«

[Sebatianos]

The writen language of Egypt - the one we can read today - shows traces of different influences, so either there were periods of "good" and "bad" Egyiptian - like the case is with latin (actually showing that the writen lagnuage was different then the spoken language) or writers from different parts of the empire spoke in different dialects.
There were also non-egyptian people living in Egypt. They contributed to the language also - as well as the merchants did. Finiding new words - new landscapes with features unknown to them,... contributed to the change in language.
But the most common theory is that people spoke different languages - belonging to the same language groups (similar to modern day China).

[Stroggy]

So you've found an exclusion.

But Dutch and German sound a lot a like, as does Polish and Russian to some extent.
And hebrew and arabic sound alike since they are both from the same orgine (semitic)
So I think the further you go back in time to closer the languages are.

So there you have it.

[Sebatianos]

Well - most European languages derive from the indo-european language group. So everything from Jidish to Hindu would belong to the same language group - but over the years languages drifted further apart.
So yes - the more you go back in time - the closer the languages were!
BTW - as a profesor of English I am a lingust as well as a historian :bleh:

[Rogue]

Zašto se onda praviš da me ne razumiješ? :bleh:

As far the languages goes, how close are Phoenician, Sumerian and Egiptian?

[Sebatianos]

Summerian and Phenitian would be about as similar as modern German and Dutch are. Egyptian would be like French.

A zašto te ne razumijem? :blink: Razumijem - ali se ne slažem (bar u nekim stvarima). :bleh:

[Rogue]

Bar u pogledu Egipatske istorije izgleda da se slažemo.

Originally posted by Strrogy
since Egyptian is related to Hamitic (North African languages) and Semitic (languages such as Arabic and Hebrew) most if not all people in or around the Egypt spoke the language or some variation of it.

If I remember right, Phoenician is some sort of origin for Arab, Hebrew, Latin and couple other languages. it had some influence on Egyptian to. :blink:

[Kon-Tiki]

Stroggy, how come when I talk to somebody from Holland, they don't know what a snotvalling is, while everybody that speaks Dutch and is from Belgium knows what it is? Or when an American whom I've taught the expression Slukes, which's understood in whole Dutch-speaking Belgium, said it to somebody from Holland and got a Huh? What's that? in return? Even tighter... why do you think on Belgian television, they subtitle those that speak West-Flemish? It's officially the same language.

[Danny252]

I think it would've had to have been willing workers. Surely they would not have been able to find capable stonemasons etc. from pure slavepower? and wouldn't workers have believed it was their DUTY to get their Pharoah to his afterlfe?

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Anubis@Dec 6 2004, 11:18 PM
If I remember right, Phoenician is some sort of origin for Arab, Hebrew, Latin and couple other languages. it had some influence on Egyptian to. :blink:

Phoenician is younger then Egyptian and it's not really a point of origin for those languages - but it influenced them. It was the first language that used phonetical alphabet - so other languages that use phonetical alphabet (no matter which simbols they use as long as one symbol represents one sound) were influenced by it - so that they started seperating the sounds of sylables, but Hebrew, Arab and Latin did not derive from Phoenician.
The similareties of Hebrew and Arab language are due to the fact that Islam developed out of Judeism (as unlikely as that seems to be right now) and that both languages were developing at the similar theritory with many contacts (trade, culture, wars,...).

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Danny252@Dec 6 2004, 11:27 PM
I think it would've had to have been willing workers. Surely they would not have been able to find capable stonemasons etc. from pure slavepower? and wouldn't workers have believed it was their DUTY to get their Pharoah to his afterlfe?

Both points are correct, but not completely accurate. Some surely wanted to enjoy a part of the glory of their living god - the Pharao, but most of them went off to season work - something many poorer farmers did (and basically still do).
So not much slave power for the craftmanship. Well - just read my first post in this thread - it more or less says the same!