...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
OT - Human genes NY times article
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] *sigh* We all know about Winter's agenda to associate language to a 'race' typology. [QUOTE][qb]The evidence is contradictory concerning Indo-European origins. Originally Europeans were proud of the fact that they were nomads. As a symbol of their heritage they made the creation of the wheel and the domestication of the horse as symbols of Indo-European civilization.[/qb][/QUOTE]A big but common mistake is to associate Indo-European speakers with ALL Europeans. All archaeological as well historical evidence shows that the ancestors of the majority of Europeans were NOT originally Indo-European speaking peoples. [QUOTE][qb]In the 19th Century linguist began to "reconstruct" Proto-Indo-European the imagined ancestral language of people speaking these related languages. I say that Proto-Indo-European , like my Paleo-African reseaches is imagined because we have no text supporting the Proto/Paleo-languages we reconstruct. This research suggested that Indo-Europeans may have come from the Black Sea area. The only problem with the linguistic discoveries is that much of the cultural lexical is of unknown origin.[/qb][/QUOTE]You are correct about this. Indo-European speakers but NOT all Europeans. [QUOTE][qb]Renfrew attempted to link the IE people to the early farmers in Anatolia and Europe. This view was rejected because there is no evidence for farming playing a major role in IE civilization. Moreover, if farming terms are limited to geographically neighboring IE languages they suggest that these terms could be either innovations for this group of languages or borrowing from a a former language spoken in the area when the IE speakers arrived.[/qb][/QUOTE]The latter hypothesis seems to be the case. [QUOTE][qb]This conflicted with the popular view that the first IE speakers were Kurgan nomads . And in recent years some researchers have pointed out the fact that the Kurgan people may not have even domesticated the horse.[/qb][/QUOTE]How does it conflict with the Kurgan theory? And if the Kurgans didn't domesticate the horse then who did, Africans?! [b]LOL[/b] [QUOTE][qb]The Anatolia hypothesis had a good fit for Indo-European origin, because of Hittite. Indo-Europeanist claim that Hittite was the first IE language. The Hittite language is called Nesa.[/qb][/QUOTE]Correction. Hittite is the first [i]recorded[/i] IE language, NOT the first of them all. [QUOTE][qb]The only problem with this theory was it was later found that the earliest rulers of the land were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).[/qb][/QUOTE]You are correct about all of this except of the 'Kush' part. Again associating any and every word similar to Kush. [b]LOL[/b] [QUOTE][qb]The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example: English Hattic Egyptian .. Malinke (Mande language) powerful .ur ..wr'great,big' . Fara protect .. $uh . Swh .. solo- head .. tup .. tp . tu 'strike the head' up,upper tufa .tp .dya, tu 'raising ground' to stretch . put . pd . pe, bamba to prosper . falfat -- ..find'ya pour .. duq .. --- . du 'to dispense' child .. pin,pinu --- den Mother .na-a .. -- . Na lord .. sa ..-- .. sa place .. -ka .--- . ka[/qb][/QUOTE]NOPE. [QUOTE][qb]The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'. This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.[/qb][/QUOTE]NOPE. [QUOTE][qb]The Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian. The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers. The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language.Formerly,linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods,chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian. This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers.This theory held high regrads until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around. Hurrian . Sanscrit Mi-it-ra .. Mitra Aru-na Varuna In-da-ra .. Indra[/qb][/QUOTE]Correct except for one thing. These were not Hurrians but [i]Mitanni[/i]. While the majority of Mitanni spoke Urartu which is a language related to Hurrian, the elite apparently spoke Indo-European. [QUOTE][qb]At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl point out that the Hittites never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers. Finally, this review of the theories about IE languages is complicated and on-going.[/qb][/QUOTE]It sure is, but no Africans involved unless you count the spread of Neolithic. [/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