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 -

Skeletons in the closet


 Share

Recommended Posts

The final chapter in our new History of English takes us back before English was even English. It’s a trip we need to take, because it reinforces two lessons I have tried to get across in this book. First, there is nothing unique about English’s “openness” to words from other languages. Second, there is no logical conception of “proper” grammar as distinct from “bad” grammar that people lapse into out of ignorance or laziness.

We’re going to go back before Old English, to Proto-Germanic, the ancestor to English and the other Germanic languages. It would appear that long before Something Happened to English, Something Happened to Proto-Germanic as well. There was a history of bastardy in English long before it was even a twinkle in Proto-Germanic’s eye.

Froto- (I mean, Proto-) Germanic Sounded Strange

As I noted earlier, Proto-Germanic was never written, but we can hypothesize what its words—and also a lot of its grammar—were like by deduction from its modern descendants. Proto-Germanic was one of several branches of an even earlier language linguists call Proto-Indo-European, which was reconstructed in the same way, by comparing all of its branches. As it happens, Proto-Germanic was a distinctly weird offshoot of Proto-Indo-European. There was something not quite right about it.

https://erenow.net/common/our-magnificent-b******-tongue/5.php

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The content of the opening post was obviously meant to get laymen interested in something 'dry' like linguistics. The topic isn't anything near 'dry' to me...

I hope the two (?) resident linguists will show their expertise. Meaning: not something like "This is bs, nonsense, racist" and so on.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author of this piece reminds me of you, Abe. He has gleaned some knowledge of linguistics without formally studying it, so he arrives at a variety of strange conclusions because of serious gaps in his understanding, conclusions no linguist would ever arrive at.

Chiefly, he needs to learn that many sound changes are random in cause. There are no reasons for them; that’s a hard conclusion for people trained in formal science and math to accept. He sees language change and want there to be a bigger reason for it; there just isn’t. 

Furthermore, this article is not some neutral piece on a purely academic reference site. It’s on a site essentially begging people to turn over academic research into some kind of fringe religious philosophy— lots of use of the term “awakening” — so context matters. The source is suspicious in the extreme; the methodology is fundamentally flawed by ignorance of the field; of course the conclusions reached are going to be misleading at best.

And you’re going to get angry, Abe. You don’t like it when people critique you in any form or your chosen favorite sources. But you asked for this. Explicitly. So keep calm in your response. 

I’m interested in others’ take on the material presented.

—Jaylemurph 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Froto and The Ring of Germanic Languages!

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

The author of this piece reminds me of you, Abe. He has gleaned some knowledge of linguistics without formally studying it, so he arrives at a variety of strange conclusions because of serious gaps in his understanding, conclusions no linguist would ever arrive at.

Chiefly, he needs to learn that many sound changes are random in cause. There are no reasons for them; that’s a hard conclusion for people trained in formal science and math to accept. He sees language change and want there to be a bigger reason for it; there just isn’t. 

Furthermore, this article is not some neutral piece on a purely academic reference site. It’s on a site essentially begging people to turn over academic research into some kind of fringe religious philosophy— lots of use of the term “awakening” — so context matters. The source is suspicious in the extreme; the methodology is fundamentally flawed by ignorance of the field; of course the conclusions reached are going to be misleading at best.

And you’re going to get angry, Abe. You don’t like it when people critique you in any form or your chosen favorite sources. But you asked for this. Explicitly. So keep calm in your response. 

I’m interested in others’ take on the material presented.

—Jaylemurph 

 

Hi Jay

I think Rob is interested in criticism/discussion which is why he invited you to be a part of the discussion. At least he wants to ponder something and there is more than T&A open for discussion, I know you and I are not so close but do enjoy when you get interested in a subject and share what you know with me/us.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

The author of this piece reminds me of you, Abe. He has gleaned some knowledge of linguistics without formally studying it, so he arrives at a variety of strange conclusions because of serious gaps in his understanding, conclusions no linguist would ever arrive at.

Chiefly, he needs to learn that many sound changes are random in cause. There are no reasons for them; that’s a hard conclusion for people trained in formal science and math to accept. He sees language change and want there to be a bigger reason for it; there just isn’t. 

Furthermore, this article is not some neutral piece on a purely academic reference site. It’s on a site essentially begging people to turn over academic research into some kind of fringe religious philosophy— lots of use of the term “awakening” — so context matters. The source is suspicious in the extreme; the methodology is fundamentally flawed by ignorance of the field; of course the conclusions reached are going to be misleading at best.

And you’re going to get angry, Abe. You don’t like it when people critique you in any form or your chosen favorite sources. But you asked for this. Explicitly. So keep calm in your response. 

I’m interested in others’ take on the material presented.

—Jaylemurph 

 

I could have posted from Vennemann's (or Mailhammer's) online papers, and maybe half a dozen here would take the trouble to read it, aside of being interested in it. I found this webpage by coincidence, and thought it kind of lighthearted and funny. And so I decided to use it for this thread.

And I am not angry just because someone doesn't agree with me, despite you keep singing that same song every now and then. I dó sometimes get angry when all I hear is,"this is bs, it is ridiculous" and so on without posting something to explain why that would be the case.

I also know Vennemann's theories are being disputed, and I'd like to hear from people like you what the flaws in his theories are. Up to now the most profound critiques are not that Vennemann's theories are wrong, but that changes in Germanic languages can be explained by using the accepted theories.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For those willing to delve into this matter, there is a Wikipage about Theo Vennemann's theory:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_(Semitic)_languages

And a critical review:

https://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-1878/

Another review can be downloaded here.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Another review can be downloaded here.

An interesting quote from Vennemann's book:

From about 5000 BC onward, Semitidic peoples, bearers of the megalithic culture, moved north along the Atlantic coast to all the islands and up the navigable rivers as seafaring colonizers, until they reached southern Sweden in the middle of the third millennium. ...At the dawn of history we find the western Mediterranean dominated by Phoenicians, a Semitic people. ...I assume the megalithic culture to have spread along the Atlantic coast from the south and west of the Iberian Peninsula and France (5th millennium) via Ireland and Britain (4th millennium) all the way to Sweden (3rd millennium) and thus to have its origin in the coastal regions between the western Mediterranean and the Atlantic, where I locate the homeland of the Semitic peoples.

Maybe some will now understand my interest in "Tartessos".

Btw., Vennemann has since adjusted that date of 5000 BC to a millennium (or 2) more recent.

And.. maybe some others will understand why I posted here and there about:

1. Minoans visiting Norway in the 18th century bce;

2. Minoans speaking a Semitic language. A professor in linguistics, Aartun, claimed to have translated Linear-A inscriptions found in Kongsberg into Semitic;

3. Several linguists claiming that Minoan was a Semitic language (Gordon, Best, ea.)

4. Minoan ship's utensils found at the bottom of the sea near Rungholt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

2. Minoans speaking a Semitic language. A professor in linguistics, Aartun, claimed to have translated Linear-A inscriptions found in Kongsberg into Semitic;

https://jarnaes.wordpress.com/1-minoan-crete-linear-a/

If Aartun is right, then we may have an alternative for Vennemann's theory. Not the Phoenicians or some unknown Semitic speaking people in Iberia, but Semitic speaking Minoans who travelled to the North Sea region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Minoans and the Phoenicians had a lot in common, not just the language:

https://phoenician.org/minoans_phoenicians_paper/

And the dye the Phoenicians became famous for:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261818482_The_Minoan_Origin_of_Tyrian_Purple

They may even have travelled together.

Trading and mining around the coasts of the North Sea, and influencing the language and culture of the Germanic peoples living there.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 2:15 PM, Abramelin said:

The content of the opening post was obviously meant to get laymen interested in something 'dry' like linguistics. The topic isn't anything near 'dry' to me...

I hope the two (?) resident linguists will show their expertise. Meaning: not something like "This is bs, nonsense, racist" and so on.

Genetics and archaeology has shown that the second wave of IE mixed directly with the Scandinavian hunter-gathers with no Anatolian farmer mix. Proto-Germanic probably grew from this mix.

All you have to do is look at the genetic studies on Eupedia and the Semitic horse **** is immediately debunked.

As for consonant shifts. They just happen without outside influence.

The Algonquian languages went from a hypothetical V to B shift as they entered the Great Lakes region from the Columbia Plateau.

 Then from a B to K shift as they entered New England . When they came down into New York it went from a B to a P shift. (Meadowood)

Then entering the Ohio Valley and to the Southeastern Coast ( Adena-Middlesex) experienced a B to G shift. 

Note there are no lone words associated with these sound shifts.

Now the Semitic theories grew out of British Isrealism. So yes. It is racist.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Piney said:

All you have to do is look at the genetic studies on Eupedia and the Semitic horse **** is immediately debunked.

This is about language, not genetics.

 

44 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

Now the Semitic theories grew out of British Isrealism. So yes. It is racist.

It's not. At least not what I am thinking of. I am not interested in the BritAm site

Again: this is about language, not genetics.

Piney, did you even bother to click on the links I provided, or did you just follow your master to spout a mere opinion?

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Minoans spoke a Semitic language, despite them not being Semites, ànd showed up in the North Sea, traded with the natives and mined for silver (Kongsberg, Norway), then what would there be 'racist' about it?

As far as I know no one is bothered by Phoenicians mining tin in Cornwall. And lo and behold: they were actually Semites!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I understood from a Cyrus Gordon and later Jan Best, is that some Semitic language was once the lingua franca in the eastern Mediterranean. All that long before the Greeks (Mycaenians) and Romans took over.

Much like English is here in Europe. At my work I regularly talk in German with a guy from Latvia; we are not Germans. I also use English to talk with people from Poland, Rumania, Slovakia, and so on; non of us is British. And I use French when I talk with a Polish guy who has worked in France for 10 years; neither of us is French.

When I go abroad, I'll probably use English in whatever country I am, unless I have mastered the language of that country. Maybe I even leave a note for someone written in my best English.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

This is about language, not genetics.

 

It's not. At least not what I am thinking of. I am not interested in the BritAm site

Again: this is about language, not genetics.

Piney, did you even bother to click on the links I provided, or did you just follow your master to spout a mere opinion?

I don't follow Jay in anything. I actually have mentions from him. I was studying languages before I even knew him and they are tied to genetics.

I know all about the Semitic theory. I'm not looking at it any further.

The Amber Route followed straight down the center of Europe. It was safer and cheaper to follow then skirting the coast.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

What I understood from a Cyrus Gordon and later Jan Best, is that some Semitic language was once the lingua franca in the eastern Mediterranean. All that long before the Greeks (Mycaenians) and Romans took over.

Much like English is here in Europe. At my work I regularly talk in German with a guy from Latvia; we are not Germans. I also use English to talk with people from Poland, Rumania, Slovakia, and so on; non of us is British. And I use French when I talk with a Polish guy who has worked in France for 10 years; neither of us is French.

When I go abroad, I'll probably use English in whatever country I am, unless I have mastered the language of that country. Maybe I even leave a note for someone written in my best English.

 

Cyrus Gordon is a racist joke along with his Ancient American bull****.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

If the Minoans spoke a Semitic language, despite them not being Semites, ànd showed up in the North Sea, traded with the natives and mined for silver (Kongsberg, Norway), then what would there be 'racist' about it?

As far as I know no one is bothered by Phoenicians mining tin in Cornwall. And lo and behold: they were actually Semites!

Trading in tin in Kernow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Piney said:

Cyrus Gordon is a racist joke along with his Ancient American bull****.

Please explain.

I read a couple of hours ago he got fooled by the Bat Creek inscription, and another one also written in a Semitic script. It was an interview, and he never suggested Semites were responsible for anything built in North America, and that it had only been a 'fleeting contact".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Piney said:

Trading in tin in Kernow.

Great. Now you are officially a racist.

Can we go back to normal mode?

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Please explain.

I read a couple of hours ago he got fooled by the Bat Creek inscription, and another one also written in a Semitic script. It was an interview, and he never suggested Semites were responsible for anything built in North America, and that it had only been a 'fleeting contact".

He wrote whole books on pre-Columbian contact.

4 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Great. Now you are officially a racist.

Can we go back to normal mode?

I hate everybody.

Kernow is the proper name for Cornwall in Brythonic. There is no Phoenician settlement there. Just the chemical signature in their source tin.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

The Amber Route followed straight down the center of Europe. It was safer and cheaper to follow then skirting the coast.

Both the Minoans and Phoenicians were excellent sailors. For them it would be a more attractive and safer way of reaching their destination because back then no one else was able to follow them.

And I have posted this before: at a certain point in prehistory pictographs of Mediterranean boats show up in Scandinavia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Piney said:

He wrote whole books on pre-Columbian contact.

I hate everybody.

Kernow is the proper name for Cornwall in Brythonic. There is no Phoenician settlement there. Just the chemical signature in their source tin.

 

What the fk is the matter with you?

---

The Phoenicians traded with people from Cornwall. Maybe they didn't need or even want to settle there?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Piney said:
59 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

He wrote whole books on pre-Columbian contact.

I didn't know that. I found one a minute ago:

https://archive.org/details/beforecolumbusli00gord/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater

I could ask you if it is worth the trouble to read it, but I guess I know your answer already.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I didn't know that. I found one a minute ago:

https://archive.org/details/beforecolumbusli00gord/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater

I could ask you if it is worth the trouble to read it, but I guess I know your answer already.

The mention of Greeks and Hebrews having a common origin is a hoot! :lol:

I read this a long time ago. A lot of "mass comparison" and Mormon hoaxes.

Jews in Kentucky! :lol:

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

What the fk is the matter with you?

---

The Phoenicians traded with people from Cornwall. Maybe they didn't need or even want to settle there?

That's what I said. They traded tin.

But why would a Med people settle in such a crappy climate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.