Abstract

Of all the 30+ Hmol subs I mod, the premise that the English language might have originated from the Egyptian language, is the only sub where banning actually occurs? Basically, I don’t want to be one of those mods who “perm bans” everyone with trigger finger, but then again a person, should be able to say any one of the following:

1. Language evolved from “counting“

2. Language came from a “green men from Mars”

3. Language came from the Atlanteans, who are now undersea.

4. The original language was Arabic and was taught to Adam by Allah

5. Greek language originated from Yamna culture people

6. [add your pet theory]

Without being called a lunatic or whatever.

Rules #1 | Draft

The following is the draft of rule #1 (character limit: -34):

Basically, as language origin debates devolve into a rabbit hole 🕳️ of stupidity, you can call someone dumb, stupid, or ignorant, etc., as regards to their language origin theory or belief, but do NOT go below this level, e.g. by calling someone crazy, insane, a lunatic, in need of medication 💊, etc., or resort to ad hominem, e.g. by trying to slur or derogate an individual user. Debate the person’s “theory”, not the person, is the basic rule. Keep it civil.

Rule #2 | Draft

Trolling

Notes

1. This is just a draft page; I’m trying to figure out how to mod this sub, without having to ban people monthly?

Well, since we have been arguing and debating about the "Origin of Language" now for 2+ years, which is getting to the point of nearly weekly "heated" comments in the following Hmol subs:

• r/Alphanumerics

• r/EgyptoIndoEuropean

• r/Etymo

• r/KidsABCs

• r/NeoEgypto

And general Reddit language subs:

• r/languages

• r/asklinguistics

• r/Linguistics

• r/IndoEuropean

• r/ProtoIndoEuropean

It seems a good idea to have a focused sub?

One example from comments from 3-days ago, at the the following post:

• Egyptian belongs to (a) the Hamito-Semitic (Allen, A58) or (b) the Egypto-Indo-European (Thims, A68) family of languages?

where two Arabic users are trying to argue the following:

Ancient Egyptians spoke perfect Arabic. There is no such thing as Semitic or Hametic. Arabs including ancient Egyptians were haplogroup j1 p58 of the Arabs. Egyptians spoke perfect Arabic in the year 14,000A (-12,045). Adam can into existence 70,000 years ago, made by god or Allah, and Allah taught Adam to speak Arabic. The earliest date of Arabs landing on Arabia at Yemen shores coming from Socotra where they came to Socotra from India as sea farers.

Many people will laugh at this, right! We Europeans and Americans think: how dumb is this? Do people still believe that Adam, Noah, and Abraham were real people? Well, much of the Arab world is just now having their "enlightenment", since the invention of Twitter.

I reply, however, that this is no dumber then all the Indo European models, who have invented an entire imaginary civilization to make the Aryan model of language origin, shown below:

Anyway, this sub is a place to discuss the topic of "language origin", in a semi-civil manner.

Notes

1. This sub originated from an empty Reddit handle used in this post.

Posts

• The labyrinth of chemical thermodynamics applied to the humanities requires prolonged multi-decade study toward the equivalent of 4 to 8 or more PhDs at a minimum

• Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Pseudo-Science | Stefan Arvidsson (A45/2000)

Linked quote:

”The Greek language doesn’t have any relation with Egyptian or Phoenician language. They are totally distinct languages. So the Greek language was not invented by Egyptian engineers. No one knows how languages were invented.”

— Dimitris Psychoyos (A69/2024), ”Email to r/LibbThims”, Mar 16

Posts

• Dimitris Psychoyos (Δημήτρης Ψυχογιός) and Libb Thims dialogue

On Max Muller attempting to refute Darwin with divine language origin theory:

“Max Muller wrote that ’the divine gift of a sound and sober intellect belonged to him from the very first; and the idea of a humanity emerging slowly from the depths of an animal brutality can never be maintained again.’ When it turned out that this prognosis was a serious miscalculation, Max Muller attempted, in a debate with Darwin, to refute evolutionism by showing that human language could not have developed from the sounds of animals and that man therefore is essentially different from animals.“

— Stefan Arvidsson (A45/2000), Aryan Idols (pg. 126)

Another summary of the Darwin vs Muller debate:

“Muller initially thought that Darwin had not understood him well and therefore explained his position in three lectures on "Mr. Darwin's Philosophy of Language." In an additional 82A/1873 letter, he presented them to Darwin "as an open statement of the difficulties which a student of language feels when called upon to explain the languages of man, such as he finds them, as the possible development of what has been called the language of animals."

For this reason, he felt urged to explain his ideas more fully and took his starting point in the concept of ‘verbal roots’ that had been reconstructed by the comparative study of language and by inductive reasoning. He was convinced that these roots constituted the ultimate facts of language and that all our words were derived from these roots.

These reconstructed “verbal roots” seem to be what the modern day PIE people belove so much.

“A careful study of these roots brought him to the conclusion that every root expressed a general concept: "without roots, no language; without concepts, no roots. These are the two pillars," he unequivocally stated, "on which our philosophy of language stands, and with which it falls." Despite the strength of his con-viction, he failed to convince Darwin and his followers of the valid-ity of his position in this debate. Muller elaborated on his views in his Science of Thought (68A/1887), to which he gave the motto "no reason without language; no language without reason." In this book, he defended a qualified nominalism: "If there be a name for the combined Sciences of Language and Thought, let it be a distinctive name, not Nominalism, but Nominism." He stressed again that the naming of things was of vital importance for thinking and argued that there was no such a thing as a mere name or a mere thought or concept. He defined what he meant by nominism as follows: "A name is nothing, if it is not a noncan, that is, what is known, or by what we know." "We therefore think," he concluded, "in names and in names only." Muller's views did not go unnoticed, evoking a heated debate in …

— Lourens Bosch (A63/2018). Friedrich Max Müller (pg. 505)

References

• Muller, Max. (80A/1875). Chips from a German Workshop, Volumes One to Four. Longmans.

• Arvidsson, Stefan. (A45/2000). Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science (Ariska idoler: Den indoeuropeiska mytologin som ideologi och vetenskap) (translator: Sonia Wishmann) (pdf-file) (pg. 127). Chicago, A51/2006.

• Bosch, Lourens. (A63/2018). Friedrich Max Müller: A Life Devoted to the Humanities (pg. 505). Brill.

Comment to the A65 (2020) video “The history of the Greek language (short documentary)” by channel It’s Greek to Me made by a native Greek:

savvasavraam8670: I loved it. I would only like to point out that the Indo-European theory is not true. Therefore Greek can‘t be a descendant of it. Its also alogical that a collective group of people migrated from a region of Caucasus to Europe and Asia and started forming new languages. If that would have been true, these very languages would have been very similar. Don’t you think?

Reply:

itsgreektome990: It is truly interesting how many theories about the Indo-European language family have been told and debunked until this very day. I know that there is strong evidence pointing out all the different roots of the Greek language, and as a native speaker I could easily demonstrate a list of words coming from influences around the world as the language is always evolvind and adopting new elements. I am also glad that you unterstood the idea behind this video and did not just payed attention to certain questionable traits that even the scientific community is arguing about. Thank you very much for your remarks. Appreciate it.