[Amanita]

More like 2000 years. In any case, toponyms and hydronyms are generally very old so that prospect would not really be problematic.

[geb]

-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.

[Amanita]

According to the wiki link you provided, -ey can also stand for 'enclosure' (field). Did you see that?

[IamJoseph]

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/

Yes I see that now, its the gene factor as opposed the language.

Still I wonder why genes determine language based on writings. I wonder which is more credible, that language origins is better determined from evidences 50-100K years and more of graduated language before writings emerged, or just a few centuries span between speech [language] and then writings.

I see the pivotal factor here negates the gradual speech development. If a gradual evolutionary factor enabled language, the notion of a slow elevation equates the human mind with other primates, making it non-distinctive and not unique; this in a sense contradicts the status quo - namely that human advancement speed is not a general premise relating to all life on the planet. The slow, 100K year span infers that one day all other life forms will develop as did humans; this ignores the factor that speech is indeed unique, to the ratio of 1 vs all other forms of communications which all life possesses, and that its imprints are not seen or cannot be proven as gradually advancing from millions of years. This position is clear despite that humans are relatively new on the planet and that other life forms had the advantage of time - which evolution critically depends on. While communication is common to all life stretching millions of years, the trace imprints of speech is not seen in that vast duration.

The evidence says speech emerged suddenly and in already advanced state, and that writings came shortly thereafter. Consider that a lion's roar [its own communication] did not come about gradually but in simultanious alignment with a lion's emergence on this planet. This is credible: aside from all speech related imprints being of recent vintage, writings should emerge rapidly if speech and the human brain is at hand, requiring only a short duration as opposed millions of years. We see this all around when a new discovery is made [such as electricity], then a host of surrounding elevations also emerge without the vast time period. I cannot see speech as being millions or even 100K years old - I have no reason to accept this based on any trace imprints, while I can see that english and all writings would have quickly emerged once language and the unique human brain are at hand.

[Suska]

your assuming
1) that writing would emerged with speech
2) because writings would remain
?

[IamJoseph]

No, I'm predicting that writings appeared SOON after speech.

[Suska]

How soon? And you base this on the fact that we don't have evidence of it?

[IamJoseph]

Less than 2000 years.

Re evidences, I don't accept the given factors as evidences, and there are no confirmable or verifiable ones in any case. What is regarded as evidences are highly conjured and manipulated. I stated before, there is no credibility without a historically identifiable name, king, monument, war or relic with surrounding evidential imprints, population ratios and mental prowess threads - all of which are not there. Otherwise I would have no basis to question this important issue for humanity. I reject cave markings, group burials, knife like stones, manipulated insignias of agriculture, etc as evidences.

[Suska]

Rejected evidence doesn't produce your hypothesis, it produces no hypothesis.

[IamJoseph]

Why do you say that, my position does not lack names, monuments, kings etc - which cannot be denied as speech resultant. The antithesis of my position is critically hinged on the dating in Genesis of the oldest name being ADAM, namely 5770 years old. While we cannot prove Adam, we cannot disprove it with an older name: why is that? All reasons here become less than satisfactory. Point is, the 5770 figure cannot be just a weird co-incidence; almost everything associated with speech endowed humans eerily centres on it, even to the day and year, taking it away from theology and myth altogether, and challenging us scientifically to negate it. We have not been able to - which is shocking but correct.

[Suska]

Dating in the Old Testament is to say the least sketchy. If you believe any of it do you also believe Noah lived to be 300? How can you say that is a sure thing and also that radiocarbon dating is all lies?

[Amanita]

writings should emerge rapidly if speech and the human brain is at hand

All humans speak but very few of them have actually developed writing. 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) or never got it at all.

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.

[IamJoseph]

I don't want to discuss theology, that is not my thing. However, the marking of the oldest name, followed by pages of names in a geneology, all scientifically acknowledged as credible of its period, cannot be swept aside merely by calling it a myth. Likewise, the Noah texts, on careful reading, specifies it relates only to Noah and his possessions concerning the arc, making this a ctredible story of floods in that region. This story also contains the first record of Mount Ararat in its exact location, and that is not myth.

One can use a theology if posited in a scientific, emperical mode; so you have to also negate it on emperical modes, not just use the myth word. Genesis, aside from the first record the universe is finite, and introducing the day and week to humanity, also happens to be the most scientifically proven theology in existence. All theologies are not the same. Suffice to say that the oldest recorded name is Adam, and you do not have an older example or any other name older than precisely 5770 years. For me, that is beyond incredible.

[IamJoseph]

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)

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?

[IamJoseph]

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.

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.

[Amanita]

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?

I do? The Greek alphabet comes from Phoenician.

We're discussing writing, not the alphabet (which is, like the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Chinese characters, a writing medium) so in the Western series Egyptian comes first and Hebrew has quite a long way to go.

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

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.

Did you even remotely understand my sentence?

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).

[Takkon]

(which is, like the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Chinese characters, a writing medium)

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.

[IamJoseph]

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

The Hebrews were a late comer in the ancient world relatively. Egypt is at least 1,200 years before Abraham, so making a statement about writings per se is not an original or informative observation. My position is only that alphabetical hebrew writings predate the Greek, even if it is claimed Greek came from Phonecian. You should admit there is a clear absence of Greek alphabetical books when compared to the Hebrew. Also, the same applies with Phonecian alphabeticals, despite that was an older and mightier nation, and one which prevailed for 800 years after Israel emerged. Do yoiu see the anamoly here?

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).

It is the case! We have no speech indicators 100s of 1000's of years before writings. The beasts did not have speech - else we would have such imprints globally, and their population would also verify it. Whether one wants to flaunt Genesis as myth or legend, it still remains that Adam is the oldest recorded name, with historically identifiable places and a diarised calendar of 3000 years - the oldest active one there is. In fact we have no history per se before the Genesis datings. It is not plausable to use the myth term in this case. We have no such reportings from any other source which contains speech endowed humans. Even digs unearthed in places like Mohenjodaro affirm the genesis dating as credible.

[IamJoseph]

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.

I acknowledge that the stone etchings on Egyptian monuments have recently been proposed as alphabets. Mainly, the given reasoning is that the letters were seperate and not always in picture form. The same anamoly applies: no continueing alphabetical writings, no alphabetical books - this despite that Egypt was a mighty super power, able to erect huge monoliths with amazing engineering foundations. An Egyptian stelle, dated 3,500 years, mentions a war with Israel by name, but this is also not alphabetical; in contrast, Genesis states the ancient Israelites in Egypt could speak Egyptian, but the Egyptians could not speak, write or read the Hebrew alphabeticals; namely a translator was required when Joseph spoke to the Pharoah.

The book of Exodus also says the five alphabetical Hebrew books of Moses were written and completed after leaving Egypt and before entering Canaan, with descriptions of a host of nations, countries and maping routes between Egypt and Canaan. These writings are the most credible we have of the ancient period: they do not make errors [like mentioning camels in Egypt or incorrect diets], and mentions family names of the Pharoahs and cities like Pithom and Ramassey, cencus takings with sub-totals of tribes, etc - such stats would not be recallable many centuries later, nor were there other books to copy from. IMHO, the Hebrew books are a msytery.

[noemon]

You should admit there is a clear absence of Greek alphabetical books when compared to the Hebrew.

You don't make any sense.

Writing in Greece predates Hebrew. People wrote in stones, after in papyrus, after in palimpsest, after in books, after in PDF's.

There is no "hebrew book" predating any Greek "book". Greek writing predates Hebrew writing, fact. Greek stones with writing predate Hebrew stones with writing, then as soon as papyri was invented it spread to all directions, and so did the palimpsest and so did the printing machine and sop did the PDF.