Re: [tied] Hathor

>speaking about a different time period altogether much earlier than the
>unification of Egypt in 3100 BCE, much earlier than writing (that is, if we
>discount the Vinca thingy). I believe I stated 5500 BCE.

For which you have found evidence for Tyrrhenian influence in Egypt?
Archaeological details welcome.

>First, /Isis/ is the Hellenized form of Coptic /Esi/, which is from Egyptian
>[ist] if I recall.

Ast, Aset, Auset are the forms usually cited. As I understand it, the names
the Greeks called Isis and Osiris did not begin with different sounds in
Kemetic. Asar and Aset, or as some have it, Ausar and Auset.

> they still knew what their gods
>were called, otherwise I wouldn't be giving you the Coptic names.

But, I repeat, why the Coptic names? No Egyptologist I've ever seen has
claimed Esi or Esit or Isit for "Isis."

>Christianity isn't as efficient as you might think when it comes to
>destroying ancient beliefs. Old traditions die hard.

You're preaching to the wrong choir on that one -- or should I say,
teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

My point was that literary Coptic was funneled through heavy Greek
influence, and typically used Greek forms for Egyptian names. Better to go
directly to the most ancient source, all the more so if you want to talk
about 5500 BCE.

Totally off topic:

>Max was
>apparently offended by my innocent and merely playful reference to her as
>"young man"... petty political correctness... trivialities

Too bad my dry wit is not playful enough for you... Calm down, it's only humor.

As to the distress caused by my deceptive name (a word to the wise: there
are plenty of other Maxines and Samanthas running loose as Max and Sam) I
can only advise: Assume nothing, entertain possibilities.