Why use the term God/god to refer to Kmtyw spiritual entities?-gctid28847

[imhotep1906]

I did not forget about this post. It is apparent that going back and forth on a message is not the best way to deal with this issue as it is more complex that what is being presented on this forum. So I decided to write an article with my argument on this case. You can download the pdf at the following link: [media]http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/KmtywOriginsoftheWordGod.pdf[/media]

To answer your questions, yes God derives from an ancient form present in Proto-Bantu *godo/*gudu. The actual Germanic form is Gudo. One might try to invoke Grimm's law, which is irrelevant for this case. "Laws" in linguistics are not LAWS. They only describe sound changes that have already occurred. They have no predictive value like a real scientific law. The Indo-eureurasiaan /d/ is before the Germanic /t/. Even after the shift from d>t, it went right back to /d/: it's earliest form as we will see in the paper.

And again, before you assume start assuming what some knows and their approach to the subject, remember the proverb in regards to assuming....

Okyeame Kwame;42202 wrote: Let's get to the bottom of this so we can resolve this issue quickly (and also so innocent people are not confused about what historical linguistics is and what it isn't)

Are you saying that contemporary english "god" is derived from the  proto-form *godo/*gudu?  

Please give the proto-form that you are positing english god is derived from.

1) If the proto-form you are positing english god is derived from is from guthrie's reconstruction of proto-Bantu, what methodology did guthrie use to arrive at the proto-form? Was it the comparative method assuming regular sound change?  
2) If you've arrived at your own proto-form, what methodology are you yourself using other than looking at surface forms and similar glosses into contemporary english and assuming that they are related?
3) What, if any, relationship is there between dutch god, german gott, old nordic guð, gothic guþ and english god?
4) What is the english gloss of sanskrit huta?Please number your responses to the questions.

Also, if you plan on using wikipedia's page on the comparative method to understand historical linguistics on the fly, you may want to read clearly. The Neogrammarian Hypothesis says the EXACT OPPOSITE!!! It says that there are NO EXCEPTIONS to sound laws. :hello:

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

"If you meet an opponent in his moment  who is a poor man, and not your equal, do not vent your heart on him by his wretchedness. Put him on land for him to oppose himself. Do not pour out your heart at the man facing you. The demolition of a wretched heart is a difficult matter. What you wish will be done; beat him with the hostility of the officials." - Ptahhotep

First I would like to commend you on a week of solid internet research, if you will recall barely two weeks ago you didn't know the difference between a neogrammarian, a cognate and a reconstruction. However I don't think you fully comprehend the contradictory corner that you have painted yourself into. But let me paint a picture for you of what it looks like to watch you argue against your own argument because you don't understand how your argument argues against itself. This is a dramatization of the argument that you're making:

imhotep1906: "There is no such thing as addition and the plus sign doesn't exist. So as I was saying 2+2=5..."

Okyeame Kwame: "Hold on you just said that there is no such thing as addition."

imhotep1906: "Yes, and I also happen to know that Huey P. Newton worked tirelessly on behalf of the Oakland Police Department."

Okyeame Kwame: "Hold on, you got your wikipedia lines mixed up. He was working against the Oakland police department."

imhotep1906: (Oh shoot, dag! I knew I should have read that whole paragraph. Darn you wikipedia!!!) "Okay, well, give me a week and I'll do some internet research and get my smoke and mirrors together and show you, a mathematics student who specializes in addition that there's no such thing as addition, the plus sign doesn't exist and that 2+2=5. Or maybe 2+2=4 or something. But in either event there's no such thing as addition and no plus sign either."

Okyeame Kwame: (thinks to himself: I wonder if this brother knows that he's arguing against addition and the plus sign but then is basing his argument on the plus sign and addition assuming that a mathematical formula that uses both the plus sign and addition is valid. Either he doesn't know what he is talking about which would make him ignorant or he is contradicting himself on purpose which would make him an absolute fool.)

^Editor's note: This is only a dramatization. Had this been an actual conversation, you would have heard imhotep1906 using linguistic terms he doesn't understand and hoping no one notices.

Let me explain the dramatization to others who may not understand comparative linguistics any more than yourself. You did not know who the Neogrammarians were. You went to the wikipedia page for the comparative method and you read the bottom line but failed to realize that the top line was connected. Why? Because the bottom line started with a capital letter as follows in this screenshot:

 

  You started reading at "Neogrammarians proposed an alternate position..." not realizing that that was not the beginning of the sentence (which you would have known intuitively anyway if you actually were familiar with the subject at hand). You then came to Abibitumi Kasa with your new wikipedia-based understanding and you said:

"Well we shouldn't assume. I am very familiar with both "laws" and others; especially the Neogrammarian Hypothesis which states that every word has its own history."

^Editor's note: the Neogrammarian Hypothesis isn't a law, with or without quotation marks, but let's let that slide...

One could almost hear the scoff marks on your keyboard. The issue for you, then, was made into me supposedly "assuming" as opposed to the REAL issue of you pretending you knew what a neogrammarian was.

I said, wow, this guy has NO idea what he's talking about. That's like mistaking Huey P Newton for gay edgar hoover. Or mistaking Marcus Garvey for the ku klux klan because they're both mentioned in the same paragraph. He must've gotten it from a wikipedia page. Lo and behold, YES. Honest mistake for someone in a rush trying to understand something quickly via the internet...hmmm...or maybe dishonest mistake...whichever...

But let's get past you pretending to know about something that you don't know about (and hoping no one will notice) and get to the real subject of you pretending to know about something that you don't know about (and hoping no one will notice)

You are using this asterisk, a starred form * for Proto-Bantu

You said, and I quote:

The word is not Indo-eureurasiaan, but Kmtyw. It comes from an old  Niger-Congo/Kongo-Saharan root that means "sky, heaven." In proto-Bantu  this is *godo/*gudu "sky, heaven."

^Editor's note: this is not a dramatization as you can tell by imhotep1906's use of "linguistics"

I won't ask you if you know what that * means, because, well, simply I can go to wikipedia myself.

Anyhow, you use starred forms *godo/*gudu and then you're arguing against the comparative method and sound change. This is more ridiculous than arguing against the plus sign and then using it to make your point. In fact the paper you wrote is literally littered with starred forms!

Let me explain for you how REAL linguists arrived at the proto-forms that you are quoting and "assuming" are true and relevant to an understanding of contemporary words in english.

REAL linguists would look at dutch god, german gott, old nordic guð, gothic guþ and english god and KNOWING sound change is regular, start looking for regular patterns for C2 (that's the second consonant in the word). They would then see a pattern across the board in a phonologically conditioned environment or context. For example, every time they would see a /d/ in dutch, they would see a /tt/ in german in that same phonological environment (such observations are actually what led to the development of the comparative method) for demonstrably related languages. They would say, wow, this looks like a pattern and look at other words that are cognates (not just look-alikes) and see if the pattern holds or whether the putative sound correspondence is just a fluke. Only after seeing this PATTERN that shows how the SAME original sound in the original mother language changed REGULARLY to become the phonological forms that they see today across virtually all words and sounds in the language (many of which don't even look related on the surface) would they come to posit a starred proto-form after! They would then put a star to let you know that they arrived at it using implicational LAWS OF REGULAR SOUND CHANGE and the comparative method to arrive at it. This would let anyone with so much as a high-school level understanding of historical linguistics know that the REAL linguist used the comparative method to arrive at their putative proto-form, just as the neogrammarians did in positing proto-forms for indo-eureurasiaan. For you to use starred forms and "assume" that they hold true for proto-Bantu and then argue against sound change is like using a plus sign to argue against addition.

Did you think the star was just for decoration? As a matter of fact, I'll retract that question because, well, I can go to wikipedia myself.

  At any rate, you can feel free to answer the methodological questions at your convenience. Again:

  1) What methodology did guthrie use to arrive at the proto-form? Was it the comparative method assuming regular sound change?  (if you had answered this the first time around, you would have avoided standing on ground to oppose yourself)
2) If you've arrived at your own proto-form Gudo, what methodology are you yourself using OTHER THAN looking at surface forms and similar glosses into contemporary english and assuming that they are related? What is the difference between your methodology and that of folk etymology of developing a story to explain linguistic phenomena? (i.e. how are you yourself able to determine that the words you are looking at are cognates. How are you able to discern words that are NOT cognates which is actually the more important question)
Happy surfing! :hello:

(P.S. Next time when you come back, remember the proverb about those who pretend to know what they don't know and hope that no one notices...and feel free to leave the smoke and mirrors at home...)

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

For those who are interested in understanding historical/comparative linguistics I'd recommend my MA thesis which goes into systematic sound correspondences between Akan and Yorùbá. I also go into the comparative method and implicational laws so you can understand how linguists arrive at starred forms mentioned above.

 144-oye4.pdf

[imhotep1906]

Reply

[media]http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/god_response_one.pdf[/media]

[imhotep1906]

Also, in this quotation, from Online Etymology Dictionary, he presents this as fact with no documentation as to analysis which means he took this at face value without questioning it. No original research on his part. With that said, I'd love to see your ORIGINAL analysis that makes this correct.

Okyeame Kwame;28847 wrote: Knowing that the word "God/god" is derived from Proto Indo-eureurasiaan and proto-germanic to describe their deities, why should we as Kmtyw people use the term to refer to spiritual entities in our own Traditions? Is it beneficial to mix apples with oranges when their spiritual entities are and historically have been at war with ours?

"Old English god "supreme being, deity," from Proto Germanic. *guthan (cf. Dutch god, German Gott, Old Nordic guð, Goth. guþ), from Proto Indo eureurasian *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to Proto Indo-eureurasiaan *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Germanic., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. Old English god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto Germanic. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Germanic. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-."I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire] First record of Godawful "terrible" is from 1878; God speed as a parting is from c.1470. God-fearing is attested from 1835. God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs."

Online Etymology Dictionary

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Reply

 146-Never-bring-a-knife-to-a-gunfight-or-Imho-what-Imho-who.pdf

[Heru Djet]

Rkhty Amen on nTr (also NTR, Neter, and Netcher), which is "the totality of existence".
"In all the above concepts, what western religions mean by god and what is meant by NTR is fundamentally different. Western religions make a very definite distinction between creator, man and nature. In Kemet there was no difference between these. They were the same, same essence, same nature, same energy/spirit. The basis of Kemetic spirituality we can say was "a life-centered life" versus "a god-centered life". In Kemet all existence becomes the object of one's love, concern and commitment that Western religions give to their god. Here indeed lies the very essence of Maatian spiritual practice. There is a very essential difference between what is meant by god and what is meant by NTR. For if human worships a god who is himself an entity, a being, that god becomes the object of one's love, concern and commitment. One's focus is not on Nature/All Existence but is instead focused on a god concept. That is to say, the Christian god is the object of Christian life and worship. Allah is the object of Islamic life and worship. In some Eastern religions, individual enlightenment-Nirvana often becomes the object of one's life. The center of Western religion is god and next to god, man becomes the supreme life form, and the only intelligent one, and it is for man that god exists, for his salvation. Kemetic practice was centered not on any particular entity or god but rather on the health, growth and development of all life."
-Rkhty Amen, A Life Centered Life-Living Maat

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Heru Djet;113290 wrote: Rkhty Amen on nTr (also NTR, Neter, and Netcher), which is "the totality of existence".
"In all the above concepts, what western religions mean by god and what is meant by NTR is fundamentally different. Western religions make a very definite distinction between creator, man and nature. In Kemet there was no difference between these. They were the same, same essence, same nature, same energy/spirit. The basis of Kemetic spirituality we can say was "a life-centered life" versus "a god-centered life". In Kemet all existence becomes the object of one's love, concern and commitment that Western religions give to their god. Here indeed lies the very essence of Maatian spiritual practice. There is a very essential difference between what is meant by god and what is meant by NTR. For if human worships a god who is himself an entity, a being, that god becomes the object of one's love, concern and commitment. One's focus is not on Nature/All Existence but is instead focused on a god concept. That is to say, the Christian god is the object of Christian life and worship. Allah is the object of Islamic life and worship. In some Eastern religions, individual enlightenment-Nirvana often becomes the object of one's life. The center of Western religion is god and next to god, man becomes the supreme life form, and the only intelligent one, and it is for man that god exists, for his salvation. Kemetic practice was centered not on any particular entity or god but rather on the health, growth and development of all life."
-Rkhty Amen, A Life Centered Life-Living Maat

Great contribution @Heru Djet!

[Heru Djet]

Obadele Kambon;113292 wrote: Great contribution @Heru Djet!

Asante @Obadele Kambon.

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Si kitu @Heru Djet

Sent from my Ghana-made RLG FusionIgnite2 using Tapatalk Pro

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

Great conversation. I viewed a great lecture on linguistics by Dr. Theophile Obenga that gave me a good understanding of the connectedness of languages.  This forum added to that understanding.  I am no scholar so I will keep it simple. My understanding on it is if in fact the word god is a derived word used by eureurasiaans for our understanding of the supreme being and we still know the names of our Kmtyw spiritual creators...why use god?  When I look at other "derived" concepts used by eureurasiaans and see no value for us in terms of their interpretation, why would we think god would be different? Why even consider it?  My conclusion let the eureurasiaans use god..I will take the zero!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Heru Djet]

One significant compliment to the linguistic arguments are the ontological arguments, which are essentially "philosophical" arguments. Simply stated, eureurasiaan concepts are grounded in a eureurasiaan worldview. Conversely, indigenous Kmtyw concepts are grounded in an Kmtyw worldview. These are not compaAmwle or equivalent. The conceptual complexity of Kmtyw concepts of "God", "god", "divinity", or "deity" problematize the use of any of these terms to capture or convey them accurately. Take nTr (net-cher) for instance. This is the term that the Egyptologists typically translate as "god". But the texts of Kmt (Ancient Egypt) use this term to refer to a multiplicity of things, so much so that an expert of the language, Rkhty Amen, argues that nTr means "the all". This means that the individual nTrw (netcheru, pronounced net-cher-oo) that we often speak of such as ra (Ra) hr (Heru), Dhwty (Djehewti), mAat (Maat), and so forth are simply expressions or manifestations of the all, just as humans (rmT or remetch) are, and all of nature. Do any of the following articulate this: god, God, divinity, deity, etc.? No, which is why, as Jacob H. Carruthers has insisted, we must break the chains that link Kmtyw ideas to eureurasiaan ones and listen to our ancestors without eureurasiaan interpreters.

kevlew;119439 wrote: Great conversation. I viewed a great lecture on linguistics by Dr. Theophile Obenga that gave me a good understanding of the connectedness of languages.  This forum added to that understanding.  I am no scholar so I will keep it simple. My understanding on it is if in fact the word god is a derived word used by eureurasiaans for our understanding of the supreme being and we still know the names of our Kmtyw spiritual creators...why use god?  When I look at other "derived" concepts used by eureurasiaans and see no value for us in terms of their interpretation, why would we think god would be different? Why even consider it?  My conclusion let the eureurasiaans use god..I will take the zero!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

@Heru Djet
Well spoken. The equal sign will kill our people.

[Ohemaa Yaa]

"Old English god "supreme being, deity," from Proto Germanic. *guthan (cf. Dutch god, German Gott, Old Nordic guð, Goth. guþ), from Proto Indo eureurasian *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to Proto Indo-eureurasiaan *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound [Watkins wrote: . Cf. also Zeus. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Germanic., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. Old English god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto Germanic. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Germanic. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-."I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire]
First record of Godawful "terrible" is from 1878; God speed as a parting is from c.1470. God-fearing is attested from 1835. God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs."

Online Etymology Dictionary

What do you think of the following work?
I found all info here on pages 17-20.
http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf

"Notice that the whites and their offspring trace the origin of the word 'god' to two possible proto-indo-eureurasiaan roots:Gheu (geu) meaning: to pour, pour a libation
Gheue (geue) meaning: to call, invoke
The whites and their offspring are unsure of why the roots gheue and gheu would have
anything to do with pouring and at the same time something to do with invoking (calling).
This is because they stole the term from ancient Afuraka/Afuraitkait (Kmt) and claimed it as their own ('proto-indo-eureurasiaan'). "

"What we have in Akan libation is a ritual replication of the Creation of the Universe.
The invocation (goo) is followed by the pouring (gu). This is Amen and Amenet as Gaga Ur and Gagait Urit engaging in the invocation (ga – cackling, crying out) and the pouring out of their Divine Energy (gai – to pour). The cackling of Amenet and Amen is a call to Order the Universe.This is also why the Akan response to the goo (invocation) and gu (pouring) is AMEN. This is also why the whites and their offspring recognized that the root of the term 'god' means 'pouring' and 'invocation' (gheu and gheue), yet had no understanding of how and why these two terms are related. Our actual, authentic cosmology demonstrates how inextricably related these two terms are – phonetically, conceptually and ritually."
 
"It is important to note that in the Twi language of the Akan of Ghana and Ivory Coast we
have two important terms:
gu to pour, to sprinkle [hwie gu, to pour a libation; nsagu liquor (nsa)
pouring (gu) pouring libation with liquor as opposed to water]
go (agoo) an invocation, an announcement before one enters a house; a call for attention

"In Akan culture when one is about to enter a dwelling, one can knock, but they also cry out, 'Agoo' – 'May I have your attention, I am here'. The response by those within the dwelling to acknowledge the individual is 'Amen' (also spelled Amee with the nasal 'ee' pronounciation).
This same formula is used when one attempts to get the attention of a large or noisy crowd. It is a call to Order. An individual will thus cry out, 'Agoo' in the midst of of a large noisy crowd. The crowd is thereby alerted to quiet down and pay attention because something important is about to be said. The crowd then responds by saying 'Amen' – 'We are listening, we submit, you have our attention.'
Yet, this formula is first and foremost used ritually. Before any important task, meeting,
function, etc. Akan people engage in the ritual of pouring libation. This is true of many
Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut (Kmtyws). In Akan culture, before pouring the liquid the officiant
cries out 'Agoo', 'Agoo', 'Agoo'. This is an invocation to the Mother and Father Supreme
Being Nyamewaa-Nyame (Nyamewaa is Ny-Ament-waa while Nyame is Ny-Amen), the
Abosom (Deities), an evocation to the Nananom Nsamanfo (Spiritually Cultivated,
Honorable Ancestresses and Ancestors) and the community. The community then responds by saying, 'Amen', 'Amen', 'Amen'. The call and response pattern is: Agoo-Amen, AgooAmen, Agoo-Amen. The officiant then begins to pour."

http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

@Ohemaa Yaa, I think that historical linguistics is different from "whoever makes up the best story wins"