info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dutchy touch in French
186 views
Skip to first unread message
wugi
Sep 30, 2019, 10:15:06 AM9/30/19
to
In another ng (about politics, of all topics) I saw referenced an
article stating influence of Limburgish Dutch on French sound structure
and grammar.
It's from Dutch philologist Peter Alexander Kerkhof, see eg:
https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/09/welke-taal-sprak-karel-de-grote-en-doet-dat-er-toe/
An example he gives is the use of pronouns in conjugation:
"Denk bijvoorbeeld aan de Franse grammaticale regel dat een
werkwoordsvorm voorafgegaan moeten worden door een persoonlijk
voornaamwoord, een regel die gedeeld wordt met het Nederlands (Frans je
dis : Nederlands ik zeg tegenover Italiaans dico : Spaans digo)."
My first reaction was, the pronouns were necessary due to loss of
markers in the verb form itself, due to general loss of final vowels
(and consonants -s , -t, -z, -nt...).
But on second thought there is the problem of chicken and egg: what came
first:
the loss of final markers, hence the need to maintain (bring back?)
pronouns; or
the tendency (foreign influence?) to use pronouns, hence loss of final
markers...?
Any data or ideas on that?
--
guido wugi
article stating influence of Limburgish Dutch on French sound structure
and grammar.
It's from Dutch philologist Peter Alexander Kerkhof, see eg:
https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/09/welke-taal-sprak-karel-de-grote-en-doet-dat-er-toe/
An example he gives is the use of pronouns in conjugation:
"Denk bijvoorbeeld aan de Franse grammaticale regel dat een
werkwoordsvorm voorafgegaan moeten worden door een persoonlijk
voornaamwoord, een regel die gedeeld wordt met het Nederlands (Frans je
dis : Nederlands ik zeg tegenover Italiaans dico : Spaans digo)."
My first reaction was, the pronouns were necessary due to loss of
markers in the verb form itself, due to general loss of final vowels
(and consonants -s , -t, -z, -nt...).
But on second thought there is the problem of chicken and egg: what came
first:
the loss of final markers, hence the need to maintain (bring back?)
pronouns; or
the tendency (foreign influence?) to use pronouns, hence loss of final
markers...?
Any data or ideas on that?
--
guido wugi
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2019, 10:27:09 AM9/30/19
to
If there is adstratum influence, why specifically from "Dutch"? Did that
language name have any referent in those days? (ISTR the earliest version
is called "Old Franconian." I could look up the dates of the evidence, but
I won't.)
António Marques
Sep 30, 2019, 10:44:16 AM9/30/19
to
might occur (the loss of consonants is nowhere near as systematic as in
french, but it exists and in some dialects is quite a force to reckon with.
I don’t know how it is with Northern Italian or the alpine languages.
The loss of final consonants -or is it a tendency to turn all syllables
into CV?- is a very old phenomenon in French.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2019, 11:04:04 AM9/30/19
to
way of maintaining redundancy. There's always noise in the speech chain,
so it was very clever of Evolution to see to it that when sound change
erodes one bit of a language's resources, morphological innovation steps
in to help out. Carleton Hodge (1970) named it the "linguistic cycle"
with an example covering 3000 years of the history of Egyptian. A more
familiar example is the vagaries of the future tenses in the history
of the Romance languages.
Christian Weisgerber
Sep 30, 2019, 2:30:07 PM9/30/19
to
On 2019-09-30, wugi <br...@wugi.be> wrote:
> In another ng (about politics, of all topics) I saw referenced an
> article stating influence of Limburgish Dutch on French sound structure
> and grammar.
> It's from Dutch philologist Peter Alexander Kerkhof, see eg:
> https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/09/welke-taal-sprak-karel-de-grote-en-doet-dat-er-toe/
As far as I know, it is uncontroversial that Old Frankish ("Dutch"
> In another ng (about politics, of all topics) I saw referenced an
> article stating influence of Limburgish Dutch on French sound structure
> and grammar.
> It's from Dutch philologist Peter Alexander Kerkhof, see eg:
> https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/09/welke-taal-sprak-karel-de-grote-en-doet-dat-er-toe/
is misleading) asserted significant influence on French (langue
d'oïl).
Mireille Huchon, _Histoire de la langue française_ mentions:
Pronunciation of aspirated h, reintroduction of [w], shift of [u]
to [y], reinforced stress accent leading to the loss of final vowels;
word order and lexicon with the contribution of more than a thousand
words, suffixes -ard, -aud, -ais, and numerous first names.
Features like V2 word order and final devoicing in Old French reek
of Germanic influence.
> My first reaction was, the pronouns were necessary due to loss of
> markers in the verb form itself, due to general loss of final vowels
> (and consonants -s , -t, -z, -nt...).
over the course of late Old French and Middle French. This was a
drawn-out process. As ambiguity creeps in, speakers bit by bit
compensate.
BTW, googling for <null subject in germanic> will bring up various
papers that mention that there is some controversy whether the old
germanic languages themselves were pro-drop. Specifically, the
authors discuss "referential null subjects" since "pro-drop" itself
seems to be a problematic term.
A tangential question would be whether colloquial French "faut que ..."
instead of formal "il faut que ..." is actually an elision or instead
a relict from back when impersonal expressions didn't require a
subject pronoun.
(Are lone surviving forms "relics" or "relicts"?)
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 30, 2019, 3:17:20 PM9/30/19
to
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:27:07 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
France = Frankrijk = Frankreich = The realm of the Franks.
Dutch is Modern Low Franconian.
So all your Frances belong to us!
More seriously: Dutch didn't exist in those days, but there were
Germanic tribes who called themselves, or were called by others,
Franks, as opposed to their neighbours the Frisians and the Saxons,
who together with the Angles, lay the basis for what now is English.
Those Frankish tribes probably spoke various Frankish Germanic
dialects. Some of those eventually merged into what is now Standard
Dutch, plus various dialects, including some that are still spoken in
the Belgian and Dutch provinces called Limburg, and adjacent areas in
what is now Germany. There is also a city called Limburg, in Germany.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
Dutch is Modern Low Franconian.
So all your Frances belong to us!
More seriously: Dutch didn't exist in those days, but there were
Germanic tribes who called themselves, or were called by others,
Franks, as opposed to their neighbours the Frisians and the Saxons,
who together with the Angles, lay the basis for what now is English.
Those Frankish tribes probably spoke various Frankish Germanic
dialects. Some of those eventually merged into what is now Standard
Dutch, plus various dialects, including some that are still spoken in
the Belgian and Dutch provinces called Limburg, and adjacent areas in
what is now Germany. There is also a city called Limburg, in Germany.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 30, 2019, 3:23:35 PM9/30/19
to
something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
Veldeke was a native speaker of some Limburgian dialect, which at the
time could not be clearly indentified as German or Dutch, because
neither existed as a separate language. He sometimes wrote more
Dutch-like, sometimes more German-like.
Ruud Harmsen
Sep 30, 2019, 3:41:33 PM9/30/19
to
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:04:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
a phoneme or it is not. There cannot be anything in between.
Source: one Peter T. Daniels, in sci.lang.
>Carleton Hodge (1970) named it the "linguistic cycle"
>with an example covering 3000 years of the history of Egyptian. A more
>familiar example is the vagaries of the future tenses in the history
>of the Romance languages.
Yes.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>I should have added that such seesawing is simply the "invisible hand"'s
>way of maintaining redundancy. There's always noise in the speech chain,
>so it was very clever of Evolution to see to it that when sound change
>erodes one bit of a language's resources, morphological innovation steps
>in to help out.
That's impossible. Sound change cannot be gradual. Something is either
>way of maintaining redundancy. There's always noise in the speech chain,
>so it was very clever of Evolution to see to it that when sound change
>erodes one bit of a language's resources, morphological innovation steps
>in to help out.
a phoneme or it is not. There cannot be anything in between.
Source: one Peter T. Daniels, in sci.lang.
>Carleton Hodge (1970) named it the "linguistic cycle"
>with an example covering 3000 years of the history of Egyptian. A more
>familiar example is the vagaries of the future tenses in the history
>of the Romance languages.
wugi
Sep 30, 2019, 3:47:34 PM9/30/19
to
Op 30/09/2019 om 20:23 schreef Christian Weisgerber:
> is misleading) asserted significant influence on French (langue
... we knew that (about speaking of "Dutch" for o.Frankish).
> d'oïl).
>
> Mireille Huchon, _Histoire de la langue française_ mentions:
> Pronunciation of aspirated h, reintroduction of [w], shift of [u]
> to [y], reinforced stress accent leading to the loss of final vowels;
> word order and lexicon with the contribution of more than a thousand
> words, suffixes
Yes, these are the 'obvious' influences.
>
> Features like V2 word order and final devoicing in Old French reek
> of Germanic influence.
>
>> My first reaction was, the pronouns were necessary due to loss of
>> markers in the verb form itself, due to general loss of final vowels
>> (and consonants -s , -t, -z, -nt...).
>
> Yup. Subject pronouns became more common and eventually mandatory
> over the course of late Old French and Middle French. This was a
> drawn-out process. As ambiguity creeps in, speakers bit by bit
> compensate.
Yes, but the contingency of the counterpart evolution (mandatory pronoun
as done by adoptive speakers of another language that has this feature,
causing loss of verb ends) cannot be excluded entirely, methinks.
> BTW, googling for <null subject in germanic> will bring up various
> papers that mention that there is some controversy whether the old
> germanic languages themselves were pro-drop. Specifically, the
> authors discuss "referential null subjects" since "pro-drop" itself
> seems to be a problematic term.
>
> A tangential question would be whether colloquial French "faut que ..."
> instead of formal "il faut que ..." is actually an elision or instead
> a relict from back when impersonal expressions didn't require a
> subject pronoun.
I think it's hardly a relic, more a modism.
Some features may pop up again after ages.
Take ergative-ish expressions, like "methinks" above.
In Dutch, "me dunkt dat...", "het lijkt me dat...". Those are relics.
But then we have also:
Dat boek leest als een trein. That book "reads" like a train (fast).
Die stoel zit lekker. That chair "sits" comfy.
Dat type asfalt rijdt stil. That type of asphalt "drives" smoothly.
Those are not relics, but modern ways of "ergativism".
> (Are lone surviving forms "relics" or "relicts"?)
My old dico gives "widow" for "relict" ("rarely = relic").
--
guido wugi
> On 2019-09-30, wugi <br...@wugi.be> wrote:
>
>> In another ng (about politics, of all topics) I saw referenced an
>> article stating influence of Limburgish Dutch on French sound structure
>> and grammar.
>> It's from Dutch philologist Peter Alexander Kerkhof, see eg:
>> https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/09/welke-taal-sprak-karel-de-grote-en-doet-dat-er-toe/
>
> As far as I know, it is uncontroversial that Old Frankish ("Dutch"
I took it...
>
>> In another ng (about politics, of all topics) I saw referenced an
>> article stating influence of Limburgish Dutch on French sound structure
>> and grammar.
>> It's from Dutch philologist Peter Alexander Kerkhof, see eg:
>> https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/09/welke-taal-sprak-karel-de-grote-en-doet-dat-er-toe/
>
> As far as I know, it is uncontroversial that Old Frankish ("Dutch"
> is misleading) asserted significant influence on French (langue
> d'oïl).
>
> Mireille Huchon, _Histoire de la langue française_ mentions:
> Pronunciation of aspirated h, reintroduction of [w], shift of [u]
> to [y], reinforced stress accent leading to the loss of final vowels;
> word order and lexicon with the contribution of more than a thousand
> words, suffixes
>
> Features like V2 word order and final devoicing in Old French reek
> of Germanic influence.
>
>> My first reaction was, the pronouns were necessary due to loss of
>> markers in the verb form itself, due to general loss of final vowels
>> (and consonants -s , -t, -z, -nt...).
>
> Yup. Subject pronouns became more common and eventually mandatory
> over the course of late Old French and Middle French. This was a
> drawn-out process. As ambiguity creeps in, speakers bit by bit
> compensate.
as done by adoptive speakers of another language that has this feature,
causing loss of verb ends) cannot be excluded entirely, methinks.
> BTW, googling for <null subject in germanic> will bring up various
> papers that mention that there is some controversy whether the old
> germanic languages themselves were pro-drop. Specifically, the
> authors discuss "referential null subjects" since "pro-drop" itself
> seems to be a problematic term.
>
> A tangential question would be whether colloquial French "faut que ..."
> instead of formal "il faut que ..." is actually an elision or instead
> a relict from back when impersonal expressions didn't require a
> subject pronoun.
Some features may pop up again after ages.
Take ergative-ish expressions, like "methinks" above.
In Dutch, "me dunkt dat...", "het lijkt me dat...". Those are relics.
But then we have also:
Dat boek leest als een trein. That book "reads" like a train (fast).
Die stoel zit lekker. That chair "sits" comfy.
Dat type asfalt rijdt stil. That type of asphalt "drives" smoothly.
Those are not relics, but modern ways of "ergativism".
> (Are lone surviving forms "relics" or "relicts"?)
--
guido wugi
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2019, 4:10:43 PM9/30/19
to
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 3:41:33 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:04:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >I should have added that such seesawing is simply the "invisible hand"'s
> >way of maintaining redundancy. There's always noise in the speech chain,
> >so it was very clever of Evolution to see to it that when sound change
> >erodes one bit of a language's resources, morphological innovation steps
> >in to help out.
>
> That's impossible. Sound change cannot be gradual. Something is either
> a phoneme or it is not. There cannot be anything in between.
Please learn some sociolinguistics.
> Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:04:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >I should have added that such seesawing is simply the "invisible hand"'s
> >way of maintaining redundancy. There's always noise in the speech chain,
> >so it was very clever of Evolution to see to it that when sound change
> >erodes one bit of a language's resources, morphological innovation steps
> >in to help out.
>
> That's impossible. Sound change cannot be gradual. Something is either
> a phoneme or it is not. There cannot be anything in between.
The study of language change is now subsumed under the field of language
variation.
Phonemes are abstractions. One idiolect (at one time, in one social
situation) has just one phonemic system. You could even look at Yuen-
Ren Chao's "Coexistent Phonemic Systems" for explanations. (It was
such an important article that it was reprinted in Joos's *Readings
in Linguistics* in 1957.) See also the whole Firthian approach to
analysis. (J. R. Firth, detested at the University of London by
Daniel Jones, who refused to allow linguistics and phonetics to
be combined; to this day, at many British universities they are
separate departments.)
António Marques
Sep 30, 2019, 4:20:36 PM9/30/19
to
2 people' is ergativistic?
wugi
Sep 30, 2019, 4:40:44 PM9/30/19
to
Op 30/09/2019 om 22:20 schreef António Marques:
(Is it said?) Even more so than my examples: ours lack the "subject".
But not, I guess, as a relic of English ergativism.
And not without a substantial change of semantic meaning: it's not the
equivalent of "One sleeps/two people sleep in the room".
The room is sleeping 2 people :-o
--
guido wugi
But not, I guess, as a relic of English ergativism.
And not without a substantial change of semantic meaning: it's not the
equivalent of "One sleeps/two people sleep in the room".
The room is sleeping 2 people :-o
--
guido wugi
Christian Weisgerber
Sep 30, 2019, 5:30:07 PM9/30/19
to
On 2019-09-30, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Earliest attested Dutch (apart from that one sentence "Olla vogala
> something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
> the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
> also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
> Earliest attested Dutch (apart from that one sentence "Olla vogala
> something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
> the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
> also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2019, 5:40:30 PM9/30/19
to
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 5:30:07 PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2019-09-30, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> > Earliest attested Dutch (apart from that one sentence "Olla vogala
> > something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
> > the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
> > also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
>
> That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
? Oaths of Strasbourg, 842.
> On 2019-09-30, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> > Earliest attested Dutch (apart from that one sentence "Olla vogala
> > something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
> > the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
> > also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
>
> That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
Helmut Richter
Sep 30, 2019, 6:18:17 PM9/30/19
to
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Dutch is Modern Low Franconian.
In German, it is still more confusing. There is a region in Germany which
> Dutch is Modern Low Franconian.
is called "Franken" (and their language/dialect "fränkisch"), to wit the N
and NW of the state of Bavaria. It is subdivided into the districts
of Unterfranken (Lower Franconia), Mittelfranken (Central Franconia), and
Oberfranken (Upper Franconia).
Now, when a normal person, i.e. not a linguist, says "mittelfränkisch", he
means "from Mittelfranken", e.g. Nürnberg = Nuremberg. A linguist,
however, means "from the centre of the region where the Franks have ever
been in their history", e.g. Köln = Cologne. For Low Franconian there are
two diferent words but the same confusion: "niederfränkisch" (only
linguists), means "from the Netherlands" whereas "unterfränkisch" means
"from Unterfranken", e.g. Würzburg.
--
Helmut Richter
Ruud Harmsen
Oct 1, 2019, 1:34:53 AM10/1/19
to
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:10:41 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>Phonemes are abstractions. One idiolect (at one time, in one social
>situation) has just one phonemic system. You could even look at Yuen-
>Ren Chao's "Coexistent Phonemic Systems" for explanations.
I don't need explanations. I know how it works. From first hand
experience. From Dutch.
>(It was
>such an important article that it was reprinted in Joos's *Readings
>in Linguistics* in 1957.) See also the whole Firthian approach to
>analysis. (J. R. Firth, detested at the University of London by
>Daniel Jones, who refused to allow linguistics and phonetics to
>be combined; to this day, at many British universities they are
>separate departments.)
>
>> Source: one Peter T. Daniels, in sci.lang.
>>
>> >Carleton Hodge (1970) named it the "linguistic cycle"
>> >with an example covering 3000 years of the history of Egyptian. A more
>> >familiar example is the vagaries of the future tenses in the history
>> >of the Romance languages.
>>
>> Yes.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 3:41:33 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:04:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> >I should have added that such seesawing is simply the "invisible hand"'s
>> >way of maintaining redundancy. There's always noise in the speech chain,
>> >so it was very clever of Evolution to see to it that when sound change
>> >erodes one bit of a language's resources, morphological innovation steps
>> >in to help out.
>>
>> That's impossible. Sound change cannot be gradual. Something is either
>> a phoneme or it is not. There cannot be anything in between.
>
>Please learn some sociolinguistics.
>
>The study of language change is now subsumed under the field of language
>variation.
So you didn't recognise my irony. What else is new.
>On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 3:41:33 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:04:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> >I should have added that such seesawing is simply the "invisible hand"'s
>> >way of maintaining redundancy. There's always noise in the speech chain,
>> >so it was very clever of Evolution to see to it that when sound change
>> >erodes one bit of a language's resources, morphological innovation steps
>> >in to help out.
>>
>> That's impossible. Sound change cannot be gradual. Something is either
>> a phoneme or it is not. There cannot be anything in between.
>
>Please learn some sociolinguistics.
>
>The study of language change is now subsumed under the field of language
>variation.
>Phonemes are abstractions. One idiolect (at one time, in one social
>situation) has just one phonemic system. You could even look at Yuen-
>Ren Chao's "Coexistent Phonemic Systems" for explanations.
experience. From Dutch.
>(It was
>such an important article that it was reprinted in Joos's *Readings
>in Linguistics* in 1957.) See also the whole Firthian approach to
>analysis. (J. R. Firth, detested at the University of London by
>Daniel Jones, who refused to allow linguistics and phonetics to
>be combined; to this day, at many British universities they are
>separate departments.)
>
>> Source: one Peter T. Daniels, in sci.lang.
>>
>> >Carleton Hodge (1970) named it the "linguistic cycle"
>> >with an example covering 3000 years of the history of Egyptian. A more
>> >familiar example is the vagaries of the future tenses in the history
>> >of the Romance languages.
>>
>> Yes.
Ruud Harmsen
Oct 1, 2019, 1:41:20 AM10/1/19
to
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 21:24:14 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<na...@mips.inka.de> scribeva:
>On 2019-09-30, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
>> Earliest attested Dutch (apart from that one sentence "Olla vogala
>> something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
>> the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
>> also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
>
>That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
OK, I stand corrected.
<na...@mips.inka.de> scribeva:
>On 2019-09-30, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
>> Earliest attested Dutch (apart from that one sentence "Olla vogala
>> something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
>> the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
>> also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
>
>That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
Ruud Harmsen
Oct 1, 2019, 1:44:25 AM10/1/19
to
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_High_German#Literacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrandslied (830)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muspilli (9th century too)
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrandslied (830)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muspilli (9th century too)
António Marques
Oct 1, 2019, 2:08:58 AM10/1/19
to
OHG is not German, it's an old language nobody understands. Spoken nowadays
only in the Swiss valleys.
Christian Weisgerber
Oct 1, 2019, 8:30:07 AM10/1/19
to
On 2019-09-30, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
>
> ? Oaths of Strasbourg, 842.
There are a number of earlier bits and pieces. Exact dating may
>> That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
>
> ? Oaths of Strasbourg, 842.
also be an issue.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althochdeutsche_Literatur#8._Jahrhundert
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 1, 2019, 10:32:08 AM10/1/19
to
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 8:30:07 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2019-09-30, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
> > ? Oaths of Strasbourg, 842.
>
> There are a number of earlier bits and pieces. Exact dating may
> also be an issue.
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althochdeutsche_Literatur#8._Jahrhundert
Do any of them exist in 8th-century copies? I checked the first one,
> On 2019-09-30, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
> > ? Oaths of Strasbourg, 842.
>
> There are a number of earlier bits and pieces. Exact dating may
> also be an issue.
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althochdeutsche_Literatur#8._Jahrhundert
and it says it doesn't (there are three later witnesses).
Ruud Harmsen
Oct 1, 2019, 11:39:45 AM10/1/19
to
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
Hence "Exact dating may be an issue".
Most old documents still only exists in later copies. Or translations.
The oldest Old Testament texts, supposedly originally in Hebrew and
Aramaic, are actually in Koine Greek: the Septuagint.
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
Most old documents still only exists in later copies. Or translations.
The oldest Old Testament texts, supposedly originally in Hebrew and
Aramaic, are actually in Koine Greek: the Septuagint.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 1, 2019, 12:15:04 PM10/1/19
to
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:39:45 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 1 Oct 2019 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 8:30:07 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> >> On 2019-09-30, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
[of course you deleted who it was that said the following:]
> Tue, 1 Oct 2019 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 8:30:07 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> >> On 2019-09-30, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
[it was Christian]
> >> >> That can't be. Old High German is attested from the 8th century.
> >> > ? Oaths of Strasbourg, 842.
> >> There are a number of earlier bits and pieces. Exact dating may
> >> also be an issue.
> >> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althochdeutsche_Literatur#8._Jahrhundert
> >
> >Do any of them exist in 8th-century copies? I checked the first one,
> >and it says it doesn't (there are three later witnesses).
>
> Hence "Exact dating may be an issue".
>
> Most old documents still only exists in later copies. Or translations.
> The oldest Old Testament texts, supposedly originally in Hebrew and
> Aramaic, are actually in Koine Greek: the Septuagint.
"Attested" means 'attested'. Homer is not attested from the 8th c. BCE!
> >> > ? Oaths of Strasbourg, 842.
> >> There are a number of earlier bits and pieces. Exact dating may
> >> also be an issue.
> >> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althochdeutsche_Literatur#8._Jahrhundert
> >
> >Do any of them exist in 8th-century copies? I checked the first one,
> >and it says it doesn't (there are three later witnesses).
>
> Hence "Exact dating may be an issue".
>
> Most old documents still only exists in later copies. Or translations.
> The oldest Old Testament texts, supposedly originally in Hebrew and
> Aramaic, are actually in Koine Greek: the Septuagint.
Christian Weisgerber
Oct 1, 2019, 2:30:08 PM10/1/19
to
On 2019-10-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Most old documents still only exists in later copies. Or translations.
>> The oldest Old Testament texts, supposedly originally in Hebrew and
>> Aramaic, are actually in Koine Greek: the Septuagint.
>
> "Attested" means 'attested'. Homer is not attested from the 8th c. BCE!
What _does_ "attested" actually mean?
>> Most old documents still only exists in later copies. Or translations.
>> The oldest Old Testament texts, supposedly originally in Hebrew and
>> Aramaic, are actually in Koine Greek: the Septuagint.
>
> "Attested" means 'attested'. Homer is not attested from the 8th c. BCE!
I note that you brought up the Oaths of Strasbourg from 842--but
the surviving copy dates from the 10th century.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 1, 2019, 5:05:41 PM10/1/19
to
"Attest" = "witness," and we are said to have, say, 633 "witnesses" of
the Greek text of the Fourth Gospel (totally made-up figure).
And only a single witness for the text of Beowulf, which is hundreds
of years later than its composition! But Beowulf isn't attested from the 9th century or whenever, only from the date of the ms., not an ideal
situation.
António Marques
Oct 1, 2019, 6:42:55 PM10/1/19
to
Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
> On 2019-10-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Most old documents still only exists in later copies. Or translations.
>>> The oldest Old Testament texts, supposedly originally in Hebrew and
>>> Aramaic, are actually in Koine Greek: the Septuagint.
>>
>> "Attested" means 'attested'. Homer is not attested from the 8th c. BCE!
>
> What _does_ "attested" actually mean?
I imagine it depends on context. If we're talking about things of which
> On 2019-10-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Most old documents still only exists in later copies. Or translations.
>>> The oldest Old Testament texts, supposedly originally in Hebrew and
>>> Aramaic, are actually in Koine Greek: the Septuagint.
>>
>> "Attested" means 'attested'. Homer is not attested from the 8th c. BCE!
>
> What _does_ "attested" actually mean?
there are actually physical copies around, it's the physical copies. If
those don't exist, then I suppose indirect evidence may qualify.
> I note that you brought up the Oaths of Strasbourg from 842--but
> the surviving copy dates from the 10th century.
their 842 date would be in conflict with the earliest German texts being
from the 8th century, regardless of the date of attestation.
marc verhaegen
Oct 2, 2019, 6:11:55 PM10/2/19
to
Op maandag 30 september 2019 21:23:35 UTC+2 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> >> An example he gives is the use of pronouns in conjugation:
> >> "Denk bijvoorbeeld aan de Franse grammaticale regel dat een
> >> werkwoordsvorm voorafgegaan moeten worden door een persoonlijk
> >> voornaamwoord, een regel die gedeeld wordt met het Nederlands (Frans je
> >> dis : Nederlands ik zeg tegenover Italiaans dico : Spaans digo)."
Sprachbund: bilingual?
> >> My first reaction was, the pronouns were necessary due to loss of
> >> markers in the verb form itself, due to general loss of final vowels
> >> (and consonants -s , -t, -z, -nt...).
> >> But on second thought there is the problem of chicken and egg: what came
> >> first:
> >> the loss of final markers, hence the need to maintain (bring back?)
> >> pronouns; or
> >> the tendency (foreign influence?) to use pronouns, hence loss of final
> >> markers...?
> >> Any data or ideas on that?
> >It isn't one or the other; language changes are gradual and simultaneous.
> >If there is adstratum influence, why specifically from "Dutch"?
Both Merovingians (from Doornik) & Karolingians (from Herstal & Herstappe) spoke different forms of "Dutch". The church spoke Latin, the rulers spoke Franconian (superstratum). They gave French even its name, Clovis gave also the French kings Louis their name (and Karol became "krol", the word for king in Slavonic languages). The Franconian rulers probably had an enormous on French & the Karolingians also on German, their linguistic influence might not have been much lower than that of the earlier conqueror of France (Gallia) Caesar ("keizer" in Dutch). That Wallonia (same word as Gallia AFAIK) & northern France today speak French is IMO due to influence of the bishops, esp. the archbishop of Liège (taalgrens).
> >Did that
> >language name have any referent in those days? (ISTR the earliest version
> >is called "Old Franconian." I could look up the dates of the evidence, but
> >I won't.)
> Earliest attested Dutch (apart from that one sentence "Olla vogala
> something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
> the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
> also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
> Veldeke was a native speaker of some Limburgian dialect, which at the
> time could not be clearly indentified as German or Dutch, because
> neither existed as a separate language. He sometimes wrote more
> Dutch-like, sometimes more German-like. Ruud Harmsen
Ruud, AFAIK, it's no longer believed that "olla vogala" is old Dutch, more likely an old English dialect.
Older are e.g. the "Wachtendonckse Psalmen" & "Utrechtse doopbelofte" (791-800), bv. "ec gelobo in got alamehtigan fadaer".
Still older is on the Gallehus horn (AD 400 or so, the Francs came from the north): "ek hleuagastiR holtijaR horna tauido" (tooide).
> Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:27:07 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> >> In another ng (about politics, of all topics) I saw referenced an
> >> article stating influence of Limburgish Dutch on French sound structure
> >> and grammar.
> >> It's from Dutch philologist Peter Alexander Kerkhof, see eg:
> >> https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/09/welke-taal-sprak-karel-de-grote-en-doet-dat-er-toe/
Yes, it matters IMO.
> >> In another ng (about politics, of all topics) I saw referenced an
> >> article stating influence of Limburgish Dutch on French sound structure
> >> and grammar.
> >> It's from Dutch philologist Peter Alexander Kerkhof, see eg:
> >> https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/09/welke-taal-sprak-karel-de-grote-en-doet-dat-er-toe/
> >> An example he gives is the use of pronouns in conjugation:
> >> "Denk bijvoorbeeld aan de Franse grammaticale regel dat een
> >> werkwoordsvorm voorafgegaan moeten worden door een persoonlijk
> >> voornaamwoord, een regel die gedeeld wordt met het Nederlands (Frans je
> >> dis : Nederlands ik zeg tegenover Italiaans dico : Spaans digo)."
> >> My first reaction was, the pronouns were necessary due to loss of
> >> markers in the verb form itself, due to general loss of final vowels
> >> (and consonants -s , -t, -z, -nt...).
> >> But on second thought there is the problem of chicken and egg: what came
> >> first:
> >> the loss of final markers, hence the need to maintain (bring back?)
> >> pronouns; or
> >> the tendency (foreign influence?) to use pronouns, hence loss of final
> >> markers...?
> >> Any data or ideas on that?
> >It isn't one or the other; language changes are gradual and simultaneous.
> >If there is adstratum influence, why specifically from "Dutch"?
> >Did that
> >language name have any referent in those days? (ISTR the earliest version
> >is called "Old Franconian." I could look up the dates of the evidence, but
> >I won't.)
> Earliest attested Dutch (apart from that one sentence "Olla vogala
> something") is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_van_Veldeke in
> the 12th century, long after "Karel de Grote" (Charlemagne). It is
> also seen as the oldest attested German, because in fact this Van
> Veldeke was a native speaker of some Limburgian dialect, which at the
> time could not be clearly indentified as German or Dutch, because
> neither existed as a separate language. He sometimes wrote more
Ruud, AFAIK, it's no longer believed that "olla vogala" is old Dutch, more likely an old English dialect.
Older are e.g. the "Wachtendonckse Psalmen" & "Utrechtse doopbelofte" (791-800), bv. "ec gelobo in got alamehtigan fadaer".
Still older is on the Gallehus horn (AD 400 or so, the Francs came from the north): "ek hleuagastiR holtijaR horna tauido" (tooide).
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 5, 2019, 5:32:35 PM10/5/19
to
Arnaud Fournet
Oct 7, 2019, 4:57:14 AM10/7/19
to
Which Slavic language accounts for vowel a in *kral*?
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 7, 2019, 6:30:34 AM10/7/19
to
Christian Weisgerber
Oct 7, 2019, 7:30:07 AM10/7/19
to
On 2019-10-07, Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> kral "king" has entered Turkish through Slavic.
>
> Really?
> Which Slavic language accounts for vowel a in *kral*?
South Slavic.
>> kral "king" has entered Turkish through Slavic.
>
> Really?
> Which Slavic language accounts for vowel a in *kral*?
Slovene kralj, Serbo-Croatian kralj, Bulgarian kral.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 7, 2019, 7:33:32 AM10/7/19
to
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:30:07 PM UTC+3, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2019-10-07, Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >> kral "king" has entered Turkish through Slavic.
> >
> > Really?
> > Which Slavic language accounts for vowel a in *kral*?
>
> South Slavic.
> Slovene kralj, Serbo-Croatian kralj, Bulgarian kral.
And Czech: král, Slovak: král'.
> On 2019-10-07, Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >> kral "king" has entered Turkish through Slavic.
> >
> > Really?
> > Which Slavic language accounts for vowel a in *kral*?
>
> South Slavic.
> Slovene kralj, Serbo-Croatian kralj, Bulgarian kral.
Christian Weisgerber
Oct 7, 2019, 10:30:07 AM10/7/19
to
On 2019-10-07, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski <craoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> kral "king" has entered Turkish through Slavic.
>> >
>> >> kral "king" has entered Turkish through Slavic.
>> >
>> > Which Slavic language accounts for vowel a in *kral*?
>>
>> South Slavic.
>> Slovene kralj, Serbo-Croatian kralj, Bulgarian kral.
>
> And Czech: král, Slovak: král'.
I was in effect quoting the Wiktionary entry on Turkish "kral".
>>
>> South Slavic.
>> Slovene kralj, Serbo-Croatian kralj, Bulgarian kral.
>
> And Czech: král, Slovak: král'.
This here is quite interesting:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/kor%C4%BE%D1%8C
Arnaud Fournet
Oct 7, 2019, 1:46:17 PM10/7/19
to
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 7, 2019, 2:41:22 PM10/7/19
to
António Marques
Oct 7, 2019, 3:16:19 PM10/7/19
to
missing? It's not for nothing that they say it's very well known.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 8, 2019, 3:16:17 AM10/8/19
to
marc verhaegen
Oct 8, 2019, 4:55:01 PM10/8/19
to
Op dinsdag 8 oktober 2019 09:16:17 UTC+2 schreef Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski:
> Karl > korol', král', kralj, król is commonly used in introductions to Slavic, because it is such a handy and easily memorized way to teach both metathesis and pleophony.
It didn't start from "Karl", but from "Karol"?
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:16:19 PM UTC+3, António Marques wrote:
> > Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski <craoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:46:17 PM UTC+3, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > >> Le lundi 7 octobre 2019 16:30:07 UTC+2, Christian Weisgerber a écrit :
> > >>> On 2019-10-07, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski <craoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>> kral "king" has entered Turkish through Slavic.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Which Slavic language accounts for vowel a in *kral*?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> South Slavic.
> > >>>>> Slovene kralj, Serbo-Croatian kralj, Bulgarian kral.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And Czech: král, Slovak: král'.
> > >>>
> > >>> I was in effect quoting the Wiktionary entry on Turkish "kral".
> > >>>
> > >>> This here is quite interesting:
> > >>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/kor%C4%BE%D1%8C
...
> > Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski <craoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:46:17 PM UTC+3, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > >> Le lundi 7 octobre 2019 16:30:07 UTC+2, Christian Weisgerber a écrit :
> > >>> On 2019-10-07, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski <craoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>> kral "king" has entered Turkish through Slavic.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Which Slavic language accounts for vowel a in *kral*?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> South Slavic.
> > >>>>> Slovene kralj, Serbo-Croatian kralj, Bulgarian kral.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And Czech: král, Slovak: král'.
> > >>>
> > >>> I was in effect quoting the Wiktionary entry on Turkish "kral".
> > >>>
> > >>> This here is quite interesting:
> > >>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/kor%C4%BE%D1%8C
> Karl > korol', král', kralj, król is commonly used in introductions to Slavic, because it is such a handy and easily memorized way to teach both metathesis and pleophony.
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 8, 2019, 8:43:06 PM10/8/19
to
Franz Gnaedinger
Oct 9, 2019, 3:19:32 AM10/9/19
to
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:10:43 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> Phonemes are abstractions.
Even more, a useful construction of the brain. The same sound file is heard
as yanny by some people, as laurel (pronounced lorel) by other people.
Yanny and laurel (lorel) have not one single phoneme in common, they are
produced by the mind and projected into the sound file.
>
> Phonemes are abstractions.
Even more, a useful construction of the brain. The same sound file is heard
as yanny by some people, as laurel (pronounced lorel) by other people.
Yanny and laurel (lorel) have not one single phoneme in common, they are
produced by the mind and projected into the sound file.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 9, 2019, 3:52:39 AM10/9/19
to
- Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.
- The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
- Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
- Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
- You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
- On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
- Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
- On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.
- To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.
- The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
- Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
- Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.
- You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
- On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
- Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
- On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.
- To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 9, 2019, 3:52:57 AM10/9/19
to
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 9, 2019, 9:36:07 AM10/9/19
to
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:19:32 AM UTC-4, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:10:43 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Phonemes are abstractions.
>
> Even more, a useful construction of the brain.
That's what "abstraction" means.
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:10:43 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Phonemes are abstractions.
>
> Even more, a useful construction of the brain.
Franz Gnaedinger
Oct 10, 2019, 3:29:04 AM10/10/19
to
but both concepts are to some extent overlapping.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 10, 2019, 2:57:47 PM10/10/19
to
Franz Gnaedinger
Oct 11, 2019, 3:40:43 AM10/11/19
to
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 8:57:47 PM UTC+2, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
> - To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.
Poor soul, doesn't even understand what meta-arguments are. His manifest of
> - To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.
a barren mind, endlessly repeated, consists of meta-arguments. He speaks of
the scientific method, but when asked what it is he could not give an answer.
In his opinion, the scientific method is what can be found in textbooks,
and his objections boil down to ever the same meta-argument: I know the truth
form textbooks, your opinion deviates from them, ergo you are wrong a priori.
Arnaud Fournet
Oct 11, 2019, 6:20:48 AM10/11/19
to
If you had ever tried to read something on the field, you would know that there's sharp or minor disagreement among Indo-Europeanists on plenty of issues.
The issue with your magdagaggi is not about "deviating", you have no method, and your approach is Pre-Cratylic garbage. Even the Cratylus discussion makes more linguistic and modern sense than your fancies and never-ending rubberstamping of the same crap.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 11, 2019, 8:22:29 AM10/11/19
to
1) Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.
2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
3) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
4) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.
5) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
6) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
7) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
8) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
2) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
3) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
4) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.
5) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
6) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
7) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
8) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.
9) To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.
Daud Deden
Oct 11, 2019, 2:51:23 PM10/11/19
to
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 11, 2019, 4:02:05 PM10/11/19
to
Christian Weisgerber
Oct 11, 2019, 5:30:07 PM10/11/19
to
On 2019-10-11, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
> A historical fiction novel by Bernard Cornwell refers to king as Jarl@Danish during the Danelaw period of Britain.
Old Norse "jarl" is cognate with English "earl" and translates as
> A historical fiction novel by Bernard Cornwell refers to king as Jarl@Danish during the Danelaw period of Britain.
something like 'nobleman'. It's a rank below king. It's safe to
assume that Cornwell knows this, so I assume you are misreporting
his usage.
Daud Deden
Oct 11, 2019, 5:57:27 PM10/11/19
to
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 5:30:07 PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2019-10-11, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A historical fiction novel by Bernard Cornwell refers to king as Jarl@Danish during the Danelaw period of Britain.
>
> Old Norse "jarl" is cognate with English "earl" and translates as
> something like 'nobleman'.
Thanks, I stand corrected.
> On 2019-10-11, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A historical fiction novel by Bernard Cornwell refers to king as Jarl@Danish during the Danelaw period of Britain.
>
> Old Norse "jarl" is cognate with English "earl" and translates as
> something like 'nobleman'.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 11, 2019, 6:56:38 PM10/11/19
to
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 12:30:07 AM UTC+3, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2019-10-11, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A historical fiction novel by Bernard Cornwell refers to king as Jarl@Danish during the Danelaw period of Britain.
>
> Old Norse "jarl" is cognate with English "earl" and translates as
> something like 'nobleman'. It's a rank below king. It's safe to
> assume that Cornwell knows this, so I assume you are misreporting
> his usage.
In Finnish, we obviously use "jaarli", a Swedish loanword, to refer to "jarlar" in Swedish history. We also translate English "earl" into Finnish as "jaarli", so that "Earl of Westmoreland" is "Westmorelandin jaarli" in Finnish, for instance.
> On 2019-10-11, Daud Deden <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A historical fiction novel by Bernard Cornwell refers to king as Jarl@Danish during the Danelaw period of Britain.
>
> Old Norse "jarl" is cognate with English "earl" and translates as
> something like 'nobleman'. It's a rank below king. It's safe to
> assume that Cornwell knows this, so I assume you are misreporting
> his usage.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Oct 12, 2019, 1:27:05 AM10/12/19
to
interested us?
--
athel
Franz Gnaedinger
Oct 12, 2019, 4:07:40 AM10/12/19
to
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:20:48 PM UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> If you had ever tried to read something on the field, you would know that there's sharp or minor disagreement among Indo-Europeanists on plenty of issues.
> The issue with your magdagaggi is not about "deviating", you have no method, and your approach is Pre-Cratylic garbage. Even the Cratylus discussion makes more linguistic and modern sense than your fancies and never-ending rubberstamping of the same crap.
My first longtime online stalker Jean Faucounau alias grapheus (2001 - 2005),
>
> If you had ever tried to read something on the field, you would know that there's sharp or minor disagreement among Indo-Europeanists on plenty of issues.
> The issue with your magdagaggi is not about "deviating", you have no method, and your approach is Pre-Cratylic garbage. Even the Cratylus discussion makes more linguistic and modern sense than your fancies and never-ending rubberstamping of the same crap.
Frenchman and Phaistos Disc decipherer, locating the language of the disc
in southwestern Anatolia, angry about my support for Derk Ohlenroth, has an
earie wiedergänger in Arnaud Fournet alias yangg (2010 - 2014), Frenchman and
Phaistos Disc decipherer, locating the language of the disc in southeastern
Anatolia, and while J. Fau. SHOUTED half of the time, A. Fou operates with
coprolalia and scatology for the other half of time. He can't go for any
of my testcases, nor can he provide evidence that the so-called roots are
actual roots, while I say that many of them go back to compounds of an older
language. Also he can only operate with meta-arguments; makes also him feel
omnipotent while also he is the contrary, imp-as-otent-can-be.
Ruud Harmsen
Oct 12, 2019, 5:14:01 AM10/12/19
to
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:02:03 -0700 (PDT): M?cis?aw Wojna-Bojewski
<craoi...@gmail.com> scribeva:
message. It's a free world! (For most.)
<craoi...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>How exactly should this interest us?
If it doesn't, don't follow the thread or, more in detail, skip the
message. It's a free world! (For most.)
Arnaud Fournet
Oct 12, 2019, 5:53:25 AM10/12/19
to
Le samedi 12 octobre 2019 10:07:40 UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger a écrit :
> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:20:48 PM UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> >
> > If you had ever tried to read something on the field, you would know that there's sharp or minor disagreement among Indo-Europeanists on plenty of issues.
> > The issue with your magdagaggi is not about "deviating", you have no method, and your approach is Pre-Cratylic garbage. Even the Cratylus discussion makes more linguistic and modern sense than your fancies and never-ending rubberstamping of the same crap.
>
> My first longtime online stalker Jean Faucounau alias grapheus (2001 - 2005),
> Frenchman and Phaistos Disc decipherer, locating the language of the disc
> in southwestern Anatolia, angry about my support for Derk Ohlenroth, has an
> earie wiedergänger in Arnaud Fournet alias yangg (2010 - 2014), Frenchman and
> Phaistos Disc decipherer, locating the language of the disc in southeastern
> Anatolia, and while J. Fau. SHOUTED half of the time, A. Fou operates with
> coprolalia and scatology for the other half of time. He can't go for any
> of my testcases, nor can he provide evidence that the so-called roots are
> actual roots,
These roots are roots, because it's what roots are.
> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:20:48 PM UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> >
> > If you had ever tried to read something on the field, you would know that there's sharp or minor disagreement among Indo-Europeanists on plenty of issues.
> > The issue with your magdagaggi is not about "deviating", you have no method, and your approach is Pre-Cratylic garbage. Even the Cratylus discussion makes more linguistic and modern sense than your fancies and never-ending rubberstamping of the same crap.
>
> My first longtime online stalker Jean Faucounau alias grapheus (2001 - 2005),
> Frenchman and Phaistos Disc decipherer, locating the language of the disc
> in southwestern Anatolia, angry about my support for Derk Ohlenroth, has an
> earie wiedergänger in Arnaud Fournet alias yangg (2010 - 2014), Frenchman and
> Phaistos Disc decipherer, locating the language of the disc in southeastern
> Anatolia, and while J. Fau. SHOUTED half of the time, A. Fou operates with
> coprolalia and scatology for the other half of time. He can't go for any
> of my testcases, nor can he provide evidence that the so-called roots are
> actual roots,
Just like stars are stars, because it's what stars are.
Same with cats, dogs, etc.
> while I say that many of them go back to compounds of an older
> language.
but you have not provided the slimmest shred of evidence that your "theory" makes any sense.
> Also he can only operate with meta-arguments; makes also him feel
> omnipotent while also he is the contrary, imp-as-otent-can-be.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 12, 2019, 8:57:04 AM10/12/19
to
i) Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.
ii) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
iii) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
iv) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.
v) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
vi) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
vii) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
viii) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
ii) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
iii) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
iv) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.
v) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
vi) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
vii) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
viii) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.
ix) To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.
Franz Gnaedinger
Oct 14, 2019, 3:03:40 AM10/14/19
to
> My first longtime online stalker Jean Faucounau alias grapheus (2001 - 2005),
> Frenchman and Phaistos Disc decipherer, locating the language of the disc
> in southwestern Anatolia, angry about my support for Derk Ohlenroth, has an
> earie wiedergänger in Arnaud Fournet alias yangg (2010 - 2014), Frenchman and
> Phaistos Disc decipherer, locating the language of the disc in southeastern
> Anatolia, and while J. Fau. SHOUTED half of the time, A. Fou operates with
> coprolalia and scatology for the other half of time. He can't go for any
> of my testcases, nor can he provide evidence that the so-called roots are
> actual roots, while I say that many of them go back to compounds of an older
> language. Also he can only operate with meta-arguments; makes also him feel
> omnipotent while also he is the contrary, imp-as-otent-can-be.
algebra in the strong form. He can't even defend the concept of 'roots'
against my hypothesis that many names and words and so-called roots go back
to compounds of an earlier language. A crass case is *worsmno- ouranos vs
AAR RAA NOS Ouranos Varuna derived from the big limestone ring on the Goebekli
Tepe. Stereotyped SHOUTING didn't help J. Fau. Stereotyped scatalogy doesn't
help A. Fou. Endlessly repeating the same barren meta-arguments doesn't help
Dinopanu. Those are my three stalkers who followed me around for 23 years
within a time span of 19 years. Young reader, if you got an idea and wish
to know whether it is new and promising: turn around and look whether you
are followed by a yapper snapper.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 14, 2019, 4:04:58 AM10/14/19
to
i) Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.
ii) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
iii) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
iv) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.
v) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
ii) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
iii) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
iv) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.
vi) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
vii) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
viii) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.
ix) To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Oct 14, 2019, 4:06:49 AM10/14/19
to
Bzörp) Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.
Znört) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
Örghez) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
Vömpöm) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.
Zürgqä) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
Mgölpzä) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
Örntzärp) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
Röqöqöm) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
Znört) The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.
Örghez) Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.
Vömpöm) Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.
Zürgqä) You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.
Mgölpzä) On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".
Örntzärp) Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.
Röqöqöm) On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.
Mbtörvöz) To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.
0 new messages