Cicada, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, derives from L. cicada ("cicada, tree cricket"). Beyond that, its origin is unknown; it was probably a loanword from a now-lost language.

As for tracing chick peas to "kikkur," please provide the sources from which the derivation can be traced. YOUR UNSOURCED SPECULATIONS ARE LIKELY TO GET THE SAME RESPONSE YOU HAVE BEEN GETTING SINCE YOU FIRST SHOWED UP.

That's called a blatant threat.

Threats normally suggest some type of harm or crime. I'd say that's more of a forceful revelation of the truth.

Cicada is derived from tree cricket but from what was tree cricket derived? There is the word "tree" and word "cricket". Somehow these words combined to make the word "cicada"? I think what you have posted is not etymology but definition. Since its origin is admittedly unknown are we not allowed to investigate? Why not discuss our various conjectures without threats?

You all have been denigrating me because I have dared to offer an opinion without a Masters in Linguistics. To that I say; do your worst. I realize you are just protecting your economy and since that is the catalyst of evolution, you are doing what your programming dictates. My ideas are radical but they are not uninformed. Why you people think every idea must come from someone else is beyond me. My experience is that I moved to Sinai after Bible College and my eyes were truly opened. After reading everything I could get my hand on I finally found Joseph Cambell (may he rest in peace). Atheists think religion is bunk and should be abolished, religionists think the myths are true and the fence sitters don't care. The myths of religion are not literally true (although there was a Yeshua or Yehoshua ha Notsri) but they are not meaningless. My theory is that religion is the device H.Sapien Sapien used to build language. I have outlined my theory on another post.

The reason there are so many "lost" languages is because someone drew a dividing line between Greek and Semitic cultures. Everyone agrees that humans came from Africa but would never look there for the origin of language. Why? (Africa extends to the Carmel) I think a remnant of every step humans took in our march to self-awareness can be traced through the myths we create and therefore, through language. That is the conclusion I have arrived at after many years of seeking. Why does that make me "poorly educated"? Maybe the real problem is that indoctrination closes the mind.

I explained how I acquired the theory that cicer came from Kikkur through the mythstream but that does not seem to be good enough. Original thought is not welcomed here. Here is a link to someone else that also came to the conclusion that King Kecrops is the cicada myth. It is interesting that someone else had the same idea. http://books.google.com/books?id=SjPYKk ... da&f=false

1. Actually, I am an amateur linguist. I have a BA in East Asian Studies, which included three years of Mandarin, and a JD (Juris Doctor).

2. You are misreading the etymology of cicada. What is known is that the Latin word was borrowed into English. The direct translation of the Latin word was "cicada" or "tree cricket." We do not need to find the origin of the Latin equivalents of "tree" and "cricket" to further research the etymology of cicada. We will not know more until we find the source from which it appears Latin borrowed the word.

3. The reason everyone is challenging you is that you are making extraordinary claims and backing them up with bad reasoning. You need to take a course in critical thinking.

4. Your overall hypothesis, that language was built from religion, is more than a little out of the ordinary. It's going to take much more evidence than you're presenting, and a much better formed argument, to convince people.

5. Loss of language does not derive from divisions between Greek and Semitic culture. In fact, there was significant contact between the Greeks and the Phoenicians, and later between the Greeks and other Semitic cultures, in the classical period. We don't know if the lost language that gave "cicada" to Roman, however, was IE, Afro-Asiatic, or something else. (I doubt, for example, that we would have the Etruscan equivalent among the list of known words.)

6. Actually, all evidence is that language did originate before humans migrated from Africa. There is no known nonlingual human society, and the Khoisan family is one of the most internally diverse known, which suggests that it's one of the oldest. (Note: I am not claiming that Khoisan is the source of the original language.)

7. Your "mythstream" argument doesn't add up. We don't have any evidence that Aramaic, which is about as old as Greek, provided the word.

Also, following your source, you seem to have missed that it isn't talking about linguistics. In fact, the Greek word for "cicada" was "tettix." See p. 107.

It is talking about common cultural symbols which is what language is built upon. Cicada is an English word and we were discussing how this word came into the English language.

I will respond to your previous post when I have more time.

Let's simply take a load off this discussion: Linguistic contact between Greek and Semitic cultures It's a good source for all the things that have been talked about.