HGL's F.B. writings: décembre 2013

vendredi 27 décembre 2013

Answering LAM

1) Barry Cunliffe's theories and mine (Celts and post-Babel), 2) Etruscans, hlaf-laib-leipä, Gullah, Hungarian Origins, 3) Scythian Debate to my Lithuania Blog, 4) Altaic Chauvinists and Patristic Backup, 5) Atta and Fadar, 6) Thrown Out of Group, 7) Answering LAM, 8) Attacked on Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel Subject Again

"I am an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church and a longtime biblical scholar."

L is a female name, and πρεσβυτεροι are, like επισκοποι and for that matter διακονοι exclusively men. Πρεσβυτερος in the Biblical sense does not translate as "elder" but transcribe as "priest". A Church that started after 1517 and not as a legitimate and pious branch of a previous one (like English as a branch of Roman, through St Augustine's mission to Canterbury) and this leading back to Apostles is no true Church.

A longtime Biblical scholar who has missed all this does not have my full respect.

"There are many things in the Bible that are quite true. Others have preserved true patterns even though the details may have become a bit messed up over time. Many of the texts were transmitted orally before they were written down."

Well, that is blatant heresy. At least if by "may have been messed up" you mean "were probably messed up". Trentine Council and Pope Leo XIII clearly state that God is author of all the Bible. All the 72/73 books (depending if you count Baruch as a separate one or as appendix to Jeremiah).

"The Old Testament was edited at Alexandria, and changes were made so that the texts supported a monotheistic religion."

I heard such things at age 13, though back then it was Ezra in Babylon who was to have been responsible for such edits. I did not believe that theory then, do not believe it now. Reconstruction is not history. Tradition at least purports to be so.

"The oldest part of the New Testament that we have are Paul's letters."

No, once again, the oldest part is Gospel of St Matthew.

"There was no scribe (or tribe of scribes, given the geographic territory that had to be covered) following everyone around and writing things out longhand."

Not EVERYONE no. But probably either the Hebrews and predecessors beyond Noah even before Moses and at least from Moses on had such, or otherwise the relevant pieces of Genesis were learnt by heart before someone was entrusted to count as accredited transmitter of the story. Until Moses invented the alphabet and took it down.

Also, there is a double meaning in scribe. Someone writing down things for future memory is one thing, someone delegated to write down specific types of juridic acts, as the Levites so employed were, is another.

St Matthew had the training of a Levite. Adam, whether he knew writing or not, was his own scribe as is any pioneer. If two Europeans get into the wilderness and carry a book of white paper and a pen with them, or a set of pencils, it is they who are the "scribes" for that journey, because they are the only ones who write in English, Spanish, French or whatever their language, or even Russian if you go to Siberia or Alaska instead of most of Americas.

My position about Adam was not that Moses had appointed him to write his story for the benefit of Israel, it is that he was the first man as far as his story was concerned and he was never contradicted by subsequent events. Never was any man or woman found who could not be traced back to him, up to Noah. And after the Flood, never was any man found who could not in at least some degree of probability be supposed to have descended from Noah. For the close range, a set of peoples is very clearly identified. For longer range, like China or Americas, or many peoples of Europe that differ, we must suppose that peoples both split up and coalesced.

Any argument about Americas indigenous population having no chance of getting there from Mount Ararat is contradicted by both Straits of Bering and voyages of Thor Heyerdahl.

Your security about Indo-European Urheimat and Ursprache theories being correct - and you state the Wellentheorie version of them very well - forgets that there were no scribes among them, if you were right, to take note of all this.

"I know the argument about God making sure everything was transmitted without error, but that does not explain why there are two creation stories in Genesis."

Story one is a panorama, story two goes into detail for the most important event in story one. And story two includes what Adam could know autobiographically, whereas story one goes back beyond that, including what had been divinely revealed either to Adam or later to Moses, or even to both.

"It doesn't explain why there is a good, old-fashioned IE storm god scripting things in the Old Testament and a Triune God in the New Testament."

Ah no, the God of the Old Testament is not Teshub. It is the Triune God. First hint in Genesis: "God said to each other let us make man in our image".

This had been maltreated by misbelieving Jews afterwards who have given Talmudic explanations to this and other instances that are erroneous.

"It does not explain why we have variant texts floating around that do not agree with the 'official' version, nor why there are disagreements within the 'official' version, nor why archaeology and historical sources sometimes support the text and sometimes do not."

First of all, the Bible itself is our most important historical sources. Other ones by other peoples are if not totally without benefit at least tainted by idolatry.

Some things in the story of the Bible it would be very hard for them to stomach and admit. But familiarity with Biblical events shines through at unlikely places.

Agamemnon hoped to obtain a sun miracle like Joshua's. Meaning he did not attribute the odd behaviour of the sun to Helios being angry for what his father did to Thyestes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St John's Feast
27-XII-2013

Thrown Out of Group

HGL: For newcomers to this debate, I might mention I have been recording it on my blog. In order not to expose anyone as the person he is, all have had their names abbreviated, but anyone wishing so can get his name out in full. Here is the blog:

HGL's F.B. writings
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com
STh: Oh dear, I am originally from Finland, it is really far away from any types of lush paradises. Though some people, who go to visit Finland, say that it is like one. I hate religions, all of them. Gods, goddesses, spirits not, if someone can first give a factual prove of them. Old books and notes are not accepted. Neither uttered words around the matter. Believing belongs into persons' heads and never, ever uttered to other people. Any kind of believing into whatever is a silent personal matter. I have a good friend who give reiki to cats and gets paid for it. That is her choice to believe. She is never tried to convince me. Over which I utterly grateful. I hate it when people are trying to push on me their believes and do not respect my way of thinking.
HGL: I am from Sweden, that mentality is part of what I fled from to a Catholic country, like France.
JC: Parthian shot...
IC: [page that seems to be an English-Gothic lexicon]
http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/letters.htm

In here Father=Atta, Fadar and Dad, Daddy= Attila.

Atta, once again, look closer to fadar than to otec,otats. I always since first time I saw it thought it was clear. Atya is of course very similar, but I think hungarians got it from gothian. What is "abba", never heard of it?

Like I before stated, the Indoeuropeans have some markers and of course some of our heritage, genetical and culture. So it is not just language. This elite might be a minimum of 2,5-3% but sure not less. Then they would not grab the power. Once again I have to defend the indoeuropean honour.

Nothing in Bible says that God not created other humans than Adam and Eve. Also nothing there says that Kain and Seth married their sisters. My only logical conclusion would be that God created more humans, to avoid incest and degeneration.
LAM: Wow. Step out to the grocery store, and . . . Hans-Georg Lundahl, I'm not quite sure where to begin. This thread became amazingly tangled while I was out. Etymology is a nightmare. The best plan when you are trying to track the movement of people is simply to forget about it. If you have it, wonderful. Icing on the proverbial cake. If you don't, archaeology, history, culture and all that other stuff make a very strong case for who went where and when. Grabbing what we know from all of those other disciplines, Proto-Indo-Europeans probably developed in the steppes north of the Caucasus Mountains. They developed into the Indo-Europeans, and everyone spread out like a equally proverbial flood into a bunch of populations that were not IE and were already there. The IE populations tended to slot in at the level of the nobility, and that leaves an enormous number of non-IE peoples who wind up speaking IE languages, telling IE stories, living in IE cultures (that they tended to scramble with their own because they were already doing something quite fine before the IE guys came in), and so forth. Then the IE cultures start bouncing around the landscape like multiple balls released in a bonus round on a pinball machine. IE culture transmits to IE fairly easily, but it can also transmit to non-IE if the conditions are correct. All you need is a good storyteller and technology that someone else wants. The technology transmits and at least part of the time so do the stories about how it developed, what god created it, where the idea came from, where the materials came from, whatever. Same works for hygiene, etc. People repeat the stories to explain whatever needs explaining, and suddenly you have a God or an entire set of gods or something else where s/he/it/they doesn't/don't belong because someone did not realize that the technology/rules/whatever did not need the story in order to work. What worked for technology worked for people, too: "I get to rule over you because of thus and such tale." The transmission is not always IE to IE or IE-to non-IE. "The Kingship in Heaven" is a Hittite story that bounces around the Mediterranean with no regard to culture. A good number of the stories floating around the region are simply people trying to figure out which way is north. If one tale works better than another, great; let's use that one. Trying to remember that a mountain is a volcano? Tell another story--only make sure you have that good storyteller handy. (The Romans messed that one up with Vesuvius, and look what happened. Oh, and the super-volcano at Vesuvius has been advanced as the likely culprit for what made those pesky Neanderthals go away. The Bible? That's a whole different sort of headache that probably belongs on another list, but I'll give it a go if anyone really wants to hear it.

[A very well formulated résumé of the standard theory. I did not need it, I already knew it, but maybe some of my readers do. Besides it was even very pleasantly put.]
HGL (answering IC): No, IC, you never heard of abba, and then there are parts of the Bible you did not read. Abba is an Aramaic word which means "daddy". And if Atta always translates "father" and Fadar the one passage where abba is used, it is fadar which means daddy and the lexicon you linked to is erroneous. I am not saying they took no pains to try to get it right, but this they overlooked.

And how "atta" starting with a vowel can look closer to "fadar" starting with f than to otats also starting with a vowel (but adding -ts at the end)? Explain, please ...

"Like I before stated, the Indoeuropeans have some markers and of course some of our heritage, genetical and culture."

Reconstruction is not history. Genetical markers reveal ancestry, but not whether Kurgan people spoke Indo-European or some other language.

"Nothing in Bible says that God not created other humans than Adam and Eve."

If they were created at same time, why were they not in Eden with them? If they were created earlier, how was there time for it, since the world is six days older than Adam? If later, after the fall ...

a) were the new created men and women fallen though not descended from the fallen Adam?

or

b) were they unfallen, but we descending from them as well as from Adam are still fallen as if Adam was stronger in his fall than they in their uprightness?

You see how that rules out Seth and Cain marrying anything further away than a sister or a niece.

"My only logical conclusion would be that God created more humans, to avoid incest and degeneration."

Incest as in crime was not yet there, since marrying a sister was not yet forbidden. Between father and daughter or mother and son, it would even then have been incest and did not happen. But not yet so between siblings.

As for degeneration, it is not a natural result of marrying close relatives as such each time. It is bringing out recessive genes which is so. And these would not yet have been including sickly genes. So degeneration would not have happened back then.
HGL (answering LAM): "The best plan when you are trying to track the movement of people is simply to forget about it. If you have it, wonderful. Icing on the proverbial cake. If you don't, archaeology, history, culture and all that other stuff make a very strong case for who went where and when."

I totally agree that history, i e written or oral record about past events does so. That is why I do believe for instance that Cain went East of Eden or that Abraham went from Ur to the land of Canaan but made a stay in a certain city between the two (Haram?) Archaeology does show not so much where someone went to as where someone was when he died.

Linguistic and similar evidence points in different directions all at once. Common ancestors conquering most of Europe plus parts of Asia reaching to India by migration is just one of the possible explanations. As I have been pointing out.

"Then the IE cultures start bouncing around the landscape like multiple balls released in a bonus round on a pinball machine. IE culture transmits to IE fairly easily, but it can also transmit to non-IE if the conditions are correct. All you need is a good storyteller and technology that someone else wants."

My point is that in certain regions of the world, a lingua franca would be one of the things people want. Whether it starts out as a natural language or as a construction of Esperanto type. Cunliffe says the latter was the case over the Celtic area. I say it was at one time the case over the Celtic area, possibly, but certainly over the earliest Indo-European area.

"A good number of the stories floating around the region are simply people trying to figure out which way is north. If one tale works better than another, great; let's use that one."

There are of course stories which deal with persons after death or perhaps even before conception, and similarily creation stories and theogonies (appropriately enough to mention that the true gonia of the true theos in Bethlehem also included a shepherd or two, but angels were more courteous to them than muses to Hesiod).

There are also stories that involve humans involved in clear genealogies.

The latter ones are of course "mythoi" in the sense of "stories", but they are hardly mythical in the more pregnant sense.
IC: No Hans-Georg Lundahl, you made the wrong conclusion again. I have read the whole Bible. However you might have heard of the english word "forget", the meaning in swedish is "glömma". I hope you recognise it.

Well for "Atta", it sounds much closer to Fadar than to otats. Fadar could after time change into atta. Of course a language can keep bouth forms. Otats sounds differently from them. The word "Atir" is clearly a konsonant drop of P or F, just like in old nors from wulf to ulf. I think my dictionary is just good enough, althoug it not agrees with you Hans-Georg Lundahl. Also incest really makes degeneration, no matter what. Other humans was created later than Adam and Eve, acording to this. That is uninteresting teological details you talk about. Of cours they were fallen, than humans are not perfect in a devine view, they are fallen. When and how is not relevant. The "Adamite" bloodline is the choosen one I presume, therefore in Eden and so. Yes of course Kain and Seth should married others than their sisters, it really should be the first choice. No matter what. Incest is always incest, it really does not matter teological and philosofical word-twisting.

Yes like the genetics shows, all of Europe and the Europid-Indians had a common heritage. Also there are the indoeuropean markers of R1a and R1b, I would not post that link again that I have posted in this thread before. So yes bouth overall Europeid heritage and indoeuropean heritage are a genetic facts. So the kurgan-theory and other similar/liknande theories , have support from genetics, archeology, myths and many lingvistic theories. So you Hans-Georg Lundahl unite with heritage-deniers, or are that yourself. And that I always will defend my heritage against.

If your idea of siblings-marriages really is or will be the common Biblical-Christian view. It would be a catastroph. The thing who will happend is Christianity to fall, or at least the Bible. So actualy it is me who defends Christianity and not you.
HGL: "Well for 'Atta', it sounds much closer to Fadar than to otats"

No.

"Fadar could after time change into atta."

And Atya could change to Atta in one step.

Either form could change into one of the Slavic forms by the one step of darkening first vowel and the other step of adding -ts.

"Also incest really makes degeneration, no matter what."

You have no understanding of genetics if you think that.

"Other humans was created later than Adam and Eve, acording to this ..."

I am listening ...

"Of cours they were fallen, than humans are not perfect in a devine view, they are fallen."

Adam and Eve were not until they fell. That is the point. Nor were Jesus and Mary, ever.

"When and how is not relevant. The 'Adamite' bloodline is the choosen one I presume, therefore in Eden and so."

Are you saying other bloodlines were created fallen to match it?

"Yes of course Kain and Seth should married others than their sisters, it really should be the first choice."

Even if it was not there to choose?

"Incest is always incest, it really does not matter teological and philosofical word-twisting."

It is not wordtwisting to say that in that generation marrying a sibling was not incest. It is on the contrary a Theological necessity.

"So yes bouth overall Europeid heritage and indoeuropean heritage are a genetic facts."

Indoeuropean heritage is a cultural and linguistic fact. Not a genetic one. It can match or not match a particular bloodline for its origin.

And since blood samples were not made and if the earliest language was not written down of the IE ones, there is no way we could know whether they do or not.

"And that I always will defend my heritage against."

My heritage is Christianity. Yours is, while mine partly includes 19th C. academia.

"It would be a catastroph. The thing who will happend is Christianity to fall, or at least the Bible." Absolutely not. It is like a racist saying we must have developed from other humanoids than negroes did and anyone defending a common heritage for both from Adam through Noah is toppling the Bible over, it simply MUST mean something else. Just because he dare not defend that himself before his racist friends.

The Bible calls such a fear of what other men might think "human respect" and condemns it.

[In French the sin is called "respect humain" but in German "Menschenfurcht", in Swedish "menniskofruktan", perhaps the English is rather "fear of men".]

Oh, the English word for Swedish "katastrof" is not "catastroph" but "catastrophe" and you pronounce the final -e like ee.

By the way, you have still not shown me a Church Father saying God created other, fallen, humans, so Kain and Seth and their sisters and brothers could marry non-siblings. Does your bishop not know of any relevant quote (I posted links to Patristic resources above) or does he simply still not know about this discussion?

Oh, the usual English spelling for Abel's Big Brother is Cain, btw.

And "fornorska" is Old Norse, with an -e which is silent.

But since you IC dare not confront this question with Church Fathers, I will:

"As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion. For it is very reasonable and just that men, among whom concord is honorable and useful, should be bound together by various relationships; and one man should not himself sustain many relationships, but that the various relationships should be distributed among several, and should thus serve to bind together the greatest number in the same social interests. "Father" and "father-in-law" are the names of two relationships. When, therefore, a man has one person for his father, another for his father-in-law, friendship extends itself to a larger number. But Adam in his single person was obliged to hold both relations to his sons and daughters, for brothers and sisters were united in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother and mother-in-law to her children of both sexes; while, had there been two women, one the mother, the other the mother-in-law, the family affection would have had a wider field. Then the sister herself by becoming a wife sustained in her single person two relationships, which, had they been distributed among individuals, one being sister, and another being wife, the family tie would have embraced a greater number of persons. But there was then no material for effecting this, since there were no human beings but the brothers and sisters born of those two first parents. Therefore, when an abundant population made it possible, men ought to choose for wives women who were not already their sisters; for not only would there then be no necessity for marrying sisters, but, were it done, it would be most abominable. For if the grandchildren of the first pair, being now able to choose their cousins for wives, married their sisters, then it would no longer be only two but three relationships that were held by one man, while each of these relationships ought to have been held by a separate individual, so as to bind together by family affection a larger number. For one man would in that case be both father, and father-in-law, and uncle to his own children (brother and sister now man and wife); and his wife would be mother, aunt, and mother-in-law to them; and they themselves would be not only brother and sister, and man and wife, but cousins also, being the children of brother and sister. Now, all these relationships, which combined three men into one, would have embraced nine persons had each relationship been held by one individual, so that a man had one person for his sister, another his wife, another his cousin, another his father, another his uncle, another his father-in-law, another his mother, another his aunt, another his mother-in-law; and thus the social bond would not have been tightened to bind a few, but loosened to embrace a larger number of relations."

City of God, St Augustine, Book XV, Chapter 16, I cited the first third of the chapter.

New Advent : Church Fathers : The City of God (Book XV)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm
LAM: Whoa! Hans-Georg, calm down. I am an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church and a longtime biblical scholar. There are many things in the Bible that are quite true. Others have preserved true patterns even though the details may have become a bit messed up over time. Many of the texts were transmitted orally before they were written down. We are dealing with Hebrew, Greek, Latin . . . probably Aramaic and who knows what else. The Old Testament was edited at Alexandria, and changes were made so that the texts supported a monotheistic religion. The oldest part of the New Testament that we have are Paul's letters. There was no scribe (or tribe of scribes, given the geographic territory that had to be covered) following everyone around and writing things out longhand. I know the argument about God making sure everything was transmitted without error, but that does not explain why there are two creation stories in Genesis. It doesn't explain why there is a good, old-fashioned IE storm god scripting things in the Old Testament and a Triune God in the New Testament. It does not explain why we have variant texts floating around that do not agree with the "official" version, nor why there are disagreements within the "official" version, nor why archaeology and historical sources sometimes support the text and sometimes do not. All that stuff, though, seems to me as if it is a discussion for another list, since we are theoretically talking about IE cultures here. Or, if you prefer, I would be happy to discuss them with you off list through messages or at either shashtah@gmail.com or Legend@malcor.com.

[I ignored most of this since more interested in STh and a few more. See separate post.]
STh: LAM, I really like your professional attitude and approach to the matter. Have a happy Christmas!
DB: [unfunctioning link?]
HS: so here is the image you linked to (since it doesn't come up) but it is from this page. And to the moderator--could you clean up this group? I didn't sign on here to spend my time reading extremely low level arguments from religious zealots.

HS’s photo.
HT: I think you will notice that somebody has been arguing with himself for the best part of the last week. Just let it carry on. He'll pop a gasket soon.

[Does she take me and IC for the same person or does she think when I make first one comment, then another, then yet another that only the first was in answer to someone else ?]
IC: I noticed already then I was 13 years old that Fadar and Atta, and other teuton-germanic words for father had the same melody. But that have not otatc and other slavic words. Yes of course Atya and Atta are similar. Hungarian got it from gothian. It seems to me you not at all understands genetics Hans-Georg Lundahl, because even ordinary farmers know they have to exange the bull rather often to get healthy off-spring.

Other humans must have been created to avoid degeneration and deprevation. The Adamite bloodline must been chosen, because the Bible follow them. Yes Kain(like that spelling) and Seth should not married their sisters, and did not have to because of other ladies existed. And all humans are sinners, in the meaning we are not devine and therefore not perfect. Acording to Christianity Christ is all God and all human. About virgin Mary I do not know the teology about it, but accept she is "syndfri". [=Free from sin]

Aperently S:t Augustine was a pervert. The only thing you would win if you manage to convince me you are right in your view of the Bible is my rejektion of the Bible. Interesting you talk about racism. Do you know it is an invented word. Invented by marxists and bolsheviks. Very interesting indeed.

Yes there are an indoeuropean genetic heritage. The original IEs had dominating y-haplogroup R1. For Swedes, and that includes you, if you not have mix ethnos with some other norse-folks. But they have similar heritage. Swedes have 65-70% of their heritage from none-indoeuropean northeuropeans, also we have 25-30% heritage from indoeuropeans, the rest we have from other none-indoeuropeans and asians(0-1%). So you see there is really a indoeuropean genetic heritage. Than of course from the beginning it was much less, an elité, who made success for its off-spring. From beginning they were at least 2,5-3% of population, but probobly some more.

Yes of course I avoid to talk about the Church Fathers, because I have no knowledge about it. I do not talk about things I do not know. The issue about Christian Anthropology was not about other humans created by God. It was about blending with humanoids. No I have not contacted The Bishop who told me about Christian Anthropology. Like I said maybe I will disturb him about a simple facebook-discussion, and maybe not. Sure i first must find out a polite way to do it. I have no doubt that that version about Christian Anthropology is the right version for it. Than of course to believe Christian Anthropology, some of it or all, or not, is another thing. Like I first stated some of it makes other anthropology look like kindergarten. Myself was rather surprised than I first heard of it.

I see that I forgot the word probobly before marxists and bolsheviks. But the rest is true, it is an invented propaganda word.
HGL: "even ordinary farmers know they have to exange the bull rather often to get healthy off-spring."

Yes, but that was not at all the first bull [or bulls] that God created in day six. We speak of bulls that have accumulated genetic misinformations by mutations for millennia. Remember that back then these had not yet arisen.

Once you have bad mutations, it is good to have them in only one of the chromosomes, so avoid mating between close relatives in order to avoid getting offspring which have same mutation in both chromosomes.

"Other humans must have been created to avoid degeneration and deprevation."

Degeneration in genetic sense was not yet a risk, as I explained. Depravation would, as St Augustine explained, have been if generations after that had continued to marry siblings while cousins were already available.

"The Adamite bloodline must been chosen, because the Bible follow them."

It was even so chosen that there were no others of human creatures.

"And all humans are sinners, in the meaning we are not devine and therefore not perfect."

That is not exactly what the Fall of Adam meant, no. He was unfallen when created and later fallen. But he was never God.

"Aperently S:t Augustine was a pervert."

That is not the language of a Christian. A Rightbelieving Christian must neither criticise the acts nor the words of either Our Lord or His friends who are all saints recognised by the Church.

"The only thing you would win if you manage to convince me you are right in your view of the Bible is my rejektion of the Bible."

That is not the language of a Christian either. We confess of the Holy Ghost "qui locutus est per prophetas" and if Moses was not original author of all Genesis, he was at least final redactor.

"Interesting you talk about racism. Do you know it is an invented word. Invented by marxists and bolsheviks. Very interesting indeed."

Not quite true. French monarchists used the word before that in the meaning "national romantic" ... i e conscious of one's race (old sense in French and English as when you can talk of "race of the Merovingians" or "race of the Ynglings" = Swedish "ätt"). And for what is now called racism another word was earlier used by non-Marxists. Chesterton called them "racialists".

It is as said a racialist error to deny that black and white both descend from Adam through Noah. And if someone were to tell me "you would only make me reject the Bible if you convinvced me it meant that", I would say he was racialist to an anti-Christian level.

But it is true that Marxists ignoring the word Chesterton used, namely racialism, and ignoring the sense Maurras gave racism (Swedish "nationalromantik" to "hembygdsromanik" to "familjemedvetande") used the word of the one for the sense of the other. And it stuck.

"Yes there are an indoeuropean genetic heritage. The original IEs had dominating y-haplogroup R1."

You can possibly prove the Kurgan population had that. And that most people speaking Indo-European languages in Europe, BUT ALSO HUNGARIANS, have that. You cannot prove this means the Kurgan population spoke an Indo-European language. As I have said over and over again.

"Yes of course I avoid to talk about the Church Fathers, because I have no knowledge about it. I do not talk about things I do not know."

You did just now by rejecting the words of the Church Father St Augustine.

"The issue about Christian Anthropology ... was about blending with humanoids."

How would this not be a case of God creating other humans? Unless you mean the Nephelim, engendered according to some in defiance of God by angels taking a humanoid appearance to impregnate daughters of men, in which case we talk of the origin of monsters, not of the origin of large human post-Flood populations. And in that case it was not to avoid sibling marriage, it was something far worse, since it was angelic beings raping minds before bodies of human women.

If that is the true sense of Genesis 6 - Book of Henoch says it is, St Augustine thought it might have been tampered with, but Ethiopian Christians accept it even as canonic - the punishment was those angels falling for human feminine beauty were very severly punished, in the abyss, and not just any place in Hell.

But if you do not mean that, you have indeed no basis in Christian Anthropology for saying humans mated with other humanoids.

As said, when I believed it myself was when I had to defend Genesis on my own after being a fan of Tolkien and CSL, and without yet having read St Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine.

The polite way to approach your bishop might be to tell him a Catholic told you you had suffered or were close to suffering shipwreck in the faith and what does he think of it. Do not forget to hand him the link with my transcript in detail of the discussion, please!
LAM: Pace! It really is possible to hold beliefs based on faith and carry on a civil discussion based on scientific evidence at the same time. Many of the learned Ancients (Church Fathers and otherwise) proved that. People don't sit still; they move. There are homelands, grazing lands, trade routes, military movements, and all sorts of other things. Who, where, what, when, how . . . those are the basic questions. No one is going to change anyone's deeply-held, personal religious beliefs one way or the other on a discussion list.
JC: Go eat a cookie!

[JC links to shrinks]

VULTURE

[I am here omitting low life vulgarities against St Thomas Aquinas and his credibility]

Kenneth Rexroth
LAM: St. Augustine also wrote that the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically, not literally. Please. I am more than happy to discuss all of this offlist at shashtah@gmail.com or Legend@malcor.com or on a Biblical list of your choosing. But this list is supposed to be about Ancient IE cultures.
JC: The new found celtic kingdom...

[Links to a picture of the Vatican, which is not Celtic.]
IC: Well Hans-Georg Lundahl, I will not discuss this more. We have discussed all aspects of it several times. I will let you know the answer from the Bishop, if I will get any. To be honest, I do not care at all if i get it or no. It really does not matter for me. I just now remember that acording to the apostolic succesion, none-priests are not allowd to discuss teological questions. I think it would have been much better if we did not.
After which I answer all three in turn:
HGL: LAM, "No one is going to change anyone's deeply-held, personal religious beliefs one way or the other on a discussion list."

I have changed convictions (about Vatican II and about Novus Ordo) in a very brief discussion.

"St. Augustine also wrote that the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically, not literally."

I gave my reference to an online source, you give yours.

This is very opposed to what I know about his view of the Bible. It goes rather "Origen interpret after allegory but rejected the letter, saying Noah's Ark means the Church outside which there is no salvation without stating he believed the actual flood. Such and such other ones [I have forgotten which, but it was Syrian school] reject the letter but hold fast that the Flood occurred. A Catholic should hold fast both the literal and the allegorical meaning."

If you want I can search that reference for you. What you stated about him is to my best knowledge a factoid.
HGL: IC, I would like a reference to this statement of yours: "I just now remember that acording to the apostolic succesion, none-priests are not allowd to discuss teological questions."

As far as I know that is not true. There are things only priests can do and laymen cannot, such as read gospel in Holy Mass (which also deacons can) or absolve or consecrate (which deacons cannot) and above that bishops can ordain priests, who cannot ordain each other.

But as to theology, laymen are certainly not judges, the bishops are their judges, but that has to my best knowledge (at least in most Christian countries) not implied any total forbidding of theology among non-priests. I was precisely therefore eager you should submit your part of the discussion to your bishop.

Moreover, these things are to me not theological QUESTIONS, but a defense of very basic ORTHODOXY.
HGL: JC, concluding from your poem on St Thomas Aquinas I resist the temptation to say you should see a shrink, noone should basically, but rather say you get your info from Masonic Lodges. In other words, when it is about Catholicism it is disinformation.
JC: Caro Hans, nenhum dos Britânicos fez qualquer reparo à minha correção gramática quando escrevo em Inglês, mas você, que nem é Britânico, é Sueco, fê-lo. Como tal, se quer debater comigo vai ter que aprender Língua Portuguesa, mas desde já o advirto que não perco tempo com bufões e a sua teologia Reader's Digest dá-me sono. Não por acaso, a minha formação universitária é em filosofia e teologia e posso garantir-lhe que conheço alunos teologica e filosoficamente mais informados, mais razoáveis e imensamente mais saudáveis, na sua fé ou na ausência dela. E peço desculpa de o ter confundido por tolo, o seu caso é mais severo...

Kenneth Rexroth's Life
by Caren Irr
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/rexroth/rexroth_life.htm
HGL: I have complained of the orthography of Ingmar Castell, and about the INFORMATION by Jesus Carlos, but if anyone can tell me where I complained about Jesus Carlos' Orthography, I would be moito obrigado. Disculpa-me, o minho portugués nao es ao niveu do minho Castelhano, tampouco os dos nao sao ao niveu do minho Francés. And giving the life of Rexroth does not make him a very good source about St Thomas Aquinas.

If you meant I had missed the fact that the poem was by Rexroth rather than you, I did not mean "your poem" as "your poem", I meant "your poem" as "the poem you gave as an answer".

"After his expulsion from high school, he educated himself in literary salons, nightclubs, lecture halls, and hobo camps while working as a wrestler, soda jerk, clerk, and reporter. In 1923-1924 he served a prison term for partial ownership of a brothel."

Seems he had occasion enough to get misinformed about certain things.
JC: quotes two debates :
Quote 1 :
HGL: Sure it was DHL? Chesterton said something similar, however he was antiimperialist enough to think about England (willing to defend even Offa's dyke against the Welsh).
JC: I'm sure.
HGL: If the word was British, I am sure you are right on that one.
JC: I must be...
Quote 2 :
JC: Tell me then what in christmas is part of the judeo-christian theology, if you please...
HGL: Birth of Our Saviour, of God made Man. I do however distinguish "Judeo-Protestant" from Catholic. This is only shared by the more conservative Protestant parts of the Judeo-Protestant culture. Liberal Protestants sow doubts, Jews reject.
JC: I've ask You reason and science, not praying... Again: Tell me what in christmas is part of the judeo-christian theology.
HGL: Sorry, your comment is not even grammatically reasonable ... and I have already answered what you ask me "again".
JC (resuming after the quotes): Você não passa de um palerma.
LAM: Hans-Georg, please. Stop bouncing up and down. I'm happy to hold a private discussion with you if you wish, since this is off topic for this list. Or invite me to another list where this discussion is on topic, and I will be happy to discuss such things with you there. The references to St. Augustine that you requested are Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408] and 2:9.

[Neither of the passages states that Bible must be read all metaphorically and not literally, first passage indeed states explicitly that sacred authors can have had several senses in mind, as long as none of the proposed ones is against any certain knowledge of science. It also warns against false science.

Second passage insists that if the Bible once compares the Heaven to a vault and once to a skin spread out, first there is an allegorical sense in which there is very obviously no contradiction at all, but second there is no contradiction even in literal sense, since a vault can well be the side of Heaven above anyone's view, without denying a continued curve below, while a skin can be spread out not just flat but also in curved fashion - like a skin bottle.]
IC: Mr Hans-Georg Lundahl has left. Enough is enough.
WPF: I like lots of activity but I am getting tired of seeing this Blamire fellow's photo. 405 comments on one post must be a FB world record.
IC: Yes it probobly is.
JC: Madhouse: The End.
SCW: To those that think science has all the answers and that everything in the Bible is bullshit. Let's have a look at what science has been debunked. The Out of Africa theory is touted by most scientists. That's just a start. I could write a novel about the "bullshit" of science!!

It looks like this is becoming an atheist/pagan group and Christians will be burned..HA

samedi 21 décembre 2013

Atta and Fadar

IC

Fadar/Fathar turns Atta, just by two letters go away/försvinner and a sound change in middle. In gothian/guthans all Fadar/Fathar and Atta are use for Father. Yes I know: "Atta unsar dhu in himinam...."

I do not think that I contact him for a simple facebook-discussion. It is not in my map. He is not either part of the group. Well if, just if, I remeber to bring it up , I might ask him about it.

Where in Bible it is written that; Kain, Abel and Set married there sisters? I can not find it. Also, where in Bible is written that God not created more humans after Adam and Eve?

DB

Fascinating subject. I have his most recent work on my wishlist.

HGL

It is written that God created Adam and, from his rib, Eve. It is written that God created Adam on the sixth day after creating the Light we see on earth. It is written that Cain and Seth had children. It is also written that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. What would you normally conclude from that?

As for not contacting your bishop for "a simple FB discussion", it has gone on for quite a while and touched Holy Doctrine more than once. I thought he might know better than you what Church Father had taught (in the Christian Anthropology) that humans had married "other hominids" or that that is he reason for there being other races those close to Middle East/Mediterranian. So I am offering him a chance to substantiate that by pointing to a definite quote from a Church Father, preferrably on at least one of the links I gave.

And if the problem is simply that it is troublesome to write it out, I have transcribed it to my blog, basically word for word, deleting nothing except small and early comments about Cunliffe and his book that were not arguing but praising.

And the blog where I transcribed our discussion in so far four parts is here:

[linking back to part 1, as you read this, this is the fifth part, added after the four]

The link is to part one, and each post links to all four of them. I think that link may be easy enough to forward to your bishop, unless you know yourself exactly which one of the Church Fathers said something about "other hominids".

IC

About Adam & Eve, Kain, Abel, Seth: My conclusion from all that would be that God created other humans later than Adam and Eve, also that Kain and Seth not married their sisters but daughters of other families. Than Kain was expelled/landsförvisad by God, he was worried that someone would kill him. Because he should leave and not the others of his family, it must be other people. I would not believe that they married sibblings if not so written.

Well I do not what Church Father this Christian Anthropology came from. I did not need to ask a Bishop about that, I believed it was all true of course. True in a sence that it was the old Christian Anthropology. I have to see and think if I can ask the Bishop polite enough about this. Acording to the codex of warrior and codex of chivalry.

HGL

I have heard one variant that among the sons and daughter of Adam only the twin sister counted as sister to a son of them and only a twin brother as brother to a daughter of them. I am not sure if this has Patristic authority. I am sure this is what Muslims think (they say Cain and Abel quarrelled because Abel was hesitant to marry off his twin sister to Cain, which is probably wrong), but I seem to have seen something similar in Historia Scholastica.

I have seen neither direct Scriptural nor Patristic authority for them marrying for instance elves.

ShV

Elves?

HGL

Well, I had not yet read the Classical explanation of whom Seth and Cain married while I had to defend Holy Writ on this exact account in a boarding school, I could not ask ma, I was (and remain) quite a fan of CSL and JRRT.

If you want my more recent thoughts about what elves could be, have a look at the relevant chapters in my fan fiction novel:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones
Chronicle of Susan Pevensie : In a Fairy Mound?
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2013/04/in-fairy-mound.html

ShV

It seems that you, Hans-Georg Lundahl, have read the _Space Trilogy_.

DB

Hans-Georg Lundahl ,I would conclude the bible is full of ***, pardon my french.

HGL

I have. ShV And the Narniad. And The Hobbit, LotR including appendices, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and took a look at the HoME part which includes Lost Road. But I have one DB to take on, if you will excuse me.

DB, I pardon your French but not where you are using it. Any proofs for your outrageous blasphemy? Apart from linguistics, where I think I have made my point about Tower of Babel being clearly possible as a scenario.

DB

Hans, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice christian. But anyone with the power of a google search engine knows the vast majority of the bible has been debunked. There is no need for me to cover the scientific proof as it is readily available and much more well stated by the likes of Phil Zuckerman, Christoffer Hitchens, Neil Tysondegrasse, and many others. I'll just throw 2 fun facts out to you

Right from the start, genesis has been proven to be a ***. The bible says that all material things, including our sun, the earth , and all living beings were created in 7 days....false. From measuring the edge of the universe and its rate of expansion we know the universe is 14.5 billion years old. The sun and its planets were not even created til about 4 billion years after that. Life did not start on earth for another 1-5 billion years after that. Then, single cell organisms, early sea animals, amphibians and dinosaurs lived for hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved from small mammals. You would think that god would have mentioned that. Secondly, don't you think god would have told his followers that the earth was round???? But instead, Christians burn anyone at the stake for 1,500 years that suggest the world is round or that the earth revolves around the sun (contrary to the catholic church teachings that the world was the center of the universe....oops!). I'm sorry, I said 2 points above but here are some more fun facts you probably already know. The bible largely steals its stories from other older religions. The virgin birth was lifted from Egyptian religion, the flood ( which there is NO archeological evidence of!) was lifted from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamash, the birth, death, and rebirth was present both in Greek and Egyptian traditions. I could go on ad nauseum but as I said above, the 80% of scientists around the globe who are atheists have said it all before and better than I.

STh

Thank you Danny! I am really grateful for your words. I did not want to follow this discussion for ages because it went quite much somewhere where I do not want to go ever.

DB

[smiles at STh]

HGL

"Christians burn anyone at the stake for 1,500 years that suggest the world is round or that the earth revolves around the sun (contrary to the catholic church teachings that the world was the center of the universe....oops!)."

Your Medieval History is vastly inaccurate. Bruno not only said Earth turned around the sun and each star being a solar system, he also taught each star was the god and soul of its solar system. Galilei did not get burned. Earth being round was accepted.

You mentioned Genesis being inaccurate, which it is not:

Creation vs. Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

You mentioned a universe so wide it must have started expanding 14 billion years ago, but that presupposes its expanding from a single point. It also presupposes the lightyears away are anything like accurately measured.

Well, Kent Hovind and I differ on how to answer that one:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind Q and A session, featuring Geocentrism on my part and probable evidence of his innocence
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-kent-hovind-q-and-session-featuring.html

[That blog is usually debates like this one from yahoo boards or netscape forums or from youtube comments, but in some cases - like this - youtube comments of mine get to be a commentary on the video only, point after point.]

"The bible largely steals its stories from other older religions."

Covered in some places in this blog:

somewhere else
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com

STh

It is absolutely inaccurate and does not have anything to do with proper research. You know very well that it is many tell tales patched and patched and copied from all over a very large area. You are constantly giving blog pages and they are only opinions as yours are. I am so sorry. I was so happy following this discussion before it went completely and very far away from real historical research. Now I am not following this page anymore very much because of this discussion that continues and continues without any cense.

HGL (continuing answer to DB and then turning to STh)

And as for Gilgamesh Epic being original, that has been covered earlier in this discussion: [linking, once again, to first part of the blogposts with this discussion]

STh, the comment section is open for comments, on all blogs of mine to anyone having wordpress or blogger accounts and on some to anyonymous and and name plus url.

If in any single blog post of mine you find a single opinion without any backing in fact or logic, you are fully entitled to comment on that.

That is also one reason why I link to them.

STh

Everything I have been writing here has been plucked from information that has been accepted by many instances such as universities as well as specialists of the subject in question and which I have read from several widely accepted books. Naturally we all have different approach to information and different grades of acceptance of knowledge or what we believe as knowledge. You have yours and I have mine.

DB

Funny how the bible left these fellows out:

Ancient Origins : Entire Neanderthal genome finally mapped – with amazing results
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/entire-neanderthal-genome-finally-mapped-amazing-results-001138#

[Read with caution on that site/HGL]

HGL

Oh, if you ask creationists about Neanderthals you will get the answer they descend from Adam.

STh, heard of Emperor's New Clothes?

DB

@Hans, you may believe in god sir, but Ill wager you look both ways before crossing a street, you wear a seatbelt in your car, and you go to a doctor when you are sick; all instead of just placing your faith in god.

And creationists would be patently wrong Hans.

HGL

Wrong according to you is a patent fact - about you. And placing ones faith in God has nothing to do with being careless.

"And least consequential of all, the Neanderthal woman’s parents were related, possibly half-siblings, or an uncle and niece. As evolutionary biologist Mattias Jakobsson stated, the incest finding “is more of an anecdote”. The results from one individual cannot be applied to an entire species, in the same way that the recent discovery of an incest family in Australia does not apply to the whole of the human race."

Some would say such relations were acceptable before the flood. Actually even Abraham and Sarah were halfsiblings, and it seems Joseph in Egypt married a niece. Obviously in this view Neanderthals and Denisovans would have been partial ancestry of two of the three daughters in law of Noah. And the "totally unknown species" mentioned earlier would have been men not giving offspring through Noah's sons to our days.

Simple as that.

Any harder nut to crack?

DB

Speaking of incest...where did Cain and Able get their wives from again???

STh

Naturally, Hand-Georg, and I recognise it as a fairy tale as all the other invented stories. Believing is not a knowing issue. It is just a story in your head like religions and gods and goddesses. They are there making for you something comprehensible that you do not have enough correct information to know. I prefer to get to knowledge and I compare it from very many different sources and then sieve from that information the nuggets of proper knowledge. I really do not do the easy way out and just believe and I want to know precisely with all the information available today. This is a page about knowledge in Indo European history and not a theological page, if I understand correctly.

DB

And by the Hans, why dont you believe in Zeus or Thor? There are plenty of books (evidence!!) about their existance.

Personally, Baal is my favorite god. He didnt take shit from anybody!

[Extreme bad joke or is he serious?/HGL]

STh

My neighbour just died and he was for years horribly and terribly afraid of hell. Why? Because, as he said, he was a good Christian. Baal is a good choice. I do not have anything against gods and goddesses as well as spirits and whatever a human mind can think of, as long time they make people think positively and they do not make religions around them. I am badly allergic to religions.

DB

Oh! I almost forgot this lovely diety: [link to flying spaghetti monster]

WPF

I believe in some of the biblical accounts as being very feasible historically. I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. However many accounts were greatly exaggerated and fabricated in my opinion simply because they were written by human beings. We do exaggerate and outright lie in our lives. It is human nature to do so even for the supposed greater good both in the current age and certainly then. Therefore I accept whatever actual history can be verified and much has. Everything else I take with a grain of sand. I do not accept humans living 800 years which is why I will never accept a genealogy dating to Adam and Eve. To Japeth perhaps as he lived a normal and believable lifespan.

IC

I like all of JRR Tolkiens books, and think I read them all.

ShV

IC, have you also read C. S. Lewis or George Macdonald?

DB

I prefer George RR Martin

ShV

I like a lot of author's work, but I was still thinking about Hans-Georg Lundahl elf comment

IC

Yes I read CS Lewis Narnia-books, than I was a child. Martins and MacDonalds books I have not read.

Like I stated before, if the Bible, or other religious books, not fit the science. It is only we who not have devine intellect. I have never considered to have a atheist view. It would feel like give away ones soul and spirit.

WPF

You mirror my thoughts on the subject IC

HGL (turning to several of previous, numbering for ease of distinction)

I

"However many accounts were greatly exaggerated and fabricated in my opinion simply because they were written by human beings. We do exaggerate and outright lie in our lives."

That is of course a thing that happens.

Now, interesting stuff is, how does someone's exaggerated account become accepted by a community if they had other and more correct accounts of their own recent history?

Remember, the Bible is not ONE account by ONE man. It is a long series of accounts by many different men. As to Genesis, I read an article stating writing was done from the first, and Moses only put inherited books together. But even if they had been oral accounts, spread throughout Sethite community, between Flood and Babel community, Hebrew post-Babel community and preserved through a few centuries in Egypt too, the chapters are short enough for rhapsodes to have learnt by heart and preserved correctly each chapter, each set of chapters and after years of training the whole story.

That means the series of accounts starts with one claiming to deal with the earliest men created after only five whole days and beginning of the sixth day and it is implied either that Moses received this in a vision or that already Adam was told this, or both. And this rules out the possibility of any time when a novel was found and mistaken for a history book. We are not dealing with Rosicrucians reading Fama Societatis rediscovered after being hidden for centuries!

II

DB, I do not know if Abel had time to marry before getting killed. Cain was presumably not married before doing the killing. But their wives, as I have defended against IC were simply other children of Adam and Eve. In that generation that was not yet incest. Later even cousin marriage became so.

III

"I do not accept humans living 800 years which is why I will never accept a genealogy dating to Adam and Eve."

Different explanations are possible:

God shortened telomeres meaning they wear out sooner after flood
God heightened the cosmic radiation, which hastens free radicals which are active in shortening telomeres throughout life
God made the vitamin-C production gene not work after flood (which counteracts free radicals, so vitamin C shortage after flood as compared to before)
God reduced the caecum after flood
there is less oxygen as compared to nitrogen and less air pressure after the flood.

Or God changed the natural speed for telomere deletion. Any or any combination of these or maybe others would be proximate cause for lesser life span after Flood, meaning the higher one before remains credible.

IV

"This is a page about knowledge in Indo European history and not a theological page, if I understand correctly."

If I recall correctly, I was interested in Barry Cunliffe's theory about Celtic origins, because it matches mine about IndoEuropean origins (linguistically) which I find interesting because a supposed Proto-Indo-European dating to before Flood would either mean Tower of Babel was wrong or that teh pre-Flood language was Indo-European rather than Hebrew or Aramaic. THEN I have been challenged on diverse issues about this and I have responded. INCLUDING on linguistic possibility of my own parallel to Cunliffe.

It illustrates the adage "Theologia Regina Scientiarum".

V

"And by the [way] Hans, why dont you believe in Zeus or Thor? There are plenty of books (evidence!!) about their existance."

I believe Odin and Thor came to Upsala and presented themselves as Gods and accepted as such.

If by books about Zeus you mean Iliad, he is not so much on stage on the passages that Homer could have verified. If you mean Theogony, Hesiod took it in faith from Nine Muses that I trust as little as a certain Jibreel adressing a certain Muhammed. A man who even by non-Christian secular Western standards arguably got Jesus wrong in Sura 5 and Alexander the Great wrong in Sura 18, as I just found out thanks to Hovind citing it.

Holy Bible is God very much on stage and very much proving He is God almost all of the time. Since I trust it as history (as I trust earthly and visible parts of Iliad) I must believe God actually did reveal Himself.

VI

Speaking of linguistics, since IC will not accept my scenario that languages can borrow very impotrant words like father (which is to the point for my creationist version of when and how IE common traits arose), there is this:

"In gothian/guthans all Fadar/Fathar and Atta are use for Father."

Can you link to one single Gothic text, like from Holy Bible, where the word is actually Fadar?

But supposing there is one, that does not make Atta a derivative of Fadar any more than Papa in German is derivative of Vater. Papa is borrowed from French, and Atta from some Uralian or Altaic language. Or from Slavonic. Of course, Slavonic can have gotten its form from Atir if that is the original Celtic version of the word. Or Celtic could have gotten Atir as a compromise between Patir and Atya and from then started deleting the P-s in their Indo-European and other words. If Cunliffe is right.

VII

I actually must update this, since I made a google on "fadar gothic" and found a lexicon giving it as a hapax legomenon, once only, namely "abba, fadar".

This is the one place in the Bible where a translator would use a word meaning daddy, since that is what abba means.

In Gothic atta=father, fadar=daddy.

So much for the theory words for relations cannot change over time in a language. They can and do. Fadar is the IE and Germanic word, Atta is the Hungarian word. And it is Atta which is the normal word.

PS, debate went on after my posting this message.

DB: "In that generation it was not yet incest"....well how convenient for them!
STh: Haha
LAM: The problem with this hypothesis lies in the folklore and mythology. How can you have an "indigenous" language match words and stories match tales of I-E languages without the "Celtic" language being I-E? It doesn't make any sense and smacks of nationalism.
ShV: Please, Hans-Georg Lundahl, can you explain the 'abba'? I was taught that it meanr 'daddy', so wouldn't atta as well?
HGL
I: ShV, look again. Atta is used in Our Father and in every other usage of the word father in the Gothic Bible. It is Fadar which is used once only, when translating "abba".
II: In that generation it was not yet incest

"....well how convenient for them!"

How convenient for us. Otherwise Adam's and Eve's children could not have made any grandchildren to them and we would not be around.
STh: I am definitely not from them! Absolutely not!
HGL
I: LAM, for my part I am not saying Celtic is not Indo-European. Cunliffe says it starts out like a lingua franca but if IE langs a were included in those between which it was used and b were themselves getting more similar due to an earlier lingua franca, then it matches. And Celtic langs take up sufficiently much from IE langs to become such.
II: STh, do you really prefer being from a first human being mating with a not yet quite human being and making children that were less human than himself or herself and humanity reemerges as these mate between them (because not yet human beings would have no taboo against incest) or as their children mate with cousins? Do you prefer to think the first real human persons were living along with animals having their looks and nearly their mentality but no real reason? I do not.

Update after the dialogue took place:

In the oldest well known Indoeuropean language, i e in my definition not a) "language descending from Proto-Indo-European and showing it by diverse traits" but rather b) "language with many traits common to many languages of those known as Indo-European because of this, by linguists often presumed to descend from Proto-Indo-European", which is Nesili, by us often called Hittite (but Hattili is another language altogether), the word for father is not among the "pater" type words, it is rather close to ata, atta, ojczec, according to following quote:

There is also some evidence for the existence of true geminate, or doubled, stops, for example perhaps at-ta-as 'father' [attas], though the distribution of such sounds is disputed.

Source:

Section 1.3 of Hittite Online Lesson 1 (University of Texas at Austin)
Sara E. Kimball and Jonathan Slocum
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/hitol-1-X.html

mercredi 18 décembre 2013

Etruscans, hlaf-laib-leipä, Gullah, Hungarian Origins

IC: Some even say that Ertruscian language is protoslavic or skythian. But I think it is none-indoeuropean european, like Basque is.

I see first indoeuropeans etnicaly and second lika a language-group.
HGL: There had been an Italian Etruscologist who has tied word after word of Etruscan to Hungarian. He is not supported by Hungarian Etruscologists or Magyarologists, however.

Indo-Europeans are CERTAINLY a language group. That does not mean they had one single proto language or one common ancestry. Gullah is Indo-European too, since it is English, but its speakers probably descend from Ham.
IC: I have no idea who Gullahs are. I do not believe in a hungarian conection to Ertruscians. Neither to slavic or skythians. What I believe look above. Yes Indoeuropeans are a language-group, but first of all an ethno-group, in european ethno-group.
HGL: Here is "Etruscan, an Archaic form of Hungarian":

Etruscan: an archaic form of Hungarian
(book summary)
by Mario Alinei
http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_etruscan.pdf

Gullah is not a people but a Black Carribean dialect of English. Most famous words in Gullah [outside the community sepaking it themselves]: "Kum ba ya ma lor" = "Come by here my Lord".

So, speakers of Gullah very certainly are NOT European or Japhetic in origin, but their vocabulary is Indo-European.

Unless you would add that "laf-word" is not Indo-European but Germanic non-IE.
IC: Well than they speak gullah, some english-mix, in the context of conquer and migration which I said all along.

I disagreed with your link at page 5. That is all antieuropean and antiindoeuropean propaganda. The first masters of the plains were Indoeuropeans speaking indoeuropean. It is no good.

What is laf-word?
HGL: laf-word > laford > lord (meaning "brödvaktare" > "herre")

And stamping Alinei as antieuropean is just stupid.

As for ancestors of those black men adopting an English vocabulary onto their African grammar (not unlike Chinese grammar, isolating though not monosyllabic necessarily), the necessity to learn a new language came to them by captivity and deportation. But that is, as I have said all along, not the only way people can be forced to learn a new language. As I mentioned, the alternative can be learning very many new languages.
IC: Oh you mean Hlaifweard and Hlaifdige. No; he is antieuropean because of that antieuropean propaganda. Is he a communist? It sounds a bit like bolshevik propaganda.
HGL: Oh, is it hlaf with hl? It was anyway not with -ai- since Germanic -ai- > OE -aa-. And as hlaf is not clearly to be tied outside West Germanic to my knowledge (neither Romance nor Scandinavian, have not checked about Gothic), same with weard and dige/dough outside Germanic as a whole (same qualification for my "non-omniscience" about most IE languages).
IC: Gothic and skaninavic have "hl".
HGL: And no, I read the thing, there is no antieuropean propaganda in it. Some anti-Gimbutas, yes, since he thinks dwellers of Kurgans were Ural-Altaic rather than Indo-European, but that only makes Fenno-Ugrians very old Europeans or at least very old arrivals in Europe.

If they came from North Asia rather than Asiatics from them, that is.

Gothic and Scandinavic have initial group hl, but Scandinavian at least does not have the word hlaf/laib.
IC: In old norse we had Hlæf, maening "levebröd". Also in slavic there are hleb meaning bread.

["levebröd" - livelihood]

It is antieuropean view, because persuade the altaic group to be masters of the plains. Nowdays antieuropean propaganda comes more and more. It is awful.
HGL: ah, true, forgot about hleb! OK, Germanic and Slavic then, but not Common IE.

And what is Antieuropean about Hungarians having been masters of the plain for pretty long? Are they not European to you?

Note that hleb and hlaf/laib cannot have been a common inherited word from IE, since Gmc h =/= Slavic h. It can - like plug - be a loan word from one group to other, or it can be a word of earlier COMMON non-IE origin.
STh: In Finnish leipä. In Estonian leib.
HGL: Ah, and these are not IE languages, but Fenno-Ugrian ones. Any ideas about Hungarian?
STh: I just checked, trust the Hungarians, it is kenyér.

In Hungarian language great part of the words originate from the previous occupying countries.
HGL: Ah, hlaf, laib, hlaef, hleb, leipä is a word of the North. Not necessarily from any proto-indo-european times if such existed.

And Hungarian is not the only language with a great many words not from supposed proto-language elsewhere.
STh: The very difficult grammar in Hungarian is following the same rules, plus some extras, as the Finnish grammar. It is only the words that have changed in the Hungarian. Estonian grammar is somewhat easier but still having the same basic rules.
HGL: Nah, Hungarian has objective and subjective double conjugation of the verb.
STh: Genetically the Hungarians are 100% Central European origin but particularly grammar is Fenno Ugric.
HGL: I seem to recall something about Hungarian and Etruscan peoples can be tied to origins that are counted and at least now would be considered Asiatic.
STh: I became curious.

Etruscans, Huns and Hungarians
BY
PROF. DR. ALFRÉD TÓTH
http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/AlfredToth_Etruscans.pdf
HGL: Ah, Toth also takes up Sumerian ... it is true that Sumerian has been described as having "Turanising word order" ...
STh: This is also interesting. The Hungarians have been thinking about this connection quite much.

A NOTE ON THE THREEFOLD REPRESENTATION OF "K" IN ARCHAIC ETRUSCAN WRITING
B. Lukács
Central Research Institute for Physics, H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49., Budapest, Hungary
http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/ETRUSCAN.htm
HGL: And from Toth's lexicon, a word also existing in Germanic and in Sanskrit (Hel/kali):

45 calu “dead”
Alinei 2003, p. 49; Gostony, no. 98
Hung. hal-ni “to die”
Hunn. jalen halni, meghalni, jala halál
PUr *kola-
Sum. hal (55x: ED IIIb, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. hal-ha; ha-la; hal “to open a secret; to pouraway; to sieve; to slink, crawl away”
STh: This you probably have read but still you will get it. I read only the parts I did not know previously. This looks like genuine information.

Controversies in History
[A Lie wellstruct is as Good as Truth]
Origin of Hungarians
http://controversialhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/origin-of-hungarians.html

Last link is a résumé of diverse theories connected to Hungarian origins, some probably less well founded than others, though I would not know. Mitanni I think is rather connected to Armenians. Otherwise the stuff on the blog is controversial, I cannot recommend it all, read with caution.

Scythian Debate to my Lithuania Blog

IC: 1. The first masters of the european plains were the indoeuropeans. From north of Black Sea to Ural. 2.The Hungarians are racialy blending mostly of Europeid race with 5-8% Mongoloid race. Subraces; alpine, osteuropean, nordic and dinaric, mostly the first two. Than one Mongoloid subrace. 3. Once again, the link was antieuropean because it told that altaic folks were masters of the european plains and not indoeuropeans. The Uralic group is not the Altaic either. All that is incorrect. Because of the mommies of China with european appierence, who were very early. Also the origin of the Europeid folks of Iran/Ariana and Indhia/Aryavat proofs that. 4. Skythians were also indoeuropeans because also of genetics and the appierence who old historians had written, that they were tall, pale skin, blue eyed and blond or bright brown or reddish hair. 5. Kroatians, Serbians etc are not living in north and they anyhow say "hleb". Also skythians and slavs are not easy to seperate in the early history. It seems that it might be the same in early time. 6. Noone can expect that the same word is used in every indoeuropean language for everything, it is just reddicolous. Sometimes is one indoeuropean root used sometimes another, and sometimes a pre-indoeuropean european word is in use. 7. It depends on the definition of language. For indoeuropean language could be seen, like a language with a very larg difference between dialects, or it could be seen like many close related languages. I myself believe more the second one. 8. The link of Baltic-Finns etc with Asiatic -Uralians has many scientists established including Mathias Kastrén. But like I wrote before it is just matter of some procent asiatic. But the languages are Uralic, in the concept of conquer and migration. Lingvistics have define this languages like finn-ugrian/uralian and that is asian and not european. Uralian languages are not similar to the none-indoeuropean european Basque language. 9. The Sumerians are Europeid-Caucasoid and nothing else. They have european appierence and many of their statues have blue eyes. 10. I simply suggest that anyone who are against indoeuropeans, this group is about indoeuropeans, might leave the group and start or join, a altaic group, or an uralian group.
RT: I was under the impression that the hungarians were originally a Scythian desended race and later Huns?
IC: It is a big difference between hungarians, magyars and uralians. Hungarians of today have only 5-8% genetic heritage frome asian-uralians. The hungarians have most from slavic-skythians, then german-norse, then keltic. Already the magyars were more slavic-skythian than asian-uralian. The appierence of skythians; mostly blue/grey/green eyes and blond-brightbrown or reddish hair; tells me not asian. The skythian were indoeuropeans speaking indoeuropean, close related to iranian and early slavic. Huns were a federation of altai-asians, skythians and even some gothians. The name Attila is fro gothian language, meaning little father. Because of the early indoeuropean expansion there even were a small inmix of that in altai-asians but not in uralians east of Ural.
RT: Right so not wrong with the Scythians and very very wrong with the Huns.
IC: In somehow you were right, just not see the hungarians as asians. Only some procent.
HGL: "Because of the mommies of China with european appierence, who were very early."

Could they have looks a bit like Hungarians, perhaps? Or have had?

My point is we do not know that Lapps or Hungarians came from Asia. We know they share some genes with East Asiatics. The latter could be descendants of Fenno-Ugrian Europeans.

"1. The first masters of the european plains were the indoeuropeans. From north of Black Sea to Ural"

NOT PROVEN.

"3. Once again, the link was antieuropean because it told that altaic folks were masters of the european plains and not indoeuropeans."

That is defining Europe racially more than culturally or ethnically. No European people is purely one race. Swedes are pretty much Nordic race type, but there is East Baltic from Finland, there is also Alpine race type or similar. Germans have Alpine as well as Nordic and East Baltic. Croats and Slovenes Dinaric as well as Alpine. I do not see why an Alpine Austrian should have more in common with an Alpine Croat than with a Nordic Austrian. I do not see why an Alpine Croat should have more in common with an Alpine Austrian than with a Dinaric Croat. And these are still two nations without enmities, but language is more important than race type.

"4. Skythians were also indoeuropeans because also of genetics and the appierence who old historians had written, that they were tall, pale skin, blue eyed and blond or bright brown or reddish hair."

That proves nothing about their language. Indoeuropeans are not a race, but a language group.

"5. Kroatians, Serbians etc are not living in north and they anyhow say 'hleb'."

Because words spread where there is a common tongue. And because they moved from the North. Serbians are originally same tribe as Sorbians in Lausitz (NE parts of Germany).

"Also skythians and slavs are not easy to seperate in the early history."

Whether Slavs are Scythians or Sarmatians is not clear. Whether Scytians are Slavs or Fenno-Ugrians is not clear. That was my point. I can even not exclude them from having spoken an Aryan language like those of India, Persia, Bactria ... or pre-Greek Creta (presumably).

The anthropology of Josephus and of Church Fathers does not say who the Chinamen and Mongols come from. They could be from the Scythians, especially considering the Europois looking mummies in China.

"6. Noone can expect that the same word is used in every indoeuropean language for everything, it is just reddicolous."

My point is we have sometimes very different words for very key concepts.

"Sometimes is one indoeuropean root used sometimes another, and sometimes a pre-indoeuropean european word is in use."

I agree. But a pre-indoeuropean word implies speakers spoke something before they spoke indo-european. Which is very much part of my point. Namely that Indo-European proto-language did not spread over Europe as English spread over North America.

"7. It depends on the definition of language. For indoeuropean language could be seen, like a language with a very larg difference between dialects, or it could be seen like many close related languages. I myself believe more the second one."

You avoid the proper question: how did the languages become closely related?

By division from an earlier single language? Or by coalescence from earlier same languages earlier on less related?

"Lingvistics have define this languages like finn-ugrian/uralian and that is asian and not european."

Fins are Europeans. Lapps are Europeans. Hungarians are Europeans. Estonians are Europeans. Etruscans are Europeans.

However, Mordvins and Samoyeds are Siberians Asiatics, as far as I know.

My point is science cannot conclusively pinpoint where a language came from by looking at urns and burial places that lack writing.

"Uralian languages are not similar to the none-indoeuropean european Basque language."

I neither said they were nor implied they were. If you ask me whom Finno-Ugrians descend from, I might guess Gomer via Scythians. If you ask me where Basques came from, I might guess the original language of Tarsis. But that could also be Ligurian or something. Nothing implies a people in SW Europe ought to have same origin as a people in NE Europe.

"10. I simply suggest that anyone who are against indoeuropeans, this group is about indoeuropeans, might leave the group and start or join, a altaic group, or an uralian group."

I am not against Indo-Europeans. As a speaker of Swedish and German from childhood and a student of English, French, Latin, and less Greek and even less Balto-Slavic, I am as Indo-Euopean as you can get. OK, Germanic is not the purest Indo-European language there is.

BUT I am against confounding Indo-European languages with a supposed Indo-European race which supposedly shared with Basques yes but somehow with Finno-Ugrians no the original possession of European lands in times when the dwellers did not record their language.

I have a problem when you suggest that I as a Christian Swede have more in common - or when at least you appear to be saying and would have been said if you had thought about your words and spoken the same - with very Barbarian Scythians than with Christian Fins. Because the language community is supposed to be also a racial continuity.

In my essay on Lithuania, I spent some time on pre-Christian Lithuania. It was a C-course essay exam at Lund (usually implies third term of studies in one of two parallel subjects).

I defined "nation" in two steps: a) there are the sons or rather grandsons and greatgrandsons of Noah which lead to the original 70 or 72 nations; b) there are split-offs and mergers from there on. I defined "Indo-European nation" as being 1) a "nation" (see a), and 2) sharing certain characteristics of linguistics, commonly but not always attributed to a supposed Proto-Indo-European language which has not survived (if the reconstructions are correct and there was one, the reconstructions give a language that has not survived), and which is therefore dubious.

THEN I go on to define the Lithuanians and Baltic differences. First it is North Indo-European and Satem. Where South has bh, phi, f-/-b- or even h-/-b- (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin), North has b or b/v. Where Centum languages say 100 as C-ead, C-ant, C-entum, H-undred, he-K-aton, Satem languages have S-atem, S-to, SH-imtas. Second it is far from Celtic in the North if you take phonetic trait after phonetic trait, but phonetically between Germanic and Slavonic. Third, if you go from phonetic correspondences in corresponding words to non-corresponding vocabulary choices, as well as grammar, it is clearly closer to Slavonic than to Germanic.

When discussing a pre-modern linguistics explanation of the language, if I did so, I may have stated that if it is attributed to a mixture of Greek and Latin, there is something to say for it on the Morphological level, but it points as clearly or as little clearly back to Indo-European. On the other hand, Balto-Slavic shares with Greek the same word for "head." Greek Attic-Ionic kephalé = Doric kaphala, I presume. Which would in Macedonian (rememner "Bilippos") be gabala, which would have only metathesis, spirantisation and syncope before a form identic to Lithuanian galva appears.

Here is a link to my essay, partly Swedish, partly English:

Litaven : Prolog: Litavens kulturhistoria, uppsats - intro & innehåll
http://litaviskkulturhistoria.blogspot.com/2008/11/prolog-litavens-kulturhistoria-uppsats.html

Or rather to its prologue. Here is the relevant first part of the essay:

Litaven : Litavisk kulturhistoria, problem 1
http://litaviskkulturhistoria.blogspot.com/2008/11/litavisk-kulturhistoria-problem-1.html

As you might see on the link, I last updated the blog in early 2009 before returning from Orthodoxy to TRaditional Catholicism. But I wrote the essay before that, as a Traditional Catholic Sedisvacantist in 2003.

Altaic Chauvinists and Patristic Backup

IC: 1. The Indoeuropeans of the plains are proven. For example dominant y-haplogroups of R1a+R1b, who also are found by all indoeuropeans, even iranians and europeid-indians. Also the corded ware/ battle axe people were this. They had especialy R1a acording also to archoelogy. Other groups had R1b dominating. No race but recogniceble dna markers and appierence 2. No the "redhair mommies" of China not look like Hungarians, they were not invented yet. The indoeuropeans were, and they looked like them. 3: The Indoeuropeans spread out indoeuropean languages. It would be stupid to spread out somone else languages. 4. The uralians were of mongoloid race and came from east of ural, because most variants of bouth uralic languages and variants of y-haplogroup N. 4. The skythians appierence proves that they are indoeuropean and not asian-mongoloid. That is very simple to see. 5. Yes Samis, Baltic-finns, Volga-finns, Hungarians and even Komi are europeans. They are that thanks to their european and indoeuropean ancestors, not because of their Uralian-mongoloid ancestors. But the uralian heritage are just a minority, for Baltic-finns just 10-25%. For this uralic speakers, indoeuropean heritage also are rather small, exept for hungarians, who it is rather large, much R1a. 6. Yes Serbians came from the Sorbians, but before that they came from the are just north of Black Sea, and maybe even from Afganistan. The Kroats also came from north of Black Sea, and maybe from Arianna/Iran. 7. Total agree, for an example an alpine german has more in common with a nordic german than with an alpine italian, but not mostly by language, but in ethnos. Ethnos are created in a context of genetic heritage, but put together of kinsfolk. Fore example, my genetic test showed that most of my kinsfolk were swedish, therfore I belong to the swedish ethnos. Ethnos are indeed more important than subraces. Nationality and nation are, ethnos, culture and social structure, than in culture language and religion. 8. Well many european folks are, at least very nearly, of only one race, but several subraces. 9. Actualy when the skythians were there, also the Finns were heathens. What I know you are all of swedish ethnos, and than I think you are more similar to finns than to skythians. For etnical Swedes, we have 65-70% heritage from the first tribes who came to the Nordic-Baltic area, dominating Y-haplogroup I1. For us the rest of 30-35% are in this order indoeuropeans(battleaxe-people R1a + later R1b people), than farming-people of y-haplogroup E(none-indoeuropean european) some procent only, and very little less one procent uralian. For Baltic-Finns this uralian are 10-25%, indoeuropean 10-20%, farming-people a couple of procent, and than the rest about same amount like etnical swedes the Nordic-Baltic europeans. Other norse folks have similar numbers. I do not know the numbers for Skythians, but I am sure that they not descended from Nordic-Baltic europeans. 10. There indoeuropean languages/language came from: I have not total decided what my view there, but I think it developed natural from the tribes than they became indoeuropeans, so from older european languages.
HGL: [Not answering all ten points, only a few.]

"3: The Indoeuropeans spread out indoeuropean languages. It would be stupid to spread out somone else languages."

Would it? Hindi is not the local language of Bombay or of Pondichéry and yet people there are spreading it. Like a lingua franca.

1 - have to look into the proof, do not find a ready refutation yet. My point rested most on my answer to your point three.
IC: To much details. I mean it would be stupid for indoeuropeans to spread out african and asian languages.

All indoeuropean have high y-haplogroup R1 (R1a and/or R1b). High R1 have also Hugarians( etnic indoeuropean but uralic language) and some Turkmen folks (etnic blending of indoeuropean and altaic- asians, racaialy cosidered mixrace Europeid and Mongoloid, or just Europeid)

And yes also Basques have highR1.
BSt: ok let me jump in... yes we say hleb for bread, but across the river drina term "kruh" is more common...synonimes are abundant in serbo/croatian because many languages left their mark in ours so we have at least several words describing same thing... as for hungarians i am not a genetic scientist but having spent many years in vojvodina (part of the panonian plane where we live with romanians and hungarians) i can tell you this... hungarians come in two types blonde (slavic origin or germanic) and dark haired with olive tan (obviously asiatic) add to that all that comes between... romanians pretty much the same, only in romanians case many tsigoynern present themselves as romanians and they are not... so hungarians are huns mostly by adopted language...
HGL: "To much details. I mean it would be stupid for indoeuropeans to spread out african and asian languages.

OK, would it be stupid if these were back then NOT african or asian? I mean for the Indo-Europeans who were really European. Sumerians and perhaps Aryans are Asiatics, not East Asiatics but mid Asiatics.

And the problem is that you consider only your own scenario. "Indo-Europeans were first in one corner of Europe, Proto-Europeans in another corner or even most of Europe, Uralic language speakers were first in parts of Asia" ... but none of these theories are actually written documented facts.

Unless they can be indirectly documented by genetics. And there I would not only know what type of a specific marker is predominant in what population, but rather what lack of it there is in other ones.

BSt, thank you for agreeing on two things - languages can be spoken by very different races at same time and they can change word across a river.

Actually a word like hlaf / laib does not mean just bread, it means loaf - a bread as it is from the oven, without cutting or breaking. Bread is the more general term but is same as fractum - broken. As for Lithuanian the word is duonas - given or gift.

Such are the facts that make it difficult to make sure a certain population were speakers of a certain language and how much a language community has staid united or the reverse. Before its forms are written, that is.

Meaning we can guess, and if my guess seems to fit better with Holy Bible I am taking it.

"2. No the "redhair mommies" of China not look like Hungarians, they were not invented yet. The indoeuropeans were, and they looked like them."

a) Hungarians can look like Indo-Europeans, like IC just said;

b) we do not know when Hungarians were invented.
IC: 1. There are the genetic proofs of the indoeuropeans. Indeed Sumerians and indo-aryans are european. They ethnical and racial europeans. So also all europeans. 2. I have considered other alternatives earlier in my life, but I have abandoned them than my knowledges have increased. 3. The Hungarians were invented with the state of Hungary was established. 4. Like I had said all the time a new language can established in context of conquer and migration. Noone will replace their own language with a "lingua franca". They will use it parallell with eachother. With some loan-words of course.
BSt: somebody mentioned lužčki srbi sorabs from lausitz... yes they are the remains of the part of the tribe called crveni srbi = red serbs, that means the ones who came from the west avoiding carpathian mountains while moving from planes below caucasian mountains to where we are now... the other part is known as beli srbi = white serbs. the ones that came from the east over the carphatian mountains... white is east because that is the colour of the sunlight where the sun rises and red on the west because that is the colour of the skies where sun sets... the west...
HGL: ah, thank you, I did not know, BSt

1 There are the genetic proofs of the indoeuropeans."

You mean I presume there are genetic proofs of a race type now usually speaking IE languages?

"Indeed Sumerians and indo-aryans are european."

Sumerian language seems closer to Fenno-Ugrian than to Indo-European, though. So, are Fenno-Ugrians Europeans now?

If so the Kurgan people could well have been Europeans but speaking Fenno-Ugrian, as Alinei suggested.

"3. The Hungarians were invented with the state of Hungary was established."

Not true. By Hungarians we usually mean speakers of Hungarian language who were there well before Arpad and St Stephen. St Wolfgang went to a failed mission to them.

And obviously there were Fins before Finland was invented either as independent in 1917 or even as a Swedish and later Russian region after the Swedish crusades.

There were Fins before Adils went to a pagan conquest to Finland as originally meantby the word (Åbo-land).

"Noone will replace their own language with a 'lingua franca'. They will use it parallell with eachother. With some loan-words of course."

The question is how long saturation (over generations) it takes before one's own language resembles the lingua franca to the extant that a XIX C linguist would conclude in favour of a common ancestor language even if there was none.

And obviously a lingua franca can be spoken as a court language by people aspiring to international connexions, and court languages tend to spread to the people.
IC: 1. Europeids have european markers and european appierence. Clearly Europeans with high average of y-haplogroup R1 are indoeuropeans. 2. Again and again.... Baltic-Finns are 10-25% Uralian-Asian-Mongoloid, and they are 75-90% European-Europeid( none-indoeuropean european + indoeuropean). 3. Sumerians were european-europeid (markers and appierence). And no sumerian do not look similar to uralian. 4. Hungarians is the nationality including; Magyars, Germans etc. Magyars is the tribe of blending Uralians and Skythians, of unknown age. The finns of course are very old, I have not said anything else. 5. Although hundreds of years and for some even over thousend, use of latin as "lingua franka", we do not all speak latin. We speak swedish, german etc.

This denying of indoeuropean heritage I only seen from some very political correct people, and some altaic chauvinists.
HGL: "1. Europeids have european markers and european appierence. Clearly Europeans with high average of y-haplogroup R1 are indoeuropeans."

Thank you for saying Europeids and not Indo-Europeans this time!

[left his #2 unanswered]

"3. Sumerians were european-europeid (markers and appierence). And no sumerian do not look similar to uralian."

Their speech does, as well as to Altaic, since it is said to have had "Turanising word order".

"4. Hungarians is the nationality including; Magyars, Germans etc. Magyars is the tribe of blending Uralians and Skythians, of unknown age. The finns of course are very old, I have not said anything else."

I obviously used Hungarians as the more usual name (outside Hungarian) for Magyars. As a parallel to Fins rather than to Finlanders.

" 5. Although hundreds of years and for some even over thousend, use of latin as "lingua franka", we do not all speak latin. We speak swedish, german etc."

Inexact. Germanic had two tenses. Modern Germanic languages imitate Latin's and Romance languages system so as to have - by use of auxiliary verbs - eight tenses (English has sixteen). Also, these languages all have Consecutio temporum as Latin had and as Greek and Slavonic have not.

Not to mention we have borrowed even an ending from Latin: -are.

So, Swedish and German are influenced by the former lingua franca, that is why they are closer to Romance than to Slavonic. (apart from being Centum)
IC: 1. In my opinion sumerian language is more similar to shemite languages and some to indoeuropean than to altaic. So I do not agree to "Turanising word order". 2. Sometimes I also uses "Finns" for nationality. Although mostly and in this thread I use Finns for the ethnos, and not for the finlandic-Swedes. 3. Anyhow are the teuton, germanic and norse languages just more that than they are Romance-Latin. 4. Agree that the "latinisation" are one of reasons that teuton, german and norse are more alike romanse-latin than slavic.
HGL: 1 It is AKKADIAN that is a Shemite language. Sumerian is not.

On top of it, Sumerian is agglutinating:

Nordisk familjebok / Uggleupplagan. 27. Stockholm-Nynäs järnväg - Syrsor /
705-706
http://runeberg.org/nfcg/0389.html

"Turaniserande ordföljd" was probably the next edition of NF, "same" article. But agglutinating grammar sounds not totally unlike Fenno-Ugrian. Besides Thot thinks it worthwhile to make a lexicon between Etruscan, Hungarian / other Fenno-Ugrian langs and ... Sumerian.

2 I never say Fins about Finland Swedes, and I never say Hungarians about Hungaria Saxons.

3 & 4 How much is left of originality depends on how deep the exposure to a lingua franca is. Longer - deeper. More Aristocratic - deeper too. If Indo-Europeans were to have a common ancestry after Ararat and Babel, they might have spread like an caste, an international élite.
IC: I wrote that sumerian was similar/liknar shemite language not that it is.

In your link is written, in that fine old book, that it is impossible to put sumerian into any language-group. Well, what is agglutinating? What is turaniserande ordföljd?

I agree that indoeuropeans established like an elite.

But this altaic and uralian ideas not fit so well genetic and archeologic.

There also one more strange thing. You persuade that europeans were uralian and altaiic speaking. But if create a "lingua franca" to this. Why use something completely different? Why not create it from uralian and/or altaic? And if use anything different. Why not something already existing, like shemite language? Hebrew?
WF: This is like a grand masters chess match here.
HGL: Agglutinating is when endings are like glued onto the word stem. If you want to express genitive plural you have a plural ending and a genitive ending. Swedish is agglutinating as far as genitive goes, nowadays, but was not earlier.

Now, you have a plural ending -ar, and then you have a genitive ending -s and nowaydays they are tacked onto each other, and if there is a definite article it is tacked on between them: sten-ar-ne-s. Earlier in Swedish genitive plura was typically flectating: stena with -a designing at once the genitive notion and the plural notion like in Latin.

Fenno-Ugrian and other Altaic languages have been agglutinating for centuries and millennia. You have no definite articles in them, but you can agglutinate endings corresponding to our possessive pronouns.

Etruscan and Sumerian are agglutinating languages.

"Turaniserande ordfölgd" or "Turanising word order" is the kind of word order characteristic of Ural Altaic languages. And either III edition of Nordisk Familjebok (not online) or Bonniers Konversationslexikon (not online either, I grew up with both), notes that Sumerian word order was such.

[Aryana? vs Turana? acc. to Old Persian]

And on top of that Thot has made a lexicon Etruscan - Fenno-Ugrian - Sumeric. He seems to think that there is a connexion.

Semitic languages have Ablaut, which Sumerian does not have.

[As far as I know]

"that it is impossible to put sumerian into any language-group."

It is from 1918, putting it into or in connexion with Fenno-Ugrian may have become possible since then.

And obviously, supposing it is still impossible according to the criteria of Indo-Europeanists, that means it is quite as impossible to make it an Indo-European language.

"But this altaic and uralian ideas not fit so well genetic and archeologic."

Where is the misfit?

"You persuade that europeans were uralian and altaiic speaking."

Rather that some of them were. Like those closest early on to where Fenno-Ugrians live now.

It seems the Slavonic word for "father" is the same as among Uralian Huns. Ojciec and Attila fit well together.

"But if create a "lingua franca" to this. Why use something completely different? Why not create it from uralian and/or altaic? And if use anything different. Why not something already existing, like shemite language? Hebrew?"

My suggestion is Indo-European was originally a lingua franca, like a kind of Russenorsk, between precisly the Semitic and the Fenno-Ugrian type. Mainly. Adding lots of other ingredients, but those are the ones that kind of define the verb system. Personal endings lots closer to Fenno-Ugrian than to Semitic, but an Ablaut system like in Semitic but not in Fenno-Ugrian. In most - but not Germanic - a grammatical and systematic opposition between Finished Past and Unfinished Past, like in Semitic.

By the way, I very much like the book too, here is the link to the main index of it:

Nordisk familjebok
(1876-1926, 1:a och 2:dra utg.)
http://runeberg.org/nf/
IC: Have etruscan and sumerian definite article?

Is Turanising word order, verb first?

The indoeuropeans follow a genetic pattern, not only language. They are all europeid. They have all high R1 y-haplogroup. All uralians have low R1 except the Hungarians. All uralians west of Ural have a low but significant inmix of mongoloids. East of Ural they are all mongoloid. Some altaic groups have high R1, but others only low. West-Turkmenians count as europeid of some but different opinions. East-Turkmenians are mongoloid, and so also mongols.

The only other folks/peoples who are all europeids have I y-haplogroup dominating. This genetical pattern must be considered.

A lingua franca is not total created. Latin was not created. It was later spread with the conquers and migrations. It could be possible for som tribes with similar languages to unified to one language as lingua franca. It might be a good view.
HGL: Etruscan and Sumerian neither of them have definite article.

Turanising verb order is verb after object, substantive noun after adjective.

"The indoeuropeans follow a genetic pattern, not only language. They are all europeid."

Tocharian speakers too?

"They have all high R1 y-haplogroup. All uralians have low R1 except the Hungarians."

a) y-haplogroups are presumably patrilinear (I take it it is about Y-chromosome), which might fit well with Indo-Europeans spreading like an Aristocracy rather than a people.

b) as you just said, Hungarians share the heritage.

"All uralians west of Ural have a low but significant inmix of mongoloids."

Your version presumes mongoloid are primary in relation to Uralian, I think Mongoloid can be derived from Uralian. I think negroes descend from people the skin colour of Halle Berry around after flood. Then certain genes are more often selected, a kind of fashion, and in a small populationn pretty fast you have a new race, like the black or yellow ones.

"A lingua franca is not total created. Latin was not created."

True, and neither was English. However Lingua Franca (there was actually a language called so), Russenorsk, Esperanto were all created.

"It was later spread with the conquers and migrations."

Not just. Also by conquered and neighbouring people learning it in order to get prestige. Belloc thinks AEnglisc spread from court to court as they joined the Roman CHurch, whereas Celtic courts were either Celtic Church or Paganising (he thinks Penda of Mercia was a Celt), and that then it spread from courts to people. French spread from Aristocrat to Aristocrat during a few centuries. In Luxemburg French is official language number one, but the real vernacular is Letzebüergsch. Instead of saying "wir wollen bleiben was wir sind" they say "mer wolle bleiwe wat mer sein" or something. Along that you have both German and French.

The border between France and Belgium has probably first seen Franconian (of the low variety) spread south at the depense of Latin and then French spread North at the depense of Flemish. Lille/Rijssel was at a time a "language island" (hence the name) of Flemish descending from Low Franconian amid "a sea of" French descending from Latin. So if you have an élite changing language you can change the people's language too, especially if their vernacular is not a written and literary one or if they are cut off from its writing.

"It could be possible for som tribes with similar languages to unified to one language as lingua franca."

If the languages were similar to begin with, either they were descending from same language or they were similar due to long neighbourhood (like Roumanian and Greek sharing the Genitive/Dative merger - saying "I give his a book" instead of "I give him a book" more or less, or Roumanian and Bulgarian sharing Definite article as an ending, like Scandinavian languages) OR because they have all been already influenced by another lingua franca.

But a lingua franca can be created for people with very different languages. Russenorsk between Russian and Norwegian, Lingua Franca between Spanitalian and Arabomaghrebine (or even Levantic Arabic and Greek?), Romani, except for being already a natural lanuage, between diverse East European languages and Old German as well, Esperanto between Romance and Germanic. But with a nearly Chinese coupled with Old French grammar.
IC: The name Attlla means lillefar/little father in guthans/gothian. The reason the High Chief of the huns had a gothian name could be an issue of a discuss itself. The Huns were an east "federation" of people/folks of different heritage.

Yes the Tocharians were included in this genetic pattern. Although they rather early had inmix of altai-mongiloid. Even today, if I remember correct, the tadjiks have high R1 level, and bouth the name sound a bit like the same. The last I only speculate. For ethnos of west-turkistan, racialy seen as europeid or intermix europeid-mongoloid.

Yes R1 is paternal line, and yes it suits well aristocratic spread, total agree. On paternal line near 50% Swedes have R1, but thanks to maternal line Swedes have 25-30% total indoeuropean heritage. This aristocrats of course had a genetic background, and that is shown in the markers. How many they were is hard to say. A lot fewer than 50% of the men, because their off-spring had better chanses to survive.

Hungarians is the only uralian speaking ethnos with more indoeuropean markers, therfore an exeption. The only indoeuropean ethnos who speaks uralian. In a complicated history of conquer and migration. They have higher, but low, asian-mongoloid heritage than most indoeuropean speakers.

Uralian-mongoloid heritage are defined by Y-haplogroup N, and other markers and appierence. It is more like uralians are a branch of asian-mongoloids, dominating subrace tungid. Uralian are more an ethno-group. Acording to Christian Antrophology, who sometimes make other old anthopoly look like kindergarten, other races than europeid were created of off-springs from Ham and other "beings" hrrm.

Exept for english and latin, the only rather big lingua franca is lingua-franca. The others had been rather small. Neighbour languages of course can impact(påverka) eachother, bouth in grammer and words. Can also be a reason by ethnos, and therefore language, that been there before and been more similar or the same. That prestige-theory, ney I do not think so. The central-french not came until the postrevolutionary jaobin-state. Anglo-saxons were just much pagans as Kelts. Until 1054 it was also more accepted with indenpendent churches. So also anglo-saxon church were more indenpendant, therefore one reason for Pope to support William the conqurer.
HGL: "The name Attlla means lillefar/little father in guthans/gothian."

Suggesting these may have been closer to Slavs and Uralians, linguistically, than other Germanic language speakers.

"They have higher, but low, asian-mongoloid heritage than most indoeuropean speakers."

My point is that such people can have been origin of Mongolian race, the latter originating in purification of certain non-European and above all non-African traits. Just as I have earlier argued that black men originate from people the colour Halle Berry or coffee with plenty of milk.

"Acording to Christian Antrophology, who sometimes make other old anthopoly look like kindergarten, other races than europeid were created of off-springs from Ham and other 'beings' hrrm."

Maybe Russian version of it says so of Chinese. I do not know how bad the Russian Chinese relation is. What is sure is that the common version of it says all men descend from Ham, Sem and Japheth and their wives and through them from Noah and his wife and from other preflood people.

It is possible that Ham's wife had some Nephelim taint and that through her giants arose after the Flood.

But as for non-whites, like negroes on one hand and yellow people on the other hand, I think modern genetics gives an answer of how some traits at first found diluted can then have been purified if there was local fashionable preference for those traits.

"Exept for english and latin, the only rather big lingua franca is lingua-franca. The others had been rather small."

Forgetting French, Arabic, Greek, Aramaic, Akkadian before Aramaic of course ... not to mention Spanish. And the role Hindi has in India (or Hindi-Urdu if you count that as one language), and Mandarin in China.

"Neighbour languages of course can impact(påverka) eachother, bouth in grammer and words."

Yes.

"That prestige-theory, ney I do not think so. The central-french not came until the postrevolutionary jaobin-state."

Except among the aristocracy, and it influenced all of the patois.

"Anglo-saxons were just much pagans as Kelts."

According to Belloc that was just the case for a short while before they became Christians in Yorkshire and Kent. Then Anglo-Saxons started spreading to the courts accepting Roman Catholicism while Celts were mostly Celtic Catholics (or Celtic Orthodox, if you prefer) but sometimes lapsing back into Paganism.

"Until 1054 it was also more accepted with indenpendent churches. So also anglo-saxon church were more indenpendant, therefore one reason for Pope to support William the conqurer."

Not quite correct. Stigand sided with Caerularius, but before that particular occasion, Anglo-Saxons had been more Roman than the Celts, and that at least since the Synod of Whitby, VII th C (sexhundratalet).

IC, you seem to be Russian Orthodox or something. Your bishop seems to be against Creationism - first saying Creationism is at variance with Patristic Ethnology and Anthropology when it is not, then saying Patristic Ethnology includes an obligate accusation against non-whites of being mongrels with non-human beings.

Can it possibly be that your bishop or the bishops of his seminary grew up brainwashed by Communists?

Creation vs. Evolution : Dr. Frank Press ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/dr-frank-press.html
IC: No I not forgot any of that languages you mentioned. I only talked about your examples above. Bouth Russenorsk and esperanto are small. The thing is that the created ones are small, than these who are spread out by conquer and migration are larger. Yes all; latin, english, french, spaninsh, arabian etc are so to speak linguas francas in an international view. Although on a national view they are not, but more like a "riksspråk", just like swedish, danish etc. That is true even for states who have more than one language, like Spain.

It is still my opinion that before 1054 that differences are important. To Churches and monastaries yes maybe, but to states and peoples, not so much.

Your last post I do not fully understand. Yes they are Orthodox. They are deeply anti-bolsheviks. Some of them norsemen some russian. They are more related to Katakombskaya and the exile Orthodox churches than the bolshevik influated Churches. Well this Christian Anthropology is very old, from 100-300BC, and not touched by modern politics. Intermix with other homonids not non-humans was it acording to this.
HGL: "Bouth Russenorsk and esperanto are small. The thing is that the created ones are small, than these who are spread out by conquer and migration are larger."

Russenorsk is small because it is only traders and because Norway and Russia have a small border well outside in the periphery. Esperanto is small because it is not necessary, but if you add its reformed dialects it is bigger. Remember Ido, Interlingua, Latino sine flexione.

Also Russenorsk was made for a limited purpose. Not so Esperanto.

Now, if Indo-European earliest languages were constructed in Asia Minor to act as linguas francas between people like Lud, Het and Javan, possibly Gomer too, or rather their descendants (Lud - Lydians, Het - Hittites, Javan - Greeks, at least IOnic ones, Gomer - Kappadocians or Galatians), and if it was constructed by the highest élite, the scenario is a bit different.

"Intermix with other homonids not non-humans* was it acording to this."

Sorry, that is not the main Christian anthropology, if the Orthodox bishops you obey are antibolshevik, they have nevertheless been cut off from Christian learning by the Bolsheviks. If you want to believe them on this, ask them what Church Father they are citing.

By the way, Church Fathers are available on internet:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

[Warning, latter link also includes Origen and Terence, who are not quite orthodox]

I mean, just in case your bishop has a quote, so it is easier for him to share it!

[* Note, in case this means Neanderthals and Denisovans or even Homo erectus, a Creationist would not disagree about "not non-humans" but about "other" hominids in terminology. To Creationists in general Neanderthals are a human race and descends from Adam like the rest of them.]
IC: Attila from Atta from Fathar, who is german.

I will believe them to tell the truth about the original Christian Antropology, than if I believe in that to 100% is another story.

Anyhow all of these constructed lingua francas are indeed small, and no they are not so needed. Yes that is one theory about the indueuropeans, from the Anatolia. Yes they were an elité, like we bouth stated. But also an élite has heritage and therefore spread its genes as well as language. For example Swedes has 25-30% heritage from them, although they were not so many from beginning. I think a minimum of 2,5-3%, but believe some more. Other ethnos have of course other percentage. I think that all languages came from a natural context, also the biggests lingua francas.
HGL: Fadhar is Germanic, cognate of most IE langs' word for it, like pater in Latin and athair in Gaelic and pater in Greek and pitar in Sanscrit, I think Farsi is padar or something. No problem.

But how do you get "atta" from "fathar" or "fadhar"?

It makes more sense Atta and Ojciec are same word, distinct from the pater word. And in Hungarian I find two words for father: "apa" and "atya". In Finnish the main word for father is "isä", which fits with "atya", "ojciec" and with "atya", "atta", "attila".

"I will believe them to tell the truth about the original Christian Antropology, than if I believe in that to 100% is another story."

I believe they will tell the truth insofar as they know it and dare. I have given a chance about them proving they accord with Church Fathers. Look at the two links. Does your bishop want to check with Josephus too?
IC: Atta is a shortend form for Fadhar/Fathar/Fadar. I looks rather similar more than ojciec or isä. Atya could be a loan-word from gothian to hungarian. The Goths were in that area. Other version of word "father" in slavic is; Otets and Otac. Atta looks closer to Fadar/Fathar.

Well I not know how you mean. Do you mean I shall contact him about this discussion? Sure that I have not considered.
HGL: "Atta is a shortend form for Fadhar/Fathar/Fadar."

How?

"Other version of word 'father' in slavic is; Otets and Otac. Atta looks closer to Fadar/Fathar."

It so much does not. Remember, Atta is not the translation of "daddy", but of "father" in Gothic. The Lord's prayer starts Atta unsar in Gothic. Atta only needs to add ending -ts to give Otac. Atya only needs to add -ts to get Ojciec. The vowels A and O are similar and in Slavic short a tends to make o. And the Baltic word is yet another unrelated word, tevas. A Herulian Lord's prayer starts Tebbe Musu.

"Well I not know how you mean. Do you mean I shall contact him about this discussion? Sure that I have not considered."

I thought you had already done so. You may believe him without asking, before I do so, I want Patristic backup.

HGL's F.B. writings

Pages

vendredi 27 décembre 2013

Answering LAM

Thrown Out of Group

samedi 21 décembre 2013

Atta and Fadar

mercredi 18 décembre 2013

Etruscans, hlaf-laib-leipä, Gullah, Hungarian Origins

Scythian Debate to my Lithuania Blog

Altaic Chauvinists and Patristic Backup

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Antworten nach Sorte

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Répliques Assorties

Mes profils FB · my FB profiles · mina FB-profiler

Membres

Archives du blog

Qui êtes-vous ?

En défence de FB