Talk:Tifinagh/Archive 1

Is there a range of Unicode characters for Tifinagh? --Hirzel 14:15 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC) - it will be fine if you can make an complete article about the origin of tifinagh, this can help you :. but is not very nice to say that it is probably from a punic or arabic origine, while tifinagh may be a older then the punic script. it is also not accepteble to say that is from an arabic script. the arabic script in what you write is not very old ,it is a branche of the aramic scriprt. and we know that tifinagh very older then the aramic script. you can say the yemenitic script, and that is well a good possiblity. but that is a proto arabic, not the arabic in what you write. and further i don'think that sheba was an an arab. you have also to say that there is no proofs that the origin of tifinagh is punic. of heroglyfic. it 's also objectively to say that origin of tifinagh may be the berber themself and some scholars claim that tifinagh mean "our invention". for furhter inforamtions see : http://www.mondeberbere.com/langue/tifinagh/tifinagh_origine.htm Aziri 12:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Read the article for a change. It already said that "some consider its origin to be as yet unresolved.''  Go look up "unresolved".


 * The Northern Arabic scripts mentioned (Safaitic, Thamudenic, etc.) have nothing to do with the "arabic script in what you write"; they come from the musnad of Himyar, and were what the Arabs wrote in before they started using Aramaic. There are inscriptions in Northern Arabic scripts all over the Sinai and the Hijaz from pre-Islamic times.  And you certainly can't go around deleting perfectly good quotes from respectable academics (from O'Connor, in this case) just because you don't agree with their theory. - Mustafaa 18:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

yes, i'm not agree with their theorie, because there is no proofs that tifinagh have a punic origine , they writed that because the thought that tifinagh not more older then 200 B.C. further i did read it ,but i feel my as a child when you say that i'm a idiot just because i see the discussion with you as "bicker". Aziri 13:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When someone starts reverting articles that they haven't even understood, I feel quite entitled to call them names. If you're going to behave more responsibly now, then great. As for the dates, there is no widely accepted evidence that Tifinagh is older than Phoenician (as you can see, among other places, from the MondeBerbere article). 200 BC is not how old Tifinagh is, but how old the earliest Tifinagh inscription with a date written on it is. - Mustafaa 19:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

if there are no proofs that Tifinagh more older then punic script it mean not that it is not more old. but it's sure that there no proofs that tifinagh have an punic or arabic origine. therefor you can that not say. well you can say that the origine of tifinagh is uncertain.Aziri 10:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why may mustafaa write concerning the berber:
i did see that mustafaa wirited about many theories, and noone of them are sure. nevertheless he did not write any critice. but when i say that tifinagh may be itif +negh = our invention ,the he did write a critice. see his manner : "...A few activists 'claim' that "tifinagh" comes from the two Berber words itif + negh, meaning our invention in the Berber language; 'however, given that the singular is 'tafineq (of which tifinagh is the regular plural), the etymology more commonly given (eg by 'Karl Prasse') relates to to the 'Greek' phoinikos "'Phoenician'".

see his titel : some people ('not scholars')  'claim' that; ''but the scholars say'...)

here i have a source of Mustafaa A'ashi (specialised in archaeology and the old history) and he say that some research workers concernig tifinagh thank that it mean our invention. and he think that also. but he is a specialist in archeology and the old history not such as mustafaa claim (not scholars). further are all the theorie concerning tafinagh may be criticed and the question is : why he has only the theory of "our invention" criticised en why he accepts not the contributions of the berber scholars'? is this no serious force reason to stop him with his random criticism ?Aziri 11:25, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The claim that Tifinagh has been found in America is made only by a few New Agers who every other archeologist considers to be completely wrong. Many of them also claim Tifinagh isn't even a Berber script. - Mustafaa 02:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

see this : but i know it : he is claiming .and he is a berber activist and not scholar. see this :"...Ook kan jij er niet omheen dat dev tifinagh tak van het Libische schrift gevonden is op de Maagden Eilanden, nou, dat kan ook alleen verklaard worden middels contacten..." source : you can say that he is claiming and not scholar but you can not say that he a berber activist. berber's contact with america :  : they are well berber activist but they have sources ,therefor you cannot claim that they are claiming. A Numidian Coin from Deer Creek, Ohio he is not a berber activist (!). all this peopel are claiming but you are the one who have the keys of the truth ?!Aziri 14:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go buy a dictionary, Aziri; "claim" neither implies the truth nor the falsehood of the claim. However, the America claim really is false, and is treated by most archeologists as on a par with the equally improbable stories of Egyptians, Phoenicians, Romans, Irish, and Welshmen in America. I suggest you explore Hall of Maat a bit. - Mustafaa 17:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

it is not a question of dictionary. i have to buy a judge. who can see the counterfeiting.Aziri 13:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Counterfeiting" is certainly the first word that leaps to mind when I hear about a Roman-era coin in Ohio... - Mustafaa 18:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

like it was writen by me.Aziri 11:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)