Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco 
Author Message
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco


Quote:
(Frank Joseph Yurco) writes:

>Every Egyptian king had five royal names, that were taken at the
>coronation, with the oldest and earliest being the Horus name written
>in a serekh. The other names were, the so-called Two Ladies name, known
>from early Dy{*filter*} I and continuing, then the Horus over gold name,
>starting in Dy{*filter*} 3, and the prenomen in a cartouche, known from
>Dy{*filter*} 3 onwards, and finally the nomen in a cartouche, from Dy{*filter*} 4
>onwards. Since the names Amenemhat and Senwosret are the fifth, cartouche
>name, the repetition of names was no problem, for each king had distinct
>patterns in the first four names. Egyptian records were kept by the
>fourth name, the throne name, which always was very distinct. Hence,
>unlike moderns, the Egyptians needed no sub-numbering to keep the rulers
>distinct. It is only us moderns, who need the sub-numbering, because in
>the history books we refer to the kings by their nomen (the fifth royal
>name) usually.

That is clear. The question is - did a king have more cartouched names?
and have we thus magnified the actual number of kings by doubling or
tripling them in the lists?

Perhaps some of the "ostensible" errors of chronology derive from the fact
that we may in fact have duplications of kings in the lists based on the
following possibilities:

1) Some of the names of kings are merely regional rulers
2) The names of kings on the pyramids (their kenotaphs) are different from
those on their tombs i.e. where I am quite sure than MN-HTP is the same
person as MN-NFR
i.e. "ruler of Thebes" = HOTEP, Latvian vaDIBA "rule, government"
"ruler of the Delta region" = NFR (NAHRU "of the Nile", NAHARIN) or also
NTR (NIEDRA in Latvian means "reeds, Binse"), i.e. the Delta-region.
Hence, Amenhotep III's pyramid is MN-NFR (now assigned to Pepi II)
This may be why the -hotep kings have no pyramids - their pyramids have
other names
3) Some of the cartouched names of kings - as already previously posted -
may show royal changes in a kings name PRIOR to coronation, i.e. as if
from Prince/Warrior, to Priest, to King - all nevertheless cartouched,
since an heir to the throne
4) The Nesubait names are the kings "star" name after death and define his
"star realm"
5) As previously posted - Dynasties may be duplications of a sort, i.e.
the Old Kingdom may be combining "legendary" and astronomical kings with
corresponding "actual" human kings of the Middle and New Kingdom. I am
sure this is so.

Here are "very speculative" possible correspondences as cooking.net">food for thought.
Recall, I am a pioneer of sorts with perhaps a "glimpse" of new things and
I am sure I have not got everything right - perhaps it is ALL wrong - but
I doubt this:

Predynastic (using Gardiner, Petrie, Sethe - who had it more right than
modern sources -  these are the 12 tribes of Israel and have no "date" -
but correspond also to the 12 houses of heaven - a star indicates there is
no grave in Egypt). You will see that I have changed my mind on the Kings
David, Saul and Solomon here - putting them even earlier than before -
although the correspondences to the Middle Kingdom may also be right, who
knows.

*Den = DN = Biblical Dan
*Tau = Biblical Gad
*Thesh = Biblical Asher
*Neheb = Biblical Naphtali
*Joseph, Jacob and Benjamin (other hieroglyphs than below - see my web
site)
*<3># = Biblical Reuben
*Zr (pouch hieroglyph, Latvian SAIMINs) = Biblical Simeon
*Levi
*Djed = Biblical Judah
*#-ba = Zebulon
*Ska = Isaachar
___

Dynastic Kings (- a star indicates no grave in Egypt acc. to the Bible: I
leave many kings out because I am certain they belong to what the Bible
calls "small prophets" and are kings who reigned contemporaneously as
brothers or not at all - a good example of which is Schepseskaf)
0. *Djer = "Scorpion" = Terah
1. *Narmer = Hor-Aha = Abraham
2.. *Sanacht = Isaac
3.*Djoser = Joseph
   *Snofru = Esau (the "red" one of the Bible, the red pyramid)
4. Cheops = Jacob (Joseph built the first pyramids for his aging father
and twin brother Esau who was in the land of Seir, so the Pharaoh
identified on the Pyramids as Djoser is Joseph and the sitting Khufu is
Jacob, although, in terms of chronology, Djoser should be Jacob and Cheops
should be Joseph)
(Im-hotep = Benjamin (ben JIM in))
Chephren = Ephraim
Mycerinus = Machir
5.Djedefre = David (also Djedkare-Asosi)
   Userkaf (Sun cult)  = Biblical Saul (Latvian Saule "sun")
   Schepseskaf (written Z-KER-V is the Biblical Sacharja/Zacharias =
Sacharov)
   Unas = Jonathan, priest under David (his father was Usias)
           = also Jotham, son of Usias of Juda (2 king 15,32-38; 2
Chronicles 27)
           AHAS was the son and successor of King Jotham of Juda and this
is the
           Pharaonic Aja (see below)
6. Sahure = Biblical Solomon (who divides up the 12 tribes of Israel anew,
except for           Juda - which is Egypt)
7. Manetho's 7. Dy{*filter*} of 70 kings in 70 days is identical to the
Biblical 70 years of Judgment found in Zacharias, in which there is also
talk of again recapturing the North. Note also that the Pharaohs allowed
70 days for the mummification and burial of a deceased pharaoh. (Note here
again the confusion of days and years in the Bible). Do not ask me how to
reconcile this part with Biblical chronology yet, I am just not sure.

Zacharias says that as a result of the tumult in Dy{*filter*} 7 - Joshua is
made king and I think this is the Pharaonic Aja, a hieroglpyh written as
I-eat-I-I, where I transcribe the "eat" hieroglpyh as EZH on the basis of
Latvian EZH "eat" so that Aja is correctly JOSHUA - but also called AHAS
in the Bible as you will see. Joshua asked to be buried in Thimnath-Serah
(2 Chronicles 28, 18:Thimna).- which is why we do not find his mummy in
Egypt - since Thimnath is alleged to be an area between Juda and Dan which
- DURING THE PERIOD OF AHAS - was captured by the Philistines. Now that is
interesting - during the period of AHAS. Who is the Biblical AHAS? Is he
the same as the Pharaonic AJA ??

Does this sound strange? No, quite the contrary. When I look under AHAS in
Rieneckers Lexikon zur Bibel - I find a story which almost FULLY explains
the events surrounding the Pharaonic Aha, Tutankhamun and Echnaton.
Rienecker writes (my translation from the German):

"The political demise of the empire appears imminent as the result of
religious decay. Before he [Ahas] even takes over rule, Syria and Israel
[in view of my claim that ancient Juda includes Egypt - note that please :
AND ISRAEL !] join together against Juda and inflict great damage.  A SON
OF THE KING and two high priests ARE {*filter*}ED and many prisoners are taken
into captivitiy (2 Chron 28,5-8). In the south [of Israel], Elath is lost[
by Juda] [Elath=Ezeon-Geber, the port of King Solomon] and Philistines and
Edomites invade Juda (2 Kings 16,6). Resin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel
march toward Jerusalem [it is clear that this antique Jerusalem, Urusalim,
is not the modern Jerusalem but is in Egypt], in order there to make AN
OTHERWISE UNKNOWN SON of TABEELS the king....AHAS...who perhaps SACRIFICES
HIS SON in this hopeless situation...buys the help of the Assyrian king
Thiglath-Pileser III with the treasure of the temple...who then takes
Damascus, killing Resin... conquers north Israel and sends the Israelites
into the Babylonian captivity....Ahas must now pay tribute to
Damascus...must close the temples...and erects pagan altars in Juda...When
he dies, one does not trust to bury him in the tombs of the kings...but
they bury him in the city."

Now, take a look at the so-called Amarna period of Egyptian history and
you will see that the Biblical history of AHAS explains this very well.

The problem of reconciling the chronologies may appear to be a tough one
for Egyptologists and Biblical scholars  - but I am quite sure that we are
dealing here with the exact same events. In terms of the Biblical
chronology, it is of course difficult to tell whether the events told
there may not reach much further back in history, and I think this may be
the case - or, we must severely amend Pharaonic chronology. Or, this is
all a bit of light entertainment. We shall see.

- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)



Wed, 30 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco


Quote:
(Frank Joseph Yurco) writes:

>Every Egyptian king had five royal names, that were taken at the
>coronation, with the oldest and earliest being the Horus name written
>in a serekh. The other names were, the so-called Two Ladies name, known
>from early Dy{*filter*} I and continuing, then the Horus over gold name,
>starting in Dy{*filter*} 3, and the prenomen in a cartouche, known from
>Dy{*filter*} 3 onwards, and finally the nomen in a cartouche, from Dy{*filter*} 4
>onwards. Since the names Amenemhat and Senwosret are the fifth, cartouche
>name, the repetition of names was no problem, for each king had distinct
>patterns in the first four names. Egyptian records were kept by the
>fourth name, the throne name, which always was very distinct. Hence,
>unlike moderns, the Egyptians needed no sub-numbering to keep the rulers
>distinct. It is only us moderns, who need the sub-numbering, because in
>the history books we refer to the kings by their nomen (the fifth royal
>name) usually

Andis Kaulins:

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>That is clear. The question is - did a king have more cartouched names?
>and have we thus magnified the actual number of kings by doubling or
>tripling them in the lists?
>Perhaps some of the "ostensible" errors of chronology derive from the
fact
>that we may in fact have duplications of kings in the lists based on the
>following possibilities:
>1) Some of the names of kings are merely regional rulers
>2) The names of kings on the pyramids (their kenotaphs) are different
from
>those on their tombs i.e. where I am quite sure than MN-HTP is the same
>person as MN-NFR
>i.e. "ruler of Thebes" = HOTEP, Latvian vaDIBA "rule, government"
>"ruler of the Delta region" = NFR (NAHRU "of the Nile", NAHARIN) or also
>NTR (NIEDRA in Latvian means "reeds, Binse"), i.e. the Delta-region.
>Hence, Amenhotep III's pyramid is MN-NFR (now assigned to Pepi II)
>This may be why the -hotep kings have no pyramids - their pyramids have
>other names

What in the world does LATVIAN have to do with ancient Egypt???

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>3) Some of the cartouched names of kings - as already previously posted -
>may show royal changes in a kings name PRIOR to coronation, i.e. as if
>from Prince/Warrior, to Priest, to King - all nevertheless cartouched,
>since an heir to the throne
>.4) The Nesubait names are the kings "star" name after death and define
his
>."star realm"
>5) As previously posted - Dynasties may be duplications of a sort, i.e.
>the Old Kingdom may be combining "legendary" and astronomical kings with
>corresponding "actual" human kings of the Middle and New Kingdom. I am
>sure this is so.
>Here are "very speculative" possible correspondences as cooking.net">food for thought.
>Recall, I am a pioneer of sorts with perhaps a "glimpse" of new things
and
>I am sure I have not got everything right - perhaps it is ALL wrong - but
>I doubt this:

Well, I certainly don't doubt it!  YOU a pioneer?  Having read your posts
for the last week or two, I perceive that your knowledge of ancient Egypt
is sorely lacking.  How can someone be a "pioneer" and offer changes to
the conventional wisdom when he doesn't even know what the conventional
wisdom is?  I notice you claim to have a J.D.  My advice is stick to the
law and let those who actually are schooled in Egyptology be in charge of
worrying about such items as "king lists" .  You are obviously not
qualified to question anybody's scholarship or conclusions.  In fact, you
quite baffle the mind.  How do you come up with this stuff?

(snip of more bizarre brainstorming)



Fri, 02 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco


Quote:

>What in the world does LATVIAN have to do with ancient Egypt???

Ari,
The ability to ask questions is the sign of an inquiring mind and one
which has the readiness to learn. You have asked a good question and I
think you are entitled to an answer - which of course is somewhat complex
and involves a certain fundament of knowledge and understanding in diverse
disciplines.

To that end, I have formulated a "series" of answers for you in this area
which will concentrate on the following subjects:

1. World {*filter*} Group Distribution and the postions of the Latvians,
Egyptians and Hebrews within it.
2. The Nostratic hypothesis concerning the spread of Indo-European circa
6000-4000  BC. - Sanskrit, etc.
3. The Kurgan culture
5. The Sumerian migration into the ancient Near East
6. The Mesopotomian cultures and languages
7. The Connections between the Mesopotamian cultures and Pharaonic Egypt.

We will start with Nr. 1.

A mathematical dendrite of world {*filter*} group distribution starts in Africa
- extends upward to the Arab nations and then proceeds to the Baltic, from
which it diverges East and West. What position do the Egyptians and the
Hebrews occupy in this system, Ari?

In case you do not know, I refer you to my web site where I have a graphic
representation of the scientifc work which has been done in this area. You
will find it under {*filter*} groups, A Key to Antiquity at
http://www.***.com/ ; (expak one not letter
L)

Here is the first question, Ari. How do YOU interpret this data?

- Andis



Sun, 04 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco


:
: >What in the world does LATVIAN have to do with ancient Egypt???
:
: Ari,
: The ability to ask questions is the sign of an inquiring mind and one
: which has the readiness to learn. You have asked a good question and I
: think you are entitled to an answer - which of course is somewhat complex
: and involves a certain fundament of knowledge and understanding in diverse
: disciplines.
:
: To that end, I have formulated a "series" of answers for you in this area
: which will concentrate on the following subjects:
:
: 1. World {*filter*} Group Distribution and the postions of the Latvians,
: Egyptians and Hebrews within it.
: 2. The Nostratic hypothesis concerning the spread of Indo-European circa
: 6000-4000  BC. - Sanskrit, etc.
: 3. The Kurgan culture
: 5. The Sumerian migration into the ancient Near East
: 6. The Mesopotomian cultures and languages
: 7. The Connections between the Mesopotamian cultures and Pharaonic Egypt.
:
: We will start with Nr. 1.
:
: A mathematical dendrite of world {*filter*} group distribution starts in Africa
: - extends upward to the Arab nations and then proceeds to the Baltic, from
: which it diverges East and West. What position do the Egyptians and the
: Hebrews occupy in this system, Ari?
:
: In case you do not know, I refer you to my web site where I have a graphic
: representation of the scientifc work which has been done in this area. You
: will find it under {*filter*} groups, A Key to Antiquity at
: http://www.***.com/ ; (expak one not letter
: L)
:
: Here is the first question, Ari. How do YOU interpret this data?

The quesstion isn't how Ari interprets the data.  I hate to sound
preachy, but here goes:  The interpretation you propose is not
widely accepted.  Thus the burden is on *you* to show why it
applies in this case.  

I understand that you have refered to another person's work in
this area.  That is good, but *that* work is not widely accepted
either.

When you start dragging in {*filter*}-group analyses, which are
arguable for a large number of reasons, and then challenge
other folks to explain them, you are bordering on "strange
science".  

And when you post a series of seemingly unrelated questions
without explaining why they are important or giving any
answers, it seems as though you are just looking for an
argument.

If you have something to say as to WHY one should consider
a number of Indo-European words to be related to a classical
Hebrew word, please tell us.  You are the one who has to
make the case.




Mon, 05 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco

Quote:

>If you have something to say as to WHY one should consider
>a number of Indo-European words to be related to a classical
>Hebrew word, please tell us.  You are the one who has to
>make the case.

I agree the ball is in his court but I don't think we'll get much sense
out of him.  I've been to his web site and have been reading his posts for
a couple of weeks.  He doesn't make any cases.  He IS a case--I don't have
to tell you what kind.


Mon, 05 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco


Quote:
Gans) writes:
>If you have something to say as to WHY one should consider
>a number of Indo-European words to be related to a classical
>Hebrew word, please tell us.  You are the one who has to
>make the case.

Paul, I have been through this discussion ad infinitum with others. To get
to the above point, you have to show a mechanism for this to occur - it is
a waste of time just to show language correspondences, nor isit  useful to
quote Arthur Koestler or similar personages on their "theory" as to the
geographic origin of the Hebrews.

I have shown equally inert people lists of hundreds of similar words and
they just say "so what". So, first of all, you start with {*filter*} groups -
showing a genetic similarity of the peoples. Then you go into ancient
migrations of peoples - showing how such correspondences could be
"physically" possible.

The reason I ask Ari to give HIS theory first is to get him away from what
I call "sniper" argumentation. This way HE has to be more careful in what
he writes.
He is defending the mainstream - ok, and I am critical of the mainstream -
what is the mainstream explanation of this data? - which is not at all in
doubt as to its scientific veracity. You can not "fudge" {*filter*} groups.

If I just present "my" theory on the {*filter*} groups, without the mainstream
presenting "any" position on it, then they are of course free to pick and
choose any small element of my entire argumentation and concentrate on
that, rather than looking at the entire picture. This is what I mean by
the sniper argumentation above.

Ari asked me what Latvian - and here I should perhaps better concentrate
on Indo-European (with Latvian as a very ancient repreresentative of
proto-Indo-European) - has to do with Hebrew, as if this were a comparison
from the moon, and I am telling him that the {*filter*} groups suggest that the
comparison may not be as strange as he suggests.
So, what is his answer?

- Andis  



Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco


Quote:

>Subject:    Re: Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank
Yurco

>Date:       16 Jan 1997 15:09:37 GMT


>>If you have something to say as to WHY one should consider
>>a number of Indo-European words to be related to a classical
>>Hebrew word, please tell us.  You are the one who has to
>>make the case.

>I agree the ball is in his court but I don't think we'll get much sense
>out of him.  I've been to his web site and have been reading his posts
for
>a couple of weeks.  He doesn't make any cases.  He IS a case--I don't
have
>to tell you what kind.

Ari,

Once again, a post on your part without a single matter of substance and
just a lot of adolescent gibberish.

I asked you to comment on the {*filter*} group data. Where is your answer?
If you are not prepared to argue the issues, stay out of the threads to
which I post.

- Andis



Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco

(snip)

Quote:
>The reason I ask Ari to give HIS theory first is to get him away from
what
>I call "sniper" argumentation. This way HE has to be more careful in what
>he writes.

Says who?  YOU are the one with the theory.  In fact, every day you have
another theory.  I am not sniping at you, Kaulins.  I am telling you up
front that I think your assertions are rubbish and not really worthy of
comment.  There is no need for me to develope a "theory" to contradict
them because they do not stand up, do not make any sense and cannot be
taken seriously.

Quote:
>He is defending the mainstream - ok, and I am critical of the mainstream
-
>what is the mainstream explanation of this data? - which is not at all in
>doubt as to its scientific veracity. You can not "fudge" {*filter*} groups.

Let's see...first you knew Egyptology better than the Egyptologists, then
linguistics better than the linguists and now--voila!--you are a
geneticist talking about "{*filter*} groups".  My contention is you know
absolutely nothing about this latter topic and have no qualifications
whatsoever to be expounding on it.  

Quote:
>If I just present "my" theory on the {*filter*} groups, without the mainstream
>presenting "any" position on it, then they are of course free to pick and
>choose any small element of my entire argumentation and concentrate on
>that, rather than looking at the entire picture. This is what I mean by
>the sniper argumentation above

I am not "choosing any small element".   I don't care to concentrate on
any part of your claims because the "entire picture" of your situation is
can be quickly assessed.  You are an insufferably smug, egocentric bore
without the slightest trace of humility.

Quote:
>Ari asked me what Latvian - and here I should perhaps better concentrate
>on Indo-European (with Latvian as a very ancient repreresentative of
>proto-Indo-European) - has to do with Hebrew, as if this were a
comparison
>from the moon, and I am telling him that the {*filter*} groups suggest that
the
>comparison may not be as strange as he suggests.
>So, what is his answer?

I guess you have it.  Hebrew has nothing to do with Latvian.  Period.

-



Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco

Quote:


> (snip)
> >The reason I ask Ari to give HIS theory first is to get him away from
> what
> >I call "sniper" argumentation. This way HE has to be more careful in what
> >he writes.

> Says who?  YOU are the one with the theory.  In fact, every day you have
> another theory.  I am not sniping at you, Kaulins.  I am telling you up
> front that I think your assertions are rubbish and not really worthy of
> comment.  There is no need for me to develope a "theory" to contradict
> them because they do not stand up, do not make any sense and cannot be
> taken seriously.

> >He is defending the mainstream - ok, and I am critical of the mainstream
> -
> >what is the mainstream explanation of this data? - which is not at all in
> >doubt as to its scientific veracity. You can not "fudge" {*filter*} groups.

> Let's see...first you knew Egyptology better than the Egyptologists, then
> linguistics better than the linguists and now--voila!--you are a
> geneticist talking about "{*filter*} groups".  My contention is you know
> absolutely nothing about this latter topic and have no qualifications
> whatsoever to be expounding on it.

> >If I just present "my" theory on the {*filter*} groups, without the mainstream
> >presenting "any" position on it, then they are of course free to pick and
> >choose any small element of my entire argumentation and concentrate on
> >that, rather than looking at the entire picture. This is what I mean by
> >the sniper argumentation above

> I am not "choosing any small element".   I don't care to concentrate on
> any part of your claims because the "entire picture" of your situation is
> can be quickly assessed.  You are an insufferably smug, egocentric bore
> without the slightest trace of humility.

> >Ari asked me what Latvian - and here I should perhaps better concentrate
> >on Indo-European (with Latvian as a very ancient repreresentative of
> >proto-Indo-European) - has to do with Hebrew, as if this were a
> comparison
> >from the moon, and I am telling him that the {*filter*} groups suggest that
> the
> >comparison may not be as strange as he suggests.
> >So, what is his answer?

> I guess you have it.  Hebrew has nothing to do with Latvian.  Period.

> -

Dear Ari and Andis:

If Nostratic is the parent of AA and IE, then Hebrew can be said to be
distantly related to every IE language --- including Latvian.

The evidence for a Nostratic connection between IE and AA (including
Semitic) is so strong that only ideologues deny it.

Also, there are a number of people who choose to ignore genetic evidence
such as relationships between {*filter*} types.

If the languages are distantly related, then we could expect the strong
possibility of physical correlations also.

What in Heaven's name is so controversial about this?

Pat
--

    9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA  
     Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu,        
        geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit
          hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138)
          ******************************************



Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco


Quote:
>If Nostratic is the parent of AA and IE, then Hebrew can be said to be
>distantly related to every IE language --- including Latvian.
>The evidence for a Nostratic connection between IE and AA (including
>Semitic) is so strong that only ideologues deny it.
>Also, there are a number of people who choose to ignore genetic evidence
>such as relationships between {*filter*} types.
>If the languages are distantly related, then we could expect the strong
>possibility of physical correlations also.
>What in Heaven's name is so controversial about this?

Although Illich-Svitich, in his original formulations of the Nostratic theory
included both IE and Afro-Asiatic in Nostratic, this has created certain
problems, and apparently now Starostin, who is certainly one of the greatest
historical linguists of our time and, as far as I am concerned, the most
interesting of the Nostraticists, no longer believes that AA is to be included
in Nostratic.  He is hardly someone that one could label an "idealogue."  I
have no idea what {*filter*} types have to do with any of this.  Language history
is so different from population history that I cannot imagine how {*filter*} typing
could be of any help.  Your correlation between Hebrew and Latvian--leaving
aside the problem of Nostratic--is irrelevant.  In order to be able to discern
real lingiustic correspondences one has to trance elements back through
families, otherwise it is impossible to set aside loans, convergence, chance
similiarity, and differences that, when traced back through sound changes,
turn out not to be differences.  In order to do this, one has to know many
languages well and to understand their history, which is an enormous
undertaking.  


Wed, 07 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Pharaohs Names, Chronology, Biblical Names - re Frank Yurco

Andis,

I have one comment about your {*filter*}-group data: it is meaningless. I could
pick any one of a number of phenotypic attributes and generate many
different dendrograms. Why should anyone believe your {*filter*} groups have
anything whatever to do with language? In fact, given the current
distribution of languages like Spanish and French due to non-genetic
diffusion processes (colonialism, imperialism) there is excellent reason
to believe that your thesis has no foundation whatever.

Ben



Sat, 10 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 11 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Kaulins' Kooky Linguistics (was Pharaohs Names, Chronoloy, Biblical names)

2. Liboa: the name, Kirkpatrick: the name

3. biblical names...what are they?

4. Egyptian/Biblical Chronology

5. The pyramid texts are biblical in the short Bible chronology

6. BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY CONT'D

7. Biblical Chronology

8. THE BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY

9. THE BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY

10. Greek historical Adjustments to Biblical chronology

11. Name of Eternal Flame


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software