posted
You guys simply have no clue of what conctitutes good scholarship. Don't give me this cracker crap. i am asking you to do what every graduate class in every university in the world would ask you to do. There is a professional way to present information and it is more than just saying that people who disagree with you are liars.
You guys have presented no evidence King. Nobody on this site is a specialist in the ancient egyptian language. It is clear that most of you have no ability to handle primary soruce information and you have no interest in learning. You have demonstrated that lack of ability to handle information in a scholarly manner in case after case after case.
I am not interested in what Gaul thinks about AE language, he is not a specialist. I am interested in what top eyptologists and language eperts say. What they clearly say is that Kemet means black land, that is the accepted standard today.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
...a lot of folks are confused as to how words in different languages are related; it isn't enough that the words are similar in spelling, they must also be similar in their meanings:
Example A) Let us first look at the word "Ran" as it appears in 5 languages:
1) Mdu Ntr: Ran = "Name" 2) Coptic: Ran = "Name" 3) Yoruba: Ran = "Name" 4) English: Ran = past tense of "Run"; a word of motion 5) Japanese: Ran = "chaos"
Clearly, the first three African words are not only similar in meaning, but are exact matches! - the English and Japanese words are not related to the African words or to each other.
Example B) Now, let us examine the words for Black or Negro in several languages.
1) Mdu Ntr: eKame = "Black/Negro" 2) Coptic: ouKame = "Black/Negro" 3) French: le Nègre = "the Negro" 4) Spanish: el Negro = "the Negro"
One can readily see how the words used to express a concept differ between the African languages and that of the Romance languages...
Now, let us look at the incorrect assessment that "Kmt" (Black) is related to the Berber word "Akham" (home); ie, how is the word "Black" similar to the word "home?" Simple, it isn't...
1) Berber: Akham = "home" 2) Mdu Ntr: Ekham = "Black" 3) Coptic: OuKham = "a Black (person)" Obviously, there is no correspondence between the Mdu Ntr and Berber in regards to the word "Kmt."
Simple Examples from the Mdu Ntr: Res = "south" - Resu = "southerners" Tawi = "Two Lands" - Tawiu = "Two Landers" TaMeri = "My Beloved Land" - Tameriu = "My Beloved Landers" Kem = "Black" - Kemu = "Blacks"
Because the Ancient Egyptians referred to themselves as "Kemu" or Blacks is an irrefutable fact and is why modern 'revisionists' like to ignor this significant fact and would rather harp on "Keme.t" or "Keme.tiou" which is more easily 'toyed' with than the more absolute word of "Kemu"... === Another method, used principally by detractors, is to believe, or pretend to believe that the Ancient Egyptian language is 'dead', as it is supposedly not a vernacular language, and that, unlike every other language on earth, it is mysterious and unknowable: however, the reality is that Ancient Egyptian is modern Coptic and is very much alive and well
The following is taken from A SHORT ENGLISH-COPTIC CLASSIFIED VOCABULARY WITH ILLUSTRATIVE SENTENCES...
39. Colour >to be black kmom kem*
neffw etolm sesEt eukem nthe n henabooke. His curly hair streams out, being black as ravens.
Anok ang ouKame (Coptic bible; Song of Solomon) = I am Black I am Black...(KJV bible, Song of Solomon)
>to be white oubash ouobsh*
ainau eupugy m moou noc esouobash Nve N ouxiwn. I saw a great fountain of water, white as snow.
>to be red trosh torosh*, troshresh treshrwsh*
auw afei ebol Nci ouhto eftreshrwsh. And a red horse came forth.
Gold noub = gold P^hamnoub = goldsmith ouaNouba = Nubian NaNouba = Nubians OuaNouba = Wa.Nuba (wah.Noo.bah) = "One Nuba"... The Nuba peoples who live in the geographical center of Sudan are the largest of many groups in Northern Sudan and are the descendants of the peoples of the Kush kingdom of the 8th century. They form a collection of dozens of different ethnic groups with different cultures and languages. ....
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally, top scholars are not confused. You need to do more research into why they feel the way they do. Here is the problem. Their views carry the day in any field of history. Someone brought up Bernal on another thread. Bernal lost the argument to Lefkowitz because he was unable to convince classical scholars his points were correct. Same with this, it is your job to convince them, not the other way around. The problem you have is that since you are not a specialist they probably would not listen to you anyway.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. If by any chance, Pat did call up his 'friends' in Memphis, he simply just asked them what Kmt meant. I seriously doubt he further inquired about the actual etymology or where the word for 'land' is found in the term.
Again, this is called scholarly debate. Everyone, scholars and laymen alike, have the right to challenge the authority of a scholar especially if there is any logical inconsistency.
Right now what has been discussed in this thread still stands. Unless Pat can bring his 'expert' friends here or cite an actual correspondence via email or something disputing these valid linguistic finds, then the only thing his friends in Memphis offer-- like Pat-- is mere opinion. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Laymen can have an opinion, they cannot challenge. You cannot use pop history in a scholarly paper. I asked you to call them as well. Besides that was not the only source I posted. You have posted none because there is none. I just had a kid write a paper about the historiography of the Cherokee. he cannot use sources that are not noted scholars, i.e. historians. If you want to establish more than opinion Djehuti then post some journal articles from major egyptologists who agree with you view. About six of them would give you a compelling case. The problem you have is you will not find any.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Laymen can have an opinion, they cannot challenge. You cannot use pop history in a scholarly paper..
Again, anyone can make a challenge as long as they have FACTS and not opinion! Also, who said anything about 'pop history' which is exactly what you and your ilk peddle-- that is beliefs popular among white males that gives them pride and not facts!
quote:..I asked you to call them as well. Besides that was not the only source I posted. You have posted none because there is none...
LOL First of all, it was YOU who claimed phone connections to 'experts' in Egypt, not us. Second of all, you posted no source other than what someone else wrote without any actual linguistic explanation let alone demonstration.
And lastly we posted our source-- Budge Egyptian dictionary-- complete with hieroglyphs as well as valid explanations and linguistic demonstrations!!-- non of which you or any of your sources were able to show!
quote:I just had a kid write a paper about the historiography of the Cherokee. he cannot use sources that are not noted scholars, i.e. historians. If you want to establish more than opinion Djehuti then post some journal articles from major egyptologists who agree with you view. About six of them would give you a compelling case. The problem you have is you will not find any.
LOL We shall see about that!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument is settled Djehuti and further laymen do not have an impact on scholarship. You simply lack the skills to do the kind of neccessary research. Laymen can publish what we call pop history but it is never included in the accepted body of scholarship. Your ideas on african influence on Greece are simply crazy. You cannot find nor will you ever produce scholarly material to back that position up.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The argument is settled Djehuti and further laymen do not have an impact on scholarship...
Of course the argument is settled. It was settled right in this thread by Wally and Takruri! Also again anyone can have an impact on scholarship through scholarly work and discipline!
quote:..You simply lack the skills to do the kind of neccessary research. Laymen can publish what we call pop history but it is never included in the accepted body of scholarship...
LOL skills to do necessary research such as actually dissecting the etymology of a word and using actual vocabularly and grammar of that word and the language scripts where it is expressed as Takruri and Wally have done?? Also, the very source that Takruri and Wally get their work from is from a body of scholarship again, Budge's Dictionary!
quote:Your ideas on african influence on Greece are simply crazy. You cannot find nor will you ever produce scholarly material to back that position up.
You realize that we produce scholarly material and evidence every day about African influence on Greece, or does your senile mind still function??!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally and Tukruri have no portfolio. alot of arrogance for a group of unlettered guys to claim anyone is paying attention to them.
You do not produce evidence for your wacky Greece views, bot a scrap. For one thing I have never seen you produce a scholarly work from a single Greek historian supporting your view.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
They merely cite what is already known about Egyptian language!
The below is all they need!
quote:This is the glyph Ta, Gardiners N16 It means land and appears at the front of words like Ta Meri.
This is the glyph xAst, Gardiners N25 It means land and appears at the end of words like Khurru or Kush.
This is the glyph niwt, Gardiners O49 It means city, town, etc,, and appears at the end of the word KM.t. Note that KM.t also appears with other determinatives and not just only with nwt.
The problem enters with our concept of the word land which can mean a parcel of land or a country or nation. The Kmtyw marked the distinction because nwt never means a parcel of land, it always mean a crossroads village town city nation, etc.
Please provide an example from a mdw ntr text where the nwt determinative means soil. What hieroglyphic dictionary gives soil as the meaning of nwt which is a glyph that depicts a crossroads not a field or a desert or some such?
Originally posted 10 December 2004 12:24 PM
Precisely why cannot mean black land in the sense of a parcel of land which happens to be black in color. Nwt means crossroads, village, town, city, nation. Hence logically means 'Black nation' not 'black piece of land.'
Except in this instance of deliberate obfuscation, please show texts where nwt is translated as 'land' instead of 'crossroads.' The dictionary entry for nwt is village, town, city not land. The dictionary entries for t3 and smt are land.
Further, the codage system classes niwt under O (buildings) not in the N (heaven earth and water) class where t3 and x3st are categorized. Logic dictates that KM.t.nwt cannot mean 'black land' both according to codage class and according to grammar where KM.t in KM.t.nwt is indeed a feminine noun and is not an adjective. The name of a nation is always a noun never an adjective.
^ Now, refute the above or just shut-up!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument is over. Egyptologists do not agree with you, that is enough for me. There is no worse combination than ignorance combined with arrogance. If you cannot post the scholars you shut up.
KEMET means black land, period.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The argument is over. Egyptologists do not agree with you, that is enough for me. There is no worse combination than ignorance combined with arrogance. If you cannot post the scholars you shut up.
What makes those whom you call scholars legitimate scholars? Are they scholars because they agree on a certain point? Does that make their point correct or accurate? Does this mean that one can only be identified as a scholar if they accept Eurocentric - Ethnocentric interpretations of history as they will for it to be? Better yet as a normal man who study history, can I create a scholarly program like this group of Europeans an convince the world that I'm smarter then they so that my works may by accept as truth? I mean this is what Europeans have done so then why can't I do it and teach that Europe was once all black and their were no white-Europeans. Such teaching would be illegitimate and a joke to Europeans as is European so-called scholarly work is to Africans. Yet if I had the platform that Europeans have I would be able to pull it off as it has been done.
On this site there are true scholars who do not accept the ideals of eurocentric based histories. These scholars are in agreement and they are valued because they can support their finding unlike what HASN'T been presented to counter their claims. All you've given is what you believe to be accurate information from people whom you identify to be scholars but they are nothing more then propagandist who's only intent is to change the color of the ancient world.
quote: KEMET means black land, period
I have been keeping up with this forum and other forums who believe as you do. I've reviewed the information on this site and that on others but it is this site where the word has actually been broken down in terms that a baby should be able to understand. These other sites tell you that it means back land/soil but doesn't explain how and why it means black soil/land.
I would like for you to explain in details how the word Kemet means 'black land/soil'. I'm open to truth and if what has been shown here isn't the truth that I urge you to prove otherwise. I ask though that you break it down from your understanding being that it is a point of view that you accept as reality. Surely you will not accept anything as fact unless you have a deep understanding of it. Having accepted 'black land/soil' as Kemet from these scholars you mention, sure you can show me where land can be found in this word. If you cannot show this then what is your debate?
Thank you in advance.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
O by the way, I will not get into a debate with you on 'Kemet' given the fact that I'm no where on the level of these scholars on this subject. I just want to hear what you have to say as proof because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to analysis content based on ancient documentations vs. modern documentations.
p.s. please don't try to show rock art of other Africans which show different cultural hair styles with feathers and dress codes. That does not prove or disprove whether the Egyptians would have called their nation and people 'black'. It just proves that Egypt had battles with their neighboring Africans.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with Pat (other than his usual racist bias) is a logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'. Not only is it known that even experts can be wrong, but the fact that he generalises and says 'all' Egyptologists disagree is also far from the truth.
I think King is right-- we should just ignore the nutty professor. He keeps talking about the 'experts' yet he cites nothing that actually refutes the linguistics we have demonstrated. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You dim wits have not demonstrated anything. The appeal to authority is what academic discourse is based on. You are not going to research the question because of the answer you would get. This is just a racist feeble attempt to prop up a group of people who were throwing spears at the British in 1867. It is a disgusting display of ignorance from people who should know better. The only consolation is that it is going nowhere.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Mr. Pat all you have to do is realize that everything posted here is ACTUALLY based on EUROPEAN linguistic analysis of Egyptian hieroglyphs. They are not made up as you suggest.
Case in point:
quote:This is the glyph Ta, Gardiners N16 It means land and appears at the front of words like Ta Meri.
This is the glyph xAst, Gardiners N25 It means land and appears at the end of words like Khurru or Kush.
This is the glyph niwt, Gardiners O49 It means city, town, etc,, and appears at the end of the word KM.t. Note that KM.t also appears with other determinatives and not just only with nwt.
The problem enters with our concept of the word land which can mean a parcel of land or a country or nation. The Kmtyw marked the distinction because nwt never means a parcel of land, it always mean a crossroads village town city nation, etc.
Please provide an example from a mdw ntr text where the nwt determinative means soil. What hieroglyphic dictionary gives soil as the meaning of nwt which is a glyph that depicts a crossroads not a field or a desert or some such?
Originally posted 10 December 2004 12:24 PM
Precisely why cannot mean black land in the sense of a parcel of land which happens to be black in color. Nwt means crossroads, village, town, city, nation. Hence logically means 'Black nation' not 'black piece of land.'
Except in this instance of deliberate obfuscation, please show texts where nwt is translated as 'land' instead of 'crossroads.' The dictionary entry for nwt is village, town, city not land. The dictionary entries for t3 and smt are land.
Further, the codage system classes niwt under O (buildings) not in the N (heaven earth and water) class where t3 and x3st are categorized. Logic dictates that KM.t.nwt cannot mean 'black land' both according to codage class and according to grammar where KM.t in KM.t.nwt is indeed a feminine noun and is not an adjective. The name of a nation is always a noun never an adjective.
The above is based on Gardiner's sign list, which is one of the DEFACTO STANDARDS for translating hieroglyphs. EVERYTHING posted above is STRAIGHT from this standard reference. Therefore, the scholarship is there, but as usual you present nothing to refute anything because YOU are not a scholar. YOU are not familiar with Egyptian hieroglyphs and therefore YOU cannot do anything but whine about "scholars", yet you have not cited one.
quote: The English Egyptologist, Sir Alan Gardiner, arranged the signs into a number of sections in order to aid categorisation. His sign list is fairly complete, and accepted by most Egyptologists.
quote: Gardiner's Sign List is a list of common Egyptian hieroglyphs compiled by Sir Alan Gardiner. It is considered a standard reference in the study of Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Gardiner lists only the most common forms of Egyptian hieroglyphs, but he includes extensive subcategories, and also both vertical and horizontal forms for many hieroglyphs. He includes size-variation forms to aid with the reading of hieroglyphs in running blocks of text. (The Budge Reference has about 1000 hieroglyphs listed in 50 pages, but with no size varieties.)
posted
Doug, Give it up, it is a dead issue. Black land is the definition and you find it everywhere. Who am i supposed to believe...Wally or a phd in Egyptology from Yale? Lets get real here.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Patriot I don't care what you believe. What I am saying is that if you disagree with something that is a linguistic debate then you must present facts and evidence and be able to support your own views and do your own research. Most people repeating that Egypt means black land are not linguists. They are simply regurgitating something that has been passed down from someone else who may or may not be a linguist. Just like anything else, just because you read it in multiple books does not make it correct.
AND, the key issue here, is that it is not EUROPEANS who are the basis of the Egyptian language. What a European writes on this is irrelevant. The ONLY source that is the definitive basis of the Egyptian language is THE SOURCE ITSELF, which means the Egyptian hieroglyphs. There is no other way around it. Therefore, it is meaningless to present some European writers opinions as more important than the SOURCE. Europeans are not ancient Egyptians and they are not the originators or owners of the ancient Egyptian language. The ancient Egyptians are.
The only way to refute or correct a linguistic issue is to study and research the linguistics at hand. You have not done so and therefore by referring to "other authors" who may or may not be linguists, you are basically admitting you have NO INPUT into this debate and NO QUALIFICATION in terms of linguistic research into Egyptian hieroglyphs in order to begin to claim to refute what is being discussed.
And no scholar is above reproach no matter what they write. Just because they write something does not make it correct and it does not mean that they should not be challenged. YOU are not a scholar and YOU do not represent scholars. Scholars represent THEMSELVES and don't need you to be a cheerleader. Everything here is put forward as a CHALLENGE to any scholar who says differently. But YOU aren't a scholar and therefore YOU are irrelevant to this debate. Again, stop trying to pretend to be something you aren't because you DO NOT represent scholarship and you have NO AUTHORITY OR CREDIBILITY to say anything one way or another on any issue on this board.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
no no doug, major scholars in linguistics and egyptology hold this view. I posted a source from yale university on the subject. Top scholars do not even consider your view as a viable alternative.
My contention is from the beginning that you guys are not qualified to make the kind of decisions you are making. ANY COLLEGE WOULD ASK YOU TO DO WHAT I HAVE ASKED.
If you want to make these points you need to gather your evidence from top scholars.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted sources King, you have not. Not a single scholarly source. You have a radical black view that you do not wish to give up but you know the truth. Top schoars do not agree with you.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: Why are people still arguing with Patriot?
Until he "POSTS" what KM.T means and states where in those letters are the words for land, he should just be ignored.
Peace
Mr Patriot the point is that those scholars are incorrect. Kmt, as spelled out above does NOT literally say black land. It says the black nation. What the scholars are trying to say is that the blackness being referred to is the land, not the people so they are trying to paraphrase the LITERAL word into meaning black land. However, that is STILL incorrect. LITERALLY Kmt means black nation. There are many ways that the Egyptians referred to their country and Kmt was the primary one, but when they wanted to refer to land they would USE the sign for land. The sign for land is not in KMT as spelled above. Therefore, it is not LITERALLY translated as anything having to do with land. However, the versions that do involve land include: Ta Mery (the beloved land) and Tawy (the two lands). Scholars have taken all these forms and decided to summarize them all as meaning references to "black land" yet that is still incorrect because KMT does not include the sign for land and does NOT literally mean "black land" or "black soil".
The root of KMT means black and it is not clear that this root is based on soil either. Again, some linguists have tried to pretend that this root somehow originates from observations of Nile silt, but such a derivation is not necessarily accurate. Other scholars say it is a reference to coal or crocodile skin. Needless to say, saying that any reference to black means "black soil" is a ridiculous literal translation. If the Egyptians called something black, they were not literally saying "the black like the nile soil" + thing. They were saying simply the black thing.
And another contradiction here that scholars have not addressed is why the STRONGEST word for black is NOT used in reference to people from the SOUTH of Egypt who these same scholars claim the Egyptians viewed AS BLACK? The reason is that the Egyptians did not refer to people by skin color. And the word black was sacred to the Egyptians, just like the word for gold and therefore never used in reference to non Egyptians who were not considered sacred. Black means black, not soil and the Egyptians viewed black as a sacred color for themselves and not anyone else.
Here is an example of the contradictions and twisted logic used to try and turn KMT into literally "the black land":
quote: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:54:40 -0400 (EDT) To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Ogden Goelet <og1@is3.nyu.edu> Subject: AEL The Meaning of KMT
Dear Listers,
I have an article on the meaning of kmt appearing in Prof. Baruch Levine's Festschrift which should appear this summer(?) or early in the fall.
The word means "the Black Land," refering most likely to the color of the soil in the fertile Nile Valley. In essence the word might be best described as a word of contrast. In all periods, the primary contrast implied is dSrt "the Red Land" or the desert; secondarily (and not very frequently) it is a word used to contrast Egypt with the rest of the world. In this latter sense, it is occasionally found in parallel with tA-mry "the Beloved Land," both terms appearing with the city-sign (O 49) as a determinative. The word tA-mry will sometimes be written with two city-signs, most certainly as a reference to Upper and Lower Egypt.
In all periods, however, when the Egyptians wanted to refer to their country, the preferred terms were simply tA "the Land" or tAwy "the Two Lands." Even (perhaps especially) in royal titularies this is so, kmt rarely appearing in such contexts. Kmt will occasionally be used as the official name for Egypt, as it does, for instance, in the Treaty between R. II and Hattusili III of Hatti. In the Hymns to Sesostris III, kmt is twice followed by a seated man and a seated woman determinative and the plural determinative. In this case it most likely is to be identified as "Egypt" as a collective of peoples. It is contrasted even there with dSrt in a similar manner. I believe there is only one other text in which kmt is used in this sense.
Since the latter sense of the word kmt was so rare, Shakespeare was stretching it a bit when he had Cleopatra saying her last words: "I am dying Egypt . . ." Incidentally, Lyttle, a Union general killed at the Battle of Chickamaugua, was famous, both North and South, for a poem with that title, and news of his death was a cause for mourning on both sides. I would be most grateful for a text of that poem, if anyone out there would know where I could find it.
Kmt was sometimes used in compound expressions such as tA n kmt "the land of Egypt," rmT n kmt "an Egyptian," and r n kmt "the Egyptian language."
The word kmt has an interesting literary usage as a word for the land of the living in the Harper's songs, as in the poignant phrase "No man may tarry in Egypt," viz. everyone eventually comes up to here (the desert burial area where the text is written) when they die. This same usage appears once in the Coptic version of the Apothegma Patrum, showing how persistent the association of kmt with the Nile Valley was.
My article, however, only covers up to the end of the Middle Kingdom, with only some reference to the later periods, a subject which I hope to pursue in another article later on.
Note how the author makes it clear that when the Egyptians wanted to say land, they used the sign referred to as TA, as in Ta Mery. Yet TA is not in KMT at all. Yet the author continues to claim that somehow KMT, without the sign for land means land somehow. And this contradiction is more obvious when he goes on to claim that TA was sometimes used WITH Kmt, which would literally say the land of the black land, which makes absolutely no sense. Yet note how he dodges this obvious contradiction by substituting Egypt for "the black land".
quote: Kmt was sometimes used in compound expressions such as tA n kmt "the land of Egypt," rmT n kmt "an Egyptian," and r n kmt "the Egyptian language."
According to his own words if KMT means "black land" then Ta n Kmt means "the land of the black land", not "the land of Egypt" because the word Egypt did not exist at the time. Therefore this is another example of the illogical ways that they have tried to push a meaning that IS NOT based on true LITERAL linguistic translations.
The point being that the justification for saying that KMT means black land is not based on LITERAL linguistic translations of hieroglyphs it is based on paraphrasing and summarizing and other sorts of round about logic that has nothing to do with LITERAL linguistic translations. I understand why and how they come to their views of the term and because of it I can easily call it out as simply being wrong. You on the other hand have no understanding or knowledge of the issue and therefore cannot pretend to speak to it.
In none of the ways that the Egyptians referred to their country is soil literally referenced. Land is a general reference to a geographic area and Ta Mery or Tawy are simply generic references to the geographic region that was occupied by the nation itself. It did not specifically refer to the Nile soil and it does not mean black soil at all.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, You are wrong because you are making assumptions you do not understand. Instaed of getting into an argument with scholars that know vastly more than you it is best to study their work. History seems easy to people but it is a very very complex and difficult subject. Things are not always what they seem by any means.
Getting on her and telling me over and over it is black people is not going to change the reality. The ACCEPTED definition of Kemet is black land, in opposition to the red land of the desert.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Parroting other peoples opinions like a mantra without questioning is stupidity of the highest order.
You obviously know that you have been defeated and have literally nothing to contribute, you do not know the kemetic language, neither do you bother to study it as the facts therein will(and have) destroyed all Eurocentric nonsense you have been educated(well spoon fed).
Do not blame us for your ignorence and mis education, blame yourself, many eurocentrists eventually turn back to the truth, admit your ignorance first, then you will be educated.
Can you answer this question?
How is 'black cow' written in medu neter? How is 'black cat' written in medu neter?
Try these simple exercises and give me an answer, if you can't, then it is pointless to argue with us and quit the topic.
How do you argue with someone who cannot read or write?
You simply can't, just ignore them.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are all fools chasing Pat's ding-a-ling. The goal is not to convince Pat or keep catering to him as if he's the credential certifier. One thing and one thing only settles this whole issue:
quote: Crust of the bisquit:
primary documentaion exists for KM.t as a community, ethnonym, and as an adjective for body parts
no primary documentation exists connecting the word km.t and any AEL word for land/soil, to my knowledge.
Everything else is nonsense. Until one, just one, shred of valid evidence in the form of contextual primary documentation written by the Ancient Egyptians themselves is shown with km.t affixed to a glyph or word for land is presented then the fact remains there is no expression 'Black Land' in the Pharaonic Egyptian Language, bottom line.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the glyph Ta, Gardiners N16 It means land and appears at the front of words like Ta Meri.
This is the glyph xAst, Gardiners N25 It means land and appears at the end of words like Khurru or Kush.
This is the glyph niwt, Gardiners O49 It means city, town, etc,, and appears at the end of the word KM.t. Note that KM.t can appear with other determinatives not just only with nwt.
The problem enters with our concept of the word land which can mean a parcel of land or a country or nation. The Kmtyw marked the distinction because nwt never means a parcel of land, it always mean a crossroads village town city nation, etc.
Please provide an example from a mdw ntr text where the nwt determinative means soil. What hieroglyphic dictionary gives soil as the meaning of nwt which is a glyph that depicts a crossroads not a field or a desert or some such?
Precisely why cannot mean black land in the sense of a parcel of land which happens to be black in color. Nwt means crossroads, village, town, city, nation. Hence logically means 'Black nation' not 'black piece of land.'
Except in this instance of deliberate obfuscation, please show texts where nwt is translated as 'land' instead of 'crossroads.' The dictionary entry for nwt is village, town, city not land. The dictionary entries for t3 and smt are land.
Further, the codage system classes niwt under O (buildings) not in the N (heaven earth and water) class where t3 and x3st are categorized. Logic dictates that KM.t.nwt cannot mean 'black land' both according to codage class and according to grammar where KM.t in KM.t.nwt is indeed a feminine noun and is not an adjective. The name of a nation is always a noun never an adjective.
Transliteration and translation of the 1st 5 columns of the Book of Gates the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30
Col4: k-m.t{nwt} d-sh-r.t{nwt} AKH [Black community. Red community.
Col5: (+kh){scroll} n t-n{plural} HQA.w{plural} RA [Beatification to ye subjects (of) Ra!
The "four types" -- or better, the "subjects of Ra" -- scene depicts the sun in the 5th night hour with Heru addressing the dead. He verbally divides them into the blacks (Nile Valley folk, i.e., Egyptians and Nehesis) under his protection, and the reds (folk dwelling east or west of the Nile) under Sekhet's protection.
Heru is addressing all four types, first with a general intro to the entire party of the afterlife dead (who died that day) still in their shrouds. He "beatifies" them, reanimates them with "spirit" (breath/wind), and releases them from their shrouds. Then after all that he addresses each group in turn speaking of the origins of their creation and assigning their "patron" deity. First the RT RMTW and then in from sunrise to sunset order the AAMW, NHHSW, and TMHHW .
The NWT ideogram means neither 'people' nor 'land.' This has been explained a few times already and there's a post in the archive with the subject header "KMT NWT" detailing this. The glyph depicts a crossroads indicating a village or city, i.e. a settlement or habitation. thus the use of it to mean 'community' in its broad application for the corpus of the dead. It always appears as the determinative following the name of a city.
Looking at the glyphs themselves tells you what IS simple IS. I am unable to read mdw ntr, I can still follow the post and understand the concept. ...
In any case This Egyptologist [hosted by the University of Cambridge] Dr Ossama Abdel Maguid - The director of the Nubian Museum, Aswan, Egypt, a specialist in the archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and Sudan:
States that the "KEMET" or "Black Land" represents both "Egypt AND Nubia" [0:22] and it is also a description of the "PEOPLE THEMSELVES" [0:53]. This is the first thing he clarifies in this lecture. He sets the record straight in the first 60 seconds of a lecture over 100 minutes.
...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Takruri, How is that pan african army coming? You will not research the experts here because you know the result of that proper effort. Thus, squak all you want. Kemet is black land, that is the standard ay Yale, Memphis etc and nothing you say is going to change that.
Those guys do not even know you exist.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go toy with the fools who seek your acceptance and approval, for I continue to post facts for those willing to learn.
You fear the world seeing actual AEL examples that prove KM.t{nwt} means Black Community so you flood the thread with banalities to hide and bury what frightens you to no end. But you will not succeed. We will block off the first and last posts of each page so that surfers immediately see what you cannot put under.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Betty, If a person does not agree with the top scholars in a field ALL THEY HAVE LEFT is to call them a biased liar. It is the weakest argument under the sun and it is dishonest.
When someone here uaes thjat argument what we have is not JUST a poorly educated person but a flawed character as well.
#1. A person is not entitled to agree with anyone even a supposedly "top scholar."
#2. People don't disagree with others just to call them biased liars. People disagree because their evidence and/or proof contradicts what is 'agreed' upon.
#3. Calling someone a bias liar doesn't denotes dishonesty-- it can well be the truth.
#4. "Top Scholars" are not holy or untouchable and everyone and anyone have the right to question their work, evidence, findings, reasons, purpose, motivation, education, intellect, and what-have-you.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The ACCEPTED definition of Kemet is black land, in opposition to the red land of the desert. [/QB]
What red land of the desert? What the hell made the desert red? What was this desert, red clay? Where is this desert, and is it still red? If not, why? You white people remind me of your fanatic beliefs of red people; pale skin as meaning red skin; white as meaning red; brown as meaning red; fair, which means beautiful, as meaning red. What the hell is up with white people and their fascination with the color red.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The argument is over. Egyptologists do not agree with you, that is enough for me. There is no worse combination than ignorance combined with arrogance. If you cannot post the scholars you shut up.
KEMET means black land, period.
You can't say Egyptologists don't agree with him because there are Egyptologists and historians that do agree of what he is teaching. Eurocentrics and white people aren't the only Egyptologist, and they can't claim a patent to Egyptology history as if only what they say and teaches is correct and should be studied and believed. Though there are patents in secrecy amongst egyptologist, primarily those of prominent institutions and secret societies, no one don't have to agree with them or go along with their coverted brainwashing of humanity. "Egyptologist" certainly have pre-conceived notions.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Betty, I am weary of this argument. Egyptologists of all races agree it is black land. Egyptologists are scholars and are not biased. That idea is complete silly nonsense.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You guys are all fools chasing Pat's ding-a-ling. The goal is not to convince Pat or keep catering to him as if he's the credential certifier. One thing and one thing only settles this whole issue:
quote: Crust of the bisquit:
primary documentaion exists for KM.t as a community, ethnonym, and as an adjective for body parts
no primary documentation exists connecting the word km.t and any AEL word for land/soil, to my knowledge.
Everything else is nonsense. Until one, just one, shred of valid evidence in the form of contextual primary documentation written by the Ancient Egyptians themselves is shown with km.t affixed to a glyph or word for land is presented then the fact remains there is no expression 'Black Land' in the Pharaonic Egyptian Language, bottom line.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, You are wrong because you are making assumptions you do not understand. Instaed of getting into an argument with scholars that know vastly more than you it is best to study their work. History seems easy to people but it is a very very complex and difficult subject. Things are not always what they seem by any means.
Getting on her and telling me over and over it is black people is not going to change the reality. The ACCEPTED definition of Kemet is black land, in opposition to the red land of the desert.
Mr Patriot the point is that I don't care what non ancient Egyptians ACCEPT. Europeans ACCEPTED that the world was flat for a very long time. Just because it is ACCEPTED does not make it correct. Therefore, to prove it is INCORRECT one has to do actual linguistic analysis. And if one wishes to DEBATE the linguistic analysis one must provide the facts and evidence.
YOU are no linguist. YOU have done no research linguistically and YOU are in no position to refute anything posted thus far. Therefore your argument is moot. If you have a disagreement then YOU need to support it with your own research and facts. Otherwise your pathetic whining is meaningless.
And that is all you do is whine because people do not agree with Europeans and their views on everything. NO scholar is above reproach and ALL scholars are and should be challenged on their views. And when challenged those who are challenging need to support their claims with well researched facts and evidence. Likewise the scholar defends their views with their own facts and evidence. This isn't about cheer leading. It is about presenting the facts and evidence for or against a given position which is called a debate. Whining, complaining and cheer leading are simply irrelevant to a debate.
If you want to do cheer leading go try out for the cheer leading squad.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a linguist Doug so I depend on the views of people that are and those people say it is "black land." I am not going to debate you doug, it would be the blind leading the blind. You have to sustain your point by depending on the scholars. You people amaze me. If the scholars agreed with you you would be crowing about it all day but since they do not you back peddle.
It is not a matter of europeans and their views.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You guys are all fools chasing Pat's ding-a-ling. The goal is not to convince Pat or keep catering to him as if he's the credential certifier. One thing and one thing only settles this whole issue:
quote: Crust of the bisquit:
primary documentaion exists for KM.t as a community, ethnonym, and as an adjective for body parts
no primary documentation exists connecting the word km.t and any AEL word for land/soil, to my knowledge.
Everything else is nonsense. Until one, just one, shred of valid evidence in the form of contextual primary documentation written by the Ancient Egyptians themselves is shown with km.t affixed to a glyph or word for land is presented then the fact remains there is no expression 'Black Land' in the Pharaonic Egyptian Language, bottom line.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You dim wits have not demonstrated anything. The appeal to authority is what academic discourse is based on...
Of course we've demonstrated something. How many times do we have to post hieroglyph definitions from Budge's dictionary using Gardiner's standards?? Also appeal to authority is NOT what academic discourse is about! Appeal to authority is the logical fallacy which presumes that not only do those in authority are infallable and without error but also a presumption that they all agree on a certain notion when that is not the case. Academic discourse is simply debating using pure logic supported by a body of evidence. Again one does not necessarily be a scholar to take part in this, yet we as laypeople have demonstrated enough using the works of actual scholars, so your point is null.
quote:...You are not going to research the question because of the answer you would get...
Then how do you think we came up with all these definitions for hieroglyphs and Egyptian words?? You think we made it up?? LOL
quote:This is just a racist feeble attempt to prop up a group of people who were throwing spears at the British in 1867. It is a disgusting display of ignorance from people who should know better...
As usual your accusation of 'racism' is just mere projection of your own problem.
And as far as a group of people throwing spears, this would include the Egyptians themselves...
A black African people who built the earliest and most sophisticated civilization in ancient times long before the 'British' even existed.
Now..
quote:The only consolation is that it is going nowhere.
Nope. YOUR argument is going nowhere and has never been anywhere. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
again djehuti, you are not qualified to make those judgements. Either present the journal articles, the ones that do not exist, or drop the subject. If I have a choice between an Egyptologist from Yale or you the choice is clear. You have no portfolio and simply pigheadedly refuse to follow historiographic procedure. You just sound like a num skull.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I am not a linguist Doug so I depend on the views of people that are and those people say it is "black land." I am not going to debate you doug, it would be the blind leading the blind. You have to sustain your point by depending on the scholars. You people amaze me. If the scholars agreed with you you would be crowing about it all day but since they do not you back peddle.
It is not a matter of europeans and their views.
No Mr Patriot. You sustain an argument in a debate by facts, evidence and logic. Scholars can and should be referenced when they support your argument, but still it is facts, evidence and logic that determine who wins a debate. References can help but they are not going to win over logic, facts and evidence. And common sense says that if you are going to reference a scholar you will reference a scholar who supports your point of view. That is for the opposing side to reference.
Stop trying to interject meaningless innuendo to a fundamental debate of facts, evidence and logic. Nobody needs cheer leaders who do nothing but root for their own "team" but in reality are not part of the "team" to begin with. Which means your views are your own, you are not a representative of any scholars and therefore nothing you say has any merit in terms of defending their views, because YOU cannot defend their views. The ONLY views you can defend are YOUR OWN and nothing else.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: again djehuti, you are not qualified to make those judgements. Either present the journal articles, the ones that do not exist, or drop the subject. If I have a choice between an Egyptologist from Yale or you the choice is clear. You have no portfolio and simply pigheadedly refuse to follow historiographic procedure. You just sound like a num skull.
Mr Patriot as you are not a scholar you cannot pretend to represent the scholarly community. And as such your views are nothing more than your own opinions, whether or not they agree with those of scholars or not.
Scholars represent themselves and don't need you to represent them as you ARE NOT one.
If someone decides to challenge the views of a scholar then it is between the one challenging and the scholar. YOUR VIEWS are irrelevant to this.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
bull **** Doug. I am a scholar, or at least it pays my bills. Now look, cut the crap. Get off your lazy butt and go to the nearest university and ask the first history professor you can find about the historiographic method.
You may be too ignorant to educate. the argument is outlined by showing where the top scholars agree and disagree. Nobody gives a rats ass what you think, you have no portfolio.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You guys are all fools chasing Pat's ding-a-ling. The goal is not to convince Pat or keep catering to him as if he's the credential certifier. One thing and one thing only settles this whole issue:
quote: Crust of the bisquit:
primary documentaion exists for KM.t as a community, ethnonym, and as an adjective for body parts
no primary documentation exists connecting the word km.t and any AEL word for land/soil, to my knowledge.
Everything else is nonsense. Until one, just one, shred of valid evidence in the form of contextual primary documentation written by the Ancient Egyptians themselves is shown with km.t affixed to a glyph or word for land is presented then the fact remains there is no expression 'Black Land' in the Pharaonic Egyptian Language, bottom line.
posted
What I don't understand is that people are still debating Patriot when they should be ignoring him until he shows where in KM.T is the word for land?
People just ignore him until he finally shows where the Land is in KM.T.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: What I don't understand is that people are still debating Patriot when they should be ignoring him until he shows where in KM.T is the word for land?
People just ignore him until he finally shows where the Land is in KM.T.
Peace
OMG king you even stir up and act like a child in here. If he did show you, or if he has, you would still miss it as you're blind Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You dim wits have not demonstrated anything. The appeal to authority is what academic discourse is based on. You are not going to research the question because of the answer you would get. This is just a racist feeble attempt to prop up a group of people who were throwing spears at the British in 1867. It is a disgusting display of ignorance from people who should know better. The only consolation is that it is going nowhere.
This is a lame response to a question that I asked. I see nothing is this post which address the question that I posed. You wrote and I quote:
quote:You dim wits have not demonstrated anything. The appeal to authority is what academic discourse is based on.
I'm really having a hard time with this comment because your basically telling me that the people who run this world TODAY are the authorities on past events, people, places and things. They are only the authorities on modern history (if that). The true authorities of the past would have flared their nostrils at the ignorance that is being display by eurocentric academics.
Modern so-called scholars have rejected the knowledge of their own people (white Europeans) who have described the Egyptians as a black people. The Egyptians called themselves black and their nation black but you base your opinions without facts on modern academics? Why are you here? You have no intentions on debating your cause on a linguistic, anthropological and historical level. My first post to you was general in the sense of asking for legitimate irrefutable proof which states your case. All of the babbling doesn't make a difference and its taking up space which admittedly this post does.
Prove your point or be quite and let the scholars speak. There is a difference between a scholar and a liar, and sense you haven't provided any proof that would back your claim - that makes you and your scholars; liars!!! However, it would be nice if you can make me eat my words and show me some irrefutable proof that 'Kemet' meant 'Black Soil/Land'.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: bull **** Doug. I am a scholar, or at least it pays my bills. Now look, cut the crap. Get off your lazy butt and go to the nearest university and ask the first history professor you can find about the historiographic method.
You may be too ignorant to educate. the argument is outlined by showing where the top scholars agree and disagree. Nobody gives a rats ass what you think, you have no portfolio.
Scholar on what? You have not presented one fact or piece of evidence to contradict anything said in this thread or on this board to date. If you are a scholar we are waiting to see your scholarly knowledge, because you have presented NONE.
IMO you are a phony and a fraud who wastes time talking ABOUT scholarship yet provides NONE.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You realize that we produce scholarly material and evidence every day about African influence on Greece, or does your senile mind still function??!
cannot mean black land in the sense of a 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic