New Book By Simon Options

I just wanted everyone to know there is a new book coming out by our old friend Simon. Yes the same author of the Necronomicon.

The title of the new book which is Dead Names : The Dark History of the Necronomicon has been out for awhile and it is still not released as of yet BUT they have finally released a picture of the book and a quick overview.

Here is the picture of the new book:

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Frater_Nero/newbook.jpg)

and here is the Book Description:


The most feared, fascinating, and dangerous book in the history of humankind . . . Necronomicon

An ancient Arabic text -- a powerful book of spells that could, in the wrong hands, create unimaginable and irreversible devastation -- the Necronomicon featured prominently in the stories of legendary horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. For many generations, few believed it to be anything other than pure fiction.

But in 1972, a young man who, for his own protection, must be known simply as "Simon," stumbled upon an old, handwritten manuscript that ultimately proved to be an authentic edition of the unholy work.

Dead Names is the startling true account of the dark and violent history of this most fearsome of books: from its Middle Eastern origins to its reemergence centuries later; its role in pivotal events of the twentieth century, from the JFK assassination to the Son of Sam murders; and the terrible fates that befell those who helped bring the Necronomicon out of the shadows and into the light of day.

Tranquilson (a questionable source cited several times by Gonce), in the guise of academic contempt, states—among many other objections - that I “make some extremely untenable historical assertions such as that the Sumerian language is ‘closely allied to that of the Aryan race, having in fact many words identical to that of Sanskrit (and it is said, to Chinese).”
I respectfully submit that these assertions are not untenable at all. At the time the Introduction was being written this was being seriously discussed among scholars of Sumer, and it is still discussed today.

Simon follows this with a list of scholars working on this problem. The question is, how do we know that this matter is being "seriously discussed"? Do these scholars represent the mainstream of linguistic thought?

Here's how we might figure this out. If scholars are discussing something seriously, they're writing about it in papers they place before their colleagues. If they're writing about it to any great degree, they're quoting each other's work. If they're quoting each other's work, there are tools we can use to track it, like a citation database. The more citations, the more influential the article. If you cite yourself, that's worth nothing. The database is not a perfect tool, and other factors need to be considered, but it's a way to find out matters we might not be able to judge otherwise as outsiders.

Let's get started:

A Web site devoted to Sumerian and Indo-European equivalence (www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi37.htm): In this case, it's Sumerian to Latvian, and the author asks us to reject all Indo-European scholarship to accept it. No dice.

Dr. Jahanshah Derakhshani: No citations.

Paul Kekai Manansala: One citation, not of a publication, but of an email sent to another author.

After them, we've got three scholars with sizable bodies of work. We'll narrow our search down to what articles I can locate detailing ties between the languages of India and Mesopotamia.

I. M. Diakanoff, "External Connections of the Sumerian Language" Mother Tongue - Two citations, one in which he cites himself, and another I came across on my own. He might have another article I'm tracking down.

Professor Gordon Whittaker: Simon cites his paper "Euphratic: An Indo-European Answer to the Sumerian Question" (no citations). I'll also throw in the article "Traces of an Early Indo-European Language in Southern Mesopotamia" (no citations) and "The Dawn of Writing and Phoneticism" (no citations).

Professor Michael Witzel: Simon cites "Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India: Data for the Linguistic Situation, c. 1900-500 B.C." That's got five citations (one of them is Witzel citing himself), though the paper barely mentions Mesopotamia. We might also add "Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages" (one self-citation) and "Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan
(Rgvedic, Middle and Late Vedic)" (one citation and one self-citation).

To be thorough, I also checked the MLA database for similar articles. In the last twenty years, I found one article on possible Sumerian-Indo-European links - with no citations.

So, we've got very few people quoting others. Ideally, we should be seeing multiple citations for each article as ideas are exchanged and debated. It seems their ideas aren't being debated in the linguistic community. From what I can see, even these scholars are, for the most part, arguing for loan-word exchange through trade, instead of deeper and more lasting connections or relations between language.

This raises a couple of other questions. First, even if "serious debate" was going on, how could it be said, as on page 291, that John was "untrue" to say there were not connections between Sumerian and other languages? Doesn't serious debate mean that the truth is still being determined?

Finally, there's the rest of that quote. Simon offers no justification in recent scholarship on the Sumerian-Chinese comment or for the curious mention of the "Aryan race." Surely those had something to do with Karyn's opinion that the statement was "extremely untenable"?

Tranquilson (a questionable source cited several times by Gonce), in the guise of academic contempt, states—among many other objections - that I “make some extremely untenable historical assertions such as that the Sumerian language is ‘closely allied to that of the Aryan race, having in fact many words identical to that of Sanskrit (and it is said, to Chinese).”
I respectfully submit that these assertions are not untenable at all. At the time the Introduction was being written this was being seriously discussed among scholars of Sumer, and it is still discussed today.

This raises a couple of other questions. First, even if "serious debate" was going on, how could it be said, as on page 291, that John was "untrue" to say there were not connections between Sumerian and other languages? Doesn't serious debate mean that the truth is still being determined?

According to your book, truth is not "still being determined" on this issue. Your book gives the distinct impression that I had somehow made all this up (the connections between Sumerian and other languages) when it is obvious that I have not, and that other scholars are grappling. and have been grappling, with this very issue. Actual scholars, Dan, and not some mysterious mages on the internet, regardless of the number of their citations. Once I produce scholars -- professors at reputable universities, like Harvard -- then you feel you must find some way to attack their bona fides anyway.

Finally, there's the rest of that quote. Simon offers no justification in recent scholarship on the Sumerian-Chinese comment or for the curious mention of the "Aryan race." Surely those had something to do with Karyn's opinion that the statement was "extremely untenable"?

The Sumerian-Chinese comment was published in the Necronomicon in 1977 as a passing reference on page xviii ("and, it is said, to Chinese!" is the citation in its entirety), but of course it is something you have to jump on, Dan, regardless of its context which is in this case a parenthetical aside. Nevertheless, for those who are interested, there is a book in the New York City Library, Main Branch, that shows the relationship between Chinese and Sumerian words. Unfortunately, I have lost the citation (it was published sometime in the 1920s, I believe) but will rummage around and see if I can find it if anyone cares. As for the Aryan references, that goes back to Waddell as specifically mentioned in the text: the Sumero-Aryan Dictionary (cited on page xxxiii).

According to your book, truth is not "still being determined" on this issue. Your book gives the distinct impression that I had somehow made all this up (the connections between Sumerian and other languages) when it is obvious that I have not, and that other scholars are grappling. and have been grappling, with this very issue. Actual scholars, Dan, and not some mysterious mages on the internet, regardless of the number of their citations. Once I produce scholars -- professors at reputable universities, like Harvard -- then you feel you must find some way to attack their bona fides anyway.

I'm merely pointing out that bona fides come in more than one shape. That a professor has a chair at Harvard and a body of publications is one way of examining his credentials. If his work in a particular area is often published in low-circulation journals that he himself edits, and is rarely cited elsewhere, that might indicate that those particular ideas are not debated, or even regarded with esteem, by his colleagues.

The Sumerian-Chinese comment was published in the Necronomicon in 1977 as a passing reference on page xviii ("and, it is said, to Chinese!" is the citation in its entirety), but of course it is something you have to jump on, Dan, regardless of its context which is in this case a parenthetical aside. Nevertheless, for those who are interested, there is a book in the New York City Library, Main Branch, that shows the relationship between Chinese and Sumerian words. Unfortunately, I have lost the citation (it was published sometime in the 1920s, I believe) but will rummage around and see if I can find it if anyone cares. As for the Aryan references, that goes back to Waddell as specifically mentioned in the text: the Sumero-Aryan Dictionary (cited on page xxxiii).

The context is a paranthetical aside, but it is nonetheless relevant because it was quoted by Karyn as evidence of the Necronomicon's untenable assertions.

Don't worry about the Chinese-Sumerian dictionary - I believe I ran across that during my research. At the same time, it does not reflect the current thought in the field.

As for Waddell's 1927 work, John gives some examples of how his conclusions are no longer accepted by scholars. That aside, I'm vastly surprised to find any work from 1977 talking about a scientifically discredited idea such as the "Aryan race." Add that Waddell's book sets out to prove that fair-skinned Aryans were the founders of the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Phoenician civilizations, and that the purest example of their ancient language can be found in the English language, three-fourths of which derives directly from Sumerian, and I think it's very relevant to Karyn's quote.