vendredi 20 janvier 2017

Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age


Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[gave link to previous]

Roger M Pearlman
Nice Hans.
we are not that far apart.
what is a couple hundred years among friends? :)
I will post the links to my books below.
so you hold pain of Shinar is in modern day Turkey? or Syria?
whereas I would hold closer to UR-Kasdim
in Abraham until the Exodus I attribute another purpose for Gobkeii

'The Moshe Emes' Torah and Science alignment series:

The Torah Discovery Chronology: 'Abraham until the Exodus'
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1537302922
Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01L2T0LGK

'Distant Starlight and the Age, Formation and Structure of the Universe'
Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1519262205
Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0181C4Q1W

SPIRAL vs SCM cosmology model comparison free infographic
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312519866_SPIRAL_vs_SCM_cosmology_model_comparison_free_infographic


'The Recent Complex Creation Framework' six principles for science in maximum available context::
Paperback: http://amzn.com/1518640508
Kindle: http://amzn.com/B01CX9DMLE

Roger M. Pearlman
Torah Discovery Institute
20681 W. Valley Blvd.
Tehachapi CA. 93561

661-221-8588
rmp@torahdiscovery.org
www.torahdiscovery.org

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Roger M Pearlman "so you hold pain of Shinar is in modern day Turkey? or Syria?"

BOTH. AND Iraq (with a few exceptions SW and SE)

Plain of Shinar = Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamia = between Euphrates and Tigris.

Northern parts of Euphrates go in Turkey or even past.

"whereas I would hold closer to UR-Kasdim"

Both Urfa near Göbekli Tepe (Göbekli Tepe (pronounced [ɟøbekˈli teˈpe][2]) "Potbelly Hill"[3] in Turkish, is an archaeological site atop a mountain ridge in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of modern-day Turkey, approximately 12 km (7 mi) northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa, and Şanlıurfa = Şanlı Urfa, venerable Urfa) and Woolley's Ur, further south, obviously, have the name Ur (in some old language Urfa is actually Ur-Fa). Before Woolley discovered that other Ur, it was Urfa in Turkey, Edessa, which was considered as Ur-Kasdim by both Jewish and Muslim traditions - probably, but that I don't know, by some Oriental Christian ones too.

"I attribute another purpose for Gobkeii"

Someone has mentioned that the stone slabs look like a launching ramp.

That (but nothing in Woolley's Ur or its Ziggurat that I know of) fits in with a rocket interpretation of T o B.

Note that Catholic Church Fathers - my authority next to the Bible - have not settled that T o B was a skyscraper. In St Thomas' Postilla to the book of Genesis (a disputed work, I think it is early and he was still learning Latin, he is using "ille" like "il"="the", which is faulty with Classical standards) it seems the opinions were divided on whether the words refer to what we call a skyscraper or to what we call a skyline.

But note that rockets are towers of which only the top reaches into heaven.

Göbekli fits rocketry better than Ziggurat would do.

As for your books, I'll freely share the links, but to the second I will only add that my solution to "distant starlight" is that what we know call stars to exclusion of planets, meteors and comets, i e what used to be called fix stars, are one light day away.

Being geocentric, I can interpret the phenomenon of Bessel discovered in 1838 - the one which is famously 0.75 c. arc seconds for Proxima alphae Centauri - as NOT being parallactic, but a dance of angelic movers (in time with the sun, but not in pace with the sun's dance around the ecliptic each year) and therefore as not implying alpha Centauri is "4 lightyears away".

This reduces the distant starlight problem to a non-problem. And that means, the larger technicalities on dating game are concerned with purely terrestrial things, like dendro, stratigraphy, carbon 14 and other radiometric.

A.j. Kukoleck
I posted an article a while back that said gobkeii was far younger. Im no expert pn it though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Obviously, if carbon dates are 10 000 BP and around, GT is far younger than that.

But why do you call it "gobkeii"?

What you might have been thinking of is, CMI (and probably ICR too) consider that the Stone Age (including Palaeolithic) is not just post-Flood, but post-Babel too.

If so finding T o B would mean finding sth with carbon dates reaching back to between Flood and probable post-Flood stone age sites, which is delicate.

I'd say part of stone age sites may be pre-Flood. Mousterian by Neanderthals was probably pre-Flood, since post-Flood there is a clear Neanderthal shortage.

I also consider that the initial geographic spread of stone age was not the same as the scattering after Babel.

If on the other hand you consider the stone age spread of geography including even Neanderthal race in Mousterian culture as after Babel, then GT would indeed be too young for Babel. And so would the Ziggurat of Ur, if they found any carbon datable material linking it to start of culture in Ur.

Roger M Pearlman
Hi AJ and Hans I have founding of GBK 5777-1657 = 4120 YA and the main hub for a couple hundred years +/- until UR-Casdim became the Hub leading up to the dispersion from Bavel.
part of it's function was an animal conservation as we transitioned the animals from the ark to the wild.
reference
Torah Discovery Chronology
volume one being Abraham until the Exodus

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would not think G T was so beneficial.

Carbon dated history from 30 000 (c.) BP to 10 000 BP would be sufficient time for the animals to go back to wildlife before GT.

The purpose you give GT, I give cave arts like Altamira or Lascaux.

Also, it seems remnants of human sacrifice were found in GT, or at very best cremation, sth which Noah would not do.

Roger M Pearlman
Hi Hans, if Human sacrifice it could be from 400 +/- years after it's founding , so post dispersion from Bavel, which is already just post ice age, when some people came back and perhaps used the site for a while before moving on again.
So if carbon dates younger that first half of the ice age that may be why as
It would have still been an important place known to most or all even after we shifted to Ur Kasdim. mid ice age until early post ice age by the dispersion from Bavel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It seems all of GT was post ice age or when it retired.

You would probably need them to dig deeper and find sth dated to 20 000 BC, but I think you won't.

I think ice age was up to T o B and dispersal, stone age men were partly expeditions (among others) trying to provide Nimrod with Uranium and failing and failing due to ice age.

In my redating, all of GT takes only 45 years.

Creation vs. Evolution : Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/10/graham-hancock-had-sth-to-say-on.html


Roger M Pearlman
Hi Hans-Georg Lundahl carbon dating only extrapolates back 70k +/- asserted years,
so if GT founded early ice age, it would no carbon date at all if deep time was true.
as the ice age started no more than 4120 years ago some items might carbon date
RCCF factors considered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If ice age was post flood, all of ice age would carbon date.

Flood dates range 20 000 - 50 000 BP.

So, all of ice age carbon dates.

Roger M Pearlman
based on this GT would be 3780 years old
but I think that is dating the resettlement of same by the end of the ice age after the dispersion from Bavel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Here are my dates, longer chronology, as you know:

9600 BC - 8600 BC - Carbon dates, I presume? I'll use my Fibonacci table*.

2778 av. J.-Chr.
40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr.
2599 av. J.-Chr.
62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.

2778
2599
0179 real years appear as

10328
06449
03879 carbon dated years

3879:1000 = c. 4.

179:x = 4?

179 = 4x
179:4 = 4x:4
45 = x

So, was GT perhaps on stage for 45 years? Or were earliest times of it not recorded by any organic remains from them? Strictly non-organic ones can't be carbon dated.


Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl you say 'all of ice age carbon dates'
RCCF: n it does not,
not after considering RCCF scientific factor calibration.
there is a reason things that carbon date that are over 3500 years have inflated results assuming a steady decay rate. as explained in

Torah and Science: Torah and Science Reconciled (Moshe Emes) Paperback – October 15, 2015
by Roger M Pearlman (Author)
http://amzn.com/1518640508


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am indeed assuming a steady decay rate, but it poses no problem for Christian chronology.

10328
06449
16777
08388 BC - just after GT, carbon dated.

2778
2599
5377
2688 BC - just after GT, Biblical (Roman Martyrology, my recalibration)

As to your book, there is not much preview, if you are no Amazon member. I am using this and similar programs available online which do presume a constant decay rate, and from than calculating how many extra years per how many % of modern carbon in atmosphere:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Roger M Pearlman
if you use a steady decay rate, and not RCCF calibration factors, what is the max years age of something that can carbon date for you?
current conventional 70k
with RCCF 4,120

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"current conventional 70k" = c. 68-74k

I just used that number for the skeleton La Ferrassie 2, a lady whom we might descend from, if she is in the inlaws of Japheth.

I take that as pre-Flood. If in Flood the carbon level was 3.9% of present level ... (midway between 20 000 and 50 000 dates, since 26 800 years ... I should have done lower, perhaps? ... no, see following)
If furthermore 4974 years ago (year of Flood) is leaving us 54.788 % from back then (which leaves 2,136732 % now from Flood year, which dates 31 800 BP) ...
Then carbon content lower than 2,136732 % may be pre-Flood.

70 000 BP = 0,021 %, and since oldest Flood remains are c. 50 000 BP, this means they are pre-Flood.

I have not gone over details of initial rise from perhaps no carbon 14 at all at Creation to Flood, except, contrary to rise after Flood, this rise must have involved much lower carbon 14 content being produced per year, proportionally to all carbon.

Therefore dates earlier than Flood carbon dating, I just consider "pre-Flood".

Update
After giving link to this as text above.

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hi Hans, in RCCF we start 1AM with the initial, very slow radiation build, due to the stronger pre-mabul magnetic field..so negligible and starting day 8 until 1656 AM anything that would carbon date would date 50k plus or as over 70k so not carbon date.
than a second gradual radiation build to approximate current levels staring by the Mabul year taking about 800 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mabul = Deluge?

Thing is, fossils from Deluge, like a Triceratops horridus (a dinosaur which could be the unicorn) do have measurable carbon dates.

For your model to work, you need most fossils to be post-Flood rather than from Flood.

Citing:
More recently, Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson carbon dated a number of dinosaur fossils including two specimens from Triceratops horridus.3 The two specimens gave a date in years of 33,570±20 and 41,010±220.4

CMI : Triceratops soft tissue
Joel Tay answers a letter
http://creation.com/triceratops-soft-tissue


Footnote:

4.A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text.

Roger M Pearlman
yes if those samples died / during the Mabul year 4120 YA when there was a short term burst of radiation exposure or even pre flood, to have a small residue which dates in the tens of thousands indicate, rather than not dating at all 60k +/- and over based on extrapolation of modern conditions, so no contradiction of RCCF

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And there is little room for most fossils to have been buried any time later.

If they are dated by other methods, they usually are called "millions of years" old.

Cretaceous and so. According to CMI, carbon dating them is very rare, but when they do, it is 20 000 - 50 000 years.

jeudi 19 janvier 2017

Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology


Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

I have already published a post where my readers can learn that both I and Tas Walker have made attempts of recalibrating C14 dates to real time, as in Biblical Chronology. There is actually another table in the field, Gerardus D. Bouw's. It was presented me by my friend A.j.Kukoleck, as follows, and led to certain comments on FB, involving both my comparison with Bouw's recalibration and my comparison with someone else who was basing his chronology on the Jewish calendar's Anno Mundi. He's Roger M Pearlman.

Here is our exchange:

A.j. Kukoleck
here you go hans. now you can correct the c14 ages :)

TECHIES' CORNER : Converting Published C14 Ages to the Biblical Time Scale
Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no067/techies.html


Roger M Pearlman
shared to RCCF group

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, not bad.

I have about same "carbon age" for Flood year, but more like 2957 BC.

On the other hand, his table is more complete in values than mine is.

Here I present mine, along Tas Walker's:

Creation vs. Evolution : C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/08/c14-calibrations-comparing-two.html


I spot a problem, if we suppose Exodus was in 1510 BC.

1530 BC was twenty years before Exodus, Moses midway through desert exile.

And 1530 = 3530 years ago.

4,000 3,530 1,530


Published age 4000 years ago. Would published age 2000 BC give any good anchorage for Exodus?

I think just before Hyksos is better.

10,000 4,159 2,159 [- Göbekli Tepe]
35,000 4,345 2,345 (flood year)


2,345
2,159
0,187

Göbekli Tepe 187 years after Flood, all of palaeolithic stone age within these ... except for what is pre-Flood.

Will he take Göbekli Tepe or Ziggurat of Ur as Tower of Babel?

Wait, got one here:**

"He lived a total of two hundred thirty-nine years. Charting this on the Biblical Timeline, Peleg’s existence is from 2247 BC to 2008 BC."


So, yes, here Bouw's and KJV based chronology for Peleg also*** support Göbekli Tepe being Tower of Babel.

So, no actually this was not a problem.

Roger M Pearlman
Exodus was 2448 AM, it is 5777 AM 5777-2448 = 3329

3329 -2017 =
1510-1312 = Hi Hans-Georg you overstate years ago by close to 200 years.
see RCCF and Abraham until the Exodus for the actuality and calibrated for the science using the max available context.

Gobeki (in turkey) founded about 1657 AM
Tower of Bavel started about 300 years later and abandoned 1996 AM in a place not to far from Ur
so not close to each other

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am believing the Roman Catholic chronology of Christmas Liturgy (I could also believe a Vulgate based, closer to Ussher's, as a Catholic, the Church hasn't decided).

Exodus was in 1510 BC = 3689 AM.

"Tower of Bavel started about 300 years later and abandoned 1996 AM in a place not to far from Ur"

Both the Ziggurat and the GT are each near a city called Ur.

The Ziggurat is near Woolley's Ur.

Göbekli Tepe is near Ur-fa, a k a Edessa.

I specifically checked by equating Shinar = Mesopotamia and seeing that while Urfa and GT are in Turkey, not Iraq, they are still east of Euphrates and West of Tigris and so in Shinar.

You say Ur = T o B?

[I meant Ziggurat of Ur, but wrote in haste, confer the rest]

Somewhat irrealistic on Bouw's timeline.

5,500 3,865 1,864
...
6,000 3,925 1,925


Both being after death of Peleg in the KJV chronology.

Göbekli Tepe will do, the Ziggurat of Ur won't, in Bouw's chronology.

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl Hi Hans, you are welcome to believe whatever you want.
RCCF provides the actuality based on valid science and scriptural testimony taken in max avail. context.
5777 AM years to date.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and scriptural testimony" - mistakenly using Masoretic or KJV.

"5777 AM years to date" - that is a Jewish and abridged chronology.

It seems it was deliberately contrived to make 70 weeks of Daniel match Bar Kochba instead of Our Lord.

Roger M Pearlman
Hi Hans, I did not say Ur = Migdal Bavel, but they are near each other (w/in a 100 +/- miles is reasonable w/o looking at the map and I would have to see which sites are candidates / look at the detailed evidence.

Hans no one is forcing you to use 5777 AM, but if you want to lknow/use the accurate timeline w/o the fudge that is it.
it is the inflated/fudged year count to fit your presumption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not say "Ur", I said "Ziggurat of Ur".

[Except one hasty approximated remark.]

I find the other Ur, Urfa in Shinar / East Anatolia more promising chronologically.

AND GT looks more like what I think T o B was about.

A tower "so tall that" its top reach the sky? No.
A tower the top of which can reach into heaven? Yes.

Rocket, not skyscraper, was the project.

Roger M Pearlman
anyway I am not interested in debating that issue I am sure of and wrote the book° on.
if you sincerely want to learn the truth and are open minded / able to handle, ask me nicely and I will try and correspond w/ you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"but if you want to lknow/use the accurate timeline w/o the fudge that is it."

I'd not quite agree, no.

Oh, you wrote the book°?

Well, I wrote another translation c14 to real time, hello colleague and rival!


* RCCF = The Receent Complex Creation Framework

** I omitted link from debate, here it is:

Amazing Bible Timeline with World History : Peleg: biblical figure, ‘when the earth was divided’
https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/peleg-biblical-figure-when-the-earth-was-divided/


With Back up:

http://www.webcitation.org/6ndWgrc9V

*** As did my own research.

° His book is called : Abraham until the Exodus
how, why to calibrate for the tighter 5,777 AM to date age of the universe.

mardi 13 décembre 2016

Debate with a Protestant : Continuing vs Restored Apostolic Church


Luke Lefebvre
[in his status had cited lots of early Church Fathers and writers in support of the Blessed Trinity, of the Divinity of Christ, and only marred it by one detail, which started our little dialogue:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What do you mean "LONG BEFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"? I didn't see anything previous to 33 AD!

Kim All
The Catholic Church began in the 4th Century.

The first three centuries produced many divergent myths about Jesus. The Catholics selected the texts to consider orthodox when they produced the Bible at the end of the 4th C CE (AD).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[It seems an answer was deleted, it said : I believe what the Catholic Church says about its origin - also possible I missed the "post" button]

Luke Lefebvre
Catholic churches fourth century my friend. There was no Catholic Church in the second century it's a post Constantine invention

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew 28:20 - where did the original Apostolic Church go, if you are right?

Luke Lefebvre
It existed for the first 300 years and it was taken over by the Catholic Church in the fourth century that's what happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
According to Matthew 28:20, if it was "taken over by the Catholic Church", how can the Catholic Church NOT be it?

Luke Lefebvre
Clement of Rome was not the first pole but he was the pastor of that church in Rome. It was not called the Roman Catholic Church because he was not the first Bishop there. He clearly says both Peter and Paul establish that church and at that time there were multiple pastors Clement being a subordinate pastor there

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If that were true, where is a continuing Church today which says so?

All I see are Protestants concluding so.

Luke Lefebvre
Irenaeus is probably the greatest historian of the second century. He's a convert of Polycarp of which Polycarp was converted by John the apostle. Clearly Irenaeus was not a Roman Catholic LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have a friend who read him and who says he was, I know others who say he was an Orthodox, I know no one who honestly claims he was a Protestant after looking at the evidence.

Luke Lefebvre
We have to look to the Protestant Reformation to see them bringing the church back to first century theology. That's what they believed a lot of them within the first 300 years

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem with this is that "bringing the Church back to first century theology" means admitting the Church lost it - contrary to Matthew 28:20.

Luke Lefebvre
How Irenaeus interpret the Scriptures is no different than people interpreting the Scriptures today. If he was wrong about certain doctrines he had an overall perspective of good doctrine

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As have the Catholics today too.

As you said he was "wrong about certain doctrines", you are perhaps admitting he was no Protestant?

Luke Lefebvre
But the difference is they have traditions outside the Bible these early Christians did not have traditions outside the Bible. They didn't worship the virgin Mary is the mother of God. The esteemed her highly favored but in no way saw her as the mother of God

Hans-Georg Lundahl, well I know the church of Christ believe in water baptism for salvation and they're definitely protestants but they're just wrong about that doctrine but they're right another doctrine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Luke Lefebvre, I'll have to pick this apart a bit.

"But the difference is they have traditions outside the Bible"

Do you mean traditions outside the text of the Bible or do you mean traditions without connexion to Biblical doctrine?

"these early Christians did not have traditions outside the Bible."

If you mean without connection to Biblical doctrine, neither have we today.

If you mean outside the text, they had, like sign of the cross, like fasting on wednesdays and fridays.

"They didn't worship the virgin Mary is the mother of God."

They at least honoured her as actually being that.

"The esteemed her highly favored but in no way saw her as the mother of God"

That would mean they did not regard Christ as God, I don't believe that for a second!

"well I know the church of Christ believe in water baptism for salvation and they're definitely protestants but they're just wrong about that doctrine but they're right another doctrine."

How, according to Matthew 28:20 can the Church which Christ founded be wrong about any doctrine? Just previous to that promise, He had told the disciples to teach the nations ALL he had told them to do.

This means He was promising inerrant assistance!

Luke Lefebvre
What I'm saying is that these men did not believe Mary to be the mother of God as you find today Todd in the Catholic Church. That's later traditions outside the Bible by Miss using the Bible. These Christians within the first 300 years of the Christian faith bring this valuable information

There's three periods to Christianity as a whole. The beginning then the Catholic Church the end being the Protestant movement. It was a return to what was originally talk within the first 300 years. I believe that's the woman mentioned in Matthew 13 hiding leaven Three meals of leaven

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"What I'm saying is that these men did not believe Mary to be the mother of God"

Did they not believe Jesus Christ was God, or did they not believe Mary was His Mother?

"as you find today Todd in the Catholic Church."

If not as, then differently? How differently?

"That's later traditions outside the Bible by Miss using the Bible."

If that were the Catholic Church's action, where is the Church who every century used it right?

"These Christians within the first 300 years of the Christian faith bring this valuable information"

Not doubting that a moment, but they were Catholics, and so is the Catholic Church doing now.

"There's three periods to Christianity as a whole."

I don't think so.

"The beginning then the Catholic Church the end being the Protestant movement."

If the Catholic Church "went astray" as your scenario presupposes, you ruin Matthew 28:20.

"It was a return to what was originally talk within the first 300 years."

A "return" means all of the Church had "left" what was originally there : contrary to Matthew 28:20.

"I believe that's the woman mentioned in Matthew 13 hiding leaven Three meals of leaven"

Why would the leaven in three meals of flour mean that? What if it is a normal recipy for leavened bread?

Luke Lefebvre
We know The Catholic Church went astray. But they had general beliefs of the Christian faith. The Protestant movement restored that faith

For the first 300 years Christians there did not have perfect interpretation of the scripture no different than people today. My point being is God's word was always there the church was always there and today we have been restored to the faith once delivered to the saints.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
When you say "you know the Catholic Church went astray", either you show where the faith once delivered to the saints was PRESERVED or you contradict Mattthew 28:20.

Luke Lefebvre
Matthew 2820 does not save the church will preserve the doctrine LOL it doesn't teach that at all it just says go make disciples and we know the church got corrupted.

Sorry for the laughing

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Matthew 28:20 does not save the church will preserve the doctrine LOL"

Matthew 28:20 has two parts.

In the first part He tells the disciples to preserve His doctrine, in the second He says He will assist them all days.

So, Matthew 28:20 very well tells He will preserve His doctrine in the Church.

You should be sorry for laughing like a fool, instead of understanding!

mardi 22 novembre 2016

Debate with a Pyrrhonist (part I?)


Adam Joseph
[excerpt from :
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Aspects.pdf
and from http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/more-to-reflect-on-2,
I am sure he intended no plagiarism. In the following, GEO and AC refer to debaters Geocentric and A-Centric. I presume first debater is GEO, but do not add it.]

Attempts to provide scientific proof that Earth rotates &-or orbits

Some basic physics

What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The “movement” is termed “rotation” and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac’s results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002). How does the author account for the Sagnac effect? By using the same Relativistic “transformations” that he told us he wasn’t going to use in a previous paragraph! This is what he writes:

The Sagnac effect also occurs if an atomic clock is moved slowly from one reference station on the ground to another...Observers at rest on the ground, seeing these same asymmetric effects, attribute them instead to gravitomagnetic effects – that is to say, the warping of space-time due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor... (Ibid., p. 44).

Clear as mud, right? This is the kind of ‘begging the question’ mumbo-jumbo you see often in theoretical physics of the Relativity variety. What he just said, in case you missed it is, although Relativity cannot account for the Sagnac effect, we are still going to attribute the discrepancies in GPS calculations to Relativistic effects, namely, the warping of “spacetime due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor.” You see, he is locked into a system that doesn’t give him the answers he needs, but since he doesn’t want to admit that they could all be answered by assuming a stationary earth and a revolving aether-type medium, then he will continue to push Relativity as the answer; and all his readers will bob their heads up and down and confirm his gospel, as they have done since 1905.

The author more or less admits the effects of these unanswered questions when in one of his final paragraphs he writes: “Historically, there has been much confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects. And it is almost impossible to discover how different manufacturers go about it!”

Ah, yes, and now we can see why there is so much confusion, because no one knows what the heck they are doing! They know their Relativity equations are just fudge factors to explain the things they simply cannot understand under the scenario of a moving earth. Yet they have the audacity to borrow non-moving or “Earth-fixed” equations in order to give the appearance that an Earth in Relativity works! Now you wonder why I’m on the warpath with Geocentricity?

One more thing before I leave this topic. The difference between the Geocentric and Heliocentric concept is important, for one of the major flaws in modern heliocentric theory is the failure to account for the effect of the stars on all the motions we see. Modern science has virtually dismissed the effect of forces from the stars, and instead has based its solar cosmology almost entirely on the so-called “centrifugal effects” created by the planets in motion. But this is inevitable, since once you posit that the stars are “fixed” (as modern cosmology does) then the only thing you have left to determine why solar and terrestrial objects move in the rotational paths they do is by the supposed centrifugal effect. And thus, all of the modern heliocentric physics seeking to understand rotational motion is based on a fictitious force, which is not very comforting for anyone wishing to have solid answers for why things work the way they do.

Proof lacking for rotation & orbiting

AC
Assume that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis. (This is the assertion to be disproved.) Since the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, and since we see the heavenly bodies traversing the sky each night, we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the earth.

Since we see the heavenly bodies in roughly the same positions from night to night (e.g. at 10 PM Jupiter is at about the same place as it was last night at 10 PM.) we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the Earth with a period of roughly twenty-four hours. (Here – in order to keep the math simple – we assume a circular orbit for the heavenly bodies and a period of exactly twenty-four hours.) Since any given heavenly body traverses a circle about the Earth in twenty-four hours, and since the circumference of that circle is 2*pi*r (r being the distance from Earth to the body) the velocity of the body will be (2*pi*r)/(24 hours). It can be shown (You’ll trust me on the math, I hope. I’ll submit it if you insist.) that any body orbiting the Earth at a distance of more than 4.125x10^12 metres (a couple AU less than the distance between here & Neptune) must be travelling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second.

Since Neptune & the further bodies can be shown to be traveling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second, and since 3.0x10^8 metres per second is the speed of light in a vacuum, and since no material body may travel at or above the speed of light in a vacuum we are faced with an absurdity. And we can therefore conclude that our initial assertion is false.

Since we have shown it to be false that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, we can infer that it does.

Much to my horror I have discovered that I have left a clarifying point out of my proof; i.e. my proof – at least the way I’ve worded it – applies only to those heavenly bodies in the Zodiac. Those would be the sun, the planets, with the exception of Pluto, and the fixed stars in the Zodiac. The same argument could be applied to the other stars in the sky, but the math would be different, so I won’t include them here.

GEO
What you postulate as proof of a rotating and revolving earth does not prove it at all. First, you assume a few things as proven which have not in fact been proven. One is your assumption that the speed of light (I assume in a vacuum) is constant, either here or anywhere else in the universe.

Second, you assume that the planets (and in your second letter, the stars) themselves travel at or beyond the conventional speed of light in order to complete their journey. Let me explain both of these issues by starting with a little history of physics.

In 1887, Michelson and Morley did an experiment to detect any difference in the speed of light between north-south travel and east-west travel. A difference in speed was expected because they assumed that the Earth was orbiting the Sun in a stationary aether. From our perspective on Earth, the aether would blow past us like a wind in an east-west direction. Michelson and Morley reasoned that we should notice changes in the speed of light in east-west travel, but fixed speed in north-south travel. The experiment failed to measure any difference in speed, no matter when and where they tried it. Scientists were baffled.

Rather than admitting the possibility that the earth was stationary with respect to the aether, scientists dispensed with aether and claimed that the speed of light was constant. In fact, the speed of light was claimed to be the only constant in the universe, whereas mass, length, distance, time, and anything else became relative. This became know as the Relativity theory. But all the Michelson-Morley experiment showed was that aether wind was either too small to measure or was non-existent. Michelson and Morley, however, demonstrated nothing about the constancy of the speed of light through space.

Added to this is the experiment performed by Georges Sagnac. A writer for Physics Today writes:

“One of the most confusing relativistic effects – the Sagnac effect – appears in rotating reference frames. (See Physics Today, October 1981, page 20) … Observers in the non-rotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating ... Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is equivalent to correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame...”

Yes, the author is right. It is “confusing.” Unfortunately for him, the reason it is “confusing” is that Relativity has never explained the Sagnac effect, found by Georges Sagnac in 1913, nor its follow-up experimental verification performed by Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. In fact, according to Dean Turner in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, he writes:

I pause to note that one may scan Einstein’s writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology... Such an oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting. (p. 44).

Why were they not mentioned in Einstein’s writings? Simple. Because they give experimental evidence for the falsity of Relativity theory. Einstein not only did this with Sagnac and Michelson-Gale, he also did it with Joos, Ives, Miller, Kennedy-Thorndike, and many other scientists who questioned or rejected his theory based on the results of their verified experiments.

What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The “movement” is termed “rotation” and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac’s results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002).

The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 [A. A. Michelson and H. Gale, “The effect of the Earth’s Rotation on the Velocity of Light,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol LXI, No. 3, April 1925, pp. 137-145] measured a difference in the speed of light at two different latitudes. He concluded that the aether-wind speed changed with latitude due to the rotation of the Earth in a stationary aether. (This is because the radius of rotation decreases with increasing latitude). This experiment disproves the constancy of the speed of light assumption and provides adequate evidence for the existence of the aether, just as Georges Sagnac found. Dalton Miller did even more comprehensive studies to confirm these results. There is quite a collection of letters between Einstein and Miller in which the former is trying to persuade the latter not to put credit in the results.

Heliocentrists might be tempted to say that Michelson-Gale provides “proof” of the rotation of the Earth, but that would be presumptuous. The only thing Michelson-Gale provided for us is that either the Earth is moving with respect to an aether, or the aether is moving against a stationary Earth.

Not only did Sagnac and Michelson-Gale show the possibility of aether, but an experiment performed by Carl Anderson in 1932 showed another anomaly to Relativity theory. Relativity theory postulated that space was a vacuum – nothing existed between the heavenly bodies. But Carl Anderson showed that a 1.02 million electron volt charge distributed anywhere in space produced a free positron and electron. When the 1.02 Mev was reapplied, the positron and electron disappeared. Einstein’s explanation of this phenomenon was that matter was created and then annihilated. (This may have been where today’s scientists postulate that the universe began from the singularity [“nothingness”] of the Big Bang). Rather than reason that space was filled with positron-electron pairs, in order to save his Relativity theory, Einstein maintained that matter was created and destroyed.

So how could the planets and stars revolve around the Earth each day if the Earth is fixed in space? One of the more cogent explanations is that the planets, sun and stars themselves are not moving; rather, they are all embedded in a medium that itself rotates once every 24 hours. This medium would contain the so-called aether or even the Anderson positron-electron pairs, and as some rightly hold, particles in the Planck dimensions. In fact, Hans Thirring, famous for the Lense-Thirring effect, found that for a rotating shell of matter, the interior field of the shell is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis effects in the Heliocentric system.

The constitution of the rotating medium would be that coincident with the Planck dimensions found in black holes. Modern science is familiar with such mediums. For example, in The Very Early Universe (Gibbons, et al, 1983) astrophysicist Markov defines the particle he calls the “maximon,” which possesses the 10 to the 94th grams per cubic centimeter associated with Planck dimensions.

Also noteworthy in this respect is the work of Dr. Robert Moon, Chicago University physicist, who in his article “Space Must Be Quantized,” shows that the prevailing theory that space is a vacuum is not supported by the evidence. The reason? Because space has an impedance of at least 376 ohms, something not predicted or accounted for in conventional science, but coincident with the spatial mediums of Geocentric understanding. Princeton’s John Wheeler is credited with being the first to describe what is now called “spacetime foam.” This is Wheeler’s theory that space is occupied by ultra-dense particles. Stephen Hawking has postulated something similar. Both Wheeler’s and Hawking’s “foam” reasons that the particles are at Planck dimensions. Thus, this is not something confined only to Geocentric scientists. In an article by J. P. Vigier, “De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether” in 1980, he writes: “Since Dirac’s pioneer work it has been known that Einstein’s relativity theory (and Michelson’s experiment) are perfectly compatible with an underlying relativistic stochastic [read aether] model.”

In fact, the 3 degree Kelvin radiation discovered by Pensias and Wilson is not the remnants of the Big Bang at all, but is more likely the subatomic vibration inherent in this Dirac aether or Wheeler-Hawking “foam.”

Moreover, Vigier’s work, along with colleague Petroni, published “Causal Superluminal Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox” in Physical Review Letters in 1981. He reports the existence of faster-than-light interactions between an atomic beam of calcium and krypton ion laser, and shows that these are best explained by the stochastic model of space (i.e., aether) rather than the vacuum of conventional physics. There are many other scientists and experiments that could be mentioned to support these findings. Just recently (2001), Princeton scientists showed that a pulse of laser light traveled through cesium vapor at 310 times the distance it traveled in a vacuum.

To rotate this spherical body within 24 hours, we can suppose that there is a massive shell at the outer limits providing sufficient gravity to pull the Sun and the stars in their orbits. The aether, like water in a spinning bucket, would rotate along with the universe. Hence, to those inside the shell, there would be no way to measure the rotation; the entire frame of reference would be pulled around by the rotating shell. This concept is not a novelty. It is known in conventional physics as “frame pulling” or “frame dragging,” and was discovered by Einstein, Lense and Thirring, and remains an area of active research. A rotating inertial frame of reference would abide by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, as well as explain the rotating Foucault pendulum, centrifugal and Coriolis forces.

In fact, a rotating universe would explain something that conventional science cannot explain. It is known by scientists that, in order to account for the so-called expanding universe theory, sufficient matter is needed. But scientists have found only 1% of the matter needed. To compensate for this, Einstein (again to save Relativity theory) created his “Cosmological Constant” – a fudge factor to allow the universe to keep expanding. Today scientists account for the missing matter by referring to it as Dark Matter, but they haven’t found it yet. I guess it must really be “dark.” :) The concept of a rotating universe deals quite nicely with this issue. The less mass the better. And the mass that is present does not collapse in on itself because the centrifugal force (which is a real force in a Geocentric model) causes the heavenly bodies to move outward in just the right balance to compensate for the pull of gravity inward. Hence the mass of the universe (the “1%” conventional science has found) and the spin of the universe (24 hour cycle) is enough to achieve equilibrium.

As for faster-than-light action, the rotating universe would have stars traveling in excess of the speed of light, since with respect to the rotating aether, the stars are not moving and there is no difficulty of exceeding the local speed of light.

Moreover, in 1955, the astronomer Van de Hulst writes: “In 1930, astronomers discovered with some shock that as the light of stars passes through certain regions of interstellar space it is dimmed and scattered in various directions... If there was indeed an interstellar haze which dimmed the light of distant stars or made them altogether invisible, then many of their calculations of star distances were wrong. Further studies proved that the fear was justified. Starlight passing through the crowded regions of our galaxy loses roughly half its energy by absorption and scattering in every two thousand light years of travel. As a result, even with our most powerful telescopes, we cannot see the center of our galaxy...Beyond about six thousand light years from our observing station most or our studies of the galaxy are literally lost in the fog.” In 1981, the astronomer Baugher wrote: “Much of the galaxy is...hidden from our view, making the study of its structure quite difficult.” There are many other statements like these from astronomers. I think it is also noteworthy to point out that conventional physics and astronomy also have problems with the speed of light. For example, Hubble’s Constant was formulated (H = 100 km/s/mega-parsec) based on the proportionality of the red-shift to the distance of the star. The problem, of course, came in when telescopes were able to see beyond 50 giga-parsecs, which would require the galaxies to be receding at many times the speed of light. Then when telescopes were able to see to 500 gigaparsecs, this means that the galaxies would have to be receding at hundreds of times the speed of light. Thus, something is obviously wrong with the whole concept. This evidence certainly doesn’t lend itself to making the conventional wisdom of Heliocentrism sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, things work much better in the Geocentric model.

End of
Status of Adam Joseph

Berj Manoushagian
All motion is relative.

Any insistence on absolute motion is evidence that the nature of motion has not been understood.

The fact is that we do not even know what the word 'motion' means except in relative terms.

Why are we looking for absolutes in a universe that is nothing but relative in its nature?

In the future please be kind to your readers when posting such a long and technical post to remove unnecessary line returns and add appropriate spaces between paragraphs.

You cannot expect your post to be read when you are torturing your readers.

[The excerpt looked less nice on FB, with too many line breaks.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"All motion is relative."

Say you.

"Any insistence on absolute motion is evidence that the nature of motion has not been understood."

Say you.

"The fact is that we do not even know what the word 'motion' means except in relative terms."

In terms that are indeed relative, but refer to absolutes like place and time.

"Why are we looking for absolutes in a universe that is nothing but relative in its nature?"

That is a very vast assessment of the universe. In fact, unless you state "relative to the true absolute God" even false.

...

"In the future please be kind to your readers when posting such a long and technical post to remove unnecessary line returns and add appropriate spaces between paragraphs. ... You cannot expect your post to be read when you are torturing your readers."

Adam Joseph, in order to edit, you can first click edit, of course, then click caps+return at same time (since "return" only gives "end of edit" instead).

Meanwhile, I will copy onto a notepad, and think that Berj could have done so too.

Berj Manoushagian
[first gives three quotes with sources like AUTHORITY on philosophy.]

Quote I
- "Our primitive notion may have been that to know absolutely where we are, and in what direction we are going, are essential elements of our knowledge as conscious beings.

But this notion, though undoubtedly held by many wise men in ancient times, has been gradually dispelled from the minds of students of physics.

There are no landmarks in space; one portion of space is exactly like every other portion, so that we cannot tell where we are. We are, as it were, on an unruffled sea, without stars, compass, soundings, wind, or tide, and we cannot tell in what direction we are going. We have no log which we can cast out to take a dead reckoning by; we may compute our rate of motion with respect to the neighbouring bodies, but we do not know how these bodies may be moving in space."

Source
James Clerk Maxwell; (1831-1879); Matter and Motion; 1877/1920; p81

Quote II
"… relative to the earth the stars are in motion. We therefore need to know first of all what is meant by ‘real motion’… it turns out that we cannot quite say what is meant by it… the question whether the earth is really moving but not the stars or the other way around does not make any sense…"

Source
Hans Hahn; (1879-1934); Empiricism, Logic and Mathematics; 1933/1980; p48

[Also cited in his own highly Pyrrhonistic web cite.]

Quote III
"… the problem of motion remains unsolved.

The reason is that we do not know what motion is. We have no concept of motion. We have nothing clearly in mind when we use the word. We simply do not know what we are talking about.

Perhaps motion, and science along with it, is just nonsense."

Source
Gordon Clark; (1902-1985); The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God; 1966; p19

Berj Manoushagian
[in his own words again]

If you try to philosophize about science without knowing anything about the philosophy of science, you are going to fail.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem is that the philosophy of science is wrong, and you have JUST right now shown how James Clerk Maxwell, Hans Hahn and Gordon Clark bungle it, due to a false philosophy, which is largely due to Heliocentrism or rather Acentrism.

The quotes are not completely useless.

If we accept Geocentrism, which makes sense since it is a prima facie view of the universe, as long as this is not positively disproven, there is indeed a landmark, and we are standing on it (in my case in front of the computer, sitting).

Berj Manoushagian
Hans-Georg, when you insist on 'centrism' you make yourself less and less relevant.

To be able to tell where the center of a three-dimensional object is, we need to know the shape of that object.

No one knows the shape of the universe. We do not even know if 'shape' has any meaning when applied to the universe.

You have dismissed philosophy as useless, but you have not given a reason in support of your view. You need to study philosophy of science, because that is what you are trying to tackle, but you do not realize it.

[I have not dismissed "philosophy" as useless, but "the philosophy of science". One philosophy among many, and not the best one.]

GC can be used as a working model, but when you insist that it is the only correct view and that HC is somehow false, you have shown that you do not understand the nature of motion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
First off, I don't care about your ideas about how to be relevant. Next, some argumental points:

"To be able to tell where the center of a three-dimensional object is, we need to know the shape of that object."

With Geocentrism, Universe needs to be a globe, whether flattened or drawn out towards poles of heaven. At least it must look that way in the rotation, whether a still would make it a globe or not.

The actual point of "Geocentrism" is not "knowing where the centre of the universe is", but simply to take what looks like being still as still, what looks like moving as moving.

"No one knows the shape of the universe. We do not even know if 'shape' has any meaning when applied to the universe."

That is what you conclude as an atheistic Acentric.

"GC can be used as a working model, but when you insist that it is the only correct view and that HC is somehow false, you have shown that you do not understand the nature of motion."

Or that I consider your understanding as a false one, which I refuse to share however well I should ever understand it.

You promote a site which says this, right?

// 1- The Triumvirate of human wisdom has been found wanting:

a- There is no truth in Mathematics
b- There is no truth in Science
c- There is no truth in Logic //


False on all three counts and Kantian heresy (or errors or apostasy or whatever the canonical qualification), and probably also directly condemned as heresy in Vatican Council of 1869 / 1870.

Berj Manoushagian
"With Geocentrism, Universe needs to be a globe, "

This says it all Hans-Georg.

Your cosmology is based on wishful thinking.

You do nothing but dismiss valid criticism, because you have nothing in support of your fantasy.

"condemned as heresy in Vatican Council of 1869 / 1870."

That is your source of certainty???

Are you kidding me??

You need to get a basic philosophy book and start at the beginning.

You are wasting your time and efforts on a useless topic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Berj Manoushagian "You do nothing but dismiss valid criticism, because you have nothing in support of your fantasy."

Except of course the universal testimony of human senses, with very few exceptions that were sent into space.

You have done nothing to show your criticism in any way "valid".

"That is your source of certainty???"

I am a Catholic. Not a Pagan. Not a Jew. Not a Heretic.

"You need to get a basic philosophy book and start at the beginning."

If you mean Kant or Descartes, I consider their philosophy deeply flawed, especially Kant.

If you mean schoolbooks, they owe way too much to Kant and Descartes, and not nearly enough to St Thomas Aquinas.

"You are wasting your time and efforts on a useless topic."

I have not asked YOUR advise on how to spend my life.

mardi 15 novembre 2016

Original Lautstand (IF Really a Branching Out from a Proto-Language) - Alternative Hypothesis, Mainly a Monologue


Original Lautstand (IF Really a Branching Out from a Proto-Language) - Alternative Hypothesis, Mainly a Monologue · Kephalé / Galva ? · Discussion of Celtic Inis (Welsh Ynys) with Latin Insula, perhaps Greek Nesos

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Have you considered the possibility that PIE might have had a Lautstand close to pre-Verner Germanic?

I tested non-merging sound laws (obviously also mergers b+bh = b for Celtic and Balto-Slavic) this morning.

billy-goat *khaferos, knee *keneu, Phrygian/Usual/Useful *bruk.

drag chain:

khaferos, keneu, bruk
khaferos, keneu, vruk (b, d, g > v/β, ð, γ)
khaferos, geneu, vrug (p, t, k > b, d g)
kaperos, geneu, vrug (f, þ, χ > p, t, k)


And from v/β, ð, γ on to SIE bh, dh, gh/ph, th, kh/f, b; f, d, b; f, h, g.

[Here SIE = South Indo European is correctly used as opposite of NIE as per kephalé article]

How about non-aspiration of first of two aspirates, both Greek and Sanskrit?

dhrighs = dhrichs
dhrighos
dhrichs, dhrighos
dhriks, dhrighos
dhriks, drighos
thriks, drikhos > known Greek thriks, trikhos, by evening out some difference between d and th.


How about transition to diverse SIE aspirates?

Greek:
vrug > frug > phrug first devoicing in order to emphasise, then taking over by a language lacking non-sibilant fricatives (confer Pilipino for Filipino).

Parallel process for Sanskrit, but without devoicing first.

Latin:
erudhros > ruvros > ruber

Back to NIE:
PIE to Germanic = Verner. Merger of b, d, g and some positions of f, th, kh.
PIE to Celtic and Balto-Slavic. Merger of b, d, g with earlier p, t, k (same process as in SIE).
PIE to Celtic, also: f > h > zero.

Not worked out implications for Satemisation or sp, st, sk.

The latter COULD have been sf, sth, sch, and English/German sch > sh could go via partial satemisation of ach-laut to ich-laut.

It could also have been simply, sp, st, sk.


Later
Tested what would happen to a word like "babbel".

Thot bablom / Tha babla ...

Tod vavlom / ta vavla.

SIE keeps nt pl or turns it into feminine:

Greek :
paphla as in Paphl-agon son of Phineus and his descendants Paphlagonians, probably meaning "speaking an uncomprehensible really foreign language".

Latin :
fabula.

Germanic keeps singular.
"Babble".

Satemisation ...
if original for satem/sto etc involved an ach-laut which satemised to ich-laut, so much easier to understand why no language has an affricate. Ç and SH usually go less well as affricates than TH, KH and F as plosives.

For Celtic,
having "sp" as originally "sf" is of course a boon, since "sf" tends to either "sp" or - Celtic solution - "sw".

For Farsi,
having sp, st, sk as original sf, sth, skh is not bad.

For Old Irish,
only initials are doing the SIE mutation of (f), th, kh to (p), t, k.


[SIE - South Indo European, here used for non-Germanic which is other division than in previous, so change SIE to non-Germanic, since Celtic and Old Irish are NIE.]

Later still
and not separating
While meditating over "babla akonthi"* > "paphla agousin", some phonetic things struck me:

If the older pronunciation was the Germanic one (or as Germanic as one can be pr e-Verner and pre-vowel shifts), then we can also relate to:

  • Greek losing final -th and making final -nth > -n;
  • -onthi > -onsi > -ousi outside Doric (BUT there would be a chronological problem if Mycenean Greek as per Linear B had -oti and distinguished th from t)
  • Greek also losing final -t (which became -d in Latin), since final dentals had so much less rendering after loss of final -th.
  • -nth- (not as in the other -nth- of non-IE origin, which might earlier have been -ndh-) becoming -nt- in forms of participle, which might also make the chain above a partial push chain rather than drag chain.


Note * : if earliest Paphlagonian lang was Kaskian, one can relate to IE speakers saying sth like "babla akonthi". And since Venetians are Paphlagonians, one can still, in another sense, say "fabulas agunt".

In this vein, "sagum" could go back to a PIE (=Germanic pre-Verner or so) *sakom - which could be an earlier loan of the same word which was later borrowed from Semitic (I think, confer "Sackcloth (Hebrew שַׂק saḳ) is a term originally denoting a coarsely woven fabric, usually made of goat's hair.") as (as I recall) "saccus".

Nelson Goering
Can I ask what the point of this would be? Even if we can notate the necessary sound changes, it doesn't seem very likely that we'd have shifts of (for instance) *t > *d and then *þ > *t in basically every branch _but_ Germanic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
faþeer

Germanic goes, first, fadheer > fadher, OI goes faþeer > aþeer > aþiir (and no þ > t between vowels there!) ...

So some branches do keep some of the þ rather than make t. (Do you have a t-pot ready, if ever I visit you? The pun made me t-thirsty!).

Hittite seems to scramble t and d into t.

Phrygian seems to be basically as Germanic.

In other words, euphony.

As for statistic likelihood, what if Germanic is the remaining non-branched version of PIE?

If you count on a full Swadesh list by computer, extant Germanic langs are a sister branch to Gothic, and these together a sister branch to PIE (as per usual reconstruction, no doubt) before all of this is attached to other branches.

However the 30/40 word extract from Swadesh list (can't recall the Russian's name) gave another result.

Update
I meant the Swadesh Yakhontov list. It gave another result. It was the complete Swadesh which made extant Germanic and Gothic sisters and close cognates to PIE which together were a further off cognate with other IE langs - the comparisons had been done by computer.

Swadesh, not Swadesh-Yakhontov
Germanic Gothic PIE other IE
|_ _| | |
  |_ _| |
   |__|

Kephalé / Galva ?


Original Lautstand (IF Really a Branching Out from a Proto-Language) - Alternative Hypothesis, Mainly a Monologue · Kephalé / Galva ? · Discussion of Celtic Inis (Welsh Ynys) with Latin Insula, perhaps Greek Nesos

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was looking at a few roots (wiktionary) where the velar is neither labialised nor palatalised.

*gal- naked Gm. kalo/kahl, OCS glava, Russ. голый (golyj), Lith. galva, Ltv. galva, Polish goły, Old Prussian gallū, Eng. calu/callow


Note that glava and galva mean head.

κεφαλή

Etymology

From Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰebʰ-l-.


That would be this root:

*gʰh₁bʰ- to take Skr. गभस्ति (gabhasti), Alb. grabit/grabis, Lat. habēre, Oscan hafíar, Umbrian habe, Ir. gaibid, Welsh gafael, Lith. gabenti; gabana, Ltv. gabana, Gaul. gabi, OCS gobino


I propose that "galva" and "glava" would be cognates of Macedonian *gebale or *gabala (confer Bilippos = Philippos).

Gabala > Gabla > Gavla > Galva (Lithuanian) > Glava (OCS)

That would be at least some more unity of words for head than otherwise in IE. Note that "head" and "hand" are two of the concepts lacking common words, wereas "father" can be considered a close to common word, despite exceptions.

Andrew Jarrette
The of galva and glava is from PIE *w (cf. English callow). It never arises from *bh or vice versa. So galva and glava cannot be cognates of Macedonian *gebale or *gabala. Also PIE *gh in *ghebh-/ *ghH1bh- while PIE *g in *gal-. Germanic *gebaną "give" is held by some to be from the *ghebh- root (if its root vowel was *e) with a different grade of vowel and a different semantic evolution from the other IE languages with reflexes of this root (though all having to do with motion or state of the hand).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As far as I know:

  • bh and b coincide in Balto-Slavic
  • they usually become b, but in some cases v, like after vowels.


The rest of your answer presumes that BECAUSE there is at present a certain doctrine about how the original sounds were and how these developed, THEREFORE this doctrine is absolute truth.

As for callow, calvus - these have other meanings than galva, glava. Kephalé has same meaning.

So, if there is any chance of galva and glava being related to kephalé via NIE treatment of (present reconstruction) *gh and *bh, I find it better to favour that chance.

If you want to argue why v would always be from *w, do.

Andrew Jarrette
One thing I presumed from the OP is that Germanic *kalw- is a native Germanic word cognate to galva and glava, because in the OP it is listed as cognate to them. In fact it may just be a borrowing from Latin calvus, which, according to the most widely believed doctrine, cannot be related to galva and glava because it has a c- rather than a g-. As to its meaning, "callow" in English originally meant "bald" (thus the connection to "head"), only later did it mean "lacking feathers" and then "young, inexperienced". In any case you are the one who linked English "callow" to galva and glava in the OP.

My answer presumes that what I've read in historical linguistics is true, yes, but I find there is a great deal of agreement among scholars about the features I've mentioned.

I've never heard of IE b or bh becoming v in Balto-Slavic. Maybe you could provide some unambiguous examples.

What is NIE? Non-Indo-European? If some non-Indo-European language borrowed *ghebh- as in kephale and then Balto-Slavic in turn borrowed it from the non-Indo-European language, then yes glava and galva would be cognates of kephale. It's possible, I concede, but 'head' is such a b asic word that I have my doubts that it would be borrowed from non-Indo-European. But certainly possible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"One thing I presumed from the OP is that Germanic *kalw- is a native Germanic word cognate to galva and glava, because in the OP it is listed as cognate to them."

I was copying the info from wiktionary, as given, before putting it into doubt....Voir plus

[A comment not expanded while I was copying. The Seymore syndrome. But in it I explained that NIE = North Indo European. Opposite would be SIE, South Indo European. A division cutting across the Centum West (+ extreme East) and Satem East/Central.]

Andrew Jarrette
Sorry, I guess I missed or forgot the part of your OP that mentioned that 'head' and 'hand' lack common words in IE. I also missed or forgot that your first listing of cognates from IE gal- was taken from Wiktionary, not provided by you. So I'm sorry about those things.

But I still have never heard of PIE *bh becoming v anywhere in Balto-Slavic, you'd have to provide examples.

The fact that 'head' is represented by a variety of unconnected words throughout IE does lend more support to your idea that it might be borrowed from Macedonian. Maybe IE linguists with more knowledge than I will respond to this post and weigh in on the matter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"But I still have never heard of PIE *bh becoming v anywhere in Balto-Slavic, you'd have to provide examples."

kephalé being related would be my best example

"The fact that 'head' is represented by a variety of unconnected words throughout IE does lend more support to your idea that it might be borrowed from Macedonian."

I never said "borrowed from" Macedonian. I said that the Macedonian form has a NIE (North Indo-European) consonantism, and would have, for kephalé/kaphalà something like *gebale or more likely *gabala.

And so would ANY NIE lang at start sharing the kephalé gloss.

That was my point about Baltoslavic being, like Macedonian, NIE.

Andrew Jarrette
Oh OK sorry. My only objection to your theory is the *bh > v in Balto-Slavic part. I have never come across that anywhere in my readings of IE linguistics. Of course I haven't read everything but I've read a fair deal, and that sound change has never been mentioned AFAIK.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, either I recall Brugmann wrong or theories changed since his day and you are better updated.

My own p o v does not depend on full correctness of these theories.

mardi 8 novembre 2016

Discussion of Celtic Inis (Welsh Ynys) with Latin Insula, perhaps Greek Nesos


Original Lautstand (IF Really a Branching Out from a Proto-Language) - Alternative Hypothesis, Mainly a Monologue · Kephalé / Galva ? · Discussion of Celtic Inis (Welsh Ynys) with Latin Insula, perhaps Greek Nesos

Guto Rhys
YNYS - island

Late Corn -enys

OBret - inis

MidIr - inis

?cf. Lat īnsula

Any suggestions?

Other discussion
is here left out, though alluded to in the following.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Celtic : Inis / (lost vowel)nees(-os) / Latin form from in(i)s+ula, the latter being a diminutive ending.

To me, no, it is not Celtic which derives from Latin, but other way round.

This would however still limit the etymology to three contiguous branches : Celtic, Italic and Greek.

Btw, long first i in INSULA is automatic, always before N+S or M+F. (A Roman would pronounce Humphrey like a Frenchman, with a very long UM).

Alan G James
Celtic and Latin derive this word and a great deal else from a common ancestor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now THAT is a somewhat risky statement. In order for that to stand, how about showing a non-Celtic and non-Italic word related to these?

German "Insel" doesn't count, since a Latin word. A loan. The real German word for it is "Au" though that refers to land islands inland - like hills between valleys or perhaps rather pastures between forests.

Guto Rhys
How are these not ad hoc rules invented to support an assumption?

Where are the analogies?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

How are these contiguous? When?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Italic and Celtic are supposed to have been contiguous about 1000BC, around Alps.

Some dialects of Greek had been there too (i e Doric).

Worst problem : loss of vowel at start of neesos - since Greek is not famous for loosing vowels (orego, erythros ....).

Apart from that, no real problems even on standard theories.

The long e in nesos becomes i in Celtic.

* inisos.

Loss of ending in Celtic reflexes thereof. Originally long i shortened.

Latin inisula > insula = perfectly regular, and the addition of a diminutive ending (ul) and chenge of ending in an anyway feminine (he nesos) noun, after diminutive, really pose no problems.

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Supposed by who?

What is the evidence for this assertion? Given that Lepontic is only attested some 400 years later than your date how can this be argued?

What is the evidence that Doric was spoken in the Alpine region c.1000 BCE?

Where are the references for members to investigate themselves?

You seem to imply that the Celtic word was adopted from Greek. How so?

Remember that PrClt /i:/ gives Brittonic /i:/ hence the Welsh word would be **ynis not the attested 'ynys'.

How is this shortening not an ad hoc rule?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Remember also that /-s-/ would not be preserved in Brittonic meaning that the protoform must be /-ss-/ or /-st-/.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm no specialist in Italic historical phonology but can you clarify why a long, stressed vowel would, in Latin, be syncopated:

*inīsula > insula

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

eDIL notes the protoform as (primarily) an ī-stem feminine.

This conflicts with your reconstructed 'inisos'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Guto Rhys "Remember that PrClt /i:/ gives Brittonic /i:/ hence the Welsh word would be **ynis not the attested 'ynys'."

That is a point, supposing uniform soundlaws.

+Guto Rhys I am not supposing *inīsula > insula but *inisula > insula, second i already short.

Perhaps leaving Greek neesos out might be an idea?

"the protoform as (primarily) an ī-stem feminine. This conflicts with your reconstructed 'inisos'."

The -os is anyway only there because of the Greek hee neesos. Without Greek, *inisiis works just fine.

Here, however, one might argue either, only thing impossible is **inisaa, since that would have heightened the vowels.

[I meant lowered. Sorry.]

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
If one is not following attested sound-changes then one is simply inventing ad hoc rules to suit one's hypotheses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The sound changes per se are not attested, unless the proto-language is, as for Latin. Sound correspondences are, and they are not totally reducible to the rules for sound changes.

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
But that has not been proposed, for this reason.

[Unclear what he meant with "that".]

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ok.

Established sound-changes.

[Established as opposed to directly attested, thank you!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
With some probability established ones, yes.

[As opposed to with absolute certainty established ones.]

So, even though including neesos, as I suppose earlier (pre-Junggrammarian, or even pre-Grimmian) philologists did, would imply irregularity of sound change, which is possible one can be content with this:

  • inisiis > Inis, Ynys
  • inisiis + ula > insula.


That said, I'll not say excluding neesos is necessary.

As for questions about when Italic and Celtic were contiguous in Alps, see fact archaeologists and IE-anists consider Italics invaded Italy ... checking wiki:

"The first Italic tribes, the Latino-Falisci (or "Latino-Veneti", if the membership of the ancient Veneti is also accepted), entered Italy across the eastern Alpine passes into the plain of the Po River about 1200 BC. Later, they crossed the Apennine Mountains and eventually occupied the region of Latium, which included the area of Rome. Before 1000 BC, the Osco-Umbrians followed, which later divided into various groups and gradually moved to central and southern Italy."

As for fact of Dorics Greeks coming later than Mycenean ones ....

"Greek legend asserts that the Dorians took possession of the Peloponnesus in an event called the Return of the Heracleidae (Ancient Greek: Ἐπιστροφὴ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν). Classical scholars saw in the legend a possibly real event they termed the Dorian invasion. The meaning of the concept has changed several times, as historians, philologists and archaeologists used it in attempts to explain the cultural discontinuities expressed in the data of their fields. The pattern of arrival of Dorian culture on certain islands in the Mediterranean, such as Crete, is also not well understood. The Dorians colonised a number of sites on Crete such as Lato. Despite nearly 200 years of investigation, the historicity of a mass migration of Dorians into Greece has never been established, and the origin of the Dorians remains unknown. Some have linked them or their victims with the emergence of the equally mysterious Sea Peoples. The meaning of the phrase "Dorian invasion" as an explanation for the cultural break after the Mycenaean period has become to some degree amorphous. Investigations into it have served mainly to rule out various speculations, though the possibility of a real Dorian invasion remains open."

Thought that origin in Alps was more commonly held than it was then ...

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
A good part of the sound changes discussed are attested - in the continuum between Lepontic (etc) to the well-attested Early Medieval languages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In this case you are using Lepontic as standin for pre- and proto-British?

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
How do you account for the long initial vowel in Latin 'īnsula'?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
automatic before ns

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
No. "etc" was noted so as not to have to note later-attested Celtic languages, the classification of which remains debated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I meant "Lepontic etc" as standin for contemporary but to us inaccessible language state in Britain.

[I obviously meant what could be expressed by adding "or whereever ancestors of the Brits were living", which is why my first formulation was not "in Britain", but "in pre- or proto-British"]

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
So what you are proposing is

*inis- > *inisula (suffixation)

In Classical Latin the stress would be on the antepenult:

*i'nisula

Would such a syncope be regular?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I consider the syncopisation to have taken place before the antepenult rule and while the rule was (as in Czech and Scots Gaelic) initial accent.

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl We cannot prove that Celtic was spoken in Britain in 600 BCE. [See above.] But the issue of where it was spoken is not particularly relevant to this discussion. [Indeed.]

The issue is simply that Lepontic is the earliest attested Celtic language (Tartessian is debated) and that there is a continuum in attestation of Celtic (albeit patchy) until today.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

When did the antepenultimate rule become operational in Latin and can you provide some scholarly resources for the members to investigate this further?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Guto Rhys that continuum is however jumping from branch to branch of Celtic.

As far as I know, no one proposes that Lepontic speakers later came to Wales bringing exactly Lepontic with them - unlike the situation in Romance linguistics.

The antepenultimate rule became operational so late that syncopisations and weakened vowels (quaero > inquiro!) happened before it, due to initial stress. This can be found in etymological remarks in Der kleine Stowasser, and probably in some other Latin lexica too.

Guto Rhys
So, to clarify.

*inis- > *inisula (suffixation) > *in'sula (syncope) > *i:nsula (lengthening i > i:/_ns (all positions).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Exactly so. [OK, i:nsula is attested, he should not have given it as asterisk form.] And for all vowels. We may pronounce "mensa" with a short e, but it is really with a long e, as can be seen from Spanish reflex mesa. V > V:/_ns, _nf

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
The continuum is not relevant to this discussion.

quaero > inquiro isn't syncope. It's the raising of the vowel.

What is needed to put some meat on this argument are some good analogies and references.

'Probably some other Latin lexica' is insufficient. This group does require sources that members can verify.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I know that quaero > inquiro isn't syncope.

It is however not so much RAISING as WEAKENING of the vowel. In positions after initial vowel, short ones were syncopated, unless protected by a consonant group, long ones or such protected by consonant group were weakened.

i: for ae, oe corresponds to Welsh y for a lot of vowels = weakening.

Product of a short vowel weakened was uniformly i. Except when syncope occurred, or when weakening product was u (earlier and) before labials or e before r.

For the moment Stowasser is the lexicon that comes to mind, I cannot name the other one I had less long offhand, but can look it up to tomorrow.

Langenscheid [Der kleine Langenscheid!] I also had, but that is not the one, it doesn't give etymological info. The one I had is not on amazon, it would seem, but I'll look again.

I didn't have this one, but it would be ideal for the purpose:

Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch / Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: Register (Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher) Gebundene Ausgabe – 1. Januar 1965
von Alois Walde (Autor), J B Hofmann (Autor), Elsbeth Berger (Redakteur)
https://www.amazon.de/Lateinisches-etymologisches-W%C3%B6rterbuch-Indogermanische-W%C3%B6rterb%C3%BCcher/dp/3825306704/ref=sr_1_81?ie=UTF8&qid=1478541896&sr=8-81&keywords=latein%20w%C3%B6rterbuch


Here is my longstanding companion:

Der Kleine Stowasser. Lateinisch-deutsches Schulwörterbuch Gebundene Ausgabe – 1971
von Josef Maria Stowasser (Autor), Michael Petschenig (Bearbeitung), Franz Skutsch (Einleitung)
https://www.amazon.de/Kleine-Stowasser-Lateinisch-deutsches-Schulw%C3%B6rterbuch/dp/B0025VFKFC/ref=sr_1_283?ie=UTF8&qid=1478542118&sr=8-283&keywords=latein%20w%C3%B6rterbuch


The Antiquarian one I had at university is not on amazon, and I don't recall it.

If Menge-Güthling ALSO did a Latin one, that would be it, they were at least my Greek lexicon:

Menge-Güthling. Enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch der griechischen und deutschen Sprache. [Von Hermann Menge]. Teil 1: Griechisch-Deutsch unter Berücksichtigung der Etymologie von Prof. Dr. Hermann Menge. Gebundene Ausgabe – 1964
https://www.amazon.de/Menge-G%C3%BCthling-Enzyklop%C3%A4disches-W%C3%B6rterbuch-griechischen-deutschen/dp/B00GNLTAVK/ref=sr_1_68?ie=UTF8&qid=1478542324&sr=8-68&keywords=griechisch%20w%C3%B6rterbuch


They did, but it seems Langenscheid bough them, this is not the package I had:

Langenscheidts Grosswörterbuch Lateinisch: Lateinisch-Deutsch, unter Berücksichtigung der Etymologie (Latein) Gebundene Ausgabe – 2001
von Hermann Menge (Autor), Otto Güthling (Autor)
https://www.amazon.de/Langenscheidts-Grossw%C3%B6rterbuch-Lateinisch-Lateinisch-Deutsch-Ber%C3%BCcksichtigung/dp/346802200X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1478542402&sr=8-2&keywords=menge%20g%C3%BCthling%20latein


This looks like the edition I had:

Menge-Güthling: Lateinisch-deutsches und deutsch-lateinisches Wörterbuch. [2 Bände]. Im ersten Bande mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Etymologie. Hand- und Schulausgabe. Gebundene Ausgabe – 1911
von Menge Hermann und Otto Güthling (Autor)
https://www.amazon.de/Menge-G%C3%BCthling-Lateinisch-deutsches-deutsch-lateinisches-Ber%C3%BCcksichtigung-Schulausgabe/dp/B01KKYE90C/ref=sr_1_43?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478542541&sr=1-43


Oh, prime example of syncope after stressed first :

Herakles > Hercles > epenthetically > Hercules.

As Polluces from Polydeuces : y syncopated, eu weakened to u:, ld > ll.

[u: is actually reflex of all eu, ou, irrespective of weakening - it is however only in weakening feasible for au : claudo vs includo]

Both examples from p. 128 of Grammaire comparée du grec et du latin
Par O. Riemann,H. Goelzer,E. Jules
https://books.google.fr/books?id=bFgKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=syncope%20in%20latin&source=bl&ots=DsJlJz8ern&sig=j3RxsRDJk04sIS4xgT8jlNEa7y8&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFkp3ToJfQAhVE8RQKHYw6BLwQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=syncope%20in%20latin&f=false


And nuper from *noviper, also given in Stowasser.

Are you satisfied syncope happened?

Guto Rhys
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

One can't use vowel raising as proxy for syncope. This misleads and confuses.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you haven't read a book please don't post it.

A reference is there to help members.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If references to syncope are there in those I have read, they are a fortiori there in the others.

I was NOT using "raising" or rather weakening as proxy for syncope, I was saying initial accent had BOTH effects. The books I gave back it up, and the fact some may not access Stowasser but another justifies linking to them too.

If you had read the comments, you would also have seen I had given more than one example of precisely SYNCOPE.

Ambiceps sounds familiar? No, it is anceps.

[Should normally have **asterisked **ambiceps, but that would have deprived him of the moment of hesitation.]

Guto Rhys
Remember that, as noted above, /-s-/ would not survive into Neo-Brittonic.

It would be necessary to postulate *iniss- or *inist-.

I only see examples of syncope being noted after being pressed.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'm not sure what 'mēnsa' has to do with this.Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
The comments were read but the analogies would be better placed with the argument., as opposed to when pressed.

This helps members follow the argument.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sound-laws are just that - they are uniform.

Not the same thing as sound-changes.

Exceptions cannot be ignored. They generally require the formulation of a more detailed law or recourse to other explanations such as analogy.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You HAVE to provide the sources for such comments.

As far as I'm aware there is still some debate regarding Venetic, but how confidently can such proposed migrations be dated to 1200 BCE?

Greek legends? They may be just that. But this still does not place Proto-Greek in the Alpine region.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Sound-laws are just that - they are uniform."

False idea.

Syncope has been a tendency in Latin both before and after codification of Classical Latin.

per + rego > pergo, syncope rather than just weakening to **perrigo.

Nevertheless, calidus, calidum remain in Classical Latin, unsyncopated, and only syncopate to Caldo between Latin and Italian/French.

"I only see examples of syncope being noted after being pressed."

I was presuming the knowledge of Latin etymology which I am used to among latinists.

[And also, after the decades since I read it, took some time recalling the examples.]

"I'm not sure what 'mēnsa' has to do with this."

I am very sorry I did not take time to copy each of the comments I answered. The basic point is that long first i in insula is automatic due to ns, the sound law (in this case not just a tendency!) is however not restricted to i, it involves all vowels : V > V:/ _ns, _nf. And the most famous proof of this (at least I consider it the most famous) is that "mensa" gives "mesa" and not **miesa, that "mensem" gives "més" and "mois", not **miés or **mié(s).

"You HAVE to provide the sources for such comments."

When pressed - or challenged.

"As far as I'm aware there is still some debate regarding Venetic, but how confidently can such proposed migrations be dated to 1200 BCE?"

That is one point.

"Greek legends? They may be just that."

I have the utmost confidence in legends - next to Catholic Theology or The Bible. Since Invasion of Heraclids contradicts nothing in the Bible, I am very confident it happened.

"The comments were read but the analogies would be better placed with the argument., as opposed to when pressed."

True enough, it would be better.

I cannot guarantee to be always on my best, and I can guarantee NOT to be so, when - as yesterday - I am pressed to respond real time. Heckled on more than one point at once.

And since you had the wrong idea of what accent Latin started with (probably well before being written or before being more written than Law of Ten Tablets), a parallel to syncope could illustrate the accent. Caedo but inci:do. In main syllable ae never becomes i:. After the stress, always. Why then incido? Well, because the stress pattern IN-kae-doo does not leave cae- as main stressed syllable. With an original stress pattern in-KAE-doo, the syllable would have remained as cae.

Hence, one would have dealt with I-ni-su-laa (originally long a in nominative, but not in vocative), and not with i-NI-su-laa. Hence syncope is possible.

Actually, when going so far back, even more probably:

inis- +l- +aa = inisla.

I-ni-sla > IN-sla > insula. Last stage being epenthesis of -u-. Not sure exactly when ns triggered prolongation of previous vowel, but before Classic Latin, at any rate.

[Answering posthumously to discussion the point about -ss- : a) Greek also needs an original -ss- between vowels, and in neesos the following vowel of -os is attested; b) *iniss- +l- +aa gives exactly same result as *inis- +l- +aa - namely inisla. Indeed, one could argue that a simple -s- would have been -z- and have disappeared, confer "aala" (wing) from *aksla, diminutive "axilla" (armpit)]

Guto Rhys
I have messaged you privately.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Noted.

Or did you? I don't see no message?

Oh, you deleted answers too? BY me? Well, that is not the kind of group admin I like to be in the group of.

[He deleted "Noted", and "Or did you? etc" and then also the long one preceding "I have messaged you privately".]

More on nesos
This is posthumous to the actual discussion. I have now already left the group.

  • 1) νησος, like supposed necessary *iniss- really has geminated s, since Greek shares with Welsh the deletion of simple intervocalic s, unless maintained - Guto would insist "restored" - by analogy. It is really νησσος - though for the moment I lack the reference to back that up. A Classic Greek grammar including historic notes, from about anytime in 20th C and probably most of 19th C will inform of this rule, in the proper place about sound laws.

  • 2) Guto Rhys insisted that neesos, even if originally with a vowel (which is problematic, since Greek generally keeps vowels that other languages loose, I gave erythros, orego as analogies against my original point of Greek loosing a vowel), or even if further West supplemented by one - for instance from eni- - could not be etymon, since iniisos would have yielded Ynis, not Ynys, due to second i being long (we agree, I presume, that ee would have become ii in proto-Celtic or Common Celtic : Latin re:x vs Celtic ri:x).

    Here we need to ask : was there NO place among Celts where the ii could have been shortened, for instance due to initial accent? Do we know that all the way the ancestry of British branch has kept same accent system as Lepontic, so that we could guarantee neesos remaining with a long vowel and therefore giving Ynis rather than Ynys?

  • 3) Other problem with nesos, someone brought up that Doric form would have been νασος - this could however have been a backformation, if Doric had lost the word and reborrowed it from an Ionic dialect. Since the dialects already had a correspondence ματηρ / μητηρ the νησος could have been borrowed as νασος.

    Btw, my general theory of IE unity (as a Sprachbund) does not need fewer regular sound correspondences, but more of the ones we have regarded as backformations.

  • 4) A proposed solution for short second i in inis, as per necessity for a short one before Ynys. Note that this solution presupposes that original form was not with alpha, but with long e, even for Greek.

    • a) ne:ssos is felt as insufficiently precise, and for full islands one adds eni- like this : *eni-ne:ssos.
    • b) *enine:ssos regularly gives *enini:ssos and not surprisingly *inini:ssos.
    • c) from *inini:ssos you can go on to *inni:ssos by syncopation, to *ini:ssos by one haplology and to *inissos by another.
    • d) whether earlier Celtic form was *inissos or *inissi:s is immaterial to Ynys. Only **inissa: would have given **Enes instead, which we do not have.

      And *inisos or *inisi:s would have become *inijos or *iniji:s - unless the -s- were maintained by some analogy, not necessarily within language, but outside, as with Irish, where internal s is not lost. That said, the other languages too argue for a double -ss-.


Bearing on General IE Linguistics
It seems inis and insula have just perhaps nesos, certainly not Au/ö (Insel, ijssel, island are loans from Latin/French), certainly not ostrow as etyma outside Italic and Celtic. This means that we don't have a common IE one. As with PENN and CÉANN - head in Welsh and Irish - one can reconstruct proto-Celtic, but there is no common IE etymon. And quite a few more like that.

Appendix
Lithuanian, Latvian sala

Polish wyspa

Russian остров, as Bulgarian, while Croatian has for Ostrvo the synonyms otoka (main word) and ada. Slovene has just otok.

Slovak has ostrov and a few more, two phrases rather than simple nouns. Czech, ostrov. Serbian острво and ада.

Armenian has կղզի, apparently pronounced kghzi

Farsi gives no pronunciation guide, apparently everyone is familiar with sound values of Arabic alphabet.

Hindi has द्वीप and shows dveep as pronunciation guide.

Finnish as saari, and it is closer to Lithuanian/Latvian sala than some IE words are.