Discussion:
?????????? DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN
Add Reply
BV BV
2013-05-03 12:18:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?







Did Muhammad Author the Quran?



Who authored the Quran? Someone must have produced it! After all, how
many desert men have stood up in the history of man and given the
world a book like the Quran? The book has amazing details of past
nations, prophets, and religions as well as accurate scientific
information unavailable at the time. What was the source of all this?
If we were to deny the divine origin of the Quran, we are left with
only a few possibilities:

- The Prophet Muhammad authored it himself.

- He took it from someone else. In this case, he either took it from
a Jew or a Christian or one of the foreigners in Arabia. The Meccans
did not bother to accuse him of having taken it from one of them.

A brief response from God is:

“And they say, ‘Legends of the former peoples which he has written
down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.’ Say, [O
Muhammad], ‘It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within
the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and
Merciful.’” (Quran 25:5-6)

It was well known to his detractors that Muhammad, who was raised
among them, never learned how to read or write from the time of his
birth. They knew whom he befriended and where he had traveled; they
acknowledged his integrity and honesty by calling him ‘Al-Ameen,’ the
Reliable, the Trustworthy, the Honest.[1] Only in their revulsion
against his preaching did they accuse him – and then it was anything
they could dream up: He was accused of being a sorcerer, a poet and
even an imposter! They could not make up their minds. God says:

“Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so
they cannot [find] a way.” (Quran 17:47)

Simply, God is aware of what is in the heavens and the earth, He knows
the past and the present, and reveals the truth to His prophet.

Could Muhammad Have Authored It?

It is impossible that Muhammad could have authored the Quran due to
the following reasons:

First, several occasions presented themselves where he could have
fabricated revelation. For example, after the first revelation came,
people awaited to hear more, but the Prophet did not receive anything
new for months. The Meccans began making fun of him, ‘His Lord has
abandoned him!’ This continued until the 93rd chapter, Ad-Doha, was
revealed. The Prophet could have compiled something and presented it
as the latest revelation to end the mockery, but he did not. Also, at
one point during his prophethood, some of the hypocrites accused his
beloved wife Aisha of being unchaste. The Prophet could have easily
fabricated something to free her of blame, but he waited for many
excruciating days, all spent in pain, mockery, and anguish, until
revelation came from God freeing her from the accusation.

Second, there is internal evidence within the Quran that Muhammad was
not its author. Several verses criticized him, and were on occasion
strongly worded. How can an imposter prophet blame himself when it may
run him into the danger of losing the respect, perhaps following, of
his followers? Here are some examples:

“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from] what God has made
lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And God is
Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 66:1)

“…while you concealed within yourself that which God is to disclose
and you feared the people, while God has more right that you fear
Him..” (Quran 33:43)

“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask
forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it
has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Quran
9:113)

“But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] while he fears
[God], from him you are distracted. No! Indeed, they [these verses]
are a reminder.” (Quran 80:8-11)

If he were to hide anything, he would have hid these verses, but he
recited them faithfully.

“And he [Muhammad] is not a withholder of [knowledge of] the unseen.
And it [the Quran] is not the word of a devil, expelled [from the
heavens]. So where are you going? It is nothing but a reminder to
the worlds.” (Quran 81:24-27)

The Prophet is cautioned, perhaps warned, in the following verses:

“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so
you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And
do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God.
Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf
of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not the one who is
a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and
deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and
He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such
as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what
they do,. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this]
worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of
Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative? And whoever
does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of God will
find God Forgiving and Merciful. And whoever earns [i.e., commits] a
sin only earns it against himself. And God is ever Knowing and Wise.
But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an
innocent [person] has taken upon himself slander and manifest sin. And
if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His
mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they
do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all.
And God has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you
that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of God upon you
been great.” (Quran 4:105-113)

These verses explain a situation in which a man from the Muslim
inhabitants of Medina stole a piece of armor and hid it in the
property of his Jewish neighbor. When the owners of the armor caught
up with him he denied any wrongdoing, and the armor was discovered
with the Jewish man. He, however, pointed to his Muslim neighbor,
also denying his involvement in the crime. The people from the
Muslim’s tribe went to the Prophet to plead on his behalf, and the
Prophet began to incline towards them till the above verses were
revealed clearing the Jewish man of wrongdoing. All this despite the
Jew’s rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood! The verses instructed
Prophet Muhammad himself not to side with the deceitful! The verses:

“…and do not be an advocate for the deceitful and seek forgiveness of
God…and if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and
His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you.”

If Muhammad himself authored the Quran, thus being a lying imposter,
he would have made sure that there was nothing in existence which
could jeopardize the gaining of followers and supporters. The fact
that the Quran, on various occasions, reprimands the Prophet in
certain issues in which he had made in incorrect judgment is in itself
a proof that it was not authored by him.


[1] ‘Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources’ by Martin
Lings, p. 34.





http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/338/



thank you
DKleinecke
2013-05-07 00:36:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Who authored the Quran?  Someone must have produced it! After all, how
many desert men have stood up in the history of man and given the
world a book like the Quran?  The book has amazing details of past
nations, prophets, and religions as well as accurate scientific
information unavailable at the time. What was the source of all this?
If we were to deny the divine origin of the Quran, we are left with
- The Prophet Muhammad authored it himself.
- He took it from someone else.  In this case, he either took it from
a Jew or a Christian or one of the foreigners in Arabia.  The Meccans
did not bother to accuse him of having taken it from one of them.
“And they say, ‘Legends of the former peoples which he has written
down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.’ Say, [O
Muhammad], ‘It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within
the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and
Merciful.’” (Quran 25:5-6)
It was well known to his detractors that Muhammad, who was raised
among them, never learned how to read or write from the time of his
birth.  They knew whom he befriended and where he had traveled; they
acknowledged his integrity and honesty by calling him ‘Al-Ameen,’ the
Reliable, the Trustworthy, the Honest.[1] Only in their revulsion
against his preaching did they accuse him – and then it was anything
they could dream up: He was accused of being a sorcerer, a poet and
“Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so
they cannot [find] a way.” (Quran 17:47)
Simply, God is aware of what is in the heavens and the earth, He knows
the past and the present, and reveals the truth to His prophet.
Could Muhammad Have Authored It?
It is impossible that Muhammad could have authored the Quran due to
First, several occasions presented themselves where he could have
fabricated revelation. For example, after the first revelation came,
people awaited to hear more, but the Prophet did not receive anything
new for months. The Meccans began making fun of him, ‘His Lord has
abandoned him!’  This continued until the 93rd chapter, Ad-Doha, was
revealed. The Prophet could have compiled something and presented it
as the latest revelation to end the mockery, but he did not. Also, at
one point during his prophethood, some of the hypocrites accused his
beloved wife Aisha of being unchaste. The Prophet could have easily
fabricated something to free her of blame, but he waited for many
excruciating days, all spent in pain, mockery, and anguish, until
revelation came from God freeing her from the accusation.
Second, there is internal evidence within the Quran that Muhammad was
not its author. Several verses criticized him, and were on occasion
strongly worded. How can an imposter prophet blame himself when it may
run him into the danger of losing the respect, perhaps following, of
“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from] what God has made
lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And God is
Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 66:1)
“…while you concealed within yourself that which God is to disclose
and you feared the people, while God has more right that you fear
Him..” (Quran 33:43)
“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask
forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it
has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Quran
9:113)
“But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] while he fears
[God], from him you are distracted.  No!  Indeed, they [these verses]
are a reminder.” (Quran 80:8-11)
If he were to hide anything, he would have hid these verses, but he
recited them faithfully.
“And he [Muhammad] is not a withholder of [knowledge of] the unseen.
And it [the Quran] is not the word of a devil, expelled [from the
heavens].  So where are you going?  It is nothing but a reminder to
the worlds.” (Quran 81:24-27)
“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so
you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And
do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God.
Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf
of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not the one who is
a habitually sinful deceiver.  They conceal [their evil intentions and
deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and
He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such
as He does not accept of speech.  And God ever is encompassing of what
they do,. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this]
worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of
Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative?  And whoever
does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of God will
find God Forgiving and Merciful. And whoever earns [i.e., commits] a
sin only earns it against himself. And God is ever Knowing and Wise.
But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an
innocent [person] has taken upon himself slander and manifest sin. And
if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His
mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you.  But they
do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all.
And God has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you
that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of God upon you
been great.” (Quran 4:105-113)
These verses explain a situation in which a man from the Muslim
inhabitants of Medina stole a piece of armor and hid it in the
property of his Jewish neighbor.  When the owners of the armor caught
up with him he denied any wrongdoing, and the armor was discovered
with the Jewish man.  He, however, pointed to his Muslim neighbor,
also denying his involvement in the crime. The people from the
Muslim’s tribe went to the Prophet to plead on his behalf, and the
Prophet began to incline towards them till the above verses were
revealed clearing the Jewish man of wrongdoing.  All this despite the
Jew’s rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood!  The verses instructed
“…and do not be an advocate for the deceitful and seek forgiveness of
God…and if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and
His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you.”
If Muhammad himself authored the Quran, thus being a lying imposter,
he would have made sure that there was nothing in existence which
could jeopardize the gaining of followers and supporters.  The fact
that the Quran, on various occasions, reprimands the Prophet in
certain issues in which he had made in incorrect judgment is in itself
a proof that it was not authored by him.
[1] ‘Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources’ by Martin
Lings, p. 34.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/338/
thank you
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-05-12 01:00:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?

such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
DKleinecke
2013-05-12 01:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Not completely obvious he is a troll. If he is merely misguided I
thought it polite to tell him what he should be doing. If he ignores
me I will call him a troll
DKleinecke
2013-05-12 01:28:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Not completely obvious he is a troll. If he is merely misguided I
thought it polite to tell him what he should be doing. If he ignores
me I will call him a troll
Didn't put two and two together fast enough. He is a troll.
Peter T. Daniels
2013-05-12 03:07:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-05-12 05:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
?
Peter T. Daniels
2013-05-12 12:28:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
?
You INVITE the spammers into this newsgroup. It's been _years_ since
we were plagued by "Agamemnon," and now you have dragged him here all
over again.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-05-12 12:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
?
You INVITE the spammers into this newsgroup. It's been _years_ since
we were plagued by "Agamemnon," and now you have dragged him here all
over again.
sorry, I did not forsee that. call me naive..
Peter T. Daniels
2013-05-12 12:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
?
You INVITE the spammers into this newsgroup. It's been _years_ since
we were plagued by "Agamemnon," and now you have dragged him here all
over again.
sorry, I did not forsee that. call me naive..
You've done it again and again.

If you want to slum in soc.* groups, keep it to yourself.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-05-12 12:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
?
You INVITE the spammers into this newsgroup. It's been _years_ since
we were plagued by "Agamemnon," and now you have dragged him here all
over again.
sorry, I did not forsee that. call me naive..
You've done it again and again.
If you want to slum in soc.* groups, keep it to yourself.
there are interesting posts in the soc.history.* hierarchy I don't
consider it slumming. I don't respond to any of the few bad apples
there.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-05-12 12:59:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
?
You INVITE the spammers into this newsgroup. It's been _years_ since
we were plagued by "Agamemnon," and now you have dragged him here all
over again.
what does splork mean?
Hans Aberg
2013-05-12 18:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
?
You INVITE the spammers into this newsgroup. It's been _years_ since
we were plagued by "Agamemnon," and now you have dragged him here all
over again.
what does splork mean?
Some suggestions:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4204
https://splork.wikia.com/wiki/Splork_Wiki
Peter T. Daniels
2013-05-12 19:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Take this over to Soc.Religion.Islam and I'll write you a response.
do you seriously think that this spamming robot-poster is going to do
that?
such people don't read responses but likely have a program that
tallies them. so don't feed the trolls.
Splork!
?
You INVITE the spammers into this newsgroup. It's been _years_ since
we were plagued by "Agamemnon," and now you have dragged him here all
over again.
what does splork mean?
It is the noise made when you spew coffee onto your keyboard in
astonishment.

At one point Brian Scott claimed to have invented it.

Not to be confused with spork, a combination spoon and fork
distributed at some fast food outlets, such as Taco Bell.
Franz Gnaedinger
2013-05-13 07:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Muhammad probably was illiterate, his revelations
of twenty-three years were noted by his companions
on parchment, stone, leather, leaves and bone,
then stored in a chest, and compiled and edited
by the companions after the 'Messenger' died.
Like the Bible and other books, the Quran is inspired,
but still the work of human beings with all their
limitations. Placing a book above life and nature
is idolatry, a sin in Islam.
Peter T. Daniels
2013-05-13 10:37:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Muhammad probably was illiterate, his revelations
of twenty-three years were noted by his companions
on parchment, stone, leather, leaves and bone,
then stored in a chest, and compiled and edited
by the companions after the 'Messenger' died.
Like the Bible and other books, the Quran is inspired,
but still the work of human beings with all their
limitations. Placing a book above life and nature
is idolatry, a sin in Islam.
That is orthodoxy and OP's point. He or she is arguing _against_ the
heretical suggestion that Muhammad "authored" the Qur'an.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-05-13 18:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Muhammad probably was illiterate, his revelations
of twenty-three years were noted by his companions
on parchment, stone, leather, leaves and bone,
then stored in a chest, and compiled and edited
by the companions after the 'Messenger' died.
Like the Bible and other books, the Quran is inspired,
but still the work of human beings with all their
limitations. Placing a book above life and nature
is idolatry, a sin in Islam.
That is orthodoxy and OP's point. He or she is arguing _against_ the
heretical suggestion that Muhammad "authored" the Qur'an.
actually what Franz initially said "Muhammad probably was illiterate,
his revelations of twenty-three years were noted by his companions on
parchment, stone, leather, leaves and bone" is what Muslims
maintain,and they maintain that these were "revelations" just that
they didn't come from his own psyche but were the words of God as
brought by the angel Gabriel. Muslims and emphasize Muhammad's
illiteracy as proof of this. it seems Muhammad learned to read and
write somewhat late in life, as evidenced from a passage in the
Qur'an, but it is hard to be believe that a merchant woudl be
completely illiterate.at any rate, even from Muslim tradition and
evenfrom passages in the Qur'an he had informants in matters of
scripture.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2013-05-13 20:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Muhammad probably was illiterate, his revelations
of twenty-three years were noted by his companions
on parchment, stone, leather, leaves and bone,
then stored in a chest, and compiled and edited
by the companions after the 'Messenger' died.
Like the Bible and other books, the Quran is inspired,
but still the work of human beings with all their
limitations. Placing a book above life and nature
is idolatry, a sin in Islam.
That is orthodoxy and OP's point. He or she is arguing _against_ the
heretical suggestion that Muhammad "authored" the Qur'an.
What a shame. I thought there could be some way to frame Franz as a
blasphemer who insulted Islam, so that some bearded gang would
obligingly behead him. But if he supports the orthodox Islamic view, I
guess he isn't insulting Islam after all.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-05-14 02:47:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Muhammad probably was illiterate, his revelations
of twenty-three years were noted by his companions
on parchment, stone, leather, leaves and bone,
then stored in a chest, and compiled and edited
by the companions after the 'Messenger' died.
Like the Bible and other books, the Quran is inspired,
but still the work of human beings with all their
limitations. Placing a book above life and nature
is idolatry, a sin in Islam.
That is orthodoxy and OP's point. He or she is arguing _against_ the
heretical suggestion that Muhammad "authored" the Qur'an.
What a shame. I thought there could be some way to frame Franz as a
blasphemer who insulted Islam, so that some bearded gang would
obligingly behead him. But if he supports the orthodox Islamic view, I
guess he isn't insulting Islam after all.
Franz supports the orthodox Islamic view of the compilation of the
Qur'an, which in broad strokes is probably true.Franz breaks with
Islamic tradition as expounded by "BV BV" when he says that the Qur'an
is "still the work of human beings". according to Muslim dogma the
Qur'an is the Word of God, Muhammad merely transmitted God's words as
he was told through the angel Gabriel. a sophisticated Muslim, would
however, admit a difference between the ideal Qur'an, out there in
Heaven, and the current codex (muSHaf) which does admit a certain
amount of textual history. Muslims do believe however, that God has
guided the preservation of the Qur'an (but - for a mysterious reason -
has allowed the other holy books, the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel -
which in Muslim Arabic is in the singular - to have been "corrupted" -
also mentioned in the Qur'an is 'the Scrolls of Abraham"). OTOH it is
Shia dogma that the present codex has been tampered with and that some
verses endorsing or praising Ali have been ommitted and that "a
friend" who is named "so and so" (fula:n) will be corrected to `Ali by
the last Imam reappearing rtowards the End of Days. `Uthman, who
presided over the compilation of the Qur'an, was particluarly disliked
by Ali and his supporters, indeed `Uthman was unpopular with others as
well. it is indeed remarkable that his compilation was accepted at
all, and this is used as evidence of the varacity of his recension by
orientalists.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-05-14 05:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by BV BV
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Muhammad probably was illiterate, his revelations
of twenty-three years were noted by his companions
on parchment, stone, leather, leaves and bone,
then stored in a chest, and compiled and edited
by the companions after the 'Messenger' died.
Like the Bible and other books, the Quran is inspired,
but still the work of human beings with all their
limitations. Placing a book above life and nature
is idolatry, a sin in Islam.
That is orthodoxy and OP's point. He or she is arguing _against_ the
heretical suggestion that Muhammad "authored" the Qur'an.
What a shame. I thought there could be some way to frame Franz as a
blasphemer who insulted Islam, so that some bearded gang would
obligingly behead him. But if he supports the orthodox Islamic view, I
guess he isn't insulting Islam after all.
Franz supports the orthodox Islamic view of the compilation of the
Qur'an, which in broad strokes is probably true.Franz breaks with
Islamic tradition as expounded by "BV BV" when he says that the Qur'an
is "still the work of human beings". according to Muslim dogma the
Qur'an is the Word of God, Muhammad merely transmitted God's words as
he was told through the angel Gabriel. a sophisticated Muslim, would
however, admit a difference between the ideal Qur'an, out there in
Heaven, and the current codex (muSHaf) which does admit a certain
amount of textual history. Muslims do believe however, that God has
there is also the curious case of "The Verse of Stoning (for
Adultery)". it is not in Qur'an but is a Hadith of Qur'anic force.
`Uthman said he did not include it because some doubted it was to be
included in the Qur'an and that the material in which the verse was
recorded was said to be lost due to its being eaten by a goat at
Muhammad's residence. both Sunni and Shia recognize it as `Ali is said
to have vouched for its authenticity and the institution of stoning
for adultery is credited to `Umar along with other sexual regulations
of a puritanical nature. the minority Kharijis (represented by the
Ibadis of Oman where it is official) reject it on the grounds that its
report has no transmitters that their very small minority sect trusts.
many orientalists reject the verse on the ground that the
reconstituted versions of the verse contain vocabulary atypical of the
Qur'an and contain no mitigating circumstances typical of other severe
punishments. it also contradicts the Qur'anic verse prescribing
lashing. of the few stonings said to have been carried out by Muhammad
a couple involved Jewesses sentenced by Muhammad on the grounds of
Jewish law. Muslim scholars regard it as "abrogated for recitation"
but not abrogated as far as its message goes.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
guided the preservation of the Qur'an (but - for a mysterious reason -
has allowed the other holy books, the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel -
which in Muslim Arabic is in the singular - to have been "corrupted" -
also mentioned in the Qur'an is 'the Scrolls of Abraham"). OTOH it is
Shia dogma that the present codex has been tampered with and that some
verses endorsing or praising Ali have been ommitted and that "a
friend" who is named "so and so" (fula:n) will be corrected to `Ali by
the last Imam reappearing rtowards the End of Days. `Uthman, who
presided over the compilation of the Qur'an, was particluarly disliked
by Ali and his supporters, indeed `Uthman was unpopular with others as
well. it is indeed remarkable that his compilation was accepted at
all, and this is used as evidence of the varacity of his recension by
orientalists.
in the film "The Horsemen" (1971)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067216/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

(it's a goat, buz, carcass, not a calf, buzkashi means "dragging the
goat"; notice Eastern Persian [u] instead of Modern Iranian Persian
[o])

the hero in Afghanistan, played by Omar Sharif, attempts to cure his
fractured leg (and ends up lossing it) not by setting it but by
wrapping it in leaves from the Qur'an saying that they are "The sacred
words of Muhammad" (!). the insult to Ibn Sina / Avicenna - who came
not far from the setting in Northern Afghanistan - aside, no Muslim
would ever say that, and Omar Sharif, a convert to Islam (born:
Michael Shalhoub - unrelated to Tony Shalhoub "Monk") should have
known better. OTOH perhaps the producers felt that that would go
better than "the words of God / Allah" to a Christian audience.

*sh*alhu:b is the name of a hot wind in Lebanese colloquial, a
(recent, older would exhibit s- in Arabic) loanword from Aramaic,
ancient sh*- causative prefix, cf. Arabic lahab "flame".

"words of Muhammad" would be Hadith.literature.
mr
2017-05-31 19:22:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
i have a question to all linguists here.

many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.

for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"


what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
mr
2017-05-31 19:23:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mr
i have a question to all linguists here.
many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.
for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"
what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
i just want to know methodology spelled out that's all.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-01 13:42:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mr
Post by mr
i have a question to all linguists here.
many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.
for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"
what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
i just want to know methodology spelled out that's all.
While Arabic and Hebrew, Aramaica and Ethiopicare Semitic languages and have many cognates in common, there is much technical and cultic vocabulary that was coined in one of the languages millenia after Prot-Semitic broke up. Such words cannot be cognates but originated in one of the languages and then spread. Does that answer your question?
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-31 20:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mr
i have a question to all linguists here.
many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.
for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"
Hebrew and Aramaic Shin enters Old Arabic as si:n because Old Arabic
*sh*i:n was a lateral. The merging of Proto-Semitic Shin and Samekh
*/*sh*/ and */s/ into Arabic Sin /s/ is a regular sound change that
was still active in the Arabic of the 7th cent. It has nothing to do
with orthography.

There are many loanwwords from Hebrew and Aramaic (from various
forms of it) in the Quran because Syriac was the liturgical
language of teh Eastern Churches and Jewish Aramaic was the
language of scholarship among Jews and Hebrew the language of the
Tanakh. These loanwords can be seen in South Arabian inscriptions
written centuries before the Quran during the monotheistic period of
Yemen. Much of the Quran is after all a commentary on Jewish and
Christian beliefs and writins. This is not inconsistent with how
the Quran characterizes itself. There are also Ethiopic loanwords,
since Ethiopic was the scriptural language of the Ethiopian Church.
Since Hebrew, Aramaic and Ethiopic are Semitic languages like Arabic
and since Arabs have interacted with Canaanites, Arameans and Ethiopians
for millenia these words did not sound outlandish to Arabs and most
of them were readily comprehensible.

Now for origin of su:ra(t) . Jeffreys says that one candidate
is Mishnaic Hebrew *sh*u:rA "row, rank, file" but more likely
is Syriac su:rt-a: "writing".
Post by mr
what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-31 20:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by mr
i have a question to all linguists here.
many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.
for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"
Al-Suyuti (late 15th cent.) gives this remarkabely correct
perspective on the foreign words in the Quran:


"
In my opinion the truth of the matter
is this. The Qur'an is in plain Arabic containing no word which is
not Arabic or which cannot be understood without the help of some
other language. For these (so-called foreign) words belonged to the
(language of the) ancient Arabs, in whose tongue the Qur'an was
revealed, after they had had contact with other languages through
commercial affairs and travel in Syria and Abyssinia, whereby the
Arabs took over foreign words, altering some of them by dropping
letters or lightening what was heavy in the foreign form. Then they
used these words in their poetry and conversation so that they became
like pure Arabic and were used in literature and thus occur in the
Qur'an. So if any Arab is ignorant about these words it is like his
ignorance of the genuine elements of some other dialect, just as Ibn
'Abbas did not know the meaning of Fa:t.ir, etc. Thus the truth is that
these words were foreign, but the Arabs made use of them and
Arabicized them, so from this point of view they are Arabic. 4 As for
at-Tabari's opinion that in these cases the two languages agree word
for word, it is far-fetched, for one of them is the original and the other
a derivative as a rule, though we do not absolutely rule out coincidence
in a few exceptional cases."
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Hebrew and Aramaic Shin enters Old Arabic as si:n because Old Arabic
*sh*i:n was a lateral. The merging of Proto-Semitic Shin and Samekh
*/*sh*/ and */s/ into Arabic Sin /s/ is a regular sound change that
was still active in the Arabic of the 7th cent. It has nothing to do
with orthography.
There are many loanwwords from Hebrew and Aramaic (from various
forms of it) in the Quran because Syriac was the liturgical
language of teh Eastern Churches and Jewish Aramaic was the
language of scholarship among Jews and Hebrew the language of the
Tanakh. These loanwords can be seen in South Arabian inscriptions
written centuries before the Quran during the monotheistic period of
Yemen. Much of the Quran is after all a commentary on Jewish and
Christian beliefs and writins. This is not inconsistent with how
the Quran characterizes itself. There are also Ethiopic loanwords,
since Ethiopic was the scriptural language of the Ethiopian Church.
Since Hebrew, Aramaic and Ethiopic are Semitic languages like Arabic
and since Arabs have interacted with Canaanites, Arameans and Ethiopians
for millenia these words did not sound outlandish to Arabs and most
of them were readily comprehensible.
Now for origin of su:ra(t) . Jeffreys says that one candidate
is Mishnaic Hebrew *sh*u:rA "row, rank, file" but more likely
is Syriac su:rt-a: "writing".
Post by mr
what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-31 20:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mr
i have a question to all linguists here.
many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.
for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"
what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
Listening to any educated Arabic-speaker speak Arabic; comparing Arabic with
its close relatives the other Semitic languages.

Arabic does _not_, in fact, have the three voiceless sibilants of Proto-Semitic
or South Arabian -- but neither does Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, or Akkadian.
The different languages combined the various sibilants and interdentals (th-
sounds) in different ways, and comparing the existing languages can show what
the original situation must have been.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-01 08:46:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by mr
i have a question to all linguists here.
many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.
for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"
what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
Listening to any educated Arabic-speaker speak Arabic; comparing Arabic with
its close relatives the other Semitic languages.
Arabic does _not_, in fact, have the three voiceless sibilants of Proto-Semitic
or South Arabian -- but neither does Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, or Akkadian.
The different languages combined the various sibilants and interdentals (th-
sounds) in different ways, and comparing the existing languages can show what
the original situation must have been.
Actually, archaic Akkadian and Eblaite quite clearly distinguish with different sets of signs: *s *ts(amek) and *t_ (in addition of *s'in).
As usual, the notoriously incompetent PTD pontificates idiocies.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-01 11:11:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by mr
i have a question to all linguists here.
many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.
for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"
what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
Listening to any educated Arabic-speaker speak Arabic; comparing Arabic with
its close relatives the other Semitic languages.
Arabic does _not_, in fact, have the three voiceless sibilants of Proto-Semitic
or South Arabian -- but neither does Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, or Akkadian.
The different languages combined the various sibilants and interdentals (th-
sounds) in different ways, and comparing the existing languages can show what
the original situation must have been.
Actually, archaic Akkadian and Eblaite quite clearly distinguish with different sets of signs: *s *ts(amek) and *t_ (in addition of *s'in).
As usual, the notoriously incompetent PTD pontificates idiocies.
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-01 16:20:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by mr
i have a question to all linguists here.
many times some christian apologists say that an arabic word is really an aramaic word.
for example, a guy called gabriel sawmna says that "surah" is really "shura," he says that the arab muslims could not differentiate between harf SEEN and harf SHEEN therefore "shura" became "surah"
what steps would a linguist take in trying to either prove or disprove this claim?
Listening to any educated Arabic-speaker speak Arabic; comparing Arabic with
its close relatives the other Semitic languages.
Arabic does _not_, in fact, have the three voiceless sibilants of Proto-Semitic
or South Arabian -- but neither does Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, or Akkadian.
The different languages combined the various sibilants and interdentals (th-
sounds) in different ways, and comparing the existing languages can show what
the original situation must have been.
Actually, archaic Akkadian and Eblaite quite clearly distinguish with different sets of signs: *s *ts(amek) and *t_ (in addition of *s'in).
As usual, the notoriously incompetent PTD pontificates idiocies.
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-01 18:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?

You've previously pointed to your vanity web site. That doesn't count.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-02 08:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
For example, here:
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have proposed a reassessment of Gabor Takacz' theories about Afrasian phonology.
I tend to think that this is the state-of-the-art benchmark.
In all cases, I've not read anything better at this point, and certainly not in your senile drivelings.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-02 13:06:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.

Positing emphatic labial stops for AA isn't exactly earth-shattering.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I have proposed a reassessment of Gabor Takacz' theories about Afrasian phonology.
I tend to think that this is the state-of-the-art benchmark.
In all cases, I've not read anything better at this point,
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-02 17:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-02 18:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.

If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-02 18:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.
If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
I have seen "Hamitic" used for the grouping "Berber" excusively.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-03 05:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.
If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
These words are mostly a comment on those that Gabor Takacs adduces to prove *t_ and *d_ at the Afrasian level.
I'm basically pointing at the fact these words do not prove the validity of *t_ and *d_
The problem is that you're incompetent on these issues,
you have not read what competent people wrote on Proto-Afrasian phonology.
You're worse than silly, you're incompetent and senile, scientifically obsolete.
A.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
This is really absurd.
I don't even use the word "Hamitic".
This is a strawman.
Maybe you can't read French adequately.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-03 13:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
You sound like Trump.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than .
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.
If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
These words are mostly a comment on those that Gabor Takacs adduces to prove *t_ and *d_ at the Afrasian level.
I'm basically pointing at the fact these words do not prove the validity of *t_ and *d_
The problem is that you're incompetent on these issues,
I think you don't know what the English word "incompetent" means.

It doesn't mean 'unconcerned' or 'uninterestted'.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
you have not read what competent people wrote on Proto-Afrasian phonology.
Why should I? Proto-Afroasiatic did not have a writing system.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
This is really absurd.
I don't even use the word "Hamitic".
You use the word "Hamito-Semitic."
Post by Arnaud Fournet
This is a strawman.
Maybe you can't read French adequately.
Do you find "chamito-semitique" somehow difficult to interpret?

You use Diakonoff's "Afrasian" even as you complain of his work. The usual
English term is Greenberg's "Afro-Asiatic" or "Afroasiatic."
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-03 15:48:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
These words are mostly a comment on those that Gabor Takacs adduces to prove *t_ and *d_ at the Afrasian level.
I'm basically pointing at the fact these words do not prove the validity of *t_ and *d_
The problem is that you're incompetent on these issues,
I think you don't know what the English word "incompetent" means.
It doesn't mean 'unconcerned' or 'uninterestted'.
I checked what "incompetent" means in English.
I confirm you are incompetent, all the more so as it seems that the word can also mean "mentally deficient".
It cleanly applies to you. No doubt.
A.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
This is really absurd.
I don't even use the word "Hamitic".
You use the word "Hamito-Semitic."
You're really insane and senile.
It's wondrous.
I think you should stop getting involved with web forums.
A.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
This is a strawman.
Maybe you can't read French adequately.
Do you find "chamito-semitique" somehow difficult to interpret?
You use Diakonoff's "Afrasian" even as you complain of his work. The usual
English term is Greenberg's "Afro-Asiatic" or "Afroasiatic."
I wrote in French, you senile idiot.
Anyway I prefer Afrasian in English, shorter.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-03 15:54:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You use Diakonoff's "Afrasian" even as you complain of his work. The usual
English term is Greenberg's "Afro-Asiatic" or "Afroasiatic."
I wrote in French, you senile idiot.
If you're now disowning everything you've written here in English, does that
mean you're going away and never coming back? Thank Le Pen for small favors.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Anyway I prefer Afrasian in English, shorter.
Diakonoff originally used "Semito-Hamitic." Couldn't get it right either way.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-03 20:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You use Diakonoff's "Afrasian" even as you complain of his work. The usual
English term is Greenberg's "Afro-Asiatic" or "Afroasiatic."
I wrote in French, you senile idiot.
If you're now disowning everything you've written here in English, does that
mean you're going away and never coming back? Thank Le Pen for small favors.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Anyway I prefer Afrasian in English, shorter.
Diakonoff originally used "Semito-Hamitic." Couldn't get it right either way.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with either "Semito-Hamitic" or "Hamito-Semitic", idiot.
The creation of Afrasian or Afro-asiatic is only a marketing operation of Greenberg. There's no practical added value.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-03 20:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You use Diakonoff's "Afrasian" even as you complain of his work. The usual
English term is Greenberg's "Afro-Asiatic" or "Afroasiatic."
I wrote in French, you senile idiot.
If you're now disowning everything you've written here in English, does that
mean you're going away and never coming back? Thank Le Pen for small favors.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Anyway I prefer Afrasian in English, shorter.
Diakonoff originally used "Semito-Hamitic." Couldn't get it right either way.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with either "Semito-Hamitic" or "Hamito-Semitic", idiot.
The creation of Afrasian or Afro-asiatic is only a marketing operation of Greenberg. There's no practical added value.
Apparently you are so ignorant of historical linguistics that you cannot understand
how phyla are named. If language names are used, then they represent the
highest-level classificatory divisions in the phylum, so the 19th-century
term "Hamito-Semitic" was used to separate the ("better") Semitic languages
-- maybe they were Semites, but at least they were whitish -- from the
("inferior") African languages. The name "Hamitic," of course, refers to the
"curse of Ham" from the story of Noah's drunkenness.

Greenberg's contribution to phyletic nomenclature was to replace language-name
titles of phyla with geographic names, such as "Niger-Congo" (two rivers),
"Nilo-Saharan" (a river and a desert), and "Afro-Asiatic" (for the only phylum
attested anciently on the two continents Africa and Asia.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-04 11:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You use Diakonoff's "Afrasian" even as you complain of his work. The usual
English term is Greenberg's "Afro-Asiatic" or "Afroasiatic."
I wrote in French, you senile idiot.
If you're now disowning everything you've written here in English, does that
mean you're going away and never coming back? Thank Le Pen for small favors.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Anyway I prefer Afrasian in English, shorter.
Diakonoff originally used "Semito-Hamitic." Couldn't get it right either way.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with either "Semito-Hamitic" or "Hamito-Semitic", idiot.
The creation of Afrasian or Afro-asiatic is only a marketing operation of Greenberg. There's no practical added value.
Apparently you are so ignorant of historical linguistics that you cannot understand
how phyla are named.
yes, that's the core of your me-better rhetorics.
Invented Bullshit example:
[start quote] you *apparently* blablabla *[any kind of] BS [invented by your own sick mind] blablabla, ** therefore ** [my own emphasis] ** PTD knows better ** [this is the core of your rhetorics] ** blablabla ** ** blablabla ** ** PTD knows better ** [repeated in case somebody first missed the core of your garbage rhetorics] ** blablabla ** some kind of outdated reference from 30-50 years ago ** blablabla ** [end of quote]


If language names are used, then they represent the
Post by Peter T. Daniels
highest-level classificatory divisions in the phylum, so the 19th-century
term "Hamito-Semitic" was used to separate the ("better") Semitic languages
only in your sick and racist mind.
A.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
-- maybe they were Semites, but at least they were whitish -- from the
("inferior") African languages. The name "Hamitic," of course, refers to the
"curse of Ham" from the story of Noah's drunkenness.
Greenberg's contribution to phyletic nomenclature was to replace language-name
titles of phyla with geographic names, such as "Niger-Congo" (two rivers),
"Nilo-Saharan" (a river and a desert), and "Afro-Asiatic" (for the only phylum
attested anciently on the two continents Africa and Asia.
useless contorsions of intrinsically sick minds.
A.
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-05 06:53:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sun, 4 Jun 2017 04:04:28 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
useless contorsions of intrinsically sick minds.
Contorsion and contortion sounds different even in your native French.

Or is that <s> /s/ too and not /z/?
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-05 07:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 4 Jun 2017 04:04:28 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
useless contorsions of intrinsically sick minds.
Contorsion and contortion sounds different even in your native French.
Or is that <s> /s/ too and not /z/?
no, contorsion and contortion would sound the same (both with /s/)
It happens contortion is indeed the English spelling.
I'm more aware of that, now.
Would it not be contoortie in Dutch, without z either?

In all cases, /z/ in <r-s> is fairly rare.
persister is one instance, possibly because of résister (both with /z/), same with subsister also with /z/.
A.

Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-03 10:19:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
fFri, 2 Jun 2017 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.
If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
He says "Berber", not "Hamitic". Perhaps you don't have your glasses
on?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-03 13:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
fFri, 2 Jun 2017 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.
If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
He says "Berber", not "Hamitic". Perhaps you don't have your glasses
on?
Berber is one of the four or five components of "Hamitic." I have nothing to
say about Berber, Egyptian (language), Cushitic, Chadic, or Omotic.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-03 15:04:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
fFri, 2 Jun 2017 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.
If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
He says "Berber", not "Hamitic". Perhaps you don't have your glasses
on?
Berber is one of the four or five components of "Hamitic." I have nothing to
say about Berber, Egyptian (language), Cushitic, Chadic, or Omotic.
I remember a (serious) book that reserved "Hamitic" for the Berber
group excusively. It did not claim it was a larger grouping within
Afro-Asiatic that didn't include Semitic. IIRC it was "Les Langues
du Monde."
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-03 15:46:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
fFri, 2 Jun 2017 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.
If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
He says "Berber", not "Hamitic". Perhaps you don't have your glasses
on?
Berber is one of the four or five components of "Hamitic." I have nothing to
say about Berber, Egyptian (language), Cushitic, Chadic, or Omotic.
I remember a (serious) book that reserved "Hamitic" for the Berber
group excusively. It did not claim it was a larger grouping within
Afro-Asiatic that didn't include Semitic. IIRC it was "Les Langues
du Monde."
The 1924 compilation by Antoine Meillet & Marcel Cohen? _If_ that was the case
then (highly unlikely -- Cohen certainly knew Egyptian and Cushitic but didn't
accept Chadic as definitely a member), it was remedied in the 1940 version that
was published in 1952.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-03 15:58:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
fFri, 2 Jun 2017 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Ah, really?
One of my suggestions is that *t_ and *d_ are in fact allophones of *s and *z => who proposed that before I did?
That's just silly.
If it relies on "cognates" like those at the foot of p. 24, then the level of linguistics
is no better than that of Fabre d'Olivet.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I'm also proposing that some of Berber s(h)ibilants are in fact palatalized laryngeals => again, who proposed that before I did?
I'll let you answer.
As I said, I have nothing to say about "Hamitic." (Save that there is no such thing -- no
grouping of all the Afro-Asiatic languages excluding Semitic.)
He says "Berber", not "Hamitic". Perhaps you don't have your glasses
on?
Berber is one of the four or five components of "Hamitic." I have nothing to
say about Berber, Egyptian (language), Cushitic, Chadic, or Omotic.
I remember a (serious) book that reserved "Hamitic" for the Berber
group excusively. It did not claim it was a larger grouping within
Afro-Asiatic that didn't include Semitic. IIRC it was "Les Langues
du Monde."
The 1924 compilation by Antoine Meillet & Marcel Cohen? _If_ that was the case
then (highly unlikely -- Cohen certainly knew Egyptian and Cushitic but didn't
accept Chadic as definitely a member), it was remedied in the 1940 version that
was published in 1952.
I must have read the second edition. It was a long time ago while I was
in college and the book isn't available to me at the moment.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-02 17:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Another of my rearrangements is to get rid of the "interdental" series.
I wrote that *t_ = *s, and *d_ = *z,
Moreover so-called *z. is in my opinion *ts. emphatic affricate, in contrast with *s. (ordinary tsade).
=> who wrote that before I did?
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-02 18:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
I have nothing to say about "Hamitic" (there's no such thing), but I don't
see anything in the discussion of Semitic that isn't in Cantineau, Steiner,
Faber, or Huehnergard.
Another of my rearrangements is to get rid of the "interdental" series.
I wrote that *t_ = *s, and *d_ = *z,
Moreover so-called *z. is in my opinion *ts. emphatic affricate, in contrast with *s. (ordinary tsade).
=> who wrote that before I did?
No one, fortunately.
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-02 13:17:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Fri, 2 Jun 2017 01:25:08 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
The many question marks are mangled special characters? Pity, it is
feasible to get them right on the web now.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-02 13:43:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 2 Jun 2017 01:25:08 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
Sounding, not surprisingly, just like Trump.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
The many question marks are mangled special characters? Pity, it is
feasible to get them right on the web now.
The pdf is fine. I didn't try the html, of course.
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-03 10:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:43:28 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 2 Jun 2017 01:25:08 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
Sounding, not surprisingly, just like Trump.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-bulletin-d-etudes-orientales-2014-1.htm
Very official and peer-reviewed.
The many question marks are mangled special characters? Pity, it is
feasible to get them right on the web now.
The pdf is fine. I didn't try the html, of course.
I see.

That's the trouble with PDF's, they don't adhere to standards like
Unicode and often even include presentation details, like superfluous
spaces for filling out lines, and fl-ligatures and the like, in
copy-pastes. They usually confuse soft newlines (dynamic line breaks)
with hard returns (paragraph ends).

PDF is a bad standard and Adobe makes bad software.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-02 08:26:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc. Maybe he's simply unable
to count to 28.
PTD, you're a senile idiot.
I'm one of the best specialists of Afrasian proto-phonology.
And I have explained what to think of the s(h)ibilants and so-called "interdentals".
Beside, I've studied Eblaite cuneiform in comparison with Proto-Semitic, so I doubtless know quite a lot more about these topics than your senile droolings and drivelings.
It's time you finally start to understand you're a wreckage belonging to the past.
Really? Can you point me to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book
published by a reputable publisher, either by you or by a legitimate scholar
commending your views?
You've previously pointed to your vanity web site. That doesn't count.
yes, but google.groups is not your vanity web site either, senile idiot.
A.
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-01 18:39:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Arabic does _not_, in fact, have the three voiceless sibilants of Proto-Semitic
or South Arabian -- but neither does Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, or Akkadian.
The different languages combined the various sibilants and interdentals (th-
sounds) in different ways, and comparing the existing languages can show what
the original situation must have been.
Actually, archaic Akkadian and Eblaite quite clearly distinguish with different sets of signs: *s *ts(amek) and *t_ (in addition of *s'in).
As usual, the notoriously incompetent PTD pontificates idiocies.
The uneducated AF apparently doesn't even know what the three Proto-Semitic
sibilants were, alongside the three interdentals etc.
Wikipedia does. So I do too..
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Maybe he's simply unable to count to 28.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Loading...