I don't know if Gravrand is competent to speak on Serer religion, but he apparently in not qualified to speak on etymology. He says Roog is a corruption of Koox, and that it is the word for 'sky', but then despite that attempts to link it to Sandawe Wa Roongo and Egyptian Ra, though an imagined root R-O-G! Utter garbage. — kwami (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is this [1]. My response can be found here [2]. Ultra traditionalist Serer are very proud of their religious and cultural heritage. They do not look to Egypt to validate themselves unlike others. Anyway the problem is settled at least as far as I am concerned. So there is no problem. I hope.Tamsier (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really how it works. If Gavrand's linguistic theories are bunk, and they are, just removing the most obvious offenses doesn't mean that what remains isn't bunk, too. Eladynnus (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Says who? You? Sorry that will not do. I will take the word of a scholar like Gravrand who is an expert in the subject, written several scholarly works and reviewed by several other scholars, than taking the word of Eladynnus who have authored one article on Wiki (a bulk of text based on one source). Tamsier (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the citation still a book that claims that Roog is related to the Egyptian deity Ra? That's so absurd that it casts a shadow over his other linguistic claims. Also, what does "corruption" mean in this context? Eladynnus (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
