...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
OT: Settling the issues on "Ethio-Sabean" connections, "Habashat", and the related
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yom: [QB] [QUOTE]It belongs in this thread as much as it belongs in the said topic, since you brought it up in the exchanges leading to this thread. Could it be, that you are admitting that your claim that Sabeans didn't have a "genetic" impact, was empty rhetoric?[/QUOTE]No, because if the Sabaeans had such a large genetic impact you would expect to see high levels of "caucasoid" lineages in Yemen and significantly less "caucasoid"-derived lineages in Ethiopia (unless you're proposing a nearly complete population replacement). The situation, however, is that the number of "caucasoid"-derived lineages in both areas are similar (with higher levels in Yemen, of course). See [URL=http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/425161&erFrom=7061571044106393572Guest]here[/URL] for example. Judging from your activities on this site, you seem to know much about genetic lineages, so please enlighten me regarding J lineages and the like. [QUOTE]Rather than rely on cowardly strawmen as a distraction, by relying on "typos" or spelling mistakes and making them out to be something that they are evidently not, how about actually answering the mounting questions you continue to evade?[/QUOTE]"Cowardly strawmen?" Stop insulting me, this is supposed to be a friendly discussion. Do you or do you not want to have a friendly discussion? You can't blame me for thinking that you were insulting Dr. Pankhurst, as "u" is nowhere near "a" on the keyboard. Next time just say that it was a typo and move on; I'll take your word for it. I answered your question, you just chose not to quote it. [QUOTE]...to you perhaps, but the scholars we've quoted, have apparently had access to the said publication, and hence, would take note of anything considered "significant" therein. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, such a "significant" material would have made its way into future publications.[/QUOTE]Yes, to me, of course. Munro-Hay had access to it as evidenced by his citing of the work elsewhere, as you pointed out. [QUOTE]I obviously don't, which is why the burden is on you to provide evidence on the idea that the so-called "Ge'ez" graffiti, is not the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script that every other publication has been talking about, including the most up-to-date ones. Your drivel about Munro-hay, is just a red-herring.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]By George, I think he is slowly but surely getting it.[/QUOTE]Again with the insults. I'm getting tired of your tirades and attempts to distract the issues with these. I answered your question, yet instead of simply quoting the relevant part, you break my response into four sections and attack irrelevant parts. I conceded the point to you, so what's the use in quoting the earlier parts of the [b]same paragraph[/b] as if I was neglecting the point? [QUOTE]This north Arabian vs south Arabian thing, is nothing but a futile distractive antic, that will surely not get you anywhere.[/QUOTE]Did your mother never teach you manners? I meant "north Arabian," so all you have to do is substitute "Arabian" in my comment to "north Arabian." Either way, you haven't provided any "Arabian" predecessor to the north Arabian and ESA scripts. [QUOTE]What is "weird" to you is of no concern to me, but what you can substantiate to the contrary. What do you call the predecessor of South Arabian script then? and Why so? How does that make your 'term' anymore valid than what was given in the link?[/QUOTE]I call it South Semitic, as it is the predecessor of all alphabets used to write South Semitic languages. "Proto-Arabic" is invalid because Proto-south Semitic by definition [b]cannot[/b] be proto-Arabic. Proto-Arabic would be the predecessors of the Arabic script, like Nabatean and Syriac (or perhaps another Aramaic derived alphabet). Forget the semantics, though. You said that you have come across claims of Arabian predecessors to both the north and the south scripts. I doubt their existence, however, but I'm willing to accept them if you can provide some reputable sources. Otherwise, there's still a gap between ESA and Wadi el Hol. [QUOTE]Well, if it is relevant to YOU, then hey, knock yourself out in producing the said info; just know that, it ain't my obligation.[/QUOTE]There's no such thing as obligation in a discussion. Whether or not you want to find out what the situation is what the issue is. You don't seem to, however, since you're not interested in finding the info yourself (and as I noted in the above post, I'm going to post the info, my computer crashed as I was posting it, however). The info is key to the debate, however, as it seems to me that there's no reason in assuming (naming of scripts aside) why ESA need have developed in Yemen only, rather than being a shared innovation from an earlier proto-South Semitic alphabet predecessor, given that ESA has been dated (reliably, as I'll show in my next post), to the same era in Yemen as in Ethiopia/Eritrea. [QUOTE]The burden is on you, to show that "common ancestor", which would NOT be "Ge'ez", and hence, making your aforementioned claim of a "Ge'ez" graffiti bankrupt.[/QUOTE]I never claimed to have evidence of a common ancestor or that such a relationship is certain. I maintain only that the possibility exists. [QUOTE]You keep equating Daniels words about "consonant phonemes" with "interdentals". If the language has changed, then pray tell, what language would that have been, which would have been similar to south Arabian language? It certainly could not have been "Ge'ez" [as Daniels was pointing out], Amharic or any of the Semitic languages written in Amharic. The burden of evidence again, lies squarely on you.[/QUOTE]Okay, if you want to be specific, interdentals and ghayin. The three "s" sounds (s [s], š [ʃ], and ś [ɬ], the latter of which isn't really an s-sound) were maintained in Ge'ez, though s and š merged in the letter šin (representing both sounds, not a loss, however). You accuse me of creating Red Herrings, but what relevance do Amharic or the other Semitic languages have in this debate? Of course those inscriptions weren't in those languages, because they're all derivatives of Ge'ez or one of its dialects or sister languages. The presence of interdentals in itself does not make that language similar to South Arabian ones rather than more similar to Proto-Semitic (and therefore more similar to South Arabian languages due to their closeness to proto-Semitic in this regard). They undoubtedly were similar, though, because of their classification in the South Semitic branch. The language obviously doesn't have a name, and I already provided evidence of its existence twice, if you had been reading what I wrote. I didn't quote the comments of AJ Drewes and Roger Schneider regarding interdentals for nothing. [QUOTE]Civility is a two way street; I am not sure when you'll understand that. I stand by my earlier point, that you didn't understand my post, and hence, "repetitively" misinterpreted it. I am not going to waste my time constantly reiterating the same point in multiple ways. It is clear and concise for the perceptive.[/QUOTE]So you assume. I have been civil up to now, but your arrogance and incivility is incorrigible, it seems. [QUOTE]It has been briefly noted in my citations on Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Did you miss those?[/QUOTE]No, I read them, but you never separate between your views and those of Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Is your interpretation simply that of Munro-Hay? [QUOTE]Aside from your taste in semantics, what bearings does that have on the idea of Sabean "colonists"?[/QUOTE]I just answered that question. [QUOTE]Apparently I've read the said piece, since I posted it. So asking me to read it, is just another distraction.[/QUOTE]It's a manner of speech. "If you read," as in, "note this part." [QUOTE]One of the points of my posting the piece in the first place, was to make you see just how silly your fuss is about the term "colonists", and the other point was to make you see that, the notion of "colonialists", whether as "traders" or "military" personnel, has not been proven, nor disproven.[/QUOTE]It's all speculation, and since it has not been proven (the idea of Sabaean colonists), then you should revert to the inherent assumption, that the kingdom was home-grown. Just as you should assume, without proof otherwise, that Egyptian civilization was home-grown. Ockham's razor in action. [QUOTE]He doesn't have to explain further. It is clear and concise for those who understood the statement.[/QUOTE]Not at all. There are multiple possibilities that he could be proposing. Granted, similar in nature, but different nonetheless. [QUOTE]Nothing therein justifies your claim about the Arabian "Tihama" complex being Ethiopian in origin. They talk about "influences", just as Sabean "influences" are talked about, with regards to the Pre-Aksumite complex. How does this equate to Ethiopian "origins"?[/QUOTE]I cited Martin Richards et al, and this is what they said: "The Afro-Arabian Tihama cultural complex, for which an African origin seems most likely, arose in the mid-2nd millennium." Apparently the 1997 work is different from the Urban complex article (it is cited thus: Fattovich R (1997) The Near East and eastern Africa: their interaction. In: Vogel JO (ed) Encyclopedia of precolonial Africa. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, pp 479–484.) Unless by African, they mean an area other than N Ethiopia/Eritrea, then I stand by my statement. As I said, I am not positing the African origin myself, I'm simply repeating what I have read. I don't know what exactly the other Fattovich article says because I don't have access to it, but it must have something positing an African origin for the paper to say that an "African origin seems most likely." [QUOTE]What or how do you deem or gauge "large" here?[/QUOTE]It's relative, hence the "as large as previously assumed." [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3