Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999) • Hacker News Board

Re: Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999)

#101

Post by dingoegret » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 3:57 AM UTC

ignoramous wrote: post #78

dingoegret wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. They were likely ethnically Egyptian or Phoenician or Libyan but had Hellenic names. In the same way the Iranian mathematicians in the article had Arabic names. Culture and language often cross ethnic boundaries and it's up to historians to piece it all together.

> Iranian mathematicians In the middle ages, there was greater Persia and two Iraqs (Iraq al-Arab to the west and Iraq al-Ajman to the east which is today's western and central Iran). If we are being pedantic, either the polymaths in question were Persian (which they are) or Iraqi Arabs, not Iranians. In fact, Persian empire also encompassed parts of modern day Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakis…

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I have to push back on the naming. There has never been a time, before or now, when Iran was called Persia. Persian is a western xenonym and a modern one. Iranians have always been called Iranians. From the Zayandeh River Culture to the early Kura Araxes culture to the Achaemenid Empire to the Sassanid period to today. So the admitted pedantic quibble about "Perisa" is way off.

Re: Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999)

#102

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 6:16 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #75

thaumasiotes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the theophoric names, I have a question you probably can't answer. I've read that the form "Jehovah" results from reading YHWH as if it had the vowel points of the word adonai, "lord". But I can't help noticing that the prefix form of YHWH in names, for which the vowels are known, is yeho-. That really adds some credibility to "Jehovah", except that "Jehovah" supposedly comes from a completely unrelated conventio…

"How true" of course depends on the faith of the one who discusses it -- the faiths are exactly made based on the different "stories" about the same topics, which the believers have to believe. It appears to me that the relevant research behind "1906 Jewish Encyclopedia": http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-go... is good and that it gives the sources to its claims. I'm not aware that the later s…

> Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them.

So the theophoric names use vowels unrelated to the original pronunciation? Those names all postdate the loss of the vowels?

I would be pretty surprised if that were true. Are the vowels in theophoric names fixed by some consideration other than the vowels in the word from which the names derive?

Re: Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999)

#103

Post by acqq » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #102

acqq wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How true" of course depends on the faith of the one who discusses it -- the faiths are exactly made based on the different "stories" about the same topics, which the believers have to believe. It appears to me that the relevant research behind "1906 Jewish Encyclopedia": http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-go... is good and that it gives the sources to its claims. I'm not aware that the later s…

> Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them. So the theophoric names use vowels unrelated to the original pronunciation? Those names all postdate the loss of the vowels? I would be pretty surprised if that were true. Are the vowels in theophoric names fixed by some consideration other than the vowels in the word from which the names derive?

> the theophoric names use vowels unrelated to the original pronunciation?

It’s not about all names, I guess you ask about YHWH. If you follow the links from previous messages you can see that we have information how the Greeks pronounced it and also the linguistic hints known to the language experts. Based on both it is quite accepted that it’s pronounced approximately yahweh with probably silent h and the ending e sounding like English a in an article like in “a house”. So the alternative maybe simpler spelling would be yaaw. But then people would ask where both h went.

Also note that English pronouncing of J from the German transcriptions like in “Jar” is always wrong, it should always be Y.

Re: Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999)

#104

Post by kragen » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 12:36 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #34

thepete2 wrote: post #5

The word Algorithm comes from a mathematician named al-Khwarizmi. Many words that begin with Al (Arabic definite article) are of Arabic origin. Alcohol is another one :)

He was Kazakh, not Arab, wasn't he?

Geographically Uzbek, ethnically Persian apparently.

Re: Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999)

#105

Post by jacobolus » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

ignoramous wrote: post #78

dingoegret wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. They were likely ethnically Egyptian or Phoenician or Libyan but had Hellenic names. In the same way the Iranian mathematicians in the article had Arabic names. Culture and language often cross ethnic boundaries and it's up to historians to piece it all together.

> Iranian mathematicians In the middle ages, there was greater Persia and two Iraqs (Iraq al-Arab to the west and Iraq al-Ajman to the east which is today's western and central Iran). If we are being pedantic, either the polymaths in question were Persian (which they are) or Iraqi Arabs, not Iranians. In fact, Persian empire also encompassed parts of modern day Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakis…

dingoegret: your sibling comment here is dead.

Anyway, “Persia” (Persis) comes from the Greek version of “Pars”. Persians call their language “Farsi”, from the Arabic version, “Fars”. These all have the same origin, and date back millennia.

Re: Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999)

#106

Post by FabHK » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

emilsedgh wrote: post #85

FabHK wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder, though, to which extent that was somewhat idle speculation, similar to Democritus stating that the world consists of atoms 400 BCE, without really any evidence for it (let alone a fully formed theory).

A bit more from this fascinating topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah#Biology It seems like he had a fully formed theory which is pretty accurate.

A bit late now, but FWIW I don't think from the cited quotes one can deduce that he had anything approaching a fully formed theory; in fact I'd say it's very similar to Democritus idle musings.

Re: Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999)

#107

Post by emilsedgh » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 10:53 AM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #106

emilsedgh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit more from this fascinating topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah#Biology It seems like he had a fully formed theory which is pretty accurate.

A bit late now, but FWIW I don't think from the cited quotes one can deduce that he had anything approaching a fully formed theory; in fact I'd say it's very similar to Democritus idle musings.

Yes. The quotes didn't have any indication of a full theory. However, I find it difficult to believe that they reached so many accurate conclusions without a proper base theory.