You are still making the same mistakes propagated by the article in the first place and warned against by myself regarding Egyptian transcription and modern "pr

You are still making the same mistakes propagated by the article in the first place and warned against by myself regarding Egyptian transcription and modern "pronunciation". I suggest you maybe educate yourself better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration_of_Ancient_Egyptian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration_of_Ancient_Egy... "The actual pronunciations reconstructed by such means are used only by a few specialists in the language. For all other purposes, the Egyptological pronunciation is used, but it often bears little resemblance to what is known of how Egyptian was pronounced." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Phonology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Phonology In this following quote, note the move from /tut/ to /tawat/, due to the transcribed U actually being W, because only consonants were written. "For example, the name twt-ꜥnḫ-ı͗mn is conventionally pronounced /tuːtən.ˈkɑːmən/ in English, but, in his lifetime, it was likely to be pronounced something like [taˈwaːt ˈʕaːnxu ʔaˈmaːn]." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Egyptological_pronunciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Egyptologica... The bottom line is that we don't even know whether the Egyptian word for "arm" had an /a/-like sound. The symbol is actually the Egyptian "ayin" (ꜥ), not "A". In the same way, the vulture is "alef" (ꜣ), not "A". Also, this is all ignoring the tendency in the area to simplify writing systems through acrophony, in which the logographic symbol is converted to a phonetic one via its initial phonology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrophony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrophony > I Imagine a pre historic hominid flapping the arms and screeching "ar ar" to describe a bird, an eagle perhaps. This is actually an anti-argument for you. This aligns with the same type of argument for "mama"- and "papa"-like sounds throughout the world: That the sound originates from onomatopoeia or a similar link and not through linguistic influence or origin. > ... disregarding any sound laws which I didn't bother yet to learn because THAT seems implausible, to derive "laws" from hypothesis and being so fixed on them as if they had been actual law... You're misunderstanding the causality here. We call them laws precisely because they accurately explain the sound changes. Same as we describe physical laws because they explain the physics we witness. Not the other way around. "[Grimm's law] establishes a set of regular correspondences between early Germanic stops and fricatives and the stop consonants of certain other centum Indo-European languages (Grimm used mostly Latin and Greek for illustration)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm's_law My final statement on this is that, as far as I can tell, this entire thought process is nothing but the pigeon-hole principle as played out in linguistics. There are only so many productive sounds and many languages. Of course there will be some that look similar by sheer coincidence, especially when one takes such a flexible stance on phonetics and meaning when attributing links.