The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: New Alphabet Theory  (Read 17450 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
New Alphabet Theory
« Reply #25 on: 12/11/2010 07:06:56 »
"and their writing system incorporates more ordinal and formal convergences with the lunar cycle than coincidence admits"
8 out of, say, 26 is not more than coincidence admits- I got 9 out of 9.
Coincidence doesn't enter into it if you are looking hard enough.
What I'm looking for is some evidence that, for example, the letter O is the moon rather than the sun, a face, or just a circle.
 

Offline finicky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
New Alphabet Theory
« Reply #26 on: 12/11/2010 17:39:11 »
BC: You not only obscure the fact that these convergences fall in the same places in both sequences, but that the lunar phases on which the eight letters are drawn, are also the only ones in the lunation identifiable on sight. Three points of convergence: formal, ordinal and spectral.

The cultures identified with phonetic script were demonstrably preoccupied with the moon, as evidenced by their myths, texts, rites and calendars (not to mention heritage). It would not only have been natural for them to enshrine the focal phases in symbols, but likely.

The seven focal lunar spectres (and two focal lunar aspects), moreover, were further singled out in these cultures, as divinities.

In some hazy realm far away, perhaps, this might wash as coincidence. But the texts generated by these cultures consistently substantiate the inference, conceptually and mathematically.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
New Alphabet Theory
« Reply #27 on: 12/11/2010 18:14:02 »
"and their writing system incorporates more ordinal and formal convergences with the lunar cycle than coincidence admits"
8 out of, say, 26 is not more than coincidence admits- I got 9 out of 9.
Coincidence doesn't enter into it if you are looking hard enough.
What I'm looking for is some evidence that, for example, the letter O is the moon rather than the sun, a face, or just a circle.


Or just the shape of the mouth when using the letter.... "O"

Sorry, finiky, but your just not convincing me at all, especially since you still chose to ignore writing in forms other than our alphabet.


Coptic

 דצמבר
Hebrew

حمولة نفايات
Arabic

がらくたの積載量
Japanese
 

Offline finicky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
New Alphabet Theory
« Reply #28 on: 12/11/2010 20:09:38 »
Don, my thesis is entirely about the origin of the Alphabet, which is a phonetic writing system. You keep bringing up earlier systems of writing which have nothing to do with the Alphabet or my hypothesis. The Pictographic, Ideographic and Syllabic writing systems function on different principles.

The Alphabet is distinct. It is thought to have developed sometime during the second millennium BC, at a time when the other writing systems were yet in use. Versions of these other systems endure to this day. But my work is expressly concerned with the origin of the Alphabet.

In order to better assess the validity of a hypothesis, would it not be beneficial to know a little something about the subject first!
 

Offline finicky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
New Alphabet Theory
« Reply #29 on: 13/11/2010 19:27:55 »
Apologies for being so snappy, Don. No excuse, but I have the worst flu in history. Your point about later alphabet systems is a legitimate one and, under better circumstances, I might have taken the time to address the examples fairly.

The Hebrew alphabet is said to have developed in the third century BC, from an Aramaic antecedent (which in turn derived from the proto-Semitic script identified with the earliest alphabetic inscriptions).

The Coptic alphabet developed from the Greek alphabet in the second century AD, with added characters for sounds peculiar to Egyptian phonology.

The Arabic alphabet appeared early in the sixth century AD, having developed arguably from the Nabataean (Aramaic) script of the second century AD.

And the Japanese 'alphabets' which first came into use in the seventh century AD, are in essence, syllabaries (or as some maintain, "syllabic alphabets").

These, and other derivative scripts, have no bearing on the development of the original Alphabet, which is conjectured to have arisen early in the second millennium BC (at least 1500 years before the earliest example cited).

Although I may employ certain English letters (for clarity) in demonstrating my hypothesis, it is with the correlative characters of the original Alphabet, in mind.

For comparison see the reference charts on pages 10 and 58 at newbielink:http://ia700109.us.archive.org/21/items/InstructionsForRestoringTheAncientWisdom/primer.pdf [nonactive] .
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

New Alphabet Theory
« Reply #29 on: 13/11/2010 19:27:55 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length