Which will it be Iran? Off the Map/back to

[Colorado Ryder]

So?
Words from disntinct languages migrate : which is the not the issue in this part of the discussion.

You disputed FredC's (correct) claim that Farsi is a derivative of Aramaic.
Fred C was correct in this claim and you were incorrect to dispute it.

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/lss/staff/erica/CALL/aramaic.html

Fred didn't claim that Farsi is a derivitive of Aramaic. He said that Aramaic is spoken in Iran and is called Farsi.

You're wrong again. Aramaic is still spoken. In Iran, it is also known as farsi.

 

[FredC]

Yeah. Engish has many words introduced from French and Latin words but that doesn't make the languages in any way similiar.

The French conquered England in 1066. The indigenous people spoke Anglo Saxon. French was slowly assimilated into speech and writing. That's why Chaucers 'Canterbury Tales', is such an important piece of writing as it was written in a combined idiom.
This same scenario, albeit with different languages, also happened in the Middle East when Arabic, the language of the Koran began to replace them. Aramaic was the principal language, and many of the words are still used today in much the same way that Anglo Saxon has never left the English language.

 

[Don Shipp]

The French conquered England in 1066. The indigenous people spoke Anglo Saxon. French was slowly assimilated into speech and writing. That's why Chaucers 'Canterbury Tales', is such an important piece of writing as it was written in a combined idiom.
This same scenario, albeit with different languages, also happened in the Middle East when Arabic, the language of the Koran began to replace them. Aramaic was the principal language, and many of the words are still used today in much the same way that Anglo Saxon has never left the English language.

Not wanting to go off at a tangent, but the Normans weren't French. They were Norsemen; Vikings, who had occupied the French coast after driving the original inhabitants off with their constant raids.

 

[FredC]

If I'm wrong, how come Farsi is considered a part of the Indo-European language family and Aramaic is part of the Afro-Asiatic language family?

Dunno. I suppose it depends on who thought up the boxes to put things in. A pal of mine from Iran speaks Farsi to his Pakistani pals who speak Urdu, and they both understand each other.
You're wrong, so just 'avit, and don't be as stupid as Crappy.

 

[FredC]

Not wanting to go off at a tangent, but the Normans weren't French. They were Norsemen; Vikings, who had occupied the French coast after driving the original inhabitants off with their constant raids.

We know all that Don, tangents and all. Don't start confusing the enemy. So to put a stop to your antics William the Conquerer was really called Guillaume Gros veneur. Which means great hunter. Sounds French enough to me. And Honi soit qui mal y pense is French. Next please.

 

[davidmc]

Not wanting to go off at a tangent, but the Normans weren't French. They were Norsemen; Vikings, who had occupied the French coast after driving the original inhabitants off with their constant raids.

You are the intelligent one Don

 

[Wurm]

You are the intelligent one Don

...and CR isn't. But we knew that.

 

[darkboong]

The French conquered England in 1066. The indigenous people spoke Anglo Saxon. French was slowly assimilated into speech and writing. That's why Chaucers 'Canterbury Tales', is such an important piece of writing as it was written in a combined idiom.

Actually I'd like to recommend Canterbury Tales to everyone here. Cracking good read, once you get over the weird language. The trick is to read it aloud and suddenly it all makes sense...

 

[darkboong]

We know all that Don, tangents and all. Don't start confusing the enemy. So to put a stop to your antics William the Conquerer was really called Guillaume Gros veneur. Which means great hunter. Sounds French enough to me. And Honi soit qui mal y pense is French. Next please.

Speaking as a direct descendent of a Norman... No, definitely not French. Those dudes did speak French which perhaps is where the confusion comes from. They spoke English and Latin too, but that doesn't make them Native or Roman either.

If Crappy wants to know where my ancestors were born for deportation purposes he has a pick : England, Jerusalem, Normandy, Saxony, Denmark, roughly in that order...

 

[FredC]

Dunno. I suppose it depends on who thought up the boxes to put things in. A pal of mine from Iran speaks Farsi to his Pakistani pals who speak Urdu, and they both understand each other.
You're wrong, so just 'avit, and don't be as stupid as Crappy.

Right CR 'ave some more, then shut up.
Aramaic is still spoken today in Northern Iraq, Eastern Turkey, North west Iran, and Syria.

 

[Carrera]

During the hellenistic period, there were migrations by the so-called Nabateans of northern Arabia and these people wrote an Aramaic script. The Nabateans inherited the kingdom of Dedan in what is now Jordan. These were ancesters of the modern Arabs but Arabic as a language came hundreds of years later.
The Nabateans were also defeated in battle by Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan) of Israel and they lost control of Gaza and 12 cities across the Jordon.
It is true, however, that Aramaic influenced written Hebrew script and I believe the language is still spoken today in and around Syria.

The French conquered England in 1066. The indigenous people spoke Anglo Saxon. French was slowly assimilated into speech and writing. That's why Chaucers 'Canterbury Tales', is such an important piece of writing as it was written in a combined idiom.
This same scenario, albeit with different languages, also happened in the Middle East when Arabic, the language of the Koran began to replace them. Aramaic was the principal language, and many of the words are still used today in much the same way that Anglo Saxon has never left the English language.

 

[limerickman]

A nearly dead language spoken by all those Iranians and Afghani's?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/special_packages/passion_of_christ/8038021.htm

Farsi isn't nearly a dead language.

 

[limerickman]

The he said, you said, game.

Aramaic is still spoken. In Iran, it is also known as farsi

You replied to Fred'c quote:

You're wrong. Farsi is very different from Aramaic.

Farsi is not very different from Aramaic.

Farsi is a derivative of Aramaic.

Therefore you're wrong - as the supplied links attest to the fact that Farsi is a derivative of Aramaic.

 

[Carrera]

You're drifting wildy from the point here. Jews are not just some people who happen to pick an area of land at random and barge in. This is no Bioko Island but a territory where ancient excavations of Jewish heritage and civilization have been going on for decades.
Like court buildings constructed by King David or Solomon.
Whether you like it or not, the Jewish race suffered exclusion and exile and this is something you need to look at in an ancient history Atlas where you'll find records of invasions by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hellenistic monarchs and Romans. We're talking ethnic cleansing here.
This is why the Boney M song Rivers of Babylon talks of the historic exile of the Jewish people who had to make do with a state without a state for centuries, simply by bonding on a religious basis in other lands.
As for the Palestinians, as I stated before they are made up of a vast mixture of races that flowed into former Jewish land when the Jews had been ethnically cleansed. The first case of that was the exile by Assyria of the 10 lost tribes of Israel, when surrounding foreign peoples flowed into former Jewish settlements. This has been happening for centuries, Arabs displacing Jews. It's the historical truth the Arab propaganda machine won't admit to.
Modern Palestinians are predominantly moslems. Some are even ethnic Jews whose ancesters converted to Islam (by force) in bygone ages after Arab invasions. Others have Turkish, Iranian, Syrian or Greek blood in their veins. But what really distinguishes them from Jews is their culture and language and outlook. Moreover, it isn't true they are excluded on that basis. They are excluded because they presently hate Jews and because Hamas has threatened to destroy Israel from within (see the video of that statement). Peaceful Palestinians are suffering exclusion due to Hamas on grounds of security, not race or religion. If they weren't bent on terrorism and intolerance, they would be allowed into Jerusalem without restrictions.
Other religions have flourished and been tolerated in Jerusalem for centuries. The difference is modern Moslem extremists seek the death and destruction of Jewish culture, religion and society and there is no other option but to impose security barriers.
Final point about Aramaic. It is actually Hebrew that is the only surviving derivative from the Canaanite root. There were many other root languages from Canaanite but these became extinct. Liturgical Hebrew is our only really ancient language since Greek and Latin (from Phoenician) came much later.

Fine, what would happen if a large number of African Americans decided that their homeland was on Bioko Island in Equatorial Guinea? They could make their triumphant return by coming in, buying land and assimilating with the Fang people (not the original people of that land), or they could do it by straight out displacement, backed by firepower. If they chose the latter, they would have a fight on their hands, and that fight would continue until either one group had wiped out the other, or they had learned how to live together.
I think this is the first time that you have admitted that Palestinians do have "roots" and "history". Nice to see.You need to get this idea out of your head that Palestinians have 'a' religion. Palestinians have many religions. The problem seems to be that, as you equate Jewish people with being followers of Judaism, you assume that anyone who speaks out against Zionism (Note the word, Carrera - not 'Jews', not 'Judaism') is doing so for religious reasons. The plight of the Palestinians is about their displacement and lack of rights as a people, not about whatever religion any of them choose to follow.
Palestinian terrorists = bad; Zionist terrorists = bad; Jewish people = generally good; Palestinian people = generally good.
Your isolationist tendancies play right into the hands of the terrorists on both sides of the fence. You are fighting their fight for them. You have no desire to let these people have a chance to live peacefully together - exactly the same as the Zionist and Palestinian terrorists. You don't see any irony in there, Carrera?

 

[limerickman]

Whether you like it or not, the Jewish race suffered exclusion and exile and this is something you need to look at in an ancient history Atlas where you'll find records of invasions by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hellenistic monarchs and Romans. We're talking ethnic cleansing here.

No on denied that the Jewish people have managed to incur the wrath of many disparate nations, cultures, tribes for thousands of years.
But that doesn't mitigate what the Israeli's have done to the Palestinians.
Two wrongs don't make a right as your buddy Davidmc said earlier.

As for the Palestinians, as I stated before they are made up of a vast mixture of races that flowed into former Jewish land when the Jews had been ethnically cleansed. The first case of that was the exile by Assyria of the 10 lost tribes of Israel, when surrounding foreign peoples flowed into former Jewish settlements. This has been happening for centuries, Arabs displacing Jews.

Your Jewish text - Genesis suggests that the Gentiles were there long before the Jews.
Read your Jewish text in the Old Testament - Genesis chapters 1 to 34.

Moreover, it isn't true they are excluded on that basis. They are excluded because they presently hate Jews

If they hated Jews - how come Jews were not stopped from living in Palestine
when it was under Ottoman (Muslim rule) from the 12th to 20th century?
How come Jews were allowed to worship in Jerusalem from the 12th to 20th century?

If they weren't bent on terrorism and intolerance, they would be allowed into Jerusalem without restrictions.

The guerilla war that is being fought is done so because of the ethnic cleanings of Palestinians by Zionists terrorists in 1948, and re-enforced by the Zionist Israeli Defence Forces presently.

Other religions have flourished and been tolerated in Jerusalem for centuries. .

Under Muslim rule.
At least you acknowledge this.

Since the Zionists acquired the land in 1948, religious freedoms have been curtailed at Christian sites like the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for example.
Zionists oppose religious freedom.

Final point about Aramaic. It is actually Hebrew that is the only surviving derivative from the Canaanite root. There were many other root languages from Canaanite but these became extinct. Liturgical Hebrew is our only really ancient language since Greek and Latin (from Phoenician) came much later.

You're wrong. Again.

Aramaic existed long before Hebrew.

 

[FredC]

During the hellenistic period, there were migrations by the so-called Nabateans of northern Arabia and these people wrote an Aramaic script. The Nabateans inherited the kingdom of Dedan in what is now Jordan. These were ancesters of the modern Arabs but Arabic as a language came hundreds of years later.
The Nabateans were also defeated in battle by Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan) of Israel and they lost control of Gaza and 12 cities across the Jordon.
It is true, however, that Aramaic influenced written Hebrew script and I believe the language is still spoken today in and around Syria.

Don't give us all that ******** you plagiarist. Last week you listed about a dozen languages from the area, and Aramaic wasn't among them. Then you told us you are an erudite scholar qualified in ancient languages. And further to that you claimed that Hebrew was the ancient language, and Aramaic had no part in this.
Nobody apart from me and Lim have mentioned Aramaic is still a living language.
Don't come creeping round here with your radically amended plagiarisms. Charlatan that you are. Just ****ing well admit that you were wrong, then you might get some brownie points.

 

[davidmc]

During the hellenistic period, there were migrations by the so-called Nabateans of northern Arabia and these people wrote an Aramaic script. The Nabateans inherited the kingdom of Dedan in what is now Jordan. These were ancesters of the modern Arabs but Arabic as a language came hundreds of years later.
The Nabateans were also defeated in battle by Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan) of Israel and they lost control of Gaza and 12 cities across the Jordon.
It is true, however, that Aramaic influenced written Hebrew script and I believe the language is still spoken today in and around Syria.

I would charge the other posters, to this thread, who disagree w/ you as you are giving them free lectures. They could, perhaps, make small donations to an account set up for you

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Dunno. I suppose it depends on who thought up the boxes to put things in. A pal of mine from Iran speaks Farsi to his Pakistani pals who speak Urdu, and they both understand each other.
You're wrong, so just 'avit, and don't be as stupid as Crappy.

So all the language experts are wrong and you and Lim are the only ones that are right?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Farsi isn't nearly a dead language.

Aramaic is though. Oh wait how can that be when it supposedly is the same as Farsi?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

The he said, you said, game.



You replied to Fred'c quote:



Farsi is not very different from Aramaic.

Farsi is a derivative of Aramaic.

Therefore you're wrong - as the supplied links attest to the fact that Farsi is a derivative of Aramaic.

Then English is a derivative of French and Latin.