Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
VastLand

Influence on English, in regard to semitic

132 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Desertrat56
Just now, Kenemet said:

The druids did not have any form of writing.

Are you sure about that?  Now I have to look it up, because there was the ogham, which is ancient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Are you sure about that?  Now I have to look it up, because there was the ogham, which is ancient. 

IIRC Ogham isn’t Druidic. 
 

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Just now, cormac mac airt said:

IIRC Ogham isn’t Druidic. 
 

cormac

Were the druids celts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
5 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I was taught that Brian was what the king was called in the olden days.  The leader.

Like Merlin was not a proper name, it was the title of the head druid.

And sorry, I am usually quite literal minded, so I don't always get jokes if I can't see your face.

Also, Merlin wasn't a druid.

The first mention of Merlin is in the mid 1100's, by Geoffrey of Monmouth (about 600 years after the supposed time of King Arthur and that would be around 800 years after the last druid (England became Christian sometime around 200-300 AD)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Were the druids celts?

Yes.  Ogham writing, however, was developed by monks around 500 AD.  Druids didn't write.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Were the druids celts?

AFAIK ogham was a medieval irish alphabet whereas Druids were forbidden the use of writing. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

The druids did not have any form of writing.

Well, nothing that survived. Caesar tells us the Celts used Greek letters and within a few decades of their last recorded appearance, Irish folks were using Ogham, so if they wanted to record anything, they could have. Probably. 

Caesar also records their training took 20 years and they used extensive memorization to transmit info, but I still think some data would have been written, but wax and wood (their chief writing instruments) don’t lend themselves to long endurance. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Also, Merlin wasn't a druid.

The first mention of Merlin is in the mid 1100's, by Geoffrey of Monmouth (about 600 years after the supposed time of King Arthur and that would be around 800 years after the last druid (England became Christian sometime around 200-300 AD)

Hmmm. Merlin was based (partially) on Welsh folktales and second-hand memories of a crazy person who lived in the woods. (And note where Geoffrey was /from/ —Monmouthshire, Wales). Geoffrey may have prettied the stories up and turned them into o recognizable modern form, but he’s not the first to use the character. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

Hmmm. Merlin was based (partially) on Welsh folktales and second-hand memories of a crazy person who lived in the woods. (And note where Geoffrey was /from/ —Monmouthshire, Wales). Geoffrey may have prettied the stories up and turned them into o recognizable modern form, but he’s not the first to use the character. 

Northumberland folklore too. If I remember correctly he was a retainer for a king of the North who went feral after his liege died. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
11 minutes ago, Piney said:

Northumberland folklore too. If I remember correctly he was a retainer for a king of the North who went feral after his liege died. 

Ah. An “improving moral example.”

—Jaylemurph

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
3 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Hmmm. Merlin was based (partially) on Welsh folktales and second-hand memories of a crazy person who lived in the woods. (And note where Geoffrey was /from/ —Monmouthshire, Wales). Geoffrey may have prettied the stories up and turned them into o recognizable modern form, but he’s not the first to use the character. 

—Jaylemurph 

Yes, but none of that is a druid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
3 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Well, nothing that survived. Caesar tells us the Celts used Greek letters and within a few decades of their last recorded appearance, Irish folks were using Ogham, so if they wanted to record anything, they could have. Probably. 

But the druids didn't write any books/manuscripts and no source (except modern ones) have ever linked to any lost druidic manuscripts.  The "modern sources" never actually cite anything archaeological.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
6 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

But the druids didn't write any books/manuscripts and no source (except modern ones) have ever linked to any lost druidic manuscripts.  The "modern sources" never actually cite anything archaeological.

Come on! :) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The literacy of the larger Celtic world isn’t at question, only a particularly murky subset of it.
 

Druidic writing is (granted) circumstantial, but debatable, with the argument, I think, of their illiteracy being nigh-on impossible to prove (as negatives are) and involves trying, it seems to me, to jump over common sense (societies are wholly literate or not at all; I’m not aware of any culture where whole chunks of society are by self-choice illiterate). I love to be wrong, though.

This strikes me as maybe an interesting difference between history and archaeology. My pro argument is wholly literarily based (as all history is), which I can’t imagine many archaeologists would ever be happy with, but I also can’t see many historians unhappy with it, given the proviso of admitted circumstantiality. 

In any case, I wouldn’t want to argue-argue with someone I hold in such respect, especially considering the different methodologies or standards of our fields. More solid evidence is needed, I think, before any definitive statement is made — certainly for my side of the argument!

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
29 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

But the druids didn't write any books/manuscripts and no source (except modern ones) have ever linked to any lost druidic manuscripts.  The "modern sources" never actually cite anything archaeological.

What about this thing? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coligny_calendar

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
10 minutes ago, Piney said:

Well, that is certainly more evidence! Wow!

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
37 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Well, that is certainly more evidence! Wow!

 

The only thing that gets me is the chart in the article says "Equos" is a unknown etymology when "h'ekwos" is PIE for horse. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
On 11/5/2019 at 3:13 AM, VastLand said:

Recently, in another thread, and although off topic, there seemed to have been some quarrel, concerning the roots and influence, of the English language. It appears, some feel informed to believe that Semitic has no influence on English, aside from more recent loan words, that being, names from "Hebrew", which were adopted into England. Others, feel informed, believing a more alternative approach to the history of the English language, believing that English has some of her roots in the Semitic language.

What is true? That is the question for anyone looking to know. I have my opinion, and I will likely express it, so let us discuss. There may even be some discoveries, or facts to help validate the claims we may have. 

It's pretty well know that the English language almost completely comes from the Germanic languages including Dutch. There are also influences from French, and Latin. English did not come from Semitic languages, however, there are theorists who claim all languages came from Hebrew, this isn't possible based upon research. Below is link that explains this in more detail.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/150768/examining-edenics

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
7 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

It's pretty well know that the English language almost completely comes from the Germanic languages including Dutch. There are also influences from French, and Latin. English did not come from Semitic languages, however, there are theorists who claim all languages came from Hebrew, this isn't possible based upon research. Below is link that explains this in more detail.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/150768/examining-edenics

Isaac Mozeson......He's a crank of the highest order. He thinks all languages came from Hebrew as spoken in the Garden of Eden. :lol:

http://kylopod.blogspot.com/2009/04/line-between-cranks-and-scholars.html

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue096.html

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
17 hours ago, Piney said:

Gaulish, not British nor druidic (the druids were British but not generic Celtic.)  The Celts, remember, were a widely-spread European culture.

873cdf07c270f0a52c0c4bc627aec1d3.jpg

Edited by Kenemet
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
44 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

 (the druids were British but not generic Celtic.) 

 

I thought Vercingetorix  had Druid fermenting things for him. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
38 minutes ago, Piney said:

I thought Vercingetorix  had Druid fermenting things for him. 

There were def. Druids in Armorica. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
6 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

There were def. Druids in Armorica. 

They were swapping spit with the Isle long before the British exodus there. 

Then we have the Arras Culture in Yorkshire which could of had continental ties with the Parisii. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arras_culture

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
2 hours ago, Piney said:

I thought Vercingetorix  had Druid fermenting things for him. 

Asterix kept him in line.

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand

Here are questionable words that can easily be Semitic: (From the top of my head:P)

-Ish, a suffix, which, resembles "Ish or Yesh", in Semitic, spelled "Yad-Shin", and means something like "a man; something that exists; is; will". No surprise that "Is" would be included as the definition, because "Yes, Is, and Ish" probably come from the same Aramaic root.

 

Good, God, and Godan, all words that come from the root "Gaat", in Germanic, probably in relation to the tribe of "Goth", who supplicated to their patron deities. Godan means, "to supplicate". "Gaat" similarly sounds like a semitic word, pronounced nearly the same, as "Gaad", the Semitic word is spelled, "Gimel-Dalet", where the "Dalet" is pronounced soft, with the front two teeth and tongue, almost like a "tah" sound. "Gad" in semitic, means something like "Troop".

 

Dan, a word that goes back to the first danish kings, was not one of those latter names introduced to europe such as "Michael", or "Gabriel". Dan, Danish, Dane, Dedanan, and Dunn, are all nouns spoken of or labeled upon people in Old Europe, and Danub, as well as three other rivers, are all named after the Danes who came into europe, and consist of the name Dan. Dan, is a semitic word, meaning "Judge", spelled "Dalet-Nun"; the Gaelic word "Dunn" means "Judge" similarly.

 

 

Old English comparison:

*Remember that Semitic goes by an Eastern Philosophy, consisting of functions and actions, to describe character. It is not how something appears, but how something acts... Example: In Western philosophy we say, "It looks like a duck, its a duck!", but within the East, if it talks, walks, flies, and swims like a duck, then it is a duck. Get it?

So below will be Old English, and Semitic words, in that order, giving definition and comparison between these words.

"Aam", in old english means, "Reed of a weaver loom", in which the Reeds assist in "binding together" cloth. Semitic "Aam", meaning "Glue, Mother, Arm, Tribe, Pillar", all of which from the root meaning, "Strong-Liquid", where a strong liquid is what "Binds", sort of like an "Arm" when it firmly holds something.

Old English "Abal" means "Strength of the body". Semitic "Abal" means "Father's Staff", if the root word be "Ab", rather than "Bal", and relates the "strength" of the father, and may extend into the body of his son, as the son is the "Staff which the father holds", where the "strength from the father lives on in his son", and is interpreted as "Son".

"Bannan" means "together", and Banned "to call". Semitic "Banan" means "the building of a family", as a "house" which brings people "together".

Old English "Bed", meaning "place where you lay; couch". Semitic "Bed" means "Virginity; linen cloth". The bed is where one can loose their virginity? is it linen? HAHA

Har "Hoar; Grey; old", Hara "A hare", hóre "*****; harlot", hóring "fornicator", Horn "A horn; cup; trumpet", hors "A horse", and hord "hidden treasure", are all Old English words, all likely coming from the root "Har". Semitic word "Har" means "pregnant; high; hill", "Hor" means "cave; pit". In specific Semitic nations, a "Har" was a prostitute priestess, for the goddess Inana, or Ishtar. But the word used in Yahudit is "Qedesh", meaning "She [who is] set apart", and is a noun usually known for the "Priestess".
 

That will be all for now :) (Yes of course English is Germanic, and Germanic seems primarily Indo-European.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
3 hours ago, VastLand said:

So below will be Old English, and Semitic words, in that order, giving definition and comparison between these words.

It's "mass comparison" not linguistic comparisons.and your still on this nonsense???? Take some college courses in PIE and get back to us.

3 hours ago, VastLand said:

*Remember that Semitic goes by an Eastern Philosophy, consisting of functions and actions, to describe character. It is not how something appears, but how something acts... Example: In Western philosophy we say, "It looks like a duck, its a duck!", but within the East, if it talks, walks, flies, and swims like a duck, then it is a duck. Get it?

 

What?????? Are you trying to describe "verb order"?????

3 hours ago, VastLand said:

Good, God, and Godan, all words that come from the root "Gaat", in Germanic, probably in relation to the tribe of "Goth", who supplicated to their patron deities. Godan means, "to supplicate". "Gaat" similarly sounds like a semitic word, pronounced nearly the same, as "Gaad", the Semitic word is spelled, "Gimel-Dalet", where the "Dalet" is pronounced soft, with the front two teeth and tongue, almost like a "tah" sound. "Gad" in semitic, means something like "Troop".

 

Wrong again. Goth and god do not have the same etymology. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(word)

3 hours ago, VastLand said:

Dan, a word that goes back to the first danish kings, was not one of those latter names introduced to europe such as "Michael", or "Gabriel". Dan, Danish, Dane, Dedanan, and Dunn, are all nouns spoken of or labeled upon people in Old Europe, and Danub, as well as three other rivers, are all named after the Danes who came into europe, and consist of the name Dan. Dan, is a semitic word, meaning "Judge", spelled "Dalet-Nun"; the Gaelic word "Dunn" means "Judge" similarly.

Errr... No! More racist British Israeli dreck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Denmark

 

There is a real Semite speaker and translator here. @Alchopwn

Edited by Piney
Racist trash........
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.