thats not the point hereNever existed.
The true timeline begins with the remnants of Jericho living in the hills.
How about "Mo" or "Moe?"Which forms do you use?
And why are there two?
we are talking about the formerAre we talking about the 10 commandments guy or Canada's mascot?
Ok, and is there a point to this?we are talking about the former
yes, the point is language hereOk, and is there a point to this?
What difference does it make if the reference is the same?yes, the point is language here
inam interested in language
whether he existed or not is not my concern hereNever existed.
The true timeline begins with the remnants of Jericho living in the hills.
The aim of language is to communicate. If you're using a word that's not common to the majority of people what's your point in using it?What difference does it make if the reference is the same?
good pointThe aim of language is to communicate. If you're using a word that's not common to the majority of people what's your point in using it?
Or is it "Mosh?"What about Moshe?
We're talking about a name, with the only difference being a single letter. It might boil down to cultural or personal preference, but otherwise insignificant.The aim of language is to communicate. If you're using a word that's not common to the majority of people what's your point in using it?
Maybe Mash?Or is it "Mosh?"
"Mish?" Or a combo of "Mish Mash?"Maybe Mash?
Moses can be Moe. Does that mean Abraham and Noah can be Larry & Curly? "Nyuk nyuk nyuk"Speaking of Moses, I made a thread about a famous Moses, the Jewish philosopher and theologian Moses Maimonided some time ago:
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/moses-maimonides-the-man-who-changed-judaism.521154/
What if they have different pronounciations?We're talking about a name, with the only difference being a single letter.
It might boil down to confusion when the name is not recognized.It might boil down to cultural or personal preference, but otherwise insignificant.