-ey, a suffix of 'island', in A-S and Old Norse, would presumably mean the same in proto-English.
---
I've been trying to find explanations to the disparities between "Old English" and Middle English - without success.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Geb: The video does NOT mention any Spanish language influence on English; its only mentions gene influx from refugees south of the Ice Age.
Eventhough Spanish never existed 2,700 years ago, just the fact of having no written sources of a language doesn't deny its existence. http://proto-english.org/
writings should emerge rapidly if speech and the human brain is at hand
Only six riverine civilisations and Crete are presently known to have independently produced writing; the rest either got it from them (e.g. the Hebrews)
But since what you say must be true because of the scriptures, I guess that can only mean that those who never developed writing do not have a human brain. They're beasts.
Hebrew is an alphabetical writing which my research shows as the first alphabetical book. It is always described as one below the first, usually below Proto-Canaanite or Proto-Phonecian You have to post a reference of a hard copy proof of Greek being older, not as a marking in pottery but a credible array of writings at least near equal to the Hebrew - which you claim comes from the Greek. Well?
Sure. The beasts managed to dominate the Nobels in every category by a margin which cannot be cought up for eons more. You are posting half sentences.
(which is, like the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Chinese characters, a writing medium)
The genealogy of Western writing runs as follows:
Egyptian -> Proto-Sinaitic -> Proto-Canaanite/Phoenician (which spread to Greece and from there to the rest of Europe) -> Canaanite and Aramaic -> Hebrew
You're the one to claim that writing emerges rapidly if speech and the human brain are at hand. It turns out this is not the case, so either humans are beasts or your thesis is utterly false and ridiculous (which is, of course, the right answer).
Egyptian hieroglyphs were not simple substitution, but actually had an alphabet. Not pictographic, the supposed hieroglyphs form words when put together, they are not words in themselves, and there are vowels and such.
You should admit there is a clear absence of Greek alphabetical books when compared to the Hebrew.
What do the tweets say? ——————— So with Palestin[…]
You didn't watch the video I posted earlier which[…]
“Whenever the government provides opportunities […]