Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: CZARCAR on 18/01/2010 15:42:30
-
college freshman eng. teacher almost 40 yrs. ago said the latest,at that time, revised pronunciation of ancient script deemed that what was thought to be pronounced as yahweh was in fact pronounced "pipi"! this pronounciation was never promoted due to obvious factors. slow mental brewing thru the years makes me wonder if=
pipi, papa,pope,pastor,priest,please,potato...
mama,mammary, milk, milky way,amen, om,womb, MAN...
devil,demon,damn,dim,dope,dumb,dink,dizzy...
no & the "n" sound also carries a phonetic implication with some languages
have some phonetic relationships per the evolution of humans?
-
So, what exactly is your "theory"?
-
that when humans went from grunting into developing language the sounds of the words reflected the meaning. wish i knew more languages to compare.
m is soothing sound
p is abrupt sound
d is smooth & abrupt
-
Ah! OK - Thanks.
-
pipi,papa & how many religions refer to god as "father"?
-
If we were able to establish that some word was once pronounced like some other word what, exactly, would we have achieved?
-
If we were able to establish that some word was once pronounced like some other word what, exactly, would we have achieved?
that primal man was primitive & the idea of god as a father might have a more logical correlation to the word pipi than yaweh which i questioned after reading EXODUS 21/20 & 21/21 [KING JAMES BIBLE]
-
Just a thought; I suspect our ancestors had a name for "father" before they had a name for "God" so, if one old word for God looks like lots of words for father it's no great shock.
It certainly tells us nothing about God and it tells us very little about language.
-
Just a thought; I suspect our ancestors had a name for "father" before they had a name for "God" so, if one old word for God looks like lots of words for father it's no great shock.
It certainly tells us nothing about God and it tells us very little about language.
the assertive negation of a proposition is much like the affirmation of a proposition,eh?= try to play the game...some & why bother cap the G?
-
As late as the 4th century C.C Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate , says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: "And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton, in certain Greek volumes, even to this day expressed in ancient letters." In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E, Jerome states: " The ninth [name of God] is the tetragrammaton, which they considered [anekphoneton], that is , unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, vau, He. Certain IGNORANT ones , because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read...[ Greek letters corresponding to the roman letters PIPI." Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo. 1966, p.47, ftn. 4.
Thus the origin of the Roman word: PIPI assimilated to "equate" to the pronunciation of the divine tetragrammaton...is erroneous. Tying these Roman characters to the Hebrew Characters for the divine name ( tetra-4; gramma-letters= YHWWH) represents unsubstantiated presumption on the part of the "ignorant ones".
However it is interesting that the word "anekphoneton"( refer to above usage) has within it the word "phoneto"...as in the word "PHONET(ics). Though asserting that PIPI is related to the Hebrew name for God is ludicrous....the relevance of Phonetics within language is superiorly relevant.