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

6 hours ago, Abramelin said:

But the Semitic contact with Germanic (and Celtic) tribes and moment of influence on Germanic took place long before that.

Either by the Minoans or by the Phoenicians.

What rather concerns me is, does this Germanic tribal culture that you propose goes back that far, and even so, that's a long period of big end of times events between them. 

As it is, it is hard enough to get anything directly connective then and now about the Etruscans, Crete, Troy much less the Minoans. 

And it sounds to me a much bigger swing at tuning Germanic / Celtic with Semitic / Aramaic 

Quote
The language
Phoenician was a Semitic language, more precisely belonging to the group of canaanite languages which includes Hebrew, Phoenician, Philistine, Moabite, etc. It was spoken in the area called "Canaan" in Phoenician, Hebrew and Aramaic, “Phoenicia” in Greek and Latin, “Put” in old Egyptian.

~

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 7/10/2022 at 1:57 PM, Abramelin said:

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

Lingua issue 116 2006

Phillip Baldi and B. Richard Page put this nonsense to rest.

Science Direct might have the PDF. If not, Academia.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2022 at 1:22 PM, Abramelin said:

As this is still about some Semitic influence on the Germanic languages, I want to add to that idea.

Gadir - gather

I couldn't find anything proto-Germanic for the English 'gather' or Dutch 'gader'.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/gather#etymonlinev1311

But there is a possible link to a Phoenician word not even a Vennemann or a Mailhammer had thought of: gdr, or Gadir, the original name of presentday Cadiz in Spain (which is based on the Latin 'Gades', which in its turn is based on Phoenician 'Qadesh', or 'holy', 'sacred').

The Phoenician word gdr/gadir basically means 'enclosure'. And more basically: together.

I thought of something else that slipped my mind.

The Turks and the Han are intertwined to the point of Han Turkish generals and even a few Emperors. The Turks did their martial metalwork, yet there are really no Turkish loanwords in Mandarin. 

The Hopwell Horizon was the coming together of the Central and Southeast Algonquian and the Southern Siouian with the Caddoan and Muskogeans on the edges. The Central Algonquians and Muskogeans stayed intertwined up until the 19th Century yet there are no Siouian or Muskogean loanwords in Central Algonquian.

The Germans at that time were savages. The climate and sailing sucked for anyone from the Mediterranean, why would the Phoenicians even bother.

The whole point of Semitic influencing Germanic is just a stupid idea.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2022 at 11:48 AM, Piney said:

Lingua issue 116 2006

Phillip Baldi and B. Richard Page put this nonsense to rest.

Science Direct might have the PDF. If not, Academia.

I read that and even posted a link to their review. Their main criticism on the Germania Semitic is that Vennemann only brings an alternative explanation for certain features of the Germanic languages, features which, according to them, can be perfectly explained without any influence of semitic languages. They don't call it nonsense, they even say it could be possible but that that has not been proven by Vennemann.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Piney said:

 

The Germans at that time were savages. The climate and sailing sucked for anyone from the Mediterranean, why would the Phoenicians even bother.

That looks to me more like an emotional respons than a factual one.

They even sailed around Africa at some point. You'd expect the extremes of climate and savage tribes would have scared them off?

14 hours ago, Piney said:

The whole point of Semitic influencing Germanic is just a stupid idea.

Again, it isn't stupid at all. Just ignore all those hints and feel happy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2022 at 2:09 AM, SHaYap said:

And it sounds to me a much bigger swing at tuning Germanic / Celtic with Semitic / Aramaic 

Then maybe you should read about those theories online. Btw., Vennemann or his pupil Mailhammer, are not the only linguists supporting the idea.

Most often there is some deep-dark down resistance against the idea a Semitic language may have had an influence on the development of Germanic and a couple of Celtic languages. A resistance which doesn't have much to do with facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Then maybe you should read about those theories online. Btw., Vennemann or his pupil Mailhammer, are not the only linguists supporting the idea.

Most often there is some deep-dark down resistance against the idea a Semitic language may have had an influence on the development of Germanic and a couple of Celtic languages. A resistance which doesn't have much to do with facts.

It has to do with someone trying to make my Swedish and Norman ancestors something they aren't. 

German was probably fully developed at the time Bronze Age trade began.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Piney said:

It has to do with someone trying to make my Swedish and Norman ancestors something they aren't. 

Please explain. What weren't they?

 

15 minutes ago, Piney said:

German was probably fully developed at the time Bronze Age trade began.

It's about Germanic languages, not (only) German.

And your 'probably' shows it's not certain. And how could it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Please explain. What weren't they?

I think people claiming the Phoenician connection are in their mind trying to connect the Germans to a more advanced culture so they can claim that culture. The way many Magyars try to be "Scythian" when they were nothing more than the Khazars herder slaves. 

5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

It's about Germanic languages, not (only) German.

And your 'probably' shows it's not certain. And how could it be?

I was looking for anything on genetic evidence. That would be proof in the pudding. If the Phoenicians made that much of a cultural difference there would be a genetic flow.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

I think people claiming the Phoenician connection are in their mind trying to connect the Germans to a more advanced culture so they can claim that culture.

Maybe you are right, but that was not my intention at all.

You are again hinting at sites like BritAm?

I only suggested a linguistic influence. Vennemann also thinks that the runes evolved directly from Phoenician script, but I'm not so sure about that.

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

I was looking for anything on genetic evidence. That would be proof in the pudding. If the Phoenicians made that much of a cultural difference there would be a genetic flow.

Either the Phoenicians didn't leave much if any genetic legacy, or it was another Semitic speaking people.

 

I still think the relatively large concentration of Phoenician coins found on the former Isle of Thanet is a thing to ponder.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Piney

I think your resentment against me posting about a possible influence of a Semitic language on Germanic is based on what I posted in the decade long lasting "Oera Linda Book" thread.

Am I right?

 

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

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

@Piney

I think your resentment against me posting about a possible influence of a Semitic language on Germanic is based on what I posted in the decade long lasting "Oera Linda Book" thread.

Am I right?

 

No, I really didn't get into that thread except to troll the outright Nazis.

My resentment is White Supremacist like Britam, the radical end of the Mormons and Christian Nationalists run with it to justify their woocrap.

3 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I still think the relatively large concentration of Phoenician coins found on the former Isle of Thanet is a thing to ponder.

I have no doubt they went as far as Britain and traded there, but like I said before. The tin in Spain was better, and there was more of it and traders and tradesmen don't leave much of a linguistic footprint. 

Invasions and slaves do. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
8 minutes ago, Piney said:
3 hours ago, Abramelin said:

 

I have no doubt they went as far as Britain and traded there

They dìd leave a linguistic footprint: the name of the Isle of Thanet.

There is no serious Germanic or Celtic explanation for that name, "Thanet", as I showed you before. The only sensible etymology is based on the Phoenician goddess "Tanit".

The Phoenicians loved to settle on islands, just off the coasts of the countries they wanted to trade with.

Gadir/Cadiz is another example.

And one island off the west coast of Africa I forgot the name of.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

They dìd leave a linguistic footprint: the name of the Isle of Thanet.

There is no serious Germanic or Celtic explanation for that name, "Thanet", as I showed you before. The only sensible etymology is based on the Phoenician goddess "Tanit".

The Phoenicians loved to settle on islands, just off the coasts of the countries they wanted to trade with.

Gadir/Cadiz is another example.

And one island off the west coast of Africa I forgot the name of.

 

I have no doubt of any of this. I doubt they contributed linguists to German.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating stuff, I’m actually a little worried that pidgin is the new reality. 
 

I remember a story about the word Oso meaning house and comparing it with Ahuzat in Semitic.

 

I just tried to find evidence of the word oso meaning house and it’s buried pretty deep in Arigidi

  • B. Oshodi, The HTS (High Tone Syllable) in Arigidi: An Introduction, in the Nordic Journal of African Studies 20(4): 263–275 (2011)

had to trawl through a lot of urban dictionary.

 

I get the feeling that Oso (house) and Ahuzat (house) occupy different thresholds on the tonal scale yet share a remarkable similarity, given that they both mean “place to return to”

would have been worth investing some time into learning how to operate an oscilloscope to compare the two words.

 

Oso is from a Niger-Congo language, Ahuzat is from a Semitic language.

 

House seems to combine them both.

 

Maybe the position of specimens of humanity on the Earth’s surface has something to do with the intonation used in the dialect they speak. 
 

Given that the cal tech study on electromagnetism proves that the human brain modulates in magnetic field changes. 
 

It might be that modal language is location based. 

 

 

Edited by Frank_Hoenedge
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frank_Hoenedge said:

Fascinating stuff, I’m actually a little worried that pidgin is the new reality. 
 

I remember a story about the word Oso meaning house and comparing it with Ahuzat in Semitic.

 

I just tried to find evidence of the word oso meaning house and it’s buried pretty deep in Arigidi

  • B. Oshodi, The HTS (High Tone Syllable) in Arigidi: An Introduction, in the Nordic Journal of African Studies 20(4): 263–275 (2011)

had to trawl through a lot of urban dictionary.

 

I get the feeling that Oso (house) and Ahuzat (house) occupy different thresholds on the tonal scale yet share a remarkable similarity, given that they both mean “place to return to”

would have been worth investing some time into learning how to operate an oscilloscope to compare the two words.

 

Oso is from a Niger-Congo language, Ahuzat is from a Semitic language.

 

House seems to combine them both.

 

Maybe the position of specimens of humanity on the Earth’s surface has something to do with the intonation used in the dialect they speak. 
 

Given that the cal tech study on electromagnetism proves that the human brain modulates in magnetic field changes. 
 

It might be that modal language is location based. 

 

 

"Ahuzat" has a bit broader meaning, like 'estate' or 'stead' (in 'homestead') :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahuzat_Naftali

The proper Semitic word for 'house' would be something like b't or bet/bayit, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

"Ahuzat" has a bit broader meaning, like 'estate' or 'stead' (in 'homestead') :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahuzat_Naftali

The proper Semitic word for 'house' would be something like b't or bet/bayit, etc.

Bayit 

Payit 

Ayit 

Ayut 

A yurt........

Turkish is a Semitic language. :o

 

 

......don't hit me.:unsure2:

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, it was all mama and papa...

Quote

 

[00.02:45]

~

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 9/9/2022 at 2:09 AM, SHaYap said:

And it sounds to me a much bigger swing at tuning Germanic / Celtic with Semitic / Aramaic 

Sorry for the late reply.

To see the connection between Germanic/Celtic and Semitic (here most probably Phoenician) you'll have to wade through Robert Mailhammer's and Theo Vennemann's books about this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

Sorry for the late reply.

To see the connection between Germanic/Celtic and Semitic (here most probably Phoenician) you'll have to wade through Robert Mailhammer's and Theo Vennemann's books about this.

It's okay, I'm not really that learned about languages anyways, I'm currently caught up with a good read on Queen Jane, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Anne 

And Queen Mary, the principal character in their lives and deaths 

~

  • Like 2
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.