IceAgeCivilizations: Define "demi-Gods"? Does divine ancestry make one a demi-God? Or does only super powers? Whereas I will admit, for instance, that it was held that Aeneas was related to Aphrodite/Venus, I would not call him a demi-God because he lacks the power usually ascribed to such mythic heroes as Hercules and the like. But really: No linguistic, genetic, or archaeological evidence supports the "sons of Noah" nonsense. It's folk genetics. It is also curious that the Eastern most peoples, unknown to the Jews, have none of these ancestors, including the Americans, the Polynesians, the Aboriginees, et cetera, et cetera. And the constraints of the timeline are based on the experts of archaeology, linguistics, genetics, and other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis
Ham: Cham, the "Sea Dragon" of the Montagnards of Chambodja, Hampi, the megalithic town of southern India, and the Gulf of Chambay of northwest India, as well as Khem (Khemit/Egypt/Chemistry), and perhaps, Cameroon. Japheth: Seskef and Iafeth in several ancient European kings lists, Pra-japati (son of Manu in India), Iapetos (Greek demigod patriarch). Cush (son of Ham): Hindu Kush, Kashmir, Kish (Mesopotamia), Kush (south of Egypt). Shem seems to have not been much on naming unless, shaman, shamballa, Damascus (Dimachq al shem), but not much on him. The other names in Genesis 10 come up often in ancient people groups' ancient histories, even in my Dartmouth ancient Greece textbook, it speaks of the ancient Greek ancestor Javan (Iawan, Ionian), who just happens to have been a son of Japheth.
Hey kmguru, where do you think the ancient Hindus got the idea to have their yugas of time to be multiples of 432,000 years, why the 432?
IceAgeCivilizations: The etymology you present is laughable. note also the spatial distance between the places you purpose in many instances, as well as the fact that the etymology and the figures you speak of just do not have any historic connection whatsoever. Please, read a linguistic book and get back to us. Also, look at the latest genetic maps we have devised. kmguru: There is no Dravidian influence in any language outside of India, Kmguru. None. At all. Finno-Ugric in Sanskrit, though. And that could only come from modern day Europe.
No historical connection? Ahahahaha. And the spatial distance, so what's the problem, do you think they couldn't sail the seas?
IceAgeCivilizations: A handful of people after Noah's ark able to go thousands of miles and establish disparate peoples and kingdoms, with radically different languages, cultural origins, myths, et cetera? Not likely.
"Radically different languages?" The top of the thread notes that all languages can be traced back to perhaps one initial common language, and "radically different cultural origins?" Read their histories, they have much in common, and one great "myth" that they all have in common is the ancestral knowledge of the Global Deluge.
This article is behind the information curve. The results of the massively parallel computing analysis only made it into the popular press about a year ago. Before that there was only speculation that Japanese and Korean are in the Mongolian family and that it is related to Finno-Ugric-Ural-Altaic. The Eurasiatic family had not been hypothesized and the number of language families was large. It was accepted as a limitation of linguistic science that it is impossible to trace origins back beyond about four thousand years, because it was thought that a complete turnover of vocabulary and phonetics invariably occurred during that time. It took contemporary computers to penetrate that barrier.
By 2500BCE the Greek tribes were arriving in Europe, although they were still a Stone Age people with no gleam of civilization in their eye. The Celtic tribes were already well established and had displaced most of the non-Indo-European societies. The arrival of the Celts in Europe has to be no later than 3000BCE. The precise origin of the Romans is a bit murky; linguistic analysis says they were closely related to the Celts and may have made the migration in their company, and even suggests that they were in fact a Celtic tribe.
IceAgeCivilizations: Actually, the Global Deluge is -not- global knowledge. Most peoples do not have a conception of a global flood, or if there were floods, it is clearly simply a reference to local flood phenomena, which happens virtually everywhere there is a river valley (where most human settlements began). You will also note that the Indo-European languages, Semitic languages, Chinese languages, Afro-Asiatic Languages, Bantu languages, Cherokee, Navajo, Mayan, Aboriginee....et cetera, have -nothing- to do with one another. They have been separated for at least 200,000 years in some cases - if ever connected meaningfully at all.
"Nothing to do with each other," so the languages sprang up independent of each other, in those disparate parts of the world?
The majority of langauges do not have any meaningful, or any, connection at all outside their family groups.
So you're saying the languages from the various parts of the world came into being in those respective parts of the world, otherwise, the language groups would show interrelationship, right?
For the most part, language is an isolated phenomena. Again: Outside of the language groups themselves. You will note that most languages develop in isolation for the most part, also. This is why languages quickly split from the root language. I.E. English from Saxon-German, Italian from vulgar Latin. But yes, the Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic have barely any connections whatsoever, for instance. Indo-European and Navajo even less.
I don't get it. The guy is talking about linguistic family history. And he's talking as if the compilers of dictionaries and the like are ignorant of these facts. The compilers of dictionaries are linguistic experts themselves, who know more about the Indo-European proto-language than he does. The fact that the derivation of most words in dictionaries only extends as far back as the late first millennium CE, is pretty much for everyone's sanity. English did not exist in 800CE, so it evolved out of the languages that existed at that time: Old English (Anglo Saxon), Old German, Old High Norse, Norman French and Latin are amongst the influences. The fact that those languages themselves derived from a single prehistoric source is well known to the dictionary-makers, but doesn't help anybody in deducing how the words of English specifically, came to be. And the other thing is, people only generally make a song and dance about theories like this if they think them up themselves. Did this guy really believe he had independently deduced the existence of Indo-European?? (In which case, sure, I mourn for him, because nothing kills the spirit faster than discovering something unique for yourself, and then finding out that someone got there before you.) If not, then he's just an idiot, who for one thing is patronising his audience as if they're all dummies who know only what they read in dictionaries.
So if the languages appeared independent of each other, then why can etymologists trace all the languages back to one or two early ones? Clyde Winters has done some great work on the commonalities among ancient languages, as has Barry Fell, google some articles from these fellows, you'll see that the legends, navigation technologies (big ships and precession mapping of the Earth), and etymological commonalities, plainly indicate that the ancients were sailing and settling in disparate parts of the globe (see Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Hapgood). And don't forget, ancient pyramids all over the world.
IceAgeCivilizations: No etymologist can trace languages back to "one or two ancient languages". Indo-European goes back to Proto-Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic to Proto-Afro Asiatic, Chinese to Proto-Chinese, Japanese to proto-Japanese, Navajo to proto-Navajo.
You will also note that pyramids are the architecturally simplest buildings to make large. They are essentially raised mounds.
