raoulduke

Correct. There can be no obvious link. Particularly in that Old Kingdom /r/ would reflect a Semitic /'/, if memory serves. So /pr/ would be the equivalent of /p'/ which would mean "mouth."

I likely compounded your confusion by referring to the grapheme as pr; whereas it is in fact Gardiner's O4, the monosyllabic /h/ (http://msheflin.blogspot.com/search/label/Early%20Alphabet - take the chart beyond /b/ with a grain of salt; I haven't updated it in years). This isn't my theory... this is basically the only consensus view on Proto-Sinaitic. Please stop wading into a crazy complex and insular, highly esoteric academic subject and then getting mad at me when you misunderstand my comments and attempt to construct a new orthodoxy around them...

The only connection between pr and b(y)t is semantic. Once you move from pure ideograms to logograms or abjads that wholly breaks down.

It's also painfully correct. The Egyptian hieroglyph pr, also monosyllabic /h/, was adapted for /b/ in the Semitic creation of the alphabet. The scribe took the common Semitic word for house be(y)t and used it to supplant the original linguistic meaning attached to the grapheme. Thus the linguistic content was destroyed while the aesthetic content was essentially unchanged (and remains so today, most notably in Cyrillic, I think).

I can't think of any other concordances between Egyptian /j/ and /p/ in other languages. To be honest I've never seen the word jtj before today. There's a longstanding and known relation broadly with /p/ or /b/ and father and /m/ and mother. And as far as I'm aware there's no consensus on the meaning of that relation. But jtj isn't the root related to those; and Egyptian doesn't seem to have a strong example of /b/ (http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen... ).

There's an enormous difference between aesthetic features of writing and actual language relation. The original hypothesis that this inadvertently plagiarizes from is a 1912 William Flinders Petrie monogram. Wow... when I first started looking into this stuff 8 or 9 years ago, archive didn't have this/exist in this form:

https://archive.org/details/formationofalpha00petr

Petrie's tables are better... but they're still at best interesting and inconclusive.

(Also, although people cited /it/ above, Thesuarus Linguae Aegyptiae transliterates it /jtj/ (yty - long vowels rather than glottals); and claiming that's similar to pit is pretty ridiculous... If there's a genetic intra-Afroasiatic relation with that root (which I'm not sure there is...) it'd make a lot more sense to connect it with Ugaritic 'ad... Which I don't think it makes sense to do... And in support of that... not even the out-there Starling database makes that connection (http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen... // http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen... )).

I don't understand (?).

I don't understand what this article is. There appears to be no cogent hypothesis or evidence. In the end it seems to be suggesting not (any) linguistic influence on Eurasian languages but rather aesthetic influence of hieroglyphs. That's well established given that the alphabet evolved from a single source and that it's well-established that that source was at least partly* influenced by hieroglyphs; and the earliest evidence for it is at Serabit el-Khadem in Sinai interspersed with hieroglyphic inscriptions (including a bilingual inscription on a sphinx [Sinai 345]).

As I look back I do see a like half-paragraph ridiculous suggestion of apparently genetic connection between Egyptian and European. Before it was commonly known that Egyptian is an Afroasiatic language, there were attempts (usually with racial undertones) attempting to link the glorious and regal Egyptian with Eurasian languages. It's a worthless hypothesis.

It also looks like people may have been looking for and having trouble finding solid Egyptian lexicons: aaew.bbaw.de/tla/

(The one that really bothered me was the (obviously incoherent) "Hathor = hut+hor Hüter of Herds"... Hathor means "House/Estate/Temple of Horus"). The whole thing is just ridiculous.)

*There's at least secondary cuneiform influence by Wadi el-Hol (which I think was more likely 15th or 14th century).

You guys all pointed out the much stronger correlation during the primaries, right? Because it seems pretty hard to believe that such intense institutional collusion for Clinton could lead to widespread hacking for Trump... in fact... it's not believable.

Sorry... your logic is flawed at least semantically. If a "constitutional monarchy is just one way of implementing a monarchy," then presumably a "Constitutional Republic is just one way of implementing a" republic.

The only nexus between republic and democracy in this case would be the Constitutional Republican Guarantee clause. Since that has essentially never been adjudicated we can't know for certain whether - at least in Constitutional terms - a Republic does convey democratic rights.

Also... the Clinton campaign just announced it would be having an event at a 'Pokestop,' and Clinton referenced the game. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/28779...

I mean... that'd be an issue. I don't think it'd be as big an issue as widespread electoral fraud or electioneering. But it'd probably be an issue...

Here's a weird question. https://www.facebook.com/NationalMallNPS/photos/a.3795806520... Pokemon Go is designed to not only augment places where people already are but also to direct them to other places. My friend just ran down the Ninatic/Google connection. Can the app be used to direct people away from polling places and/or to congest areas around polling places?

To wit, would anyone be interested in tracking (I can do it for at least some locations) the locations of gyms in comparison to polling places? (I haven't used the app; can one get a location of gyms?)

[lol. let me clarify my interest would be in thwarting rather than harnessing this possibility.]

I'm a law student but not an expert, and I haven't researched the caselaw (yet?). Rcthompson, I apologize for taking this opportunity to go way beyond your question (see below). [This also reflects my assumption that you are coding within the US. And also this is not legal advice, merely hypothetical musing.]

Whatever you write, if copyrightable, automatically achieves copyright protection when fixed in tangible form - and you automatically obtain authorship rights. That gives you the right to grant licenses for any of the rights you've obtained (including to produce derivative works). Swift's license (https://swift.org/LICENSE.txt) allows you to modify the license of your additions (your right under federal law anyway), but not the sections you didn't author.

I mean... I can see it cutting both ways. On its face, it's a very fair system - you can use whatever you want but only own whatever you wrote. What becomes problematic is if companies (realistically) with wide distribution nets grab open-source code, modify it slightly, alter the license of the bundle and resell it. I know that's not a new phenomenon.

Another concern I see is if libraries or maybe files or something have proprietary names, then in theory you'd require an express license from the proprietor (in this case basically Apple).

I was concerned I didn't understand the basic question that prompted my response, which was from rcthompson, but he reframed it: commits 1 to n-1 have sort of Schrodinger's Cat licenses. They have copyright protection (regardless of any of this). And that grants you the right to control licensing of those rights (reproduction, public display, derivative works, etc.). But I don't see why you couldn't retroactively apply whatever you want. The Swift license applies itself, if you don't specify otherwise, upon submission of your work to the licensor (I guess per notice requirements). Until then it's unclear. However, federal copyright protections and state common and statutory laws would also apply (and would basically grant you the right to control licensing).