![[Smile]](smile.gif)
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:...but most of the time, you'll find, Kemetians had things in order. (just joking, women in front of men is just fine)
Originally posted by Myra Wysinger:
From the artist point of view it illustrates that Kemet wasn't a sexist society.
.
Well since this is an Egyptology forum I was more focused on paintings showing scenes of the Ancient Egyptians. I wish I was able to afford one of them lol!! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Examples?
Originally posted by Doug M:
Much of Moorish culture is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian culture.
quote:Writing, architecture, landscaping, science and so on. Put it this way, the culture of Northwest Africa from after the Muslim invasions was a product of older cultural traditions from Egypt mixed with Persian and Greek elements. However, the culture and style of the North African Islamic culture was distinct from that elsewhere in the Islamic world and much of that distinction comes from the local traditions that influenced the Islamic community in North Africa. And the most prominent of the local cultural traditions was that of Egypt. A lot of the cultural traditions in North West Africa actually trace their roots back to North East Africa and the Sahara.
Originally posted by Ausarian:
quote:Examples?
Originally posted by Doug M:
Much of Moorish culture is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian culture.
quote:Can you examine in relative detail how these cultural traits *directly* come from Ancient Egypt, and accordingly, how they couldn't have arrived from elsewhere. Also, elaborate on the "so on", if you will, please.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Writing, architecture, landscaping, science and so on.
Originally posted by Ausarian:
quote:Examples?
Originally posted by Doug M:
Much of Moorish culture is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian culture.
quote:Not an unreasonable observation.
Doug M. writes:
Put it this way, the culture of Northwest Africa from after the Muslim invasions was a product of older cultural traditions from Egypt mixed with Persian and Greek elements. However, the culture and style of the North African Islamic culture was distinct from that elsewhere in the Islamic world and much of that distinction comes from the local traditions that influenced the Islamic community in North Africa. And the most prominent of the local cultural traditions was that of Egypt. A lot of the cultural traditions in North West Africa actually trace their roots back to North East Africa and the Sahara.
quote:Arabic writing is derived from the Egyptian writing.
Originally posted by Ausarian:
quote:Can you examine in relative detail how these cultural traits *directly* come from Ancient Egypt, and accordingly, how they couldn't have arrived from elsewhere. Also, elaborate on the "so on", if you will, please.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Writing, architecture, landscaping, science and so on.
Originally posted by Ausarian:
quote:Examples?
Originally posted by Doug M:
Much of Moorish culture is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian culture.
quote:Not an unreasonable observation.
Doug M. writes:
Put it this way, the culture of Northwest Africa from after the Muslim invasions was a product of older cultural traditions from Egypt mixed with Persian and Greek elements. However, the culture and style of the North African Islamic culture was distinct from that elsewhere in the Islamic world and much of that distinction comes from the local traditions that influenced the Islamic community in North Africa. And the most prominent of the local cultural traditions was that of Egypt. A lot of the cultural traditions in North West Africa actually trace their roots back to North East Africa and the Sahara.
quote:From: http://www.72languages.com/hieraticrootsofarabic.php
Although there have been great changes over the four thousand years of its existence, it is still not difficult to demonstrate that modern Arabic script is the direct descendant of what we call Egyptian hieratic. The following Arabic characters are all identical or very close to their hieratic ancestors with exactly the same sounds: J, D, T, K, Q, R, H, F, S, in addition to all of the numerals, which with slight transposition come directly from ancient Egyptian hieratic. Here are some examples demonstrating the direct descent of Arabic letters from the Egyptian hieratic. In each case, two Arabic characters are presented so that you can see the true shape of the letter, i.e. without the final flourish.
quote:I have. It doesn't seem to be responding to what was actually asked; perhaps, you might want to read what I said.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Read what I said.
quote:Interesting. Does this mean that Arabic, which appears about 3rd century CE [by which time Hieratic had long been phased out], didn't evolve from Nabataean script, which in turn derives from Aramaic - a descendant of Pheonician script? Please elaborate.
Doug M writes:
Actually, some scholars trace arabic to Egyptian hieratic and not Phoenician:
quote:From: http://www.72languages.com/hieraticrootsofarabic.php
Although there have been great changes over the four thousand years of its existence, it is still not difficult to demonstrate that modern Arabic script is the direct descendant of what we call Egyptian hieratic. The following Arabic characters are all identical or very close to their hieratic ancestors with exactly the same sounds: J, D, T, K, Q, R, H, F, S, in addition to all of the numerals, which with slight transposition come directly from ancient Egyptian hieratic. Here are some examples demonstrating the direct descent of Arabic letters from the Egyptian hieratic. In each case, two Arabic characters are presented so that you can see the true shape of the letter, i.e. without the final flourish.
quote:Then from what script does Persian writing descend from. That it ultimately comes from "Proto-Sinaitic" is not in doubt. Please elaborate.
Originally posted by Doug M:
That chart is incorrect. Persian writing is not a descendant of Arabic.
quote:The keyword here is "for religious" purposes only.
Doug M writes:
Also, hieratic was being used for religious documents late into the Greek period, when the word was created by the Greeks.
quote:Naturally, Arabic and other "Proto-Sinaitic" descendants are going to bear resemblances to Hieratic, because they all emanate from the same ancestral source. Hieratic being a cursive development of Egyptian hieroglyphs, will naturally appear to bear physical resemblances to cursive descendants of 'Proto-Sinaitic', including Arabic.
Doug M posts:
It is in hieratic and demotic that you can see the evolution and possible origins of arabic writing.
quote:How? Elaborate.
Doug M writes:
What I am saying is that the origin of these cursive scripts is from heiratic and demotic not SIMPLY from proto-sinaitic.
quote:The direct descendants of proto-sinaitic were not cursive. Cursive writing originated in Egypt. There are no other cursive writing styles as old as heiratic or demotic. Therefore, it isn't simply the case that the influence of Egyptian writing on other written languages stopped with proto-sinaitic, there were continuous influences from Nile Valley writing systems on neighboring scripts. In fact, the Nile Valley was a virtual incubator of writing forms.
Originally posted by Ausarian:
quote:How? Elaborate.
Doug M writes:
What I am saying is that the origin of these cursive scripts is from heiratic and demotic not SIMPLY from proto-sinaitic.
Bear in mind, that it is deemed that the letters of "Proto-Sinatic" descendants had *evolved* from those of the original "Proto-Sinaitic" script, which itself -- though a descendant of Egyptic script and one that was developed deep within the Nile Valley itself -- is neither Hieratic or Hieroglyphic. This was the whole purpose of placing them under "Proto-Sinaitic" family in the first place.
And remember: The point about similarities being natural due to both the cursive nature of these evolutions/developments, and the shared ancestry between the Hieratic script family and "Proto-Sinaitic" script family. In otherwords, writings with a shared ancestral origin likely underwent similar-looking but possibly independent parallel developments, precisely because of that shared ancetral origin.
Besides, Indus Valley script phylum too has sub-phylums that developed into cursive forms; should it then be said, that these were influenced by those in the Nile Valley too?
-----
Ps - I hope you understand that, by "Persian", the authors of the above mentioned diagram were referring to the more modern and cursive Persian script, perhaps also understood as Farsi script.
quote:Arabic may have developed from the nabataean script, but the cursive form of the Syriac and other members of this branch of the Afro Asiatic family are derived from the Egyptian INVENTION of cursive writing. Egyptian cursive is the FIRST cursive script ANYWHERE and had a profound INFLUENCE on the development of cursive scripts around the Mediterranean. Egyptian writing is an ancestor of many of the later Afro Asiatic scripts, both in the form of the proto-sinaitic script as well as the CONCEPT of cursive scripts. Hindu scripts are a much later development.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
Doug,
Your attacks against straw horses like, "The direct descendants of proto-sinaitic were not cursive", is entertaining, but my concern at the moment are these pressing unanswered matters...
Show [not tell] me:
— how Arabic script could not possibly have developed from Nabataean script and its predecessor, but directly from Hieratic.
— That all cursive scripts, including those of the Indus Valley, could have only developed from a single ancestor: Hieratic!
quote:In which case, it would not have developed *directly* from Egyptian writing, as you suggested earlier.
Doug M writes:
Arabic may have developed from the nabataean script,
quote:Show me how!
Doug M writes:
but the cursive form of the Syriac and other members of this branch of the Afro Asiatic family are derived from the Egyptian INVENTION of cursive writing.
quote:As I said, for clarification,
Doug M writes:
Egyptian cursive is the FIRST cursive script ANYWHERE and had a profound INFLUENCE on the development of cursive scripts around the Mediterranean. Egyptian writing is an ancestor of many of the later Afro Asiatic scripts both in the form of the proto-sinaitic script as well as the CONCEPT of cursive scripts.
quote:By this, I take it that you're referring to the cursive scripts? Inscribed pottery symbols, which the discoverers figure as resembling that which became "Indus script", was dated to ca. 3500 BC.
Doug Writes:
Hindu scripts are a much later development.
quote:http://www.ancientscripts.com/syriac.html
The Syriac script is one of the myriad of Aramaic variants that appeared in the ancient Fertile Crescent around the 1st century CE. It was used to write Syriac, a dialect of the Aramaic language spoken by Assyrians, in northern Mesopotamia (the area near where the modern nations of Syria, Turkey and Iraq intersect) and particularly focused around the city of Edessa.
The earliest Syriac script is called Estrangela, whose name is derived from the Greek word strongulos meaning 'rounded'. Estrangela inscriptions date from as far back as the year 6 CE, and by the 3rd century CE the Bible and Christian theological works had been translated into Syriac. As the city of Edessa became an important Christian center, Syriac spread throughout region as far as Palestine, and even travelled down the Silk Road and all the way to China.
In the year 489 CE, a schism occurred in the Syrian Christian church between the followers of Nestorius of Persia and Jacob of Edessa. This not only split the church but also started the process of splitting the Estrangela script into two branches. The western branch, known as Jacobite, or more correctly Serto, appeared around the 8th century CE and took a much more cursive look than Estrangela. The eastern branch, called Nestorian, developed out of Estrangela more slowly, only showing a slightly distinct look by the 12th century CE.
quote:http://www.ancientscripts.com/egyptian.html
Eventually the most cursive form of hieratic became the demotic which gives no hint of its hieroglyphic origin. By 600 BCE, the hieratic, which was used to write documents on papyri, was retained only for religious writing. The demotic became the every-day script, used for accounting, writing down literature, writings, etc. The following demotic inscription is from the famous Rosetta Stone. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the hieroglyphic script. In fact, it is so cursive that it resembles more like the Aramaic scripts used around the Fertile Crescent at this time.
quote:http://www.ancientscripts.com/aramaic.html
The Aramaic language was the international trade language of the ancient Middle East between 1000 and 600 BCE, spoken from the Mediterranean coast to the borders of India. Its script, derived from Phoenician and first attested during the 9th century BCE, also became extremely popular and was adopted by many people with or without any previous writing system.
One interesting innovation in Aramaic is the matres lectionis system to indicate certain vowels. Early Phoenician-derived scripts did not have letters for vowels, and so most texts recorded just consonants. Most likely as a consequence of phonetic changes in North Semitic languages, the Aramaeans reused certain letters in the alphabet to represent long vowels. The letter 'aleph was employed to write /ā/, he for /ō/, yodh for /ī/, and waw for /ū/.
Aramaic flowered into myriads of different variants, which eventually became the script of many nations in the Middle East. One important example is the square Hebrew script. Writing, derived from Phoenician, began to appear in Palestine around the 10th century BCE, and the Old Hebrew script was one of them. However, by the 6th century BCE, an Aramaic-derived script, appropriately called the Jewish script, began to replace the Old Hebrew script. It is the Jewish script that eventually evolved into the modern square Hebrew script.
Another important Aramaic offshoot is the Nabataean script, which eventually evolved into the Arabic script.
quote:From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri
The Elephantine Papyri are a collection of ancient Jewish manuscripts dating from the fifth century BCE. They come from a Jewish community at Elephantine, then called Yeb, the island in the Nile at the border of Nubia, which was probably founded as a military installation in about 650 BCE during Manasseh's reign to assist Pharaoh Psammetichus I in his Nubian campaign. The dry soil of Upper Egypt preserved documents from the Egyptian border fortresses of Elephantine and Syene (Aswan). Hundreds of these Elephantine papyri, written in hieratic and Demotic Egyptian, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Coptic, span a period of 2000 years. Legal documents and a cache of letters survived, turned up on the local 'gray market' of antiquities starting in the late 19th century, and were scattered into several Western collections.
Though some fragments on papyrus are much older, the largest number of papyri are written in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Persian Empire, and document the Jewish community among soldiers stationed at Elephantine under Persian rule, 495-399 BCE. The Elephantine documents include letters and legal contracts from family and other archives: divorce documents, the manumission of slaves, and other business, and are a valuable source of knowledge about law, society, religion, language and onomastics, the sometimes surprisingly revealing study of names.
quote:From: http://www.amazon.com/Elephantine-Papyri-English-Cross-Cultural-Continuity/dp/9004101977
The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change
This important volume contains 170 documents from the Egyptian border fortresses of Elephantine and Syene (Aswan), which yielded hundreds of papyri in hieratic, Demotic, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Coptic, spanning a period of 3000 years. The documents include letters from legal documents and accounts from family and other archives, and are thus an invaluable source of knowledge of epistolography, law, society, religion, language and onomastica in this unique site and over this long period of time to scholars of varied disciplines. The volume contains five sections, each containing carefully translated and extensively annotated documents of one language group. Excellent cross-referencing allows the user to trace forerunners and successors. Each section is preceded by an introduction, and the book closes with a glossary of technical terms in five languages.
code:Looks to me that Syriac is still more inclined towards the other Proto-Sinaitic 'sub-script' counterparts. Specifically how were you making mano a mano comparisons between the letters across the scripts, if not the way I went about it?Alpha. Demotic "Near Eastern" scripts
k- 1 0
r - 0 1
n - 1 0
m - 0 1(Nabataean)
q - 0 1
p - 0 1(first Arabic, then others)
t(dot) 0 1
b - 0 1
y - 0 0
` - 0 1 (Nabataean)
g- 0 1(Aramaic, then Nabataean)
s - 0 1(Nabataean)
l- 0 1
w- 0 .5(partial resemblance upper hand goes to that vis-à-vis Arabic, when it looks like for Syriac, the curvature was not taken all the way}
quote:Yes there was a cursive form of Aramaic. It began with the growth of Aramaic as a lingua franca under the Assyrians and continued with the development of Imperial Aramaic, so named because it was the official script of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
Doug,
My question to you is: Do you find any similarities at all, across the alleged "Proto-Sinaitic-descended" scripts layed out in the image posted earlier, comparing Aramaic, Nabataean, Arabic and Syriac scripts?
Upon closely examining the letters in the images posted, here's my estimation of similarities based on alphabetic correspondences, not mere random resemblances of letters upon visualization:code:Looks to me that Syriac is still more inclined towards the other Proto-Sinaitic 'sub-script' counterparts. Specifically how were you making mano a mano comparisons between the letters across the scripts, if not the way I went about it?Alpha. Demotic "Near Eastern" scripts
k- 1 0
r - 0 1
n - 1 0
m - 0 1(Nabataean)
q - 0 1
p - 0 1(first Arabic, then others)
t(dot) 0 1
b - 0 1
y - 0 0
` - 0 1 (Nabataean)
g- 0 1(Aramaic, then Nabataean)
s - 0 1(Nabataean)
l- 0 1
w- 0 .5(partial resemblance upper hand goes to that vis-à-vis Arabic, when it looks like for Syriac, the curvature was not taken all the way}
You make a case that Aramaic interestingly "began to exhibit many of the more cursive forms" around about the time when Assyrians invaded Egypt, but Aramaic isn't cursive. As for the Nabataean script, which allegedly developed from Aramaic, it emerged only at ca. 3rd century BC, lest you are referring to the Brahmi branch, which isn't exactly cursive either and whose dating to anywhere between ca. 6th century and 4th century isn't as clear as its more confident dating to ca. 3rd century BC. And even if one were to accept the high end dates attributed to Brahmi, Syraic is not an alleged descendant of Brahmi. Alleged cursive variants of Brahmi script appear from the 3rd century onwards, well beyond the origin date attributed to Demotic [6th century BC]. But what the heck; I'm willing to entertain a demonstration showing how Brahmi must have developed from the more cursive Demotic.
You earlier said that all cursive scripts derived from Hieratic, as opposed to Demotic, and when pressed to demonstrate how this extends to southeast Asian scripts, you're mum about it. But the question that also needs to be asked about that, is why then was Hieratic simply not adopted earlier on, as opposed to proto-Sinaitic? Hieratic had been around since the pre-dynastic era.
quote:From: http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/a/r/a/Aramaic_language.html
From 700 BCE, the language began to spread in all directions, but lost much of its homogeneity. Different dialects emerged in Mesopotamia, Babylonia, the Levant and Egypt. However, the Akkadian-influenced Aramaic of Assyria, and then Babylon, started to come to the fore. As described in 2 Kings 18:26, Hezekiah, king of Judah, negotiates with Assyrian ambassadors in Aramaic so that the common people would not understand. Around 600 BCE, Adon, a Canaanite king, uses Aramaic to write to the Egyptian Pharaoh.
'Chaldee' or 'Chaldean Aramaic' used to be common terms for the Aramaic of the Chaldean dynasty of Babylonia. It was used to describe Biblical Aramaic, which was, however, written in a later style. It is not to be confused with the modern language Chaldean Neo-Aramaic.
[edit] Imperial Aramaic
Around 500 BCE, following the Achaemenid conquest of Mesopotamia under Darius I, Aramaic (as had been used in that region) was adopted by the conquerors as the "vehicle for written communication between the different regions of the vast empire with its different peoples and languages. The use of a single official language, which modern scholarship has dubbed Official Aramaic or Imperial Aramaic, can be assumed to have greatly contributed to the astonishing success of the Achaemenids in holding their far-flung empire together for as long as they did".[5] In 1955, Richard Frye questioned the classification of Imperial Aramaic as an 'official language', noting that no surviving edict expressly and unambiguously accorded that status to any particular language.[6] Frye reclassifies Imperial Aramaic as the lingua franca of the Achaemenid territories, suggesting then that the Achaemenid-era use of Aramaic was more pervasive than generally thought.
Imperial Aramaic was highly standardised; its orthography was based more on historical roots than any spoken dialect, and the inevitable influence of Persian gave the language a new clarity and robust flexibility. For centuries after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire (in 331 BCE), Imperial Aramaic — or near enough for it to be recognisable — would remain an influence on the various native Iranian languages. Aramaic script and — as ideograms — Aramaic vocabulary would survive as the essential characteristics of the Pahlavi writing system.[7]
One of the largest collections of Imperial Aramaic texts is that of the Persepolis fortification tablets, which number about five hundred.[8] Many of the extant documents witnessing to this form of Aramaic come from Egypt, and Elephantine in particular. Of them, the best known is the Wisdom of Ahiqar, a book of instructive aphorisms quite similar in style to the biblical book of Proverbs. Achaemenid Aramaic is sufficiently uniform that it is often difficult to know where any particular example of the language was written. Only careful examination reveals the occasional loan word from a local language.
A group of thirty Aramaic documents from Bactria have been recently discovered. An analysis was published in November 2006. The texts, which were rendered on leather, reflect the use of Aramaic in the fourth-century-BCE Achaemenid administration of Bactria and Sogdiana.[9]
quote:From: http://www.answers.com/topic/aramaic
Semitic language originally spoken by the ancient Aramaeans. The earliest Aramaic texts are inscriptions in an alphabet of Phoenician origin found in the northern Levant dating from c. 850 to 600 BC. The period 600 – 200 BC saw a dramatic expansion of Aramaic, leading to the development of a standard form known as Imperial Aramaic. In later centuries, as "Standard Literary Aramaic," it became a linguistic model. Late (or Classical) Aramaic (c. AD 200 – 1200) has an abundant literature, both in Syriac and in Mandaic (see Mandaeanism). With the rise of Islam, Arabic rapidly supplanted Aramaic as a vernacular in South Asia. Modern Aramaic (Neo-Aramaic) comprises West Neo-Aramaic, spoken in three villages northeast of Damascus, Syria, and East Neo-Aramaic, a group of languages spoken in scattered settlements of Jews and Christians in southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and by modern Mandaeans in the Shatt Al-'Arab. Since c. 1900 persecution has forced most contemporary East Neo-Aramaic-speakers, who number several hundred thousand, into diaspora communities around the world.
quote:Actually I never said anything about southeast asian scripts. The fact remains that the first and oldest cursive script in the word originates in Egypt. Period. My only point is that not only did Egypt provide the basis of the alphabets of the Eastern Mediterranean, but it also provided the basis for the development of cursive forms in these alphabets, with the cursive form NOT being a separate and independent development.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
Doug,
My question to you is: Do you find any similarities at all, across the alleged "Proto-Sinaitic-descended" scripts layed out in the image posted earlier, comparing Aramaic, Nabataean, Arabic and Syriac scripts?
Upon closely examining the letters in the images posted, here's my estimation of similarities based on alphabetic correspondences, not mere random resemblances of letters upon visualization:code:Looks to me that Syriac is still more inclined towards the other Proto-Sinaitic 'sub-script' counterparts. Specifically how were you making mano a mano comparisons between the letters across the scripts, if not the way I went about it?Alpha. Demotic "Near Eastern" scripts
k- 1 0
r - 0 1
n - 1 0
m - 0 1(Nabataean)
q - 0 1
p - 0 1(first Arabic, then others)
t(dot) 0 1
b - 0 1
y - 0 0
` - 0 1 (Nabataean)
g- 0 1(Aramaic, then Nabataean)
s - 0 1(Nabataean)
l- 0 1
w- 0 .5(partial resemblance upper hand goes to that vis-à-vis Arabic, when it looks like for Syriac, the curvature was not taken all the way}
You make a case that Aramaic interestingly "began to exhibit many of the more cursive forms" around about the time when Assyrians invaded Egypt, but Aramaic isn't cursive. As for the Nabataean script, which allegedly developed from Aramaic, it emerged only at ca. 3rd century BC, lest you are referring to the Brahmi branch, which isn't exactly cursive either and whose dating to anywhere between ca. 6th century and 4th century isn't as clear as its more confident dating to ca. 3rd century BC. And even if one were to accept the high end dates attributed to Brahmi, Syraic is not an alleged descendant of Brahmi. Alleged cursive variants of Brahmi script appear from the 3rd century onwards, well beyond the origin date attributed to Demotic [6th century BC]. But what the heck; I'm willing to entertain a demonstration showing how Brahmi must have developed from the more cursive Demotic.
You earlier said that all cursive scripts derived from Hieratic, as opposed to Demotic, and when pressed to demonstrate how this extends to southeast Asian scripts, you're mum about it. But the question that also needs to be asked about that, is why then was Hieratic simply not adopted earlier on, as opposed to proto-Sinaitic? Hieratic had been around since the pre-dynastic era.
quote:According to your wiki & affiliated links, the "Imperial Aramaic" form appeared at ca. 5th century BC, not the 6th. And even more interesting, while relatively more cursive then the earlier version, Imperial Aramaic alphabets actually appear to further developments of the original Aramaic alphabets; how does that help you, with regards to it being developed from Demotic?
Doug M writes:
Again, the growth of Imperial Aramaic, as a distinct form separate from its Phoenician forebear took place at about the same time as the growth and expansion of Assyria and its conquest of Egypt in 600 BC. Evidence for Imperial Aramaic comes mainly from Egypt in the body of the Elephantine papyri mentioned earlier.
quote:Actually, you did...when you made the blanket statement that ancient cursive scripts were developments from Hieratic. By southeast Asian, I'm including cursive ancient Indian scripts, aside from Brahmi.
Doug M writes:
quote:Actually I never said anything about southeast asian scripts.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
Doug,
My question to you is: Do you find any similarities at all, across the alleged "Proto-Sinaitic-descended" scripts layed out in the image posted earlier, comparing Aramaic, Nabataean, Arabic and Syriac scripts?
Upon closely examining the letters in the images posted, here's my estimation of similarities based on alphabetic correspondences, not mere random resemblances of letters upon visualization:code:Looks to me that Syriac is still more inclined towards the other Proto-Sinaitic 'sub-script' counterparts. Specifically how were you making mano a mano comparisons between the letters across the scripts, if not the way I went about it?Alpha. Demotic "Near Eastern" scripts
k- 1 0
r - 0 1
n - 1 0
m - 0 1(Nabataean)
q - 0 1
p - 0 1(first Arabic, then others)
t(dot) 0 1
b - 0 1
y - 0 0
` - 0 1 (Nabataean)
g- 0 1(Aramaic, then Nabataean)
s - 0 1(Nabataean)
l- 0 1
w- 0 .5(partial resemblance upper hand goes to that vis-à-vis Arabic, when it looks like for Syriac, the curvature was not taken all the way}
You make a case that Aramaic interestingly "began to exhibit many of the more cursive forms" around about the time when Assyrians invaded Egypt, but Aramaic isn't cursive. As for the Nabataean script, which allegedly developed from Aramaic, it emerged only at ca. 3rd century BC, lest you are referring to the Brahmi branch, which isn't exactly cursive either and whose dating to anywhere between ca. 6th century and 4th century isn't as clear as its more confident dating to ca. 3rd century BC. And even if one were to accept the high end dates attributed to Brahmi, Syraic is not an alleged descendant of Brahmi. Alleged cursive variants of Brahmi script appear from the 3rd century onwards, well beyond the origin date attributed to Demotic [6th century BC]. But what the heck; I'm willing to entertain a demonstration showing how Brahmi must have developed from the more cursive Demotic.
You earlier said that all cursive scripts derived from Hieratic, as opposed to Demotic, and when pressed to demonstrate how this extends to southeast Asian scripts, you're mum about it. But the question that also needs to be asked about that, is why then was Hieratic simply not adopted earlier on, as opposed to proto-Sinaitic? Hieratic had been around since the pre-dynastic era.
quote:First, you quote my posts, but almost never actually answer the specific questions you quote [including the ones highlighted above]. Rather, you seek refuge in red herrings like: The fact remains that the first and oldest cursive script in the word originates in Egypt. Period. ...in essence, needlessly reiterating that which was acknowledged in what you just quoted me.
Doug M writes:
My only point is that not only did Egypt provide the basis of the alphabets of the Eastern Mediterranean, but it also provided the basis for the development of cursive forms in these alphabets, with the cursive form NOT being a separate and independent development.
quote:Which you questioned and I clarified as a case of Egyptian influence on the development of cursive forms of writing in other Afro Asiatic derived scripts, ALL of which derive from Egyptian writing to begin with.
Arabic writing is derived from the Egyptian writing.
quote:From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB_script
Brāhmī is believed by most scholars to be derived from a Semitic script such as the Imperial Aramaic alphabet, as was clearly the case for the contemporary Kharosthi alphabet that arose in a part of northwest Indian under the control of the Achaemenid Empire. Rhys Davids suggests that writing may have been introduced to India from the Middle East by traders. Another possibility is with the Achaemenid conquest in the late 6th century BCE,[citation needed] or that it was a planned invention under Ashoka as a prerequiste for his edicts.
quote:One good thing about web forums like this one, is that once you've posted and editing time elapses, you cannot take back what you "originally" said:
Doug M writes:
Actually, what I originally said was:
quote:
Arabic writing is derived from the Egyptian writing.
quote:Actually, you changed your claim from saying that Arabic directly derived from ancient Egyptian script to acknowledging its descent from Nabataean script, only after being pressed.
Doug M writes:
Which you questioned and I clarified as a case of Egyptian influence on the development of cursive forms of writing in other Afro Asiatic derived scripts,
quote:Saying that descendants of "Near Eastern" scripts *ultimately* derive from ancient Egypt, is a far cry from saying that they derive directly from ancient Egyptian.
Doug M writes:
ALL of which derive from Egyptian writing to begin with.
quote:Hate to break it to you, but one cannot creat a strawman out of something that hasn't been proven to have merit.
Doug M writes:
The only straw men here are those YOU are creating in trying to create TECHNICALITIES of why the development of Egyptian cursive writing was NOT influential on the development of cursive forms elsewhere in the region.
quote:See above - Records don't lie.
Doug M writes:
I never said that these scripts "directly" developed from Egyptian writing, even though they ultimately do since they all derive from proto-sinaitic, which IS directly from Egyptian writing.
quote:That's quite funny; considering I've been *persistently* trying to get you to prove your claim all this time...without success. That's the anti-thesis of ignoring.
Doug M writes:
What I said and what you continue to ignore is that the CURSIVE FORMS of these scripts reflect INFLUENCE from Egyptian cursive forms on the development of later cursive scripts.
quote:OK. And...?
Doug M writes:
As far as Brahmic script is concerned, again it IS derived from Egyptian,
quote:Actually, the only one making straw men is you. I said that much of Moorish culture is directly descended from ancient Egyptian, but much is not all and therefore, does not mean that everything in Moorish culture came from Egypt. Likewise, this includes Arabic script, which is indeed directly derived from the development of CURSIVE SCRIPTS in Egypt, which influenced the development of cursive scripts elsewhere around the Mediterranean. The part YOU are disagreeing with is that the cursive forms of Egyptian scripts had ANY influence on later scripts in the region, which is not simply an issue of what is directly versus indirectly descendant from Egyptian scripts. You are trying to find cracks or errors in my words to justify ignoring the facts that have been posted, in order to pretend that Egyptian scripts and culture did not have a profound impact on other scripts and cultures in the region, which it did.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
quote:One good thing about web forums like this one, is that once you've posted and editing time elapses, you cannot take back what you "originally" said:
Doug M writes:
Actually, what I originally said was:
quote:
Arabic writing is derived from the Egyptian writing.
—Doug wrote:
Much of Moorish culture is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian culture.
—I asked:
Examples?
—Doug answers:
Writing, architecture, landscaping, science and so on.
—I ask:
Can you examine in relative detail how these cultural traits *directly* come from Ancient Egypt, and accordingly, how they couldn't have arrived from elsewhere. Also, elaborate on the "so on", if you will, please.
—And Doug answers:
Arabic writing is derived from the Egyptian writing.
The gardens of Morocco and North West Africa with pools other features are MOST SIMILAR to the gardens of ancient Egypt which also featured pools and channels.
The science of the Moors was taken from the science of older cultures, which included Egypt
quote:Actually, you changed your claim from saying that Arabic directly derived from ancient Egyptian script to acknowledging its descent from Nabataean script, only after being pressed.
Doug M writes:
Which you questioned and I clarified as a case of Egyptian influence on the development of cursive forms of writing in other Afro Asiatic derived scripts,
Recap: Your claims about Hieratic, and then the switch to Demotic, being used to develop cursive scripts of the "Near East" didn't withstand scrutiny.
quote:Saying that descendants of "Near Eastern" scripts *ultimately* derive from ancient Egypt, is a far cry from saying that they derive directly from ancient Egyptian.
Doug M writes:
ALL of which derive from Egyptian writing to begin with.
quote:Hate to break it to you, but one cannot creat a strawman out of something that hasn't been proven to have merit.
Doug M writes:
The only straw men here are those YOU are creating in trying to create TECHNICALITIES of why the development of Egyptian cursive writing was NOT influential on the development of cursive forms elsewhere in the region.
quote:See above - Records don't lie.
Doug M writes:
I never said that these scripts "directly" developed from Egyptian writing, even though they ultimately do since they all derive from proto-sinaitic, which IS directly from Egyptian writing.
quote:That's quite funny; considering I've been *persistently* trying to get you to prove your claim all this time...without success. That's the anti-thesis of ignoring.
Doug M writes:
What I said and what you continue to ignore is that the CURSIVE FORMS of these scripts reflect INFLUENCE from Egyptian cursive forms on the development of later cursive scripts.
quote:OK. And...?
Doug M writes:
As far as Brahmic script is concerned, again it IS derived from Egyptian,
---
Ps -Fact is, to show that cursive scripts couldn't have been independently developed at different times and in different places, you have to demonstrate how they all come from a single common cursive ancestor. This hasn't been achieved to date.
quote:Is it possible that you don't know what a strawman is?--asking you to prove your claim doesn't qualify as a strawman. Reference a dictionary.
Doug M writes:
Actually, the only one making straw men is you.
quote:You were asked to lay out specifically which ones *directly descended* from ancient Egyptian, and how so. You didn't bother answering the latter, but you did say this, with respect to the former:
Doug M writes:
I said that much of Moorish culture is directly descended from ancient Egyptian, but much is not all and therefore, does not mean that everything in Moorish culture came from Egypt.
quote:I asked you to prove this, and you failed; rather, you were forced to retract it--because of lack of evidence, and now, to save face, you're forced to seek refuge in restating the discredited. Repeating a meritless claim is well, not a wise thing to do.
Doug M writes:
Likewise, this includes Arabic script, which is indeed directly derived from the development of CURSIVE SCRIPTS in Egypt
quote:There's *nothing* to disagree with, since one cannot disagree with what has no merit to begin with. You said Arabic directly descends from ancient Egyptian. So, you were requested to prove it; you didn't. Period.
Doug M writes:
The part YOU are disagreeing with is that the cursive forms of Egyptian scripts had ANY influence on later scripts in the region
quote:Don't confuse yourself about the issue at hand; it is quite simple: your [so far meritless] claim that Arabic directly descends from anient Egyptian, along with other cursive scripts.
Doug M writes:
which is not simply an issue of what is directly versus indirectly descendant from Egyptian scripts.
quote:Believe me, finding a crack(s) in your claim required no effort; it was all too blatant to miss.
Doug M writes:
You are trying to find cracks or errors in my words
quote:Like I said in the last post, which no doubt you never read, you make no sense: If I'm asking you to prove your claim, how can that be--even sub-standard logic--interpreted as "ignoring"?
Doug M writes:
to justify ignoring the facts that have been posted
quote:Rather, you are asking me to pretend to believe in the existence of something which hasn't been proven to, just so you can save face. The term for that is: wishful thinking.
Doug M writes:
, in order to pretend that Egyptian scripts and culture did not have a profound impact on other scripts and cultures in the region, which it did.
quote:Can making a meritless claim be any simpler than it already is? Lol.
Doug M writes:
I will make this simple.
quote:To make it simple: You're lying to yourself.
Doug M writes:
My claim is that the cursive form of Arabic and other scripts from Syria and Palestine are DIRECTLY related to the cursive forms of Egyptian scripts
quote:And nobody is saying that you are; it's just needless red herring.
Doug M writes:
I am not claiming that they are of the SAME language families or DIRECTLY related in a linguistic sense.
quote:That connection means nothing, if you can't prove that one script actually derived from another as such.
Doug M writes:
The ONLY connection I am referring to is the STYLISTIC one, where CURSIVE FORMS OF WRITING are concerned, nothing else.
quote:In other words, you were basing it on meritless casual first glance observation, not on substance.
Doug M writes:
THAT is what I meant by Arabic as directly descended from ancient Egyptian.
quote:On the contrary, close examination of alphabets of the cursive scripts within the proto-Sinaitic lineage of Aramaic show closer affinities in relation to one another than they do with Hieratic or Demotic. This falsifies your unproven superficial claim.
Doug M writes:
And AS POSTED, there are STRONG STYLISTIC similarities between the two that makes SUCH DIRECT INFLUENCE very likely.
quote:I agree; stop making them.
Doug M writes:
All this distraction about straw men is irrelevant.
quote:Is it possible that you don't know how to read? - I believe I just told you that one cannot disagree with what hasn't yet been proven to be. Let me know, if I need to simplify this further.
Doug M writes:
If you don't agree then so be it, but I know what I meant and it has not changed.
quote:You need to stop kidding yourself.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
quote:Can making a meritless claim be any simpler than it already is? Lol.
Doug M writes:
I will make this simple.
Rather, what you probably mean by that, is that you'll try to twist or retract your original claim more convincingly than you've been able to so far. Trust me though, that would be a futile thing to do.
quote:To make it simple: You're lying to yourself.
Doug M writes:
My claim is that the cursive form of Arabic and other scripts from Syria and Palestine are DIRECTLY related to the cursive forms of Egyptian scripts
This is your claim: Arabic *directly descends from ancient Egyptian, and so did other cursive scripts.
Lying to oneself does not erase the record.
quote:And nobody is saying that you are; it's just needless red herring.
Doug M writes:
I am not claiming that they are of the SAME language families or DIRECTLY related in a linguistic sense.
quote:That connection means nothing, if you can't prove that one script actually derived from another as such.
Doug M writes:
The ONLY connection I am referring to is the STYLISTIC one, where CURSIVE FORMS OF WRITING are concerned, nothing else.
quote:In other words, you were basing it on meritless casual first glance observation, not on substance.
Doug M writes:
THAT is what I meant by Arabic as directly descended from ancient Egyptian.
quote:On the contrary, close examination of alphabets of the cursive scripts within the proto-Sinaitic lineage of Aramaic show closer affinities in relation to one another than they do with Hieratic or Demotic. This falsifies your unproven superficial claim.
Doug M writes:
And AS POSTED, there are STRONG STYLISTIC similarities between the two that makes SUCH DIRECT INFLUENCE very likely.
quote:I agree; stop making them.
Doug M writes:
All this distraction about straw men is irrelevant.
quote:Is it possible that you don't know how to read? - I believe I just told you that one cannot disagree with what hasn't yet been proven to be. Let me know, if I need to simplify this further.
Doug M writes:
If you don't agree then so be it, but I know what I meant and it has not changed.
And oh, from the way you flip flop; nope, you don't seem to know what you mean. Prove me wrong.
quote:Off your rocker. Requesting you to deliver proof was first a "strawman", and now you call it "kidding"? Either your education system is broken, or it's just you.
Doug M writes:
You need to stop kidding yourself.
quote:Why; because you're all high & mighty and say so, and you don't have to answer to science? Lol.
Doug M writes:
Arabic in stylistic form directly descends from ancient Egyptian cursive forms of writing and so do other members of that same language family.
Period.
quote:Wishful ignorance. Never complained about not understanding you.
Doug M writes:
It is not my fault YOU cannot understand what I said.
quote:Of course, I have; which is why you now cite me without reading, and why *retracted* your claim - aka Arabic [& other cursive scripts] *directly descended* from ancient Egyptian script. You obviously reverted back to it, to save face - understandable, but futile.
Doug M writes:
You haven't challenged it
quote:What long-winded attempt: directly addressing you point by point...which you then cite without reading?
Doug M writes:
, notwithstanding your long winded attempts to avoid the point and refute what I have posted.
quote:Meritless.
Doug M writes:
Arabic STYLISTIC WRITTEN FORM directly descends from the CURSIVE FORMS of writing developed in Egypt.
quote:Repeating a meritless claim is not clarification; it's simply babyish stubborness.
DougM writes:
Now. I have clarified my point, there is no need to continue to distract with endless what I said and whether I said it nonsense.
quote:Willful denial notwithstanding, you've been falsified. Nope, you don't have to accept it, but deal with it.
Doug M writes:
Just address what I said, which you haven't.
quote:Rather, just your childish stubborn latching onto willful ignorance of reality. Simply rehashing a bunch of falsified claims, will merely be re-addressed by rehashing how they were falsified...as follows:
Doug M:
As expected, you still haven't addressed what I pushed as evidence.
code:Looks to me that Syriac is still more inclined towards the other Proto-Sinaitic 'sub-script' counterparts. Specifically how were you making mano a mano comparisons between the letters across the scripts, if not the way I went about it?Alpha. Demotic "Near Eastern" scripts
k- 1 0
r - 0 1
n - 1 0
m - 0 1(Nabataean)
q - 0 1
p - 0 1(first Arabic, then others)
t(dot) 0 1
b - 0 1
y - 0 0
` - 0 1 (Nabataean)
g- 0 1(Aramaic, then Nabataean)
s - 0 1(Nabataean)
l- 0 1
w- 0 .5(partial resemblance upper hand goes to that vis-à-vis Arabic, and then Syriac)
quote:It's more than possible, and nullifies your claim about it being a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian script.
Doug M writes:
It is quite possible that early arabic developed as a result of writing arabic using nabatean script
quote:Not supported by evidence. In fact, from your own link...
Doug M writes:
, but the unique form of Arabic script did not get refined and become the basis of what you see today until it was developed further in Egypt, as the papyri from Egypt are the earliest consistent evidence of the development and existence of modern arabic.
quote:What written forms would those be, not already mentioned?
Doug M writes:
And keep in mind that the two largest spoken and written forms of Arabic are Egyptian and Maghrebi Arabic.
quote:Well since you want to use wikipedia as your reference, keep in mind that Nakshi scripts are evidenced long before the arrival of Ali Muqlah on the scene. It is such legendary stories about the origin and development of arabic that causes most of the confusion and debate in linguistic circles. Look at the dates of the earliest manuscripts and remains and that is what will tell you more about the development of a language and script than simple claims and honorary achievements credited to an individual.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
quote:Not supported by evidence. In fact, from your own link...
Doug M writes:
, but the unique form of Arabic script did not get refined and become the basis of what you see today until it was developed further in Egypt, as the papyri from Egypt are the earliest consistent evidence of the development and existence of modern arabic.
The Arabic alphabet, derived in the 4th century AD from the little-known Nabatean alphabet, has 28 letters (all consonants), including six added to accommodate Arabic sounds. Arabic has evolved into two basic scripts, the thicker-stroked Kufic (from Al Kufa in Mesopotamia), and Naskhi, a cursive script much used on papyrus, and the ancestor of modern Arabic writing. APIS collections have many 7th-10th century Arabic documents.
Source: http://www.athenapub.com/egypap1.htm
While Naskhi, the script that is supposedly the popular modern form, according to Brittanica, which your other link uses as a source,…
.“Ibn 'ali Ibn Muqlah - born 886, Baghdad died 940, Baghdad
in full Abū ʿalī Muḥammad Ibn ʿalī Ibn Muqlah one of the foremost calligraphers of the ʿAbbāsid Age (750–1258), reputed inventor of the first cursive style of Arabic lettering, the naskhī script, which replaced the angular Kūfic as the standard of Islāmic calligraphy. In the naskhī script Ibn Muqlah introduced the rounded forms and curved lines that in later styles were refined to give Arabic writing the flowing beauty for which it is renowned. Although naskhī was originally intended for use in copying the Qurʾān, by the 11th century it was used widely for royal and common correspondence and as architectural decoration.”
“The Arabic alphabet has 28 letters, all representing consonants, and is written from right to left. Twenty-two of the letters are those of the Semitic alphabet from which it descended, modified only in letter form, and the remaining six letters represent sounds not used in the languages written in the earlier alphabet. The shape of each letter depends on its position in a word—initial, medial, and final. There is a fourth form of the letter when it is written alone. The letters alif, waw, and ya (standing for glottal stop, w, and y, respectively) are used to represent the long vowels a, u, and i. A set of diacritical marks developed in the 8th century ad are sometimes used to represent short vowels and certain grammatical endings otherwise left unmarked.
Two major types of Arabic script exist. Kūfic, a thick, bold monumental style, was developed in Kūfah, a city in Mesopotamia, toward the end of the 7th century ad. It was used chiefly for inscriptions in stone and metal but was also employed sometimes to write manuscripts of the Qurʾān. A very handsome monumental script, it has passed out of use, except in cases in which more cursive scripts cannot be used. Naskhī,a cursive script well adapted to writing on papyrus or paper, is the direct ancestor of modern Arabic writing. It originated in Mecca and Medina at an early date and exists in many complex and decorative variant forms.”
Guess, you should have bothered reading your links too.
quote:What written forms would those be, not already mentioned?
Doug M writes:
And keep in mind that the two largest spoken and written forms of Arabic are Egyptian and Maghrebi Arabic.
quote:Look at your own table.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
quote:Rather, just your childish stubborn latching onto willful ignorance of reality. Simply rehashing a bunch of falsified claims, will merely be re-addressed by rehashing how they were falsified...as follows:
Doug M:
As expected, you still haven't addressed what I pushed as evidence.
- Hieratic:
...to be compared with:
^Comparisons between Nabataean, Aramaic, Arabic and Syriac alphabets...
Gist: Arabic has closer resemblances to the mentioned “Near Eastern” proto-Sinaitic descended examples than it does to either Hieratic or Demotic.
- Show [not tell] me:
— how Arabic script could not possibly have developed from Nabataean script and its predecessor, but directly from Hieratic.
— That all cursive scripts, including those of the Indus Valley, could have only developed from a single ancestor: Hieratic!
Outcome: You couldn’t deliver the first request, because it doesn’t exist. You didn’t bother answering the second, for the same reason. In fact, this was your answer:
Arabic may have developed from the nabataean script - by Doug M
Hence, admitting that Arabic script doesn’t directly descend from ancient Egyptian script; that is, falsifying your claim.
You moved the goal post and said.
- the cursive form of the Syriac and other members of this branch of the Afro Asiatic family are derived from the Egyptian INVENTION of cursive writing. - Doug M
My reply:
I've already laid out tables for hieroglyphics, and hieratic, to be compared with Aramaic, Nabataean, Arabic, and Syriac. There, Syraic doesn't appear to be any closer to Hieratic than the others
Gist: Again, nullifying your claim.
You then posted images of Aramaic, Syriac and Demotic scripts, making the argument that Syraic and Demotic scripts show more similarities in form than either do to Aramaic…upon which I posted this:
- Upon closely examining the letters in the images posted, here's my estimation of similarities based on alphabetic correspondences, not mere random resemblances of letters upon visualization:
code:Looks to me that Syriac is still more inclined towards the other Proto-Sinaitic 'sub-script' counterparts. Specifically how were you making mano a mano comparisons between the letters across the scripts, if not the way I went about it?Alpha. Demotic "Near Eastern" scripts
k- 1 0
r - 0 1
n - 1 0
m - 0 1(Nabataean)
q - 0 1
p - 0 1(first Arabic, then others)
t(dot) 0 1
b - 0 1
y - 0 0
` - 0 1 (Nabataean)
g- 0 1(Aramaic, then Nabataean)
s - 0 1(Nabataean)
l- 0 1
w- 0 .5(partial resemblance upper hand goes to that vis-à-vis Arabic, and then Syriac)
Gist: Again, nullifying your superficial point.
You then attempt to make a temporal link between semi-cursive Aramaic variant, Imperial Aramaic, and Demotic. You were informed that the earliest evidence of such date back to 5th century BC, while Demotic dates to at least ca. 6th BC. In fact, I said:
- According to your wiki & affiliated links, the "Imperial Aramaic" form appeared at ca. 5th century BC, not the 6th. And even more interesting, while relatively more cursive then the earlier version, Imperial Aramaic alphabets actually appear to further developments of the original Aramaic alphabets; how does that help you, with regards to it being developed from Demotic?
Gist: It couldn’t have developed from Hieratic or Demotic, if it was a carryover from the original Aramaic alphabets. This development of Aramaic script bears even more affinities with its descendant scripts of Nabataean, Arabic, and Syriac.
quote:It's more than possible, and nullifies your claim about it being a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian script.
Doug M writes:
It is quite possible that early arabic developed as a result of writing arabic using nabatean script
quote:You must be smoking something strong: where have I used wiki? You are the one who has done this; I simply used *your own* sources against you.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Well since you want to use wikipedia as your reference
quote:Not according to Brittanica, which your own source cited. So then, tell us what attests to this claim.
Doug M writes:
keep in mind that Nakshi scripts are evidenced long before the arrival of Ali Muqlah on the scene.
quote:What specific evidence points to this "legendary status" and tells us that Naskhi was developed in Egypt, as opposed to the "Near East"?
Doug M writes:
It is such legendary stories about the origin and development of arabic that causes most of the confusion and debate in linguistic circles.
quote:Which "earliest" manuscripts? Name them.
Doug M writes:
Look at the dates of the earliest manuscripts and remains and that is what will tell you more about the development of a language and script than simple claims and honorary achievements credited to an individual.
quote:Which images; I just cited your own sources; they say nothing about Naskhi being developed in North Africa. In fact, their references contradict you, which says that it developed in the "Near East". I simply cited the source that your link relied on, to give accounts on the various Arabic scripts, including Naskhi.
Doug M writes:
The website I posted has links and images to many scripts both Nakshi and Kufic from North Africa and Egypt, with the Nakshi scripts being the oldest, dating from the 600s.Therefore, it is impossible that Naskshi was invented by someone born in 886, over 200 years later.
quote:According to your own link, the earliest available evidence of it comes in the form of a monument, in the "Near East". Are you suggesting there is an even earlier evidence? Why then do you cite links and then complain about their contents; is that not self-defeating?
Doug M writes:
And there are many scholarly linguistic challenges to Kufic having been born in al Kufah as many linguists claim that it existed PRIOR to that.
quote:Why then do you reference wiki? You should drop that pot you're smokin', stop telling fairy tales, and heed to your own advice about doing "your own in depth research", since you are the *only one* here who's referenced wiki.
Doug M writes:
But of course, wikipedia cannot always be relied on to provide exhaustive coverage on all topics in history and anthropology. You must do your own in depth research to find these things.
quote:Already have; it doesn't support your untrained superficial observation. This is why you should first read before citing people.
Doug M writes:
Look at your own table.
quote:If you really examined my tabulated assessments [you cited] but didn't understand it, then you must blinded by stupidity. Are you actually comparing letter for letter, to assess how they could have evolved...or are you just haphazardly selecting letters here and there from distinct scripts and then concluding that they look alike? It is this lack of depth in insight, that made you deduce that Imperial Aramaic—the more cursive form of Aramaic—developed from Demotic... when any simpleton could have just told you that they are modified carryovers from the original Aramaic letters. You aren't in a position to be advicing others on "research"; check your own backyard.
Doug M writes:
If you cannot see how hieratic is closer to the scripts on rows 2, 3 and 4 then you are absolutely blind and really not worth debating.
(hieratic is on the top, not the bottom.)
Compared to rows 2 3 and 4 below:
Row 1 is the older more Phoenician and angular form of Aramaic and NOT CURSIVE.
quote:Doug, I'm afraid you are not thinking clearly. Just because Imperial Aramaic is relatively more cursive [and the keyword here is "relatively"], doesn't mean that its letters cannot be carryovers from the original Aramaic.
Doug M writes:
Obviously, the only one blinded is you. Imperial aramaic is cursive, old aramaic is not.
quote:You have no idea what you are talking about, do you! See above, and produce a table for old Aramaic and the Imperial variant, and tell us why the latter cannot be a carryover.
Doug M writes:
Therefore it is not simply a carry over (your attempt at a technical linguistic term huh?).
quote:I know you don't want to hear the truth, but your point has no merit.
Doug M writes:
The point is that cursive forms in these languages are directly influenced by Egyptian cursive forms of writing, hence the strong similarities IN FORM.
quote:See, you didn't understand my table to begin with. You should have simply asked what I was doing there, instead of wrongly guessing. The "1" here, is simply a sort of a tally marker for saying that a designated letter—be it a "b", k", "y", etc, equivalent—has more similarities with either Hieratic and/or the "Proto-Sinaitic" derived family in question, depending on under which the "1" was placed. The "1" does NOT signify "a row" or "column" of any cited script table, as you presumed.
Doug M writes:
And no, line 2 is NOT similar to line 1 in your chart IN ANY WAY. So much for carry over.
quote:"Similarities between two scripts" in what sense? Be specific.
Doug M writes:
Carry over is when you have close similarities between two scripts, like the similarity between LINE 1 and Phoenician.
quote:Actually, I've been examining the scripts as "professionally" as I can, via letter-for-letter correspondences; NOT blindly glancing at letter curves contained in *paragraphs*, without attention to *detail* of what the letters themselves represent, and thereby saying that one script evolved directly from the other, as you are clearly doing. The reason is obvious: if you analyzed professionally, you fear [and rightfully so] that your claims would instantly be rendered unfit for scrutiny.
Doug M writes:
In that case Aramaic has carry overs. But the scripts in the table are not NEARLY as closely similar in form to the row at the top. But of course you are going to say what you wish because you simply refuse to see anything other than your own POV.
quote:With the exception of a few threads here and there, unfortunately no.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
But did I miss anything else??
quote:Actually, that's not the case; we were debating Doug's claim that 'Arabic and other "proto-Sinaitic" derived scripts descended *directly* from Hieratic or Demotic'. There's no doubt about the earliest attested cursive script being Hieratic.
Originally posted by KING:
In this thread you have Doug M and Ausarian arguing over who created cursive writeing and this is when you came in.
quote:The first document says Nakshi does it not? Therefore the earliest Nakshi script is not in 1032. What you have from 1032 is a well preserved manuscript, which reflects the development of Nakshi and Arabic in general over time. That does not change the fact that key elements of this cursive form were being written and enhanced in Egypt long before 1032.
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
Little bit of info I had come across:
Item > APIS record: chicago.apis.7803
Title > Hadith, Late VIIIth-Early IXth century A.D. [date1 Display > 750 and date2 Display > 850]
Inventory Id > P. O.I. 17626
Original Language > Arabic
Physical Description > papyrus ; 16.3 x 11.5 cm - Medium quality papyrus. The fragment is either a loose sheet or part of a small roll.
Notes > Egypt
Location: Oriental Institute
On recto: 20 lines in Arabic; on verso: 19 lines in Arabic
Poor semicursive naskhi script in an unstable and underdeveloped script. Circles, with or without dots, are used for punctuation and possibly collation. The pear-shaped device in line 5, recto, is due to an attempt to cover an error.
Pub. status: Published: recto and verso
Source of description: On recto and verso: Hadith
Subject(s) > Hadith
Islam
Associated Name(s) > Abu Salih 'Abd al-Ghaffar ibn Da'ud al-Harrani (?)
Notes on Custodial History > Unknown
Source: wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu
And then, courtesy of The British Library Board we have:
This elegant, detailed Qur'an is one of the earliest dated examples of naskhi script, the Arabic calligraphic hand which became one of the most popular styles for such manuscripts thanks to its legibility.
enlarged version
Qur’an, Iraq or Persia, 1036. Chapter 37, al-Saffat (The Ranked Fliers), verse 20 to Chapter 38, Sad (The Letter Sad), verse 35
BL Add. MS 7214, f. 52v
Copyright © The British Library Board
Inference:
Obviously, if the top APIS item is considered to be "semi-cursive", and Naskhi is widely known to be a highly cursive script, then the said APIS papyrus piece cannot be Naskhi itself, or at the least, Naskhi "proper". Moreover, the said papyrus example is supposed to be part of a religious (Islamic) literature. It is supposedly dated to between the 8th and 9th century. Yet, the British library example, which is highly cursive, is said to be "one of the earliest dated" examples of Naskhi script; it too, happens to be of Islamic (Quran) literature. It is supposedly dated to the 11th century, about the time in which various sources place the fully-developed Naskhi script's early appearances. In each case, both Hieratic and Demotic were essentially out of use by the attributed dates.
What's more important, the point I've been trying to convey, is that the Arabic letter set appears to consist of carryovers from the Nabataean script [which itself is deemed part of the Proto-Sinaitic line]...obviously with some additional features. In fact Arabic script itself, as the above mentioned historical items seem to demonstrate, had to go through a process or stages of morphological transitioning before attaining its contemporary highly cursive form...going from a semi-cursive to a highly cursive form over time, which seems to argue against a *direct* influence from an already fully-developed highly cursive script like either Hieratic or Demotic.
Side by side graphic analysis...
Yes, Arabic lettering is more cursive than its alleged forerunners, in a pattern wherein there appears to be a sequential waning of the cursive form as one moves along the family tree from child to parent, but its letter forms do demonstrate an apparent evolutionary relationship with those scripts. Naturally [as the additional point made], highly cursive proto-Sinaitic derived scripts are prone to bear strong "first-glance" physical resemblance to either the highly cursive Hieratic or Demotic, because of kinship in the sense that they all ultimately share a common [Nile Valley] ancestor.
quote:Yes, and...? That's a dumb question, given what I had to say about the said document in what you just cited [none of which you actually addressed]. Don't be lazy; read what you cite.
Doug M writes:
The first document says Nakshi does it not?
quote:...we have,
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
Little bit of info I had come across:
Item > APIS record: chicago.apis.7803
Title > Hadith, Late VIIIth-Early IXth century A.D. [date1 Display > 750 and date2 Display > 850]
Inventory Id > P. O.I. 17626
Original Language > Arabic
Physical Description > papyrus ; 16.3 x 11.5 cm - Medium quality papyrus. The fragment is either a loose sheet or part of a small roll.
Notes > Egypt
Location: Oriental Institute
On recto: 20 lines in Arabic; on verso: 19 lines in Arabic
Poor semicursive naskhi script in an unstable and underdeveloped script. Circles, with or without dots, are used for punctuation and possibly collation. The pear-shaped device in line 5, recto, is due to an attempt to cover an error.
Pub. status: Published: recto and verso
Source of description: On recto and verso: Hadith
Subject(s) > Hadith
Islam
Associated Name(s) > Abu Salih 'Abd al-Ghaffar ibn Da'ud al-Harrani (?)
Notes on Custodial History > Unknown
Source: wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu
And then, courtesy of The British Library Board we have:
This elegant, detailed Qur'an is one of the earliest dated examples of naskhi script, the Arabic calligraphic hand which became one of the most popular styles for such manuscripts thanks to its legibility.
enlarged version
Qur’an, Iraq or Persia, 1036. Chapter 37, al-Saffat (The Ranked Fliers), verse 20 to Chapter 38, Sad (The Letter Sad), verse 35
BL Add. MS 7214, f. 52v
Copyright © The British Library Board
Inference:
Obviously, if the top APIS item is considered to be "semi-cursive", and Naskhi is widely known to be a highly cursive script, then the said APIS papyrus piece cannot be Naskhi itself, or at the least, Naskhi "proper". Moreover, the said papyrus example is supposed to be part of a religious (Islamic) literature. It is supposedly dated to between the 8th and 9th century. Yet, the British library example, which is highly cursive, is said to be "one of the earliest dated" examples of Naskhi script; it too, happens to be of Islamic (Quran) literature. It is supposedly dated to the 11th century, about the time in which various sources place the fully-developed Naskhi script's early appearances. In each case, both Hieratic and Demotic were essentially out of use by the attributed dates.
What's more important, the point I've been trying to convey, is that the Arabic letter set appears to consist of carryovers from the Nabataean script [which itself is deemed part of the Proto-Sinaitic line]...obviously with some additional features. In fact Arabic script itself, as the above mentioned historical items seem to demonstrate, had to go through a process or stages of morphological transitioning before attaining its contemporary highly cursive form...going from a semi-cursive to a highly cursive form over time, which seems to argue against a *direct* influence from an already fully-developed highly cursive script like either Hieratic or Demotic...
quote:From: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/
For over 4000 years the main type of writing material used in Egypt was papyrus. It was manufactured from the plant Cyperus Papyrus L, which is a native to Egypt. Papyrus was easier to make and handle than other alternatives such as wood, skin and clay tablets. Also it could be made in a range of thickness and qualities and this contributed to its widespread use. The use of papyrus was taken over by Arab Muslims when they conquered Egypt in the 7th century CE, and it continued as the main writing material of the country until the 10th century when paper started to become more common.
It is hard to estimate the extant Arabic papyri. Adolf Grohmann estimated that there were approximately 16,000 Arabic papyri in the various collections that he was familiar with in Europe, North America and Cairo (A. Grohmann, From The World Of Arabic Papyri, 1952, Royal Society of Historical Studies, Al-Maaref Press: Cairo, p. 2). This figure refers to moderately preserved documents. It can be said with fair certainty that the total extant papyrus fragments exceeds this number. The vast majority of the documents include accounts, legal deeds, administrative documents, private letters, etc.
A large number of Arabic papyri were found at various sites in the Fayyūm as well as at sites lying further south including al-Bahnasā (Oxyrhynchus), al-Ushmūnayn (Hermapolis Magna), Kom Eshqaw (Aphrodito), Ikhmīm (Panopolis), al-Gabalayn (Pathyris), Edfū (Apollinopolis), Dandara and Aswān. Several thousand pieces were also found in the ruins of Fustāt. In 1901, a cache of papyrus letters written by Qurra bin Sharīk, the Umayyad governer of Egypt from 90-96 AH / 709-714 CE, was discovered in the Upper Egyptian village of Kom Eshqaw, 7 km south-west of Timā, formerly known as Aphrodito in the Greek sources. Some of these letters are written in Arabic, some in Greek, and some are bilingual (Arabic and Greek). They subsequently found their way into various papyrus collections. These letters cast a great deal of light on the otherwise poorly documented Umayyad administration in Egypt.
Several other Arabic papyri have been discovered at sites outside Egypt, such as in Damascus; a small number were unearthed at Sāmarrā' by the German excavations of 1911; thirteen Arabic papyri from the period 52-70 AH / 672-689 CE were discovered at ‘Awjā' al-Hafīr (Nessana) by the H. Dunscombe Colt expedition of 1936-7; and a large number of papyri, most of which date from the first two centuries AH and nearly all of which are in a fragmentary condition, were discovered in Khirbat al-Mird in the Judaean desert in 1950s.
The discipline of Arabic papyrology was given a sound foundation by a series of careful and masterly studies of selected papyri documents from the Erzherzog Rainer Collection by Josef v. Karabacek. Adolf Grohmann, who had published and edited more Arabic papyri present in various museums and collections, dominated the field of Arabic papyrology for years.
Our aim here is modest. We will deal with some of the examples of the Arabic Papyri originating from the 1st century of hijra. The Arabic Papyri is perhaps one of the most obscure fields of Arabic palaeography and hopefully the material below would help understand the field of Arabic palaeography. Apart from the well-known Qurra papyri (90-96 AH, 709-714 CE), examples of a few of which are given below, there are others that predate them. The papyri is divided into the following:
quote:lol, thought those storms in GA back when you stopped postin may have gotten to ya.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
did I miss anything else??
quote:Your point?
Originally posted by Ausarian.:
^Lol. Apparently, you didn't take the advice of first reading whatever you cite.
I re-cited myself with regards to an APIS semi-cursive [supposedly an early form of Naskhi] Arabic papyrus that dates before the said highly-cursive Naskhi-scripted Quran dated to ca. 1036. Thus that APIS Arabic papyrus too, dates older than 1036. So, you are simply making a mole hill out of nothing.
Also, from what you just cited, it reads:
"The use of papyrus was taken over by Arab Muslims when they conquered Egypt in the 7th century CE, and it continued as the main writing material of the country until the 10th century when paper started to become more common."
What did I have to say in what you cited me, but apparently didn't bother to read? I said this:
In each case, both Hieratic and Demotic were essentially out of use by the attributed dates. - Ausarian
quote:Just because a Southeast Asian doesn't consider his own people (except the Negrito aboriginals) to be black doesn't mean his definition of blackness is that constricted. In fact he accepts that Ancient Egyptians and even some Mesopotamians were what we would call "black" today. Why he doesn't include most SE Asians as part of the black group is something he probably has a very good explanation for.
Oh that's the guy who said that "only sub-saharan negroids were black".
That seems to be very, very racist.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
T-rex, don't even bother to appease a hungry salivating troll!quote:Let me take a look at these, especially Ausar's youtube video!
Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
Nice to see you here again
Other than that, a few threads you would have probably posted in:
King Tut's lost his marbles.
Roman Treatment of European Barbarians
Can prehistoric mammoths now be cloned?
National Geographic's November 1990 Issue
Nigeria leading communications Revolutions in Africa
The People of ancient Carthage
Human line nearly split in two
ancient Tehenu Libyans
Ausar's nice Youtube video