![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have a problem, what goes into this article, and what goes into the Port of Gaza article?
I have stuff from Karmon, that is from 1799, which could go here, or into the Port of Gaza article. Same with stuff from SWP, this is el Mineh on SWP map 19, SWP III, p. 236, El Mîneh, the harbour, Palmer, p. 361.
Or should we join the two articles??
Huldra (
talk)
21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, after thinking about this a bit, and if there are no huge protests, I think I will try User:Icewhiz suggestion: all Crusader stuff, and earlier, will go into the Maiuma article, while newer stuff goes into the Port of Gaza article. Im not saying that this is the final answer: they may be joined in the future. But Im saying that dividing them clearly, will be an improvement on the mess it is today, Huldra ( talk) 20:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
A well-intentioned, probably intense piece of OR, but must be thoroughly processed. Just did quite a bit, but still a long way to go. Is it worth it...?
Good luck. Arminden ( talk) 20:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect for Raphael Patai, but this looks highly dubious. There doesn't seem to be any Greek word for port or bay resembling 'maiouma(s)'. Prof. Patai doesn't indicate a different, non-Greek origin for the word and how he came to his brisk conclusion either.
Robert M. Good's thesis is that Punic (so Semitic, Canaanite -> Phoenician -> Punic) my'ms, ultimately mayumas, is a calque after Greek hydrophoria and therefore means "rites of water movement". He notes that "[f]estivals of water movement were common in the ancient Syro-Palestinian world" and sees a Canaanite-Phoenician-Carthaginian tradition as very likely. See Robert M. Good (1986). "The Carthaginian Mayumas" in Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico (SEL) 3.
A more recent American Phoenician language scholar, Philip Schmitz (see hid webpage here), suggests that the Punic word my'ms is derived by word combination from the name of the spring festival Μαιουμα(ς). See Philip Schmitz (2023). "Punic my'ms and Greek Μαιουμα(ς): a re-examination". In Journal of Ancient History, doi: 10.1515/jah-2023-0019.
All in all, apart for the relation to water, there is no suggestion that mayoumas can mean "harbour place" in any relevant language, and Patai doesn't offer any explanation either. Arminden ( talk) 22:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
"Cart. Mad." used twice as ref. Meaning WHAT? Mystery!
At 2nd use it is combined with "Antoninus Placentinus", which is fishy in itself. The author of the 6th-c. itinerarium remains anonymous, the name Antoninus is based on an old misidentification with a 3rd-c. martyr. If a book containing this misidentification is meant to be cited here, then pls say so & give the needed details. Arminden ( talk) 15:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
So it seems, but fact is well hidden. Must be clearly stated, from the lead onwards.
The fact that refs are so poorly written (no edition, no link, some even worse than that - just the author), which doesn't allow to check up what the sources called the place at different points in time, again makes work here way too difficult. Arminden ( talk) 15:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have a problem, what goes into this article, and what goes into the Port of Gaza article?
I have stuff from Karmon, that is from 1799, which could go here, or into the Port of Gaza article. Same with stuff from SWP, this is el Mineh on SWP map 19, SWP III, p. 236, El Mîneh, the harbour, Palmer, p. 361.
Or should we join the two articles??
Huldra (
talk)
21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, after thinking about this a bit, and if there are no huge protests, I think I will try User:Icewhiz suggestion: all Crusader stuff, and earlier, will go into the Maiuma article, while newer stuff goes into the Port of Gaza article. Im not saying that this is the final answer: they may be joined in the future. But Im saying that dividing them clearly, will be an improvement on the mess it is today, Huldra ( talk) 20:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
A well-intentioned, probably intense piece of OR, but must be thoroughly processed. Just did quite a bit, but still a long way to go. Is it worth it...?
Good luck. Arminden ( talk) 20:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect for Raphael Patai, but this looks highly dubious. There doesn't seem to be any Greek word for port or bay resembling 'maiouma(s)'. Prof. Patai doesn't indicate a different, non-Greek origin for the word and how he came to his brisk conclusion either.
Robert M. Good's thesis is that Punic (so Semitic, Canaanite -> Phoenician -> Punic) my'ms, ultimately mayumas, is a calque after Greek hydrophoria and therefore means "rites of water movement". He notes that "[f]estivals of water movement were common in the ancient Syro-Palestinian world" and sees a Canaanite-Phoenician-Carthaginian tradition as very likely. See Robert M. Good (1986). "The Carthaginian Mayumas" in Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico (SEL) 3.
A more recent American Phoenician language scholar, Philip Schmitz (see hid webpage here), suggests that the Punic word my'ms is derived by word combination from the name of the spring festival Μαιουμα(ς). See Philip Schmitz (2023). "Punic my'ms and Greek Μαιουμα(ς): a re-examination". In Journal of Ancient History, doi: 10.1515/jah-2023-0019.
All in all, apart for the relation to water, there is no suggestion that mayoumas can mean "harbour place" in any relevant language, and Patai doesn't offer any explanation either. Arminden ( talk) 22:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
"Cart. Mad." used twice as ref. Meaning WHAT? Mystery!
At 2nd use it is combined with "Antoninus Placentinus", which is fishy in itself. The author of the 6th-c. itinerarium remains anonymous, the name Antoninus is based on an old misidentification with a 3rd-c. martyr. If a book containing this misidentification is meant to be cited here, then pls say so & give the needed details. Arminden ( talk) 15:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
So it seems, but fact is well hidden. Must be clearly stated, from the lead onwards.
The fact that refs are so poorly written (no edition, no link, some even worse than that - just the author), which doesn't allow to check up what the sources called the place at different points in time, again makes work here way too difficult. Arminden ( talk) 15:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)