Disputatio:Alpha et Omega

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alpha and Sampi[fontem recensere]

Formam anteriorem huius commentationis restitui. Vide et pedem paginae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:37, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

Full global Greek alphabet is as follows:


It begins with Alpha, and ends with Sampi. That means that Omega in this case is not final letter, because after Omega is placed too Sampi. Due to this fact, in this case God is not only local Ionian Alpha and Omega, because He is in this case too Somebody more - global Pan-Greek Alpha and Sampi. This fact should be acknowledged by all Christians that uses global Greek Alphabet, because in this case they can diminish God by excluding Him from full range of global Greek Alphabet. Ionians were justified by their unknowledge, and Jesus only adjusted Himself to their lower level of knowledge, calling Himself as local Ionian Beginning and End. Sho was placed between San and Qoppa and was only existing Greek letter not used by Greeks, but by Bactrians that adopted Greek alphabet. 18:14, 24 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Is this serious? What is Sampi?--Xaverius 18:28, 24 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Alpha is first letter of extended Greek alphabet with sound value "a" and numerical value 1, while Sampi is last letter of extended Greek alphabet with sound value "s" and numerical value 900. More here. Each Greek letter article provides sound and numerical value. 18:42, 24 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Haec omnia et plura legi possunt in pagina Abecedarium Graecum --Fabullus 18:59, 24 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Graecus est, non legitur.... --Xaverius 11:58, 25 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
What a ridiculous waste of keystrokes in this argument ... arguing over which lettters(!!!) (as if a god worthy his salt gave a thing about earthly abecedaria...) by which god should be represented... letter sampi?! Ugh... --Ioscius (disp) 12:48, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
My list serves as compilation of all Greek letters that ever existed. I used Unicode charts as source of this list - only symbols explicitly called letters there are included. Because Greek alphabet is first ever vovel+consonant-featured alphabet, best what can be done is to say, that God is globally Alpha and Sampi, but too locally Α and Ω (Ionian), A and Z (Latin), А and Я (Russian), etc... This explanation is important to both refrain from diminishing God and to regard Bible as truth. 13:03, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
While I thank you for compiling the image (which is actually pretty cool), the last two ideas you wrote frankly scare the willies out of me. How on earth is the word of god to be written by men? Men lie all the time... Truth? eehh... --Ioscius (disp) 13:13, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Ionian variant is local, but this one compiled by me graphically is global. In this way both statements are true, because designations such as "global" (for Alpha&Sampi) and "local" (for Alpha&Omega) could be simply omitted in texts. God's Catholic revelations (both public and private) are always true and cross-coherent/consistent, but often incomplete - I know that from my reading experience. Please compare for example New Testament and The Poem of the Man-God By Maria Valtorta for example. What is missed in Bible can be present in Poem, and what is missed in Poem, can be present in Bible. 13:26, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit my comments, nor capitalize my gs.--Ioscius (disp) 13:42, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I did this only to repair your unholy treating of Holy God, but I see that you are very stubborn against God, by restoring your unholiness. This is very sad, especially because our doom and gloom is extremely near: http://www.giftstor.org/tomkiel05fst.html Your constant unholiness in treating God may result in your eternal damnation, thus please repent while you can. 14:03, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Our anonymous user should note that "diminishing God" would be an impossible, indeed inconceivable, procedure for us mortals. I'm surprised she even thinks of it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I meant virtual (as virtuality) diminishing of God, performed by knowers of full global 32-letter Greek alphabet, by excluding Him from keeping His Holy Rule over Digamma, Stigma, Heta, Jot, San, Sho, Qoppa and Sampi by calling Him only Alpha and Omega = 24 letters = 75% of all existing letters, while God really keeps His Holy Rule over Alpha and Sampi = 32 letters = 100% of all existing letters. Of course God is not possible to real (as reality) diminishing in any way, because He is always constant and unchangeable Infinity. God called Himself Alpha and Omega only for reason of being understood by Ionians that didn't knew missing 8 letters, because their local 24-letter Ionian alphabet beginning with Alpha and ending with Omega was locally perceived as Beginning and End. But our current knowledge about full global Greek alphabet obliges us to call Him Alpha and Sampi to express His Omnipotence without any exclusions. 18:18, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

It is not in the interests of an accurate and reliable encyclopaedia to misquote or change the content of any source in page titles, citations or quote boxes. Therefore it is not in our interests to rename this page "Alpha et Sampi", or whatever you are proposing. Is that OK? Harrissimo 22:40, 18 Iunii 2008 (UTC).

Well, seems that discussion is a couple months old. I think the point is moot anyway, if it's theological; the letters are obsolete and "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; ye therefore do greatly err."[1]Mucius Tever 23:15, 18 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
God is GLOBAL UNCONFUSED Alpha and Sampi, that includes local confused Α and Ω, А and Я, A and Z etc... Remember, that confused tongues including those used to write Bible are transitory. Of course Bible is eternal, and finally will be rewritten only in unconfused Adamic language. Our eternal goal is unconfused full Adamic language in Heaven written with unconfused full alphabet. Because first language was written without alphabet, earliest possible FullConsonant+FullVowel alphabet should be used, thus Greek, as Andrew Dalby confirmed: http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio_Usoris:Andrew_Dalby#Revert/Ban Catholic Private Revelation Proofs:
"Now He rose from the dead. He made everything. He was praised already before his incarnation. Three times He is praised now when he annihilated Himself in the body for so many years giving Himself, leading the obedience to such an excellence could die on the Cross for filling the will of God up. He will ascend to the Heaven by so much praised in His praised body and will enter the eternal Glory beginning reigning which Israel didn't understanded. He is calling – to this Kingdom like never before, insistently, with love and the – authority all tribes of world. All nations will come to the Saviour, the same as it they could see and they predicted just of Israel and Prophets. And there will already be no Jews nor Romans, no Scytes nor Africans, no Iberians nor Celts, no Egyptians nor Phrygians. Living behind the Euphrates will unite around with the ones from above the eternal River. People of the North, at the side of Numidians, will come to its Kingdom. Races and dialects will disappear. There will already be no differences [resulting around] of clothes, the skin colour or hair. There will be one boundless, shining and clean people, one speech and one love. So there will be a Kingdom of God. Kingdom of Heaven. Eternal Monarch: Offered as the victim and rose from the dead. Eternally [existing] subjects: the ones which adopted His faith. Be willing to believe in order to be them."
What's so special about an alphabet with vowels and consonants? The Greek alphabet cannot be the thing you are looking for because its values are arbitrary and therefore irrational, arising from confusion of language, without God's wisdom and reason. What you want is the vowel-and-consonant alphabet that was created along lines of reason, the shapes of whose letters are designed to represent their sounds. The first example of this is Hangul, and you would do well to study it, as it is closer to your ideal of a global unconfused writing than the local confusions of the Greeks, who only invented vowels because they did not hear the consonant sounds the letters originally represented. God is light, and in Him there is no darkness or confusion at all. —Mucius Tever 23:54, 19 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Eternally dead people are in hell, while eternally living people are in Purgatory and Heaven. People with uncertain status live on Earth. By denying revival of first things (both language and alphabet), you are denying God's Promise cited by me above. 15:29, 19 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything[2], and when the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, the dead in Christ will rise[3]—what Hell is it where your dead do not know their punishment, and what are the dead in Christ doing in your hell? By denying God's teaching you show you are educated stupid. —Mucius Tever 23:54, 19 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I talked here about eternal live of soul in Heaven for bodily died in Christ with conditional initial temporary live in Purgatory, when soul needs purging from non-deadly sins, and eternal death of soul in hell for bodily died in devil, thus I never denied God's teaching. Thus you should understand Evangelium as follows: The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything [about need of dying again]. Hangul is as weird as Phaistos disc, because it is not purely sequential, but spiral mixed with sequential: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc , and has huge overhead of non-uniphonemic phoneme clusters. Adamic Proto-Indo-European was written with sentence-level ideographic script: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language (example: graphical picture of human riding on donkey through forest depicts sentence: "Man rides on donkey through forest"), thus using Greek alphabet is only solution to have both first alphabet joined with first language, and phonetics fully preserved at once. 07:54, 20 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Hangul goes left and right, top and bottom, with no circular spiral motion. The original alphabet of the Greeks is more circular, going from left to right and then from right to left, reversing the letters. http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language says that Greek is the solution because it is the first phonemic script and the ideographic script does not preserve the original phonetic features of Adamic Proto-Indo-European. By the same rule Hangul is a better solution because it is the first fully-fledged featural script designed to represent phonetic features and can preserve those features better than the Greek script. Also, the Hangul script is developed from the Phagspa script and thus from the clean offshoot Brahmi script of the Indo-Iranian languages, while the Greek and all the other alphabets of Europe are from the Phoenician which is not Indo-Iranian making it a dirty offshoot and thus it would be wholly inappropriate for the Adamic language. —Mucius Tever 12:00, 20 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
But Phagspa script through Brahmi script, too is derived from Phoenician: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phagspa_script As you see, Phoenician derivation is unescapable, and first/earliest Vowel+Consonant derivative of Phoenician is still of course Greek. 13:06, 20 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but of course the script is derived from Phoenician. It is not from its Phoenician origin that a script is appropriate or not, but whether it is taken raw and directly—as the Greek was, with the vowels being created only from the Greeks being unable to pronounce the consonants the letters represented—or refined—as it was by the pure-offshoot Indo-Iranian languages, whose grammarians took special interest in its continued purity both in speech and writing; I am sure you are already familiar this is in fact the meaning of the word 'Sanskrit'. As the Indo-Iranian offshoots are pure, surely the script—the written part of those languages, carried by sons of Adam with the spoken part to India—must be on the same principle: fragmenting from the mother Phoenician into its Indo-Iranian offshoot, it is transformed into the Brahmic script, purified by its continued contact with the language, refined by the addition of vowel sounds being represented—though not yet separated into their own letters. Hangul is the first/earliest derivative from this new branch of writing to separate the vowels from the consonants, and its pedigree is appropriate, unlike that of Greek, whose parent Proto-Indo-Hellenic is unsuitable even for reference in restoring the Adamic language, being "reconstructed with influences from languages confused in higher degree."[4]Mucius Tever 00:23, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Literacy in the Paradise?[fontem recensere]

WRT "Adamic language" qua language spoken by Adam, why are you so keen on written signs with vowels and consonants? Do you suggest Adam was a literate person? --Neander 23:47, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the argument is that the Adamic language should be written by the earliest script that can adequately represent its phonetic features, because this is somehow superior to an pictographic script (and all other kinds of writing, I expect, would fall somewhere along a continuum with those two as endpoints). Of course Greek is insufficiently featural. ;) —Mucius Tever 00:23, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Greek script is not featural at all. Its letters derives from Proto-Sinaitic script, which had pictographic origins in egyptian hieroglyphs, that in turn descended from Adamic sentence-level ideographic script. This article: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language clearly states: "Adamic language was written in sentence-level ideographic script, that was more abstract than word-level and syllable-level ideographic scripts, while earliest descendants of Adamic language were written with mix of these scripts. Because of using ideographic script that doesn't preserve phonetic features of Adamic language, best solution would be writing of Adamic language with earliest existing fully fledged phoneme-level script - the Greek alphabet." As you see, Greek alphabet is first ever Vowel+Consonant descendant of original Adamic sentence-level ideographic script. 14:26, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Greek script is not featural at all! That is exactly its problem for your purpose. This article: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language clearly states that "Adamic language was written in sentence-level ideographic script, that was more abstract than word-level and syllable-level ideographic scripts" — and that seems to stop short, because it doesn't consider feature-level scripts as well, when the article says the very reason for choosing Greek is because it preserves phonetic features—while by your own admission it does not do this at all! Let us correct that to "Because using a non-featural script wouldn't preserve the phonetic features of the Adamic language, the best solution would be writing the Adamic language with the earliest existing fully fledged feature-level script - the Korean alphabet." As you see, the Korean is the first ever Vowel+Consonant+Feature descendant of original Adamic sentence-level ideographic script. —Mucius Tever 00:35, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Si tibi placet, fac nobis monstres unum verbum ab Ada dictum, et fac nobis monstres hunc Adam revera vixisse. {nicto} IacobusAmor 15:09, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, that's proven then. Thank God nobody would question whether a first man called Adam ever lived in a literal sense or, if he existed, whether his language was ever written in any script at all. If there was somebody, however, who wanted to know why on earth we would need a script for a language that, if it ever existed, can neither be reconstructed nor is used by anybody anymore, and why, if indeed we needed such a script, it should be different from the hypothetical script this hypothetical tongue was originally written in, he shall probably have to ask Ms. Emmerich ...--Ceylon 15:03, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Adam, and of course Eve, once existed. You say that Adamic language was written in sentence-level ideographic script. Do you really mean that Adam was a literate person? BTW, is the Adamic language the same as, or a descendant of, the language that is used in the Book of Life (Sefer chaim)? --Neander 19:02, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Adam and Eve really existed, Bible is not fiction, it is God's Revelation analogous to Emmerich's one. Greek alphabet is at least first ever phoneme-level script, because Phoenicians by omitting vowels made their script alphasyllabary. Phoenician is alphasyllabic, because makes assumpting of vowel after consonant obligatory, thus built into Phoenician letters, that are not isolate consonants at all, as is in Greek. Adamic language is ANCESTOR of Hebrew language used in "Sefer chaim" - Anne Catherine Emmerich clearly denies assigning Adamic etiquette to later and confused Hebrew: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language , while confirms assigning Adamic etiquette to earlier and unconfused Proto-Indo-European. 08:57, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know the Greek alphabet is phonemic, and Phoenician, alphasyllabic. But notice that the Greek alphabet is phonemically suboptimal. That is to say, it fails to bring out all the functional distinctions required by the sound structure of Greek (or Proto-Indo-European). It appears that not even the Greek "global alphabet" is global enough. || By Book of Life, I referred to the book in which God records the names and lives of the righteous (according to Exodus 32:32-33; Revelation 3:5, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15). Now, I repeat my question: Is this book written in Adamic? || You wrote: "Adamic language is ANCESTOR of Hebrew language" [---]. "Anne Catherine Emmerich ... confirms assigning Adamic etiquette to earlier and unconfused Proto-Indo-European." I'm sure Anne Catherine Emmerich didn't use the term Proto-Indo-European. I suspect it's your term. I must say it is not very ethical to encroach upon a term that has been in use in Indo-European Comparative Linguistics, which wields the Comparative Method, not Revelation. One of the results of the Indo-European Linguistics is that Hebrew isn't an Indo-European language. Distant relationship between reconstructed language families is a field of investigation very few serious Indo-Europeanists are willing to plunge into. Notice also that, basically, Proto-Indo-European is no language in the social sense but rather a polylectal grammar fragment, an axiomatic system by which the relatedness of Indo-European languages can be demonstrated as formally necessary. --Neander 01:44, 24 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Book of Life in Heaven of course is written in PIE, because Heaven as punishment-free, thus confusion-free environment uses by default unconfused PIE language. Your Hebrew title of this book misleaded me. I noticed experimentally, that Adamic Proto-Indo-European language is of course too ancestor of even those languages, which are not officially called Indo-European. Examples: PIE *appa-s and *amma-s (as in Pokorny and Köbler) are looking directly as cognate to Hebrew Abba and Imma. Both PIE and Hebrew pairs means accordingly Father and Mother. Much more such cognate pairs can be demonstrated between PIE and non officially IE languages, such as PIE *nena-s and Chinese niang, both meaning nanny. Anne Catherine Emmerich pointed at PIE by revealing, that Adamic is the ancestor of Bactrian, Zend and Indian - its first pure offshoots. If these pure offshoots are IE, then Adamic is PIE. 12:53, 24 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
The cross-linguistic similarities between words for mamas and papas and other nursery words do not necessarily indicate common ancestry. Such terms probably result from the situational nature of language acquisition. Babblibg babies tend to utter sound sequences such as ma-ma, ba-ba etc, and parents tend to associate these word-like sounds with themselves. Pace Pokorny, such nursery words aren't feasible inputs to the comparative method. Too much phonaesthetic and iconic factors are involved. But I see your Adamic language, Merritt Ruhlen's Proto-World language, and the like, endorse to linguistic monogenesis. This is something that can't be properly established by means of the comparative method, which requires that the correpondences be systematic, not based on haphazardly collected comparanda which, typically, tend to be unbelievably similar to each other, as if untouched by phonological and semantic change. --Neander 19:41, 24 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Finally 2 cents of mine: Couldn't agree with Neander's statement above more thoroughly: Cf Koren numerals: 1 and 2 are hana and dul respectively. On the surface, without a systematic approach, they would seem quite nicely to accord with PIE (Sihler) *Hoi-no-/*Hoi-wo-/*Hoi-k(ʷ)o-; *sem-/*d(u)wo- and (Beeke) *Hoi(H)nos/*duoh₁, but man, does anyone really assert even in passing that these language families are related?!--Ioscius (disp) 00:54, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Frequently. But the mainstream scientific view is that the comparative method used to relate languages today is not reliable enough at such a time depth to say whether these separate trees are related. Of course in the non-mainstream view, Proto-Indo-European is just a "locally confused" version of "globally unconfused" Nostratic, which, being older, would be more likely to be Adamic than the comparatively modern and provincial PIE. :x) —Mucius Tever 23:34, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
And (by some of those who don't worry about reliability) Proto-World is being reconstructed. One little problem ( I pointed this out in Language in Danger, and I'm not the only one) is that Eve was "probably multilingual, like so many of her descendants". So there is no one language for them to reconstruct. As for Adam, I'm not so sure. Men are lazy. He probably only managed one. I agree with Ms Emmerich on that, if on nothing else. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

As I see, you have proofs that Anne Catherine Emmerich is wholly right and valid, because she had Infallible Divine Inspiration, but you still refuse to believe that God confused Proto-Indo-European human mother tongue into many descendant confused tongues both in regular and irregular ways at once. Because God is merciful to His Catholic followers, He gave them chance to return to Adamic PIE as is documented in Anne Catherine Emmerich: http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.htm and commented here: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language I thank and praise God very much for this chance to return to our Adamic tongue, which I use as much as possible. 11:06, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

How happy for the 16.99 percent of the world's population who belong to the Roman Catholic Church! Why do the bishops not highlight this issue in their encyclicals? IacobusAmor 12:11, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Bishops are ignoring issue of returning of Catholics to Proto-Indo-European, because they are too forcibly sticked to confusion of tongues, especially in Hebrew, Latin and Greek confusion variants. They don't understand that confusion of tongues was set by God only and only for blocking masonic unity under devil and antichrist, but NEVER for blocking Catholic Unity under God. Thus I am trying to popularize this issue to avoid dividing of Catholic Church to confused factions. 13:28, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Language reconstructions earlier than non-laryngeal PIE spelled by scientists with Latin alphabet only, are using variable/substitute signs inside their Latin spellings choosed by scientists, such as ?# number intrusions resembling greeklish/leetspeak and uppercase intrusions that are both used for approximating partially unknown sounds, Greek script intrusions, etc... for part of their phonemes. Non-laryngeal PIE is earliest possible reconstruction without these variable/substitute signs. All that is analyzed here: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language As you see, non-laryngeal PIE is earliest Anne-Catherine Emmerich compatible protolanguage, that is spelled by scientists with Latin-only spelling. Matching this condition makes respelling of non-laryngeal PIE to pure Greek alphabet absolutely possible, which is not possible for earlier reconstructions. Abovementioned flaws in earlier reconstructions debunks them as false, because some non-existent data are missing in them. Thus non-laryngeal PIE that is earliest such flawless reconstruction, wins finally as Adamic protolanguage. Adam and Eve were both unilingual by using PIE and God created them 6000 years ago in Eden near Jerusalem - six days after beginning of God's creation process. Holy Bible and Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich both clearly states that, and denying these God's Revelations is erratic. I don’t consider feature-level scripts at all, because there are too many ways to classify/mark phonemes – Bell’s Visible Speech and IPA does it in different ways, thus I abandoned feature-level scripts at all, stopping at earliest phoneme-level script, thus Greek. 15:59, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
"As you see, non-laryngeal PIE is earliest Anne-Catherine Emmerich compatible protolanguage, that is spelled by scientists with Latin-only spelling." — Wait, wait—you are choosing your Adamic language based on how easy it is to spell with existing alphabets? At any rate, the Hittite language still has most of the laryngeals, and its script uses consonants and vowels—writing the laryngeals without any variable/substitute signs, and is considerably earlier than the Greek script, but http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language doesn't even seem to consider Hittite to exist at all (it calls languages with laryngeals "fictional"). —Mucius Tever 15:31, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
"I don’t consider feature-level scripts at all, because there are too many ways to classify/mark phonemes – Bell’s Visible Speech and IPA does it in different ways, thus I abandoned feature-level scripts at all, stopping at earliest phoneme-level script, thus Greek." — YM I don't consider phoneme-level scripts at all, because there are too many ways to classify/mark phonemes — English and Greek do it in different ways, thus I'd abandon phoneme-level scripts at all, stopping at the earliest feature-level script, thus Hangul. —Mucius Tever 15:31, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Hittite script was not alphabetic, but syllabic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_cuneiform , being always syllable-level, but never phoneme-level writing. Thus I discard it. Article mentioned by you classifies as fictional all laryngeal-featured reconstructed protolanguages, because precise value of laryngeals in these reconstructions is unknown at all, thus laryngeal descendants such as Hittite are not denied. In this way laryngeals can be treated as innovation. Anne Catherine Emmerich focuses on Indo-Iranian (Bactrian+Zend+Indian) descendants of PIE as most similar to Adamic PIE, thus traditional non-laryngeal PIE still wins as most close to her requirements. Additionally, I noticed that syllabaries (cuneiform) and featurals (hangul) both has much more Unicode signs than even fully extended Greek alphabet - first ever phoneme-level script. 17:47, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
You haven't said anything against syllabic writing yet—what's your reasoning? http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language only states that ideographic scripts are unsuitable (whether sentence- or word- or syllable-level), and in your previous arguments you've only excluded Semitic writing, because it habitually omits vowels, and you say Vowels+Consonants need to be represented in the writing—but a syllabic script does represent both consonants and vowels, with the extra benefit that the same word may be written in fewer signs. Also, you have a strange definition of 'innovation'—the laryngeal values are not uncertain because they are new; they are uncertain because they are so old so little of them remains to be reconstructed, but the traces are so certain that we know that all the languages that dropped them were the innovations—and this is another point in favor of the Hittite script. (Unless perhaps you mean it is an innovation because we discovered them later? But that would be silly, like saying Pluto is an innovation over the telephone.) As for the number of Unicode points, what does it matter? The computers can handle them, and the users are shielded from them: on any decent Korean computer input you only have to type the individual jamo (which are few) and it will convert it to the appropriate Unicode signs automatically; similar is the case for the syllabaries I've used as well. —Mucius Tever 17:27, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning is in optimalization in number of signs, including Unicode range as it is. For me laryngeals were innovation as feature outside Indo-Iranian core family mostly cited by Anne Catherine Emmerich as most similar to Adamic. Non-laryngeal PIE don't breaks any of core Indo-Iranian features, and this is without adding unknown (laryngeal) phoneme variables, thus non-laryngeal PIE still wins as best Adamic proper candidate. Directly behind it exists first reconstruction with unknown (laryngeal) phoneme variables, namely laryngeal PIE. Going back further makes situation only worser. 17:41, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Hi, what is your rationale for considering a lower number of signs per word less optimal than a lower number of different signs? If it is merely difficulty of learning, remember that the signs only have to be learned once, but used often, in which a sign set that can more efficiently encode the information probably should be more optimal to a literate person. (You should probably also drop the use of Unicode as a buzzword to support your claims if, as you describe below, you are not even using it.) Anyway, about the laryngeals, take a look at the history of them. They were deduced by Saussure from languages like Indo-Iranian based on their effects—chiefly in the way ablaut works—about fifty years before the discovery of Hittite confirmed their existence. Using a Proto-Indo-European without laryngeals does break one of the core Indo-Iranian features, and would do so even if Hittite had never been discovered—you will have to find an entirely different way for different ablaut grades to work. Good luck. —Mucius Tever 21:53, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I discarded Hangul because characters don't run purely linearly one after one, as is in Greek alphabet. We don't know exact laryngeal values, because H, H1, H2 and H3 are in fact rather like X variable in equation, than exact phoneme value. Thus non-laryngal PIE still wins, being built only from known constant elements.
Writing laryngeals with Times Ind PIE-Greek font is not convenient, because (all described here: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language ):
  • Times Ind font uses native Greek numerals (horizontally long) made from ligatured tallies, that are Phoenician-derived, as Greek script itself too is derived from Phoenician.
  • Times Ind font uses only Greek uppercase - being most archaic Greek case - in place of Times German Latin lowercase, because some Times German Latin uppercased diacritical counterparts were missing, and due of the same reason Times Ind in place of Times German Latin uppercase has empty rectangles - both cases are swapped among themselves. 08:05, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Wait, so you mean you're willing to sacrifice truth for convenience in something as important as this must be? Young man, I don't ever want to hear you suggest that you are discarding something in a matter of religion just because it's not easy to do: prove it's not the right thing on other grounds first. —Mucius Tever 00:43, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
For me Catholic Faith is most important as truth, rest must be adjusted to it. 08:03, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned to you before, the first Greek alphabet doesn't run linearly either: the lines go in boustrophedon from one end to another (the letters mirror when this happens, too!). The purely linear direction and the single orientation of the letters are an innovation not found in the earliest existing Vowel+Consonant script, which is the one you say you are using. As for the values of the laryngeals, remember that is merely a convenience of notation—the value of the phoneme *H₃ is just as uncertain as the value of, say, *bh (which is almost certainly not /bʰ/); the signs are only chosen for their mnemonic value (in the case of *bh, as a reference to its usual reflex in Sanskrit) and this becomes more and more visible as the progress of the science gets better at pinning down the values. Incidentally, how do you plan to separate *g and *gh from *ǵ and *ǵh in Greek letters? —Mucius Tever 00:43, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Separating of *g and *gh from *ǵ and *ǵh in Greek letters is done in Times Ind by using Indoeuropeanistic diacritics. 08:03, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Identity[fontem recensere]

This is en:User:Wikinger (also known as en:User:Piast, en:User:CBMIBM) going on his extended Greek alphabet crusade. This has been poorly-recieved at English wikipedia: see en:Talk:Alpha_and_Omega, en:Template talk:Greek alphabet, etc. AnonMoos 15:51, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)

This user currently is CBMIBM, but permanently abandoned Wikinger name because of Nazi Wiking Jugend connotations. He too permanently abandoned Piast name because of stadion-bandit GKS Piast connotations. 18:42, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Note: an anonymous user removed the last two paragraphs, giving the summary "revert restoring lies and suspections without proofs". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 18 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
These statements above except this one directly above my current statement, are really lies and suspections without proofs, because I never had account in any Wikipedia. I will remain anonymous, because creating account only to have it banned for nothing is futile. This is my experience from various forums. 12:29, 18 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Note: on 28 June an anonymous user inserted the statement below and removed the statement above, adding the explanation "revert my lies". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I think you will not be banned here if you present your arguments on talk pages. You could even start a page in the "Vicipaedia:"-namespace for this topic. However, if you want to make a change in the article namespace there has to be consensus. To get consensus, it will help to provide external sources, not just citing other Wikipedias. And to have an account here will also help, at least in communicating with you. --Rolandus
I don't want to change "Alpha et Omega" to "Alpha et Sampi" in article, because this article is specifically about one of local/confounded derivatives of global/unconfounded Alpha and Sampi, but not about global/unconfounded Alpha and Sampi itself, rendered in Adamic Proto-Indo-European as *(a ēd §a), for full naming convention of letters in PIE see http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language. I only wanted to inform you all that there exists better and eternal Adamic linguistic solution for all Catholics reconstructed directly from Catholic Private Revelations, thus approved by God, than current and transitory confused triplet of Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Of course all holy and plain words from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc... have their cognates (both single and compounded) in Proto-Indo-European. Most radical example: Jewish Abba and Imma has PIE cognates such as *appa-s and *amma-s, on both sides meaning Father and Mother. There exists much more such correspondences, that are lighter or heavier to find. 17:45, 19 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I use identity lies to cover my real identity - this is against masonic agendas that I suspect to emerge anywhere. 10:01, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Dalby, your edits exposed this anonymous user to freemasons. He only fights for truth, but wants remain anonymous for his safety. 10:16, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I haven't exposed anyone's identity. But I think, if you try to fight for truth using lies, you fail. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Thus I abandon lies in favor to proxies as masquerading tools if you told me that these lies can make my struggle for truth non-efficient. I of course want that Adamic/Catholic truth will win. 13:22, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Missing letters[fontem recensere]

I signalized in template related to Greek Alphabet all missing Greek letters by placing them there. Red links indicate them all. More in: Disputatio:Abecedarium Graecum. 17:01, 17 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

This template is here: Template:Abecedarium Graecum, and missing letters came from Official Unicode site: http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf These letters were officially introduced into Unicode. 17:20, 17 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I provide reliable sources for all obsolete letters, especially Yot - especially on subpages: 16:53, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Hi, read the sources you're citing. The third is essentially an expansion of the information in the second (and that yot is accepted as a unicode codepoint is not a controversial fact), and the first one specifically says that yot was in origin a Latin letter used by Germans to transcribe one of the sounds of Greek. If the Unicode practices regarding how "script mixing" is viewed were different, it would probably never have been viewed (or encoded) as a Greek letter in the first place. Note that your first source's page on "script mixing" explicitly describes yot as a "Latin letter"; also, the Greek typographer Yannis Harambolous states[5] that the correct rendering of yot "depends on the background language, i.e. not of the language in which it is used (ancient Greek) but of the main language of the document (English if it is an English translation or critical edition, French if it is a French one, and so on)"—he goes on to mention that this is one of the justifications for yot being encoded separately: "taking a plain Latin j would not allow French users to represent it by a y". —Mucius Tever 17:56, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I wanted only to find remapping of whole PIE-dedicated Times German LATIN font to other PIE-dedicated GREEK font, and I found it in Adamic Wikinfo article, thus I noticed that to have remapping complete, Yot was necessary to use. Whole remapping is here: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language It was made in such way, that switching between Times German and Times Ind font doesn't affect spelling of PIE words. On both sides are used Indoeuropeanistic diacritics. 18:07, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Hi, if the font works as you are describing, it is not a Unicode font, so it is not even the 'Greek Yot' of Unicode that you are using with it, but an ordinary Latin letter J. —Mucius Tever 21:40, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Please note that if both Latin J and j have leftward hook, and if small Greek Yot has too leftward hook, then big Greek Yot must be identical to big Latin J. Even big Latin A, B, E, I, K, M, N, O, T, Y, Z are identical to their Greek big counterparts both in meaning and shape. As you see, reconstruction of big Yot is correct. Times Ind font is here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/ in Files section. 08:05, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the cybalist group is moderated, and people cannot download the files without being a member. My comment was not related to the shape of the letter, so I'm not sure what you are responding to. —Mucius Tever 00:12, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Yannis/Giannes[fontem recensere]

Γιάννης is of course Giannes, so why is written falsely Yannis? 11:19, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see Yannis in this article?--Xaverius 11:35, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Yannis is in talk, not in article. "Γιάννης Χαραλάμπους" should be Giannes Haralampoys, not Yannis Harambolous, but I still wonder why he is mistransliterated at all? Is this dyslexia or something else? 11:48, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Mind your words, it is not dyslexia, he himself has translitterated his name is such way (check the link provided), so there is nothing we can do. Email him if you want to know the answer.--Xaverius 12:30, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and in fact many Greeks transliterate the name in this way. It's not an error, it's a matter of choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
I am against such choices, because they make learning proper Greek letter values much harder, which outrages classicists. 12:48, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't outrage me :) --Xaverius 12:57, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Yannis is both a common spelling and a useful attestation of the principle of transliterating according to phonetics, rather than letters—a principle that, if we followed it religiously, would get rid of such curious spellings as Cechia and Chilia, classically pronounced /kekhia/ and /khilia/ respectively, though the intended pronunciations are more like /tʃekia/ and /tʃilia/. IacobusAmor 14:32, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

Nova[fontem recensere]

Res quae sequuntur, hodie ad caput paginae additas et emendatas, hic removi. Si quis vult, potest subter commenta inserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:37, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

Iterum habemus quidam qui putat disputationem ad absurdum necessariam esse de ha re. Fortasse sit melius si simpliciter disputationem protegamus contra usores ignotos?--Xaverius 22:26, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Aliquis, ut videtur, hic excitat fluctús in simpulo! IacobusAmor 23:18, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

Alpha and Sho[fontem recensere]

Full global Greek alphabet is as follows:


It begins with Alpha, and ends with Sho. That means that Omega in this case is not final letter, because after Omega is placed too Sampi and Sho. Due to this fact, in this case God is not only local Ionian Alpha and Omega, because He is in this case too Somebody more - global Pan-Greek Alpha and Sho. This fact should be acknowledged by all Christians that uses global Greek Alphabet, because in this case they can diminish God by excluding Him from full range of global Greek Alphabet. Ionians were justified by their unknowledge, and Jesus only adjusted Himself to their lower level of knowledge, calling Himself as local Ionian Beginning and End. Sho was placed behind Sampi and was only existing Greek letter not used by Greeks, but by Bactrians that adopted Greek alphabet. 18:14, 24 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Try this:

letter Alpha can be thought as rotated letter Aleph

Greek Alpha 01.svgGreek Alpha 09.svg

letter Sho can be thought as rotated letter Omega

Greek uc Omega.svgBactrian Sho.svg


Aleph-Omega ≈ Alpha-Sho. 16:22, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

What is what:

talk with textual alphabet is flawed and is based on many contradictory faulty sources.
talk with graphical alphabet is genuine and is based on single reliable source: http://www.unicode.org/Public/UCA/latest/allkeys.txt