3 ms·

There's an enormous difference between aesthetic features of writing and actual language relation. The original hypothesis that this inadvertently plagiarizes

There's an enormous difference between aesthetic features of writing and actual language relation. The original hypothesis that this inadvertently plagiarizes from is a 1912 William Flinders Petrie monogram. Wow... when I first started looking into this stuff 8 or 9 years ago, archive didn't have this/exist in this form: https://archive.org/details/formationofalpha00petr https://archive.org/details/formationofalpha00petr Petrie's tables are better... but they're still at best interesting and inconclusive. (Also, although people cited /it/ above, Thesuarus Linguae Aegyptiae transliterates it /jtj/ (yty - long vowels rather than glottals); and claiming that's similar to pit is pretty ridiculous... If there's a genetic intra-Afroasiatic relation with that root (which I'm not sure there is...) it'd make a lot more sense to connect it with Ugaritic 'ad... Which I don't think it makes sense to do... And in support of that... not even the out-there Starling database makes that connection (http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fafaset&text_number=++22&root=config http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen... // http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fafaset&text_number=1916&root=config http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen... )).

posterboy 9y ago
I'm sorry, you keep throwing the word ridiculous around as if it was a jocular matter and I'm completely fine with that, but I don't welcome being mocked without a proper argument. Yes, jt>pit is a loose thread made without much information. But not because I am too lazy to meticulously collect evidence, but because it is downright impossible for me to study this at a day job level. Rather, I assumed this would be an obvious connection to already have been investigated and would hope for corrections or confirmation. And baring any evidence in my comment I would have thought it was obvious to be taken with a heap of salt for what it's worth. So it was a bit dry, and you were amused anyway. That leaves me confused.
- raoulduke 9y ago
  I can't think of any other concordances between Egyptian /j/ and /p/ in other languages. To be honest I've never seen the word jtj before today. There's a longstanding and known relation broadly with /p/ or /b/ and father and /m/ and mother. And as far as I'm aware there's no consensus on the meaning of that relation. But jtj isn't the root related to those; and Egyptian doesn't seem to have a strong example of /b/ (http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fegyet&text_number=+++1&root=config http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen... ).
  - posterboy 9y ago
    I was suggesting that pit was an extension of it. I think the j in jt is a remnant of jw (true), jw-?t, (biological father), but only because jw is the only egyptian j- lexeme I know so far, because I like to connect it to IO and Jo- and the jedi knights. For p- I'm not so sure, but something like grand-father or god-father would fit the theme, or less familiar for us distant from the Neolithicum, the stone-father (grey/old, hard/strong, inanimate/false vs true, crafty/fundamental).
jdmichal 9y ago
To be fair, I cited it, not /it/, and only after noting the confusion in a previous post regarding layman confusion in transcription of I and U for Egyptian. And the chances that it was actually /jtj/, as opposed to that being the consonant root with unmarked vowels, is low.

posterboy 9y ago

I'm sorry, you keep throwing the word ridiculous around as if it was a jocular matter and I'm completely fine with that, but I don't welcome being mocked without a proper argument. Yes, jt>pit is a loose thread made without much information. But not because I am too lazy to meticulously collect evidence, but because it is downright impossible for me to study this at a day job level. Rather, I assumed this would be an obvious connection to already have been investigated and would hope for corrections or confirmation. And baring any evidence in my comment I would have thought it was obvious to be taken with a heap of salt for what it's worth. So it was a bit dry, and you were amused anyway. That leaves me confused.

raoulduke 9y ago
I can't think of any other concordances between Egyptian /j/ and /p/ in other languages. To be honest I've never seen the word jtj before today. There's a longstanding and known relation broadly with /p/ or /b/ and father and /m/ and mother. And as far as I'm aware there's no consensus on the meaning of that relation. But jtj isn't the root related to those; and Egyptian doesn't seem to have a strong example of /b/ (http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fegyet&text_number=+++1&root=config http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen... ).
- posterboy 9y ago
  I was suggesting that pit was an extension of it. I think the j in jt is a remnant of jw (true), jw-?t, (biological father), but only because jw is the only egyptian j- lexeme I know so far, because I like to connect it to IO and Jo- and the jedi knights. For p- I'm not so sure, but something like grand-father or god-father would fit the theme, or less familiar for us distant from the Neolithicum, the stone-father (grey/old, hard/strong, inanimate/false vs true, crafty/fundamental).

jdmichal 9y ago

To be fair, I cited it, not /it/, and only after noting the confusion in a previous post regarding layman confusion in transcription of I and U for Egyptian. And the chances that it was actually /jtj/, as opposed to that being the consonant root with unmarked vowels, is low.