Which will it be Iran? Off the Map/back to
- Thread starter ptlwp
- Start date
Only when you attempt to change the discussion. Since Fred said that Aramaic was spoken in Iran and is known now as Farsi. Then you tried to change that into Farsi is a derivitive of Aramaic.limerickman said:
"And further to that you claimed that Hebrew was the ancient language, and Aramaic had no part in this."
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Aramaic isn't quite as ancient as liturgical Hebrew but, nevertheless, it's an ancient language that Jesus apparently spoke (as did other semitic peoples). The column below places Aramaic around the third century B.C. although I'll have to check that in my chronology back home:
Incidentally, modern Hebrew obviously differs from liturgical Hebrew just as modern Greek differs from the languahe of Homer.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9019902
"Canaanite languages:
Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (c. 1400 BC).
Hebrew language
Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern) group; it is closely related to Phoenician and Moabite, with which it is often placed by scholars in a Canaanite subgroup. Spoken in ancient times in Palestine, Hebrew was supplanted by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning about the 3rd century BC; the language continued to be used as a liturgical ... "
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Aramaic isn't quite as ancient as liturgical Hebrew but, nevertheless, it's an ancient language that Jesus apparently spoke (as did other semitic peoples). The column below places Aramaic around the third century B.C. although I'll have to check that in my chronology back home:
Incidentally, modern Hebrew obviously differs from liturgical Hebrew just as modern Greek differs from the languahe of Homer.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9019902
"Canaanite languages:
Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (c. 1400 BC).
Hebrew language
Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern) group; it is closely related to Phoenician and Moabite, with which it is often placed by scholars in a Canaanite subgroup. Spoken in ancient times in Palestine, Hebrew was supplanted by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning about the 3rd century BC; the language continued to be used as a liturgical ... "
FredC said:
No **** Sherlock! But using your logic since many words in the English language are based off of French, Latin, and even Greek words then English must be a derivitive of those same languages.limerickman said:
Aramaic isn't mentioned amongst the earliest Canaanite languages such as Moabite. If Aramaic is more ancient than liturgical Hebrew this is all very new to me and I was never taught that in class or heard it anywhere else.
Aramaic comes from the roots of Canaanite, Phoenician, Moabite, Hebrew and Eblaic.
Early Canaanites (a people more ancient than the Hebrews) spoke a proto-sinaitic script.
All of these languages (Aramaic included) preceded Arabic by several centuries.
So, my point is that you can linguistically demonstrate that modern Jewish Hebrew has strong roots in liturgical Hebew (which means Jews come second to the Canaanites as the most ancient inhabitants of Jerusalem and Israel as a whole:
"Most scholars agree that after the first destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II and the Babylonians in 586 BCE, the kind of Hebrew prevalent in the Tanakh was replaced in daily use by Mishnaic Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic. After the depletion of the Jewish population of parts of Roman occupied Judea, it is believed that Hebrew gradually ceased to be a spoken language roughly around 200 CE, but remained a major written language throughout the centuries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language
Aramaic comes from the roots of Canaanite, Phoenician, Moabite, Hebrew and Eblaic.
Early Canaanites (a people more ancient than the Hebrews) spoke a proto-sinaitic script.
All of these languages (Aramaic included) preceded Arabic by several centuries.
So, my point is that you can linguistically demonstrate that modern Jewish Hebrew has strong roots in liturgical Hebew (which means Jews come second to the Canaanites as the most ancient inhabitants of Jerusalem and Israel as a whole:
"Most scholars agree that after the first destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II and the Babylonians in 586 BCE, the kind of Hebrew prevalent in the Tanakh was replaced in daily use by Mishnaic Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic. After the depletion of the Jewish population of parts of Roman occupied Judea, it is believed that Hebrew gradually ceased to be a spoken language roughly around 200 CE, but remained a major written language throughout the centuries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language
limerickman said:
My speciality back then was Greek and Roman stuff which I studied in a department for 4 years. After that, I continued with an ancient history site and often chat with other folks who study classics.
I'm reasonably sure of my ground but we have people who know far more than I do. My teacher spoke some 15 languages including Greek and Latin, most European languages and a bit of this and that as he travelled.
He wrote several books that have been published.
I think anyone could refute Lim and Fred's theories by simply purchasing a good book on the history of Israel by a respectable writer. Lim's views seem to be at odds with all other known facts as he claims Israel is featured on no historical map (incorrect) and now he claims Aramaic is the most ancient Canaanite language simply because Arabic was formed from it.
I'm reasonably sure of my ground but we have people who know far more than I do. My teacher spoke some 15 languages including Greek and Latin, most European languages and a bit of this and that as he travelled.
He wrote several books that have been published.
I think anyone could refute Lim and Fred's theories by simply purchasing a good book on the history of Israel by a respectable writer. Lim's views seem to be at odds with all other known facts as he claims Israel is featured on no historical map (incorrect) and now he claims Aramaic is the most ancient Canaanite language simply because Arabic was formed from it.
davidmc said: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
Carrera said:
Last week, you gave us a list of languages which you claimed were extinct.
The listing that you provided did not include Aramaic.
A glaring mistake for someone who claims to have studied anciet history and language.
From Aramaic many languages derived including Hebrew.
I posted a link specifying that Aramaic as being the root language of that region.
Carrera said:I think anyone could refute Lim and Fred's theories by simply purchasing a good book on the history of Israel by a respectable writer. Lim's views seem to be at odds with all other known facts as he claims Israel is featured on no historical map (incorrect) and now he claims Aramaic is the most ancient Canaanite language simply because Arabic was formed from it.
http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/lss/st...LL/aramaic.html
You've confused the point here. I didn't say Aramaic was extinct. I said Moabite, Canaanite and Eblaic were extinct. Only liturgical Hebrew has come down to us of the Canaanite period and Aramaic was derived from those original languages.
Aramaic is still spoken in parts of Syria today. It went on to influence later Hebrew script since Jews also took up the Aramaic dialect later on.
Aramaic is still spoken in parts of Syria today. It went on to influence later Hebrew script since Jews also took up the Aramaic dialect later on.
limerickman said:
Carrera said:
I didn't say that you said Aramaic was extinct.
I said that you completely failed to make any mention of Aramaic.
when you were waffling on about how Hebrew was the oldest language currently in use in the Holy Land.
Hebrew isn't the old language in use in the Holy Land.
Aramaic is the oldest language currently in use in the Holy Land.
http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/lss/staff/erica/CALL/aramaic.html
It would be better to copy and paste your text as I couldn't access this. I tried it with the HTM alone and still nothing.
Aramaic was derived from the following:
Canaanite, Phoenician, Moabite, Hebrew (liturgical) and Eblaic.
Of the above, only liturgical Hebrew survived.
Hebrew script came from the proto-sinaitic script of the Canaanites.
You seem to be claiming the following:
Canaanite, Phoenician, Moabite, Aramaic and Eblaic?
Hebrew (liturgical) I assume you and Fred place as a derivative of Aramaic (according to Fred somewhere around 300 A.D.)
At the time of the Judges, scholars believed the song of Deborah was written and sung during festivals. That was in the 11th century B.C.and written in Hebrew.
The fact is, whether people like it or not, or choose to ignore it, the Canaanites were the first inhabitants of Israeli territory. Hebrews came second. Arabs came very late after Christians and not at all in the years B.C.
True, Arabs did have ancesters such as Assyrians and Babylonians or Egyptians but modern Arabs no longer identify so much with those cultures as they weren't Islamic.
And what they seek to impose in the region isn't Sumerian culture but Islam (on a very shaky basis of history that claims they were there first).
Aramaic was derived from the following:
Canaanite, Phoenician, Moabite, Hebrew (liturgical) and Eblaic.
Of the above, only liturgical Hebrew survived.
Hebrew script came from the proto-sinaitic script of the Canaanites.
You seem to be claiming the following:
Canaanite, Phoenician, Moabite, Aramaic and Eblaic?
Hebrew (liturgical) I assume you and Fred place as a derivative of Aramaic (according to Fred somewhere around 300 A.D.)
At the time of the Judges, scholars believed the song of Deborah was written and sung during festivals. That was in the 11th century B.C.and written in Hebrew.
The fact is, whether people like it or not, or choose to ignore it, the Canaanites were the first inhabitants of Israeli territory. Hebrews came second. Arabs came very late after Christians and not at all in the years B.C.
True, Arabs did have ancesters such as Assyrians and Babylonians or Egyptians but modern Arabs no longer identify so much with those cultures as they weren't Islamic.
And what they seek to impose in the region isn't Sumerian culture but Islam (on a very shaky basis of history that claims they were there first).
limerickman said:
Carrera said:
Aramaic is the root language of Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, and the alphabet for Farsi (Persian), Urdu (Pakistan/Indian) and Greek. One of the oldest, rarest languages in the world, it is currently spoken in Syria and Turkey.
as stated at http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/lss/staff/erica/CALL/aramaic.html
Let's try and clear this up
Modern Hebrew is different from liturgical Hebrew. Modern Hebrew will also have been modified by other linguistic influences, Aramaic included.
Modern Greek also isn't the same language as used by Plato or Homer since Greece had dialects such as Ionian e.t.c. but Koine became the standard vulgar Greek at the time of Jesus.
So, the first point is modern Hebrew survives as a legacy of liturgical Hebrew.
Liturgical Hebrew is a written language and is more ancient than Aramaic since Canaanite and Moabite became extinct.
I don't know to what degree modern Aramaic is the same as the Aramaic Jesus would have spoken. Maybe it didn't change much or maybe it did. True it is still used today.
At any rate, Jesus would have spoken conversational Aramaic, conversational Greek and he would have known Latin quite well. However, when he gave sermons in temples he would have recited the laws and verse in ancient literary Hebrew as Jewish priests do today.
Look on it as the Catholic Church still reciting Latin. This is one thing we owe catholics since without them Latin would have died completely.
There is no big deal about Aramaic. It was spoken by Jews slightly later on in history.
Modern Hebrew is different from liturgical Hebrew. Modern Hebrew will also have been modified by other linguistic influences, Aramaic included.
Modern Greek also isn't the same language as used by Plato or Homer since Greece had dialects such as Ionian e.t.c. but Koine became the standard vulgar Greek at the time of Jesus.
So, the first point is modern Hebrew survives as a legacy of liturgical Hebrew.
Liturgical Hebrew is a written language and is more ancient than Aramaic since Canaanite and Moabite became extinct.
I don't know to what degree modern Aramaic is the same as the Aramaic Jesus would have spoken. Maybe it didn't change much or maybe it did. True it is still used today.
At any rate, Jesus would have spoken conversational Aramaic, conversational Greek and he would have known Latin quite well. However, when he gave sermons in temples he would have recited the laws and verse in ancient literary Hebrew as Jewish priests do today.
Look on it as the Catholic Church still reciting Latin. This is one thing we owe catholics since without them Latin would have died completely.
There is no big deal about Aramaic. It was spoken by Jews slightly later on in history.
limerickman said:
Carrera said:Let's try and clear this up
Modern Hebrew is different from liturgical Hebrew. Modern Hebrew will also have been modified by other linguistic influences, Aramaic included.
Modern Greek also isn't the same language as used by Plato or Homer since Greece had dialects such as Ionian e.t.c. but Koine became the standard vulgar Greek at the time of Jesus.
So, the first point is modern Hebrew survives as a legacy of liturgical Hebrew.
Liturgical Hebrew is a written language and is more ancient than Aramaic since Canaanite and Moabite became extinct.
You asserted that Hebrew was the oldest language in that region.
Hebrew isn't the oldest language in that region.
Aramaic preceeded Hebrew and Hebrew derived from Aramaic.
Not quite accurate I'm afraid. This will refer to Aramaic as an influence of modern Hebrew (since modern Hebrew made use of some Aramaic script).
But Aramaic is not a root language of classical Hebrew as (reflected in the song of Deborah). Aramaic is not as old as Moabite which is extinct.
What you appear to be doing is comparing a later version of Hebrew with an older version of Aramaic while discrading the even older version of liturgical Hebrew. That's a convenient escape clause but it doesn't hold ground as all academics place liturgical Hebrew before Aramaic.
But Aramaic is not a root language of classical Hebrew as (reflected in the song of Deborah). Aramaic is not as old as Moabite which is extinct.
What you appear to be doing is comparing a later version of Hebrew with an older version of Aramaic while discrading the even older version of liturgical Hebrew. That's a convenient escape clause but it doesn't hold ground as all academics place liturgical Hebrew before Aramaic.
limerickman said:
Carrera said:
Let's read english : Aramaic is the root language of Hebrew...........
That statement is unambiguous.
"Aramaic preceeded Hebrew and Hebrew derived from Aramaic."
Then this contradicts what archeologists and scholars have agreed.
Most scholars agree that the kind of Hebrew of the Tanakh was replaced by Mishnaic Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic.
Then this contradicts what archeologists and scholars have agreed.
Most scholars agree that the kind of Hebrew of the Tanakh was replaced by Mishnaic Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic.
limerickman said:
Aramaic is not as old as Canaanite. Aramaic doesn't form the root of liturgical classical since liturgical Hebrew was derived from the Canaanite tongue.
You appear to be citing a modern language (such as modern Greek) and then comparing the modern variant with an older variant. But modern Greek has been influenced even by English (although modern Greeks can still grasp some ancient Greek).
In other words, something like comparing modern Greek with ancient Latin and then stating that Greek was derived from Latin.
You can't conveniently discard the Greek of Homer that is far older than modern Greek.
If you choose to claim Aramaic is the root language of classical Hebrew or even Phoenician, you need to write a paper with your evidence and post it on a classics forum so everybody else can pass their opinion. I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make since Aramaic is semitic tongue and Arabic script was derived from it hundreds of years later.
You appear to be citing a modern language (such as modern Greek) and then comparing the modern variant with an older variant. But modern Greek has been influenced even by English (although modern Greeks can still grasp some ancient Greek).
In other words, something like comparing modern Greek with ancient Latin and then stating that Greek was derived from Latin.
You can't conveniently discard the Greek of Homer that is far older than modern Greek.
If you choose to claim Aramaic is the root language of classical Hebrew or even Phoenician, you need to write a paper with your evidence and post it on a classics forum so everybody else can pass their opinion. I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make since Aramaic is semitic tongue and Arabic script was derived from it hundreds of years later.
limerickman said:
Similar threads
