In fact this statement is not strictly true.

Transcription

1 It is obvious by your pseudo response that you cannot falsify my data. Science is rooted in hypothesis testing and falsifying data. You have done neither. This is why instead of dealing with the data at hand, you go into an ad hominem approach to argumentation because your initial thesis has been turned on its head. Let s first deal with the Wiki controversy you keep trying to invoke because you can t falsify my data. I mentioned in the previous post not to assume anything, because like the proverb states, you make an ASS out of U and ME. In this case, it s just U. You claim that I got my Neogrammarian data from Wiki. If you would have just asked I could have given you my source The Linguistics Student Handbook by Laurie Bauer (2007: 155). The quote is in the chapter Laws and Principles (you know those laws you swear I m not familiar with and had to go to Wikipedia to discover). I ll just let you read from a picture I shot from the section so you know fully it did not come from Wiki: Now, in typing in haste I placed the quote under the Neogrammarian Hypothesis which should have been attributed to Jules Gillieron. This, in no way changes anything as the maxim holds true: each word has its own history. As Campbell-Dunn notes: One of the more interesting developments of nineteenth century language theory was a (Schleicherian) thesis propounded vigorously by the Junggrammatiker such as Karl

2 Brugmann ( ). This thesis stated that sound changes operated without exception (Brugmann 1904: 41, 7) in accordance with Lautgesetze. With this pronouncement comparative linguistics became an exact science. In fact this statement is not strictly true. It is easy to document exceptions to this rule. Hence the further statement No exception without a rule. There are exceptions to this corollary also, eg in the case of loan words, words of high frequency, words subject to linguistic taboo (Sturtevant 1947 : , with bibl.) and so on. But in practice best method requires us to accept the thesis of the Junggrammatiker [Neogrammarians] as a working hypothesis and to incorporate the exceptions later. (Campbell-Dunn, 2004: 7). Your idea that all forms are subject to the sound rules is not in keeping with known linguistic research. This reinforces Gillieron s notion that all words have their own history. This is why, despite linguists attempts to denounce Greensberg s multi-lateral approach, they cannot dismiss the method because it consistently provides solid results. The word God is a global term, with many forms and that has been demonstrated (with noted common sound shifts) which you have not falsified. Here is another global term from Africa: English FLY. This is from Roger-Blench s essay The Problem of Pan-African Roots. In this and later essays he notes that you can t use words that have global etymologies in word lists to demonstrate recent family relations: they must be removed from the data-set. We are not comparing the word God to one language in Africa, but dozens. All that matters is the word, not whether it can be demonstrated that these languages can be hypothetically reconstructed to a proto-language (the purpose of the comparative method). Explain away these forms of the f-l / p-r root in African languages for fly found in Indo-European:

3 We won t even discuss your idiotic assumption that I am unfamiliar with what the asterisk means. Now, if you have a problem with the proto-forms, it is up to you to argue against my sources. Don t argue just against Guthrie, argue against Mukarvosky, Westermann, Meeussen, and Meinhof. All of these people were cited in the article. If you read the source material you ll know how they came to their protoforms. This is research 101 and I m sure I don t have to tell you how to follow cited sources. What you haven t done is demonstrated these restraints on Sanskrit huta. You copied and pasted the information from a website and didn t bother to conduct your own research in the manner. Unbeknownst to what you think, this isn t the first time I ve engaged this research question. I have chosen to engage this topic as a researcher, not a copy and paste pseudo-scholar such as yourself who takes everything from an online dictionary at face value. A REAL researcher doesn t take anything at face value, especially when the sources you are citing are claiming that they are UNSURE of the word s etymology. The question is, how did YOU get more sure of God s origins than the researchers who actually did the leg work who state the word s origin s is uncertain? Sound Law By gauging your emphasis on sound laws, you would think that you actually knew what it is. I put laws in quotations because any REAL linguist would know that there is no such thing as a sound law. If you don t believe me, maybe you ll believe Robert Lord (1966) [also cited in the original paper] in his work Comparative Linguistics. And just in case you think you can find this on Wikipedia, here is another image so you won t go ASSuming once again:

4 Starting on page 99, in the section Laws of Sound Change, he notes:

5

6

7

8

9 This was written in 1966 and you in 2011 are still arguing for sound laws. A law only describes, as the citation notes, something that has happened, in a fixed point of time. It can t describe anything that has happened after it. It has no predictive value. For those unfamiliar with the Great sound shift in the Germanic branch of Indo-European, here is a chart from the same source: Hopefully it comes clear on your screens. What s important here is the Indo-European /d/ > ( shifting ) into /t/ in the Germanic branch. An example of the shift can be seen in the following chart from the same source:

10 If it is unclear, d > t (Lat.) decem: (Goth.) taihun; (O.E.) tien; (O.N.) tio; (O.H.G.) zehan ten. As we can see, the /d/ sound in initial position in Latin corresponds to the /t/ sound in initial position in the Gothic (Germanic, Teutonic) branch of Indo-European. In terms of this word God, let s look at the compared forms using the many sources cited in the article in table form: 1 z Webster Catholic Enc. Oxford American Heritage Anglo-Saxon g[o^]d god Old English god: (godu, godo neut., godas masc.) got god, giddy Old High German German gott gott gott got, god Icelandic gu[eth], go[eth], Swedish, Danish gud gud Old Norse goð, guð Gothic gup gheu guþ Old Teutonic *guđom: *gud-iga-, *ghudho-m or *gudam *ghutó-m. Proposed Indo- European root: *glheu, *heu()- > *gheu()-:*ghu-to The insistence of a detailed sound shift analysis is unnecessary given that the proto-forms given by these sources (and others) has /d/ in C2 position. Wiki gives a *t h sound for pgmc.: *guthan. The /d/ sound is 1 Indo-European chart taken from McMahon and McMahon Language Classifications by Numbers (2005: 4). Oxford University Press.

11 the most dominant, and as you know, when reconstructing proto-forms, it is the most dominant form within the family that takes precedence: thus why most reconstructions have g-d as the root. As stated in the article, there are so many reconstructions for this term because they are trying to fit the word into an Indo-European reality which the word is older than Indo-European. As stated in the article, the Persian and Babylonian forms Khoda, Khudu and Ga w d respectively is on record thousands of years before Germanic. In every corner we have examined, the /d/ sound in secondary position is the most dominant. As we can see, English, in terms of God, never went through a stage where God was pronounced GOTT. What people may not realize is that the English language did not arise from the German language. German and English are contemporary modern languages. Both of these come from, what linguists call, Teutonic and as we can see the Anglo-Saxon/English maintains the Teutonic form which has both [t] and [d] for the word God in secondary position. It is the Romans who named a certain branch of the Teutonic people Germans. They did not call themselves Germans. The most dominant form of the word God derives from Proto-Indo-European word *deiuo' or *deiwo' meaning "clear sky" or "day light or day sky" (Winn, 1995: 20-23). As noted, this form is also found in African languages as ru/lu/du. As we saw with Maori: a-tua god, supernatural. This tua is related to our African lu, ru, du roots meaning head, top, apex (PWN TÚI head ; PWN TU cloud, THU, THUA river, waterplace ). This root is found in the Rarotongan language in: ai-me-tua the elders, ai-tu-puna the ancestors, ai-tua-kana the elder brothers, ai-tua-ine the elder sisters, ai-tu-ngane male members of woman s family (used by women). PWS lu, ( du) head PWS lé,(dé, dó) one (total), with dó as common reflex PCS *d.u head PCS *d.u head ES Dongola, Kenuzi, Mahas, Gulfan ur head CS Madi oru up, Moru kuru up, Lendu ru(na) up PWS lu head (du, ru); Yoruba o-ri, o-li head (one head) PWN TÚI head Sumerian dù totality As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes: From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The Old Teutonic is the Old African du/tui dealing with head, the sky, cloud as ALL of the usages attest in Indo-European. Dyeus, Zeus, Dios, Ju-Pitar, etc., are all sky gods. The notion of God deriving from that which is invoked isn t even convincing to European linguists. As the German linguist and Africanist Wim M.J. van Binsbergen noted in his essay (2009: 27) "The continued relevance of Martin Bernal s Black Athena thesis: Yes and No" (also cited in the initial article):

12 Cf. Germanic god, whose etymology is unclear both semantically and phonologically the Bantu connection is more convincing that Old Indian huta, the one who is invoked. No obvious long-range etymology available. In other words, he isn t convinced of huta either and finds a Niger-Congo (Bantu) root more plausible. I came to these conclusions years before I came across his article when I was studying Notratic Theory and examining GJK Campbell-Dunn s analysis on Indo-European and Niger-Congo (2004, cited in initial article). The difference between van Binsbergen and I is that he thinks the term came from Asia into Africa. He is of this Borean hypothesis that argues for a major back-migration from Asia into Africa: bringing with them all of these African terms we keep finding in Indo-European languages. I m more in agreement with Bernal and Campbell-Dunn in that these Nostratic languages came out of Africa and differentiated further in central Asia. I go where the genetics (see Dr. Spencer Wells Journey of Man) and anthropology informs us and that is Africans left Africa, populated the Middle East, Asia, Europe and the Americas. With these migrations the Africans took their languages with them. Some words have survived, others have not. YOU seem to be of the opinion that biological races exist; that the multi-genetic theory is true. I m still waiting on your scientific explanation of biological races. You seem to keep ducking and dodging that question since you questioned my stance that biological races don t exist. I guess I will be waiting on Jesus return before I get that answer. But moving on, the comparative method is used for establishing the relationship of language families and reconstructing proto-languages. This is not the aim of this analysis and is one of the known limitations of the comparative method. Other linguists have done the leg work and posited an Indo- European form. The question becomes, did the Indo-Europeans make up this term? Or was it inherited from languages that existed before Proto-Indo-European. Only someone who believes in the multigenetic theory assumes the Indo-Europeans came from nowhere with a language that is not related to other human languages. As Allan Bomhard notes in his essay Nostrotic, Eurasiatic and Indo-European (pg 25): Now, Eurasiatic is severa1 millennia younger than Afroasiatic, which appears to be the oldest branch of the Nostratic macro-family. Therefore, Afroasiatic must рlау а key role in the reconstrиction of the Proto-Nostratic vowel system, and the Uralic-yиkaghir vowel system must be considered as а later development that cannot possibly represent the original state of affairs. In other words, Afro-Asiatic is the founding family of Eurasiatic which gave birth to Indo-European. Despite the controversy, Afro-Asiatic did not start in Asia. As Bernal in his work Black Athena Vol. III: The Linguistic Evidence (2005) demonstrates, Afro-Asiatic s urheimat is in East Africa. The question one has to ask is, Is Afro-Asiatic older than Kongo-Saharan? We know this not to be the case. Afro-Asiatic derives from Kongo-Saharan in a far remote time period, but whose vocabulary features are still present (as demonstrated by Diop, Obenga, Rkhty Amen and Oduyoye in terms of Niger-Congo, Egyptian and Semitic). What is the more likely case? That Indo-European thought of God independently of the

13 Africans who came before them? Or that this is a global term with various pronunciations as has been demonstrated in the work? Now YOU posted the data claiming HUTA was the origin and that it comes from a root that means to invoke. It is on you to prove that the data is correct. Can you find the word God in Hittite, the oldest form known of Indo-European? If the earliest form can be seen in Sanskrit, give us the historical data that demonstrates the Sanskrit writers passed this term on to the Pro-Germanics, and didn t pass it on to the other people they were in contact with. What made the Teutonics so special? Can you demonstrate God outside of Germanic and Sanskrit? What were the social applications in Germanic of God? What did they associate God with? What are God s characteristics according to the Germanic speakers? What texts can we verify this data? Asar Imhotep Sun of the Soil