Domhnaillín Breac wrote:
Deghebh wrote:
It is pointless following the venom above.
"Venom"? You're arguing that lack of evidence constitutes proof. It doesn't constitute a personal attack to suggest that's a blunder you should've been educated out of in grammar school.
Deghebh wrote:
I notice that Queen Scota is quietly ignored.
There are
so many unaddressed problems with your argument before we even
get to her. Historical trivia hardly matters of the linguistic claims are without any support.
By its very nature, the study of linguistics is an attempt to interpret pre-history.
It is not an exact science.
I was derided for suggesting that 'Arab' and 'Hebrew' were essentially the same word.
What is undeniable is that both words share the same root: RB.
Hebrew is by definition, derived from the name of the patriarch Heber.
Arab, is somewhat confused, but the extract following, indicates, that the word is related to 'wanderer':
The root of the word has many meanings in Semitic languages including "west/sunset," "desert," "mingle," "merchant," "raven" and are "comprehensible" with all of these having varying degrees of relevance to the emergence of the name. It is also possible that some forms were metathetical from ʿ-B-R "moving around" (Arabic ʿ-B-R "traverse"), and hence, it is alleged, "nomadic."
This actually is the same as the meaning of the name EBER, and 'The Wanderer' is the name applied to themselve by Jews.
Hence I was not talking poo,
What I asserted was essentially accurate.
Now: Reset, and start over.
This is not science, it is an art.
I asserted possibilities from coincidences.
Science can neither prove, nor disprove. It can set probabilities.
The tale of Queen Scota is not without foundation.
The Irish Red hair comes from North Africa, as does the propensity to Coeliac disease.
There was an influx of North African blood, possibly via Spain, about the time of Tutankhamun.
That is backed up by genetic evidence.
It does not date it to the nearest week. It is Art, not Science. The science is very fuzzy with these numbers.
The art is interpreting coincidences.
Some coincidences are coincidences, and no more.
I never said my suggestions were claims to veracity, just that the coincideces might be more than coincidence.
Actually, 'ná', or 'nach' is as likely come from German 'nicht', or Latin 'non'.
We know Latin is infected with Arabic.
The middle East is the crossroads of Afro-asiattic and Indo-European.
Gallacia borders up to Syria.
Gallilee was thought to be also a Celtic nation, but a Jew rebuked me for suggesting it, telling me the name meant not Celt, (Gaul), but Foreigner, (Gall), completely missing the fact that he was using the Celtic word for foreigner!
As for the precise definition of vowel sounds in Irish, or any other language, they all drift over time.
In Ireland, they drift over space as well, so you precise definition might work in Galway, but in Derry or Kerry, it would be quite different.
Now maybe lá, or ló are ancestors of ná, and maybe they are not.
I claimed no more, only the possibility.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
