|
Post by homeylu on Apr 23, 2010 16:28:08 GMT -5
So Imhotep, you are provided with the glyph for farm above, which is an entirely different glyph from the one I know used for Kmt, so please prove the basis of your thesis, in how Kmt means farm, even if we concede that the word Kongo, means farm.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 23, 2010 16:30:41 GMT -5
Don't put words in my mouth. ... you canNOT attempt to attach BLACK to EVERY instance of that the coal/mineral glyph is used. . . . . So anyone claiming that the KM biliteral coal sign means black exclusively has not examined its usages fully and on linguistical grounds is unfounded. The KM ideogram is a charred piece of wood or crocodile scale if one prefers. Its primary meaning is black as something all charred or as black as a croc's scales. KM of itself has two meanings:[/b][/li][/ul] Without accompanying determinatives or textual context it has no other meanings.[/size] [/quote][/quote] Also, KM is not a biliteral. The biliteral form of KM is k-m.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 23, 2010 16:39:47 GMT -5
Notice my use of 'one' not 'you.' In the English language this denotes any hypothetical person thus removing the either the certainty or ambiguity meanings of 'you;' singular or plural. That would be a sound argument if I got this information strictly from books. All my sources are from native speakers and who are linguists in their own languages: Modupe (Yoruba) and Bilolo (Luba/Kikongo) for example. This is a method I live by so no one can use that excuse. Plus I hear it and make it a point to listen: from cd's, native speakers in my town etc. By doing this, this is how I discovered in IziZulu, that normally, when an /h/ sound is preceded by a vowel, the /h/ sounds like a /sh/ sound. This gave me motivation to look into how vowels possibly affected the /h/ in Egyptian and came to discover that the /h/ is pronounced as a /ch/ which became a fricative in iziZulu. Thus why CHERU in Egyptian (heru) becomes ZULU in Bantu. It also becomes KULU in Bantu as well. So always check by listening. You can learn a lot. A native Indo-European speaker cannot learn proper pronunciation of non-IE languages from a book. One needs a teacher who is a native speaker and who is also proficient in the learner's language. I've noticed that the ch sound in the German word ich even gets mispronounced by other IE speakers.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Apr 23, 2010 17:02:16 GMT -5
Again, did you read the article? I provided you two words in Egyptian that means FARM and they are rendered so because they have the N23 determinative (irrigated land). I also provided you with the hieroglyphs for the word KMT with the N23 determinative glyphs. Did you miss it? You do know there is a difference between a word and the glyphs used to represent the sounds and concepts of Egyptian words don't you? You do know what a determinative is do you not? We can't proceed until you get this basic concept down. Now try again. So Imhotep, you are provided with the glyph for farm above, which is an entirely different glyph from the one I know used for Kmt, so please prove the basis of your thesis, in how Kmt means farm, even if we concede that the word Kongo, means farm.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Apr 23, 2010 17:08:02 GMT -5
That's hard to believe when you quoted ME for your post, indicating it is a response to what I said. Thus the reply back to you. Let's not make this trivial. Notice my use of 'one' not 'you.' In the English language this denotes any hypothetical person thus removing the either the certainty or ambiguity meanings of 'you;' singular or plural.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 23, 2010 17:24:03 GMT -5
Again, did you read the article? I provided you two words in Egyptian that means FARM and they are rendered so because they have the N23 determinative (irrigated land). I also provided you with the hieroglyphs for the word KMT with the N23 determinative glyphs. Did you miss it? You do know there is a difference between a word and the glyphs used to represent the sounds and concepts of Egyptian words don't you? You do know what a determinative is do you not? We can't proceed until you get this basic concept down. Now try again. So Imhotep, you are provided with the glyph for farm above, which is an entirely different glyph from the one I know used for Kmt, so please prove the basis of your thesis, in how Kmt means farm, even if we concede that the word Kongo, means farm. I honestly approached the article with an open mind, and no preconceived notions about you, as this is the first post, I've read from you, to be clear. And I do know what a determinant is, in the English language the most proper word would be the 'object', as in English we use the SVO- Subject Verb Object, most commonly. So when using an adjective such as a color, with a particular object, does not change the meaning of the adjective when used alone. So don't insult my intelligence. I may not understand hieroglyphics, and I openly admit it, but I do understand the grammatical structure of a given language, and all use SVO or a combination there of, even if one doesn't speak or comprehend the language. And I asked you to clarify yourself, because I'm sincerely trying to understand your logic, and not just for the sake of argument either. Otherwise, I would not have bothered myself to even open the link you provided. You should learn how to accept constructive criticism, and use it as an opportunity to improve the contents of your article, so that the average laymen can grasp the concepts you are trying to convey, otherwise, most people without knowledge of hieroglyphics, will simply ignore the article and dismiss it as simply your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Apr 23, 2010 17:31:21 GMT -5
I also quoted in the article another word that means farm in Egyptian pkh3 "farm." Both pkh3 and iht have the N23 determinative (see pg 6 of my document). So they had multiple words for farm or irrigated land. The problem is people think that people who created the dictionaries got every word right. African scholars have proven time and time again that this is not the case. The only way you can prove them right is to examine the other related African languages, which I have done. As mentioned in the article, which is echoed by linguists the world over, you CANNOT understand a term fully by only examining one language. That almost always leads to folk-etymology (km = black people). As a rule, if KMT meant Black Nation, you should be able to find related words that mean BLACK NATION in African languages with the k-m root. I challenged each and everyone you to find such a term. You can't even find it in Amarigna, Arabic or Hebrew and they lived in the Area. You do however find in related African languages K-m, g-n, k-n to mean BLACK, or, COUNTRY/CITY/VILLAGE, or FARM/BLACK SOIL. You do NOT, and I repeat and I still challenge anyone on this board, to find me a term with the k-m root in African languages that means BLACK PEOPLE. I found k-m to mean BLACK SOIL, which matches the N23 reference. So this is a challenge to your methodology. You make the mistakes the dictionary compilers made with KMT (and Ntr as another example). Remember, language is independent of writing. The pictographs only clarify the meaning when read. Homeylu's baseless argument that feminine -t means "land" is unfounded when I showed the glyphs of the rendering TA KMT (with the feminine -t suffix). It's not "land of km land." If there were no instances of KM meaning farm land in languages all across Africa, then all of this would be for not. Any challenger would have a case. But that is not the case. So find me, in multiple related languages, KM to mean BLACK PEOPLE or BLACK NATION with NO extra words attached. It can't be like rmt n kmt. It has to be KM alone. Then you may have a case. Otherwise, the other African languages provide extra meanings for the term km: love, farm, etc. I have no idea of KM as farm in AEL. In AEL a farm, for one, is `hh.t; the word for farm land, i.e., a 'roped off' piece of arable land. ^^ This is what I thought, so how does this translate to FARM... as in Land of Farmers. As I stated, I'm not an expert on hieroglyphs, but I think this is hieroglyphics, 101...in its elementary format. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Apr 23, 2010 17:44:17 GMT -5
Again, with all sincerity, and I won't go much further with you on this, do you think it is possible to add more to a cup that is already full? You are coming to me with your cup full. You know everything and can't no one add to your cup (your reservoir of information). Therefore things seem illogical to you because you refuse to humble yourself and learn. By your statements it is clear that you didn't read the article through because every single point you brought up, I quoted the article and addressed you point for point. You sit here and try to argue about a subject matter you know nothing about. You don't know how to read Mdw Ntr, you don't know about comparative linguistics, you don't know about folk etymology or the history of this debate, YET you formulate argument after argument of illogical statements because you refuse to take the advice given to you from someone who DOES know the above. I gave you reference after reference, from competent and respected scholars. Learn the argument first, then come back with a critique. Watching old videos on youtube is not a substitute for studying (not saying you do this, but this has been the behavior of most internet scholars). You have to read and engage the texts for context, meaning and application. And until you learn how to do this, you are wasting mine, yours and this boards time. Please, if you're not going to read the text and follow the argument (all in plain simple English in the Intro and following section) then please refrain from posting. Study first, argue later. [ I honestly approached the article with an open mind, and no preconceived notions about you, as this is the first post, I've read from you, to be clear. And I do know what a determinant is, in the English language the most proper word would be the 'object', as in English we use the SVO- Subject Verb Object, most commonly. So when using an adjective such as a color, with a particular object, does not change the meaning of the adjective when used alone. So don't insult my intelligence. I may not understand hieroglyphics, and I openly admit it, but I do understand the grammatical structure of a given language, and all use SVO or a combination there of, even if one doesn't speak or comprehend the language. And I asked you to clarify yourself, because I'm sincerely trying to understand your logic, and not just for the sake of argument either. Otherwise, I would not have bothered myself to even open the link you provided. You should learn how to accept constructive criticism, and use it as an opportunity to improve the contents of your article, so that the average laymen can grasp the concepts you are trying to convey, otherwise, most people without knowledge of hieroglyphics, will simply ignore the article and dismiss it as simply your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 23, 2010 17:53:38 GMT -5
As a rule, if KMT meant Black Nation, you should be able to find related words that mean BLACK NATION in African languages with the k-m root. I challenged each and everyone you to find such a term. You can't even find it in Amarigna, Arabic or Hebrew and they lived in the Area. ][You do however find in related African languages K-m, g-n, k-n to mean BLACK, or, COUNTRY/CITY/VILLAGE, or FARM/BLACK SOIL. You do NOT, and I repeat and I still challenge anyone on this board, to find me a term with the k-m root in African languages that means BLACK PEOPLE. I found k-m to mean BLACK SOIL, which matches the N23 reference. You seem to be under the illusion that all of these other African languages are derived from AE, or vice versa. Why are they in separate language branches, if the similarity is supposed to be so obvious. Do you think that the Rosetta stone could have been deciphered using any other African language besides Coptic? There is a reason why people rely on the Coptic language to understand AE language and not other African languages, simply because it has closest relationship. So I fail to see the basis of your challenge to prove other African languages mean Black Nation, it serves no purpose.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Apr 23, 2010 18:03:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 23, 2010 18:08:10 GMT -5
Again, with all sincerity, and I won't go much further with you on this, do you think it is possible to add more to a cup that is already full? You are coming to me with your cup full. You know everything and can't no one add to your cup (your reservoir of information). Therefore things seem illogical to you because you refuse to humble yourself and learn. By your statements it is clear that you didn't read the article through because every single point you brought up, I quoted the article and addressed you point for point. You sit here and try to argue about a subject matter you know nothing about. You don't know how to read Mdw Ntr, you don't know about comparative linguistics, you don't know about folk etymology or the history of this debate, YET you formulate argument after argument of illogical statements because you refuse to take the advice given to you from someone who DOES know the above. I gave you reference after reference, from competent and respected scholars. Learn the argument first, then come back with a critique. Watching old videos on youtube is not a substitute for studying (not saying you do this, but this has been the behavior of most internet scholars). You have to read and engage the texts for context, meaning and application. And until you learn how to do this, you are wasting mine, yours and this boards time. Please, if you're not going to read the text and follow the argument (all in plain simple English in the Intro and following section) then please refrain from posting. Study first, argue later. [ I honestly approached the article with an open mind, and no preconceived notions about you, as this is the first post, I've read from you, to be clear. And I do know what a determinant is, in the English language the most proper word would be the 'object', as in English we use the SVO- Subject Verb Object, most commonly. So when using an adjective such as a color, with a particular object, does not change the meaning of the adjective when used alone. So don't insult my intelligence. I may not understand hieroglyphics, and I openly admit it, but I do understand the grammatical structure of a given language, and all use SVO or a combination there of, even if one doesn't speak or comprehend the language. And I asked you to clarify yourself, because I'm sincerely trying to understand your logic, and not just for the sake of argument either. Otherwise, I would not have bothered myself to even open the link you provided. You should learn how to accept constructive criticism, and use it as an opportunity to improve the contents of your article, so that the average laymen can grasp the concepts you are trying to convey, otherwise, most people without knowledge of hieroglyphics, will simply ignore the article and dismiss it as simply your opinion. Imhotep, I am a critical thinker, and critical thinkers, don't approach any subject as 'humble' learners, save this for the 'follower' types. I even question myself, much less others. If your audience is a group of experts on hieroglyphics, linguistics, etc., then you may not find any average person with interest in your article, AT ALL, I regret wasting my 10 minutes scanning it. As it needs more clarification and cohesiveness. Stick to the topic, don't jump from one language to the other, even all the way over to China...this causes one to lose their train of thought, some of us like a coherent flow, not something thrown together as if it was written by one with an attention deficit disorder. Keep it focused, keep it simple, if your objective is to teach.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Apr 23, 2010 22:28:49 GMT -5
At this point you have shown you're not serious. So I'm not going to waste my time. You have the references. You have lots of work to do. You can have the last word.
|
|