Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
spelling and sound (aspiration)
57 views
Skip to first unread message
anal...@hotmail.com
Oct 31, 2012, 5:15:55 PM10/31/12
to
Tamil is considered not to have aspirated stops (they certainly aren't
phonemic). But if you tune to Sun TV, stops are aspirated all over
the place in the dialogue you hear in serials and I can't detect any
pattern as to when it occurs. When I have a chance, I'll check out
movies/songs from a few decades ago.
Apart from proving my assertion that spelling and sound correlate only
approximately - here is a radical suggestion - phonemic aspiration was
a rare phenomenon in prehistoric times (and perhaps still is) and
certainly need not be assumed for PIE. If you remove Sanskrit from
the equation European IE languages can be better explained with only
p,t,k,b,d,g as stops and curiosities like the rarity of b in roots
would disappear.
phonemic). But if you tune to Sun TV, stops are aspirated all over
the place in the dialogue you hear in serials and I can't detect any
pattern as to when it occurs. When I have a chance, I'll check out
movies/songs from a few decades ago.
Apart from proving my assertion that spelling and sound correlate only
approximately - here is a radical suggestion - phonemic aspiration was
a rare phenomenon in prehistoric times (and perhaps still is) and
certainly need not be assumed for PIE. If you remove Sanskrit from
the equation European IE languages can be better explained with only
p,t,k,b,d,g as stops and curiosities like the rarity of b in roots
would disappear.
The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army
Oct 31, 2012, 5:20:40 PM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 11:15 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The relatedness of archaic European IE languages such as Classical
Latin and Greek to Sanskrit is far too obvious to be disproved by
evidence on this level.
wrote:
Latin and Greek to Sanskrit is far too obvious to be disproved by
evidence on this level.
Trond Engen
Oct 31, 2012, 7:16:38 PM10/31/12
to
anal...@hotmail.com:
> [...] here is a radical suggestion - phonemic aspiration was a rare
pretty much the same thing: something strikingly similar to Sanskrit --
but independently derived, i.e. clear evidence of relatedness and
independent confirmation of the reconstruction. (That's why the methods
of historical linguistics are considered sound.) A glance at the
Sanskrit vowel system would even reveal the direction of development.
--
Trond Engen
> [...] here is a radical suggestion - phonemic aspiration was a rare
> phenomenon in prehistoric times (and perhaps still is) and certainly
> need not be assumed for PIE. If you remove Sanskrit from the equation
> European IE languages can be better explained with only p,t,k,b,d,g as
> stops and curiosities like the rarity of b in roots would disappear.
No, won't work. If you removed Sanskrit from the equation you would have
> need not be assumed for PIE. If you remove Sanskrit from the equation
> European IE languages can be better explained with only p,t,k,b,d,g as
> stops and curiosities like the rarity of b in roots would disappear.
pretty much the same thing: something strikingly similar to Sanskrit --
but independently derived, i.e. clear evidence of relatedness and
independent confirmation of the reconstruction. (That's why the methods
of historical linguistics are considered sound.) A glance at the
Sanskrit vowel system would even reveal the direction of development.
--
Trond Engen
DKleinecke
Nov 2, 2012, 10:01:09 PM11/2/12
to
On Oct 31, 4:15 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
> analys...@hotmail.com:
I would be surprised to find that no one has ever undertaken this
research. But I don't know that any one ever has. I mean doing a PIE
reconstruction without using Indo-Iranian data. We must exclude Old
Iranian as well as Sanskrit.
> analys...@hotmail.com:
research. But I don't know that any one ever has. I mean doing a PIE
reconstruction without using Indo-Iranian data. We must exclude Old
Iranian as well as Sanskrit.
Trond Engen
Nov 5, 2012, 3:24:47 PM11/5/12
to
DKleinecke:
> On Oct 31, 4:15 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> analys...@hotmail.com:
>>
>>> [...] here is a radical suggestion - phonemic aspiration was a rare
>>> phenomenon in prehistoric times (and perhaps still is) and
>>> certainly need not be assumed for PIE. If you remove Sanskrit from
>>> the equation European IE languages can be better explained with
>>> only p,t,k,b,d,g as stops and curiosities like the rarity of b in
>>> roots would disappear.
>>
>> No, won't work. If you removed Sanskrit from the equation you would
>> have pretty much the same thing: something strikingly similar to
>> Sanskrit -- but independently derived, i.e. clear evidence of
>> relatedness and independent confirmation of the reconstruction.
>> (That's why the methods of historical linguistics are considered
>> sound.) A glance at the Sanskrit vowel system would even reveal the
>> direction of development.
>
reply on the assumption that Iranian would be kept in the
reconstruction. But I too would be surprised if nobody's ever done it,
and I agree that it would be more interesting without Indo-Iranian. Or
any other group. It's clear that each group removed wouldn't change the
model much, but each change might say something important about the
branching.
While we're at it, I don't remember where I have that parenthetical
remark from. It could even be my own conclusion after a discussion on
the need for independent confirmation of linguistic reconstruction.
--
Trond Engen
> On Oct 31, 4:15 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> analys...@hotmail.com:
>>
>>> [...] here is a radical suggestion - phonemic aspiration was a rare
>>> phenomenon in prehistoric times (and perhaps still is) and
>>> certainly need not be assumed for PIE. If you remove Sanskrit from
>>> the equation European IE languages can be better explained with
>>> only p,t,k,b,d,g as stops and curiosities like the rarity of b in
>>> roots would disappear.
>>
>> No, won't work. If you removed Sanskrit from the equation you would
>> have pretty much the same thing: something strikingly similar to
>> Sanskrit -- but independently derived, i.e. clear evidence of
>> relatedness and independent confirmation of the reconstruction.
>> (That's why the methods of historical linguistics are considered
>> sound.) A glance at the Sanskrit vowel system would even reveal the
>> direction of development.
>
> I would be surprised to find that no one has ever undertaken this
> research. But I don't know that any one ever has. I mean doing a
> PIE reconstruction without using Indo-Iranian data. We must exclude
> Old Iranian as well as Sanskrit.
Just two days later I'll rush to say that I based my �ber-confident
> research. But I don't know that any one ever has. I mean doing a
> PIE reconstruction without using Indo-Iranian data. We must exclude
> Old Iranian as well as Sanskrit.
reply on the assumption that Iranian would be kept in the
reconstruction. But I too would be surprised if nobody's ever done it,
and I agree that it would be more interesting without Indo-Iranian. Or
any other group. It's clear that each group removed wouldn't change the
model much, but each change might say something important about the
branching.
While we're at it, I don't remember where I have that parenthetical
remark from. It could even be my own conclusion after a discussion on
the need for independent confirmation of linguistic reconstruction.
--
Trond Engen
Arnaud F.
Nov 5, 2012, 3:54:53 PM11/5/12
to
Le lundi 5 novembre 2012 21:23:58 UTC+1, Trond Engen a écrit :
>
> Just two days later I'll rush to say that I based my über-confident
I assume that removing Greek would be a problem for laryngeal reconstructions.
A.
>
> Just two days later I'll rush to say that I based my über-confident
>
> reply on the assumption that Iranian would be kept in the
>
> reconstruction. But I too would be surprised if nobody's ever done it,
>
> and I agree that it would be more interesting without Indo-Iranian. Or
>
> any other group. It's clear that each group removed wouldn't change the
>
> model much, but each change might say something important about the
>
> branching.
>
>
>
> While we're at it, I don't remember where I have that parenthetical
>
> remark from. It could even be my own conclusion after a discussion on
>
> the need for independent confirmation of linguistic reconstruction.
>
***
> reply on the assumption that Iranian would be kept in the
>
> reconstruction. But I too would be surprised if nobody's ever done it,
>
> and I agree that it would be more interesting without Indo-Iranian. Or
>
> any other group. It's clear that each group removed wouldn't change the
>
> model much, but each change might say something important about the
>
> branching.
>
>
>
> While we're at it, I don't remember where I have that parenthetical
>
> remark from. It could even be my own conclusion after a discussion on
>
> the need for independent confirmation of linguistic reconstruction.
>
I assume that removing Greek would be a problem for laryngeal reconstructions.
A.
Joachim Pense
Nov 5, 2012, 4:09:22 PM11/5/12
to
Joachim
Trond Engen
Nov 5, 2012, 6:46:22 PM11/5/12
to
Joachim Pense:
As I said to David, I could be so confident because analyst didn't
suggest removing Avestan too, but I would be very surprised if leaving
out Indo-Iranian alltogether changed the picture much. There would of
course be fewer words that could be safely reconstructed for common IE,
but I can't see the phonology ot morphology changing significantly.
This hypothetical "PIE before the discovery of Indo-Iranian" would be a
good reconstruction based on the available evidence. When the
"discovery" of a southeastern branch confirms the main features of
grammar and adds significantly to the set of safe cognates, it's a great
victory for the "original" reconstruction.
Now, real reconstruction is done by adding languages and building a
model with enough systematic correspondences to exclude chance and
borrowing, i.e. a validation equivalent to independent confirmation is
(ideally) built into the model. But I'd still love to see it done.
--
Trond Engen
suggest removing Avestan too, but I would be very surprised if leaving
out Indo-Iranian alltogether changed the picture much. There would of
course be fewer words that could be safely reconstructed for common IE,
but I can't see the phonology ot morphology changing significantly.
This hypothetical "PIE before the discovery of Indo-Iranian" would be a
good reconstruction based on the available evidence. When the
"discovery" of a southeastern branch confirms the main features of
grammar and adds significantly to the set of safe cognates, it's a great
victory for the "original" reconstruction.
Now, real reconstruction is done by adding languages and building a
model with enough systematic correspondences to exclude chance and
borrowing, i.e. a validation equivalent to independent confirmation is
(ideally) built into the model. But I'd still love to see it done.
--
Trond Engen
anal...@hotmail.com
Nov 5, 2012, 6:50:09 PM11/5/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am surprised that even you don't apparently see that removing voiced
aspirates from PIE (not via the grotesque "glottalic" theory) vastly
improves its internal coherence at the expense of leaving Sanskrit out
of it. The weird rareness of *b turns out to be an illusion.
Trond Engen
Nov 5, 2012, 7:12:00 PM11/5/12
to
anal...@hotmail.com:
>> Le lundi 5 novembre 2012 21:23:58 UTC+1, Trond Engen a �crit :
>>
>>> Just two days later I'll rush to say that I based my �ber-confident
The unified model necessarily becomes less specific for each member
group removed.
> I am surprised that even you don't apparently see that removing
> voiced aspirates from PIE (not via the grotesque "glottalic" theory)
> vastly improves its internal coherence at the expense of leaving
> Sanskrit out of it. The weird rareness of *b turns out to be an
> illusion.
Please feel free to show us.
Now you claim that Sanskrit is such an outlier that PIE would be more
coherent without it. Other times you claim that PIE would be better
explained with Sanskrit closer to -- or at -- the root. Which is it?
--
Trond Engen
>> Le lundi 5 novembre 2012 21:23:58 UTC+1, Trond Engen a �crit :
>>
>>> Just two days later I'll rush to say that I based my �ber-confident
>>> reply on the assumption that Iranian would be kept in the
>>> reconstruction. But I too would be surprised if nobody's ever done
>>> it, and I agree that it would be more interesting without
>>> Indo-Iranian. Or any other group. It's clear that each group
>>> removed wouldn't change the model much, but each change might say
>>> something important about the branching.
>>>
>>> While we're at it, I don't remember where I have that parenthetical
>>> remark from. It could even be my own conclusion after a discussion
>>> on the need for independent confirmation of linguistic
>>> reconstruction.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> I assume that removing Greek would be a problem for laryngeal
>> reconstructions.
Oh, quite likely, and removing other groups might pose other problems.
>>> reconstruction. But I too would be surprised if nobody's ever done
>>> it, and I agree that it would be more interesting without
>>> Indo-Iranian. Or any other group. It's clear that each group
>>> removed wouldn't change the model much, but each change might say
>>> something important about the branching.
>>>
>>> While we're at it, I don't remember where I have that parenthetical
>>> remark from. It could even be my own conclusion after a discussion
>>> on the need for independent confirmation of linguistic
>>> reconstruction.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> I assume that removing Greek would be a problem for laryngeal
>> reconstructions.
The unified model necessarily becomes less specific for each member
group removed.
> I am surprised that even you don't apparently see that removing
> voiced aspirates from PIE (not via the grotesque "glottalic" theory)
> vastly improves its internal coherence at the expense of leaving
> Sanskrit out of it. The weird rareness of *b turns out to be an
> illusion.
Now you claim that Sanskrit is such an outlier that PIE would be more
coherent without it. Other times you claim that PIE would be better
explained with Sanskrit closer to -- or at -- the root. Which is it?
--
Trond Engen
pauljk
Nov 6, 2012, 12:27:37 AM11/6/12
to
"Trond Engen" <tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in message
news:k79kiu$a2h$1...@dont-email.me...
The way I read (and struggle to understand) a41's remark is
that it would be more coherent without Sanskrit BUT it would
not be PIE anymore. I am just assuming that he wouldn't have
changed his mind about Sanskrit being the evolutionary crux
of PIE without some major fireworks going off.
pjk
news:k79kiu$a2h$1...@dont-email.me...
that it would be more coherent without Sanskrit BUT it would
not be PIE anymore. I am just assuming that he wouldn't have
changed his mind about Sanskrit being the evolutionary crux
of PIE without some major fireworks going off.
pjk
Peter T. Daniels
Nov 6, 2012, 6:02:55 PM11/6/12
to
On Nov 5, 6:45 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
> Joachim Pense:
> > Am 01.11.2012 00:16, schrieb Trond Engen:
> >> analys...@hotmail.com:
> Joachim Pense:
> > Am 01.11.2012 00:16, schrieb Trond Engen:
>
> >>> [...] here is a radical suggestion - phonemic aspiration was a rare
> >>> phenomenon in prehistoric times (and perhaps still is) and
> >>> certainly need not be assumed for PIE. If you remove Sanskrit from
> >>> the equation European IE languages can be better explained with
> >>> only p,t,k,b,d,g as stops and curiosities like the rarity of b in
> >>> roots would disappear.
>
> >> No, won't work. If you removed Sanskrit from the equation you would
> >> have pretty much the same thing: something strikingly similar to
> >> Sanskrit -- but independently derived, i.e. clear evidence of
> >> relatedness and independent confirmation of the reconstruction.
> >> (That's why the methods of historical linguistics are considered
> >> sound.) A glance at the Sanskrit vowel system would even reveal the
> >> direction of development.
>
> > What if one also removed Avestan?
>
> As I said to David, I could be so confident because analyst didn't
> suggest removing Avestan too, but I would be very surprised if leaving
> out Indo-Iranian alltogether changed the picture much. There would of
> course be fewer words that could be safely reconstructed for common IE,
> but I can't see the phonology ot morphology changing significantly.
>
> This hypothetical "PIE before the discovery of Indo-Iranian" would be a
> good reconstruction based on the available evidence. When the
> "discovery" of a southeastern branch confirms the main features of
> grammar and adds significantly to the set of safe cognates, it's a great
> victory for the "original" reconstruction.
Which, of course, is precisely what happened when Potawotami was
> >>> [...] here is a radical suggestion - phonemic aspiration was a rare
> >>> phenomenon in prehistoric times (and perhaps still is) and
> >>> certainly need not be assumed for PIE. If you remove Sanskrit from
> >>> the equation European IE languages can be better explained with
> >>> only p,t,k,b,d,g as stops and curiosities like the rarity of b in
> >>> roots would disappear.
>
> >> No, won't work. If you removed Sanskrit from the equation you would
> >> have pretty much the same thing: something strikingly similar to
> >> Sanskrit -- but independently derived, i.e. clear evidence of
> >> relatedness and independent confirmation of the reconstruction.
> >> (That's why the methods of historical linguistics are considered
> >> sound.) A glance at the Sanskrit vowel system would even reveal the
> >> direction of development.
>
> > What if one also removed Avestan?
>
> As I said to David, I could be so confident because analyst didn't
> suggest removing Avestan too, but I would be very surprised if leaving
> out Indo-Iranian alltogether changed the picture much. There would of
> course be fewer words that could be safely reconstructed for common IE,
> but I can't see the phonology ot morphology changing significantly.
>
> This hypothetical "PIE before the discovery of Indo-Iranian" would be a
> good reconstruction based on the available evidence. When the
> "discovery" of a southeastern branch confirms the main features of
> grammar and adds significantly to the set of safe cognates, it's a great
> victory for the "original" reconstruction.
described and proved to fit perfectly with Bloomfield's Proto-Central
Algonquian (reconstructed from Fox, Cree, Menominee, and Ojibway),
even providing examples of a cluster Bloomfield had posited the
existence of in order to account for certain correspondences among the
four known languages.
anal...@hotmail.com
Nov 11, 2012, 10:38:13 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 5, 6:50 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> of it. The weird rareness of *b turns out to be an illusion.- Hide quoted text -
http://www.lituanus.org/1988/88_4_03.htm
And we have here a candidate for "PEIE" = P(European) IE.
It removes exotic sounds such as voiced aspirates, labio-velars and
Laryngeals from the protolanguage and probably only simple sound
changes from it produced the attested descendants.
Sanskrit and Hittite can only be compared to PEIE to get reasonable
results. Its not clear where Tocharian would fall.
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have posted this before:
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.lituanus.org/1988/88_4_03.htm
And we have here a candidate for "PEIE" = P(European) IE.
It removes exotic sounds such as voiced aspirates, labio-velars and
Laryngeals from the protolanguage and probably only simple sound
changes from it produced the attested descendants.
Sanskrit and Hittite can only be compared to PEIE to get reasonable
results. Its not clear where Tocharian would fall.
The General of the Faceless Anti-Franz Shadow Army
Nov 11, 2012, 6:27:40 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 11, 5:38 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
So, we will end up with Sanskrit a language heavily contaminated by
Dravidian influence, I guess. The fact that Sanskrit is Indo-European
is so bleedin' obvious that the question of the voiced aspirates does
not change it. But the voiced aspirates would then boil down to an
areal feature due to influences from other language families of the
area.
Dravidian influence, I guess. The fact that Sanskrit is Indo-European
is so bleedin' obvious that the question of the voiced aspirates does
not change it. But the voiced aspirates would then boil down to an
areal feature due to influences from other language families of the
area.
Arnaud F.
Nov 12, 2012, 4:50:45 AM11/12/12
to
Le dimanche 11 novembre 2012 16:38:13 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> I have posted this before:
>
>
>
> http://www.lituanus.org/1988/88_4_03.htm
>
>
>
> And we have here a candidate for "PEIE" = P(European) IE.
>
>
>
> It removes exotic sounds such as voiced aspirates, labio-velars and
>
> Laryngeals from the protolanguage and probably only simple sound
>
> changes from it produced the attested descendants.
>
***
>
> I have posted this before:
>
>
>
> http://www.lituanus.org/1988/88_4_03.htm
>
>
>
> And we have here a candidate for "PEIE" = P(European) IE.
>
>
>
> It removes exotic sounds such as voiced aspirates, labio-velars and
>
> Laryngeals from the protolanguage and probably only simple sound
>
> changes from it produced the attested descendants.
>
There's nothing exotic in laryngeals and labio-velars.
Besides it's always wondrous to see people destroy PIE in order to make things more simple, when what they propose just destroys what is simple. Because PIE is certainly the cleanest and most simple way to handle PIE.
A.
***
>
>
> Sanskrit and Hittite can only be compared to PEIE to get reasonable
>
> results. Its not clear where Tocharian would fall.
Nonsense
A.
anal...@hotmail.com
Nov 12, 2012, 8:41:16 PM11/12/12
to
Sanskrit and Iranian. although that too has been questioned.
It is hard to explain this in the boilerplate manner - a unitary
language that existed in a small geograhic area at one time which then
drifted apart due to migration.
Peter T. Daniels
Nov 12, 2012, 11:59:32 PM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 8:41 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> It looks like no credible subgrouping can be done except perhaps
> Sanskrit and Iranian. although that too has been questioned.
??? Vedic and Avestan are almost identical.
wrote:
> It looks like no credible subgrouping can be done except perhaps
> Sanskrit and Iranian. although that too has been questioned.
Trond Engen
Nov 13, 2012, 2:30:58 AM11/13/12
to
anal...@hotmail.com:
> On Nov 12, 4:50 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> Le dimanche 11 novembre 2012 16:38:13 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> I have posted this before:
>>> http://www.lituanus.org/1988/88_4_03.htm
>>> And we have here a candidate for "PEIE" = P(European) IE.
>>> It removes exotic sounds such as voiced aspirates, labio-velars and
>>> Laryngeals from the protolanguage and probably only simple sound
>>> changes from it produced the attested descendants.
>>
serious doubt about it.
Balto-Slavic is credible, but perhaps not definitive.
> It is hard to explain this in the boilerplate manner - a unitary
> language that existed in a small geograhic area at one time which
> then drifted apart due to migration.
No, not particularly. Besides. the current mainstream theory (your
"boilerplate") does not suppose uniform, gradual dispersal from the
Urheimat to the current locations. It's likely that different mechanisms
were at work at different times in different regions, some slow, some
abrupt.
--
Trond Engen
> On Nov 12, 4:50 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> Le dimanche 11 novembre 2012 16:38:13 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> I have posted this before:
>>> http://www.lituanus.org/1988/88_4_03.htm
>>> And we have here a candidate for "PEIE" = P(European) IE.
>>> It removes exotic sounds such as voiced aspirates, labio-velars and
>>> Laryngeals from the protolanguage and probably only simple sound
>>> changes from it produced the attested descendants.
>>
>> There's nothing exotic in laryngeals and labio-velars.
>>
>> Besides it's always wondrous to see people destroy PIE in order to
>> make things more simple, when what they propose just destroys what
>> is simple. Because PIE is certainly the cleanest and most simple way
>> to handle PIE.
>>
>>
>> Besides it's always wondrous to see people destroy PIE in order to
>> make things more simple, when what they propose just destroys what
>> is simple. Because PIE is certainly the cleanest and most simple way
>> to handle PIE.
>>
>>> Sanskrit and Hittite can only be compared to PEIE to get reasonable
>>> results. Its not clear where Tocharian would fall.
>>
>>> results. Its not clear where Tocharian would fall.
>>
>> Nonsense
>
> It looks like no credible subgrouping can be done except perhaps
> Sanskrit and Iranian. although that too has been questioned.
By you, you mean? Anything can be questioned. That doesn't mean there's
>
> It looks like no credible subgrouping can be done except perhaps
> Sanskrit and Iranian. although that too has been questioned.
serious doubt about it.
Balto-Slavic is credible, but perhaps not definitive.
> It is hard to explain this in the boilerplate manner - a unitary
> language that existed in a small geograhic area at one time which
> then drifted apart due to migration.
"boilerplate") does not suppose uniform, gradual dispersal from the
Urheimat to the current locations. It's likely that different mechanisms
were at work at different times in different regions, some slow, some
abrupt.
--
Trond Engen
anal...@hotmail.com
Nov 13, 2012, 7:29:49 PM11/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i forgot about Anatolian. Melchert claims to be able to recover o for
> - Show quoted text -
proto Anatolian although Hittite doesn't have it.
Arnaud F.
Nov 14, 2012, 9:53:44 AM11/14/12
to
Le mercredi 14 novembre 2012 01:29:50 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Nov 12, 8:41 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 8:41 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
>
> i forgot about Anatolian. Melchert claims to be able to recover o for
>
> proto Anatolian although Hittite doesn't have it.
***
>
> proto Anatolian although Hittite doesn't have it.
More exactly cuneiform does not provide any way to write o.
In light of Greek kodimeus "barley-roaster" = Anatolian kadi "barley"
it's fairly possible that some <a> of cuneiform are in fact [o].
A.
Italo
Nov 15, 2012, 2:28:29 PM11/15/12
to
"Arnaud F." <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> schreef:
> Le mercredi 14 novembre 2012 01:29:50 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a
> écrit :
> > On Nov 12, 8:41 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> >
>
> >
> > i forgot about Anatolian. Melchert claims to be able to recover o
> > for
> >
> > proto Anatolian although Hittite doesn't have it.
>
> ***
>
> More exactly cuneiform does not provide any way to write o.
>
> In light of Greek kodimeus "barley-roaster"
> = Anatolian kadi "barley"
Hittite kant-
> it's fairly possible that some <a> of cuneiform are in fact [o].
>
> A.
Which reminds of Kadytis (both Lycians and Philistines supposedly came
from Crete, btw). "Kadytis" as a translation of the so-called "lands of
Dagon" (or vice-versa)..
--
b o y c o t t a m e r i c a n p r o d u c t s
V i v a H A M A S ! V i v a P A L E S T I N A !
0 new messages