View Full Version : Carthaginians speaks Hebrew?
Leviathan DarklyCute
08-04-2008, 14:31
Well I'm playing with the Qarthadastim right now and I'm amazed by how similar is their language to Hebrew. Almost all names of their units and buildings sound exactly like in Hebrew.
For example: Mishteret Izrahim Feenikim -משטרת אזרחים פיניקים
Ha'Abbirim Ha'Qdosim sel Astarte -האבירים הקדושים של אשתורת
Qala'im Numidim -קלעים נומידים
and so on.
I'm only disappointed of the lack of voicemod, and as a native Hebrew speaker, if I could help in any way, I'll be glad to.
Modern Hebrew is not connected with Ancient Hebrew. Modern Hebrew is closely related to the Punic dialect of the Phoenicians of Carthage. There is a Punic voicemod that is very close to completion.
Foot
Tellos Athenaios
08-04-2008, 14:57
As a matter of fact: Ancient Hebrew is dead. In fact, ~14 AD it was already for all practical intents and purposes: dead.
The language spoken in Israel is a modern recronstruction based on Punic invention.
Maybe they are speaking yiddish?
from what words I used to know in Yiddish, it was similar to mordern hebrew...a bit.
Tartaros
08-04-2008, 15:53
Maybe they are speaking yiddish?
isn´t yiddish not more related to german? a mix-language of german jews in the holy roman empire.
Leviathan DarklyCute
08-04-2008, 16:03
isn´t yiddish not more related to german? a mix-language of german jews in the holy roman empire.
Yiddish is written in hebrew letters but it sound a lot like german.
Marcus Ulpius
08-04-2008, 16:08
I was also very surprised to see that Carthaginian unit and building names sound exactly like Hebrew ones. At one point I even thought that EB team didn't have enough historical evidence about Carthaginian names and decided to use Hebrew ones.
P.S. And Yiddish is indeed a modified middle-German medieval dialect mixed with some Hebrew words (at least that's what I know about it).
isn´t yiddish not more related to german? a mix-language of german jews in the holy roman empire.
It is in fact an older German dialect. Native German speakers should have no troubles understanding it. At least I am more able to follow a conervsation in Yiddish than for example in Pennsylvania Deutsch.
It is in fact an older German dialect. Native German speakers should have no troubles understanding it. At least I am more able to follow a conervsation in Yiddish than for example in Pennsylvania Deutsch.
Quite a bit older, in fact. Best estimates are that Yiddish came about/evolved/developed in the 10th or 11th century in the Rhineland. How developed, I don't know, but that still gives some kind of estimate of how long the language has been around in some form.
Hooahguy
08-04-2008, 17:31
As a matter of fact: Ancient Hebrew is dead. In fact, ~14 AD it was already for all practical intents and purposes: dead.
The language spoken in Israel is a modern recronstruction based on Punic invention.
ancient hebrew wasnt dead. it continued on well until the destruction of the 2nd temple.
btw, the translation for the holy temple in jerusalem is wrong.
it should be "the house of holiness."
in hebrew it translates backwards. so "beit hamikdash" isnt "the holy house" its "the house of holiness"
and thats a literal translation.
btw yiddish is a mixture of hebrew, german, and a bit of russian, no matter what wikipedia says :book:
It is in fact an older German dialect. Native German speakers should have no troubles understanding it.
Can't second that. I gotta say (living in southwest Germany) yiddish has many similarities with the German language, but it's no way easy to follow a yiddish conversation if you were risen with dialect-free German as I was (hell, I have problems understanding the Fränkisch the people talk in my village :laugh4: )
Well, my bad. I never played as carthage and didnt bother reading the names, so I didnt know it was hebrew. Besides...I was told, when my grandma taught it to me, that yiddish was and old jewish language.
btw yiddish is a mixture of hebrew, german, and a bit of russian, no matter what wikipedia says :book:
Definitely, Hooahguy. It started out as German/Hebrew only, but when it expanded east, it did eventually incorporate a bit of Russian.
Several of my (older) relatives used to speak bits of Yiddish. They were from Germany, and emigrated in the 1930s. I never could understand what they were saying when they switched from English to Yiddish. Their Yiddish had almost no Slavic component, and was almost all German based. My wife's family is more from Eastern Europe, including Russia and parts of Poland. Their Yiddish, while essentially the same, has a much heavier Russian influence. Lots of people would have you believe that Yiddish used to have different dialects, but that they contracted back into one main form. Not so, at least according to my experience which is admittedly not a scientific study.
Tartaros
08-04-2008, 19:28
in school i have to write an essay in history about this. many jews had to immigrate to eastern europe because of religious treatments in central europe in the 15th 16th 17th and mostly it was not allowed for jews to settle free in towns, so they lived in the "städtle" for there own and the language was a little bit protected by the times.
but i think it´s more polish than russian, but i don´t know if there are big differences...
hmm. this is all very intreguing. anybody here with a knowlege of ancient hebrew?
I've been holding an argument same with TA up there, only in another forum. It would help a lot.
anyone want to PM? thanks in advance.
in school i have to write an essay in history about this. many jews had to immigrate to eastern europe because of religious treatments in central europe in the 15th 16th 17th and mostly it was not allowed for jews to settle free in towns, so they lived in the "städtle" for there own and the language was a little bit protected by the times.
but i think it´s more polish than russian, but i don´t know if there are big differences...
There is some Polish in there too, but it's more minimal than German or Russian, I think. Not a true scholar on the subject by any means, so I could very well be wrong.
You're point about the migrations to Eastern Europe is well-taken. Interestingly, one of the theories (and it is only a theory as far as I know) about why Jews were involved in moneylending and other capital-intensive industries has to do with the fact that Jews were forced to migrate so often. Because they might be forced out of an area at the drop of a hat, they couldn't afford to have heavy merchandise that had to be loaded and transported quickly. Rather, they could only take what they could carry or load quickly, and money was often the easiest item to move and had currency everywhere.
There are of course other equally plausible factors that could explain it, either in whole or in part (the Christian prohibition against usury comes to mind), but I think it's an interesting theory nonetheless.
Can't second that. I gotta say (living in southwest Germany) yiddish has many similarities with the German language, but it's no way easy to follow a yiddish conversation if you were risen with dialect-free German as I was (hell, I have problems understanding the Fränkisch the people talk in my village :laugh4: )
The only occasion I heard people talking in Yiddish to each other was when I was in New York on a holidays. Certainly I did not understand every single word but understood what they were talking about.
Tellos Athenaios
08-04-2008, 20:13
There is some Polish in there too, but it's more minimal than German or Russian, I think. Not a true scholar on the subject by any means, so I could very well be wrong.
You're point about the migrations to Eastern Europe is well-taken. Interestingly, one of the theories (and it is only a theory as far as I know) about why Jews were involved in moneylending and other capital-intensive industries has to do with the fact that Jews were forced to migrate so often. Because they might be forced out of an area at the drop of a hat, they couldn't afford to have heavy merchandise that had to be loaded and transported quickly. Rather, they could only take what they could carry or load quickly, and money was often the easiest item to move and had currency everywhere.
There are of course other equally plausible factors that could explain it, either in whole or in part (the Christian prohibition against usury comes to mind), but I think it's an interesting theory nonetheless.
AFAIK Jews were [often] not allowed to possess any land; and this may have had something to do with it as well?
AFAIK Jews were [often] not allowed to possess any land; and this may have had something to do with it as well?
Yes, there were certainly restrictions against what Jews could and couldn't do/own, and the restriction against holding land would certainly be a contributing factor. Still, I think it is important to remember that those restrictions didn't hold in all places at all times. For example, we tend to think of the Spanish kingdom as one of the more restrictive states toward medieval Jews due to the expulsion in 1492. However, until roughly the 1300s, Jews were allowed to hold real estate in Castillian Spain, and many (some of whom were conversos) were individually very well-respected in their communities, even if the Jewish community as a whole was not.
One of the few things that did not change from place to place was the myth of the blood libel. The short (medieval) version is that Jews would kidnap a young Christian boy, and then commit human sacrifice, usually at night, as part of a religious ritual. This was such a fear, that the Venetian ghetto only had two bridges in or out of it, and these were raised from dark until dawn. The blood libel led to many pogroms against Jews throughout history, even into the 20th century in Eastern Europe and Russia, and the myth is still advanced in some parts of the world. (Interestingly, the first account of the theory comes from 1st century Alexandria, where a writer (whose name escapes me) claimed that Jews murdered young Greeks in the temple in Jerusalem.)
Circling back around, that is why I think the theory I mentioned above, while certainly not the whole story, has some merit. Yes, the prohibition against usury would contribute, and yes restrictions on land-holding would contribute as well (as would other factors), but the fear/persecution of Jews has a lot to do with the "career-choices" in my very humble opinion.
I see no way that this blood libel is true; why would a religion explicitly and vehemently ban human sacrafice (a.k.a story of Abraham and his son (which one is dependant on religion), turn around and slaughter greeks/ christians/ palestinians or something? It simply makes no sense. that's like Islam banning Alcohol(true), then turning around and everyone is drinking like selim the sot.
then again, bigotry or hatred warrants no logic to it unfortunately.:no::no::no:
Leviathan DarklyCute
08-04-2008, 22:24
I see no way that this blood libel is true; why would a religion explicitly and vehemently ban human sacrafice (a.k.a story of Abraham and his son (which one is dependant on religion), turn around and slaughter greeks/ christians/ palestinians or something? It simply makes no sense. that's like Islam banning Alcohol(true), then turning around and everyone is drinking like selim the sot.
then again, bigotry or hatred warrants no logic to it unfortunately.:no::no::no:
Isn't it exactly the same way for christians and muslims? ;)
AlexanderSextus
08-04-2008, 23:17
The short (medieval) version is that Jews would kidnap a young Christian boy, and then commit human sacrifice, usually at night, as part of a religious ritual.
did anyone hear the joke Lewis Black made about this?
The christians used to think we'd kidnap their kids at night and kill them. thats bullshit. we'd kidnap them........and make them work for us, and thats totally different.
i LOL'ed @ that one.
The Wizard
08-04-2008, 23:45
Modern Hebrew is not connected with Ancient Hebrew. Modern Hebrew is closely related to the Punic dialect of the Phoenicians of Carthage. There is a Punic voicemod that is very close to completion.
Foot
I don't see how that's possible considering we know almost nothing about Punic. As far as I've heard Ivrit (Modern Hebrew) is a development of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Hebrew dialects as they existed in the late 19th century (the difference between the two, and between them and the Temani/Yemenite Hebrew dialect, is in pronunciation). It's mostly Ashkenazi in pronunciation officially; Temani Jews pronounce things very differently, for instance. The connection between Biblical and Modern Hebrew is direct, though it went through many intermediate stations over the milennia, of course.
That's the story as far as I've heard it. And, no offense, but I doubt I've been living in a dream world all this time.
Bah at least Judism is recognized as a major religion... My Hellenistic Pagan beliefs are barely recognized anymore. :(
I don't see how that's possible considering we know almost nothing about Punic. As far as I've heard Ivrit (Modern Hebrew) is a development of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Hebrew dialects as they existed in the late 19th century (the difference between the two, and between them and the Temani/Yemenite Hebrew dialect, is in pronunciation). It's mostly Ashkenazi in pronunciation officially; Temani Jews pronounce things very differently, for instance. The connection between Biblical and Modern Hebrew is direct, though it went through many intermediate stations over the milennia, of course.
That's the story as far as I've heard it. And, no offense, but I doubt I've been living in a dream world all this time.
From this thread (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=181952) over at the TWC.
I quote Dr. Charles R. Krahmalkov in his correspondence with me:
You might be interested to know that modern Hebrew is, in fact, very closely related to Phoenician-Punic: modern Hebrew is based on so-called Rabbinic/Mishnaic Hebrew, a language that is historically not true Hebrew but a Phoenician dialect.
Foot
Very interesting, Foot. Thanks!
Hooahguy
08-05-2008, 16:06
From this thread (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=181952) over at the TWC.
Foot
hm... ill ask my dad about this....
he would know better than anyone else here....
hm... ill ask my dad about this....
he would know better than anyone else here....
Errm?
Is this a classic "My dad can beat up your dad" ?
or in this case
"My dad can beat up your eb team member"
or indeed
"My Dad can beat up your Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages (http://www.umich.edu/~neareast/faculty/krahmalk.htm)"
Foot
I don't see how that's possible considering we know almost nothing about Punic. As far as I've heard Ivrit (Modern Hebrew) is a development of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Hebrew dialects as they existed in the late 19th century (the difference between the two, and between them and the Temani/Yemenite Hebrew dialect, is in pronunciation). It's mostly Ashkenazi in pronunciation officially; Temani Jews pronounce things very differently, for instance. The connection between Biblical and Modern Hebrew is direct, though it went through many intermediate stations over the milennia, of course.
That's the story as far as I've heard it. And, no offense, but I doubt I've been living in a dream world all this time.
Note the following from here (http://www.umich.edu/~neareast/faculty/krahmalk.htm):
Books and Monographs
Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 90, Peeters: Louvain, 2000.
Deciphering Ancient Egyptian Writing, A Teaching Module, 3rd edition. University of Michigan Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies: Ann Arbor, 1980.
Phoenician-Punic Grammar, Handbuch der Orientalistik 54. Brill: Leiden, 2001.
Handbook of Phoenician-Punic Literature, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Brill: Leiden, forthcoming in 2003/4.
Foot
Hooahguy
08-05-2008, 18:22
nah- its "my "tenured profesor of ancient and medieval jewish hisstory and language" can beat up your "Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages"
lol
nah- its "my "tenured profesor of ancient and medieval jewish hisstory and language" can beat up your "Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages"
lol
hm.. an exciting match. who will win.
speaking of which, I was wondering aloud if there is an online or library sourc(s) that i can use for the hebrew, aramac, and phoenician languages.:help: (what appens when ye be head researcher-you ask big questions)
stuff
And what did he say then?
Hooahguy
08-08-2008, 18:37
he's out of town until this afternoon....
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-10-2008, 20:22
just to weigh in on this. Wherever the guy got his info from saying that Mishnaic Hebrew comes from punic, needs some serious scrutiny.
Either he means that Ancient Hebrew itself was a phoenician derivative, which is a whole other convo, or he means that somehow Ancient Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew are two different languages.
In order to answer the second question we first need to establish whether or not biblical hebrew counts as ancient hebrew.
If we all agree that biblical hebrew does indeed mean ancient hebrew, then i can't support the idea that Mishnaic hebrew is from punic or som other eastern language. Mishnaic hebrew isnt very different from Biblical hebrew generally. Some words had been imported from other languages, and some words had fallen out of use, but from a standpoint of grammar and the overwhelming majority of the shared vocabulary between the two, i totally fail to understand how anyone can claim that mishnaic hebrew comes from some other culture.
unless theres a premise here that we havent been informed of, such as "punic and ancient hebrew were virtually identical anyway", or unless this is really an extremely nuanced argument, then i have to remain incredulous in the extreme about the ideas presented here.
@foot.
citing one authority doesn't mean anything, cite 10 and then you might be getting somewhere. Academicians are notorious for infighting and disagreeing amongst themselves. Furthermore authoring an original theory, regardless of how ludicrous is a way to earn tenure or general standing within the academic community.
i'll be honest, usually you have alot of valuable contributions to make, and i usually respect your positions on things in these forums, but seeing you here waving around a reference based on one "authority" disappoints me. We dont even know when he wrote the work cited, it could have been in te 1800's for all we know right now. We dont know his sources, we dont know how he came to his conclusions.
What we do know is that he is running against the grain of the common academic consensus in place right now.
In summary, i find the idea that Mishnaic Period Hebrew comes not from Ancient Hebrew, a language spoken by the people in question themselves, but rather Punic, a language spoken by a different nation, to be suspect in the extreme, and not easily defended by citing one professor of eastern languages.
Shame on you for trying, and shame on the rest for eating this up so easily.
I love EB! Keep up the great work everyone!
Hooahguy
08-11-2008, 00:00
i got the answer- biblical hebrew did indeed have parts derived from phoenician, and all the way until the 1st destruction of the temple. after that, when we were exiled to Ba'vel, we lost the phoenician and picked up babylonian. then we kept the babylonian and when we got back, we still kept it. thats until the greeks got there. we picked up some greek, then when the romans got there, we picked up some latin as well. the word "europe" in hebrew is "europa," fopr example.
BUT- mishnaic hebrew and talmudic hebrew is WAY DIFFERENT!!! mishnaic is biblical + babylonian, while talmudic is aramaic, a combo of biblical hebrew and arabic.
modern hebrew, even through all the changes, isnt much different than biblical, save for a few pronouciantios and words and such. but the amount derived from the phoenician language is small.
btw Arcani_Bar_Kochba, you are absolutly correct- citing one source isnt much....
I'm not citing anyone, this isn't an argument. I'm posting a comment from correspondence between one of our team members (Shigawire) who works explicitly with voicemods for EB and one Dr Charles Krahmalkov. Shigawire made the decision for the team, I was relaying that information on, which we took as a basis for our position. So don't put shame on me, and don't jump to conclusions about who I am or what I do. If you disagree with our position, fair enough, put forward your 10 sources. Until then, shame on you for jumping on the bandwagon in such a disgraceful manner.
As for Charles Krahmalkov, if you had read the link I gave you, you would know his academic history and that he is a current professor in this area (having written a number of books on the punic language). Now, I'm not defending him in the slightest, I no jackshit about this area, and I've never claimed otherwise. But even a quick Google search would have answered your question about whether he was writing in the 1800s or not.
So, perhaps a better way to christen yourself on these forums isn't to attack an EB team member on false charges with half your post, particularly as the charges are without basis. You are more than welcome to disagree with our position, but do so with a little more finesse and with a little less haste then your previous post, if you would.
I was just trying to be helpful for christ's sake. Next time I'll let someone else take the heat.
Foot
Hooahguy
08-11-2008, 15:25
I'm not citing anyone, this isn't an argument. I'm posting a comment from correspondence between one of our team members (Shigawire) who works explicitly with voicemods for EB and one Dr Charles Krahmalkov. Shigawire made the decision for the team, I was relaying that information on, which we took as a basis for our position. So don't put shame on me, and don't jump to conclusions about who I am or what I do. If you disagree with our position, fair enough, put forward your 10 sources. Until then, shame on you for jumping on the bandwagon in such a disgraceful manner.
As for Charles Krahmalkov, if you had read the link I gave you, you would know his academic history and that he is a current professor in this area (having written a number of books on the punic language). Now, I'm not defending him in the slightest, I no jackshit about this area, and I've never claimed otherwise. But even a quick Google search would have answered your question about whether he was writing in the 1800s or not.
So, perhaps a better way to christen yourself on these forums isn't to attack an EB team member on false charges with half your post, particularly as the charges are without basis. You are more than welcome to disagree with our position, but do so with a little more finesse and with a little less haste then your previous post, if you would.
I was just trying to be helpful for christ's sake. Next time I'll let someone else take the heat.
Foot
wre you talking to me or Bar_kochba?
Mostly Kochbar, but you also. Both of you assumed the worst of me, when I was simply supplying information. If you don't agree with what we've done we can talk about it, but insulting me without reason is not going to help either of you. However, its very difficult to get academicians to work with such a project as EB, so we are helpful for any correspondence we get. We cannot be experts or employ experts in every field, so if a Dr of an area we are interested in responds to a query we cannot then go and check the latest debate raging in that field.
Foot
Hooahguy
08-11-2008, 15:51
ehm, i dont think the worst of you? what made you think that? it makes me sad to hear that you think that i do....
You agreed with Kochvar that I cited only one source in an argument, a shameful act, when a far more reasonable conclusion would be that I was actually passing on information that I had got elsewhere. I was hardly given the benefit of the doubt. However, your agreement was more of a off-hand comment so I don't really hold anything against you, but half of Kochvar's post was on me and my shameful behaviour, which I thought was a bit much.
Foot
Hooahguy
08-11-2008, 16:28
no, you misunderstood- i agreed with him on the statement that citing only one source isnt much. never agreed with his entire argument....
Shigawire
08-11-2008, 23:36
First of all, as Foot said, we accept all the help we can get! And Krahmalkov is THE expert in this field.
He's the guy who excavated the ruins in Tripolitania giving us the Punic name for that province: "Syrthim." Instead of assuming he's some outdated 1800s scholar, just have a look on google, as already mentioned. Have a little look at his repertoire.
What we did in EB's voicemod was to use Modern Hebrew as a base to build on, then we "Punified" the vocabulary by skimming through our dictionary, replacing words where applicable. And also accomodating whatever grammar rules we found differed in Punic to Modern Hebrew. As Kikosemmek ran through the words in the Phoenician-Punic dictionary, he noticed that the words were uncannily similar to Modern Hebrew, but in some instances they differed a great deal as well. I suppose the greatest difference is pronunciation - for which there are actually a number of historical clues.
I have asked in total 3 experts though. One of them has, like Krahmalkov, also written a grammar book and dictionary on Phoenician:
Mark A. McMenamin - his grammar book is 24 pages, dictionary is 37 pages.
Krahmalkov - his grammar book is 300 pages, dictionary is 500 pages - with painfully detailed footnotes.
Dr. William Fulco (no grammars or dictionaries)
I have emailed with McMenamin, I asked him why his dictionaries were not as voluminous as Krahmalkov's dictionary and grammar. McMenamin replied that he had great respect for Krahmalkov, but that he did not have as much selfconfidence to do what Krahmalkov had done. Krahmalkov had reconstructed quite a bit of Punic by studying fragments of Neo-Punic poetry found on pottery. McMenamin stated that this was way over his head, and preferred to reduce the sheer volume of his work. Also, a sidenote, I had the nagging sensation that McMenamin was keen on making sales of his short books, rather than discuss.
Another expert I emailed with was Dr. William Fulco, who helped Mel Gibson with the ancient languages in "The Passion of Christ." When Vin Diesel decided to work on an epic about Hannibal Barca, he asked Mel Gibson for professional directing advice. From Mel, Vin got into contact with Fulco. Fulco is now going to head the translation work on the Hannibal movie. Ancient Greek, Punic, Latin etc.. I mentioned Krahmalkov to Fulco, and Fulco stated exhuberantly that Krahmalkov was in his opinion clearly the best scholar in the field.
Ok, so I'm "ashamed" I've only asked the opinions of 3 experts on Phoenician-Punic. Not exactly a whopping 10. But is this a dissertational thesis that we're writing here? In every single instance of implementing a culture's history and language into EB, we see some or other national grievance or controversy (contrived or not). In each case it's very difficult for us to take into account ALL the possible controversies between scholarly consensus and the respective culture's self-image. For example, we've had bouts with certain Greek jingoists because their national and cultural self-image was on a direct collision course with what the scholarly consensus was, and what the evidence suggested. No doubt this self-image was a product of indoctrination from an institutionalized educational system (lower/middle education). They were certainly confident in their point of view, yet they've been proven wrong time and again. I hope for your sake this criticism of your's is something more substantive than information taught in an institutionalized Israeli educational system (I take it that you're from there). However, the personalization of the grievance you exhibit, by claiming "shame" unto us, suggest that the grievance is wholly emotionally motivated. As you're reading this, you're probably sizzling inside, as you're contemplating how you're going to pound on me for daring to psychoanalyze you.
Not only is your prostration of our "shame" indicative of your motivations, but it is also employed in your manner as a fruitless and demagogic trick; namely the appeal to emotional guilt. A logical fallacy. One of those logical fallacies that are disallowed in rational discourse. With this in mind, how can you expect anyone to take this particular sort of criticism seriously?
I'm fairly confident Krahmalkov will be able to read between the lines of your demagoguery as he's reading a direct quote of your grievances in my correspondence. But there are indeed some objective arguments in what you say, and that's why I simply could not dismiss it out of hand. That is why I took the time to write to the professor. We will now be awaiting a response from him.
I am prepared for Krahmalkov being proven wrong. But are you equally open-minded? If you are scientifically-minded individuals, you have to also be at least prepared for the eventuality that you could be proven wrong. What you may eventually need to do, is to find a scholar whose point of view does not correspond with Krahmalkov on this issue. Then you have the seeds for an objective and factual debate.
Well explained, Shigawire. Indeed that is just the proffessional approach I'd expect from the EB Team, weighing the fact that we have scarce amount of information about the Punic culture when compared to other illustrious cultures.
As far as the shame argument goes, I couldn't agree more with Shigawire. Most people in these forums have no knowledge about the Hebrew language, and even fewer about the Punic language. How can you expect the fans and players, (who for all purposes are here to discuss the game itself, and not to have academical discussions), to supposedly take part in the guilt you are trying to dish out? The way I immediatly saw it, either it was a nationalistic driven shun, or either you put too much expectations on a group of unpaid modders, who even actually being able to gain the help of a single expert in the area, is already good enough (For an unpaid video game project).
YonatanIlan
08-12-2008, 01:26
Firstly, as a new forum member, I'd like to state my thanks for the EB team; you've made a deep and engaging mod, well done! :beam:
Regarding this whole discussion, I find it not too hard to believe that Phoenician would be somewhat related Modern Hebrew (which I speak as my mother tongue); after all, the two languages are Semitic, with roots in basically the same geographic area. Reading Biblical Hebrew is easy enough for a Modern Hebrew speaker, but the exact nature of Ancient Hebrew seems to be somewhat unknown. Anyways, this relation of two similar languages does not bother me at all; to the contrary, for me it seems an interesting possibility. :yes:
I do not think that one should blame Israeli education for any perceived bad feelings about this issue; while like many systems it is quite flawed, it had never seemed to insinuate a sense of language exclusivity, the way I see it. At most, it glorifies the history of the Jewish people, but that is not a unique feature, now is it? :laugh4:
Theodotos I
08-12-2008, 19:33
What we did in EB's voicemod was to use Modern Hebrew as a base to build on, then we "Punified" the vocabulary by skimming through our dictionary, replacing words where applicable. And also accomodating whatever grammar rules we found differed in Punic to Modern Hebrew. As Kikosemmek ran through the words in the Phoenician-Punic dictionary, he noticed that the words were uncannily similar to Modern Hebrew, but in some instances they differed a great deal as well. I suppose the greatest difference is pronunciation - for which there are actually a number of historical clues.
Just curiosity, Shigawire, but where do I find the Punic voice mod? All my folders are labeled Greek, a variation of Gallic, Latin, or the new Pahlava. Sorry, if this is a dumb question, but I wanted to know. Your work to date has been superb and I look forward to more in the future.
EDIT: Oh, and Germanic. But no Punic.
Tellos Athenaios
08-12-2008, 19:45
It's not yet included with EB; the OP asks the question (presumably) based on the Unit & Building & Trait names...
Strategos Alexandros
08-12-2008, 19:48
Punic is still being made. IIRC the team have said it will be released as a patch for 1.1 and will be in EB2.
Edit: Damn, beaten to it.
I find it not too hard to believe that Phoenician would be somewhat related Modern Hebrew (which I speak as my mother tongue); after all, the two languages are Semitic, with roots in basically the same geographic area.I agree with this. Its not hard to imagine a fair bit of cross-pollination happening given the physical proximity & apparently good relations.
But I'm certainly not claiming any expertise :juggle2:
Theodotos I
08-19-2008, 18:28
It's not yet included with EB; the OP asks the question (presumably) based on the Unit & Building & Trait names...
Good news! :2thumbsup:
machinor
08-19-2008, 19:58
I would like to thank Shigawire for describing the process of his research. I knew of course, that EB was the excellent product of quite some excellent research but I could never have imagined the amount of work. I'm really quite impressed (not that that should be any surprising given the quality of the product we all enjoy).
I bow before you, good sirs. :2thumbsup:
I'm definately looking forward to the Carthaginian voice mod!!
oudysseos
08-20-2008, 18:53
Can I just say that I am astounded by Shigawire's post: the amount of work that he (assuming your gender here) and the rest of the EB team have, of their own free will, voluntarily and unpaid, put into assuring as much as possible the authenticity of a few sentences spoken in a language so dead that almost no knowledge of it exists puts all the trolls to shame. That such a minor gameplay detail is taken so seriously, even after the 'final' release, by people who have consistently had to put up with the immature and uninformed rants of people who have themselves produced nothing at all except insults is a testament to their virtue.
And shame on you, Bar Kochba. I'm ashamed of you.
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-26-2008, 04:51
@Shigawire
"Ok, so I'm "ashamed" I've only asked the opinions of 3 experts on Phoenician-Punic."
Being that Punic died as a language before Hebrew did maybe you are asking the wrong people. Start speaking to people who are experts on hebrew before you make a judgement as to where Hebrew came from. If i want to know about Punic i'll speak to someone about it, im talking about Hebrew here wasnt that apparent?
"In each case it's very difficult for us to take into account ALL the possible controversies between scholarly consensus and the respective culture's self-image."
In this case you havent followed any scholarly consensus at all. Like i said before, unless the working assumption was that Ancient (Biblical) Hebrew was itself a dialect of phoenician or vice versa, then i fail to see anyone claiming that the Israelis somehow used a long dead, and extremely obscure language as a blueprint for Modern Hebrew in lieu of hebrew itself which has an unparalleled literary tradition to draw from.:laugh4: This is almost comical.
As for the idea tha rabbinic or Mishnaic Hebrew stems from Phoenician... based on? :thumbsdown: You responded with rhetoric in place of concrete assertions of fact and or logical operations based on a premise. Dont play around with me. If you have something to defend yourself here then do so, if not just leave it be and let that professor guy have a dialog with me.
Lots of people here were throwing this idea around as if this was common knowledge or a given. It is not, this is a pretty radical theory (unless of course the assumption is that Hebrew was a dialect of phoenician in the first place), and should be scrutinized rigorously before it's lapped up by all the pseudo-intellectuals here.
"In every single instance of implementing a culture's history and language into EB, we see some or other national grievance or controversy (contrived or not)."
Wait... Being that the Jews arent implemented here what the hell are you even talking about? Im referring to a bunch of comments made by a bunch of yahoos claiming that Mishnaic Hebrew came from Phoenician... Now go back and read that again... now one more time. Got it? Now that we are back on the same page i'd like to know how you or anyone else can go about proving that. It was said repeatedly with great confidence by alot of people here, so let's hear it... Again unless the premise is that Hebrew and Phoenician were virtually identical in the first place, and that Mishnaic Hebrew seemed to drop certain elements from Ancient Hebrew, which then made it more similar (relatively) to Phoenician (go back and read that again Shigawire i know im losing you here) then i think any such assertion is impossible to prove and probably rests on flimsy premises and wishful thinking.
"...taught in an institutionalized Israeli educational system (I take it that you're from there)."
:thumbsdown: EPIC FAIL
"taking that" i.e. another unwarranted assumption, makes you two things:
1 Wrong again!:laugh4:
2 Kinda sad for trying to discredit my viewpoint as a product of institutional bias as opposed to being a very serious question that you should be taking seriously... shame shame:embarassed:
Im american born and raised, im a law student, and i dont like BS. We could be discussing latin or how to make doughnuts for all i care, what matters here is that i happen to know a decent amount about Hebrew itself along with the history of that region and this whole thing sounds ridiculous to me... Unles of course the assumption is that Hebrew itself was a dialect of Phoenician or that trhey were sister languages or whatever. if thats the assumption then ill disagree and walk away from this discussion because at least that would be logically consistent, and im not gong to try to prove or disprove a premise based so far back into antiquity. Let Archaeologists quibble about that.
"the personalization of the grievance you exhibit, by claiming "shame" unto us"
didnt mean to get personal, just a figure of speech. Mainly letting you ll know that I think EB is great and respect what's been done here so far, but was pretty disappointed to see this kind of nonsense being accepted without a fight, and then seeing guys backing down at someone's word, not actually going deeper to question the authority cited.
so im sorry if you thought i was getting personal. Not my intention at all, but i was a little surprised to see a revolutionary idea like this being accepted so readily.
"As you're reading this, you're probably sizzling inside"
Not really... if you actually had anything intelligent to throw at me i might be because i enjoy a challenge. This is kinda grade-school if you ask me. You havent addressed a single point of my argument, all you have done is addressed me individually and that's pretty disappointing. So shame on you for that too :p.
"your prostration of our "shame" indicative of your motivations, but it is also employed in your manner as a fruitless and demagogic trick"
blah blah blah more empty rhetoric. Whatever, i dont care just deal wit my argument from now on please. Dont waste both of our time.
"you have to also be at least prepared for the eventuality that you could be proven wrong."
retard... how the hell am i going to proven wrong when the answers to this whole thing might lie in splitting hairs about linguistics going back 4000 years or more... no one is gonna "prove" anything ether way short of unearthing some massive phoenician library or something (and even that would just be a starting point) or at least clarifying what the underlying premises are behind this whole position.
Im not open minded at all, im judgemental, but im fair as hell. I doubt the ability to be "proven wrong" through this medium as it would require alot of discussion presented in an orderly way with consistent logic applied from premise to conclusion, and that doesnt really happen on an online forum. Its usually a bunch of flaming rhetoric... case in point your last post. But being a fair man i'll always admit when a conclusion is logical or not. i may still disagree with a premise but proving that premise could require endless debate which is not only tedious and frustrating but well beyond the scope of this forum.
In closing stop wasting my time because you like to hear yourself type. Dont flame me, deal with what i've raised. You didnt do that though, you talked a bunch of trash, tried to discredit me, and even tried to assassinate my character... dude that's low.
Epic Fail.
@Foot
Sorry, i didnt mean to jump on you and i apologize if the "tone" of that last message was out of line. Like i said you always have solid input and i've always respected what you've brought to the table in other posts. Please accept my apology.
@The EB team
Thanks for all the effort you've made in making this fantastic mod.
P.S. Shgawire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrkgBVNuFcQ&feature=related
a completely inoffensive name
08-26-2008, 07:29
@Shigawire
"...taught in an institutionalized Israeli educational system (I take it that you're from there)."
:thumbsdown: EPIC FAIL
[...]
"your prostration of our "shame" indicative of your motivations, but it is also employed in your manner as a fruitless and demagogic trick"
blah blah blah more empty rhetoric. Whatever, i dont care just deal wit my argument from now on please. Dont waste both of our time.
[...]
In closing stop wasting my time because you like to hear yourself type. Dont flame me, deal with what i've raised. You didnt do that though, you talked a bunch of trash, tried to discredit me, and even tried to assassinate my character... dude that's low.
Epic Fail.
P.S. Shgawire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrkgBVNuFcQ&feature=related
I don't know know if I should praise you, befriend you or just put your post in my sig so it can be remembered forever.
satalexton
08-26-2008, 10:01
lol? I'm just lost of words. just lol.
If i want to know about Punic i'll speak to someone about it, im talking about Hebrew here wasnt that apparent?
Of course not. The thread is about the language that the Carthaginians speak in EB. We are talking about the Punic voicemod, and you dismiss authorities on Punic out of hand. Why would we be discussing Hebrew in the EB forum? Hebrew is not part of the mod, Punic is. Get on topic. And seeing as you think Punic experts are disqualified about Hebrew, I'm sure you would consider consulting Hebrew experts about Punic a waste of time.
You may want to read this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79193). Carefully. Possibly it would preclude usage of "retard", "yahoos" etc. There is no reason to apologize for insults when you use the rest of the post to spout fresh insults.
Now, before you start flaming me, I am not an authority on anything historical, but rather the civil tone of this forum, which you sir are not adhering to.
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-27-2008, 17:17
Of course not. The thread is about the language that the Carthaginians speak in EB. We are talking about the Punic voicemod.
well i think you're wrong chief. Topic thread is "carthaginians speak Hebrew?" about one third to one half of the 56 (now 57) posts here are a discussion of either the origin of hebrew or general languages that Jews speak (about 5 posts talking about yiddish alone).
So, sorry charlie, it should have been very apparent that i've been talking about hebrew for anyone who has been following this discussion. :oops:
Bar_Kochba, what exactly is your point here?
well i think you're wrong chief. Topic thread is "carthaginians speak Hebrew?" about one third to one half of the 56 (now 57) posts here are a discussion of either the origin of hebrew or general languages that Jews speak (about 5 posts talking about yiddish alone).
So, sorry charlie, it should have been very apparent that i've been talking about hebrew for anyone who has been following this discussion. :oops:
The reason the thread is "Carthaginians speak[s] Hebrew?" is because the OP was interested to find out if that is true. That's inherent in the question mark at the end. Further, if you read the end of the first post, it is apparent that he is asking about a Punic voicemod.
The reason that so many points are on the Hebrew and Yiddish languages are that they are tangential to the original purpose of the thread. I know this because I wrote several of them, and even at the time I was thinking, "Hmm, this is tangential, but it's interesting, so I'll post it."
I'm not an expert on ancient Punic or ancient/modern Hebrew, so I have no idea what the relationship was/is. I do know that it's unlikely to ever know for sure, and that to act like the answer is a foregone conclusion is not only against the spirit of academia and EB, but also as unfounded as to suggest that the otherside's conclusion is similarly foregone.
I also know that, right or wrong, you will get a lot farther if you spot using epithets like "chief" and "charlie." Just some food for thought, slugger.
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-27-2008, 18:49
thanks for the advice Cimon, duly noted. It seems to me that there has been so much tangential content added here that this thread has been effectively hijacked but whatever, thats not important.
In any event the only thing i'm concerned about is the discussion about the origin of Hebrew that started taking place here. Some guys were confidently throwing around the idea that Hebrew came from Punic, and I popped in to challenge that or to at least get a clarification as to what the underlying premises are behind that assertion. Im still waiting on that to decide whether or not it would be an impossible point to argue. I mean im not gonna try to influence people to my side, im either gonna prove it outright or let it lie, and i think that's reflected in my utter disregard for any diplomacy thus far.
I think it's great hearing the Carth's speaking in sorta Hebrew. Hebrew probably makes a great temporary solution for providing a distinct voice mod untill a more thorough Punic one can be created. So im not taking issue with what EB has done so far, Im taking issue with some tangential crap thats been thrown around in this thread about Hebrew.
As has been mentioned before. They are not speaking Hebrew they are speaking Punic, which is closely related it would seem. If you think they speak hebrew you are wrong. We have the eminent work of three professors backing up our use of particular words and phrases in the punic voicemod. The exact the relationship between the two languages is not really at issue here, only that according to the people we have contacted, who have written extensively on this stuff, Punic is what we have done, not Hebrew.
Foot
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-27-2008, 18:57
As has been mentioned before. They are not speaking Hebrew they are speaking Punic, which is closely related it would seem. If you think they speak hebrew you are wrong.
Foot
I dont give a rat's behind what they are speaking. They could be speaking Swahili for all i care. Quit beating the carth-punic dead horse with me, Im only concerned about the stuff about hebrew coming from Punic in the first place... jeez ill start quoting to all the posts that started blabbing that nonsense if that will help clear everything up for everyone. FFS everyone read the thread.
Oh wait Foot... in post number 2 you were the first yahoo to bing that up werent you?
Oh and here comes tellos in post number 3 with his "matter of fact" well lets hear the facts then. Don't talk if you can't walk.
Oh wait posts 4-9 are about Yiddish FFS.
For the love of God, the first 20 posts are dealing pretty much exclusively with Jews and Yiddish... How the heck can anyone say this thread is about the Punic voicemod? This thread is about what languages Jews speak, Jewish persecution in the middle ages (!!!) and where Hebrew came from. I'm only concerned about the so called "fact" thats been thrown around that Hebrew is really a dialect of Punic... BS! Prove it.
Sooo now that we've cleared that up (hopefully) can we either drop this and all go back to being friends again, or fight it out over the RELEVANT point?
Bar_Kochba, I heartily recommend you go get yourself a hobby, like tennis. Tennis works very well to flow all your frustration out.
Im only concerned about the stuff about hebrew coming from Punic in the first place... jeez ill start quoting to all the posts that started blabbing that nonsense if that will help clear everything up for everyone. FFS everyone read the thread.
Hebrew coming from Punic, now let's see. I believe Shigawire has stated numerous times that Punic is related to modern Hebrew. However, you must remember that some languages were developed simultaneously, so unless someone comes with hard evidence, we could perhaps even state that modern Hebrew had gone through the same linguistical evolution as Punic back in the days of Karthage, and that is being a Phoenician language. I'm not expert on this matter though.
But seriously, dude, don't get so frustrated. We are humans too.
Okay, Arcani, you need to calm down. You are acting as if everyone around you are being idiots. Stop calling people names as if that has something to do with your post. It ain't fun and its starting to give the impression that you reached a conclusion and any obstruction to it is hardly worthy of calling intelligent. You're a law student, huh? Then I suppose you realise that including emotive language such as name-calling is rather flawed way of conducting a conversation with another person. Hell, you don't have to be a law student at all, just a decent human being. But you seem to be losing your head over this so I suggest you take a deep breath and stop the rant. We get it, your upset. The question is "why?" And I think I know the answer:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
But please, we were defending our interpretation of Punic in the mod. If I said something that was wrong, then I'm sorry. However our only claim here is that the names for buildings, etc for the carthaginians and the Sabyn are not hebrew, they are punic. Anything beyond that I don't think we have a position on because ... it has bugger all to do with our mod.
Foot
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-27-2008, 20:31
@hax
well i think he went further than calling them related. im pretty sure he was trying to use that charles k guy to support the idea that somehow hebrew had died and was replaced by a punic dialect amongst the jews, which prompted my whole thing here. As for tennis im waaaay too out of shape for that atm, maybe after i join a local boxing gym for a bit i'll have the wind for that. thanks for the suggestion anyway.
@ foot
ok.
but just so we are clear here, i dont know jack about punic outside of it being a semitic language and it being similar to hebrew in certain ways. You guys know alot more about punic than i do for sure and if i like others mistook the punic mod for hebrew its just due to our own ignorance of punic, and possibly also it's similarities with hebrew nuff said.
I only took exception to certain statements about the origin of Hebrew itself that were made in this thread.
but i will try to be more diplomatic in the future :)
Whats the difference between the phoenicians and the carthaginians? is it the same nation that just changed their name?
and at bar kochva:
I'm no scholar, haven't even graduated high school yet but it does seem logical that biblical hebrew and the phoenician language would be similar. The bible isn't the most accurate history book in existence but as far as I recall from it, the phoenicians were already in kna'an when the jews came. It is also pretty safe to assume that the bible was written way after they initially arrived. given the fact that they lived alongside with them for quite some time until the bible was actually written, it does seem logical that they would be affected by them and hebrew would become far more similar to the phoenician language.
I also do not see the point in all that dividing to modern hebrew and biblical hebrew. Any native tongue modern hebrew speaker should have no problem understanding biblical hebrew. modern hebrew is heavily based on biblical hebrew, and again I just dont see the reason to differentiate them and say something like punic relates to ancient hebrew not modern.
Whats the difference between the phoenicians and the carthaginians? is it the same nation that just changed their name?
Carthaginians were originally Phoenician colonists, who then became more powerful than their mother city.
Tellos Athenaios
08-27-2008, 23:10
I also do not see the point in all that dividing to modern hebrew and biblical hebrew. Any native tongue modern hebrew speaker should have no problem understanding biblical hebrew. modern hebrew is heavily based on biblical hebrew, and again I just dont see the reason to differentiate them and say something like punic relates to ancient hebrew not modern.
Well... modern Greek is surprisingly similar to ancient versions if Attic or Ionic are anything to go by... Yet to 'the' ancient Greek, his modern cousin will most certainly be talking in a most Barbaric tongue. I think, with the influence of Yiddish (influenced by German & Slavic languages, for crying out loud) and similar dialects; 'the' ancient Jew would've been flabbergasted by the sheer gibberish-ness of modern Hebrew.
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-27-2008, 23:45
@ Amir
Im going to say what im going to say about this but i really really really dont want to get into any other tangents in this thread.
"it does seem logical that biblical hebrew and the phoenician language would be similar."
Yep just like hebrew and aramaic and arabic and any of those languages there.
"The bible isn't the most accurate history book in existence"
well that's what most people used to think. Im not going to debate this with anyone because it starts carrying theological bias in both directions but, to my knowledge any of the non miraculous stuff found in the Old Testament has largely been backed up by archeology, alot of which has happened in the last 50 years. So... it isnt the most accurate history book in existence but it's probably the most accurate history book ever produced by antiquity by far.
"It is also pretty safe to assume that the bible was written way after they initially arrived."
says who? that old theory is breaking down also.
"given the fact that they lived alongside with them for quite some time"
actually they either exterminated or enslaved them whenever possible so...
"it does seem logical that they would be affected by them and hebrew would become far more similar to the phoenician language."
...i dont know how logical that is.
I know that this is nittpicky of me and therefore im not gonna pick at the second part of your post, nor do i care to being as i've gotten my original point across in the previous few posts ive had. Truth is i shouldn't have bothered responding here anyways as this is totally way off the topic that i had wanted to get involved in.
Im pretty sure im right about this, and im pretty sure this is gonna turn into a whole other sub-argument with other people and im not interested in doing that, so i'll just walk away from this and let you think what you want, but i'd advise you to look into the matter further in a way that allows for the reckoning of evidence on both sides of the issue, so that maybe you can form a few valid premises to start from and then employ unbiased logic to the evidence you will find, and hopefully you'll come to the truth of the matter and then teach all of us.
Moreover, I advise that Carthage must be destroyed.
So... it isnt the most accurate history book in existence but it's probably the most accurate history book ever produced by antiquity by far.
Histories, Polybios. To name one.
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-28-2008, 03:21
Hax i have an idea as to what you are saying, but that requires alot of guesswork on my part.
Im assuming you mean to say "Histories, written by polybios is a more historically accurate work than the bible, and it is from antiquity as well..."
Is that correct?
Operating under that assumption, i'll say: huh?
More accurate by which criteria? Is this simply greco-roman bias, biblical skeptism, a judgement call based on a higher level of detail, judgement call based on more complete archaeological corroboration, all of the above, none of the above, some of the above, some of the above plus more...?
like i said i dont want to debate that point because of pro-theological bias, anti-theological bias, antisemitism, ethnocentrism, etc etc etc.
why cant you just let my little comment slide? Look if you really want to fight about this, then define which criteria you are using to make that judgement.
Im basing my statement on the mountain of corroborative evidence to support the biblical account of places and events, which spanned close to 800 years, predated any western attempts at an organized history by far (assuming that herodotus is indeed the "father of history"), etc.
Im not familiar with Polybius' work so i cant speak at that, but im pretty sure you arent familiar with the bible so we are even :p.
i really didnt want to have to defend that statement made to amir, i just felt he wasnt paying the bible the proper homage for a historical work of its stature.
In closing ill say two things:
1. Polybius work came hundreds upon hundreds of years after the bible, it was written by one man covering a span of 60 years, it's not even in the same category, by making your comment you are trying to say that an automobile is better than a CPU, they are both machines but they are hardly comparable in form or function to make a comparison. You want to compare the bible to another history of antiquity stack it up against greek mythology, or the legends surrounding the founding of rome, or the gilgamesh epic, and then you are making comparisons in the same arena.
2. Moreover, I advise that Carthage must be destroyed.
why cant you just let my little comment slide? Look if you really want to fight about this, then define which criteria you are using to make that judgement.
I think you're the one that reeaaaally wants to fight about this... :thinking:
I have this -weird perhaps :dizzy2:- way of visualizing posts in a forum , I actually "imagine" the other people's voices... and I imagine yours as one from a very angry man :no:
a completely inoffensive name
08-28-2008, 04:12
For a guy with only 8 posts, you have made a bigger impact then I would have expected.
@ Amir
Im going to say what im going to say about this but i really really really dont want to get into any other tangents in this thread.
"it does seem logical that biblical hebrew and the phoenician language would be similar."
Yep just like hebrew and aramaic and arabic and any of those languages there.
"The bible isn't the most accurate history book in existence"
well that's what most people used to think. Im not going to debate this with anyone because it starts carrying theological bias in both directions but, to my knowledge any of the non miraculous stuff found in the Old Testament has largely been backed up by archeology, alot of which has happened in the last 50 years. So... it isnt the most accurate history book in existence but it's probably the most accurate history book ever produced by antiquity by far.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant that while it is obvious not everything in the book is 100% true(world created in 7 days for example by our cool invisible guy...), it can still be a valid point of reference that is rather accurate about most other nonmiraculous things. So no need to convince me that is accurate :P
"It is also pretty safe to assume that the bible was written way after they initially arrived."
says who? that old theory is breaking down also.
The "tradition" is saying Melachim Alef was written by Yirmiyaho(630 BC)(I do not know the english name for him :O), at more or less the same time, other sources I've seen(and studied at school) said it was in around 560-600 BC, or later(after the exile). either way, quite some time after they arrived(supposedly around 1200 BC IIRC).
"given the fact that they lived alongside with them for quite some time"
actually they either exterminated or enslaved them whenever possible so...
"it does seem logical that they would be affected by them and hebrew would become far more similar to the phoenician language."
...i dont know how logical that is.
Well, if you agree that the bible does not invent nonmiraculous events, then Melchim Alef (Kings A) Chapter 5 states that there was some form of trade between the israelites and the phoenician king of the city Tyre(In order to build the first Bet Hamikdash(The Temple) Hiram the first sent quality woods and gold and in return Solomon sent wheat and oil yearly).
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-28-2008, 16:06
@LZ3
not really
@Mike
yeah well, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about :beam:
@ Amir
misunderstood where you were coming from. I agree with what you said but i dont know how pervasive that linguistic influence would have been. But yeah ok, i'm in.
@LZ3
not really
@Mike
yeah well, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about :beam:
@ Amir
misunderstood where you were coming from. I agree with what you said but i dont know how pervasive that linguistic influence would have been. But yeah ok, i'm in.
Polybios is known for using critique when using sources in comparison with other writers from the age (<=>Livius lol). If there's one history writer from the Ancient period that uses the best methods (viewed from the modern historic method) it probably was Polybios
The bible is an imporatant source, but not an acient historical work. It is based on oral traditions and nothing written in the bible has been due to any critique to check for it's accuracy. The only thing that happened was the selection of 4 gospels (New testament). But this was as much based on what they wanted Christianity to represent, political reasons,... as on trying to show the truth. Wether or not you are a christian. One cannot claim the bible has a proper method behind it. While Polybios for one had.
Hax i have an idea as to what you are saying, but that requires alot of guesswork on my part.
Im assuming you mean to say "Histories, written by polybios is a more historically accurate work than the bible, and it is from antiquity as well..."
Is that correct?
Operating under that assumption, i'll say: huh?
More accurate by which criteria? Is this simply greco-roman bias, biblical skeptism, a judgement call based on a higher level of detail, judgement call based on more complete archaeological corroboration, all of the above, none of the above, some of the above, some of the above plus more...?
like i said i dont want to debate that point because of pro-theological bias, anti-theological bias, antisemitism, ethnocentrism, etc etc etc.
why cant you just let my little comment slide? Look if you really want to fight about this, then define which criteria you are using to make that judgement.
Im basing my statement on the mountain of corroborative evidence to support the biblical account of places and events, which spanned close to 800 years, predated any western attempts at an organized history by far (assuming that herodotus is indeed the "father of history"), etc.
Im not familiar with Polybius' work so i cant speak at that, but im pretty sure you arent familiar with the bible so we are even :p.
i really didnt want to have to defend that statement made to amir, i just felt he wasnt paying the bible the proper homage for a historical work of its stature.
In closing ill say two things:
1. Polybius work came hundreds upon hundreds of years after the bible, it was written by one man covering a span of 60 years, it's not even in the same category, by making your comment you are trying to say that an automobile is better than a CPU, they are both machines but they are hardly comparable in form or function to make a comparison. You want to compare the bible to another history of antiquity stack it up against greek mythology, or the legends surrounding the founding of rome, or the gilgamesh epic, and then you are making comparisons in the same arena.
2. Moreover, I advise that Carthage must be destroyed.
Is it me, or does it seems that for a Law Student, you seem pretty retarded (As in unable to make simple conclusions based on common sense). Let's see... the Bible is for all purposes, a religious book. As such, it contains thousands of elements which are false, for all we know. (Anything affected by spiritual or godly labour), just by that line, it loses much of it's credibility (Unless you truly believe that what happened in real history was that god split apart the waters of the Red Sea, and Moses fled Egypt through there). As to Polybios, he was an historian. It was his job to write history, and writting history means writting real history (Otherwise it would be a fantasy book). Now we don't really need much archaeological evidence on what he writes (Which there is, unless there would be a hiatus of 60 years in Roman history, which there isn't.), since as we know, the Romans themselves kept a great many records of what they did. And they together with the archaeological evidence corroborate most of Polybius works.
I also find it funny (I don't know, I seem to think, exceptions apart, the vast majority of americans says the dumbest of things.) And since I found so amusing your phrase "it's probably the most accurate history book ever produced by antiquity by far.", I ask how many books or works have you read which date from ancient history? And what are your criteria by which you nominate the Bible "the most accurate history book ever produced by antiquity"? Is it the publicity the Bible has that when pitted against other obscure (Alas! They have not created major religions!) Greek/Roman historical works makes you believe the Bible is actually more accurate? I am quite curious, since all I've seen until now is a parade of babbling flames
OK, you got me Genesis isn't completely compatible with... well.. anything...
Now seriously, the bible is definitely far from a 100% accurate and objective book, yet you can't just say its all bullshit. First of all it's a collection of many books written at different times by different writers with many different characteristics.
The Melachim (Kings) books have in many occasions 2 reasons for everything it say. The first is "omg god is kewl and he does everything" and then there is a more or less standard explanation of what really(according to the writer) happened. Many Assyrian tablets were found on archeological excavations that fit very well with what said in these books. I'm too lazy to write a more through post, but in my school study book, on the chapter about Melachim, there are quotes of Assyrian or other tablets found that support and confirm what said in nearly every second chapter(that doesn't talk about a miracle or something of sort). So no, it is not a history book, and when numbering armies exaggerations are common, and yes Hebrew kings are probably displayed in it more powerful than they actually were, yet you cannot deny that the majority of events described in it(again, nonmiraculous events) have archeological findings supporting it.
Again I'm talking only about the Melachim books(though it is true to much of the Nevi'im(prophets) part of the bible).
Also I find it funny that I'm here sort of defending the bible... Usually I end up on the other side :P
that's it-nobody attacks Hax, and gets away with it:
@bar khoba: get over it. and Hax referred to Polybios as being the most reliable historian around. he never said polybios discussed the bible-for all we know, he gave it about as much attention as he'd give an ant-none. his history was also about his timeperiod, not the biblical era.
and: religion=/= science, and science=/=religion. just because you happen to believe in the torah as a matter of faith, does not make it an actual historical book, no more so than my faith as a muslim makes a qur'an an actual historical book. i'm not saying its all myth (its based on history afterall), but these books were not intended to lecture on history, only to show the grandure of God. 'nuff said. if you don't get me by now, I suggest you stop arguing with the EB team...
also, If you must know a conclusive answer: yes, phoenician really is supposed to sound like Hebrew, and visca versa. the main differeces are(you don't have to read this, I added it to enlighten..EB may know more:
1-hebrew(no not modern hebrew) retains the p- sound; phoenician, like arabic, shifted to an f by the EB timeframe. e.g shufet.. if an ancient hebrew read the phoenician shufet (ruling body), he'd say: shopet...
1-long a in proto semetic=> long o in hebrew, but long u in punic. shufet/ shopet, rus/ros (e.g. russadir, morocco). stressed a in proto semetic changed to a short o in punic, a wierd looking a in hebrew (blame IPA-rendered it an wierd a)
2-somewhat differing vocab. (duh?)
yeah, I'll confess, I used the same sources EB did(minus correspondance with khramallov), plus i looked into the way the romani rendered punic words(hebrew, latin, and phoenician had the same number of vowels apparently, and the same types of vowels-if you can get the hebrew cognate, consonents are easy). you can shoot me...
if they happen to have the same vocabulary, that's because they are of the same exact part of the semetic family branch; the north westrn semetic section, hebraic (or canaanite) sub-branch of that. the diff. between them is roughly the same as that between a kuwaiti's arabic, and moroccan (I could use maltese, but the vocab is 60 non-semetic). neither can really understand the other, and would require a translator...I'm referring to the spoken language, not the written.
3-do not think that modern hebrew can be used to accuratly assese another language of the semetic branch; in the attempt to revive it, several non semetic sounds were inrtroduced, to ease pronunciation to a yiddish/slavic audience, and many semetic ones were dropped, e.g, the 3ayn (IIRC, its like a glottal stop in modern hebrew), the sad (emphatic s-now rendered ts), the ta'(emphatic t-god knows what the heck happened to it), and the ha' (merged into kha'). ha' refers no to the h- sound, but to a pharyngeal sound. the fact that they (the letter representing those sounds)are even used in the bible proves that the modern pronunciation, lexicon, and some parts of grammar is nothing like trhat of ancient hebrew; only the vocabulary, morphology, and general syntax are intact. and don't get me started on v...you know modern hebrew is the only semetic tongue conclusively shown to have a v- sound, in native form? I looked all over, and only found it to have a v- sound
here is the IPA info (its off wikipedia, but, I can back it up at a moment's notice-or, since you speak it, you can see for yourself):
The pairs /b, v/, /k, x/ and /p, f/ have historically been allophonic. In Modern Hebrew, however, all six sounds are phonemic, due to mergers involving formerly distinct sounds (/v/ merging with /w/, /k/ merging with /q/, /x/ merging with /ħ/), loss of consonant gemination (which formerly distinguished the stop members of the pairs from the fricatives when intervocalic), and the introduction of syllable-initial /f/ through foreign borrowings....
if you don't get me by now, I suggest you stop arguing with the EB team...
He stopped.
Arcani_Bar_Kochba
08-28-2008, 22:22
Ok where do i begin?
Lets see ill start with the loudest keyboard and smallest brain -
@Jolt
"Is it me, or does it seems that for a Law Student, you seem pretty retarded (As in unable to make simple conclusions based on common sense)."
Must be you. At least i'm literate... Let me explain:
"Let's see... the Bible is for all purposes, a religious book. As such, it contains thousands of elements which are false, for all we know. (Anything affected by spiritual or godly labour)"
First of all i pretty clearly stated that anything non-miraculous in the bible has tons of archaeological evidence supporting it. Let me repeat that slowly for you I S t a t e d t h a t a n y t h i n g non miraculous has evidence... Let me supply a link to help you for the future http://hooked-on-phonics.com
"just by that line, it loses much of it's credibility"
ok einstein how the hell is that logical? just by something being religious it automatically loses credibility? Ok, sounds like a personal belief to me next time keep your personal or religious beliefs to yourself. I never said anything with any religious connotation to it, i just said that the bible is pretty historically accurate. Uh oh i better help Jolt out again a n y t h i n g non miraculous. Does that help Dolt? err...oops i mean Jolt. or are you still confused? You know i can help tutor you in english if you need.
"As to Polybios, he was an historian. It was his job to write history, and writting history means writting real history"
:dizzy2:'Duh... der... duh... historian means that you write down history.' FFS thanks for that, i'm sure we have all been enlightened. Did you just learn that at job fair in Middle School kiddo? :laugh4: You must ride the short bus to school, how cute.
"And they together with the archaeological evidence corroborate most of Polybius works."
Fantastic. Now i want you to try really really hard... to go back and read my last post. I know its tough, but try for me... can you do that for me? I bet you can, thats the spirit. I never said Polybius Isnt accurate. I just said its a very different animal form the bible in scope and form etc. Ive got no beef with greco-roman histories at all, at least none that im gonna bother fighting over. So i want to read my last post untill you think you might be getting it, then pm me, and ill walk you through it. See? everyone wins!
"I also find it funny...the vast majority of americans says the dumbest of things."
God... i mean seriously, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
"And what are your criteria by which you nominate the Bible "the most accurate history book ever produced by antiquity"?"
Finally a glimmer of intelligence! Good question. I'll expound upon that over pm or something else as this thread has gotten pretty ridiculous already.
"Is it the publicity the Bible has that when pitted against other obscure (Alas! They have not created major religions!) Greek/Roman historical works makes you believe the Bible is actually more accurate?"
As for publicity: no Idiot. It's the mountain of evidence corroborating dates places and events an... oh my God why am i bothering??? do a f-ing google search. But follow tis link first so you can get some benefit from it: http://hooked-on-phonics.com
"I am quite curious, since all I've seen until now is a parade of babbling flames"
Get your eyes checked, follow this link http://hooked-on-phonics.com, and then go kill yourself.
@ Ibrahim
"@bar khoba: get over it. and Hax referred to Polybios as being the most reliable historian around. he never said polybios discussed the bible-for all we know."
Get over what? Now i might be wrong but i thought Hax was throwing up polybius as a challenge to what Hax thought was my claim that the bible is THE MOST UBER ACCURATE WUNDERBAR LIBER OF ANTIQUITY. If I was wrong about Hax's motivations then woopsy daisy sorry everyone. If i was right i just let him know that i think he was missing my point by my statement, and that in any event the two cant be compared. But you like Dolt who i just dealt with seem to be completely unable to comprehend simple english... so i posted a link above (along with some advice) that may help you.
"religion=/= science, and science=/=religion."
Since when does religion have anything to do with this?
"just because you happen to believe in the torah as a matter of faith"
:thumbsdown: Epic Fail.
Another pathetic unwarranted assumption of bias from the forum trolls. Just because you disagree with me but cant cope with my arguments dont try to discredit me like this. Disgusting.
"no more so than my faith as a muslim makes a qur'an an actual historical book"
For The Love of God no one give him my address, he'll put a Fatwa on me.
"only to show the grandure of God. 'nuff said."
Nuff said? you've already said way to goddamn much. I never said anything about religion you muppet. Why do you bother? you should be in school learning how to read, not biting at my ankles on an EB forum.
"also, If you must know a conclusive answer: yes, phoenician really is supposed to sound like Hebrew, and visca versa."
If i must know a conclusive answer? I wasnt asking for a conclusive answer you twit...have you been following this thread at all? Are you illiterate, stupid, lazy, or all of the above? Im not going to repeat my original entry point into this thread here. Get you lazy ass off the porno sites and click backwards through these last 20 posts or so and see for yourself what my "conclusive answer" was supposed to be. Hell, if you are still having problems figuring it out ask someone else here, who has more patience for stupidity than i do, to help you figure that out.
I gave Dolt a three part plan for success at the end of my section dealing with him. I really think you can benefit from it as well. Especialy the third part... Oh wait im dealing with a babbling simpleton here, let me spell it out for you: "Go Kill Yourself"
See? now everyone wins! :yes:
Stop threatening people. That is not cool.
Foot, can we please close this thread by now? I mean, we could have had a nice discussion concerning the linguistical relations between Punic and Hebrew, but some people tend to overreact a bit.
Closed. Nothing fun is happening here and telling someone to kill themselves, even in jest, is slightly not alright.
Foot
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.