Aeclectic Tarot
Tarot Cards & Reviews Free Tarot Readings Tarot Books Tarot Card Meanings Tarot Forum

Reflections on the Development of Hebrew Letters

  > Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Beyond Tarot > Kabbalah & Alphabets


 
kwaw's Avatar
kwaw  kwaw is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 29 Dec 2003
Location: Nr. Ephesus, Turkey
Posts: 5,400
kwaw 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea


Quote:
Originally posted by Huck
[B]Originally posted by Ross G Caldwell [/i]


First Problem: Understanding the ABC-man:

10th = 10: Iod = Hand ?
of course, this are "hands,", cause two hands have 10 fingers

11th: kaph = 20: ... ?
of course, this are toes, cause 10 fingers and 10 toes are 20.

12th: Lamed: The "L" still looks like the leg with foot off the alphabet-man.
I don't see it, and to continue your analogy men don't have 30 [or 12th] legs [or missing feet].

Quote:
With that we've a curious phenomen (too much body signals at a specific location in the row) inside a given group (names in relation to signs of alphabet), a projecting hypothetical exspectation (there is an ABC-man) with a number-related "order" (12, six for the head, six for the body) out of an older context which might contain a real rememberance (Sepher Yetzirah),
All letters make up one body according to the SY, this is 'fiction' or 'forgery' or a 'different body' according to you. Excepting in instance where SY agrees [according to your unique interpretation] with yourself the rest is irrelevant and/or false. Surely then better to leave the SY out of it altogether than rely on parts that according to you are 'true' and rest 'forged' without supporting evidence? On what basis do you decide what is 'true' and 'forged'? It seems to me you have very poor understanding of the SY on which to make any such judgement? You seem to have grasped bits of it but not in context of the overal concept. That which you quote [if you have quoted, i don't remember a quote, merely mention of the text] in support of your argument is we are too believe from your interpretation 'true', all the rest anyone else quotes against it 'noise'!? I don't buy it. Demonstrate your overall understanding of the SY and the basis upon which you judge which 'bits' to be 'true' and which 'forged' or otherwise leave it out of your argument all together.

Kwaw
Top   #101
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea


Quote:
Originally posted by kwaw
I don't see it, and to continue your analogy men don't have 30 [or 12th] legs [or missing feet].



All letters make up one body according to the SY, this is 'fiction' or 'forgery' or a 'different body' according to you. Excepting in instance where SY agrees [according to your unique interpretation] with yourself the rest is irrelevant and/or false. Surely then better to leave the SY out of it altogether than rely on parts that according to you are 'true' and rest 'forged' without supporting evidence? On what basis do you decide what is 'true' and 'forged'? It seems to me you have very poor understanding of the SY on which to make any such judgement? You seem to have grasped bits of it but not in context of the overal concept. That which you quote [if you have quoted, i don't remember a quote, merely mention of the text] in support of your argument is we are too believe from your interpretation 'true', all the rest anyone else quotes against it 'noise'!? I don't buy it. Demonstrate your overall understanding of the SY and the basis upon which you judge which 'bits' to be 'true' and which 'forged' or otherwise leave it out of your argument all together.

Kwaw
Also Kwaw (earlier)

"A sign for this thing: Twenty-two objects in a single body."
SY 2:6

There is no indication at this place of SY, if it is talked about the body of the ABC-Man or Man generally.
Why do you assume, that it belongs to our context?

It's naturally for the author of SY to speak of the "body of the Alphabet".
When going in detail of SY you see, that the 7 double letters are not connected to parts of the body of a human. Also not the 3 mothers. But the 12 simple letters.

Chapter 5, point 2 (short version): "two hands, two feet, two kidneys, the splee, the liver, the gallbladder, the hemsess, the kiva and the korkeban."

In an enlarged way also in chapter 5 in the longer version. Apparently the SY attribution is in detail not that, what one finds when researching the original ABC-man.

Another body-system of 12 elements is given, as Ross already noted, by common astrology. Aries = head ... pisces = feet. It also doesn't touch the problem of the ABC-Man of 17/18th century BC in detail. But both orders testify, that "human body devided in 12 parts" is a "common and farspread idea" in old times.

The SY is not my theme in the moment, it will later become interesting.

Ever heard, that the 10- and 20-question in various mathematical systems of older time had considerable importance? Maya for instance, French language?
"Quatre de vingt" = 80? These older systems didn't consider 30 legs, as far I know, but 10 fingers and 10 toes.
The "30" was important in Egyptia as length of a month, "12 legs" parted the circle of the year in 12 destricts of 30 days each. Curiously the 12th letter of the Alphabet is Lamed with the numberworth of 30, but this is a logical mathematical result and not a wonder.

Kwaw wrote: "Demonstrate your overall understanding of the SY and the basis upon which you judge which 'bits' to be 'true' and which 'forged' or otherwise leave it out of your argument all together."

Surely I'll demonstrate my overall understanding of the SY, when necessary. But surely, when I desire to do so. In the moment my theme is the ABC-Man.

What means, you don't buy it ... :-) Do I sell something?

No, I am always interested to find the man/woman with the better argument to a given thinking object. But it should be a real better argument.
Top   #102
kwaw's Avatar
kwaw  kwaw is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 29 Dec 2003
Location: Nr. Ephesus, Turkey
Posts: 5,400
kwaw 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea


Quote:
Originally posted by Huck


When going in detail of SY you see, that the 7 double letters are not connected to parts of the body of a human. Also not the 3 mothers. But the 12 simple letters.

The three mother are attributed in the SY to parts of the body:

"The mothers AMSh
in the soul, male and female,
are the head, belly and chest.
The head is created from fire,
Th belly is created from water
and the chest, from breath,
decides between them."
SY3:6

The seven doubles too are attributed to parts of the body:

"Seven gates in the soul, male and female,
two eyes,two ears, two nostrils and the mouth."
SY4:8

Bet - right eye [4:8], gimel - right ear [4:9, Daleth - right nostril [4:10], Kaf - left eye [4:11], Hei - left ear [4:12], Resh - Left nostril [4:13], Tau - mouth [4:14].

Kwaw
Top   #103
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 

This is my last post on your ABC-man, Huck. I solved the riddle three days ago, even drew a picture to show you. Didn't you see it?

It proves nothing; half of it is made up. The argument is circular.

You have treated my other objections by simply ignoring them; so there's no point in continuing this discussion. You called them "too stupid." I don't think they're stupid. Explain how they're stupid. Until you do, I have nothing more to say, except I suggest again you might take your theory for a walk outside the house - to the ANE list for example, where they know something about the ancient Near East, and the history of the alphabet.

But please don't mention my name when you post. I would like you to have all the glory.

Our tarot work, the work with autorbis, I am not ashamed to take up with any expert you can name.
Top   #104
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea


Quote:
Originally posted by kwaw
The three mother are attributed in the SY to parts of the body:

"The mothers AMSh
in the soul, male and female,
are the head, belly and chest.
The head is created from fire,
Th belly is created from water
and the chest, from breath,
decides between them."
SY3:6

The seven doubles too are attributed to parts of the body:

"Seven gates in the soul, male and female,
two eyes,two ears, two nostrils and the mouth."
SY4:8

Bet - right eye [4:8], gimel - right ear [4:9, Daleth - right nostril [4:10], Kaf - left eye [4:11], Hei - left ear [4:12], Resh - Left nostril [4:13], Tau - mouth [4:14].

Kwaw
Gooooood! Very, very good, Kwaw.

You found something of great relevance.

Now you've 3 great chapters:

"The mothers AMSh
in the soul, male and female,
are the head, belly and chest.
The head is created from fire,
Th belly is created from water
and the chest, from breath,
decides between them."

The 3 great chapters are: The three mothers

(SY calls them Aleph -Mem - Shin, but I think, this is - for the moment too much detail and attackable, I only accept the mother-idea as "original and very early")

3 great chapters and naturally anybody, who in old time wanted to make an Alphabet, wanted a sorted Alphabet, an ordered structure. The "mothers" in the SY give the basic structure:

3 titles for the main chapters.

22 letter -

3 letters for the main chapter-titles, 19 left.

19 divided by 3 is 6 and a rest of one.

Each main chapter has 6 subchapters.

The rest of one is the signature.

Now I've the Alphabet:

1st: Mother
2nd: Mother
3rd: Mother - in a book this would be the content pages
---------
4th:
5th:
6th:
7th:
8th:
9th:
this group we haven't discussed until now, but this is "Soul"
----------
10th: Hands
11th: Feet (toes)
12th: legs
13th: female genital
14th: male genital
15th: back-bone with rips
this is the group of "belly"; 6 6 subchapters
----------
16th: eye
17th: mouth
18th: nose
19th: ears
20th: head
21th: teeth
and this is the group of head; 6 subchapters
----------
22th: signature

:-) and finally the triumphal song, until nobody likes to hear it anymore

... ho, ho, ho, I'm the Alphabet-man ...
... ho, ho, ho, I'm the Alphabet-man ...
... ho, ho, ho, I'm the Alphabet-man ...

just for didactical reasons

Kwaw, the other detail you presented about the double letters, I forget for the moment. The Sy has another system than the master of the Alphabet, both systems are connected cause both relate to the Alphabet, so some of the informations given by SY are worthful for the analyses of the early situation, but not all.

It's like in Tarot. 15th century decks have specific similarities with 19th or 20th century decks, but not every detail in the 20th century deck find its counterpart in the old deck.

The precise relation of the SY to the production of the alphabet itself will be discussed later.
Top   #105
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 

Quote:
Originally posted by Ross G Caldwell
This is my last post on your ABC-man, Huck. I solved the riddle three days ago, even drew a picture to show you. Didn't you see it?

It proves nothing; half of it is made up. The argument is circular.

You have treated my other objections by simply ignoring them; so there's no point in continuing this discussion. You called them "too stupid." I don't think they're stupid. Explain how they're stupid. Until you do, I have nothing more to say, except I suggest again you might take your theory for a walk outside the house - to the ANE list for example, where they know something about the ancient Near East, and the history of the alphabet.

But please don't mention my name when you post. I would like you to have all the glory.

Our tarot work, the work with autorbis, I am not ashamed to take up with any expert you can name.
:-) you shouldn't be that sensible, I sensed, that you probable got it right, but your picture was unclear enough and here are more than one person listening and each step must repeated and must be clear, otherwise only chaos and half-understanding about what has being said results.
And the other group ... this is for later. And actually, if they want something from me, they can come here. If I want something of them, I can go there. That's a normal condition.

I don't think them generally or personally stupid, but I think, that their genre or their group should have found the ABC-Man long ago, equally to the 5x14-argument, it also should have been found long ago by the "group of experts", which rule the scene.

In the special group of Tarot-experts they were even to lazy to listen precisely to the argument - long ago. Such behaviour is "stupidity-bewaring".

Experiences mustn't repeated from group to group, that one met. If you learnt about the arrogances and hierarchies in such scholar systems generally and how it struggles its initiatives by structures which do not function in specific situations, you are not bound to play the game "their" way.

For specific rather revolutionary insights in special fields you've a general problem, which has nothing to do with if your theory is right or wrong, and that is: "Make them listen" and this game is played after the rules of the djungle, and the momentary masters of it are "Coca-Cola is life" and other unexspected heroes.
Top   #106
kwaw's Avatar
kwaw  kwaw is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 29 Dec 2003
Location: Nr. Ephesus, Turkey
Posts: 5,400
kwaw 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea


Quote:
Originally posted by Huck

The 3 great chapters are: The three mothers


which three chapters, according to you, are the 'main' chapters'?

Quote:
(SY calls them Aleph -Mem - Shin, but I think, this is - for the moment too much detail and attackable, I only accept the mother-idea as "original and very early")
The earliest reference doesn't call them 'mothers' at all. It is possible this is a scribal error.

Quote:
3 great chapters and naturally anybody, who in old time wanted to make an Alphabet, wanted a sorted Alphabet, an ordered structure. The "mothers" in the SY give the basic structure:
Why naturally? Why the earliest alphabet? There is no evidence here for the earliest alphabet, nothing I haven't quoted before, the SY and kabbalistic texts [including 17th century Luria] that up untill now you have dismissed as 'fiction' and 'forgery'. Something hits your button and suddenly they become authoritive texts in proof of your position? Yes, there is an abc man in kabbalistic text, nothing new or original in that. All 22 letters are involved, according to you up until now only 12, the very text you have previously quoted contradicts your own position, and suddenly...I find it hard to be even bothered.... it is going beyond exasperation to mere boredom.

Not only did you claim there are only 12, but that the 12 are sequential which you associate with the 12 simple letters, which aren't sequential. You are all over the place. There is a kabbalistic ABC man, this is testified to not only in kabbalistic texts but the pre-kabbalistc text of the SY. The SY has at least two models, the concentric and the ABC anthropmorphic models [the latter of which provided the inspiration for Luria's ToL models]. Nothing new, or original, or proof of your pre-historical 'simple master' or inventor of the alphabet as 'ABC' man. Though the ABC man is affirmed and authentic in kabbalistic tradition, up untill now you have poo pooed any kabbalistic tradition i have quoted as being too late and not relevant. And I agree it is too late and irrelevant for your pre-historic simple ABC man, but I was never trying to prove that, and you can't have it both ways, unless you are admitting your first way was in error and you were wrong.

Quote:
Kwaw, the other detail you presented about the double letters, I forget for the moment.
It is quite simple, 7 gateways of the soul, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 nostrils and mouth. Read 5 senses, the five doorways of perception. 2 eyes [sight], 2 ears [hearing], 2 nostrils [smell] and a mouth [taste, because the mouth contains the tongue, organ of taste; touch, because it is encompassed by two pairs that touch each other, the upper and lower jaw with their rows of teeth, and upper and lower lips].

Kwaw
Top   #107
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea


Originally posted by kwaw

which three chapters, according to you, are the 'main' chapters'?

**** The 3 mothers as the mind of the inventer of the alphabet perceived them. The structure isn't affected by a condition, if the 3 guiding letters were already called "mothers" and it isn't affected, if aleph-mem-shin were already the guiding letters -actually it looks, that they weren't.****


The earliest reference doesn't call them 'mothers' at all. It is possible this is a scribal error.

*** see above - if they were called mother, okay, if they were not called mothers, it doesn't change anything. ***

My old sentence" **** 3 great chapters and naturally anybody, who in old time wanted to make an Alphabet, wanted a sorted Alphabet, an ordered structure. The "mothers" in the SY give the basic structure****

Why naturally?

**** It is always naturally, that oders like the alphabet or Tarot or others of that kind start simple - and become more complex and occasionally "mysterious and not understandable" by historical changes. It is a"normal, "natural" run. The 5x14-deck was also simple, the Tarot was mysterious****

Why the earliest alphabet?

**** Hm ... Good question. Do you know of an older? ***

There is no evidence here for the earliest alphabet, nothing I haven't quoted before, the SY and kabbalistic texts [including 17th century Luria] that up until now you have dismissed as 'fiction' and 'forgery'. Something hits your button and suddenly they become authoritive texts in proof of your position?

**** Hm. I speak of the archeological findings. Luria had problems to know them. Of course the long alphabetic development through various cultures and forms (inclusive all that was Luria said in this theme also testify the MUST-HAVE-BEEN-existence of an Alphabet, which was the first.***

Yes, there is an abc man in kabbalistic text, nothing new or original in that. All 22 letters are involved, according to you up until now only 12, the very text you have previously quoted contradicts your own position, and suddenly...I find it hard to be even bothered.... it is going beyond exasperation to mere boredom.

**** Well, I feel bound to see only that in the old ABC-man what I do see intuitively by the graphical old signs and the old names as "given data" - anything else I do neglect as "too late" (both data sources are of course disputable, if they really are securely really old - this complex theme I do avoid here, cause I've a first problem to communicate an idea about the object).
However, in the interpretation of the given data I'm allowed to note, that later forms of a near or even far culture seems to be mirrored or show similarities or are nearly obviously identical, when they are - that's normal analyses of a system.

In my final conclusion I decide about my opinion, what the researched object is.

At the momentary state I do see from the given data, that there is an ABC-man very good imaginable from letter Iod to letter shin about the distance of 12 units, letter 10 - 21.

The "body"-reflections in SY are rather different to the observed object, it attributes different.
The basic order of SY, 3 mother, 7 double, 12 simple letter. however, shows similarities.

Of course me as researcher has to see, what I see. When I see differences I say: "I see differences", and if I see similarities I say: "I see similarities". Any problems with that?

****


Not only did you claim there are only 12, but that the 12 are sequential which you associate with the 12 simple letters, which aren't sequential.

***** They aren't sequential in the SY, I know that, and that's the reason, why I earlier said, that the SY "forges" the earlier order. Well, it's not really forgery, but the early alphabet has its order and the Sepher Yetzirah has another. I observe that and I state that. ****

You are all over the place. There is a kabbalistic ABC man, this is testified to not only in kabbalistic texts but the pre-kabbalistc text of the SY. The SY has at least two models, the concentric and the ABC anthropmorphic models [the latter of which provided the inspiration for Luria's ToL models]. Nothing new, or original, or proof of your pre-historical 'simple master' or inventor of the alphabet as 'ABC' man. Though the ABC man is affirmed and authentic in kabbalistic tradition, up untill now you have poo pooed any kabbalistic tradition i have quoted as being too late and not relevant. And I agree it is too late and irrelevant for your pre-historic simple ABC man, but I was never trying to prove that, and you can't have it both ways, unless you are admitting your first way was in error and you were wrong.

**** I've really problems to identify my earlier error, which you seem see so clearly. My data doesn't depend on kabbalistic traditions, if I refer to an ABC-man. I can see an ABC-man without knowing the word kabbala at all, provided I know, what an ABC is, I'm not blind. An ABC-man to me is imaginable in various alphabets, Greek Alphabet, Roman Alphabet, Arabian Alphabet etc.
Of course I'm allowed to note, that in other contexts, later, earlier, near or foreign, also ABC-men appear, either similar or different or nearly identical. Their existence adds to the statement, that the ABC-man in my observed object is not an unusual feature in comparable systems, that's all. In the case of SY even a filiation seems possible and even possibly expectable, as a communicative bridge between System 1 and System 2 is given and the object is "somehow identical" in essence. ***

It is quite simple, 7 gateways of the soul, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 nostrils and mouth. Read 5 senses, the five doorways of perception. 2 eyes [sight], 2 ears [hearing], 2 nostrils [smell] and a mouth [taste, because the mouth contains the tongue, organ of taste; touch, because it is encompassed by two pairs that touch each other, the upper and lower jaw with their rows of teeth, and upper and lower lips].

*** As far I can compare this, we have with the letters 16-19 pe, ain, tzaddi, quof in series 4 senses indicated in the old alphabet-names. As far I see it, I would expext here the group of "head", in which I would not expect the "double letters".****

*** But perhaps your idea is not bad, perhaps it describes the way of change ***

Actually autorbis (and later me, too) saw it this way:

Original idea (mine):

(1-3)------ 3 mothers
(4-9) ----- 6 double letters
(10-21) - 12 simple letters
(22) ------ 7th (centered) double letter

You indirectly (perhaps not consciously) support the idea:

3 mothers
12 simple letters
7 double letters

This order is nearer to the order of the SY .... this makes it interesting. But the SY is not authoritative ... it is later.

Actually I would think, that it started still in the version, that we earlier prefered as shown above, but might have changed later to the form, suggested by your cited SY-information.
1800, perhaps 2000 years between original alphabet and SY are a lot of time, there could have been various changes between "idea 1" (oldest Alphabet) and "idea 2" (SY).
Top   #108
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Silence ... :-)


No news from Kwaw, Ross left the thread ...

Time to finish the presentation of my theoretical considerations about the origin of the names of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which naturally also touch considerations about the
origin of the alphabet as whole.

What I stated until now:

I think, that the names have a good chance to be old - this might be not true in each case, as changes are a natural feature in transmission processes, however, somehow me as a receiver from a 3000 or 4000 years old message could identify something like a "probable ABC-man" in it. This gives hope, that there weren't too much changes in the "old names".

Well, we wouldn't have had a chance to identify the ABC-man, when we would have known only the younger alphabet-forms. The identification is only possible with knowledge of the older forms.

Ross insisted, that we should look excessively at the existing documents, I did negate it for the moment. It's not that I completely don't know the documents, and I know that there is chaos.
We can compare it with the situation of the Tarotcards of 15th century very well. You've artefacts with letters - as you've artefacts of Tarotcards in 15th century. Some of these letters (as Tarotcards) are connected, as they appear in the same document. Others are single letters or small groups at arrowheads or broken peaces of ceramic. One is very interesting, it presents the letters in cuneiform with small changes and some letters more - very difficult to interprete.

No - I keep that out for the moment. It's didactical not good tp present things from beginning on too complicated.
First I want establish my theoretical exspectation. One part of it I've already shown.
I exspect, that the letter names from letter 10 - 21 refer to a imagined body, the "ABC-man".
This is not the ABC-Man, as it is suggested by the SY or other sources - at least, as far I know them. The ABC-man is intuitively recognizeable without knowing other ABC-Men in other cultures, just by the given names and it is of course helpful, if one knows the old letter-presentation.

Letter Nr. 22 is the signature - and the central part of the system, which somehow looks like this:

head-group

6 (16-21)
|
1 (mother-letter)
|
letter 22 -- (mother-letter) -- 6 (4 - 9) (Soul-group)
|
1 (mother-letter)
|
6 (10 - 15)
|
(body-group)


I hope, you get the inner picture .... :-) think of the Mercedes-Star
with 3 legs ... :-) ("O Lord, could you buy me a Mercedes-Benz ... perhaps you remember).

Letter 22 (Taw) is the center - well, I add, in my imagination of the modell of the designer of the Alphabet.

That's the whole picture.

Now you should ask me what I do think of the first 9 letters, which I do not attribute to the (recognieable) ABC-man.

Alright, we (autorbis and me) found nothing what makes this group easily explainable - similar clear as the ABC-man.

What we saw generally, was, that a lot of the the first 9 signs look like fragments of old counting systems. Precisily:

letter
2 beth (not clearly) - started probably as a square which could mean = 4
3 gimel (not clearly), could mean = 2
4 daleth (not clearly), could mean = 3
5 He
7 Zajin
8 het
9 tet (unclear)

also letter Nr. 15 samech, which presents the number 60 and is part of the body group.

also letter 22, which is central letter.

On this observation we considered the following scenario:

The "master of the alphabet" (whoever this was, a single man, a group of teachers, some generations of writers) invented their sign-system by adding a new system to an old, already existing system. The new invented system was the ABC-Man (letter 10-21), the already existing system was a number system, which already was in use and "known" to the people, who had accept and to learn the new way to write - so the didactical concept was very easy.

From the old concept were imported (our imagination) 11 signs:

1 - 9 and a "10" and a sign for "60".

1. The sign for 10 was a cross and it became the last central letter Taw. Why? The cross was "international" often used as "10", for instance by the Romans ("X"). Additionally the letter and number tet = 9 shows an encircled cross, which creates a similar relationship to cross = 10 = Taw as IX and X possess in Roman number writing.

2. The sign for 60 became implanted in the Alphabet-man as "number 60". Why? There should be the sexagesimal-system aound, the number "60" was important, so it was natural to keep this sign alive.

3.
1-9 were probably in the first motion imported as they were, but by some unclear actions they transformed or changed place. The square for beth should have been originally 4, but beth became second letter. Also daleth, the triangle, should have been originally 3, but became 4th letter. Gimel might be suspected to mean 2, but is now 3rd letter.
Other forms might have changed their outfit by writing practice. The original number writing form was perhaps not quick enough.

--------------------------------------------------

Aleph = Bull
.... there was a Bull in the religion
----
beth = house
gimel = camel
... there might have been a social contrast between "staying at home" and "having a journey" for reasons of trade with a camel.
Gimel looks basically like a simple line, beth in the origin like a square
-----
The others look unclear, although some seem to have gotten their name just from the final letter form. Of course they are "somehow" interpretable, but we think, that these interpretations do not open "a great context". We think, the origin was the number-system and later the "words" and "names" became only simple "memory-helpers" - this is different to the group of the signs connected to the ABC-Man. There the Alphabet-producer was free to invent a "great imagination" - with taking an already existing system for the other letters he was not similar free in his choice of the names. The natural result: This part looks a little chaotic, the Alphabet-man looks fine.

I hope, I was understandable. Perhaps somebody finds a more interesting explanation - this would be fine.
Top   #109
firemaiden's Avatar
firemaiden  firemaiden is offline
keeper of the toaster
 
Join Date: 07 Jun 2002
Location: Poitiers, France
Posts: 10,828
firemaiden 

There are a lot of body parts used in the Egyptian Hieroglyphics.... wouldn't the body parts and names still present in the Phoenician and later Hebrew letters, merely reflect their pictoral and Egyptian heritage?
Top   #110




 


 


Tarot Cards & Reviews Free Tarot Readings Tarot Books Tarot Card Meanings Tarot Forum
Aeclectic Tarot Forum Links
· Tarot
· Tarot Special Interest
· Beyond Tarot
· Forum Library

Aeclectic Tarot Categories
· Angel Decks
· Dark & Gothic Decks
· Goddess Decks
· Fairy Decks
· Doreen Virtue Decks
· Beginner Decks
· Cat Decks
· Pagan & Wiccan Decks
· Ancient Egyptian Decks
· Celtic Decks
· Lenormand Decks
· Rider-Waite Decks
· Marseilles Decks
· Thoth Decks
· Oracle Decks
· List All Decks
· Popular Tarot Decks
· Available Decks
· Tarot Books
· What's New

Copyright © 1996 - 2019 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us.