Some tit-bits from the LSA
Peter T. Daniels
Linguistics sessions (where my paper was).
One of the highlights was an hour-long talk by sesquioctogenarian Eric
P. Hamp to the American Names Society; in which he (typically) never
got around to discussing the extremely dry IE etymological materials
on his handout, but made astute observations on the nature of names,
and on the nature of vocalic systems and of linguistic analysis
generally.
Another was the presidential address by Stephen R. Anderson, which,
quite unusually for an LSA presidential address, was not on the
speaker's narrow area of specialization, but was a general discussion
of the nature of language and the futility of animal-communication
comparisons.
And the Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics on Indo-European by Clackson
is _perfectly_ addressed to "analyst": it is _not_ a handbook of data,
but primarily a discussion of topics in IE lnguistics that are
_unclear_ and _disputed_ -- explaining in every case _why_.
(Unfortunately, it requires familiarity with basic linguistics.)
Mallory & Adams's IE Handbook (Oxford, 2006) is only about 25%
language, most of it being devoted to the reconstruction of culture.
I saw lots of old friends, like Mark Aronoff, many Chicago people, and
Johanna Nichols, and chatted briefly with Wm. Labov -- though I didn't
mention to him that he had anticipated "analyst"'s great finding --
the ms. of the third volume of his magnum opus is due at Blackwell in
June, and it's about half done.
Peter T. Daniels
Oh, and I noticed too late that there was a paper by Aaron J. Dinkin
"Dr. Whom" (though it didn't say "Dr. Whom" in the program).
Emungo
Rather striking that you were at this star-studded, high-level event
and thoughts of "analyst" still clouded your brow. Forget him.
I bought Mallory and Adams and think that 25% is rather a generous
estimate. Furthermore a lot of the cultural stuff, which they whizz
through at a fair old clip, is unsuitable for the handbook manner of
presentation. One feels that at every point there must be some
submerged beech-tree-line type debate which the references at the end
of the section don't really do justice to.
Any chance of OUP doing a massive discount on _World's Writing
Systems_ here in England in 2008?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
>
>
> Any chance of OUP doing a massive discount on _World's Writing
> Systems_ here in England in 2008?
Why not buy it from amazon.com? I don't suppose the "massive discount"
is still available, but in November, when it was, I bought "World's
Writing Systems" directly from the US for about 40% (or less; I don't
remember the exact sum) of the registered price. This brought the
price to well within the range an interested non-specialist could
afford. Although not based in the US I often buy books from amazon.com,
as they have stuff that isn't readily available from other amazons,
sometimes, at much better prices, so that any additional cost of
transportation is trivial. With the dollar as weak as it is at present
buying directly from the US brings other advantages as well.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
You know, sometimes a remark directed at a specific person is also
intended to be read by others ...
> I bought Mallory and Adams and think that 25% is rather a generous
> estimate. Furthermore a lot of the cultural stuff, which they whizz
> through at a fair old clip, is unsuitable for the handbook manner of
> presentation. One feels that at every point there must be some
> submerged beech-tree-line type debate which the references at the end
> of the section don't really do justice to.
>
> Any chance of OUP doing a massive discount on _World's Writing
> Systems_ here in England in 2008?-
Did you fail to see the announcements posted here a month or so ago?
I't's _always_ selling for ca. $50 if you don't go through a retailer,
but recently amazon had a special Oxford sale on hundreds of specialty
titles.
I did get the name of the OUP person who _might_ be open to the idea
of a new edition.
Emungo
Yes, I did - that's what I was getting at. I was hoping to find the UK
edition reduced to a similar degree. I also have an OUP discount which
I might have been able to use on a sale offreed direct by the
publisher. But as AC-B points out (and of course as I had already
considered) I can order it from American Amazon. Not that I'm a
cheapskate or anything...
> I did get the name of the OUP person who _might_ be open to the idea
> of a new edition.
That'd be good.
Peter T. Daniels
There's no "UK edition." Surely you can't imagine me sticking <u>s
into <-or> words?
Richard Herring
<328003f1-9783-43dc...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Emungo <pyt...@tiscali.co.uk> writes
Or direct from American OUP, when they have one of their sales on. These
days they don't object to sending to non-US addresses.
>Not that I'm a
>cheapskate or anything...
>
>> I did get the name of the OUP person who _might_ be open to the idea
>> of a new edition.
>
>That'd be good.
--
Richard Herring
Emungo
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> There's no "UK edition." Surely you can't imagine me sticking <u>s
> into <-or> words?
>
[After looking at photocopies I've got of early pp - only a few and
well within copyright rules] Oh yes, so I see. You even spell analyse
with a z, something OUP would never allow here.
António Marques
Whattabout customs? Have they ever bit you?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter T. Daniels
OUP didn't take the slightest interest in the content of the book.
Trond Engen
> On Jan 8, 6:30 am, Emungo <pyti...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Any chance of OUP doing a massive discount on _World's Writing
>> Systems_ here in England in 2008?
>
> Did you fail to see the announcements posted here a month or so ago?
I ordered it back then and got it from Amazon.com this Saturday. As you
know I'm no more than a layman, and I've had no more than a first glance
yet -- although thanks to Harlan I've spent some quality time with the
Arabic alphabet this evening -- but I'm generally impressed. All I've
gazed upon so far is well-organized, inviting, readable, and to the
point. Brilliant.
Except, of course, the one thing that I happen to know something about.
> I did get the name of the OUP person who _might_ be open to the idea
> of a new edition.
In that case I think you should get someone to review the page on
Norwegian. It's not bad, i'll even admit that it might be very good for
being written as a short note on the adaptation of the Latin alphabet to
a Germanic language, but it's not excellent. There are these minor
details -- of little or no consequence to the general reader -- that
makes this native speaker disagree.
But generally: Thank you!
--
Trond Engen
- giving his review
Peter T. Daniels
I'm glad you noticed the two by-far-the-worst chapters in the book. A
few years ago I asked Bernard Comrie if he'd be able to do
replacements on Romance and Germanic in parallel with his other
contributions to the "Adaptations" section, but at that time he
wouldn't agree. The authors didn't even make the pronunciation tables
-- they were Bill Bright's work, and he refused to have that
acknowledged in print. (He also did the pinyin chart, which is
organized in a quite original way.)
Maybe Eric Hamp can rewrite the "Celtic" chapter that was lost between
the Slavic Department's fax machine and me -- because they got a new
secretary who didn't know who Eric was or why he was faxing stuff to
them (he was at the Braille Institute in Louisville at the time). He
does everything by hand and doesn't keep copies ... Bill Bright
salvaged the few pages we did get into the piece on Welsh, but Damien
McManus did the Irish one on very short notice.
Odysseus
<f696bc17-f51f-4357...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> One of the highlights was an hour-long talk by sesquioctogenarian Eric
> P. Hamp [...]
Does that mean he's at least 85 years old, or 120? I guess you meant the
former, but I read the word--which I admit I've never seen before--to
imply the latter (3/2 of 80).
--
Odysseus
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Never until now.
--
athel
Trond Engen
> On Jan 8, 9:11 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> [On WWS:] I think you should get someone to review the page on
>> Norwegian. It's not bad, i'll even admit that it might be very good
>> for being written as a short note on the adaptation of the Latin
>> alphabet to a Germanic language, but it's not excellent. There are
>> these minor details -- of little or no consequence to the general
>> reader -- that makes this native speaker disagree.
>>
>> But generally: Thank you!
>
> I'm glad you noticed the two by-far-the-worst chapters in the book.
There you go. It's Murphy's law, I suppose. If Arabic is the other
worst-chapter, then I didn't notice. But I mostly used the character map
and the sample sentence, trying to train my eye.
> A few years ago I asked Bernard Comrie if he'd be able to do
> replacements on Romance and Germanic in parallel with his other
> contributions to the "Adaptations" section, but at that time he
> wouldn't agree. The authors didn't even make the pronunciation tables
> -- they were Bill Bright's work, and he refused to have that
> acknowledged in print.
Right. The pronunciation is a bit odd. Fortunately(?) I don't have the
book where I'm now so I can't be very specific, but I do object both to
some vowel lengths and tonality marks and to what I percieve as
generally over-significant pronunciation and sentence level stress (it
made me think of the TV news read by a news anchor with more looks than
brains). This pronunciation pattern may be due to the choice of sample
text, however. Without going into detail, Dahl's language is in a style
that invites a speaker of an Oslo area dialect (which the brief
pronunciation guide naturally seems to follow) to an awkward-ish reading
pronunciation rather than to a more colloquial sandhi mapping between
spoken and written language. One single word is rendered with a
decidedly more colloquial pronunciation, maybe a slip hinting at the
dialect of Bright's source. I'm also slightly at odds with the brief
language history in the opening paragraphs.
> (He also did the pinyin chart, which is organized in a quite original
> way.)
I'll have a look at that. There's nothing wrong in being original as
long as it's helpful -- and I'd need a lot of help.
> Maybe Eric Hamp can rewrite the "Celtic" chapter that was lost
> between the Slavic Department's fax machine and me -- because they
> got a new secretary who didn't know who Eric was or why he was faxing
> stuff to them (he was at the Braille Institute in Louisville at the
> time). He does everything by hand and doesn't keep copies ...
A real life cartoon scientist! And a real life cartoon secretary! These
are truely wonderful times. Or "those were" -- you don't have that with
e-mail.
> Bill Bright salvaged the few pages we did get into the piece on
> Welsh, but Damien McManus did the Irish one on very short notice.
I haven't looked at any of the Celtic stuff yet. A quick read then?
--
Trond Engen
- cartoon engineer
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels skreiv:
>
> > On Jan 8, 9:11 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
> >> [On WWS:] I think you should get someone to review the page on
> >> Norwegian. It's not bad, i'll even admit that it might be very good
> >> for being written as a short note on the adaptation of the Latin
> >> alphabet to a Germanic language, but it's not excellent. There are
> >> these minor details -- of little or no consequence to the general
> >> reader -- that makes this native speaker disagree.
>
> >> But generally: Thank you!
>
> > I'm glad you noticed the two by-far-the-worst chapters in the book.
>
> There you go. It's Murphy's law, I suppose. If Arabic is the other
> worst-chapter, then I didn't notice. But I mostly used the character map
> and the sample sentence, trying to train my eye.
I meant Romance and Germanic.
Arabic was a bit unfortunate -- I asked a distinguished German
professor of Arabic who frequently came to our meetings in the US, and
he simply assigned it to his student rather than declining. (If he
had, it probably would have been done by Alan Kaye.) OTOH, that
student is now an editor of Encyclopedia of Islam, and invited me to
contribute a short article on Aramaic for its 3rd ed.
> > A few years ago I asked Bernard Comrie if he'd be able to do
> > replacements on Romance and Germanic in parallel with his other
> > contributions to the "Adaptations" section, but at that time he
> > wouldn't agree. The authors didn't even make the pronunciation tables
> > -- they were Bill Bright's work, and he refused to have that
> > acknowledged in print.
>
> Right. The pronunciation is a bit odd. Fortunately(?) I don't have the
> book where I'm now so I can't be very specific, but I do object both to
> some vowel lengths and tonality marks and to what I percieve as
> generally over-significant pronunciation and sentence level stress (it
> made me think of the TV news read by a news anchor with more looks than
> brains). This pronunciation pattern may be due to the choice of sample
> text, however. Without going into detail, Dahl's language is in a style
> that invites a speaker of an Oslo area dialect (which the brief
> pronunciation guide naturally seems to follow) to an awkward-ish reading
> pronunciation rather than to a more colloquial sandhi mapping between
> spoken and written language. One single word is rendered with a
> decidedly more colloquial pronunciation, maybe a slip hinting at the
> dialect of Bright's source. I'm also slightly at odds with the brief
> language history in the opening paragraphs.
I;m more disturbed that the atypical alphabetical orders used in
several languages are not given. The order for Vietnamese also didn't
appear in that section, but there I was able to insist on getting it
in in time.
> > (He also did the pinyin chart, which is organized in a quite original
> > way.)
>
> I'll have a look at that. There's nothing wrong in being original as
> long as it's helpful -- and I'd need a lot of help.
>
> > Maybe Eric Hamp can rewrite the "Celtic" chapter that was lost
> > between the Slavic Department's fax machine and me -- because they
> > got a new secretary who didn't know who Eric was or why he was faxing
> > stuff to them (he was at the Braille Institute in Louisville at the
> > time). He does everything by hand and doesn't keep copies ...
>
> A real life cartoon scientist! And a real life cartoon secretary! These
> are truely wonderful times. Or "those were" -- you don't have that with
> e-mail.
Eric _still_ does not use a typewriter (at his two talks -- one on
Albanian dialectology and the one I mentioned that was nominally about
a single Roman place name in Germany -- he had multipage densely
written handouts). And he mentioned he's now moved to northern
Michigan, though I didn't get an address.
> > Bill Bright salvaged the few pages we did get into the piece on
> > Welsh, but Damien McManus did the Irish one on very short notice.
>
> I haven't looked at any of the Celtic stuff yet. A quick read then?
Rather dense, I'd say!
Peter T. Daniels
> In article
> <f696bc17-f51f-4357-b8f3-11e3aefb7...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > One of the highlights was an hour-long talk by sesquioctogenarian Eric
> > P. Hamp [...]
>
> Does that mean he's at least 85 years old, or 120? I guess you meant the
> former, but I read the word--which I admit I've never seen before--to
> imply the latter (3/2 of 80).
"Sesqui-" normally appears only in "150th anniversary" labels -- I
learned it from US postage stamps a long time ago -- but I used it to
form a discontinuous compound morph with the "gen" part of the word.
He's somewhat shorter than he used to be, but there isn't the
slightest hint that he isn't as razor-sharp and mentally keen as ever.
Don't _ever_ telephone him -- the Scientific American reporter who
asked for a comment on Ruhlen's paper ca. 1980 reported that he
conduced a _two-day_ phone interview with him. (He phoned me in New
York when he refereed my chapter in the McCawley memorial volume --
*Polymorphous Linguistics* (MIT Pr, 2005) -- and you can see just a
fraction of his commentary incorporated into the footnotes.
Adam Funk
I _was going_ to post the following.
Apart from "analyze", "paralyze" and related words, which are wrong,
there is no real justification for claiming that either British or
American spelling is more legitimate than the other, and that in some
respects American spelling is more sensible than the following.
humour, humourless, humorous
colour, colourful, coloration
But I looked up "analyse" in the OED just to check my facts and was
rather surprised to read this:
Hence from the first it was commonly written in Eng. _analyze_, the
spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible. The
objection that this assumes a Gr. analúz-ein itself assumes that
_analyse_ is formed on Gr. analús-ein, which is etymologically
impossible and historically untrue.
Interesting! I'd always believed "analyze" was a mistake in imitation
of "organize" and related words that Webster and his successors
institutionalized.
--
History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
[Thurgood Marshall]
Cece
What's wrong with analyze and paralyze? Try an American dictionary;
American Heritage has analyse and paralyse, but calls them "chiefly
British variant[s]" of analyze and paralyze.
Peter T. Daniels
> What's wrong with analyze and paralyze? Try an American dictionary;
> American Heritage has analyse and paralyse, but calls them "chiefly
> British variant[s]" of analyze and paralyze.-
I don't know how the thread I started in sci.lang got into aue, but
Adam Funk's message is a typical expression of the British inferiority
complex that has to insist that British spelling (and everything else)
is better than all the variations from it around the world --
particularly the ones that represent archaisms, as in this case, where
British usage innovated long, long ago in the 19th century.
COLONEL EDMUND J. BURKE--Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Head
Your about as clear as a cup of mud.
Odysseus
<11bec995-162f-47c1...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
<snip>
> "Sesqui-" normally appears only in "150th anniversary" labels -- I
> learned it from US postage stamps a long time ago -- but I used it to
> form a discontinuous compound morph with the "gen" part of the word.
It was also used here and there in pre-IUPAC chemical nomenclature -- a
fair bit of which persists in commercial and industrial usage. I first
encountered it on matchboxes: some strike-anywhere matches used to be
labelled "Sesqui", referring to phosphorus sesquisulphide, a major
ingredient of the heads.
--
Odysseus
Richard Herring
<b2bb3878-5d2c-4125...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes
Except that it isn't, and doesn't. Did you miss the part where he wrote
>> > there is no real justification for claiming that either British or
>> > American spelling is more legitimate than the other,
?
>particularly the ones that represent archaisms, as in this case, where
>British usage innovated long, long ago in the 19th century.
--
Richard Herring
António Marques
> Interesting! I'd always believed "analyze" was a mistake in
> imitation of "organize" and related words that Webster and his
> successors institutionalized.
English has been forming verbs from latin words for a while. Usually, it
takes the shortest anglicised noun, chops off the ending and adds -e,
e.g., annihilation minus -ion plus -e = annihilate. And as such,
analysis minus -is plus -e = analyse, organized minus -ed plus -e =
organize. Quite naturally, latin has -izare from -izo from greek -izw
and -lysare from -lysis from greek -lusis. To postulate that analyze is
made of *analy- + *-ze is dishonest. So yes, no matter how many
turns you make around the block, -ize and -lyse are the etymological forms.
However, I english looks much, much better with -ise and -lyze.
Adam Funk
>> > I _was going_ to post the following.
>>
>> > Apart from "analyze", "paralyze" and related words, which are wrong,
>> > there is no real justification for claiming that either British or
>> > American spelling is more legitimate than the other, and that in some
>> > respects American spelling is more sensible than the following.
>>
>> > humour, humourless, humorous
>> > colour, colourful, coloration
>>
>> > But I looked up "analyse" in the OED just to check my facts and was
>> > rather surprised to read this:
>>
>> > Hence from the first it was commonly written in Eng. _analyze_, the
>> > spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible. The
>> > objection that this assumes a Gr. analúz-ein itself assumes that
>> > _analyse_ is formed on Gr. analús-ein, which is etymologically
>> > impossible and historically untrue.
>>
>> > Interesting! I'd always believed "analyze" was a mistake in imitation
>> > of "organize" and related words that Webster and his successors
>> > institutionalized.
[Peter]
> but Adam Funk's message is a typical expression of the British
> inferiority complex that has to insist that British spelling (and
> everything else) is better than all the variations from it around
> the world -- particularly the ones that represent archaisms, as in
> this case, where British usage innovated long, long ago in the 19th
> century.
Did you even read what I wrote? (You might want to start doing that
before slinging insults --- incompetently in this case, since I'm not
British).
I stated that my previous misconception about "-lyse/lyze" words was
wrong, that neither British nor American spelling is more legitimate,
and that in some respects American spelling is more sensible.
--
"Dictionaries are like watches. The worst is better than none, and
the best cannot be expected to go quite true." --- Samuel Johnson
"A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with two
watches is never sure." --- variously attributed
Adam Funk
> On Jan 9, 3:07 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
...
>> But I looked up "analyse" in the OED just to check my facts and was
>> rather surprised to read this:
>>
>> Hence from the first it was commonly written in Eng. _analyze_, the
>> spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible. The
>> objection that this assumes a Gr. analúz-ein itself assumes that
>> _analyse_ is formed on Gr. analús-ein, which is etymologically
>> impossible and historically untrue.
>>
>> Interesting! I'd always believed "analyze" was a mistake in imitation
>> of "organize" and related words that Webster and his successors
>> institutionalized.
> What's wrong with analyze and paralyze? Try an American dictionary;
> American Heritage has analyse and paralyse, but calls them "chiefly
> British variant[s]" of analyze and paralyze.
Nothing is wrong with them; that was my point.
--
Hi this is Leila. I'm not here right now. So please leave your name,
number and a brief message and a time you called at the beep. And
please try to be frank.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
That is indeed interesting. Many US spellings and usages give me no
pain -- I'll quite happily write color, gray, hemoglobin, flammable
etc. when the need arises, but analyze (and in my case more often
catalyze) have required more of an effort. I'll need to mend my ways.
Sulfur is a case similar to the one you discuss. Apparently the British
spelling '"sulphur" was invented by someone who thought it came from a
Greek root.
Seeing your name, what became of the punctuation thread? I thought it
was going to continue for ever, but it seems to have disappeared
without my noticiing.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
It's not your own personal misconception. It's a widespread myth.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > "Sesqui-" normally appears only in "150th anniversary" labels -- I
> > learned it from US postage stamps a long time ago -- but I used it to
> > form a discontinuous compound morph with the "gen" part of the word.
>
> It was also used here and there in pre-IUPAC chemical nomenclature -- a
> fair bit of which persists in commercial and industrial usage. I first
> encountered it on matchboxes: some strike-anywhere matches used to be
> labelled "Sesqui", referring to phosphorus sesquisulphide, a major
> ingredient of the heads.
What's half an ion?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
No one mentioned ions. You'd be as wise to refrain from querying points
about chemistry raised by chemists as I would about querying points
about linguistics made by linguists. Phosphorus sesquisulphide has one
and a half times as many sulphur atoms (i.e. 3) per phosphorus atom as
has phosphorus sulphide (i.e. 2). The question of half an ion arises
neither explicitly nor implicitly.
--
athel
richard01
This thread is absolutely marvellous to a newcomer. It gives a
condensed view of how linguistics is (are?) actually done, quite apart
from the idealistic scientific hypothesis/proof stuff we outsiders are
told we should expect from the discipline.
And, Peter Daniels, wherever American/British spellings are compared
and one of them given preference, then please bear in mind that we
English invented the goddam language, and we (much like the French)
are not going to relinquish control of it to some uppity colonials.
regards
Richard
Pat Durkin
"richard01" <richard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b027bc95-86ca-4416...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
It's the French who don't want to relinquish control, with their
Academie. The Brits never ever had a control. It's turtles all the way
down.
richard01
> "richard01" <richardparke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think it was Jean Paul Cocteau ? who woke up a long session of the
French Academie when they'd just about got to defining "An-" words
with the story about 'Hans Carvel's Ring' (anneau ?). HC, who was rich
old codger, married a much younger girl, but was worried about her
remaining faithful. He had a dream one night, and was told by an
angel that he should always wear a certain ring. He woke up in the
morning with his finger up her .....
regards
Richard
Peter T. Daniels
Is there a chemist here? Do you fill prescriptions? (Yes, I know what
"chemist" means in Britain!)
"Phosphorous sulfide" looks like the name of a salt.
When you dissolve a salt, it breaks into ions.
"Sesqui-" 'means one-and-a-half''.
Thus Ph. sesq'sulf should have 1.5 as many sulfur ions as Ph. sulfide.
Peter T. Daniels
> I think it was Jean Paul Cocteau ? who woke up a long session of the
> French Academie when they'd just about got to defining "An-" words
> with the story about 'Hans Carvel's Ring' (anneau ?). HC, who was rich
> old codger, married a much younger girl, but was worried about her
> remaining faithful. He had a dream one night, and was told by an
> angel that he should always wear a certain ring. He woke up in the
> morning with his finger up her .....
Was that Jean Cocteau, or Jean-Paul Sartre?
You anthropologists have such charming stories.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 10 Jan, 19:13, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > Adam Funk wrote:
> > > Interesting! I'd always believed "analyze" was a mistake in
> > > imitation of "organize" and related words that Webster and his
> > > successors institutionalized.
>
> > English has been forming verbs from latin words for a while. Usually, it
> > takes the shortest anglicised noun, chops off the ending and adds -e,
> > e.g., annihilation minus -ion plus -e = annihilate. And as such,
> > analysis minus -is plus -e = analyse, organized minus -ed plus -e =
> > organize. Quite naturally, latin has -izare from -izo from greek -izw
> > and -lysare from -lysis from greek -lusis. To postulate that analyze is
> > made of *analy- + *-ze is dishonest. So yes, no matter how many
> > turns you make around the block, -ize and -lyse are the etymological forms.
> > However, I english looks much, much better with -ise and -lyze.
> This thread is absolutely marvellous to a newcomer. It gives a
> condensed view of how linguistics is (are?) actually done, quite apart
> from the idealistic scientific hypothesis/proof stuff we outsiders are
> told we should expect from the discipline.
>
> And, Peter Daniels, wherever American/British spellings are compared
> and one of them given preference, then please bear in mind that we
> English invented the goddam language, and we (much like the French)
> are not going to relinquish control of it to some uppity colonials.
"Control"? You don't seem to have learned much linguistics from this
newsgroup!
Who is "we English"? You've never said where you're posting from, but
you've said that it takes you months to get snail mail and that you
have a secretary who speaks some Austronesian language but won't
provide the data that you expect from her.
BTW that ain't linguistics either: linguistics doesn't go looking for
data that will "prove" hypotheses, but rather collects the data and
then tries to account for them.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> No one mentioned ions. You'd be as wise to refrain from querying points
>> about chemistry raised by chemists as I would about querying points
>> about linguistics made by linguists. Phosphorus sesquisulphide has one
>> and a half times as many sulphur atoms (i.e. 3) per phosphorus atom as
>> has phosphorus sulphide (i.e. 2). The question of half an ion arises
>> neither explicitly nor implicitly.
>
> Is there a chemist here? Do you fill prescriptions? (Yes, I know what
> "chemist" means in Britain!)
There are probably several. The poster you were asking about ions
showed every sign of being one (or at least of knowing more about
chemistry than the average linguist). Your knowledge of what "chemist"
means in the UK is probably incomplete. To chemists the word means the
same as it does in the US. To the general public it often means
pharmacist. It's a bit like the word "linguist": to the general public
it means someone who speaks two or more languages. To you it means
someone expert in linguistics.
>
> "Phosphorous sulfide" looks like the name of a salt.
The word "phosphorous" exists, but the word the original poster used
(correctly) was "phosphorus", which doesn't mean the same thing. (This
has nothing to do with UK/US differences). Just because it "looks like
the name of a salt" (to whom? not to me) doesn't mean that it is a salt.
>
> When you dissolve a salt, it breaks into ions.
So? Tetraphosphorus trisulphide (phosphorus sesquisulfide, if you
prefer) is not a salt (whatever its name may "look like" to a
non-chemist). It is not soluble in cold water and decomposes if you try
to dissolve it in hot water. (It is soluble in benzene, a point that
might alert you to its lack of saltiness, but it certainly doesn't
ionize in benzene.) I'm amazed that someone who clearly knows little
chemistry is willing to pontificate on the basis of what a name "looks
like".
>
> "Sesqui-" 'means one-and-a-half''.
So? Who has suggested otherwise (apart from you, in your original
posting, which implied that it meant "increased by a sixteenth")?
>
> Thus Ph. sesq'sulf should have 1.5 as many sulfur ions as Ph. sulfide.
Exactly as I said in the bit you clipped (though I wrongly said "one
and a half times as many sulphur atoms (i.e. 3) per phosphorus atom"
when I meant "one and a half times as many sulphur atoms (i.e. 3) per 2
phosphorus atoms"), if we accept your vague and partially incorrect
"1.5 as many sulfur ions" to mean "1.5 times as many sulphur atoms (not
ions) per phosphorus atom".
--
athel
Richard Herring
<bdbe2929-317c-45a1...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes
>On Jan 10, 8:01 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 2008-01-10 13:43:46 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels"
>><gramma...@verizon.net> said:
>>
>> > On Jan 10, 3:07 am, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <11bec995-162f-47c1-8940-bac9d6c33...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >>> "Sesqui-" normally appears only in "150th anniversary" labels -- I
>> >>> learned it from US postage stamps a long time ago -- but I used it to
>> >>> form a discontinuous compound morph with the "gen" part of the word.
>>
>> >> It was also used here and there in pre-IUPAC chemical nomenclature -- a
>> >> fair bit of which persists in commercial and industrial usage. I first
>> >> encountered it on matchboxes: some strike-anywhere matches used to be
>> >> labelled "Sesqui", referring to phosphorus sesquisulphide, a major
>> >> ingredient of the heads.
>>
>> > What's half an ion?
>>
>> No one mentioned ions. You'd be as wise to refrain from querying points
>> about chemistry raised by chemists as I would about querying points
>> about linguistics made by linguists. Phosphorus sesquisulphide has one
>> and a half times as many sulphur atoms (i.e. 3) per phosphorus atom
Ahem. Per *4* phosphorus atoms
>>as
>> has phosphorus sulphide (i.e. 2). The question of half an ion arises
>> neither explicitly nor implicitly.
>
>Is there a chemist here? Do you fill prescriptions? (Yes, I know what
>"chemist" means in Britain!)
>
>"Phosphorous sulfide" looks like the name of a salt.
No, it looks like a typo. "Phosphorous" would be an adjective referring
to a phosphor ;-)
>
>When you dissolve a salt, it breaks into ions.
>
>"Sesqui-" 'means one-and-a-half''.
>
>Thus Ph. sesq'sulf should have 1.5 as many sulfur ions
Sulf*ide* ions. S^{2-}, not S.
>as Ph. sulfide.
You'd think so, wouldn't you.
But according to these pages:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/P/key.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_sesquisulfide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_pentasulfide
you can have:
P4S3 - this is the so-called sesquisulfide
P4S4
P4S5
P4S6
P4S7
P4S8 (maybe)
P4S9
P4S10 - most likely what is meant by unqualified "p. sulfide"
and all of these can be referred to simply but ambiguously as "p.
sulfide", but P4S2 is unstable, so it's unlikely to be what anyone would
mean by the unqualified term.
[*] s/f/ph/ to taste.
--
Richard Herring
richard01
OK - confession time
I'm English by birth, but I live on Siargao, a small island on the far
right hand side of the Philippines. My 'secretary' is my mistress/
common law wife. She speaks Surigaonon, and doesn't always understand
when I ask her about some word or other, but usually we work out the
mutual misunderstandings. She damns me to hell for working at my
computer most of the day (analysing number systems or answering group
posts like this) but is highly intelligent, and often comes up with a
very different (native) view of things, which does help me, a lot.
She pointed out to me that talise, a kind of tree in Vanuatu (some
thousands of miles from here) is exactly the same as the talisay tree
I sit under for my regular evening beer or two, and that the Solomon
Islands kupap is the same as the kou-papa (slipper lobster) we get
here.
There isn't a 'native' Filipino word for 'work' - even the local
Mamanwa (Negritos) use tarabaho - from Spanish trabajo - and why
should there be ? - it's a nice place, with no necessity for a special
word for 'work'. That's why my snail mail waits on the local postman's
personal discretion (and that of the previous local members of the
mail chain).
> BTW that ain't linguistics either: linguistics doesn't go looking for
> data that will "prove" hypotheses, but rather collects the data and
> then tries to account for them.- Hide quoted text -
>
That's total bullshit - no 'scientist' is so passive as to sit and
wait for evidence to be around, or come along, and confirm his
hypothesis - he goes out to find it, and only then chooses whatever
data he finds to fit his pre-conceived theory.
Linguistics is (are?) no different - the younger/newer linguists are
finding out a lot that previous generations missed, but are dead
scared to publish anything at all before they have at least 110%
certainty. That's why linguistics journals are still filled with
papers by very old men.
regards
Richard
mb
> "Sesqui-" 'means one-and-a-half''.
Not really. It is "that-and-a-half" and the quantity to be augmented
by half depends on the referent.
"Sesquipedalian" or that "Sesquicentennial" on Caligornia license
plates is a good model. Work on them and you'll see that
"sesquioctogenarian" doesn't convey much agreed-upon meaning: the
"one" unit remains unclear. If you interpret it with some stretching,
you may get that the guy is 120 years of age. Or even perhaps 80 years
and 6 months.
Peter T. Daniels
> Linguistics is (are?) no different - the younger/newer linguists are
> finding out a lot that previous generations missed, but are dead
> scared to publish anything at all before they have at least 110%
> certainty. That's why linguistics journals are still filled with
> papers by very old men.
If this is what you've taken from your "study" of linguistics, then
you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> In message
> <bdbe2929-317c-45a1...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes
>> On Jan 10, 8:01 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> [ ...]
>>> No one mentioned ions. You'd be as wise to refrain from querying points
>>> about chemistry raised by chemists as I would about querying points
>>> about linguistics made by linguists. Phosphorus sesquisulphide has one
>>> and a half times as many sulphur atoms (i.e. 3) per phosphorus atom
>
> Ahem. Per *4* phosphorus atoms
You're right, and better at counting than I am. Even in my "correction"
I still only counted two. Stiil, the correction is only needed for the
"i.e. 3" bit. Without that I could have written "has one
and a half times as many sulphur atoms per 327 phosphorus atoms" and it
would have been true -- albeit a bizarre way of expressing it.
a.
>
--
athel
Adam Funk
>> >> It was also used here and there in pre-IUPAC chemical nomenclature -- a
>> >> fair bit of which persists in commercial and industrial usage. I first
>> >> encountered it on matchboxes: some strike-anywhere matches used to be
>> >> labelled "Sesqui", referring to phosphorus sesquisulphide, a major
>> >> ingredient of the heads.
>>
>> > What's half an ion?
>>
>> No one mentioned ions. You'd be as wise to refrain from querying points
>> about chemistry raised by chemists as I would about querying points
>> about linguistics made by linguists. Phosphorus sesquisulphide has one
>> and a half times as many sulphur atoms (i.e. 3) per phosphorus atom as
>> has phosphorus sulphide (i.e. 2). The question of half an ion arises
>> neither explicitly nor implicitly.
>
> Is there a chemist here? Do you fill prescriptions? (Yes, I know what
> "chemist" means in Britain!)
(It's unfortunate; the American terms are less ambiguous.)
> "Phosphorous sulfide" looks like the name of a salt.
>
> When you dissolve a salt, it breaks into ions.
>
> "Sesqui-" 'means one-and-a-half''.
>
> Thus Ph. sesq'sulf should have 1.5 as many sulfur ions as Ph. sulfide.
(It's been quite a while since I studied chemistry but) I think
"X sequi-Y" means 1.5 times as many moles of Y as of X, so X2Y3;
in this case P2S3 (where 2 and 3 should be subcripted).
Here's a question for any passing chemists. I started to write
"atoms" up there but changed it to "moles" because I suppose that Y
could be a complex constituent rather than just an element,
e.g. "X sequicarbonate" for X2(CO2)3 --- is that possible?
--
Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about
its friends.
Paul J Kriha
news:3835ce4d-500a-4a36...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...>[...]
>
>> I think it was Jean Paul Cocteau ? who woke up a long session of the
>> French Academie when they'd just about got to defining "An-" words
>> with the story about 'Hans Carvel's Ring' (anneau ?). HC, who was rich
>> old codger, married a much younger girl, but was worried about her
>> remaining faithful. He had a dream one night, and was told by an
>> angel that he should always wear a certain ring. He woke up in the
>> morning with his finger up her .....
>
>Was that Jean Cocteau, or Jean-Paul Sartre?
>
>You anthropologists have such charming stories.
I wonder what their field studies are like. :-)
pjk
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> He's somewhat shorter than he used to be, but there isn't the
> slightest hint that he isn't as razor-sharp and mentally keen as ever.
>
> Don't _ever_ telephone him -- the Scientific American reporter who
> asked for a comment on Ruhlen's paper ca. 1980 reported that he
> conduced a _two-day_ phone interview with him. (He phoned me in New
> York when he refereed my chapter in the McCawley memorial volume --
> *Polymorphous Linguistics* (MIT Pr, 2005) -- and you can see just a
> fraction of his commentary incorporated into the footnotes.
Would you kindly give me his phone number, please?
I'd like to talk over my Magdalenian approach with him,
and for this purpose I prepared a model case.
Magdalenian OC means eye, especially the right eye,
inverse CO means with an attentive mind, POL means
a protected camp, a fortified dwelling, and inverse
LOP means the fence around a camp, the wall around
a settlement. Now you get an interesting compound
with CO OC LOP designating the fence or wall (lop),
the guards along the fence or wall (oc) and the chief
or captain or king in the headquarter in the center
of the camp or the village (co). This compound has
a derivative in Greek Cyclops, a one-eyed giant who
was the symbol of a fortified town, the most famos
cyclops being Polyphem, symbol of Troy ... Leave
out LOP and keep CO OC for looking out (oc)
attentively (co), accounting for PIE *kheu1- whose
derivatives include Latin custos 'watchman', and
*sehag (small a) 'perceive acutely, seek out', whose
derivatives include English seek, also, I'd say,
German guck and kiek, which are even closer
to the hypothetical origin. By the way, the inverse
compound OC CO would account for Greek and
Latin ego.
So much for day one of our phone conversation.
On the second day I'd like to discuss constellations
with him. In 1972 he wrote a paper on The Principal
(?) Indo-European Constellations, which I could
(not yet) retrieve. I am especially interested in Sirius,
a bright star he also mentions. In the time of Lascaux,
I believe, Sirius was the place in heaven where the
souls of future shamans and shamanesses dwelt,
waiting to go on their mission on earth. The ancient
name could have been SAI CER IAS meaning life,
existence (sai) divine stag, divine hind, shaman,
shamaness (cer) healing (ias), together something
like (place in the sky where the) life healing shamans
and shamanesses (wait to go on their mission on
earth), polished forms sai c-r ias, sai --r ias, ancient
Greek Seirios. Now is there a form including a kappa,
Seikrios? Whom could I ask such a question if not
Eric Hamp? (Michael Janda, perhaps, whom Mallory
and Adams 2006 don't mention). Strangely, in ancient
literature Sirius is called a red star, although its light
is blueish white. SAI for life might explain this anomaly.
SAI was written as lines and fields of black and red
dots on cave walls. Red dots on the walls of Neolithic
houses in Switzerland could have said: May this house
be filled with life ...
Peter T. Daniels
> This thread is absolutely marvellous to a newcomer. It gives a
> condensed view of how linguistics is (are?) actually done, quite apart
> from the idealistic scientific hypothesis/proof stuff we outsiders are
> told we should expect from the discipline.
>
> And, Peter Daniels, wherever American/British spellings are compared
> and one of them given preference, then please bear in mind that we
> English invented the goddam language, and we (much like the French)
> are not going to relinquish control of it to some uppity colonials.
Bear in mind that we saved your sorry asses from the Germans twice.
Would you rather speak German?
Franz Gnaedinger
> (...)
> On the second day I'd like to discuss constellations
> with him. In 1972 he wrote a paper on The Principal
> (?) Indo-European Constellations, which I could
> (not yet) retrieve. I am especially interested in Sirius,
> a bright star he also mentions. In the time of Lascaux,
> I believe, Sirius was the place in heaven where the
> souls of future shamans and shamanesses dwelt,
> waiting to go on their mission on earth. The ancient
> name could have been SAI CER IAS meaning life,
> existence (sai) divine stag, divine hind, shaman,
> shamaness (cer) healing (ias), together something
> like (place in the sky where the) life healing shamans
> and shamanesses (wait to go on their mission on
> earth), polished forms sai c-r ias, sai --r ias, ancient
> Greek Seirios. Now is there a form including a kappa,
> Seikrios? Whom could I ask such a question if not
> Eric Hamp? (Michael Janda, perhaps, whom Mallory
> and Adams 2006 don't mention). Strangely, in ancient
> literature Sirius is called a red star, although its light
> is blueish white. SAI for life might explain this anomaly.
> SAI was written as lines and fields of black and red
> dots on cave walls. Red dots on the walls of Neolithic
> houses in Switzerland could have said: May this house
> be filled with life ...
An outline of Magdalenian astronomy, for Eric Hamp
Marie E.P. König identified the horse with the sun,
the bull with the moon, the descending horses at the
rear end of the axial gallery in the cave of Lascaux
with the winter sun, the pair of opposing ibices with
midwinter. The red mare in the glorious rotunda of
Lascaux would then be the rising midsummer sun,
the white bull by her side a full moon occurring at
the same time (ideal begin of the eight-year-period
in the lunisolar calendar of Lascaux). CA LAB for
sky (ca) cold (lab) would be the name of the winter
sun horse; CA BEL for sky (ca) warm (bel) the name
for the spring sun horse, the lovely "Chinese" horses
in the axial gallery; and CA BAL for sky (ca) hot (bal)
the name for the summer sun horse. Hear them run:
CA LAB CA LAB CA LA LAB CA LAB ...
CA BEL CA BEL CA BEL CA BEL ...
CA BAL CA BAL CA BAL CA BAL ...
The full name of the spring sun horse would have been
CA BEL IAS for sky (ca) warm (bel) restored (ias),
which comes close to Abelios Afelios haelios helios
mentioned by Michael Janda.
CER means divine stag, shaman, divine hind, shamaness.
The divine stag protected the sun horse and moon bull
when entering and leaving the Underworld, he is present
in the stags before the red mare and white bull in the
rotunda of Lascaux, his antler in our summer constellations
of Scorpio and Sagittarius at one end of the Milky Way.
The divine hind licked moon bulls into life, thus creating
lunations, periods of time, alternately 30 29 30 29 30 ...
days (Altamira). The divine hind woman was present in
Orion at the opposite end of the Milky Way, ex negativo
between the opposing horns of the ibices representing
midwinter. The young moon bulls ready to go on their
mission were present in Aldebaran in Taurus, and the
souls of the shamans and shamanesses waiting to go
on their mission to earth were present in Sirius, which
may also have been the heavenly abode of worthy
shamans and shamanesses in their next life, while worthy
rulers were reborn by the goddess among the stars of
the Summer Triangle Deneb - Vega - Atair.
The original name of Sirius might have been SAI CER IAS
polished to sai c-r ias, sai --r ias, s-i- --r ias, Greek Seirios
Latin Sirius. The early setting of Sirius announced the cold
of winter, kynos psychron dysin. Might Greek psychros
be a cognate of hypothetical SAI CER IAS ? SAI - psy,
CER - chr, IAS - ios ??? And if so, might Greek psychae
be a cognate of SAI CER ? SAI - psy, CER - chae ??
SAI CER IAS the heavenly place of the souls of shamans
and shamanesses, who were, in their life on earth, not
only healers but also psychologists, healers of the soul?
English soul and German Seele for psychae are even
closer to SAI for life. Note also that Greek psy- is
pronounced sai in English. We have PIE *pstenos
'female breast, nipple', Greek stenion Sanskrit stana-.
Might also the opposite have happened? might original
s-, in very rare cases, have become ps- ?
SAI CER IAS Seirios Sirius? a star visible during winter,
hence Greek psychros for coldness? soul star of shamans
and shamanesses, therefore Greek psychae for breath,
life, soul?
at the other end of the Milky Way, ex negativo between
phog...@abo.fi
>
> And, Peter Daniels, wherever American/British spellings are compared
> and one of them given preference, then please bear in mind that we
> English invented the goddam language, and we (much like the French)
> are not going to relinquish control of it to some uppity colonials.
Americans got nukes. More and better nukes than your operetta army.
They could blast your idea of correct English out of existence, you
know. The guy with more and better nukes sets the rules. Face it.
phog...@abo.fi
Is the expression "we saved your sorry asses" the idiomatic American
way to refer to the role of Americans in Europe in the two World Wars?
I think I have seen it so many times used that way that it should be
included in dictionaries.
Peter T. Daniels
I did not, of course, post the above message.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 9, 3:05 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > He's somewhat shorter than he used to be, but there isn't the
> > slightest hint that he isn't as razor-sharp and mentally keen as ever.
>
> > Don't _ever_ telephone him -- the Scientific American reporter who
> > asked for a comment on Ruhlen's paper ca. 1980 reported that he
> > conduced a _two-day_ phone interview with him. (He phoned me in New
> > York when he refereed my chapter in the McCawley memorial volume --
> > *Polymorphous Linguistics* (MIT Pr, 2005) -- and you can see just a
> > fraction of his commentary incorporated into the footnotes.
>
> Would you kindly give me his phone number, please?
No. Even if I had it.
> I'd like to talk over my Magdalenian approach with him,
You don't get to choose the topic in a conversation with Eric. You
might ask an opening question, but he won't get around to your topic
until several hours later.
> So much for day one of our phone conversation.
Hah!
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> You don't get to choose the topic in a conversation with Eric. You
> might ask an opening question, but he won't get around to your topic
> until several hours later.
Well, my opening question would be about IE constellations.
> Hah!
Mallory and Adams wonder why there are so few PIE terms
relating to astronomy, they just quote Hamp, and say that
most is lost. My advice, once more: consider Peleolithic
testimonies, and work upward, forward in time. I really
would like to hear what Eric Hamp has to say about IE
astronomy, as I could not retrieve his paper from 1972.
And even he must once in a while take a breath, and
in such a moment I would ask him if the shift from *ps- to
s- could also have occurred the other way round, from s-
to ps-. Or can you answer my question? by something
else than a snort? PIE *pster Greek ster or so, if memory
serves, another case of a shift from *ps- to s-. SAI - psy,
would such a shift have been possible?
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 11, 2:14 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You don't get to choose the topic in a conversation with Eric. You
> > might ask an opening question, but he won't get around to your topic
> > until several hours later.
>
> Well, my opening question would be about IE constellations.
>
> > Hah!
>
> Mallory and Adams wonder why there are so few PIE terms
> relating to astronomy, they just quote Hamp, and say that
> most is lost. My advice, once more: consider Peleolithic
> testimonies,
There is no such thing.
> and work upward, forward in time. I really
> would like to hear what Eric Hamp has to say about IE
> astronomy, as I could not retrieve his paper from 1972.
If it had occurred to you to provide a reference, maybe someone could
find you a copy.
> And even he must once in a while take a breath, and
Clearly you've never met him. He is the absolute master of the
hesitation vowel.
> in such a moment I would ask him if the shift from *ps- to
> s- could also have occurred the other way round, from s-
> to ps-. Or can you answer my question? by something
> else than a snort? PIE *pster Greek ster or so, if memory
> serves, another case of a shift from *ps- to s-. SAI - psy,
> would such a shift have been possible?
No.
Adam Funk
> Sulfur is a case similar to the one you discuss. Apparently the British
> spelling '"sulphur" was invented by someone who thought it came from a
> Greek root.
Interesting! You may already know that Humphrey Davy called the metal
"alumium" first, then "aluminum", which was later modified in the UK
to "aluminium".
> Seeing your name, what became of the punctuation thread? I thought it
> was going to continue for ever, but it seems to have disappeared
> without my noticiing.
I agreed to disagree with Peter, and I imagine he thinks anyone who
disagrees with him is *just plain wrong*.
--
hmmmm: sounds like the same DLL hell problem my cousin had. try
deleting all DLLs in your Windows/system32 directory and see what
happens. [butting, ark]
Franz Gnaedinger
Yes, we have ample Paleolithic testimony.
> If it had occurred to you to provide a reference, maybe someone could
> find you a copy.
I gave the tilte, The Principal (?) Indo-European
Constellations, 1972, in an Italian volume about
linguistics (see Mallory and Adams 2006,
bibliography).
> Clearly you've never met him. He is the absolute master of the
> hesitation vowel.
Like Derk Ohlenroth, then.
> No.
The shift from *ps- to s- was possible, but the
inverse shift from s- to ps- was impossible?
I was told recently that the losening of an initial
p- was impossible in Celtic languages, but then
I found PIE *pella 'cliff, rock outcrop' Old Irish
ail 'cliff', an initial p- gone lost in a Celtic language.
So I don't accept your simple No for an answer,
there must have been a few rare cases where
Magdalenian S- became ps-.
Meanwhile I found the full names for the two
CER constellations presented yesterday.
Sagittarius and Scorpio as antler of the divine
stag would have been called CER KOS for
divine stag, shaman (cer) heavenly vault (kos).
KOD means hut, tent, the comparative form
KOS means heavenly vault and is present
for example in castle and cosmos. The above
compound CER KOS would have become
Latin quercus Gaulish erkos for oak, by
analogy of the form, designating the sacred
tree of shamans. Look up into the foliage
of a tree and it forms sort of a heavenly vault.
The name of Orion as divine hind licking
moon bulls into life (Altamira) or as hind woman
(ex negativo between the horns of the opposing
ibices as symbol of midwinter in Lascaux)
would have been CER -: I -: for divine hind
(woman), shamaness (cer) lip lick (-: I -:).
Pronounce the sound given as -: by touching
both lips with the tip of the tongue. The lip lick
-: I -: survived in many words, ancient Greek
lilazo for desire, Latin bibi for I drank, English
lip, Ugaritic dd for beloved, Phoenician Dido
for loved one, German Liebe for love, Leben
for life. The compound would have survived
in herd German Herde, originally the series
of animals the divine hind licked into life,
all the many bulls of Altamira.
Magdalenian CER KOS for the constellations
of Sagittarius and Scorpio as the antler of
the divine stag, per visual analogy the oak
tree, sacred to shamans // PIE *perkos 'oak'
// Latin quercus Gaulish erkos 'oak tree'
Magdalenian CER -: I -: for the divine hind
licking moon bulls into life // North-West PIE
*kerdheha (small a) 'herd, series' // English
herd German Herde
Don't you think Eric Hamp has a right to be
informed about new ideas in the field? He
keenly navigated the river for a long time,
now he might like to have a glimpse of what
lies around the next major bend ...
Dušan Vukotić
> On Jan 11, 6:52 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is no such thing.
>
> Yes, we have ample Paleolithic testimony.
>
> > If it had occurred to you to provide a reference, maybe someone could
> > find you a copy.
>
> I gave the tilte, The Principal (?) Indo-European
> Constellations, 1972, in an Italian volume about
> linguistics (see Mallory and Adams 2006,
> bibliography).
>
> > Clearly you've never met him. He is the absolute master of the
> > hesitation vowel.
>
> Like Derk Ohlenroth, then.
>
> > No.
>
> The shift from *ps- to s- was possible, but the
> inverse shift from s- to ps- was impossible?
> I was told recently that the losening of an initial
> p- was impossible in Celtic languages, but then
> I found PIE *pella 'cliff, rock outcrop' Old Irish
> ail 'cliff', an initial p- gone lost in a Celtic language.
> So I don't accept your simple No for an answer,
> there must have been a few rare cases where
> Magdalenian S- became ps-.
What about οψιανός λίθος (obsidian stone)?; according to Pliny named
after its discoverer Obsius. This Pliny's Obsius is equal to Serbian
Pisa-rević (from pisati "write") ;-)
Greek όψη (aspect) matches to Serbian opis (description, the visual
percept of a region, thing etc.); also ὄψ ὀπός (the eye, face);
therefore οπτικά (visually) and οπτασία (apparition) and Latin
obsessus (obsess).
All these words were derived from the Bel-Gon primal-basis; cf. German
Beleg (evidence; belegen notice); Serbian beleg (landmark, scotch;
beleška note); we could understand the history of the Greek word opse
if we compared it to Serbian beleg, beležiti and the other words that
were derived from beležiti (noting, notice) as pisati (right) and
opistai (describe).
I do not know where and how Pokorny found the root pster- because
Greek πταίρω (sneeze) is related either to English spit (from spilt,
splutter; Serb. ispljunuti, iz-bljunuti /spit, ex-pel/) or it
corresponds to Serbian poterati and the basis of such words is Gon-Bel-
Gon, Gon-Bel-Hor or Bel-Hor. In neither way Greek 'ptairo' does happen
to be in any connection with a "root" *pster-.
On the other side the Greek ψυχή (blow, soul, ghost) is
"philosophically" related to Serbian words duh (spirit, ghost) and
duša (soul), because both words have the verb "blow" as a substratum
(Greek psyche /blow/ and Serbian dahnuti/dunuti blow, dah /breath,
waft/). In addition we can see that Greek psyche is related to Serbian
puhanje (blowing) and pušenje (smoking); i.e. that it was derived from
the Bel-Gon basis.
> Meanwhile I found the full names for the two
> CER constellations presented yesterday.
> Sagittarius and Scorpio as antler of the divine
> stag would have been called CER KOS
Hor-Gon basis (Krug, circus, circle, kirkos, krikos, horizon. region,
Slavic kraj, krug)
DV
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 11, 6:52 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is no such thing.
>
> Yes, we have ample Paleolithic testimony.
>
> > If it had occurred to you to provide a reference, maybe someone could
> > find you a copy.
>
> I gave the tilte, The Principal (?) Indo-European
> Constellations, 1972, in an Italian volume about
> linguistics (see Mallory and Adams 2006,
> bibliography).
You don't even know what a reference is?????
About 15 years ago, Eric handed me an envelope containing a list
extending about 150 typed pages of his publications that David Testen
had prepared (pre-word processing). Most of them are
Einzeluntersuchungen of two or three pages (which is why his first
Festschrift, which was a number of IJAL, contained only articles of
two pages or less).
If you are looking at the reference in Mallory & Adams 2006, why can
you not simply copy it out?
How likely is "an Italian volume about linguistics" to be findable in
an American library?
> > Clearly you've never met him. He is the absolute master of the
> > hesitation vowel.
>
> Like Derk Ohlenroth, then.
I wouldn't know.
> > No.
>
> The shift from *ps- to s- was possible, but the
> inverse shift from s- to ps- was impossible?
Are you now going to come up with a mechanism and justification for
the preposing of labial closure to a dental or alveolar fricative?
> I was told recently that the losening of an initial
> p- was impossible in Celtic languages,
Then you must be exceedingly credulous (not to mention ignorant),
since it's one of the hallmarks of Celtic.
> but then
> I found PIE *pella 'cliff, rock outcrop' Old Irish
> ail 'cliff', an initial p- gone lost in a Celtic language.
> So I don't accept your simple No for an answer,
> there must have been a few rare cases where
> Magdalenian S- became ps-.
If you can assert such a thing, you have learned nothing about
language change.
> Don't you think Eric Hamp has a right to be
> informed about new ideas in the field? He
> keenly navigated the river for a long time,
> now he might like to have a glimpse of what
> lies around the next major bend ...
Then submit an abstract to the next IE conference that happens to be
held near you (they don't occur only in Los Angeles, you perhaps don't
know), and if you make a reasonable argument in 250-400 words, you can
present a 20-minute paper.
Or, submit an article to a journal.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> You don't even know what a reference is?????
Even I can't keep everything in mind. It was the Proceedings
of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so), published by
someone in Bologna, and the title of Hamp's contribution is
The Principal (?) Indo-European Constellations.
> About 15 years ago, Eric handed me an envelope containing a list
> extending about 150 typed pages of his publications that David Testen
> had prepared (pre-word processing). Most of them are
> Einzeluntersuchungen of two or three pages (which is why his first
> Festschrift, which was a number of IJAL, contained only articles of
> two pages or less).
If it contains a paper on astronomy and constellations,
you might send me photocopies, and I shall send you
photocopies from Derk Ohlenroth's book in return,
as I did some years ago to Jacques Guy in Palmsprings
or so in Australia. He got the photocopies, and never
made fun of Derk Ohlenroth again.
> If you are looking at the reference in Mallory & Adams 2006, why can
> you not simply copy it out?
>
> How likely is "an Italian volume about linguistics" to be findable in
> an American library?
See above.
> I wouldn't know.
A misunderstanding of mine, forget it.
> Are you now going to come up with a mechanism and justification for
> the preposing of labial closure to a dental or alveolar fricative?
Remember my method of pronouncing a word silently,
not even whispering, and observing how it shifts, This
also happens in the case of SAI: sai sai sai psai psai
psy ... I would like to discuss it with Hamp, as he takes
his time, two days even, whereas your patience is just
sufficient for two letters: N and o, together No.
> Then you must be exceedingly credulous (not to mention ignorant),
> since it's one of the hallmarks of Celtic.
Only that there are exceptions, as in the case of *pella
'cliff, rock outcrop' and Old Irish ail 'cliff', a p- gone lost.
There are also exceptions to Grimm's laws.
> If you can assert such a thing, you have learned nothing about
> language change.
There are also exceptions to Grimm's laws. Or then
I might formulate a Magdalenian sound law starting
from the above way of pronouncing words silently,
over and over again.
> Then submit an abstract to the next IE conference that happens to be
> held near you (they don't occur only in Los Angeles, you perhaps don't
> know), and if you make a reasonable argument in 250-400 words, you can
> present a 20-minute paper.
>
> Or, submit an article to a journal.
And wait 30 years for an answer? No, thank you,
I publish online.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 12, 4:20 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You don't even know what a reference is?????
>
> Even I can't keep everything in mind. It was the Proceedings
> of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so), published by
> someone in Bologna, and the title of Hamp's contribution is
> The Principal (?) Indo-European Constellations.
"Proceedings of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so)" is
absolutely meaningless.
(I note that the Ninth International Congress of Linguists was held in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1962, so it's not even an ICL.)
> > About 15 years ago, Eric handed me an envelope containing a list
> > extending about 150 typed pages of his publications that David Testen
> > had prepared (pre-word processing). Most of them are
> > Einzeluntersuchungen of two or three pages (which is why his first
> > Festschrift, which was a number of IJAL, contained only articles of
> > two pages or less).
>
> If it contains a paper on astronomy and constellations,
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. How should I know what it
"contains"?
> you might send me photocopies, and I shall send you
> photocopies from Derk Ohlenroth's book in return,
> as I did some years ago to Jacques Guy in Palmsprings
> or so in Australia. He got the photocopies, and never
> made fun of Derk Ohlenroth again.
>
> > If you are looking at the reference in Mallory & Adams 2006, why can
> > you not simply copy it out?
>
> > How likely is "an Italian volume about linguistics" to be findable in
> > an American library?
>
> See above.
That is not an answer to the question. Why can't you reproduce M & A's
reference?
> > I wouldn't know.
>
> A misunderstanding of mine, forget it.
>
> > Are you now going to come up with a mechanism and justification for
> > the preposing of labial closure to a dental or alveolar fricative?
>
> Remember my method of pronouncing a word silently,
> not even whispering, and observing how it shifts, This
> also happens in the case of SAI: sai sai sai psai psai
> psy ... I would like to discuss it with Hamp, as he takes
> his time, two days even, whereas your patience is just
> sufficient for two letters: N and o, together No.
>
> > Then you must be exceedingly credulous (not to mention ignorant),
> > since it's one of the hallmarks of Celtic.
>
> Only that there are exceptions, as in the case of *pella
> 'cliff, rock outcrop' and Old Irish ail 'cliff', a p- gone lost.
Maybe you should go back to writing in Swiss.
I just told you that _everyone knows_ that *p > 0 is a familiar
characteristic of Celtic. (You don't know the word "hallmark"?)
> There are also exceptions to Grimm's laws.
Rule-governed exceptions.
> > If you can assert such a thing, you have learned nothing about
> > language change.
>
> There are also exceptions to Grimm's laws. Or then
> I might formulate a Magdalenian sound law starting
> from the above way of pronouncing words silently,
> over and over again.
Since no language is "pronounced silently," it would have no
explanatory value whatsoever.
> > Then submit an abstract to the next IE conference that happens to be
> > held near you (they don't occur only in Los Angeles, you perhaps don't
> > know), and if you make a reasonable argument in 250-400 words, you can
> > present a 20-minute paper.
>
> > Or, submit an article to a journal.
>
> And wait 30 years for an answer? No, thank you,
> I publish online.
What does "30 years" mean? If a conference is scheduled for July,
abstracts will typically be accepted until March. (Except for a major
international meeting, which must be planned farther ahead than that.)
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:3c7655ed-d372-437e...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Jan 13, 5:22 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 4:20 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> You don't even know what a reference is?????
>> Even I can't keep everything in mind. It was the Proceedings
>> of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so), published by
>> someone in Bologna, and the title of Hamp's contribution is
>> The Principal (?) Indo-European Constellations.
> "Proceedings of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so)" is
> absolutely meaningless.
He's incompetent. Five minutes' work:
A footnote in Erica Reiner, _Astral Magic in Babylonio_,
1995, some of which is viewable at Google Books, cites it as
Eric P. Hamp, 'The Principal Indo-European Constellations,
in _Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of
Linguists_, Luigi Heilmann, ed. (Bologna: il Mulino, 1974),
but a review by Hamp in _American Anthropologist_ gives the
title as 'The Principal (?) Indo-European Constellations'.
The 11th ICL was in 1972. An on-line 'Annotated
Bibliography Of Studies of Occidental Constellations and
Star Names to the Classical Period' says that it's in the
second volume (of two), pp. 1047-55.
[...]
Brian
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Maybe you should go back to writing in Swiss.
Here we go again. Petey, Petey, considering how compulsive-obsessively
precise (i.e., downright anal) you are about languages and NAMES of
languages, why do you keep on using that meaningless "Swiss"?
In proper English usage, language classification, and linguistics, one
cannot write or speak "Swiss" -- not even Swiss Franz -- but only
"Swiss-German." Calling that language "Swiss" is as kosher as a
Swiss-cheese-and-ham sandwich.
Just trying to help.
~~~ Reinhold (Rey) Aman ~~~
Glücklich ist, wer vergisst, was nicht mehr zu ändern ist.
Joachim Pense
> Peter T. Daniels wrote to Franz Gnaedinger:
>
> [...]
>
>> Maybe you should go back to writing in Swiss.
>
> Here we go again. Petey, Petey, considering how compulsive-obsessively
> precise (i.e., downright anal) you are about languages and NAMES of
> languages, why do you keep on using that meaningless "Swiss"?
>
Considering that you know that he knows, why do you keep on
schwurbeling about compulsive obsessive and anal?
Joachim
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Am Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:17:23 -0800 schrieb Reinhold (Rey) Aman:
>
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote to Franz Gnaedinger:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Maybe you should go back to writing in Swiss.
> >
> > Here we go again. Petey, Petey, considering how compulsive-obsessively
> > precise (i.e., downright anal) you are about languages and NAMES of
> > languages, why do you keep on using that meaningless "Swiss"?
[stuff geschnippt by Joachim]
> Considering that you know that he knows, why do you keep on
> schwurbeling about compulsive obsessive and anal?
Mentioning *twice* Petey's misuse of "Swiss" is neither
compulsive-obsessive nor anal (n)or schwurbeling.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote to Franz Gnaedinger:
>
> [...]
>
> > Maybe you should go back to writing in Swiss.
>
> Here we go again. Petey, Petey, considering how compulsive-obsessively
> precise (i.e., downright anal) you are about languages and NAMES of
> languages, why do you keep on using that meaningless "Swiss"?
>
> In proper English usage, language classification, and linguistics, one
> cannot write or speak "Swiss" -- not even Swiss Franz -- but only
> "Swiss-German." Calling that language "Swiss" is as kosher as a
> Swiss-cheese-and-ham sandwich.
>
> Just trying to help.
You blithering idiot, if you had the slightest _Sprachgefuehl_ for
English, or the slightest familiarity with Franz's ravings and
impermeability to the scientific study of language, or had even
bothered to read some of the thread, you would realize that I use the
term "writing in Swiss" to denigrate his pathetic attempts to persuade
the legions of "future readers" that he fantasizes he has of the
validity of his logorrheic typing.
Paul J Kriha
Here we go again, Ray, Ray. Take it as an exercise in English
pragmatics. Terry Pratchett uses a similar device in his book
Small Gods (as far as I remember it was S.G.):
"Trouble was that he was talking in Philosophy but they were
listening in Gibberish."
pjk
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote to Franz Gnaedinger:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Maybe you should go back to writing in Swiss.
> >
> > Here we go again. Petey, Petey, considering how compulsive-
> > obsessively precise (i.e., downright anal) you are about languages
> > and NAMES of languages, why do you keep on using that meaningless
> > "Swiss"?
> >
> > In proper English usage, language classification, and linguistics,
> > one cannot write or speak "Swiss" -- not even Swiss Franz -- but
> > only "Swiss-German." Calling that language "Swiss" is as kosher as
> > a Swiss-cheese-and-ham sandwich.
> >
> > Just trying to help.
>
> You blithering idiot,
Ach Gott! I'm being helpful and civil to Sweetie Petey, and he's
calling me a "blithering idiot." You are not a nice and grateful
person. Gentle readers will loathe you.
> if you had the slightest _Sprachgefuehl_ for English,
"Sprachgefühl" is my middle name! And it has absolutely nothing to do
with *your* silly misuse of "Swiss." If anyone lacks it, it's you.
> or the slightest familiarity with Franz's ravings and
> impermeability to the scientific study of language,
There you go again with your characteristic, false allegations and
baseless accusations. That's so Petey. I've been following for at
least five years Franz's writings and your compulsive-obsessive (i.e.,
downright anal) attempts at teaching him what's scientifically kosher.
> or had even bothered to read some of the thread,
I have, I have!
> you would realize that I use the term
> "writing in Swiss" to denigrate his pathetic attempts to persuade
> the legions of "future readers" that he fantasizes he has of the
> validity of his logorrheic typing.
But your "denigrating" misuse of _Swiss_ is as lame as your nickname for
me, "Rindhole." Can't someone as brilliant as you come up with
something snappier and wittier? How about "Matterhörnisch" or
"Kantonisch" or "Eidgenössisch"? These terms for his native language
would imply Franz's Swissicity without making you look like a dull,
_sprachgefühlloser Ami_.
Pox vobiscum,
~~~ Reinhold "Sprachgefühl" Aman ~~~
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> "Proceedings of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so)" is
> absolutely meaningless.
Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of Linguistics,
pages 1047-55, published in Bologna, 1972 (I looked
up the bibliography in Mallory and Adams 2006
yesterday evening, and that's what I remember).
> If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. How should I know what it
> "contains"?
> That is not an answer to the question. Why can't you reproduce M & A's
> reference?
I gave it above (half of it, as I kept it in mind).
> Maybe you should go back to writing in Swiss.
Well then. When I attended the monastery school
we spent most of our time in the so-called museum,
learning, obliged to be silent. If someone whispered,
he was admonished by the monk who called out:
Silentium! If people speak in the cinema, in a theater
or a concert, we can admonish them hissing, ssss or
shhhh. We can also make it short and at the same
time enforcing it: pst or psht. Greek had a tendency
to let go an initial *s- and turn it into h-. Preposing
a p, ps-, could have been a reason to keep the s-,
if only in rare cases. There are also cases of
emphatic s-, Middle Helladic Sseyr (Derk Ohlenroth)
Doric Sseys or Sseus, classical Greek Zeus. Z- is
an emphatic S-. Occasionally also Ps- could serve
as an emphatic S-, in the case of SAI for life,
existence, that would have become psy- in psychae
for breath, life, soul. The semantic parallel testifies
to this. And then of course my way of pronouncing
a word silently, not even whispering, over and over
again: sai sai psai psai psy ... The time depth of PIE
is about 6,000 years, mine is three times as much.
(I reply to you, but actually I am conversing with
Eric Hamp, in an imaginary phone call, as you don't
give me his number and wouldn't even if you had it).
> I just told you that _everyone knows_ that *p > 0 is a familiar
> characteristic of Celtic. (You don't know the word "hallmark"?)
What does *p > 0 mean?
> Rule-governed exceptions.
I also gave the reasons for S- becoming ps- above,
it occurred only in rare cases, though.
> Since no language is "pronounced silently," it would have no
> explanatory value whatsoever.
Recently I read in a book: she pronounced it aloud
(reading a newspaper and quoting to her husband),
if one can pronounce aloud, one can also do so
silently.
> What does "30 years" mean? If a conference is scheduled for July,
> abstracts will typically be accepted until March. (Except for a major
> international meeting, which must be planned farther ahead than that.)
I am speaking of my experience with academe.
Why should I undertake all the work for being
refused and refused again and again and again,
usually for 30 years? (art history, math history;
would hardly be different in Paleo-linguistics)
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> He's incompetent. Five minutes' work:
>
> A footnote in Erica Reiner, _Astral Magic in Babylonio_,
> 1995, some of which is viewable at Google Books, cites it as
> Eric P. Hamp, 'The Principal Indo-European Constellations,
> in _Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of
> Linguists_, Luigi Heilmann, ed. (Bologna: il Mulino, 1974),
> but a review by Hamp in _American Anthropologist_ gives the
> title as 'The Principal (?) Indo-European Constellations'.
> The 11th ICL was in 1972. An on-line 'Annotated
> Bibliography Of Studies of Occidental Constellations and
> Star Names to the Classical Period' says that it's in the
> second volume (of two), pp. 1047-55.
The second information is correct, 1972. We have five
publications by Luigi Heilmann in the general university
library, but not this one. I might find it in the library of
the Indogerman seminary, but I don't have the time to
go there. Peter T. Daniels would better give me the
address of Eric Hamp, I'd like to inform him personally,
feeling he is a like-minded spirit who loves to discuss
at length, whereas Ptr T. Dnls has an attention span
of ten lines, as he proudly confesses himself. And he
punishes me for my wealth in ideas by writing here
in this thread: "Franz's ravings and impermeability
to the scientific study of language" "his pathetic
attempts to persuade the legions of "future readers"
that he fantasizes he has of the validity of his
logorrheic typing." Funny that he tells me to submit
an abstract to the next IE conference.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 13, 2:37 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Proceedings of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so)" is
> > absolutely meaningless.
>
> Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of Linguistics,
> pages 1047-55, published in Bologna, 1972 (I looked
> up the bibliography in Mallory and Adams 2006
> yesterday evening, and that's what I remember).
Just about any linguistics library will have the Proceedings of each
of the International Congresses. Tolle, lege!
Ancestral/reconstructed p ("*") goes away ("becomes zero")
> > Rule-governed exceptions.
>
> I also gave the reasons for S- becoming ps- above,
> it occurred only in rare cases, though.
That's "random," not "rule-governed" -- unless you can identify the
conditioning factors.
> > Since no language is "pronounced silently," it would have no
> > explanatory value whatsoever.
>
> Recently I read in a book: she pronounced it aloud
> (reading a newspaper and quoting to her husband),
> if one can pronounce aloud, one can also do so
> silently.
How absurd.
> > What does "30 years" mean? If a conference is scheduled for July,
> > abstracts will typically be accepted until March. (Except for a major
> > international meeting, which must be planned farther ahead than that.)
>
> I am speaking of my experience with academe.
> Why should I undertake all the work for being
> refused and refused again and again and again,
> usually for 30 years? (art history, math history;
> would hardly be different in Paleo-linguistics)
If you submitted an abstract to a meeting or an abstract or article to
a journal, and didn't have a response within a few months, then your
submission must have gotten lost in the mail.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> If you submitted an abstract to a meeting or an abstract or article to
> a journal, and didn't have a response within a few months, then your
> submission must have gotten lost in the mail.
If you say so.
Mallory and Adams 2006, page 131: "Finally, the astral
vocabulary of the Indo-Europeans disappoints in its
meagerness (...) whatever the original Proto-Indo-European
view of the heavens was, it seems largely beyond recovery."
Not necessarily. Here are my reconstructions, based on
Chauvet, Lascaux, and Altamira:
CA LAK for sky (ca) river of the Underworld (lak),
heavenly counterpart of the river that runs through
the Underworld KAL, later overformed into galaktikos
kyklos, galaxy, Milky Way
PIS NOS for water in motion (pis) mind (nos),
personification of the heavenly river, Summer
Triangle Deneb Vega Atair, vulva of the goddess,
also head of the bull man (supreme leader) born
again in the sky by the goddess; the compound
became Venus (in India Vishnu)
CER KOS for divine stag (cer) heavenly vault (kos),
name of our summer constellations of Sagittarius
and Scorpio at one end of the CA LAK, representing
the antlers of the giant divine stag who protects the
sun horse and moon bull when entering and leaving
the Underworld KAL, and, by visual analogy, the
oak tree, sacred tree of the shamans, therefore
Latin quercus Gaulish erkos for oak tree
CER -: I -: for the divine hind or hind woman (cer)
lip lick (-: I -:) who licks moon bulls into life, as
depicted in the Altamira cave, thus creating time,
lunations, periods of 30 29 30 29 30 ... days.
The divine hind woman was seen in our winter
constellation of Orion at the other end of the
CA LAK, her sides formed the horns of the
opposing ibices that symbolized midwinter.
The young moon bulls waiting to go on their
mission were present in Aldebaran in Taurus,
the name of this star may have involved TOR
for the way a bull moves. The name of the hind
woman became English herd German Herde,
namely the series of moon bulls licked into life,
all the many bulls of Altamira ...
SAI CER IAS for life, existence (sai) shaman,
shamaness (cer) healing, restoring (ias), compound
for the souls of shamans and shamanesses waiting
to go on their mission on earth, polished forms
are sai c-r ias, sai --r ias, s-i --r ias, Greek Seirios
Latin Sirius. The Greeks called the bright star also
dog-star, kynos. KYN for dog may be a lateral
association to GYN for woman, testifying to wolf
pups adopted by women a dozen millennia ago.
The early setting of Sirius announced the cold of
winter, kynos psychron dysin. Psychros might be
a derivative of the long compound, SAI psy, CER chr,
IAS os. If so, the compound SAI CER became Greek
psychae for breath, life, soul - SAI psy, CER chae;
Gothic saiwala Old English sawl sawol English soul
German Seele - SAI sai sa so Se, CER (ker kwer wer
wel) wala wl wol ul ele. Shamans and shamanesses
were healers, restoreres of life, of the body and of
the soul as well.
(to be continued, I send of this part so I come through)
Franz Gnaedinger
Eric Hamp (1972) assumes that Avestan tistriya for
three-star meant Sirius in the Winter Triangle of
Sirius in Canis major, Procyon in Canis Minor, and
Betelgeuse in Orion. If so, Procyon might have
been the heavenly abode of worthy shamans born
again in the sky, and Betelgeuse may have been
the heavenly abode of worthy shamanesses born
again in the sky by the goddess, while Sirius was
the place where the souls of the future shamans and
shamanesses were waiting to go on their mission
on earth. Avestan tistriya would also have designated
the Summer Triangle, heavenly abode of worthy rulers
born again in the sky by the goddess (depicted on the
stalactite in the rear hall of Chauvet). Hamp's equation
of Tistriya and Sirius dosn't really convince me, I
prefer my compound SAI CER IAS, the more so
as it goes along with the late Magdalenian calendar,
wherein the summit of the year was SAI and the
coldest period IAS, and calendars were of course
the obligation of shamans.
Now, Peter, here is my abstract. To whom do I send it?
tony cooper
And if you had a modicum of wit you'd understand that Rey understands
this quite well and is using it to denigrate your pathetic attempts to
denigrate. Rey has high standards for the denigration of others.
He's actually a professional at this as evidenced by his
commercialization of abuse and denigration by publishing "Maledicta".
Honest to God, Petey, some fish will bite a baitless hook but you seem
willing to bite a hookless line.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
val189
> On 2008-01-08, Emungo wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> There's no "UK edition." Surely you can't imagine me sticking <u>s
> >> into <-or> words?
>
> > [After looking at photocopies I've got of early pp - only a few and
> > well within copyright rules] Oh yes, so I see. You even spell analyse
> > with a z, something OUP would never allow here.
>
> I _was going_ to post the following.
>
> Apart from "analyze", "paralyze" and related words, which are wrong,
> there is no real justification for claiming that either British or
> American spelling is more legitimate than the other, and that in some
> respects American spelling is more sensible than the following.
>
> humour, humourless, humorous
> colour, colourful, coloration
>
> But I looked up "analyse" in the OED just to check my facts and was
> rather surprised to read this:
>
> Hence from the first it was commonly written in Eng. _analyze_, the
> spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible. The
> objection that this assumes a Gr. analúz-ein itself assumes that
> _analyse_ is formed on Gr. analús-ein, which is etymologically
> impossible and historically untrue.
>
> Interesting! I'd always believed "analyze" was a mistake in imitation
> of "organize" and related words that Webster and his successors
> institutionalized.
>
> --
> History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
> urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
> [Thurgood Marshall]
Is "tit-bits" the British version of "tid-bits"? Just wond'rin'.
Oleg Lego
Hell, he obviously bites a lineless rod.
--
WCdnE
Fred Springer
>
>
> Is "tit-bits" the British version of "tid-bits"? Just wond'rin'.
According to the OED, 'tid bit' is an earlier version -- though not all
that much earlier, since the earliest example of what was then spelt
"tyd bit" comes from 1640, with "tit bit" appearing in 1694.
It also says "tid-bit is now chiefly N. Amer." but clearly not
exclusively so, since there's a US citation from 1940.
Don Phillipson
news:478AC62C...@sonic.net...
> In proper English usage, language classification, and linguistics, one
> cannot write or speak "Swiss" -- not even Swiss Franz -- but only
> "Swiss-German." Calling that language "Swiss" is as kosher as a
> Swiss-cheese-and-ham sandwich.
Do linguists not recognize Romantsch as a language
that is uniquely Swiss? The Swiss seem to, even if
few still speak it.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Peter T. Daniels
To someone who can give you some hint on how to write an abstract for
a scholarly conference?
I strongly doubt that Eric "assumes" anything; if you would bother to
read what he wrote, you would see his arguments for his position.
Peter T. Daniels
> Is "tit-bits" the British version of "tid-bits"? Just wond'rin'.-
Finally! Someone noticed!
You'll find it as the title of "miscellany" columns in 19th-century
magazines.
Peter T. Daniels
How's that again?
Skitt
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" wrote:
>> one cannot write or speak "Swiss" -- not even Swiss Franz -- but only
>> "Swiss-German." Calling that language "Swiss" is as kosher as a
>> Swiss-cheese-and-ham sandwich.
>
> Do linguists not recognize Romantsch as a language
> that is uniquely Swiss? The Swiss seem to, even if
> few still speak it.
That's usually spelled Romansh or Romansch.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Joachim Pense
>
> Do linguists not recognize Romantsch as a language
> that is uniquely Swiss? The Swiss seem to, even if
> few still speak it.
>
It's spoken in Italy, too. (Well, variants of it).
Joachim
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
There was a British magazine called Titbits. I don't think it is
published anymore, BICBW.
http://www.magforum.com/time.htm
1881 Tit-bits launched by George Newnes (also Football-Bits
in 1919). Established model of rewriting material from many
sources, using cheap newsprint and selling in volume.
Spawned many imitators.
Here's one on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TITBITS-JUNE-14-1980-NOLANS-GASCOINE-HIGGINS-VINTAGE-MA_W0QQitemZ280189389053QQihZ018QQcategoryZ612QQcmdZViewItem
or http://tinyurl.com/36nwcn
Also:
http://www.focusonneildiamond.co.uk/pics/scrap_81titbits.jpg
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Fred Springer
quote is as follows:
1900 Jrnl. Sch. Geog. (U.S.) June 240 The danger is that it should
lead to the application of the tit-bits method to the teaching of
geography.
Brian M. Scott
<fred.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<news:W5Pij.11118$g%2.8...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> in
sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 10:28 am, Fred Springer <fred.sprin...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> It also says "tid-bit is now chiefly N. Amer." but clearly not
>>> exclusively so, since there's a US citation from 1940.
>> How's that again?
> Sorry, finger problem there -- I should have said 1900. The actual OED
> quote is as follows:
> 1900 Jrnl. Sch. Geog. (U.S.) June 240 The danger is that it should
> lead to the application of the tit-bits method to the teaching of
> geography.
I think that you missed Peter's point: how does a U.S.
citation of 'tid-bit' show that 'tid-bit' is not exclusively
North American? That's what your original statement
claimed.
Brian
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote...
>
> > In proper English usage, language classification, and linguistics,
> > one cannot write or speak "Swiss" -- not even Swiss Franz -- but
> > only "Swiss-German." Calling that language "Swiss" is as kosher as
> > a Swiss-cheese-and-ham sandwich.
>
> Do linguists not recognize Romantsch as a language
> that is uniquely Swiss? The Swiss seem to, even if
> few still speak it.
That's beside the point I'm trying to make: in English, there is no
language called "Swiss."
Romansch/Romansh/Romantsch is basically an umbrella term for various
Rhaeto-Romanic dialects spoken in (south-)eastern Switzerland and
neighboring parts of Italy (thus it's not even uniquely Swiss).
And yes, the Swiss and linguists do recognize Romansch -- it's one of
Switzerland's four official languages (the others being German, French
and Italian). I happen to have a 100-franc Swiss bank note and quote
that language printed on this bill:
Banca Naziunala Svizra ... Tschient Francs
Las bancnotas čn protegidas dal dretg penal.
So, "Swiss" is merely witless Petey's way of denigrating Franz's
writings as gibberish.
Nathan Sanders
"Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Don Phillipson wrote:
>
> > Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote...
> >
> > > In proper English usage, language classification, and linguistics,
> > > one cannot write or speak "Swiss" -- not even Swiss Franz -- but
> > > only "Swiss-German." Calling that language "Swiss" is as kosher as
> > > a Swiss-cheese-and-ham sandwich.
> >
> > Do linguists not recognize Romantsch as a language
> > that is uniquely Swiss? The Swiss seem to, even if
> > few still speak it.
>
> That's beside the point I'm trying to make: in English, there is no
> language called "Swiss."
Then what language are they using in the following:
"Swiss Language Course", "Learn Swiss", "Learn and speak the Swiss
language before going on your next trip."
<http://www.maps2anywhere.com/Languages/Swiss_language_course.htm>
"Some kept the Swiss culture, like in Ohio and Wisconsin, where they
kept the Swiss traditions and even the Swiss language sometimes"
<http://www.swissroots.org/docs/PTR050806.pdf>
"They play Swiss music, polkas, waltzes, sing and yodel for the
entertainment of the audience, and also speak the Swiss language."
<http://www.berneswissdays.com/music%20&%20entertainment.htm>
"You don't need to speak Swiss to understand this section ..."
<http://www.coubertin.com/neo/neo.exe?Item=576276>
"My mother always spoke Swiss to us children, but when my Dad and his
brother got together, they spoke English."
<http://books.google.com/books?id=-41nAr1H4cMC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=%2
2spoke+swiss+to%22&source=web&ots=LCzugxvag5&sig=8z_CmcMhmFL2N1Hn70N7yV
79Rpg#PPA124,M1>
"The Swiss language is one I have taken quite a liking to in the past
year or so."
<http://www.swissroots.org/stories/viewStory.asp?storyID=986>
"In conjunction with the exhibition opening, Francois Barras, head of
the Cultural Affairs Office of the Swiss Embassy in Washington, D.C.,
will lecture at 4 p.m. Feb. 2 in Room 806, Harlan Hatcher Graduate
Library. His topic: 'Do You Speak Swiss: Some Considerations on the
Essence of Swissness.'"
<http://www.ur.umich.edu/9394/Jan17_94/16.htm>
"Required Skills/Experience: Ideally you will be Swiss National, speak
Swiss and any other languages."
<http://www.needajob.co.uk/details/job/29580/search/Sales-Engineer/Hi-C
alibre-Personal-LTD/>
"I will now speak Swiss to you, for, if I am not much mistaken, you
are a German man, and understand the speech of Lucerne;"
<http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/borrow/george/bible/chapter13.html>
Using "Swiss" to mean "Swiss German" is relatively rare ("the Swiss
language" gets only 1,680 Google hits to "the Swiss German language"'s
6,500), but linguistic frequency is not the same as linguistic
correctness.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:43:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >On Jan 14, 9:50 am, val189 <gwehr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> Is "tit-bits" the British version of "tid-bits"? Just wond'rin'.-
>
> >Finally! Someone noticed!
>
> >You'll find it as the title of "miscellany" columns in 19th-century
> >magazines.
>
> There was a British magazine called Titbits. I don't think it is
> published anymore, BICBW.
>
> http://www.magforum.com/time.htm
>
> 1881 Tit-bits launched by George Newnes (also Football-Bits
> in 1919). Established model of rewriting material from many
> sources, using cheap newsprint and selling in volume.
> Spawned many imitators.
E.g., Reader's Digest? ("An article a day of lasting interest." At
least, that was its slogan 40-50 years ago when my mother subscribed.
I would read all the jokes and occasionally a story -- though it
certainly wouldn't occupy me for thirty days.)
But I'm specifically accustomed to the word with the hyphen.
> Here's one on eBay:http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TITBITS-JUNE-14-1980-NOLANS-GASCOINE-HIGGINS-VI...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/36nwcn
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <478BC694.BABF6...@sonic.net>,
Al Franken used to call the people who sent that sort of information
to his radio show "google monkeys."
It's an honorable trade.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
>
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > Don Phillipson wrote:
> > > Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote...
> > >
> > > > In proper English usage, language classification, and linguistics,
> > > > one cannot write or speak "Swiss" -- not even Swiss Franz -- but
> > > > only "Swiss-German." Calling that language "Swiss" is as kosher
> > > > as a Swiss-cheese-and-ham sandwich.
> > >
> > > Do linguists not recognize Romantsch as a language
> > > that is uniquely Swiss? The Swiss seem to, even if
> > > few still speak it.
> >
> > That's beside the point I'm trying to make: in English, there is
> > no language called "Swiss."
>
> Then what language are they using in the following:
Swiss-German (or dialects thereof), _natürlich_.
Thank you, Nathan, for taking the time to hunt up all these links.
Because of my slow dial-up connection, I checked just a few.
All those references to "Swiss" are to Swiss-German, otherwise the
authors of those sites would have specifically mentioned French, Italian
(and perhaps Romansch).
From one of the links below:
"The Swiss language is one I have taken quite a liking to in the past
year or so."
He means of course Swiss-German:
"The Swiss language is one I have taken quite a liking to in the past
year or so. Taking German in school, we learn a small amount of Swiss,
seeing how some [sic] of the root words are the same. I'm want to start
to speak fluently. Unfortunately, I don't think I can ever master that
amazing thick Swiss accent."
In addition, there isn't just one "Swiss accent" and their "thickness"
varies greatly from region to region (as "mb" -- who knows several
varieties -- will agree).
I agree that hoi polloi uses -- or rather, misuses -- "Swiss" for the
correct, scientific language designation "Swiss-German." But Petey is a
professional linguist and therefore should not use that dumbed-down term
"Swiss" used by the ignorant masses. (We know, of course, that Petey
uses "Swiss" to belittle Franz, whose native language is Swiss-German.)
Can you, an excellent linguist yourself, imagine a university or college
offering "Swiss 101" or "Advanced Swiss"? Would you not object to a
linguist publishing a book called _A History of the Swiss Language_?
What peer-reviewed language or linguistics journal would publish an
article titled "The Phonological System of Northern Swiss"?
I'll let the morons use "Swiss" for "Swiss-German," but I won't let a
trained linguist get away with it.
To make everyone happy, I'll gladly modify and expand my original
statement that there is no language called "Swiss" to "...except as
(mis)used by ignoranuses and run-of-the-mill tourists."
[URLs saved for the curious:]
> "Swiss Language Course", "Learn Swiss", "Learn and speak the Swiss
> language before going on your next trip."
> <http://www.maps2anywhere.com/Languages/Swiss_language_course.htm>
>
> "Some kept the Swiss culture, like in Ohio and Wisconsin, where they
> kept the Swiss traditions and even the Swiss language sometimes"
> <http://www.swissroots.org/docs/PTR050806.pdf>
>
> "They play Swiss music, polkas, waltzes, sing and yodel for the
> entertainment of the audience, and also speak the Swiss language."
> <http://www.berneswissdays.com/music%20&%20entertainment.htm>
Native French-speaking Swiss don't do polkas or yodel. :)
> "You don't need to speak Swiss to understand this section ..."
> <http://www.coubertin.com/neo/neo.exe?Item=576276>
>
> "My mother always spoke Swiss to us children, but when my Dad and his
> brother got together, they spoke English."
> <http://books.google.com/books?id=-41nAr1H4cMC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=%2
> 2spoke+swiss+to%22&source=web&ots=LCzugxvag5&sig=8z_CmcMhmFL2N1Hn70N7yV
> 79Rpg#PPA124,M1>
>
> "The Swiss language is one I have taken quite a liking to in the past
> year or so."
> <http://www.swissroots.org/stories/viewStory.asp?storyID=986>
See my comment above.
> "In conjunction with the exhibition opening, Francois Barras, head of
> the Cultural Affairs Office of the Swiss Embassy in Washington, D.C.,
> will lecture at 4 p.m. Feb. 2 in Room 806, Harlan Hatcher Graduate
> Library. His topic: 'Do You Speak Swiss: Some Considerations on the
> Essence of Swissness.'"
> <http://www.ur.umich.edu/9394/Jan17_94/16.htm>
Quel con!
> "Required Skills/Experience: Ideally you will be Swiss National, speak
> Swiss and any other languages."
> <http://www.needajob.co.uk/details/job/29580/search/Sales-Engineer/Hi-C
> alibre-Personal-LTD/>
>
> "I will now speak Swiss to you, for, if I am not much mistaken, you
> are a German man, and understand the speech of Lucerne;"
> <http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/borrow/george/bible/chapter13.html>
>
> Using "Swiss" to mean "Swiss German" is relatively rare ("the Swiss
> language" gets only 1,680 Google hits to "the Swiss German language"'s
> 6,500), but linguistic frequency is not the same as linguistic
> correctness.
>
> Nathan
Merci,
Franz Gnaedinger
SAI for life, existence, must also have occurred in
a modified form, pSAI, imitating a healer chewing
medicinal herbs and spitting them on the skin,
and a painter shaman chewing colors and blowing
and spitting them on the cave wall, thus giving life
to the animals, a method reconstructed and very
convincingly demonstrated by Michel Lorblanchet.
pSAI could then have shifted to ancient Greek psy-,
as in psychae for breath, life, soul ...
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> To someone who can give you some hint on how to write an abstract for
> a scholarly conference?
Here begins the problem. I gave a concise version of my
understanding of the heavens as seen in Magdalenian times,
and I might have someone correct my freestyle English,
but when wishing to submit it I must change the form in
order to match the elaborate formalisms of academe.
I chose the very best form for expressing my ideas,
in fact writing a book on two pages, but this will never do,
the formalism of academe is all that counts. The same
with my Egyptian method of systematically calculating
the circle. It can't be published in the way I present it,
editors want to see it presented in the form of modern
algebra, it can be done but it gets very complicated,
and loses all charm. I was confronted with this problem
time and again, in fact for all the decades of my working,
no matter in which field.
> I strongly doubt that Eric "assumes" anything; if you would bother to
> read what he wrote, you would see his arguments for his position.
Or then he _believes_ that Avestan tistriya 'three-star' is
the phonological equivalent of Sirius. Look up Mallory
and Adams 2006, page 131 (you mentioned their book
in the first message of this thread, so you must have it).
I prefer my reconstruction SAI CER IAS and found a way
to explain the shift from SAI to psy- by recurring to the
physiological level of language. SAI for life, existence,
must have occurred in a second form, pSAI, imitating
John Atkinson
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:ecn1au3wh0mx$.2radgvfs309z$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:37:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> <news:3c7655ed-d372-437e...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:22 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 4:20 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> You don't even know what a reference is?????
>
>>> Even I can't keep everything in mind. It was the Proceedings
>>> of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so), published by
>>> someone in Bologna, and the title of Hamp's contribution is
>>> The Principal (?) Indo-European Constellations.
>
>> "Proceedings of the Seventh Linguistic Conference (or so)" is
>> absolutely meaningless.
>
>
> A footnote in Erica Reiner, _Astral Magic in Babylonio_,
> 1995, some of which is viewable at Google Books, cites it as
> Eric P. Hamp, 'The Principal Indo-European Constellations,
> in _Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of
> Linguists_, Luigi Heilmann, ed. (Bologna: il Mulino, 1974),
> but a review by Hamp in _American Anthropologist_ gives the
> title as 'The Principal (?) Indo-European Constellations'.
> The 11th ICL was in 1972. An on-line 'Annotated
> Bibliography Of Studies of Occidental Constellations and
> Star Names to the Classical Period' says that it's in the
> second volume (of two), pp. 1047-55.
Indeed, that agrees with the ref in Mallory and Adams that Franz was too
fucking slack to give. Quote: "(1972a) 'The Principal (?) Indo-European
Constellations', in L. Heilmann (ed), Proc of the 11th Int Congr of
Ling, Bologno: Societa Editrice il Mulino Bologna, 1047-55." Presumably
the published proceedings came out a couple of years after the
conference.
There are two pages of references to Hamp in M&A (about 50-60 of them,
I'd guess).
J.
Peter T. Daniels
> Look up Mallory
> and Adams 2006, page 131 (you mentioned their book
> in the first message of this thread, so you must have it).
Would you care to explain _that_ little piece of "deduction"?
> I prefer my reconstruction SAI CER IAS and found a way
> to explain the shift from SAI to psy- by recurring to the
> physiological level of language. SAI for life, existence,
> must have occurred
There is very little room in science for "must have"s.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Would you care to explain _that_ little piece of "deduction"?
Quote from your first message here in this thread, Jan 8,
5:44 am: "Mallory & Adams's IE Handbook (Oxford 2006)
is only about 25 % language, most of it being devoted to
the reconstruction of culture." I assumed this to be their
handbook on PIE, Oxford 2006. Or did they publish _two_
handbooks in the same year, one IE and the other PIE ?
> There is very little room in science for "must have"s.
Ferdinand de Saussure, at the young age of 21 years,
concluded that there must have been laryngeals, and
now his insight is praised as the single most important
discovery in IE studies. There is a big place for must bes
in the sciences. A freak solution of Einstein's equations
sayd there _must be_ exotic monsters in the center of
galaxies, black holes. Equations and scientific definitions
have the quality of making predictions, and predictions
can be rendered in the form of a must be. If our definitions
and equations hold, then there must be this or that
phenomenon, however strange it may appear at first.
Now let me go on with the heavens as understood in
early times. The compound SAI IAS for life (sai) restoring
(ias) may have become ancient Greek saos for healthy,
also aion for lifetime, life, generation, eternity, and Old
Latin aevos for long duration, eternity. Include CER in the
middle of the compound and you get SAI CER IAS which
would have become Sirius. We might also consider an
alternative distribution of the long compound:
SAI for life, existence - Aldebaran, providing moon bulls,
lunations, time. SAI has two derivatives in German, Sein
for existence, and Zeit for time
IAS for healing, restoring - Sirius, providing shamans
and shamanesses who guarantee the healing and
restoring of life in a long succession of generations
CER for divine hind woman in between - Orion as the
divine hind woman, licking moon bulls into life, also
giving birth to the shamans and shamanesses
There have been different theologies in ancient Egypt,
making use of the same elements. We may assume
something similar for theology in Paleolithic times.
Avestan tistriya for three-star would acquire a new
meaning in the light of this concept. The three stars
would include a constellation: SAI Aldebaran (a star),
CER Orion (a constellation), IAS Sirius (a star). If so,
Eric Hamp would be right again, although I'd say that
tistriya wouldn't really have been a phonological
equivalent of Sirius, rather sort of a rime, as in Sanskrit
where rimes were frequent and beloved as an element
of style and meaning at the same time.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Indeed, that agrees with the ref in Mallory and Adams that Franz was too
> fucking slack to give. Quote: "(1972a) 'The Principal (?) Indo-European
> Constellations', in L. Heilmann (ed), Proc of the 11th Int Congr of
> Ling, Bologno: Societa Editrice il Mulino Bologna, 1047-55." Presumably
> the published proceedings came out a couple of years after the
> conference.
>
> There are two pages of references to Hamp in M&A (about 50-60 of them,
> I'd guess).
Yes, I was too slack to go home and look up the exact
reference, while being slick developing my own vision
of the Paleolithic sky. Thanks for having recommended
Mallory and Adams 2006 to me, their book is inestimable,
a real boost for my work. I can (hopefully) keep the
library copy for another month, then I have to return it,
so I just went to the English book shop and ordered
a copy from Oxford, three weeks, 92 Swiss francs,
affordable, even a fair price for such a big and important
volume.
Adam Funk
> Is "tit-bits" the British version of "tid-bits"? Just wond'rin'.
It would be totally outrageous if Peter used an anglicism.
Adam Funk
>> [Peter]
>> > but Adam Funk's message is a typical expression of the British
>> > inferiority complex that has to insist that British spelling (and
>> > everything else) is better than all the variations from it around
>> > the world -- particularly the ones that represent archaisms, as in
>> > this case, where British usage innovated long, long ago in the 19th
>> > century.
[Adam]
>> Did you even read what I wrote? (You might want to start doing that
>> before slinging insults --- incompetently in this case, since I'm not
>> British).
>>
>> I stated that my previous misconception about "-lyse/lyze" words was
>> wrong, that neither British nor American spelling is more legitimate,
>> and that in some respects American spelling is more sensible.
[Peter]
> It's not your own personal misconception. It's a widespread myth.
Yes, and I found the debunking explanation interesting. I see that
Fowler's MEU (1st edition) says
*analyse* is better than _analyze_, but merely as being the one of
two equally indefensible forms that has won. The correct but now
impossible form would be _analysize_ (or _analysise_), with
_analysist_ for the existing _analyst_; see also -IST.
(I don't suppose there's much chance of an apology from you for the
rant resulting from your not actually reading what I originally
wrote.)
--
| _
| ( ) ASCII Ribbon Campaign
| X Against HTML email & news
| / \ www.asciiribbon.org
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 15, 1:41 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Would you care to explain _that_ little piece of "deduction"?
>
> Quote from your first message here in this thread, Jan 8,
> 5:44 am: "Mallory & Adams's IE Handbook (Oxford 2006)
> is only about 25 % language, most of it being devoted to
> the reconstruction of culture." I assumed this to be their
> handbook on PIE, Oxford 2006. Or did they publish _two_
> handbooks in the same year, one IE and the other PIE ?
Why did you remove the "deduction" that you could not justify?
You leaped from my having seen the book (or even from my having seen
its Table of Contents) to my owning it.
Would you care to explain that "deduction"?
> > There is very little room in science for "must have"s.
>
> Ferdinand de Saussure, at the young age of 21 years,
> concluded that there must have been laryngeals, and
I gather you have never read the Memoire.
He "concluded" that on the basis of a great deal of data and a great
deal of analytic thinking. He did not say "there must have been
laryngeals." (He did not, of course, call them that, but "coefficients
sonantiques.")
> now his insight is praised as the single most important
> discovery in IE studies. There is a big place for must bes
> in the sciences. A freak solution of Einstein's equations
> sayd there _must be_ exotic monsters in the center of
> galaxies, black holes.
What, in mathematics, is "a freak solution"?
> Equations and scientific definitions
> have the quality of making predictions, and predictions
> can be rendered in the form of a must be. If our definitions
> and equations hold, then there must be this or that
> phenomenon, however strange it may appear at first.
And your fantasies about "Magdalenian" make no predictions, because
they involve no regularities whatsoever.