On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:45:25 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gramma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >Remember Diakonoff is talking about Afroasiatic ("Semito-Hamitic"), and >this is Semitic only:
>s ts ts' dz > T T' D > £ t£' (where T, D are the interdentals and £ is vl. >lat.)
>The two parenthesized items aren't relevant to PSem (They're Diak.'s AA >reconstructions, merged away in PSem).
>The above from Huehnergard.
I agree on the dental and postalveolar/interdental series.
The dental series /s/ /ts/ /ts'/ /dz/ is identical to what I gave (except for notation) and to the original PAA: /s/, /c/, /c./, /3/.
The PAA post-alevolar series /c^/, /c^./, /3^/ (one can also write: /tS/, /tS'/, /dZ/) had very likely already yielded interdentals in Proto-Semitic: /T/, /T'/, /D/ (or /t_/, /t_./, /d_/; or /þ/, /Þ'/, /ð/).
The emphatic lateral tL' (£') [I use /L/ for the fricative voiceless lateral as in Welsh <ll>, and the pound sign for the corresponding affricate <£> = <tL>] is also OK.
I would disagree on PAA/PS *s^, which I don't think had been merged away in PS: we have the East Semitic 3rd. person pronoun s^uwa (+ variants) vs. *huwa (+ variants) elsewhere (this [rare] sound also occurs as the causative verbal marker).
As to PAA *L vs. *£, the difference is apparently still made in Soqotri (/s^/ vs. /s./) and perhaps some other South Arabian languages/dialects, although the two have merged everywhere else in Semitic (including, I think, in Epigraphic South Arabian). Orël & Stolbova give the examples:
PS *s'ib- "wind" (Akk. s^ub-tu, Soq. s^iboh) PS *s'ub- "burn, be hot, set fire" (Akk. s^aba:bu, Arab s^bb, Soq. s^bb)
> Does "scientific" mean "fast and loose with the facts"?
It means keeping in mind that BLACK-AND-WHITE LOGIC is not an appropriate "scientific" attitude!.. In the REAL WORLD, between "always" and "never", there are a lot of gradations like : "almost always", "very often", "now and then", "occasionally", etc.
> >... So, showing that an HYPOTHESIS has less than one chance > >out of 10 BILLIONS of being wrong
> Let's start with the fact that you have no basis for your > probabilities.
That is what YOU say, because you refuse to look at the whole file, under the pretext it is not in BLACK-AND-WHITE !...
>> >.. And showing that an > >hypothesis has less than one chance out of 10 billions of being right > >is not, in your opinion, bringing "EVIDENCE" that it *IS* > >scientifically wrong !... Sorry, but I have another idea of what > >SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is !...
> It is grossly apparent that you do. The problem is that your idea is a > delusion.
That is WHAT *YOU* SAY !... Because you want to IGNORE concepts like "Probability" !...
> >> > ONLY in mathematics, a RIGOROUS demonstration is needed to demonstrate > >> > a theory. In all the other sciences, the demonstration that a theory > >> > is correct is JUST A MATTER OF PROBABILITIES. > >> > But I know that there is in this Group a bunch of guys, lead by our > >> > friend Peter, who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between an > >> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be right, and another > >> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be wrong !...
> >> You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis being probably > >> right and the same hypothesis being proved.
> >YES !.. Because in Science, a PROOF is always a "high probability of > >the theory being correct" !.. > >But I know that you want to IGNORE words like "Probability", > >"approximation", "percentage", etc... > >You IGNORE the ONLY "truly scientific logic", which is what has been > >called "the Fuzzy Logic" by some...
> I know what "fuzzy logic" is. I see that you misunderstand it.
Oh NO !... As its "inventor", Lofti Zadeh, wrote : "Fuzzy Logic rests on the idea that all things admit of degrees" . It's the CONTRARY of reasoning in "BLACK-AND-WHITE" , as you do !..
> And I'm > curious about how it acquired the designation the "only truly > scientific logic".
Because we live in a world where the "Black-and-White" approach leads to STUPIDITIES !.. For instance your following answer :
>You have not answered my question : " Are you calling GREEK a "dead > >language" ?"...
> Greek, along with English, Dutch, Polish, Arabic, Japanese, and > Swahili, is not a dead language. But we were talking about Proto-Ionic > which, like Latin, Ancient Greek, and Old English, is a dead language.
IN SPITE of THE FACT THAT A MODERN GREEK CAN UNDERSTAND ANCIENT GREEK without any problem, vocabulary and grammar being "approximately" (sorry for this word that you want to IGNORE !) the same... Similar question : If a guy who has no hair is BOLD, is a guy who has only ONE SINGLE hair bold or not?..
> >As long as you will VOLUNTARILY IGNORE the "Proto-Ionian Theory", you > >will be obliged to make PHONETICAL ACROBATICS to explain the GREEK > >Turos versus SEMITIC "Sur" !... > >Greek is NOT a language which has been spoken by people having a > >PHONETIC TENDENCY to change strong S into T . On the contrary !... The > >Greek tendency is to change strong S > weak S > H < zero !... Talking > >about a borrowing into Greek of *Suros for TYR is JUST ABSURD...
> Phoenician s.ur- (which at the time sounded /c~ur-/, with a > velarized dental affricate) would have been borrowed into > Greek as súr-(os).
At least, we agree on one point !.. *IF* there had been a borrowing from Phoenician, the Greek word would have been *Syros, NOT TYROS. But the FACT is that is was Tyros !.. Therefore, one is lead to reverse the loan direction : from Proto-Ionic Greek to Phoenician ...
>The change of Greek s- > h- [*] is > prehistoric, and was long over by the time the Greeks came > into contact with the Phoenicians.
That is what you say, but it's UNIMPORTANT for the Tyros-problem. So, I'll not contradict you ...
> The fact that the city > name in Greek is in fact Túros shows that it was not > borrowed from Phoenician, but from Aramaic t.ur-.
The only "small problem" is that there is NO ATTESTATION, as far as I know, of a *Tur -: "rock" in Aramaïc !... But you probably don't care !.. DOGMA "cannot" be wrong !..
>At least, we agree on one point !.. *IF* there had been a borrowing >from Phoenician, the Greek word would have been *Syros, NOT TYROS. >But the FACT is that is was Tyros !.. Therefore, one is lead to >reverse the loan direction : from Proto-Ionic Greek to Phoenician ...
There is logically another possibility, that there was no loan either way. I don't know enough about those old languages to suggest any way of testing that possibility, but I'm sure you know enough to do so. Just don't yell, it triggers my bullshit detector.
-- Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River, Ontario, Canada "Knowledge defines the boundaries of ignorance" (after Augustine, Mcluhan and others.) {drop first and last letters in address for correct email}
> > > >Miguel Carrasquer wrote: > > > >> What about the city of Tyre (Grk. > > > >> Turos)? The modern Arabic is S.u:r, but what was it in > > > >> Phoenician or Aramaic?
> > > Yes, if the Proto-Semitic was *T.u(:)r- (Phoen s. ~ Aram t. > > > ~ Arab z.).
> > But the FACT is that "rock" is sur in Ugaritic, Phoenician and > > Hebrew, and there is NO *zur : "rock" in Arab !.. (See Noth : "Die > > Isrealitischen Personennamen..." p. 129 and 156 ss).
> No, it's not sur, it's s.ur (Modern Hebrew [tsur]).
> Brockelmann's Lexicon syriacum says it's found in Hebrew and throughout > Aramaic, but not in Arabic (or any other Semitic language).
> You have just revealed that you are ignorant of Semitic languages, yet > you try to use them in your discussion, which would seem to make you an > IGNARROGANT, no?
I'm not as ignorant as Semitic languages as you pretend. 1)- It's sure that I should have written more correctly <s.ur> instead of <sur>. I did this "writing simplification", because there was here NO risk of confusion. In the same way, I did'n't mention the length of the vowel.. 2)- Where is the contradiction between what I wrote : "rock is <sur> in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Hebrew, i.e. in the languages which were in contact with the Proto-Ionians, but NOT in Arabic", and with what Brockelmann wrote ?.. We are saying THE SAME THING, with me citing Ugaritic, and him citing Aramaic in the list of the West Semitic languages ... I notice that, once again, you are more prompt in criticizing the FORM than the BASIC !.. TYPICAL of YOUR way of discussing !..
> > What means that YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG !.. There is NO *Tur : > > "rock" in Proto-Semitic, and the word sur: "rock" does exist ONLY in > > the West-Semitic languages which were IN CONTACT WITH THE > > PROTO-IONIANS !...
> > >As long as you will VOLUNTARILY IGNORE the "Proto-Ionian Theory", you > > >will be obliged to make PHONETICAL ACROBATICS to explain the GREEK > > >Turos versus SEMITIC "Sur" !... > > >Greek is NOT a language which has been spoken by people having a > > >PHONETIC TENDENCY to change strong S into T . On the contrary !... The > > >Greek tendency is to change strong S > weak S > H < zero !... Talking > > >about a borrowing into Greek of *Suros for TYR is JUST ABSURD...
> > Phoenician s.ur- (which at the time sounded /c~ur-/, with a > > velarized dental affricate) would have been borrowed into > > Greek as súr-(os).
> At least, we agree on one point !.. *IF* there had been a borrowing > from Phoenician, the Greek word would have been *Syros, NOT TYROS. > But the FACT is that is was Tyros !.. Therefore, one is lead to > reverse the loan direction : from Proto-Ionic Greek to Phoenician ...
> >The change of Greek s- > h- [*] is > > prehistoric, and was long over by the time the Greeks came > > into contact with the Phoenicians.
> That is what you say, but it's UNIMPORTANT for the Tyros-problem. So, > I'll not contradict you ...
> > The fact that the city > > name in Greek is in fact Túros shows that it was not > > borrowed from Phoenician, but from Aramaic t.ur-.
> The only "small problem" is that there is NO ATTESTATION, as far as I > know, of a *Tur -: "rock" in Aramaïc !... But you probably don't care > !.. DOGMA "cannot" be wrong !..
t.ur is glossed in Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum as 'mons'; he says it occurs throughout Aramaic and in Hebrew, and nowhere else in Semitic (he did not have Ugaritic in 1928). -- Peter T. Daniels gramma...@att.net
>> >As long as you will VOLUNTARILY IGNORE the "Proto-Ionian Theory", you >> >will be obliged to make PHONETICAL ACROBATICS to explain the GREEK >> >Turos versus SEMITIC "Sur" !... >> >Greek is NOT a language which has been spoken by people having a >> >PHONETIC TENDENCY to change strong S into T . On the contrary !... The >> >Greek tendency is to change strong S > weak S > H < zero !... Talking >> >about a borrowing into Greek of *Suros for TYR is JUST ABSURD...
>> Phoenician s.ur- (which at the time sounded /c~ur-/, with a >> velarized dental affricate) would have been borrowed into >> Greek as súr-(os).
>At least, we agree on one point !.. *IF* there had been a borrowing >from Phoenician, the Greek word would have been *Syros, NOT TYROS. >But the FACT is that is was Tyros !.. Therefore, one is lead to >reverse the loan direction : from Proto-Ionic Greek to Phoenician ...
The Phoenicians borrowed their name of Tyre from the Proto-Ionians? You've gotta be kidding.
======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal m...@wxs.nl
On 5 Mar 2004 12:04:19 -0800, graph...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
>I'm not as ignorant as Semitic languages as you pretend. 1)- It's sure >that I should have written more correctly <s.ur> instead of <sur>. I >did this "writing simplification", because there was here NO risk of >confusion. In the same way, I did'n't mention the length of the >vowel.. 2)- Where is the contradiction between what I wrote : "rock >is <sur> in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Hebrew, i.e. in the languages which >were in contact with the Proto-Ionians, but NOT in Arabic",
So you claim <s.ur> is a borrowing from Proto-Ionian. Did proto-Ionian have the emphatic affricate <c.> (/ts~/)?
======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal m...@wxs.nl
> > Does "scientific" mean "fast and loose with the facts"?
> It means keeping in mind that BLACK-AND-WHITE LOGIC is not an > appropriate "scientific" attitude!.. In the REAL WORLD, between > "always" and "never", there are a lot of gradations like : "almost > always", "very often", "now and then", "occasionally", etc.
Consider the black-and-white nature of your attitude, which is that fuzziness is now *always* OK and scientific.
Fuzzy logic is not a justification for sloppy thinking. It hasn't made quackery more scientific than it was before.
> > >... So, showing that an HYPOTHESIS has less than one chance > > >out of 10 BILLIONS of being wrong
> > Let's start with the fact that you have no basis for your > > probabilities.
> That is what YOU say, because you refuse to look at the whole file, > under the pretext it is not in BLACK-AND-WHITE !...
It's more along the lines that I understand what the nature of probabilities is, and when it comes to the kind of material you're talking about, it's not really very applicable. Are you talking about a repeatable phenomenon with an underlying probability density function and a sample set of some size and an enumerable set of conditions on which the outcome is contingent? No.
> >> >.. And showing that an > > >hypothesis has less than one chance out of 10 billions of being right > > >is not, in your opinion, bringing "EVIDENCE" that it *IS* > > >scientifically wrong !... Sorry, but I have another idea of what > > >SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is !...
> > It is grossly apparent that you do. The problem is that your idea is a > > delusion.
> That is WHAT *YOU* SAY !... Because you want to IGNORE concepts like > "Probability" !...
Not at all. I believe I understand probability much more deeply than you do.
> > >> > ONLY in mathematics, a RIGOROUS demonstration is needed to demonstrate > > >> > a theory. In all the other sciences, the demonstration that a theory > > >> > is correct is JUST A MATTER OF PROBABILITIES. > > >> > But I know that there is in this Group a bunch of guys, lead by our > > >> > friend Peter, who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between an > > >> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be right, and another > > >> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be wrong !...
> > >> You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis being probably > > >> right and the same hypothesis being proved.
> > >YES !.. Because in Science, a PROOF is always a "high probability of > > >the theory being correct" !.. > > >But I know that you want to IGNORE words like "Probability", > > >"approximation", "percentage", etc... > > >You IGNORE the ONLY "truly scientific logic", which is what has been > > >called "the Fuzzy Logic" by some...
> > I know what "fuzzy logic" is. I see that you misunderstand it.
> Oh NO !... As its "inventor", Lofti Zadeh, wrote : "Fuzzy Logic rests > on the idea that all things admit of degrees" . It's the CONTRARY of > reasoning in "BLACK-AND-WHITE" , as you do !..
All things?
Does everything Lofti Zadeh says become literal truth, as if by fiat?
> > And I'm > > curious about how it acquired the designation the "only truly > > scientific logic".
> Because we live in a world where the "Black-and-White" approach leads > to STUPIDITIES !.. > For instance your following answer :
> >You have not answered my question : " Are you calling GREEK a "dead > > >language" ?"...
> > Greek, along with English, Dutch, Polish, Arabic, Japanese, and > > Swahili, is not a dead language. But we were talking about Proto-Ionic > > which, like Latin, Ancient Greek, and Old English, is a dead language.
> IN SPITE of THE FACT THAT A MODERN GREEK CAN UNDERSTAND ANCIENT GREEK > without any problem, vocabulary and grammar being "approximately" > (sorry for this word that you want to IGNORE !) the same...
Yes, in spite of it, because dead language means "no longer spoken", not "no longer comprehensible by people by virtue of the language that they do speak". For someone who likes to accuse people of playing word games, you're very good at it.
Getting back to Proto-Ionic, which was the point, modern Greeks wouldn't understand it unless they had studied it. Proto-Ionic is a dead language.
> Similar question : If a guy who has no hair is BOLD, is a guy who has > only ONE SINGLE hair bold or not?..
(FYI, that's "bald".)
If you have a bowl of pure egg whites, you can whip them into a nice stiff meringue. If you have even a trace of yolk in there, you can forget about it.
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:55:32 -0500, Harlan Messinger wrote: >> Oh NO !... As its "inventor", Lofti Zadeh, wrote : "Fuzzy Logic rests >> on the idea that all things admit of degrees" . It's the CONTRARY of >> reasoning in "BLACK-AND-WHITE" , as you do !..
>All things?
>Does everything Lofti Zadeh says become literal truth, as if by fiat?
No, but many things that others claim he said are false. I don't see grapheus using fuzzy logic.
In any case, Zadeh refers to degrees of truth, not probability, as grapheus does. Zadeh showed how to calculate the truthvalue (validity) of arguments that include such "fuzzy" statements. His mathematics (or logical calculus if you will) is quite precise, which should not be surprising. But Zadeh doesn't deal with the logic of probability arguments, since that's covered by already existing mathematics (which grapheus has demonstrated he understand poorly if at all, so it's not surprising he misunderstands fuzzy logic.)
Not that it matters. Grapheus, despite his invocation of probabilities, seems unable to appreciate the fact that there is a probability (maybe very small - I can't judge that) that he is wrong. Probabilities work both ways. If the probability is 0.99 that A is true, then there is a 0.01 probability that A is false. BTW, that is a large enough probability that it can, for example. make a drug test useless. It all depends on the error rates. It seems to me that error rates in identifying word origins can be quite high (and there is also no guarantee that errors are of the kind that cancel each other, as they do in other kinds of argument or calculation).
IOW, argument about the origin of a word will always be more or less inconclusive, because if there is no doubt, that is, no possibility of error, there is no argument. And to the extent that other arguments are based on conclusions about language, those arguments also are inconclusive. If carefully done, they will point to the kind of evidence that will strengthen the conclusion, but there will always be some probability of error.
-- Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River, Ontario, Canada "Knowledge defines the boundaries of ignorance" (after Augustine, Mcluhan and others.) {drop first and last letters in address for correct email}
Correct !.. Sorry for the mis-typing !.. And thanks for the correction... But I notice that Harlan Messinger did not notice my error... Would he ignore Lotfi Zadeh, as he ignores what a "calculation of probabilities" is ?..
> >> >As long as you will VOLUNTARILY IGNORE the "Proto-Ionian Theory", you > >> >will be obliged to make PHONETICAL ACROBATICS to explain the GREEK > >> >Turos versus SEMITIC "Sur" !... > >> >Greek is NOT a language which has been spoken by people having a > >> >PHONETIC TENDENCY to change strong S into T . On the contrary !... The > >> >Greek tendency is to change strong S > weak S > H < zero !... Talking > >> >about a borrowing into Greek of *Suros for TYR is JUST ABSURD...
> >> Phoenician s.ur- (which at the time sounded /c~ur-/, with a > >> velarized dental affricate) would have been borrowed into > >> Greek as súr-(os).
> >At least, we agree on one point !.. *IF* there had been a borrowing > >from Phoenician, the Greek word would have been *Syros, NOT TYROS. > >But the FACT is that is was Tyros !.. Therefore, one is lead to > >reverse the loan direction : from Proto-Ionic Greek to Phoenician ...
> The Phoenicians borrowed their name of Tyre from the > Proto-Ionians? You've gotta be kidding.
It's YOU who are kidding, refusing to accept the EXISTENCE of the PROTO-IONIANS in the Aegean during the Early Bronze Age !... The Proto-Ionian Theory is one of the best established theory that I know, in spite of his detractors WHO HAVE NEVER DISPROVED A SINGLE PROOF that it is correct... I am asking you : WHO has disproved the so-called "Astronomical Proof" ?.. WHO has disproved the many "Linguistical Proofs"?.. Not to talk about all the many other proofs... With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those "minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory : Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city known as Sur- by the Semitic peoples?.. WHEN the city was created ?.. WHY was it created ON AN ISLAND, like most of the "Proto-Ionian Trading posts ?.. Why Alexander-the-Great did not destroy the city, just killing the inhabitants, when he conquered it?.. Why Tyr and Sidon were allied ?.. WHY were the "Phoenicians" from Tyr and Sidon a maritime people ?... Etc. Bring the Proto-Ionians into the picture, and ALL those questions find a SATISFACTORY ANSWER !...
NOT enough, of course, for DOGMATIC people like YOU !.. You have NEVER seriously got a look at the PROOFS, never been able to refute a single one of them, never read a single reference, but you go on with your motto : "The Proto-Ionian Theory CONTRADICTS the "Risch-Chadwick Theory". It "MUST" therefore be wrong !"... An attitude WORSE than at the time of Galileo !...
On 6 Mar 2004 04:36:46 -0800, graph...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
>With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those >"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory : >Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a >satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city >known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains that.
======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal m...@wxs.nl
> >With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those > >"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory : > >Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a > >satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city > >known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
> You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains > that.
You must have some trouble understanding what I wrote !... I repeat it, just for you : *IF* the Canaanites created on the coast of Syria a harbour they called S.ur : "the rock", several things become strange : 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?.. 2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always been a SEMITIC harbour ?.. 3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur, transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic tendency of the Greek language. 4)-Why the word S.ur : "rock" does exist only in the (Semitic) languages of peoples having been in contact with the Greeks ?.. 5)-Etc. Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear : 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing. That this word got later the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc., makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the Greeks 5)- Etc.
But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments ?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is *phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to Greek. But I challenge you to be able to bring a SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE of a Semitic word in S. borrowed by the Greeks and changed into a word in T !.. Ready to accept the challenge ?..
> > >With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those > > >"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory : > > >Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a > > >satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city > > >known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
> > You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains > > that.
> You must have some trouble understanding what I wrote !... > I repeat it, just for you : *IF* the Canaanites created on the coast > of Syria a harbour they called S.ur : "the rock", several things > become strange : 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?.. 2)- Why > this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always > been a SEMITIC harbour ?.. 3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur, > transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the > borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic > tendency of the Greek language. 4)-Why the word S.ur : "rock" does > exist only in the (Semitic) languages of peoples having been in > contact with the Greeks ?.. 5)-Etc. > Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear > : 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has > been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the > coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are > several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of > Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other > Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the > native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A > borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change > Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing. That this word got later > the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc., > makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the > Greeks 5)- Etc.
> But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments > ?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written > about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can > always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is > *phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to > Greek. But I challenge you to be able to bring a SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE > of a Semitic word in S. borrowed by the Greeks and changed into a > word in T !.. Ready to accept the challenge ?..
Perhaps the Greek form is borrowed from the Aramaic form, with t. (Tet). -- Peter T. Daniels gramma...@att.net
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:31:36 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>The emphatic lateral tL' (£') [I use /L/ for the fricative >voiceless lateral as in Welsh <ll>, and the pound sign for >the corresponding affricate <£> = <tL>] is also OK.
My apologies for an OT question: Is this Welsh sound similar to the Spanish double L (ll)?
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 19:49:49 GMT, "GEO" M...@home.here wrote: >On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:31:36 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> >wrote:
>>The emphatic lateral tL' (£') [I use /L/ for the fricative >>voiceless lateral as in Welsh <ll>, and the pound sign for >>the corresponding affricate <£> = <tL>] is also OK.
> My apologies for an OT question: > Is this Welsh sound similar to the Spanish double L (ll)?
No. Spanish <ll> is a palatal voiced lateral continuant. Welsh <ll> is a dental/alveolar voiceless lateral fricative.
======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal m...@wxs.nl
>> >With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those >> >"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory : >> >Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a >> >satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city >> >known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
>> You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains >> that.
>You must have some trouble understanding what I wrote !... >I repeat it, just for you : *IF* the Canaanites created on the coast >of Syria a harbour they called S.ur : "the rock", several things >become strange : 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?..
Why not?
>2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always >been a SEMITIC harbour ?..
.. just like Sidon.
>3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur, >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic >tendency of the Greek language.
There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic T.ur.
>4)-Why the word S.ur : "rock" does >exist only in the (Semitic) languages of peoples having been in >contact with the Greeks ?..
Within Semitic, it's confined to the NW Semitic dialect, like no doubt many other words.
>5)-Etc.
Yeah.
>Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear >: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has >been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the >coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are >several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of >Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other >Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the >native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A >borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change >Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing.
You don't know much about phonetics do you? Or about NW Semitic. A Greek Túros would have been borrowed in NW Semitic as Tur-. What possible reason could there be *not* to borrow Greek /t/ as Semitic /t/?
>That this word got later >the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc., >makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the >Greeks 5)- Etc.
>But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments >?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written >about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can >always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is >*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to >Greek.
Neither is possible, of course.
Phoenician S.ur- would have given Greek *Sur-. Greek Tur- would have given Phoenician *Tur-.
The only possibility is a native NW Semitic word *t_.ur "rock, cliff", regularly giving Phoenician S.ur and Aramaic T.ur.
Greek borrowed the Aramaic form.
A borrowing from Greek into Semitic is absolutely impossible on linguistic grounds (neither Greek nor "Proto-Ionian" had a voiceless emphatic interdental fricative /t_./: that's a Semitic phoneme, almost by definition).
>But I challenge you to be able to bring a SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE >of a Semitic word in S. borrowed by the Greeks and changed into a >word in T !.. Ready to accept the challenge ?..
Why would I want to do a stupid thing like that?
In very old borrowings, Greek (PIE in general) /t/ correponds with NW Semitic /s^/ (tauros ~ s^u:r "bull"), PS */t_/.
======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal m...@wxs.nl
> >> >With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those > >> >"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory : > >> >Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a > >> >satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city > >> >known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
> >> You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains > >> that.
> >You must have some trouble understanding what I wrote !... > >I repeat it, just for you : *IF* the Canaanites created on the coast > >of Syria a harbour they called S.ur : "the rock", several things > >become strange : 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?..
> Why not?
Because it's a STUPID thing to built a harbour on a rocky place, with no communication by land with the hinterland !.. On the contrary, foreign seamen wil do that, to avoid attacks by the natives...
But you are probably unable to understand such a thing !.. It DOES'N'T FIT with *YOUR* DOGMA : that "Proto-Ionians have never existed" !...
> >2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always > >been a SEMITIC harbour ?..
> .. just like Sidon.
NO !.. Sidon, like Tyr, were special places, with a "foreign policy" often different from the rest of the country... For instance : they were the cities allied to the Philistines, during Biblical times... But I suppose that you don't care...
> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur, > >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the > >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic > >tendency of the Greek language.
> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic > T.ur.
BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar borrowing !.. But, of course, you don't care !.. YOUR word is God's word !..
> >4)-Why the word S.ur : "rock" does > >exist only in the (Semitic) languages of peoples having been in > >contact with the Greeks ?..
> Within Semitic, it's confined to the NW Semitic dialect, > like no doubt many other words.
> >Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear > >: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has > >been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the > >coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are > >several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of > >Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other > >Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the > >native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A > >borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change > >Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing.
> You don't know much about phonetics do you?
I may return the compliment to you !..
> Or about NW > Semitic. A Greek Túros would have been borrowed in NW > Semitic as Tur-. What possible reason could there be *not* > to borrow Greek /t/ as Semitic /t/?
Because the Greek consonant T is phonologically DIFFERENT from the Semitic T, as shown by the changes INSIDE the SEMITIC LANGUAGES between D, T, and T. These fluctuations are particular to Semitic. They show that the pronunciation-system of the consonants is DIFFERENT in the Semitic languages on one hand, and in the IE languages in general on the other... Have you ever learn about "General Phonetics" ?...
> >That this word got later > >the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc., > >makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the > >Greeks 5)- Etc.
> >But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments > >?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written > >about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can > >always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is > >*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to > >Greek.
> A borrowing from Greek into Semitic is absolutely impossible > on linguistic grounds (neither Greek nor "Proto-Ionian" had > a voiceless emphatic interdental fricative /t_./: that's a > Semitic phoneme, almost by definition).
At least, we agree on one point !.. That is what I said, a few lines hereabove : BOTH LANGUAGES HAVE NOT THE SAME PRONUNCIATION-SYSTEM !...
But what you don't understand is that there is NO NEED for Greek/Proto-Ionic to have an interdental fricative for the borrowing : GREEK T > SEMITIC T. /S. to occur !... It's a NORMAL thing, with borrowings, that the people who ignore the EXACT PRONUNCIATION tries to render it by something not too far away from it !... See for instance Frenchmen saying "ze" to renter English "the", or Spanish people saying "ye" for rendering French "je" , etc.
> >But I challenge you to be able to bring a SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE > >of a Semitic word in S. borrowed by the Greeks and changed into a > >word in T !.. Ready to accept the challenge ?..
> Why would I want to do a stupid thing like that?
Because it would demonstrate that you would be right and me wrong !.. But, of course, you probably know that winning this challenge is impossible for you... Better calling it "stupid" , right?...
> In very old borrowings, Greek (PIE in general) /t/ > correponds with NW Semitic /s^/ (tauros ~ s^u:r "bull"), PS > */t_/.
EXCELLENT !... Thank you for confirming WHAT I WROTE !... See hereabove...
>Because it's a STUPID thing to built a harbour on a rocky place, with >no communication by land with the hinterland !.. >On the contrary, foreign seamen wil do that, to avoid attacks by the >natives...
According to local tradition, Tyre (Old Tyre, Palaetyrus) was built on the mainland. Only later was the city on the island built.
>But you are probably unable to understand such a thing !.. It DOES'N'T >FIT with *YOUR* DOGMA : that "Proto-Ionians have never existed" !...
>> >2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always >> >been a SEMITIC harbour ?..
>> .. just like Sidon.
>NO !.. Sidon, like Tyr, were special places, with a "foreign policy" >often different from the rest of the country... For instance : they >were the cities allied to the Philistines, during Biblical times... >But I suppose that you don't care...
City-state usually have their own policies. If Tyre was usally allied with Sidon, that fits in well with the local tradition that Tyre was a daughter (colony) of Sidon.
>> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur, >> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the >> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic >> >tendency of the Greek language.
>> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic >> T.ur.
>BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar >borrowing !..
Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words.
>> >Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear >> >: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has >> >been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the >> >coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are >> >several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of >> >Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other >> >Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the >> >native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A >> >borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change >> >Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing.
>> You don't know much about phonetics do you?
>I may return the compliment to you !..
>> Or about NW >> Semitic. A Greek Túros would have been borrowed in NW >> Semitic as Tur-. What possible reason could there be *not* >> to borrow Greek /t/ as Semitic /t/?
>Because the Greek consonant T is phonologically DIFFERENT from the >Semitic T, as shown by the changes INSIDE the SEMITIC LANGUAGES >between D, T, and T.
There are no changes inside the Semitic langauges between /d/, /t/ and /t./. They are maintained as distinct phonemes.
In borrowings from foreign words (such as Greek), I'm pretty sure only /d/ and /t/ are used, not the marked phoneme /t./. So Greek delta is generally borrowed as dalet, and Greek tau and theta are borrowed as taw. In any case, they are never borrowed as the emphatic affricate /s./.
>> >That this word got later >> >the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc., >> >makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the >> >Greeks 5)- Etc.
>> >But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments >> >?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written >> >about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can >> >always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is >> >*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to >> >Greek.
>> A borrowing from Greek into Semitic is absolutely impossible >> on linguistic grounds (neither Greek nor "Proto-Ionian" had >> a voiceless emphatic interdental fricative /t_./: that's a >> Semitic phoneme, almost by definition).
>At least, we agree on one point !.. That is what I said, a few lines >hereabove : BOTH LANGUAGES HAVE NOT THE SAME PRONUNCIATION-SYSTEM !...
>But what you don't understand is that there is NO NEED for >Greek/Proto-Ionic to have an interdental fricative for the borrowing
Oh yes there is.
The alternation within Semitic (Hebrew/Phoenician /s./ vs. Aramaic /t./) *requires* an emphatic interdental fricative.
The proof is provided by Egyptian, where Tyre is called /D_r/, and Sidon [= S.ayda] /D_dnn/. Phoenician /s./ corresponds to Egyptian <d_>, see James Hoch, "Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts" for an exhaustive analysis of the correspondences. Egyptian <d_> was also an emphatic consonant.
======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal m...@wxs.nl
> >Because it's a STUPID thing to built a harbour on a rocky place, with > >no communication by land with the hinterland !.. > >On the contrary, foreign seamen wil do that, to avoid attacks by the > >natives...
> According to local tradition, Tyre (Old Tyre, Palaetyrus) > was built on the mainland. Only later was the city on the > island built.
1)- This is not confirmed by archaeology. 2)- Even if it was true - what is possible - , there is no contradiction. IF YOU KNEW BETTER the History of the Proto-Ionians, you would know that they generally established their trading posts ON AN ISLAND or on a peninsula, but not too far from a village inhabited by the natives. Surprising?.. NO !.. It's a RATIONAL solution, which combines security with the desire to trade... But, of course, YOU have chosen TO IGNORE the Proto-Ionians' History !...
> >But you are probably unable to understand such a thing !.. It DOES'N'T > >FIT with *YOUR* DOGMA : that "Proto-Ionians have never existed" !...
> >> >2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always > >> >been a SEMITIC harbour ?..
> >> .. just like Sidon.
> >NO !.. Sidon, like Tyr, were special places, with a "foreign policy" > >often different from the rest of the country... For instance : they > >were the cities allied to the Philistines, during Biblical times... > >But I suppose that you don't care...
> City-state usually have their own policies. If Tyre was > usally allied with Sidon, that fits in well with the local > tradition that Tyre was a daughter (colony) of Sidon.
Of course !.. Both had probably the same Proto-Ionian origin, in contrast with Byblos !..
> >> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur, > >> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the > >> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic > >> >tendency of the Greek language.
> >> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic > >> T.ur.
> >BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar > >borrowing !..
> Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can. > Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian > Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words.
Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been "heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !... Please, go on !..
> >> >Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear > >> >: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has > >> >been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the > >> >coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are > >> >several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of > >> >Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other > >> >Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the > >> >native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A > >> >borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change > >> >Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing.
> >> You don't know much about phonetics do you?
> >I may return the compliment to you !..
> >> Or about NW > >> Semitic. A Greek Túros would have been borrowed in NW > >> Semitic as Tur-. What possible reason could there be *not* > >> to borrow Greek /t/ as Semitic /t/?
> >Because the Greek consonant T is phonologically DIFFERENT from the > >Semitic T, as shown by the changes INSIDE the SEMITIC LANGUAGES > >between D, T, and T.
> There are no changes inside the Semitic langauges between > /d/, /t/ and /t./. They are maintained as distinct > phonemes.
?????... But this point is irrelevant, and I will not discuss it...
> In borrowings from foreign words (such as Greek), I'm pretty > sure only /d/ and /t/ are used, not the marked phoneme /t./.
What do you mean ?.. That at the time of borrowings, there was no letter in the Aramaïc alphabet to render the emphatic ?..
> So Greek delta is generally borrowed as dalet, and Greek tau > and theta are borrowed as taw. In any case, they are never > borrowed as the emphatic affricate /s./.
If the alphabet used was no more making the distinction, surely !...
> >> >That this word got later > >> >the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc., > >> >makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the > >> >Greeks 5)- Etc.
> >> >But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments > >> >?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written > >> >about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can > >> >always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is > >> >*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to > >> >Greek.
> >> A borrowing from Greek into Semitic is absolutely impossible > >> on linguistic grounds (neither Greek nor "Proto-Ionian" had > >> a voiceless emphatic interdental fricative /t_./: that's a > >> Semitic phoneme, almost by definition).
> >At least, we agree on one point !.. That is what I said, a few lines > >hereabove : BOTH LANGUAGES HAVE NOT THE SAME PRONUNCIATION-SYSTEM !...
> >But what you don't understand is that there is NO NEED for > >Greek/Proto-Ionic to have an interdental fricative for the borrowing
> Oh yes there is.
> The alternation within Semitic (Hebrew/Phoenician /s./ vs. > Aramaic /t./) *requires* an emphatic interdental fricative.
IN SEMITIC, YES !.. NOT IN GREEK !.. When will you understand that the BORROWER has NO NEED to have THE SAME PHONETIC SYSTEM as the pillaged language ?.. Because the BORROWER replaces a sound by an APPROXIMATION OF HIS OWN : A Spanish will say : "yé souis" to imitate a Frenchman saying : "je suis" , etc.
> The proof is provided by Egyptian, where Tyre is called > /D_r/, and Sidon [= S.ayda] /D_dnn/. Phoenician /s./ > corresponds to Egyptian <d_>, see James Hoch, "Semitic Words > in Egyptian Texts" for an exhaustive analysis of the > correspondences. Egyptian <d_> was also an emphatic > consonant.
> ======================= > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal > m...@wxs.nl
>> >> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur, >> >> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the >> >> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic >> >> >tendency of the Greek language.
>> >> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic >> >> T.ur.
>> >BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar >> >borrowing !..
>> Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can. >> Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian >> Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words.
>Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been >"heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !... >Please, go on !..
Mark, V 41: "talitha kum(i)". Aramaic <t.ale:t_o: qo:mi>.
BTW, Aramaic /t./ is just as dental as Greek /t/. It's just emphatic, which Greek /t/ isn't. It would of course be heard by Greeks as their /t/. What else?
>> In borrowings from foreign words (such as Greek), I'm pretty >> sure only /d/ and /t/ are used, not the marked phoneme /t./.
>What do you mean ?.. That at the time of borrowings, there was no >letter in the Aramaïc alphabet to render the emphatic ?..
Of course not.
>> So Greek delta is generally borrowed as dalet, and Greek tau >> and theta are borrowed as taw. In any case, they are never >> borrowed as the emphatic affricate /s./.
>If the alphabet used was no more making the distinction, surely !...
The alphabet has nothing to do with. Sorry to have confused you with lingistic terminology you're apparently not aware of.
>> The alternation within Semitic (Hebrew/Phoenician /s./ vs. >> Aramaic /t./) *requires* an emphatic interdental fricative.
>IN SEMITIC, YES !.. NOT IN GREEK !.. >When will you understand that the BORROWER has NO NEED to have THE >SAME PHONETIC SYSTEM as the pillaged language ?.. Because the >BORROWER replaces a sound by an APPROXIMATION OF HIS OWN : A Spanish >will say : "yé souis" to imitate a Frenchman saying : "je suis" , >etc.
Exactly. And not <ye tuí> or <ye zuí>, especie de coño, which is what you're suggesting. The Semites had a /t/, and a /t./ to boot, so they would never have borrowed Greek /t/ as /T./. End of story.
Anyways, leaving aside grapheus' irrelevant ramblings, the really interesting part of the question remains: can the Greek word Suría be derived from Phoenician /s.ur-/ "Tyre", or is Herodotus' explanation as Suría < Assuría perferrable?
An interesting datum is that Suroi means "Syrians", while Surioi means the same as Assurioi.
======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal m...@wxs.nl
In sci.lang Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in <2otm40pqcje6t48kuh3t4611n9k9d3k...@4ax.com>: : On 7 Mar 2004 11:00:40 -0800, graph...@www.com (grapheus)
: wrote:
:>> >> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur, :>> >> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the :>> >> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic :>> >> >tendency of the Greek language. :>> >> :>> >> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic :>> >> T.ur. :>> > :>> >BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar :>> >borrowing !.. :>> :>> Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can. :>> Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian :>> Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words. :> :>Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been :>"heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !... :>Please, go on !..
: Mark, V 41: "talitha kum(i)". Aramaic <t.ale:t_o: qo:mi>.
actually (emphatic) T <-> tau /t/ ([t], [*th*]} <-> theta
was used in both directions (in their greek loanwords as well) by Hellenizing jews, aramaic speakers in both late Hebrew and Aramaic and in Syriac as well. (to a certain extent this spilled over into Arabic whose early contacts with greek was through syriac). so just look at the Biblical names that entered through the LXX
however when the greeks adapted the phoenician alphabet theta was phoenican /T/ and tau phoenician /t/
so also q <-> kappa /k/ ([k], [*kh*] <-> chi
so you get the transcription you quoted. : BTW, Aramaic /t./ is just as dental as Greek /t/. It's just : emphatic, which Greek /t/ isn't. It would of course be : heard by Greeks as their /t/. What else?
:>> In borrowings from foreign words (such as Greek), I'm pretty :>> sure only /d/ and /t/ are used, not the marked phoneme /t./. :> :>What do you mean ?.. That at the time of borrowings, there was no :>letter in the Aramaïc alphabet to render the emphatic ?..
: Of course not.
:>> So Greek delta is generally borrowed as dalet, and Greek tau :>> and theta are borrowed as taw. In any case, they are never :>> borrowed as the emphatic affricate /s./. :> :>If the alphabet used was no more making the distinction, surely !...
: The alphabet has nothing to do with. Sorry to have confused : you with lingistic terminology you're apparently not aware : of.
:>> The alternation within Semitic (Hebrew/Phoenician /s./ vs. :>> Aramaic /t./) *requires* an emphatic interdental fricative. :> :>IN SEMITIC, YES !.. NOT IN GREEK !.. :>When will you understand that the BORROWER has NO NEED to have THE :>SAME PHONETIC SYSTEM as the pillaged language ?.. Because the :>BORROWER replaces a sound by an APPROXIMATION OF HIS OWN : A Spanish :>will say : "yé souis" to imitate a Frenchman saying : "je suis" , :>etc.
: Exactly. And not <ye tuí> or <ye zuí>, especie de coño, : which is what you're suggesting. The Semites had a /t/, and : a /t./ to boot, so they would never have borrowed Greek /t/ : as /T./. End of story.
: Anyways, leaving aside grapheus' irrelevant ramblings, the : really interesting part of the question remains: can the : Greek word Suría be derived from Phoenician /s.ur-/ "Tyre", : or is Herodotus' explanation as Suría < Assuría perferrable?
: An interesting datum is that Suroi means "Syrians", while : Surioi means the same as Assurioi.
: ======================= : Miguel Carrasquer Vidal : m...@wxs.nl
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 01:04:27 +0000 (UTC), Yusuf B Gursey
<y...@TheWorld.com> wrote: >however when the greeks adapted the phoenician alphabet theta was >phoenican /T/ and tau phoenician /t/
But that was not based on phonetic considerations, rather to the contrary: Semitic /t/ [optionally aspirated] was closer to Greek /th/ than Semitic /t./, which, as an emphatic, was never aspirated. But the most common (unmarked) sound in Semitic was /t/, written <tau>, just as in Greek. Once it was decided that Greek /t/ was to be rendered by the unmarked letter <tau>, that left <t.êt> free to be used for rendering Greek /th/, for which the Phoenician alphabet lacked a representation. Compare the choice of common <s^în> (/s^/) to render Greek /s/, even though marked <samek> (/s/) was closer to the mark phonetically.
The other "doublets" (from the Greek point of view), <kap> vs. <qop> and <he:> vs. <h.et>, were resolved differently, but markedness played a role here as well: unmarked <kappa> became the usual representation of /k/, while <qoppa> was not utilized to write Greek /kh/ [different symbol swere invented for that], but instead was left functionless and eventually disappeared (the Etruscans took to using it to write /ku/, which is why we've still got it). The marked aspirate <h.> was allowed to represent the Greek rough breathing /h/ (until the Ionians turned (h)êta into a way to write /ê/), while unmarked <he:> was used to write the vowel /e/.
In Hellenistic times, Semitic pronuncation had changed slightly, so that non-emphatic stops had become fricatives in certain positions (e.g. intervocalically when not geminated or finally):
p > f, b > v t > t_, d > d_ k > x, g > g_
In these positions, Greek would have used phi, theta and khi (also in the process of becoming fricatives) to render pe:, taw, and kaf. That explains Aram. t.alit_a => Grk. talitha.
Where taw, kaf and pe: were not fricative, they could still be transcribed by Greek tau, kappa and pi and viceversa (e.g. Hebr. mistorin "mystery" with <taw>), although emphatics are also possible (Grk. Tripoli > Arab. T.ara:bulus).
======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal m...@wxs.nl
