|
|
Post by olehint on Oct 20, 2010 14:47:11 GMT -5
this al~Takruri *********
if he think something off topic he feel free to cut an paste a thread, start a new one, whatever he feel like.
I'm not even talking about somebody throwing out an insult.
He took Ausar comments off the KM unilateral thread just because he didn't think there was any connect to African words. Then the comment wind up being a new thread he created in another section. I don't even agree with Ausar but he has a right to have his own theory about a Kemet linguistic diaspora.
People should also be able to go off topic if they want without some mod coming in with the cut and paste job
There no forurm that is run like this
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Oct 20, 2010 17:21:38 GMT -5
this al~Takruri ********* I love you too! Yep. I follow Obenga more than Greenberg in thinking that Pharaonic Egyptian Language is closely linked to languages labeled Niger- Congo and Nilo-Saharan more so than an Afrisan language like Tamazight. My reason for shuttling some, not all, of Asar's posts is given in the thread under question. I agree, which is why I preserve and don't delete. Nope. If you don't like it you have other fora to run to, Kitty. |
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Oct 20, 2010 22:58:02 GMT -5
The problem is it appears one doesn't understand fully what Egyptology is. A simple definition would clear this up:
I highlighted the word language for a reason. Linguistics is a part of the overall field of Egyptology. This runs counter to how you are running the forum labeled EGYPTOLOGY. This is not the first time you have done something like this. The thread I started on reading Hieroglyphs, you moved to the GENERAL forum. That is not a GENERAL thread. It belongs in Egyptology; that same Egyptology that includes language.
You cannot study Egyptian language by only studying the Egyptian language. That's impossible and without studying other languages, there would be no way Egyptology could have gotten started (Rosetta Stone comes to mind).
You can't study the hieroglyphs for KM without cross comparing them in other languages. You didn't even post all of the KM renderings known for the Egyptian texts, nor their alternate spellings which would render your thesis mute and argument non-existent.
You guys need to make up your mind what characteristics belong to what thread. And if you are going to move a thread, at least make it fit into the thread topic. You moved posts that had nothing to do with the topic in which you moved it to.
Anything that discusses Egyptian culture, language, motifs, architecture, religion, etc. belongs under Egyptology: PERIOD. This is basic and no one should have to be told this.
Just move the threads where they belong and quit moving people's threads because you disagree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Oct 21, 2010 3:30:34 GMT -5
If you look at this thread up in Egyptology we talking about -
KM biliteral and k-m uniliterals
It starts off with me quoting al~Takruri, then making a comment
thats very nice, I got the first post
But guess what its still messed up becasue that wasn't even the first post
al~Takruri already cut off the beginning of that whole thread, I don't even remember how it went in the first place.
I think this is even before Ausar even came into the convo.
The thread was already cut off to start it. Fast forward, last thing I said in the thread was about the Kem word for skin and that comment got deleted unless it up in some new location, he don't even tell you where.
And I was even playing by the rules with the official Meriotic translation just like he was doing.
Cuts off stuff don't even tell you wher your comment went to, or if it even exist.
How man times you gonna chop up a thread to make it fit your self.
The man's on a real big ego trip, messing up the forum, leave the people alone
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Oct 21, 2010 11:47:04 GMT -5
Your comparative linguistics as AEL will go in General Studies. AEL in the Egyptology folder will conform to standard individual language studies. No one learning a particular language gets bombarded with every language in the same family and from different layers in time. I do you the courtesy of not deleting it as off topic. The problem is it appears one doesn't understand fully what Egyptology is. A simple definition would clear this up: I highlighted the word language for a reason. Linguistics is a part of the overall field of Egyptology. This runs counter to how you are running the forum labeled EGYPTOLOGY. This is not the first time you have done something like this. The thread I started on reading Hieroglyphs, you moved to the GENERAL forum. That is not a GENERAL thread. It belongs in Egyptology; that same Egyptology that includes language. You cannot study Egyptian language by only studying the Egyptian language. That's impossible and without studying other languages, there would be no way Egyptology could have gotten started (Rosetta Stone comes to mind). You can't study the hieroglyphs for KM without cross comparing them in other languages. You didn't even post all of the KM renderings known for the Egyptian texts, nor their alternate spellings which would render your thesis mute and argument non-existent. You guys need to make up your mind what characteristics belong to what thread. And if you are going to move a thread, at least make it fit into the thread topic. You moved posts that had nothing to do with the topic in which you moved it to. Anything that discusses Egyptian culture, language, motifs, architecture, religion, etc. belongs under Egyptology: PERIOD. This is basic and no one should have to be told this. Just move the threads where they belong and quit moving people's threads because you disagree with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Oct 21, 2010 11:48:57 GMT -5
When the focus shifted from AEL as AEL into AEL as modern non-AEL, out from Egyptology and into General Studies it will go. The linguistic focus shifted from Egyptology to African Studies. Anyone having a hard time tracking recent posts has but to use the NEW TOPICS button or with a little luck the VIEW THE 10 MOST RECENT POSTS OF THIS FORUM link. As long as I moderate the EGYPTOLOGY folder it will be for standard Egyptology topics and on a level so as to attract and retain professionals, laymen, and students of Egyptology. There were some posts broached before I became mod that don't fit my editorial vision. I left them in place in respect to the previous moderator. On the original ES many a time I found on topic posts I and others made after much research effort and full of references deleted without comment. I will never delete any well thought out post written in at least form school level English that is in my opinion off topic. I will remove them to either an existing thread or create a new thread at my discretion. Like any editor, I will no longer give explanations for my editorial choices I will implement them as appropriate. If you look at this thread up in Egyptology we talking about - KM biliteral and k-m uniliterals It starts off with me quoting al~Takruri, then making a comment thats very nice, I got the first post But guess what its still messed up becasue that wasn't even the first post al~Takruri already cut off the beginning of that whole thread, I don't even remember how it went in the first place. I think this is even before Ausar even came into the convo. The thread was already cut off to start it. Fast forward, last thing I said in the thread was about the Kem word for skin and that comment got deleted unless it up in some new location, he don't even tell you where. And I was even playing by the rules with the official Meriotic translation just like he was doing. Cuts off stuff don't even tell you wher your comment went to, or if it even exist. How man times you gonna chop up a thread to make it fit your self. The man's on a real big ego trip, messing up the forum, leave the people alone |
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Oct 21, 2010 13:08:07 GMT -5
Your post absolutely makes no sense. Synchronic/structuralist linguistics looks at a language in a specific point in time. Diachronic linguistics examines the language as it changes over time. The study of the word with root k-m is not a synchronic debate, it is one that is diachronic as you have to examine when it came into use and how it was used throughout the duration of the written record. To prove how a term is used, it is helpful to go back to reconstructed protoforms of the term in the larger language families. KM is all over the world and isn't exclusive to the so-called Afro-San language family. There is no "proto-Egyptian" reconstructions to examine. You have to go back to Proto-Western-Sudanic/Negritic to understand how *ka, *kan, *kal became /km/ and the other morphs in other languages. This is standard practice. One cannot use Afrisan because by the time this becomes a staple, all of the classifiers have been lexicalized. Bantu keeps the old classifiers and helps us to see how Egyptian words properly breakdown. You not being a student of linguistics, you are not up on the data that has already been established by various linquists about the long standing links, with say Yoruba and Egyptian for example. There are things you can only answer in Egyptian by examining Congo-Saharan languages, for instance, the so-called "feminine -t" suffix at the end of place-names. It is not a femine -t but a "word" ti-, ci-, si-, ki-, gi-, ta- etc., meaning "land, ethnicity, people." The so-called feminine -t in regards to place-names is a staple of Sudanic languages. As Arara has stated, the Afro-Asiatic /k, kh/ has shifted to /tj/ > /t/ often in Egyptian. The same happened in Tshiluba which keeps all of the old forms in their language: ki-, ci-, cya-, ti-, tshi-, etc., prefixed to the noun. If you were familiar with the studies, you'd be hip to "doublets" which are various forms of the same word existing simultaneously in a language. Your argument is a weak one and is not the standard of comparative linguistics. Again, this argument will come to a close when the work is published and I will await your counter claims. Until then, the study of AEL is an Egyptology subject. Period! The use of comparative linguistics is no excuse to make it something other than Egyptology when the focus is understanding the Egyptian language. Your "standard" is no standard at all, but logic of a school of thought (the structuralist school). Again, showing little knowledge of the field. Your comparative linguistics as AEL will go in General Studies. AEL in the Egyptology folder will conform to standard individual language studies. No one learning a particular language gets bombarded with every language in the same family and from different layers in time. I do you the courtesy of not deleting it as off topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Oct 21, 2010 13:33:11 GMT -5
Your post absolutely makes no sense. Synchronic/structuralist linguistics looks at a language in a specific point in time. Diachronic linguistics examines the language as it changes over time. The study of the word with root k-m is not a synchronic debate, it is one that is diachronic as you have to examine when it came into use and how it was used throughout the duration of the written record. To prove how a term is used, it is helpful to go back to reconstructed protoforms of the term in the larger language families. KM is all over the world and isn't exclusive to the so-called Afro-San language family. There is no "proto-Egyptian" reconstructions to examine. You have to go back to Proto-Western-Sudanic/Negritic to understand how *ka, *kan, *kal became /km/ and the other morphs in other languages. This is standard practice. One cannot use Afrisan because by the time this becomes a staple, all of the classifiers have been lexicalized. Bantu keeps the old classifiers and helps us to see how Egyptian words properly breakdown. You not being a student of linguistics, you are not up on the data that has already been established by various linquists about the long standing links, with say Yoruba and Egyptian for example. There are things you can only answer in Egyptian by examining Congo-Saharan languages, for instance, the so-called "feminine -t" suffix at the end of place-names. It is not a femine -t but a "word" ti-, ci-, si-, ki-, gi-, ta- etc., meaning "land, ethnicity, people." The so-called feminine -t in regards to place-names is a staple of Sudanic languages. As Arara has stated, the Afro-Asiatic /k, kh/ has shifted to /tj/ > /t/ often in Egyptian. The same happened in Tshiluba which keeps all of the old forms in their language: ki-, ci-, cya-, ti-, tshi-, etc., prefixed to the noun. If you were familiar with the studies, you'd be hip to "doublets" which are various forms of the same word existing simultaneously in a language. Your argument is a weak one and is not the standard of comparative linguistics. Again, this argument will come to a close when the work is published and I will await your counter claims. Until then, the study of AEL is an Egyptology subject. Period! The use of comparative linguistics is no excuse to make it something other than Egyptology when the focus is understanding the Egyptian language. Your "standard" is no standard at all, but logic of a school of thought (the structuralist school). Again, showing little knowledge of the field. Your comparative linguistics as AEL will go in General Studies. AEL in the Egyptology folder will conform to standard individual language studies. No one learning a particular language gets bombarded with every language in the same family and from different layers in time. I do you the courtesy of not deleting it as off topic. You will remember that the focus of this place is supposed to be scholarly so when the admins design and implement certain things there a reason behind it. This is going to be the end of this matter. |
|
