The Destiny of Rome

[Christian Weisgerber]

_Le Destin de Rome_ is a two-hour French docu-drama. It's the usual
mix of reenactment, bad CGI, and talking heads, and it covers the
end of the Roman Republic from Caesar's assassination to Actium.
So far, so done to death.

The remarkable part is that in the reenactment scenes the Romans
really speak Latin. And Antony and Cleopatra converse--of course!--
in Greek. I haven't yet had the time to properly watch it and only
fast-forwarded through it, but it's quite amusing. Polish Actor
Pawel Delag, who snagged the part of Antony, looks perfectly
comfortable raging on in Latin (all the while channeling Shakespeare's
play).

The show aired on ARTE in France and Germany, and on SBS in Australia.
It can be also found on YouTube if you search for the title there.

I'm sure some people will be unhappy with the details: I suspect
the Greek pronunciation is too modern for the Koine of the time,
and whatever Delag's Latin pronunciation is, it isn't classical
(nor is it ecclesiastical, thank god), but I think it's a splendid
effort overall.

I looked at the French broadcast version and the juxtaposition of
Latin dialog and French subtitles is striking in how different the
languages are. You'd think French wasn't particularly related to
Latin and had just picked up some Latin loanwords.

Cool stuff.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 23, 1:18 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> _Le Destin de Rome_ is a two-hour French docu-drama.  It's the usual
> mix of reenactment, bad CGI,

(Well, CGI hasn't really been around long enough for bad CGI to be
usual in such things ...)

> and talking heads, and it covers the
> end of the Roman Republic from Caesar's assassination to Actium.
> So far, so done to death.
>
> The remarkable part is that in the reenactment scenes the Romans
> really speak Latin.  And Antony and Cleopatra converse--of course!--
> in Greek.  I haven't yet had the time to properly watch it and only
> fast-forwarded through it, but it's quite amusing.  Polish Actor
> Pawel Delag, who snagged the part of Antony, looks perfectly
> comfortable raging on in Latin (all the while channeling Shakespeare's
> play).
>
> The show aired on ARTE in France and Germany, and on SBS in Australia.
> It can be also found on YouTube if you search for the title there.
>
> I'm sure some people will be unhappy with the details: I suspect
> the Greek pronunciation is too modern for the Koine of the time,
> and whatever Delag's Latin pronunciation is, it isn't classical
> (nor is it ecclesiastical, thank god), but I think it's a splendid
> effort overall.

You wouldn't want them sounding like Cicero before the Senate in
ordinary conversation, would you? Mel Gibson's "Roman" soldiers spoke
(sort of) Vulgar Latin because the movie was cast in Italy, so their
accents were perhaps not too inappropriate. (Of course they should
have been speaking Greek, but Fr. Fulco, who prepared the Aramaic
script, couldn't persuade them of that.)

[António Marques]

I don't presume to know much about Latin nor to have grasped the whole
text, but in my opinion our extant Latin literature is, more than stilted
or very high register, completely artificial. That language was not the
source of the Romance languages, not because it was the language of a small
elite, but because it wasn't anybody's language. Not unlike Sanskrit, I see
it as a literary tool, elaborated independently from the spoken language
from 300-200 BC onwards. If that is right, then it is out of place in a
movie, unless the action consists of Senate sessions.
Now Plautus's language is a different matter. A movie's lines could be
based on it.


--
Sent from one of my newsreaders

[Peter T. Daniels]

Cicero rather than Virgil is taken as the standard corpus (not least
because so much of him is prreserved), but Plautus is a much, much
earlier dialect. It's remarkable how much the language changed over
just a couple of centuries or a little more.

I remarked on that when I was editing Phil Baldi's 4-volume historical
syntax of Latin, and he agreed that it seemed very unusual among
languages for which we have a time-range of material. (They didn't get
some of the chapters that had been commissioned -- including
"Negation" -- so it's a "topics in" rather than a full treatment. But
it's intended also as a model of how to do a historical syntax.)

[wugi]

Op 23/12/2012 19:18, Christian Weisgerber schreef:

> _Le Destin de Rome_ is a two-hour French docu-drama. It's the usual
> mix of reenactment, bad CGI, and talking heads, and it covers the
> end of the Roman Republic from Caesar's assassination to Actium.
> So far, so done to death.
>
> The remarkable part is that in the reenactment scenes the Romans
> really speak Latin. And Antony and Cleopatra converse--of course!--
> in Greek. I haven't yet had the time to properly watch it and only
> fast-forwarded through it, but it's quite amusing. Polish Actor
> Pawel Delag, who snagged the part of Antony, looks perfectly
> comfortable raging on in Latin (all the while channeling Shakespeare's
> play).
>
> The show aired on ARTE in France and Germany, and on SBS in Australia.
> It can be also found on YouTube if you search for the title there.
>
> I'm sure some people will be unhappy with the details: I suspect
> the Greek pronunciation is too modern for the Koine of the time,

Nothing of diphthongs, modulated accent, vowel richness indeed.

> and whatever Delag's Latin pronunciation is, it isn't classical

I detect some non-latinlike stresses, a slavic(?)sounding h-, ...

> (nor is it ecclesiastical, thank god), but I think it's a splendid
> effort overall.

Yes, it would seem.

> I looked at the French broadcast version and the juxtaposition of
> Latin dialog and French subtitles is striking in how different the
> languages are. You'd think French wasn't particularly related to
> Latin and had just picked up some Latin loanwords.

It's from Latin spoken by Celts and Franks, looks rather like some
creole, doesn't it?

guido google:wugi

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Dec 23, 1:18 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> _Le Destin de Rome_ is a two-hour French docu-drama.  It's the usual
> mix of reenactment, bad CGI, and talking heads, and it covers the
> end of the Roman Republic from Caesar's assassination to Actium.
> So far, so done to death.
>
> The remarkable part is that in the reenactment scenes the Romans
> really speak Latin.  And Antony and Cleopatra converse--of course!--
> in Greek.  I haven't yet had the time to properly watch it and only
> fast-forwarded through it, but it's quite amusing.  Polish Actor
> Pawel Delag, who snagged the part of Antony, looks perfectly
> comfortable raging on in Latin (all the while channeling Shakespeare's
> play).
>
> The show aired on ARTE in France and Germany, and on SBS in Australia.
> It can be also found on YouTube if you search for the title there.

the full length version with subtitles to the Latin and Greek is found
only in French. only part I without subtitles is found in English

[wugi]

Op 26/12/2012 23:44, Yusuf B Gursey schreef:

>> The show aired on ARTE in France and Germany, and on SBS in Australia.
>> It can be also found on YouTube if you search for the title there.
>
> the full length version with subtitles to the Latin and Greek is found
> only in French.

It's funny they should have had it subtitled. The usual French way is to
let the original be heard for a word or two, and the rest be drowned in
a French voice-over. Would they've been aware of missing a point in that
case, in this case? :-o)

guido google:wugi

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Dec 23, 1:18 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

We can only go by what is attested. Since present day Ecclesiastical
Latin represents careful speech repeated over centuries, it is a
better representation of old Latin sounds than what has been inferred
from hist ling. For example, it is really hard to believe that the
final 'c' was [k] in plural forms such as 'cicatrices', 'indices',
'matrices' etc.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 28, 8:32 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 'matrices' etc.-

Why is it "really hard" for you to "believe" that? If they were
pronounced [s] they would be spelled <s>.

Why would the preservation of an artificial style over the centuries
be a better representation of something it never was in the first
place?

[António Marques]

She has a point that pre-Renaissance pronunciation of Latin (or
Greek!) does have an authenticity that is missing from the wannabe
reconstructions of the Humanists and certainly the modern national
spelling pronunciations. However, being authentic doesn't mean it
doesn't change. Medieval Latin - pronunciation, syntax, style -
evolved from Classical Latin the same way the Romance languages did
and in parallel with them, only much more slowly and avoiding anything
which would impact syllable count. Of course, k -> tS, or even k -> s,
is one of those things which have no impact on syllable count. (Is
there a name for that?)

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Dec 28, 8:32 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

they are also partly inferred from Roman-era writings about Latin.

[Arnaud F.]

Le vendredi 28 décembre 2012 14:32:58 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :

>
> We can only go by what is attested. Since present day Ecclesiastical
>
> Latin represents careful speech repeated over centuries, it is a
>
> better representation of old Latin sounds than what has been inferred
>
> from hist ling. For example, it is really hard to believe that the
>
> final 'c' was [k] in plural forms such as 'cicatrices', 'indices',
>
> 'matrices' etc.

***

Then why is Sg index = inde-k-s ??

A.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

> they are also partly inferred from Roman-era writings about Latin.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have been asking this question for years now -

WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY EXCEPT SANSKRIT SPEAKERS KNEW AND
WROTE ABOUT THE PLACE AND MANNER OF ARTICULATION OF THE WORDS (in the
prestigious register at least) OF THEIR LANGUAGE?

Without that - we know nothing for certain until the era of tape-
recording. Just look at the English glottal stop - all evidence seems
to suggest it didn't exist till WW I - but now even Royalty has been
caught using it and it doesn't exist anywhere except linguistics
books. Contemporary writings in and about a language are only loose
guides as to the actual sounds used.

[Arnaud F.]

Le vendredi 28 décembre 2012 19:57:43 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :

>
> WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY EXCEPT SANSKRIT SPEAKERS KNEW AND
>
> WROTE ABOUT THE PLACE AND MANNER OF ARTICULATION OF THE WORDS (in the
>
> prestigious register at least) OF THEIR LANGUAGE?
>
>

***

Egyptian hieroglyphic did it first 3000 years before Panini.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

> > > We can only go by what is attested.  Since present day Ecclesiastical
> > > Latin represents careful speech repeated over centuries, it is a
> > > better representation of old Latin sounds than what has been inferred
> > > from hist ling.  For example, it is really hard to believe that the
> > > final 'c' was [k] in plural forms such as 'cicatrices', 'indices',
> > > 'matrices' etc.-
>
> > Why is it "really hard" for you to "believe" that? If they were
> > pronounced [s] they would be spelled <s>.
>
> > Why would the preservation of an artificial style over the centuries
> > be a better representation of something it never was in the first
> > place?
>
> She has a point that pre-Renaissance pronunciation of Latin (or
> Greek!) does have an authenticity that is missing from the wannabe
> reconstructions of the Humanists and certainly the modern national
> spelling pronunciations. However, being authentic doesn't mean it
> doesn't change. Medieval Latin - pronunciation, syntax, style -
> evolved from Classical Latin the same way the Romance languages did
> and in parallel with them, only much more slowly and avoiding anything
> which would impact syllable count. Of course, k -> tS, or even k -> s,
> is one of those things which have no impact on syllable count. (Is

> there a name for that?)-

For having no impact? "Neutral," I suppose.

[Peter T. Daniels]

What are you referring to?

The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi's Kitab,
8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.

[Arnaud F.]

Le vendredi 28 décembre 2012 21:43:40 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>
> The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi's Kitab,
>
> 8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
>
> Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.

***

Like which ones, fraud?

How come you have no field of expertise (apart buffooneries)?

A.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Dec 28, 1:57 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

"Vox Latina" and "Vox Graeca" contain excerpts of Classical works on
Latin and Greek phonology. Islamic grammatical tradition dealt mainly
with the phonology of Arabic, including early dialectic features, but
also there are found references to Persian and Middle Turkic sounds

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 28, 4:23 pm, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le vendredi 28 décembre 2012 21:43:40 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
>
>
> > The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi's Kitab,
>
> > 8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
>
> > Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.
>
> ***
>
> Like which ones, fraud?

So the Arab grammarians are another topic you know nothing about.

> How come you have no field of expertise (apart buffooneries)?

One might ask the same of you. The difference is that I've published
lots of articles, many of them commissioned.

[Arnaud F.]

Le samedi 29 décembre 2012 05:17:13 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Dec 28, 4:23 pm, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le vendredi 28 décembre 2012 21:43:40 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi's Kitab,
>
> >
>
> > > 8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
>
> >
>
> > > Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.
>
> >
>
> > ***
>
> >
>
> > Like which ones, fraud?
>
> So the Arab grammarians are another topic you know nothing about.
>

***

There's hardly any ambiguity about what Sibawayhi described.
As usual, fraud, you make your big false pronouncements on topics you know close to nothing about, but can't resist parading.

A.
***

>
>
> > How come you have no field of expertise (apart buffooneries)?
>
>
>
> One might ask the same of you. The difference is that I've published
>
> lots of articles, many of them commissioned.

***

Then, clown, there's not much difference.

A.

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

And this is what they did with the Slovak version - voiceovered not just
the French, but also the Latin and Greek reenactment.

Someone has been a bit thick in the dubbing company.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

[Yusuf B Gursey]

then the movie would have lost its originality.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 29, 1:50 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le samedi 29 décembre 2012 05:17:13 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Dec 28, 4:23 pm, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > Le vendredi 28 décembre 2012 21:43:40 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > > > The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi's Kitab,
> > > > 8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
> > > > Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.
>

> > > Like which ones, fraud?

I don't have the time to get up and go get any of half a dozen books
on the topic that are in the other room.

> > So the Arab grammarians are another topic you know nothing about.
>

> There's hardly any ambiguity about what Sibawayhi described.

Once again, you make asinine pronouncements about something you know
nothing of.

Jones thought Persian derived from Arabic?

> As usual, fraud, you make your big false pronouncements on topics you know close to nothing about, but can't resist parading.
>

> > > How come you have no field of expertise (apart buffooneries)?
>
> > One might ask the same of you. The difference is that I've published
> > lots of articles, many of them commissioned.
>

> Then, clown, there's not much difference.

Really? Howcome virtually no publications of yours turn up in
bibliographic searches?

[Arnaud F.]

Le samedi 29 décembre 2012 16:46:18 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Dec 29, 1:50 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le samedi 29 décembre 2012 05:17:13 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > > On Dec 28, 4:23 pm, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Le vendredi 28 décembre 2012 21:43:40 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> >
>
> > > > > The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi's Kitab,
>
> > > > > 8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
>
> > > > > Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.
>
> >
>
> > > > Like which ones, fraud?
>
>
>
> I don't have the time to get up and go get any of half a dozen books
>
> on the topic that are in the other room.

***

Chickenry.

A.
***

>
>
>
> > > So the Arab grammarians are another topic you know nothing about.
>
> >
>
> > There's hardly any ambiguity about what Sibawayhi described.
>
>
>
> Once again, you make asinine pronouncements about something you know
>
> nothing of.

***

You're bluffing as usual, fraud.

Anytime you make a verifiable statement everybody can see you're a fraud.
You can't even cite the title of books you reviewed, you idiot.

Most often you just make fusses about side-issues.

A.
***

>
>
>
> Jones thought Persian derived from Arabic?
>

***

yes,
and that over-touted idiot thought Hindi did not derive from Old Indian but was a Siberian language.

As usual you parade with your big ass and shit mouth but you know nothing on these issues, fraud.

A.
***

>
>
> > As usual, fraud, you make your big false pronouncements on topics you know close to nothing about, but can't resist parading.
>
> >
>
> > > > How come you have no field of expertise (apart buffooneries)?
>
> >
>
> > > One might ask the same of you. The difference is that I've published
>
> > > lots of articles, many of them commissioned.
>
> >
>
> > Then, clown, there's not much difference.
>
>
>
> Really? Howcome virtually no publications of yours turn up in
>
> bibliographic searches?

***

Maybe you don't know how to make searches, fraud.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 30, 3:07 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le samedi 29 décembre 2012 16:46:18 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Dec 29, 1:50 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > Le samedi 29 décembre 2012 05:17:13 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Dec 28, 4:23 pm, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > > Le vendredi 28 décembre 2012 21:43:40 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > > > > > The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi'sKitab,
> > > > > > 8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
> > > > > > Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.
>
> > > > > Like which ones, fraud?
>
> > I don't have the time to get up and go get any of half a dozen books
> > on the topic that are in the other room.
>

> Chickenry.

What does that mean?

> > > > So the Arab grammarians are another topic you know nothing about.
>
> > > There's hardly any ambiguity about whatSibawayhidescribed.
>
> > Once again, you make asinine pronouncements about something you know
> > nothing of.
>

> You're bluffing as usual, fraud.
>
> Anytime you make a verifiable statement everybody can see you're a fraud.

Ok, smartaleck. Tell us what each of these feature rows means.

[each row folded to fit in the space available]

' h ` H G x q k D j sh y l r n
T d t S Z s DH dh th f b m w aa ii uu
______________________________________________________________________
SaHiiH + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + - - -
______________________________________________________________________
madd & liin - - - - - - - - - - - + - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - + + + +
______________________________________________________________________
majhuur + - + - + - + - + + - - + - -
+ + - - + - + + - - + + + + + +
______________________________________________________________________
mahmuus - + - + - + - + - - + - - - -
- - + - - + - - - + - - - - - -
______________________________________________________________________
' h ` H G x q k D j sh y l r n
T d t S Z s DH dh th f b m w
______________________________________________________________________
shadiid + - + - - - + + - + - + + +
+ + + - - - - - - - + +
______________________________________________________________________
rixw - + + + + + - - + - + - - -
- - - + + + + + + + - -
______________________________________________________________________
muTbaq - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -
+ - - + - - + - - - - - -
______________________________________________________________________
munfatiH + + + + + + + + - + + + + + +
- + + - + + - + + + + + +
______________________________________________________________________
musta`li - - - - + + + - + - - - - - -
+ - - + - - + - - - - - +
______________________________________________________________________
munxafiD + + + + - - - + - + + + + + +
- + + - + + - + + + + + -
______________________________________________________________________

(Table from A. A. Al-Nassir, Sibawayh the Phonologist (1993), p.55)

The last two pairs, obviously, are redundant.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 30, 4:53 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

I forgot to change the subject. See previous message.

[Arnaud F.]

Le dimanche 30 décembre 2012 22:53:48 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Dec 30, 3:07 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi'sKitab,
>
> > > > > > > 8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
>
> > > > > > > Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Like which ones, fraud?
>
> >
>
> > > I don't have the time to get up and go get any of half a dozen books
>
> > > on the topic that are in the other room.
>
> >
>
> > Chickenry.
>
>
>
> What does that mean?
>

***

You're maneuvering like a chicken to avoid address the issues.

You do that all the time,

A.
***

>
> > You're bluffing as usual, fraud.
>
> >
>
> > Anytime you make a verifiable statement everybody can see you're a fraud.
>
>
>
> Ok, smartaleck. Tell us what each of these feature rows means.
>

***

I've already formed my little ideas about that,

Maybe it would be interesting that a competent speaker of Arabic like Yusuf would kindly make some comments on what these words are supposed to mean.

A.
***

***

Hm, you managed to see this !
Nice. I daresay brilliant.

A.

[Arnaud F.]

Le dimanche 30 décembre 2012 22:53:48 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>
> Ok, smartaleck. Tell us what each of these feature rows means.
>

***

I don't trust you, fraud,

but in case this table is not a fake or something you tinkered with,

It tells interesting things about the Arabic dialect that Sibawayhi described.

It's apparently not a direct ancestor of modern orthoepy.

A.
***

[Peter T. Daniels]

Do you think that's an original observation?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 31, 4:10 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le dimanche 30 décembre 2012 22:53:48 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Dec 30, 3:07 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > The earliest surviving Arabic treatise on grammar (Sibawayhi'sKitab,
> > > > > > > > 8th c. CE) contains detailed feature specifications of each sound.
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately we can't tell what he meant in several cases.
>
> > > > > > > Like which ones, fraud?
>
> > > > I don't have the time to get up and go get any of half a dozen books
> > > > on the topic that are in the other room.
>
> > > Chickenry.
>
> > What does that mean?
>

> You're maneuvering like a chicken to avoid address the issues.

?????

> You do that all the time,
>

> > > You're bluffing as usual, fraud.
>
> > > Anytime you make a verifiable statement everybody can see you're a fraud.
>
> > Ok, smartaleck. Tell us what each of these feature rows means.
>
> ***
>
> I've already formed my little ideas about that,

What a fraud you are. You claim that none of Sibawayhi's features are
puzzling -- yet you cannot explain what even one of them corresponds
to in terms of modern phonetics.

> Maybe it would be interesting that a competent speaker of Arabic like Yusuf would kindly make some comments on what these words are supposed to mean.

Hunh? Why would a native speaker of Turkish have any special insight
into linguistic terminology from 1300 years ago?

You are really not aware that these matters have been under discussion
for 1300 years?

Go someplace where your posing will not be so obvious.

[Arnaud F.]

***

No, you're a notorious fraud.

A.

[Arnaud F.]

Le lundi 31 décembre 2012 13:42:34 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Dec 31, 4:10 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>

> > > > Chickenry.

>
> > You're maneuvering like a chicken to avoid address the issues.
>
> ?????
>

***

no,

!!!!

A.
****

>
> > ***
>
> >
>
> > I've already formed my little ideas about that,
>
>
>
> What a fraud you are. You claim that none of Sibawayhi's features are
>
> puzzling -- yet you cannot explain what even one of them corresponds
>
> to in terms of modern phonetics.

***

ok

so my PoV:

1 SaHiiH ‘brief’
2 madd & liin ‘vocoid’
3 majhuur ‘voiced’
4 mahmuus ‘voiceless’
5 shadiid ‘looking like a stop’
6 rixw ‘looking like a fricative’
7 muTbaq ‘emphatic coronal’
8 munfatiH the opposite of muTbaq
9 musta`li ‘velarized co-articulation’
10 munxafiD the opposite of musta`li

A.
***

>
>
>
> > Maybe it would be interesting that a competent speaker of Arabic like Yusuf would kindly make some comments on what these words are supposed to mean.
>
>
>
> Hunh? Why would a native speaker of Turkish have any special insight
>
> into linguistic terminology from 1300 years ago?
>
>
>
> You are really not aware that these matters have been under discussion
>
> for 1300 years?
>
> Go someplace where your posing will not be so obvious.

***

Fuck you, fraud.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 31, 8:13 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le lundi 31 décembre 2012 13:42:34 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > On Dec 31, 4:10 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > Chickenry.
>
> > > You're maneuvering like a chicken to avoid address the issues.
>
> > ?????
>
> ***
>
> no,
>
> !!!!
>
> A.
> ****
>
>
>
> > > ***
>
> > > I've already formed my little ideas about that,
>
> > What a fraud you are. You claim that none of Sibawayhi's features are
>
> > puzzling -- yet you cannot explain what even one of them corresponds
>
> > to in terms of modern phonetics.
>
> ***
>
> ok
>
> so my PoV:
>
> 1       SaHiiH  ‘brief’

? What is "brief" about all the continuants and sonorants so marked?
This one happens to be the exact equivalent of [+cns]

> 2       madd & liin  ‘vocoid’

(as this one is indeed the exact equivalent of [+voc];; between them
they identify the class of glides as [+cns, +voc].

> 3       majhuur  ‘voiced’
> 4       mahmuus  ‘voiceless’

So you think Sad and thaa' are neither voiced nor voiceless? Try
again, nincompoop.

> 5       shadiid  ‘looking like a stop’

What does that even mean? How does Dad not "look like a stop," while
lam, raa', nun, and mim do "look like a stop"?

> 6       rixw  ‘looking like a fricative’

So `ayn "lloks like" both a stop and a fricative, and "look like" does
not apply to waw and yaa'?

> 7       muTbaq  ‘emphatic coronal’
> 8       munfatiH   the opposite of muTbaq
> 9       musta`li  ‘velarized co-articulation’
> 10      munxafiD   the opposite of  musta`li
>

> > > Maybe it would be interesting that a competent speaker of Arabic like Yusuf would kindly make some comments on what these words are supposed to mean.
>
> > Hunh? Why would a native speaker of Turkish have any special insight
> > into linguistic terminology from 1300 years ago?
> > You are really not aware that these matters have been under discussion
>
> > for 1300 years?
>
> > Go someplace where your posing will not be so obvious.
>
> ***
>
> Fuck you, fraud.

Ah, the famed eloquence of the French!

[Arnaud F.]

Le lundi 31 décembre 2012 16:36:57 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Dec 31, 8:13 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > so my PoV:

> > 1       SaHiiH  ‘brief’
>
>
>
> ? What is "brief" about all the continuants and sonorants so marked?
>
> This one happens to be the exact equivalent of [+cns]

***

No.

A.
***

>
>
>
> > 2       madd & liin  ‘vocoid’
>
>
>
> (as this one is indeed the exact equivalent of [+voc];; between them
>
> they identify the class of glides as [+cns, +voc].

***

So we agree in fact, idiot,
your absurd and sick polemical tendencies notwithstanding.

A.
***

>
>
>
> > 3       majhuur  ‘voiced’
>
> > 4       mahmuus  ‘voiceless’
>
>
>
> So you think Sad and thaa' are neither voiced nor voiceless? Try
>
> again, nincompoop.

***

If you are not satisfied, then provide reliable data in the original Arabic order, you lousy asshole.

A.
***

>
>
>
> > 5       shadiid  ‘looking like a stop’
>
>
>
> What does that even mean? How does Dad not "look like a stop," while
>
> lam, raa', nun, and mim do "look like a stop"?

***

You did not provide reliable data, asshole.

A.
***

>
>
>
> > 6       rixw  ‘looking like a fricative’
>
>
>
> So `ayn "lloks like" both a stop and a fricative, and "look like" does
>
> not apply to waw and yaa'?
>
>
>
> > 7       muTbaq  ‘emphatic coronal’
>
> > 8       munfatiH   the opposite of muTbaq
>
> > 9       musta`li  ‘velarized co-articulation’
>
> > 10      munxafiD   the opposite of  musta`li
>
> >
>
> > > > Maybe it would be interesting that a competent speaker of Arabic like Yusuf would kindly make some comments on what these words are supposed to mean.
>
> >
>
> > > Hunh? Why would a native speaker of Turkish have any special insight
>
> > > into linguistic terminology from 1300 years ago?
>
> > > You are really not aware that these matters have been under discussion
>
> >
>
> > > for 1300 years?
>
> >
>
> > > Go someplace where your posing will not be so obvious.
>
> >
>
> > ***
>
> >
>
> > Fuck you, fraud.
>
>
>
> Ah, the famed eloquence of the French!

***

At least, a sensical statement.

Possibly the last of year 2012 by chance coincidence.

A.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Dad was not a stop in the time of Sibawayhi (and it is merged with
DHaa' as [DH] in colloquials that preserve interdentals - merged as
[D] in those that don't)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 31, 1:31 pm, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le lundi 31 décembre 2012 16:36:57 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Dec 31, 8:13 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > so my PoV:
> > > 1       SaHiiH  ‘brief’
>
> > ? What is "brief" about all the continuants and sonorants so marked?
>
> > This one happens to be the exact equivalent of [+cns]
>

> No.

How not?

What does "brief" mean?

> > > 2       madd & liin  ‘vocoid’
>
> > (as this one is indeed the exact equivalent of [+voc];; between them
>
> > they identify the class of glides as [+cns, +voc].
>

> So we agree in fact, idiot,
> your absurd and sick polemical tendencies notwithstanding.

You're the fraud who didn't recognize [+cns] when it was staring you
in the face.

> > > 3       majhuur  ‘voiced’
>
> > > 4       mahmuus  ‘voiceless’
>
> > So you think Sad and thaa' are neither voiced nor voiceless? Try
> > again, nincompoop.
>

> If you are not satisfied, then provide reliable data in the original Arabic order, you lousy asshole.

What the hell does that mean? The table is in the order Sibawayhi
discussed the letters. That you don't even know that shows what a
fraud you are.

> > > 5       shadiid  ‘looking like a stop’
>
> > What does that even mean? How does Dad not "look like a stop," while
> > lam, raa', nun, and mim do "look like a stop"?
>

> You did not provide reliable data, asshole.

My name is not Al-Nassir. If you don't like his presentation, then
read the original text yourself and see if you come up with something
different.

[Arnaud F.]

Le lundi 31 décembre 2012 21:18:31 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Dec 31, 1:31 pm, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le lundi 31 décembre 2012 16:36:57 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > > On Dec 31, 8:13 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > so my PoV:
>
> > > > 1       SaHiiH  ‘brief’
>
> >
>
> > > ? What is "brief" about all the continuants and sonorants so marked?
>
> >
>
> > > This one happens to be the exact equivalent of [+cns]
>
> >
>
> > No.
>
>
>
> How not?
>
>
>
> What does "brief" mean?

***

The contrary of "long".

A.
***

>
>
>
> > > > 2       madd & liin  ‘vocoid’
>
> >
>
> > > (as this one is indeed the exact equivalent of [+voc];; between them
>
> >
>
> > > they identify the class of glides as [+cns, +voc].
>
> >
>
> > So we agree in fact, idiot,
>
> > your absurd and sick polemical tendencies notwithstanding.
>
>
>
> You're the fraud who didn't recognize [+cns] when it was staring you
>
> in the face.
>

**

Even when we agree, you find a way to make a hoodge heap of dirt out of nuddhing...

Lol.

Happy new year, idiot.

A.
***

>
>
> > > > 3       majhuur  ‘voiced’
>
> >
>
> > > > 4       mahmuus  ‘voiceless’
>
> >
>
> > > So you think Sad and thaa' are neither voiced nor voiceless? Try
>
> > > again, nincompoop.
>
> >
>
> > If you are not satisfied, then provide reliable data in the original Arabic order, you lousy asshole.
>
>
>
> What the hell does that mean? The table is in the order Sibawayhi
>
> discussed the letters. That you don't even know that shows what a
>
> fraud you are.

***

No hell,

just you farting about.

A.
***

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Dec 31, 8:13 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le lundi 31 décembre 2012 13:42:34 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > On Dec 31, 4:10 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > Chickenry.
>
> > > You're maneuvering like a chicken to avoid address the issues.
>
> > ?????
>
> ***
>
> no,
>
> !!!!
>
> A.
> ****
>
>
>
> > > ***
>
> > > I've already formed my little ideas about that,
>
> > What a fraud you are. You claim that none of Sibawayhi's features are
>
> > puzzling -- yet you cannot explain what even one of them corresponds
>
> > to in terms of modern phonetics.
>
> ***
>
> ok
>
> so my PoV:
>
> 1       SaHiiH  ‘brief’
> 2       madd & liin  ‘vocoid’
> 3       majhuur  ‘voiced’

the voiced pronouciation of qa:f given by Sibawayhi is not a fluke, it
is the usual bedouin pronounciation of that phoneme and can be seen in
old loans like qandaha:r (Afghanistan) from gandha:ra

[Arnaud F.]

Le mardi 1 janvier 2013 04:11:24 UTC+1, Yusuf B Gursey a écrit :
> On Dec 31, 8:13 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>

>
> > so my PoV:
>
> >
>
> > 1       SaHiiH  ‘brief’
>
> > 2       madd & liin  ‘vocoid’
>
> > 3       majhuur  ‘voiced’
>
>
>
> the voiced pronouciation of qa:f given by Sibawayhi is not a fluke, it
>
> is the usual bedouin pronounciation of that phoneme and can be seen in
>
> old loans like qandaha:r (Afghanistan) from gandha:ra

***

yes clearly so,

it's also interesting to note that he considers t. to be voiced as well.

This clearly means that the dialect he described cannot be the ancestor of present-day orthoepy.

A.
***

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 1, 5:27 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le mardi 1 janvier 2013 04:11:24 UTC+1, Yusuf B Gursey a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 8:13 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > so my PoV:
>
> > > 1       SaHiiH  ‘brief’
>
> > > 2       madd & liin  ‘vocoid’
>
> > > 3       majhuur  ‘voiced’
>
> > the voiced pronouciation of qa:f given by Sibawayhi is not a fluke, it
>
> > is the usual bedouin pronounciation of that phoneme and can be seen in
>
> > old loans like qandaha:r (Afghanistan) from gandha:ra
>
> ***
>
> yes clearly so,
>
> it's also interesting to note that he considers t. to be voiced as well.

*that* is strange. nowhere else is it attested.

>
> This clearly means that the dialect he described cannot be the ancestor of present-day orthoepy.
>

it is unclear whose dialect is described by the grammarians in
general. though more eastern than western, it is supposed to represent
a dialect (or a choice?) that avoids the extremes of "Tamim" (East),
with the glottalized pronounciation of `ayn that leads to the frequent
replacement of the glottal stop with `ayn (`an`ana(t)) and with /i/
instead of /a/ of the vowel of the imperfect (taltala(t)) and Hijaz
with the elision of the glottal stop.

Dad lost its lateralization and came to be merged DHa' early (attested
for pre-Islamic Yemen from the late South Arabian inscriptions as
spelling mistakes), but in order to maintain the phonemic distinction
formally emphatic D seems to have been adopted for it.

in the formal Arabic of Egypt [g] is used for jim, but not for Quranic
recitation.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jan 1, 10:27 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 5:27 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > Le mardi 1 janvier 2013 04:11:24 UTC+1, Yusuf B Gursey a écrit :
> > > On Dec 31, 8:13 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > so my PoV:
>
> > > > 1       SaHiiH  ‘brief’
> > > > 2       madd & liin  ‘vocoid’
> > > > 3       majhuur  ‘voiced’
>
> > > the voiced pronouciation of qa:f given by Sibawayhi is not a fluke, it
> > > is the usual bedouin pronounciation of that phoneme and can be seen in
> > > old loans like qandaha:r (Afghanistan) from gandha:ra
>

> > yes clearly so,
> > it's also interesting to note that he considers t. to be voiced as well.
>
>  *that* is strange. nowhere else is it attested.

Or else it means that yangg's "interpretation" of the feature is
wrong.

> > This clearly means that the dialect he described cannot be the ancestor of present-day orthoepy.
>
> it is unclear whose dialect is described by the grammarians in
> general. though more eastern than western, it is supposed to represent
> a dialect (or a choice?) that avoids the extremes of "Tamim" (East),
> with the glottalized pronounciation of `ayn that leads to the frequent
> replacement of the glottal stop with `ayn (`an`ana(t)) and with /i/
> instead of /a/ of the vowel of the imperfect (taltala(t)) and Hijaz
> with the elision of the glottal stop.

Sibawayh, at least, cites infomrants from all over the Arabophone
world of his time.

If yangg were to actually consult the literature on the Arab
grammarians, he might stop making stupid pronouncements.

> Dad lost its lateralization and came to be merged DHa' early (attested
> for pre-Islamic Yemen from the late South Arabian inscriptions as

South Arabian is about as distantly related to Arabic as two languages
can be and still be in the same (sub)family.

[Arnaud F.]

Le mardi 1 janvier 2013 21:07:07 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Jan 1, 10:27 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 5:27 am, "Arnaud F." <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>

> > > yes clearly so,
>
> > > it's also interesting to note that he considers t. to be voiced as well.
>
> >
>
> >  *that* is strange. nowhere else is it attested.
>
>
>
> Or else it means that yangg's "interpretation" of the feature is
>
> wrong.

***

Maybe you just miscopied the original table in your post, fraud.

I agree with Yusuf that it's definitely strange.

A.
***

>
> If yangg were to actually consult the literature on the Arab
>
> grammarians, he might stop making stupid pronouncements.

***

You still the same boring idiot as last year...

A.
***

>
> South Arabian is about as distantly related to Arabic as two languages
>
> can be and still be in the same (sub)family.

***

South Arabian and Southern dialects of Arabic are quite close, as least phonologically.

A.
***

[Yusuf B Gursey]

well, I was not talking about Sibawayhi in particular but the Arab
grammarians in general. it is not clear who actually spoke the
standard against they judge the Old Dialects.

> If yangg were to actually consult the literature on the Arab
> grammarians, he might stop making stupid pronouncements.
>
> > Dad lost its lateralization and came to be merged DHa' early (attested
> > for pre-Islamic Yemen from the late South Arabian inscriptions as
>
> South Arabian is about as distantly related to Arabic as two languages
> can be and still be in the same (sub)family.
>

by that time the authors of the inscriptions were Arabs or Arabized or
were Himyarites, who spoke a divergent dialect of Arabic (or a very
closely related language that contained South Arabian elements).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

the dialect of the highlands of northern Yemen, Razihi, is essentially
a continuation of Himyari, a language close to Arabic or a divergent
dialect of Arabic, with South Arabian features that was written in the
South Arabian script well into the Islamic period. it is known mainly
through anectodes of medieval writers. unfortunately Hamdani's (end of
9th cent.) volume dealing in detail with it has been lost.