| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
 |
|
| we need to know how they make monosodium glutamate (and who 'invented' it). |
Scientists don't understand why or how monosodium glutamate enhances flavours though they know what it is ("MSG is the sodium salt of the amino acid glutamic acid and a form of glutamate"). The process appears relatively simple: "today MSG is made by a fermenting process using starch, sugar beets, sugar cane, or molasses".
It's responsible for 'savouriness' of dishes | Many researchers also believe that MSG imparts a fifth taste, independent of the four basic tastes of sweet, sour, salty and bitter. This taste, called "umami" in Japan, is described by Americans as savory. |
and if used in cooking helps reduce the amount of salt needed to bring out flavours.
It was originally a "seaweed broth" used by "Asians" (another Chinese invention to add to the list?). Glutamate occurs naturally in the body which may explain its appeal (a programme about cocaine said something similar) and is found in foods such as cheese, milk, meat, peas and mushrooms. The effect of soy sauce, another flavour-enhancer containing fermented or treated products, is due to the presence of naturally occurring glutamate.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds as though garum is monosodium glutamate but we should check. Very significant about reducing salt. But does this apply to salt's preservative properties as well as its taste.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Garum was the Roman equivalent to Chinese Fish Sauce. It was derived from crushed and fermented tuna heads. Some sources suggest it was originally a Carthaginian product from the Atlantic coast of Portugal and Morocco.
The remains of a garum production house in Pompeii were used last year to date the Vesuvius eruption.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/09/29/pompeii-fish-sauce.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| One connection that springs to mind is that salt is used in prodigious quantities to preserve fish but presumably a by-product of a fish processing industry is a prodigious amount of fish entrails hence the invention of the garum industry. |
Salt's use as a culinary commodity following (on) from garum's?
Salt fish is London's earliest recorded industry. Do we know anything about its by-products?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Dunno about early industry but here's a tale from Late London. When the Jews arrived in numbers (mid-nineteenth century) they were big saltfish aficionados so set up saltfish emporia. But just then the railway industry was invented and fresh fish began to arrive daily, cheaply. End of saltfish industry in London.
So the buggers invented fish and chips!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| So the buggers invented fish and chips! |
The quintessential TV dinner. (The end of the great annual fast -- Yom Kippur -- is traditionally celebrated by a meal of fried fish, cold of course since everyone has been attending synagogue).
The demand (and price) for smoked salmon grew exponentially as fresh fish became more available?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I see...so you're saying that the Jews invented TV dinners before the TV had been invented. That fits in with the Protocols of Zion which claims that the television was invented to enslave the masses preparatory to world dominion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The Protocols of Zion belong in the Myth-making thread.
(Not entirely a propos but there's a new play on called 'England People Very Nice' which has caused an indignant outcry from all 'immigrant' sides which I am therefore going to see though the audience will no doubt be of more interest than the work itself. I'll report back to base.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | There is of course the very intriguing Khazars who are regarded (by me and some others) as the European Jews, another lot who paid particular attention to composing history. |
I came across this notion in Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe: don't know if there is another source of comparable importance. Koestler describes them as the Eastern European Jews, as opposed to those who settled in the Rhineland and other Western regions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Analysis of their contents basically confirmed that Mount Vesuvius most likely erupted on 24 August 79 A.D., as reported by the Roman historian Pliny the Younger in his account on the eruption," Annamaria Ciarallo, director of Pompeii's Applied Research Laboratory told Discovery News. |
And that establishes for me the total unreliability of all "scientific" dating methods. The whole thing is a scam.
There is no way that Pompeii was destroyed so early as 79AD. It defies all credulity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Analysis of their contents basically confirmed that Mount Vesuvius most likely erupted on 24 August 79 A.D., as reported by the Roman historian Pliny the Younger in his account on the eruption," |
This is quite laughable. All they have deduced from the garum, is that it was most likely manufactured in August or September, due to the species of fish used. The year of manufacture is not determinable from the analysis that was carried out.
The year 79AD is simply taken as "indisputable"... and the day and month only became disputable when some researcher suggested a coin that was unearthed, dated from October that year.
So the garum proved Pliny the Younger was right and the researcher with the coin was an arse-hole... the garum couldn't possibly have been sitting around for over a month! (And if he was right about the month; then obviously he must have been right about the year.)
What makes this situation worse is that Pliny's date is taken as so "indisputable" that it is used to validate "scientific" dating methods such as argon-argon.
All these dating techniques just seem to be feeding off one another, with error correction curves produced to tie in with known "indisputable" dates.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Chad. Now I can sleep tonight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ReformedSciolist
In: Johannesburg
|
|
|
|
Howzit all
| Ishmael wrote: | | The Name of CaesarI have suspected this because I cannot imagine how the kings of Germany and Russia could possibly have named themselves after Caesar -- yet that is what the Historians claim they did, with their names "Tzar" and "Kaizer." I believe this indicates that the name Caesar is older than Caesar and always meant something connected with kingship. |
I'm new so you'll please pardon my ignorance; but may I ask why it is that you find it unbelievable that the Germans and Russians (read "Slavs") would adopt a Roman title in the 900s for their kings/emperors?
| Furthermore, McCullough herself mentions the detail that the Julians (of which the Caesar family was one branch) were decended from former Kings. Might their name not contain a reference to their regal status? It would then be left to the coincidences of history that a man named "King," would become the Rome's first Emperor. |
Maybe I'm misunderstanding Applied Epistemology (I'm trying hard to get to grips with it!), but isn't one of its gripes with orthodox history that it's full of these "it just so happened" scenarios?
But what I have needed to establish that Kaiser and Tzar have no relationship to the person of Julius Caesar was an earlier appearance of the name in another culture, where it is specifically associated with Kingship or power. I was never able to find such a reference.
Until now.
I have one. I had it for a long time. We've all had it for a long time but did not recognize it.
The name is Beltashazzar, the last part of which is clearly "Caeser." |
I'm not certain one is allowed to follow orthodox scholars, but I guess we sort of have to rely on them if we personally cannot read /write ancient languages such as .... Akkadian. Apparently (says Wiki), "Belshazzar" (in English) is actually "Bel-sarra-usur" in Akkadian. Now it seems to me that the link between Caesar (which is pronounced with a hard "c") and sarra-usur is tenuous to say the least. Might it not be that we in English just have a propensity to make foreign names sound like something we already know; or at least make them pronounceable? Or perhaps they just aren't really related at all.
In the Old Testament, Daniel is given the new "name" Beltashazzar by the Baylonians. Likely, the name was a title of office that he assumed -- like "vice-president" or "prime-minister." The first part of the name was a kind of qualifier on the second, which was Caesar. Thus, Beltashazzar likely meant something like "assistant-Caesar."
But Daniel got his new name in the court of Nebuchadnezzar and the nezzar portion of this name is clearly a variation of Caesar as well. This variation has survived to the modern era as Nasser, a name that rose to prominence again in the person of the famed and some say greatest president of Egypt. |
Again, Akkadian scholars tell us that each of these names simply contains the "usur" component. Isn't this much more parsimonious an explanation for the occurrence of such names within the Middle East (cf Assyrian rulers' names) than a proposition that there are numerous related words?
There seems, in fact, to have been a series of words that were related and all connected with high office. These words were, phonetically, Thazer, Kazer, Nazer and Vazer (perhaps many more, such as Bajer).
Thazer survives as Tzar and Belthezar. Kazer survives as Kaizer. Nazer became Nasser. And Vazer is present still in the word "advice" and "advisor." |
Given the derivation of names using "usur", is there actually any link other than a perceived one at all? As things stand, I think I could come up with a suitable emough derivation of "laser", "taser" and "phaser" that would link them to kingship.
I'm also interested in your thoughts on the alternate spelling of "Tsar" as "Czar".
I want to turn for a second to "shah", which Mr Harper brought up in another post. Apparently (so say the experts), the Persian for "Caesar" is "Ghaysar" and the Urdu is "Qaysar", which tends to suggest that "shah" is a separate word with a separate derivation (as the scholars suggest). Of course, it may instead be that quasars can now also be placed under this umbrella ....
Now I'm all for the association game; but it strikes me that the very principles of Applied Epistemology rule out a multiplication of associations; and that an attempt to reduce so many words to one root (whilst ignoring what evidence we have because we have some deep-rooted fear that it may all be a con) not only throws the baby out with the bath water, but is a misapplication of Occam's Razor.
_________________
Yrs,
S
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Hey. What do I know? I'm just some guy on the Internet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ReformedSciolist
In: Johannesburg
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Hey. What do I know? I'm just some guy on the Internet. |
Taking it that this is a reply to my post, I know that already. It's not much of a reply though - I'm really interested in getting to grips with this word association game (and with the notion of the primordiality of English) and it doesn't much help if, when a post isn't the appropriate back-slapping, the result is indignation. I'd like to engage with the topic - after all, I'm not a language major myself and so don't know the answers. I'd sure like to find them out though.
Of course, it may be a reply to some other post in which case, my apologies for misunderstanding.
_________________
Yrs,
S
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
