial resemblance upper hand goes to that vis-à-vis Arabic, and then Syriac)
Looks to me that Syriac is still more inclined towards the other Proto-Sinaitic 'sub-script' counterparts. Specifically how were you making mano a mano comparisons between the letters across the scripts, if not the way I went about it?
Gist: Again, nullifying your superficial point.
You then attempt to make a temporal link between semi-cursive Aramaic variant, Imperial Aramaic, and Demotic. You were informed that the earliest evidence of such date back to 5th century BC, while Demotic dates to at least ca. 6th BC. In fact, I said:
According to your wiki & affiliated links, the "Imperial Aramaic" form appeared at ca. 5th century BC, not the 6th. And even more interesting, while relatively more cursive then the earlier version, Imperial Aramaic alphabets actually appear to further developments of the original Aramaic alphabets; how does that help you, with regards to it being developed from Demotic?
Gist: It couldn’t have developed from Hieratic or Demotic, if it was a carryover from the original Aramaic alphabets. This development of Aramaic script bears even more affinities with its descendant scripts of Nabataean, Arabic, and Syriac.
quote:Doug M writes:
It is quite possible that early arabic developed as a result of writing arabic using nabatean script
It's more than possible, and nullifies your claim about it being a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian script.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
, but the unique form of Arabic script did not get refined and become the basis of what you see today until it was developed further in Egypt, as the papyri from Egypt are the earliest consistent evidence of the development and existence of modern arabic.
Not supported by evidence. In fact, from your own link...
The Arabic alphabet, derived in the 4th century AD from the little-known Nabatean alphabet, has 28 letters (all consonants), including six added to accommodate Arabic sounds. Arabic has evolved into two basic scripts, the thicker-stroked Kufic (from Al Kufa in Mesopotamia), and Naskhi, a cursive script much used on papyrus, and the ancestor of modern Arabic writing. APIS collections have many 7th-10th century Arabic documents.
While Naskhi, the script that is supposedly the popular modern form, according to Brittanica, which your other link uses as a source,…
.“Ibn 'ali Ibn Muqlah - born 886, Baghdad died 940, Baghdad
in full Abū ʿalī Muḥammad Ibn ʿalī Ibn Muqlah one of the foremost calligraphers of the ʿAbbāsid Age (750–1258), reputed inventor of the first cursive style of Arabic lettering, the naskhī script, which replaced the angular Kūfic as the standard of Islāmic calligraphy. In the naskhī script Ibn Muqlah introduced the rounded forms and curved lines that in later styles were refined to give Arabic writing the flowing beauty for which it is renowned. Although naskhī was originally intended for use in copying the Qurʾān, by the 11th century it was used widely for royal and common correspondence and as architectural decoration.”
“The Arabic alphabet has 28 letters, all representing consonants, and is written from right to left. Twenty-two of the letters are those of the Semitic alphabet from which it descended, modified only in letter form, and the remaining six letters represent sounds not used in the languages written in the earlier alphabet. The shape of each letter depends on its position in a word—initial, medial, and final. There is a fourth form of the letter when it is written alone. The letters alif, waw, and ya (standing for glottal stop, w, and y, respectively) are used to represent the long vowels a, u, and i. A set of diacritical marks developed in the 8th century ad are sometimes used to represent short vowels and certain grammatical endings otherwise left unmarked.
Two major types of Arabic script exist. Kūfic, a thick, bold monumental style, was developed in Kūfah, a city in Mesopotamia, toward the end of the 7th century ad. It was used chiefly for inscriptions in stone and metal but was also employed sometimes to write manuscripts of the Qurʾān. A very handsome monumental script, it has passed out of use, except in cases in which more cursive scripts cannot be used. Naskhī,a cursive script well adapted to writing on papyrus or paper, is the direct ancestor of modern Arabic writing. It originated in Mecca and Medina at an early date and exists in many complex and decorative variant forms.”
Guess, you should have bothered reading your links too.
quote:Doug M writes:
And keep in mind that the two largest spoken and written forms of Arabic are Egyptian and Maghrebi Arabic.
What written forms would those be, not already mentioned?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
, but the unique form of Arabic script did not get refined and become the basis of what you see today until it was developed further in Egypt, as the papyri from Egypt are the earliest consistent evidence of the development and existence of modern arabic.
Not supported by evidence. In fact, from your own link...
The Arabic alphabet, derived in the 4th century AD from the little-known Nabatean alphabet, has 28 letters (all consonants), including six added to accommodate Arabic sounds. Arabic has evolved into two basic scripts, the thicker-stroked Kufic (from Al Kufa in Mesopotamia), and Naskhi, a cursive script much used on papyrus, and the ancestor of modern Arabic writing. APIS collections have many 7th-10th century Arabic documents.
While Naskhi, the script that is supposedly the popular modern form, according to Brittanica, which your other link uses as a source,…
.“Ibn 'ali Ibn Muqlah - born 886, Baghdad died 940, Baghdad
in full Abū ʿalī Muḥammad Ibn ʿalī Ibn Muqlah one of the foremost calligraphers of the ʿAbbāsid Age (750–1258), reputed inventor of the first cursive style of Arabic lettering, the naskhī script, which replaced the angular Kūfic as the standard of Islāmic calligraphy. In the naskhī script Ibn Muqlah introduced the rounded forms and curved lines that in later styles were refined to give Arabic writing the flowing beauty for which it is renowned. Although naskhī was originally intended for use in copying the Qurʾān, by the 11th century it was used widely for royal and common correspondence and as architectural decoration.”
“The Arabic alphabet has 28 letters, all representing consonants, and is written from right to left. Twenty-two of the letters are those of the Semitic alphabet from which it descended, modified only in letter form, and the remaining six letters represent sounds not used in the languages written in the earlier alphabet. The shape of each letter depends on its position in a word—initial, medial, and final. There is a fourth form of the letter when it is written alone. The letters alif, waw, and ya (standing for glottal stop, w, and y, respectively) are used to represent the long vowels a, u, and i. A set of diacritical marks developed in the 8th century ad are sometimes used to represent short vowels and certain grammatical endings otherwise left unmarked.
Two major types of Arabic script exist. Kūfic, a thick, bold monumental style, was developed in Kūfah, a city in Mesopotamia, toward the end of the 7th century ad. It was used chiefly for inscriptions in stone and metal but was also employed sometimes to write manuscripts of the Qurʾān. A very handsome monumental script, it has passed out of use, except in cases in which more cursive scripts cannot be used. Naskhī,a cursive script well adapted to writing on papyrus or paper, is the direct ancestor of modern Arabic writing. It originated in Mecca and Medina at an early date and exists in many complex and decorative variant forms.”
Guess, you should have bothered reading your links too.
quote:Doug M writes:
And keep in mind that the two largest spoken and written forms of Arabic are Egyptian and Maghrebi Arabic.
What written forms would those be, not already mentioned?
Well since you want to use wikipedia as your reference, keep in mind that Nakshi scripts are evidenced long before the arrival of Ali Muqlah on the scene. It is such legendary stories about the origin and development of arabic that causes most of the confusion and debate in linguistic circles. Look at the dates of the earliest manuscripts and remains and that is what will tell you more about the development of a language and script than simple claims and honorary achievements credited to an individual.
The website I posted has links and images to many scripts both Nakshi and Kufic from North Africa and Egypt, with the Nakshi scripts being the oldest, dating from the 600s. Therefore, it is impossible that Naskshi was invented by someone born in 886, over 200 years later. And there are many scholarly linguistic challenges to Kufic having been born in al Kufah as many linguists claim that it existed PRIOR to that. But of course, wikipedia cannot always be relied on to provide exhaustive coverage on all topics in history and anthropology. You must do your own in depth research to find these things.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
As expected, you still haven't addressed what I pushed as evidence.
Rather, just your childish stubborn latching onto willful ignorance of reality. Simply rehashing a bunch of falsified claims, will merely be re-addressed by rehashing how they were falsified...as follows:
Hieratic:
...to be compared with:
^Comparisons between Nabataean, Aramaic, Arabic and Syriac alphabets...
Gist: Arabic has closer resemblances to the mentioned “Near Eastern” proto-Sinaitic descended examples than it does to either Hieratic or Demotic.
Show [not tell] me:
— how Arabic script could not possibly have developed from Nabataean script and its predecessor, but directly from Hieratic.
— That all cursive scripts, including those of the Indus Valley, could have only developed from a single ancestor: Hieratic!
Outcome: You couldn’t deliver the first request, because it doesn’t exist. You didn’t bother answering the second, for the same reason. In fact, this was your answer:
Arabic may have developed from the nabataean script - by Doug M
Hence, admitting that Arabic script doesn’t directly descend from ancient Egyptian script; that is, falsifying your claim.
You moved the goal post and said.
the cursive form of the Syriac and other members of this branch of the Afro Asiatic family are derived from the Egyptian INVENTION of cursive writing. - Doug M
My reply: I've already laid out tables for hieroglyphics, and hieratic, to be compared with Aramaic, Nabataean, Arabic, and Syriac. There, Syraic doesn't appear to be any closer to Hieratic than the others
Gist: Again, nullifying your claim.
You then posted images of Aramaic, Syriac and Demotic scripts, making the argument that Syraic and Demotic scripts show more similarities in form than either do to Aramaic…upon which I posted this:
Upon closely examining the letters in the images posted, here's my estimation of similarities based on alphabetic correspondences, not mere random resemblances of letters upon visualization:
code:
Alpha. Demotic "Near Eastern" scripts k- 1 0 r - 0 1 n - 1 0 m - 0 1(Nabataean) q - 0 1 p - 0 1(first Arabic, then others) t(dot) 0 1 b - 0 1 y - 0 0 ` - 0 1 (Nabataean) g- 0 1(Aramaic, then Nabataean) s - 0 1(Nabataean) l- 0 1 w- 0 .5(partial resemblance upper hand goes to that vis-à-vis Arabic, and then Syriac)
Looks to me that Syriac is still more inclined towards the other Proto-Sinaitic 'sub-script' counterparts. Specifically how were you making mano a mano comparisons between the letters across the scripts, if not the way I went about it?
Gist: Again, nullifying your superficial point.
You then attempt to make a temporal link between semi-cursive Aramaic variant, Imperial Aramaic, and Demotic. You were informed that the earliest evidence of such date back to 5th century BC, while Demotic dates to at least ca. 6th BC. In fact, I said:
According to your wiki & affiliated links, the "Imperial Aramaic" form appeared at ca. 5th century BC, not the 6th. And even more interesting, while relatively more cursive then the earlier version, Imperial Aramaic alphabets actually appear to further developments of the original Aramaic alphabets; how does that help you, with regards to it being developed from Demotic?
Gist: It couldn’t have developed from Hieratic or Demotic, if it was a carryover from the original Aramaic alphabets. This development of Aramaic script bears even more affinities with its descendant scripts of Nabataean, Arabic, and Syriac.
quote:Doug M writes:
It is quite possible that early arabic developed as a result of writing arabic using nabatean script
It's more than possible, and nullifies your claim about it being a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian script.
Look at your own table.
If you cannot see how hieratic is closer to the scripts on rows 2, 3 and 4 then you are absolutely blind and really not worth debating.
(hieratic is on the top, not the bottom.) Compared to rows 2 3 and 4 below:
Row 1 is the older more Phoenician and angular form of Aramaic and NOT CURSIVE. If you go beyond the the basic information put on the web and do more research you will find that the late period forms of Aramaic were more cursive. But either way, the cursive form of hieratic is much closer to the later cursive forms of Syriac, Arabic and Nabatean than the older angular form of Aramaic.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well since you want to use wikipedia as your reference
You must be smoking something strong: where have I used wiki? You are the one who has done this; I simply used *your own* sources against you.
quote:Doug M writes:
keep in mind that Nakshi scripts are evidenced long before the arrival of Ali Muqlah on the scene.
Not according to Brittanica, which your own source cited. So then, tell us what attests to this claim.
quote:Doug M writes:
It is such legendary stories about the origin and development of arabic that causes most of the confusion and debate in linguistic circles.
What specific evidence points to this "legendary status" and tells us that Naskhi was developed in Egypt, as opposed to the "Near East"?
quote:Doug M writes:
Look at the dates of the earliest manuscripts and remains and that is what will tell you more about the development of a language and script than simple claims and honorary achievements credited to an individual.
Which "earliest" manuscripts? Name them.
quote:Doug M writes:
The website I posted has links and images to many scripts both Nakshi and Kufic from North Africa and Egypt, with the Nakshi scripts being the oldest, dating from the 600s.Therefore, it is impossible that Naskshi was invented by someone born in 886, over 200 years later.
Which images; I just cited your own sources; they say nothing about Naskhi being developed in North Africa. In fact, their references contradict you, which says that it developed in the "Near East". I simply cited the source that your link relied on, to give accounts on the various Arabic scripts, including Naskhi.
quote:Doug M writes:
And there are many scholarly linguistic challenges to Kufic having been born in al Kufah as many linguists claim that it existed PRIOR to that.
According to your own link, the earliest available evidence of it comes in the form of a monument, in the "Near East". Are you suggesting there is an even earlier evidence? Why then do you cite links and then complain about their contents; is that not self-defeating?
quote:Doug M writes:
But of course, wikipedia cannot always be relied on to provide exhaustive coverage on all topics in history and anthropology. You must do your own in depth research to find these things.
Why then do you reference wiki? You should drop that pot you're smokin', stop telling fairy tales, and heed to your own advice about doing "your own in depth research", since you are the *only one* here who's referenced wiki.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Already have; it doesn't support your untrained superficial observation. This is why you should first read before citing people.
quote:Doug M writes:
If you cannot see how hieratic is closer to the scripts on rows 2, 3 and 4 then you are absolutely blind and really not worth debating.
(hieratic is on the top, not the bottom.) Compared to rows 2 3 and 4 below:
Row 1 is the older more Phoenician and angular form of Aramaic and NOT CURSIVE.
If you really examined my tabulated assessments [you cited] but didn't understand it, then you must blinded by stupidity. Are you actually comparing letter for letter, to assess how they could have evolved...or are you just haphazardly selecting letters here and there from distinct scripts and then concluding that they look alike? It is this lack of depth in insight, that made you deduce that Imperial Aramaic—the more cursive form of Aramaic—developed from Demotic... when any simpleton could have just told you that they are modified carryovers from the original Aramaic letters. You aren't in a position to be advicing others on "research"; check your own backyard.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, the only one blinded is you. Imperial aramaic is cursive, old aramaic is not. Therefore it is not simply a carry over (your attempt at a technical linguistic term huh?). The point is that cursive forms in these languages are directly influenced by Egyptian cursive forms of writing, hence the strong similarities IN FORM.
And no, line 2 is NOT similar to line 1 in your chart IN ANY WAY. So much for carry over.
Carry over is when you have close similarities between two scripts, like the similarity between LINE 1 and Phoenician. In that case Aramaic has carry overs. But the scripts in the table are not NEARLY as closely similar in form to the row at the top. But of course you are going to say what you wish because you simply refuse to see anything other than your own POV.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obviously, the only one blinded is you. Imperial aramaic is cursive, old aramaic is not.
Doug, I'm afraid you are not thinking clearly. Just because Imperial Aramaic is relatively more cursive [and the keyword here is "relatively"], doesn't mean that its letters cannot be carryovers from the original Aramaic.
This is how it is done professionally: letter-for-letter correspondence [below; e.g. letters that are the equivalents of a, b, c, etc.] and associated camparison of letter morphology; not untrained glancing at letter curves without insight into the *substantive being of the letters* themselves, as you seem to be resorting to [e.g. picking the 'b' equivalent for one script and then comparing to 'f' equivalent of another, simply on the account that they morphologically look alike]:
quote:Doug M writes:
Therefore it is not simply a carry over (your attempt at a technical linguistic term huh?).
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you! See above, and produce a table for old Aramaic and the Imperial variant, and tell us why the latter cannot be a carryover.
quote:Doug M writes:
The point is that cursive forms in these languages are directly influenced by Egyptian cursive forms of writing, hence the strong similarities IN FORM.
I know you don't want to hear the truth, but your point has no merit.
quote:Doug M writes:
And no, line 2 is NOT similar to line 1 in your chart IN ANY WAY. So much for carry over.
See, you didn't understand my table to begin with. You should have simply asked what I was doing there, instead of wrongly guessing. The "1" here, is simply a sort of a tally marker for saying that a designated letter—be it a "b", k", "y", etc, equivalent—has more similarities with either Hieratic and/or the "Proto-Sinaitic" derived family in question, depending on under which the "1" was placed. The "1" does NOT signify "a row" or "column" of any cited script table, as you presumed.
quote:Doug M writes:
Carry over is when you have close similarities between two scripts, like the similarity between LINE 1 and Phoenician.
"Similarities between two scripts" in what sense? Be specific.
quote:Doug M writes:
In that case Aramaic has carry overs. But the scripts in the table are not NEARLY as closely similar in form to the row at the top. But of course you are going to say what you wish because you simply refuse to see anything other than your own POV.
Actually, I've been examining the scripts as "professionally" as I can, via letter-for-letter correspondences; NOT blindly glancing at letter curves contained in *paragraphs*, without attention to *detail* of what the letters themselves represent, and thereby saying that one script evolved directly from the other, as you are clearly doing. The reason is obvious: if you analyzed professionally, you fear [and rightfully so] that your claims would instantly be rendered unfit for scrutiny.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Title > Hadith, Late VIIIth-Early IXth century A.D. [date1 Display > 750 and date2 Display > 850]
Inventory Id > P. O.I. 17626
Original Language > Arabic
Physical Description > papyrus ; 16.3 x 11.5 cm - Medium quality papyrus. The fragment is either a loose sheet or part of a small roll.
Notes > Egypt
Location: Oriental Institute On recto: 20 lines in Arabic; on verso: 19 lines in Arabic Poor semicursive naskhi script in an unstable and underdeveloped script. Circles, with or without dots, are used for punctuation and possibly collation. The pear-shaped device in line 5, recto, is due to an attempt to cover an error. Pub. status: Published: recto and verso Source of description: On recto and verso: Hadith
Subject(s) > Hadith Islam
Associated Name(s) > Abu Salih 'Abd al-Ghaffar ibn Da'ud al-Harrani (?)
Notes on Custodial History > Unknown
Source: wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu
And then, courtesy of The British Library Board we have:
This elegant, detailed Qur'an is one of the earliest dated examples of naskhi script, the Arabic calligraphic hand which became one of the most popular styles for such manuscripts thanks to its legibility.
Qur’an, Iraq or Persia, 1036. Chapter 37, al-Saffat (The Ranked Fliers), verse 20 to Chapter 38, Sad (The Letter Sad), verse 35 BL Add. MS 7214, f. 52v
Obviously, if the top APIS item is considered to be "semi-cursive", and Naskhi is widely known to be a highly cursive script, then the said APIS papyrus piece cannot be Naskhi itself, or at the least, Naskhi "proper". Moreover, the said papyrus example is supposed to be part of a religious (Islamic) literature. It is supposedly dated to between the 8th and 9th century. Yet, the British library example, which is highly cursive, is said to be "one of the earliest dated" examples of Naskhi script; it too, happens to be of Islamic (Quran) literature. It is supposedly dated to the 11th century, about the time in which various sources place the fully-developed Naskhi script's early appearances. In each case, both Hieratic and Demotic were essentially out of use by the attributed dates.
What's more important, the point I've been trying to convey, is that the Arabic letter set appears to consist of carryovers from the Nabataean script [which itself is deemed part of the Proto-Sinaitic line]...obviously with some additional features. In fact Arabic script itself, as the above mentioned historical items seem to demonstrate, had to go through a process or stages of morphological transitioning before attaining its contemporary highly cursive form...going from a semi-cursive to a highly cursive form over time, which seems to argue against a *direct* influence from an already fully-developedhighlycursive script like either Hieratic or Demotic.
Side by side graphic analysis...
Yes, Arabic lettering is more cursive than its alleged forerunners, in a pattern wherein there appears to be a sequential waning of the cursive form as one moves along the family tree from child to parent, but its letter forms do demonstrate an apparent evolutionary relationship with those scripts. Naturally [as the additional point made], highly cursive proto-Sinaitic derived scripts are prone to bear strong "first-glance" physical resemblance to either the highly cursive Hieratic or Demotic, because of kinship in the sense that they all ultimately share a common [Nile Valley] ancestor.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL I don't recall ever saying such nonsense unless you can provide an actual quote or something. Of course you're just an idiotic troll who lies, so what else is new?
By the way, thanks Tigerlily for the welcome.
It's obvious from the comment above me that the trolls continue to fester since my hiatus. But did I miss anything else??
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Welcome back, What you missed was alot of needless hate and attacks by posters. The new posters were attacking the verteran posters and insults were flying.
Then Clyde Winters in his debate seemed to be actually winning his debate on the Olmecs.
Then we had a thread about Zimbabwe which talked about the good and the bad about Mugabe. Most posters in this thread were on Mugabes side and said he is doing something good.
Then we had another Fulani thread where of course people were debateing whether Fulanis are indegnious to Africa or are mixed.
Then White Nord started a thread about East Africans being mixed which he go schooled in by Sundiata. He still has not responded to what Sundiata has posted.
We also have a thread about Oprah and whether she is a good role model for African Americans or not and also a thread on Obama.
In this thread you have Doug M and Ausarian arguing over who created cursive writeing and this is when you came in.
There is other stuff but this is the main stuff.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
In this thread you have Doug M and Ausarian arguing over who created cursive writeing and this is when you came in.
Actually, that's not the case; we were debating Doug's claim that 'Arabic and other "proto-Sinaitic" derived scripts descended *directly* from Hieratic or Demotic'. There's no doubt about the earliest attested cursive script being Hieratic.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian.: Little bit of info I had come across:
Item > APIS record: chicago.apis.7803
Title > Hadith, Late VIIIth-Early IXth century A.D. [date1 Display > 750 and date2 Display > 850]
Inventory Id > P. O.I. 17626
Original Language > Arabic
Physical Description > papyrus ; 16.3 x 11.5 cm - Medium quality papyrus. The fragment is either a loose sheet or part of a small roll.
Notes > Egypt
Location: Oriental Institute On recto: 20 lines in Arabic; on verso: 19 lines in Arabic Poor semicursive naskhi script in an unstable and underdeveloped script. Circles, with or without dots, are used for punctuation and possibly collation. The pear-shaped device in line 5, recto, is due to an attempt to cover an error. Pub. status: Published: recto and verso Source of description: On recto and verso: Hadith
Subject(s) > Hadith Islam
Associated Name(s) > Abu Salih 'Abd al-Ghaffar ibn Da'ud al-Harrani (?)
Notes on Custodial History > Unknown
Source: wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu
And then, courtesy of The British Library Board we have:
This elegant, detailed Qur'an is one of the earliest dated examples of naskhi script, the Arabic calligraphic hand which became one of the most popular styles for such manuscripts thanks to its legibility.
Qur’an, Iraq or Persia, 1036. Chapter 37, al-Saffat (The Ranked Fliers), verse 20 to Chapter 38, Sad (The Letter Sad), verse 35 BL Add. MS 7214, f. 52v
Obviously, if the top APIS item is considered to be "semi-cursive", and Naskhi is widely known to be a highly cursive script, then the said APIS papyrus piece cannot be Naskhi itself, or at the least, Naskhi "proper". Moreover, the said papyrus example is supposed to be part of a religious (Islamic) literature. It is supposedly dated to between the 8th and 9th century. Yet, the British library example, which is highly cursive, is said to be "one of the earliest dated" examples of Naskhi script; it too, happens to be of Islamic (Quran) literature. It is supposedly dated to the 11th century, about the time in which various sources place the fully-developed Naskhi script's early appearances. In each case, both Hieratic and Demotic were essentially out of use by the attributed dates.
What's more important, the point I've been trying to convey, is that the Arabic letter set appears to consist of carryovers from the Nabataean script [which itself is deemed part of the Proto-Sinaitic line]...obviously with some additional features. In fact Arabic script itself, as the above mentioned historical items seem to demonstrate, had to go through a process or stages of morphological transitioning before attaining its contemporary highly cursive form...going from a semi-cursive to a highly cursive form over time, which seems to argue against a *direct* influence from an already fully-developedhighlycursive script like either Hieratic or Demotic.
Side by side graphic analysis...
Yes, Arabic lettering is more cursive than its alleged forerunners, in a pattern wherein there appears to be a sequential waning of the cursive form as one moves along the family tree from child to parent, but its letter forms do demonstrate an apparent evolutionary relationship with those scripts. Naturally [as the additional point made], highly cursive proto-Sinaitic derived scripts are prone to bear strong "first-glance" physical resemblance to either the highly cursive Hieratic or Demotic, because of kinship in the sense that they all ultimately share a common [Nile Valley] ancestor.
The first document says Nakshi does it not? Therefore the earliest Nakshi script is not in 1032. What you have from 1032 is a well preserved manuscript, which reflects the development of Nakshi and Arabic in general over time. That does not change the fact that key elements of this cursive form were being written and enhanced in Egypt long before 1032.
The following page has a whole list of arabic documents dating from prior to 1032
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, and...? That's a dumb question, given what I had to say about the said document in what you just cited [none of which you actually addressed]. Don't be lazy; read what you cite.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Title > Hadith, Late VIIIth-Early IXth century A.D. [date1 Display > 750 and date2 Display > 850]
Inventory Id > P. O.I. 17626
Original Language > Arabic
Physical Description > papyrus ; 16.3 x 11.5 cm - Medium quality papyrus. The fragment is either a loose sheet or part of a small roll.
Notes > Egypt
Location: Oriental Institute On recto: 20 lines in Arabic; on verso: 19 lines in Arabic Poor semicursive naskhi script in an unstable and underdeveloped script. Circles, with or without dots, are used for punctuation and possibly collation. The pear-shaped device in line 5, recto, is due to an attempt to cover an error. Pub. status: Published: recto and verso Source of description: On recto and verso: Hadith
Subject(s) > Hadith Islam
Associated Name(s) > Abu Salih 'Abd al-Ghaffar ibn Da'ud al-Harrani (?)
Notes on Custodial History > Unknown
Source: wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu
And then, courtesy of The British Library Board we have:
This elegant, detailed Qur'an is one of the earliest dated examples of naskhi script, the Arabic calligraphic hand which became one of the most popular styles for such manuscripts thanks to its legibility.
Qur’an, Iraq or Persia, 1036. Chapter 37, al-Saffat (The Ranked Fliers), verse 20 to Chapter 38, Sad (The Letter Sad), verse 35 BL Add. MS 7214, f. 52v
Obviously, if the top APIS item is considered to be "semi-cursive", and Naskhi is widely known to be a highly cursive script, then the said APIS papyrus piece cannot be Naskhi itself, or at the least, Naskhi "proper". Moreover, the said papyrus example is supposed to be part of a religious (Islamic) literature. It is supposedly dated to between the 8th and 9th century. Yet, the British library example, which is highly cursive, is said to be "one of the earliest dated" examples of Naskhi script; it too, happens to be of Islamic (Quran) literature. It is supposedly dated to the 11th century, about the time in which various sources place the fully-developed Naskhi script's early appearances. In each case, both Hieratic and Demotic were essentially out of use by the attributed dates.
What's more important, the point I've been trying to convey, is that the Arabic letter set appears to consist of carryovers from the Nabataean script [which itself is deemed part of the Proto-Sinaitic line]...obviously with some additional features. In fact Arabic script itself, as the above mentioned historical items seem to demonstrate, had to go through a process or stages of morphological transitioning before attaining its contemporary highly cursive form...going from a semi-cursive to a highly cursive form over time, which seems to argue against a *direct* influence from an already fully-developedhighlycursive script like either Hieratic or Demotic...
...we have,
Introductory phrase: “In The Name Of God” in the six different styles (listed from top to bottom): Riqa, Naskhi, Nastaliq, Thuluth, Muhaqqaq, and Square Kufic. - courtesy of Islamicarchitecture.orgPosts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This page has a whole list of arabic documents dating from prior to 1032:
quote: For over 4000 years the main type of writing material used in Egypt was papyrus. It was manufactured from the plant Cyperus Papyrus L, which is a native to Egypt. Papyrus was easier to make and handle than other alternatives such as wood, skin and clay tablets. Also it could be made in a range of thickness and qualities and this contributed to its widespread use. The use of papyrus was taken over by Arab Muslims when they conquered Egypt in the 7th century CE, and it continued as the main writing material of the country until the 10th century when paper started to become more common.
It is hard to estimate the extant Arabic papyri. Adolf Grohmann estimated that there were approximately 16,000 Arabic papyri in the various collections that he was familiar with in Europe, North America and Cairo (A. Grohmann, From The World Of Arabic Papyri, 1952, Royal Society of Historical Studies, Al-Maaref Press: Cairo, p. 2). This figure refers to moderately preserved documents. It can be said with fair certainty that the total extant papyrus fragments exceeds this number. The vast majority of the documents include accounts, legal deeds, administrative documents, private letters, etc.
A large number of Arabic papyri were found at various sites in the Fayyūm as well as at sites lying further south including al-Bahnasā (Oxyrhynchus), al-Ushmūnayn (Hermapolis Magna), Kom Eshqaw (Aphrodito), Ikhmīm (Panopolis), al-Gabalayn (Pathyris), Edfū (Apollinopolis), Dandara and Aswān. Several thousand pieces were also found in the ruins of Fustāt. In 1901, a cache of papyrus letters written by Qurra bin Sharīk, the Umayyad governer of Egypt from 90-96 AH / 709-714 CE, was discovered in the Upper Egyptian village of Kom Eshqaw, 7 km south-west of Timā, formerly known as Aphrodito in the Greek sources. Some of these letters are written in Arabic, some in Greek, and some are bilingual (Arabic and Greek). They subsequently found their way into various papyrus collections. These letters cast a great deal of light on the otherwise poorly documented Umayyad administration in Egypt.
Several other Arabic papyri have been discovered at sites outside Egypt, such as in Damascus; a small number were unearthed at Sāmarrā' by the German excavations of 1911; thirteen Arabic papyri from the period 52-70 AH / 672-689 CE were discovered at ‘Awjā' al-Hafīr (Nessana) by the H. Dunscombe Colt expedition of 1936-7; and a large number of papyri, most of which date from the first two centuries AH and nearly all of which are in a fragmentary condition, were discovered in Khirbat al-Mird in the Judaean desert in 1950s.
The discipline of Arabic papyrology was given a sound foundation by a series of careful and masterly studies of selected papyri documents from the Erzherzog Rainer Collection by Josef v. Karabacek. Adolf Grohmann, who had published and edited more Arabic papyri present in various museums and collections, dominated the field of Arabic papyrology for years.
Our aim here is modest. We will deal with some of the examples of the Arabic Papyri originating from the 1st century of hijra. The Arabic Papyri is perhaps one of the most obscure fields of Arabic palaeography and hopefully the material below would help understand the field of Arabic palaeography. Apart from the well-known Qurra papyri (90-96 AH, 709-714 CE), examples of a few of which are given below, there are others that predate them. The papyri is divided into the following:
But you are right Arabic scripts were in constant development between the first century AD and 1500 AD.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Lol. Apparently, you didn't take the advice of first reading whatever you cite.
I re-cited myself with regards to an APIS semi-cursive [supposedly an early form of Naskhi] Arabic papyrus that dates before the said highly-cursive Naskhi-scripted Quran dated to ca. 1036. Thus that APIS Arabic papyrus too, dates older than 1036. So, you are simply making a mole hill out of nothing.
Also, from what you just cited, it reads:
"The use of papyrus was taken over by Arab Muslims when they conquered Egypt in the 7th century CE, and it continued as the main writing material of the country until the 10th century when paper started to become more common."
What did I have to say in what you cited me, but apparently didn't bother to read? I said this:
In each case, both Hieratic and Demotic were essentially out of use by the attributed dates. - Ausarian
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian.: ^Lol. Apparently, you didn't take the advice of first reading whatever you cite.
I re-cited myself with regards to an APIS semi-cursive [supposedly an early form of Naskhi] Arabic papyrus that dates before the said highly-cursive Naskhi-scripted Quran dated to ca. 1036. Thus that APIS Arabic papyrus too, dates older than 1036. So, you are simply making a mole hill out of nothing.
Also, from what you just cited, it reads:
"The use of papyrus was taken over by Arab Muslims when they conquered Egypt in the 7th century CE, and it continued as the main writing material of the country until the 10th century when paper started to become more common."
What did I have to say in what you cited me, but apparently didn't bother to read? I said this:
In each case, both Hieratic and Demotic were essentially out of use by the attributed dates. - Ausarian
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I see that not much has changed including the way these threads go. How did the topic of orientalist paintings all of a sudden turn into a debate about scripts??
By the way, Mystery is correct that many of the cursive scripts of ancient Southwest Asia are ultimately derived from Egyptian via Sinaitic. I suggest Ausarian or whoever look into the scripts of the Sinai if they really want to get to the bottom of the diffusion of cursive scripts.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh that's the guy who said that "only sub-saharan negroids were black".
That seems to be very, very racist.
Just because a Southeast Asian doesn't consider his own people (except the Negrito aboriginals) to be black doesn't mean his definition of blackness is that constricted. In fact he accepts that Ancient Egyptians and even some Mesopotamians were what we would call "black" today. Why he doesn't include most SE Asians as part of the black group is something he probably has a very good explanation for.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
T-rex, don't even bother to appease a hungry salivating troll!
Printer-friendly view of this topic