No, Old Welsh Is Not Ancient Egyptian.
The Welsh Viking | 9.VI.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjNWpHFqD0
1:04 I think a majority of cases, what you speak of is at most accessory.
They often have religious or ideological backgrounds leading them to lower evaluation of x, y, z in mainstream academia, and to higher estimate of w, t, s outside it.
I can sympathise with lots of guys who simply go to old academia (like, except when it's anti-Catholic), and my suspicion is someone found it in pre-Rosetta-stone speculations on hieroglyphs, possibly by a mainstream bigwig like Newton (who has been termed "the last Sumerian") or possibly by some old Rosicrucian or Welsh Bard or Welsh Druid.
If this is the case, showing deference about him being butthurt is at worst even actually disrespectful. He might have appreciated it more if you had simply made fun of the excruciating errors.
5:02 I doubt that Gwyddel is a real cognate of gwydd / sign.
More like it is a Welsh pronunciation of Goidel = Gael.
8:02 What do you think of this alternate theory, Welsh has certain traits because of Afro-Asiatic languages (dito for Irish)? Here are my two-three go-tos right off the bat:
1) Charles came is "Daeth Charles" (verbal sentences in Afro-Asiatic start with the verb)
2) Charles is old is "Charles yn hen" (nominal sentences in Afro-Asiatic start with the noun that's subject and end in the noun or adjective which is predicate)
3) The chair is beneath me is "Mae'r gadair amdanaf" (Afro-Asiatic not only conjugates verbs, but also prepositions).
And one Afro-Asiatic language was spoken in Wales, Cornwall, possibly Kent in very early Celtic times, since Phoenicians went there to trade tin.
I am sorry if the more correct meaning of in that case a nonsense-phrase "mae'r gadair amdanaf" is "the chair is about me" ... unless "about" is taken as "around" ...
I used google translate, wanted a phrase with a preposition ruling a personal pronoun, and thought that "under me" in such a simple setting would not imply any phraseological stuff.
Seems I was wrong.
Google translate Welsh to English is "The chair is about me" ...
17:40 You are fairly well describing the anti-Catholic ultra-old scholarship that puts me out of sympathy with "old scholarship" until I see sth better, like St. Thomas Aquinas ...
If you want a real anger moment, take a look at Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, and imagine that he was writing that while Cuneiform was just being deciphered, so he had only guess work to go on when it came to the Old Babylonian religion, which he considered matched Classic Roman Paganism fairly well, but Roman Catholicism even better.
"and I know that this 19:55 is being made up because the people 19:57 making it up have been rejected in some 19:59 way they feel bad because no one accepts 20:01 their theories"
Circulus in causando, et vitiosus.
Munchausen's head rose because he pulled the pony-tail on the whig, the hand rose because the body rose, the body rose because the head rose ...
So, it falls apart immediately, "he's rejected because he theorises, and he theorises because he is rejected" is a scenario as impossible as Munchhausen in that swamp (and dragging the horse up along with that vicious circle).
You think it is dangerous for Wales (which has 3,131,640 inhabitants, whereof 538,300 speak Welsh) to be misrepresented by one bad writer. But it can be totally devastating for one "bad" writer to be misrepresented the way you misrepresent this guy.
Especially if there is teamwork behind this misrepresentation, and that teamwork pretends to "protect" him from "making a fool of himself" ...
Not the case with the guy you talk of though. He is very obviously rooted in the kind of wild speculations rich English scholarship up to 1680, as you mentioned.
And he obviously rejects newer scholarship in a matter where he shouldn't. Because, the newer scholarship of Egyptology seems to have (on this level) only a good agenda, namely to accurately translate Egyptian papyri and stone inscriptions. There are other areas, where newer scholarship is less good, for instance touting the belief that La Ferrassie 2 lived 68 000 years ago or 61 000 years before God created Heaven and Earth.
There is nothing unscholarly in rejecting that consensus by observing that pre-Flood atmospheric levels of C-14 can have been very low.
There is nothing in it that falls apart if I consult modern works, I do that pretty much all the time. But I find the consensus I breathe in George Leo Haydock, the Catholic priest who made the Catholic reply to the Scofield Bible more than a century before Cyrus Scofield did his one.
Last comment he gave on Genesis 3 being:
// Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock) //
1811—1814 is after 1680, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment