Etymology of Assyrian
Marco Maier Said
from the word Aryan.However,searching with google,it seems that it derives
from Asshur.What is the real meaning of Assyrian?
Thanks
--
Marco
Peter T. Daniels
It sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with "Aryan."
Asshur was the native name of the land we call, after the Greeks,
Assyria.
The real puzzle is the origin of the Greek name "Syria," which has
nothing to do with any native designations for the land of Aram.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
grapheus
This puzzle has been explained in the frame of the "Proto-Ionian
Theory" developped by J. Faucounau (See his book in French "Les
Proto-Ioniens...").
The Greek name "Syria" is of Proto-Ionic origin. The root is a
seaman's word *tver- : "to pull with a rope" (see Lit. tveriů, French
"tirer", English "trail", etc.), which has given in Proto-Ionic Greek
"seirę" : "rope", "surô" : "to drag, to pull with a rope", etc.
The Proper Name "Syros" means : "the country where the coastal stream
is dragging the ships".
It is significant that "Syria" bears also the name of "Syrtis" , a
word having the same meaning and coming from the same Greek root.
Similar Proto-Ionic Proper Names (Syros, Syrtis, Syria) can be found
in the other areas known by the Proto-Ionians from the Cycladic
Islands up to Cyrenaica.
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
That conclusively demonstrates that the relevant portion of the "Theory"
is b.s. -- because of the millennium or so intervening between
"Proto-Ionic" times and the earliest attestations of the name "Syria."
(There's no "coastal stream" in Aram, either.)
Marcus Claudius Marcellus
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.04030...@posting.google.com...
Here we go again...*sigh*
M. Claudius Marcellus
Miguel Carrasquer
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Asshur was the native name of the land we call, after the Greeks,
>Assyria.
>
>The real puzzle is the origin of the Greek name "Syria," which has
>nothing to do with any native designations for the land of Aram.
It was part of the Assyrian Empire, the nearest part of it
as far as the Greeks were concerned, so I've always assumed
Syria is from Assyria.
What's the etymology of Sha:m?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
m...@wxs.nl
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:16:15 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Asshur was the native name of the land we call, after the Greeks,
> >Assyria.
> >
> >The real puzzle is the origin of the Greek name "Syria," which has
> >nothing to do with any native designations for the land of Aram.
>
> It was part of the Assyrian Empire, the nearest part of it
> as far as the Greeks were concerned, so I've always assumed
> Syria is from Assyria.
>
> What's the etymology of Sha:m?
What language?
grapheus
Absence of WRITTEN attestation of a P.N. in a world practically
ignoring the script (I mean the Proto-Ionian world, of which we have
only one legible written document, the Phaistos Disk) does'n't mean
that this P.N. did'n't exist. Absence of proof has never been proof
of absence !..
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
Southwest Asia from Levant to Elam (not to mention Egypt and Anatolia)
was teeming with writing, and the name for the area was Aram or Aram
Naharaim, never any form of "Syria."
Marco Maier Said
<news:0ha740ppelb61v9po...@4ax.com> :
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:16:15 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Asshur was the native name of the land we call, after the Greeks,
>>Assyria.
>>
>>The real puzzle is the origin of the Greek name "Syria," which has
>>nothing to do with any native designations for the land of Aram.
>
> It was part of the Assyrian Empire, the nearest part of it
> as far as the Greeks were concerned, so I've always assumed
> Syria is from Assyria.
I've found this link,I don't know if it is credible:
http://members.home.nl/midyad/articles/jmsynonyms.htm
--
Marco
Miguel Carrasquer
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>
>> What's the etymology of Sha:m?
>
>What language?
Arabic. Ash-Sha:m = Syria.
Wehr, which I might have checked before asking, defines it
as "the Northern region" (s^a?m or s^a:m), from a root
s^-?-m "ill-omen(ed), inauspicious, sinister". Certainly
not a local name, then.
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:57:18 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
: <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
:>>
:>> What's the etymology of Sha:m?
:>
:>What language?
: Arabic. Ash-Sha:m = Syria.
: Wehr, which I might have checked before asking, defines it
: as "the Northern region" (s^a?m or s^a:m), from a root
: s^-?-m "ill-omen(ed), inauspicious, sinister". Certainly
: not a local name, then.
$ = *sh*
which is frequently associated with "left" (NB "sinister").
there is also $ima:l / $ama:l = left / north (usually there is enough
confusion that both forms may be said to refer to any o fthe two
meanings). when you look at towards the East, the North is on your left).
bilteral theorists connect the two words. (yasa:r refers unambigously to
"left")
also yami:n "right" and associated with "good' luck" (yumn)
hence al-yaman "Yemen" (i.e. "Southern Region")
Yusuf B Gursey
: Arabic. Ash-Sha:m = Syria.
when used, usually, "Greater Syria" (bila:du~$-$a:m, roughly where
"Levantine Arabic" is spoken) or historical Syria. also a popular name of
Damascus, which is supoosed to be at least historicaly dima$qu~$-$a:m
su:riya(t) is more a christian arabic (IIRC found int he arabic NT) and
modern usage. the original ottoman province of Damascus was truncated and
renamed su^riye (turkish) / su:riya(t) jsut before the opening of the
ottoman assembly, while still under ottoman rule. I don't know the reason
for renaming. role of arab christians in the reform movement?
grapheus
Right !.. So what ?..
I explained you that "Syria" is the name given by the PROTO-IONIAN
GREEKS to the "Aram" country!.. And I mention "the written documents
from the Proto-Ionian World" !..
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
The article makes some valid points about what implications
should not be drawn from an etymology Syria < Assyria. The
etymology itself is not contested. The author even calls it
plausible (within a *Greek* context, not an Aramaic one),
although he points out that there are other (unfortunately
unspecified) possibilities.
What is the gist of John A. Tvedtnes, "The origin of the
Name ‘Syria’", in JNES (1981), Vol. 40, 139-140.?
Harlan Messinger
If the Hungarian language died out today, do you think that 1,000
years from now people would spontaneously start calling the area that
we know in English as Hungary, "Magyarorsag"?
>And I mention "the written documents
>from the Proto-Ionian World" !..
>
>grapheus
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
grapheus
This paper is not bad, but its author deals more with ethnicity than
with the problem of the etymological origin of the PN "Syria".
Concerning this last problem, as he did'n't know the Proto-Ionian
Theory, he was just able to honestly say : "The exact reason why they
(= the Greeks) called them (= the Arameans) "Syrians" and why the term
Syrian was in first place called into life, remains obscure to me"...
As I already wrote, the enigma could'n't be solved before the
Proto-Ionian Theory was established. They are many enigmas of this
kind which have been solved by this theory. One may find a few of them
in the J.Faucounau's book (alas only in French for the time being!) :
"Les Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un peuple oublié".
grapheus
grapheus
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:16:15 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Asshur was the native name of the land we call, after the Greeks,
> >Assyria.
> >
> >The real puzzle is the origin of the Greek name "Syria," which has
> >nothing to do with any native designations for the land of Aram.
>
> It was part of the Assyrian Empire, the nearest part of it
> as far as the Greeks were concerned, so I've always assumed
> Syria is from Assyria.
This was the naïve assumption made by many scholars since Herodotos
(7,63).
But it's obviously just "Kling-Klang etymology". The true solution to
the enigma has been brought in by the Proto-Ionian Theory...
grapheus
Yusuf B Gursey
: In sci.lang Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in <mel7409j9d3fmdae2...@4ax.com>:
: : Arabic. Ash-Sha:m = Syria.
: when used, usually, "Greater Syria" (bila:du~$-$a:m, roughly where
: "Levantine Arabic" is spoken) or historical Syria. also a popular name of
a little more extensive than the dialect.
: Damascus, which is supoosed to be at least historicaly dima$qu~$-$a:m
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> I've found this link,I don't know if it is credible:
> http://members.home.nl/midyad/articles/jmsynonyms.htm
the link to Frye's article doesn't work.
it is at:
grapheus
What connexion with what I wrote ?.. Where is the "dead language" in
this case ?????...
grapheus
Yusuf B Gursey
:>I've found this link,I don't know if it is credible:
:>http://members.home.nl/midyad/articles/jmsynonyms.htm
: The article makes some valid points about what implications
: should not be drawn from an etymology Syria < Assyria. The
: etymology itself is not contested. The author even calls it
: plausible (within a *Greek* context, not an Aramaic one),
: although he points out that there are other (unfortunately
: unspecified) possibilities.
: What is the gist of John A. Tvedtnes, "The origin of the
: Name ‘Syria’", in JNES (1981), Vol. 40, 139-140.?
that "Syria" comes from Hurrian (Xur- ) via a sound change (x- > *sh*-)in
Egyptian, which occured for this word in coptic.
Peter T. Daniels
> > If the Hungarian language died out today, do you think that 1,000
> > years from now people would spontaneously start calling the area that
> > we know in English as Hungary, "Magyarorsag"?
> >
>
> What connexion with what I wrote ?.. Where is the "dead language" in
> this case ?????...
Look at Harlan's first line.
Harlan Messinger
A word that you claim comes from Proto-Ionic would, if there really
were a connection, have had to have disappeared for the 1,000 years
during which the word wasn't attested, and then spontaneously
reappeared among people who wouldn't have had any way to know of its
existence in the first place, since it had been unused for 1,000
years. What part of the comparison don't you understand?
grapheus
All of it, because it is wrong !.. There is NO "dead language" in
the case. 1)- There is a Proto-Ionic language, attested c. 1800 BC, to
which the word "Syria" can be attributed, even if it's not attested in
the only legible document in Proto-Ionic that we have at our disposal.
Why can it be attributed to Proto-Ionic ?.. Answer : For STRONG
linguistical and archaeological motives... 2)-The word "Syria" is
attested a few centuries later. By whom ?.. By the descendents of the
Proto-Ionians!.. It's obvious, therefore, that the hypothesis of this
P.N. being created by the Proto-Ionians is a very "reasonable" one,
and that, of course, the P.N. has never "been unused for 1,000 years",
as you wrote, but has been USED, from 1800 BC on, by the Proto-Ionians
and their descendents !....
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
> > A word that you claim comes from Proto-Ionic would, if there really
> > were a connection, have had to have disappeared for the 1,000 years
> > during which the word wasn't attested, and then spontaneously
> > reappeared among people who wouldn't have had any way to know of its
> > existence in the first place, since it had been unused for 1,000
> > years. What part of the comparison don't you understand?
>
> All of it, because it is wrong !.. There is NO "dead language" in
> the case. 1)- There is a Proto-Ionic language, attested c. 1800 BC, to
> which the word "Syria" can be attributed, even if it's not attested in
> the only legible document in Proto-Ionic that we have at our disposal.
> Why can it be attributed to Proto-Ionic ?.. Answer : For STRONG
> linguistical and archaeological motives...
Oh, goody, another insistence that "a solution exists," but no hint of
what those "motives" might be.
2)-The word "Syria" is
> attested a few centuries later. By whom ?.. By the descendents of the
> Proto-Ionians!..
Please give a citation for the word "a few centuries later" than ca.
1800 B.C.
Larry Trask
> This puzzle has been explained in the frame of the "Proto-Ionian
> Theory" developped by J. Faucounau (See his book in French "Les
> Proto-Ioniens...").
> The Greek name "Syria" is of Proto-Ionic origin. The root is a
> seaman's word *tver- : "to pull with a rope" (see Lit. tveriů, French
> "tirer", English "trail", etc.), which has given in Proto-Ionic Greek
> "seirę" : "rope", "surô" : "to drag, to pull with a rope", etc.
> The Proper Name "Syros" means : "the country where the coastal stream
> is dragging the ships".
> It is significant that "Syria" bears also the name of "Syrtis" , a
> word having the same meaning and coming from the same Greek root.
> Similar Proto-Ionic Proper Names (Syros, Syrtis, Syria) can be found
> in the other areas known by the Proto-Ionians from the Cycladic
> Islands up to Cyrenaica.
Quis nimis probat, nihil probat.
It is a conspicuous feature of crackpot views that they "explain" *everything*.
Larry Trask
lar...@sussex.ac.uk
Harlan Messinger
>Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<7vka40lmfgdkj21ds...@4ax.com>...
>> grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
>>
>> >Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<anu8405j0e9k9e3nt...@4ax.com>...
>> >> If the Hungarian language died out today, do you think that 1,000
>> >> years from now people would spontaneously start calling the area that
>> >> we know in English as Hungary, "Magyarorsag"?
>> >>
>> >
>> >What connexion with what I wrote ?.. Where is the "dead language" in
>> >this case ?????...
>>
>> A word that you claim comes from Proto-Ionic would, if there really
>> were a connection, have had to have disappeared for the 1,000 years
>> during which the word wasn't attested, and then spontaneously
>> reappeared among people who wouldn't have had any way to know of its
>> existence in the first place, since it had been unused for 1,000
>> years. What part of the comparison don't you understand?
>
>All of it, because it is wrong !.. There is NO "dead language" in
>the case. 1)- There is a Proto-Ionic language, attested c. 1800 BC, to
>which the word "Syria" can be attributed, even if it's not attested in
>the only legible document in Proto-Ionic that we have at our disposal.
>Why can it be attributed to Proto-Ionic ?.. Answer : For STRONG
>linguistical and archaeological motives...
Assuming Peter is correct when he said the word isn't attested
anywhere for 1,000 years, and assuming you're correct when you say
that the word isn't attested *in* the Proto-Ionic corpus that we have
from the beginning of those 1,000 years, then what are these "strong
linguistical and archaeological motives" for attributing "Syria" to
Proto-Ionic. That's like saying the word "grok" (invented by Robert
Heinlein) isn't attested either in Proto-Ionic or in any language of
the region in which it was spoken for 1,000 years afterwards, yet you
have strong evidence that "grok" existed in Proto-Ionic.
By the way, if Proto-Ionic isn't a dead language, I'd like to know
where in the world its active speakers are living.
>2)-The word "Syria" is
>attested a few centuries later. By whom ?.. By the descendents of the
>Proto-Ionians!..
The word "grok" is attested in modern English. Does that mean it was
known to speakers of Old English?
>It's obvious, therefore, that the hypothesis of this
>P.N. being created by the Proto-Ionians is a very "reasonable" one,
>and that, of course, the P.N. has never "been unused for 1,000 years",
>as you wrote, but has been USED, from 1800 BC on, by the Proto-Ionians
>and their descendents !....
grapheus
I've already mentioned them, but people like Peter and you cannot
read me without special distorting glasses !...
I repeat that 1)- the word "Syria" was clearly, at the beginning,
the name given BY THE GREEKS to a country called "Aram" by other
peoples. 2)- the word "Syria" cannot be a distorsion by the Greeks
of the P.N. "Assyria", for several reasons, one of them being that
this P.N. belongs to a whole FAMILY like "Syros", "Syrtos", etc. used
by the Ancient Greeks to designate different places. 3)- ALL the
names from this FAMILY have a PERFECT Indoeuropean etymology. As I
wrote, they are coming from the IE root *tver- : "to pull with a
rope". There are therefore STRONG LINGUISTICAL MOTIVES to attribute
this P.N. to the first GREEKS who visited the Syrian coast.
4)- There are, on the other hand, STRONG ARCHAEOLOGICAL MOTIVES that
these "first Greeks to visit the Syrian coast" were the
"Proto-Ionians" (See for instance the Umm-el-Marra findings, and what
J.Faucounau has written in the Chapter 6 of his book "Les
Proto-Ioniens...") 5)- Attributing the invention of the Proper Name
"Syria" to the Proto-Ionians is all the more plausible as the Greek
words coming from the IE root *tver- have ALL the required
CHARACTHERISTICS for being "Proto-Ionic words" . (But I cannot, of
course, fully develop here this linguistical argument, mainly in
front of listeners who, like Peter, you and others, have NEVER READ A
LINE of J.Faucounau's books and papers. How could they understand the
"Homeric argument", for instance ?.. They have NO IDEA of what it
could be !.. )
>That's like saying the word "grok" (invented by Robert
> Heinlein) isn't attested either in Proto-Ionic or in any language of
> the region in which it was spoken for 1,000 years afterwards, yet you
> have strong evidence that "grok" existed in Proto-Ionic.
Please, stop these stupid and MEANINGLESS comparisons !...
>
> By the way, if Proto-Ionic isn't a dead language, I'd like to know
> where in the world its active speakers are living.
This STUPID QUESTION shows that you DON'T KNOW A SINGLE WORD of the
"Proto-Ionian Theory"!.. One cannot pretend to SERIOUSLY discuss
about a theory, if he has NOT MADE THE EFFORT of being aware of it
!... Read at the minimum a few books and papers, and come back if you
still have some questions !... I really HATE to discuss with
IGNARROGANTS !..
grapheus
Harlan Messinger
>
> I've already mentioned them, but people like Peter and you cannot
>read me without special distorting glasses !...
> I repeat that 1)- the word "Syria" was clearly, at the beginning,
>the name given BY THE GREEKS to a country called "Aram" by other
>peoples. 2)- the word "Syria" cannot be a distorsion by the Greeks
>of the P.N. "Assyria", for several reasons, one of them being that
>this P.N. belongs to a whole FAMILY like "Syros", "Syrtos", etc. used
>by the Ancient Greeks to designate different places. 3)- ALL the
>names from this FAMILY have a PERFECT Indoeuropean etymology. As I
>wrote, they are coming from the IE root *tver- : "to pull with a
>rope". There are therefore STRONG LINGUISTICAL MOTIVES to attribute
>this P.N. to the first GREEKS who visited the Syrian coast.
2 and 3 are hypotheses. Hypotheses are not evidence for other
hypotheses. Are you familiar with the term "begging the question"?
>4)- There are, on the other hand, STRONG ARCHAEOLOGICAL MOTIVES that
>these "first Greeks to visit the Syrian coast" were the
>"Proto-Ionians" (See for instance the Umm-el-Marra findings, and what
>J.Faucounau has written in the Chapter 6 of his book "Les
>Proto-Ioniens...") 5)- Attributing the invention of the Proper Name
>"Syria" to the Proto-Ionians is all the more plausible as the Greek
>words coming from the IE root *tver- have ALL the required
>CHARACTHERISTICS for being "Proto-Ionic words" .
This means nothing unless their characteristics also completely
disqualify them from coming from any other language.
> (But I cannot, of
>course, fully develop here this linguistical argument, mainly in
>front of listeners who, like Peter, you and others, have NEVER READ A
>LINE of J.Faucounau's books and papers. How could they understand the
>"Homeric argument", for instance ?.. They have NO IDEA of what it
>could be !.. )
>
>
>>That's like saying the word "grok" (invented by Robert
>> Heinlein) isn't attested either in Proto-Ionic or in any language of
>> the region in which it was spoken for 1,000 years afterwards, yet you
>> have strong evidence that "grok" existed in Proto-Ionic.
>
>Please, stop these stupid and MEANINGLESS comparisons !...
"Meaningless" = "if I didn't reject them then I'd have to reject my
own theory".
>
>>
>> By the way, if Proto-Ionic isn't a dead language, I'd like to know
>> where in the world its active speakers are living.
>
>This STUPID QUESTION shows that you DON'T KNOW A SINGLE WORD of the
>"Proto-Ionian Theory"!.. One cannot pretend to SERIOUSLY discuss
>about a theory, if he has NOT MADE THE EFFORT of being aware of it
Proto-Ionian Theory says that Proto-Ionic isn't a dead language? Or
that a dead language doesn't mean what I think it means? My question
stands. You said you weren't talking about a dead language.
Proto-Ionic is either alive or not. If it is alive, it has speakers. I
asked you where they are. Either you can tell me where they are or
you're making up stories. This is a black-and-white question. My
unfamiliarity with a particular theory is irrelevant.
Jacques Guy
> Proto-Ionian Theory says that Proto-Ionic isn't a dead language? Or
> that a dead language doesn't mean what I think it means? My question
> stands. You said you weren't talking about a dead language.
> Proto-Ionic is either alive or not. If it is alive, it has speakers. I
> asked you where they are.
Reporting to duty, sir! Here, in Melbourne, Australia (not Florida).
When lubricated enough. A few drams (not wee ones, big ones) of
Talisker or Laphroaig, and I'll speak fluent Proto-Ionian to you.
Here, a free sample: o tanato pawei to to atoropo bio.
And another: oukelabo poli ala gara elepi epe kaka.
(Standard Greek: ouk elabon polin; alla gar elpis ephe kaka).
And that was without any lubrication whatsoever! Imagine
what you get with your lubrication money, eh?
Harlan Messinger
After adding these samples to the corpus, still no attestation of
"Syria". Though I think I spied the unmistakable progenitor of the
proper name "Eloise".
Jacques Guy
> After adding these samples to the corpus, still no attestation of
> "Syria". Though I think I spied the unmistakable progenitor of the
> proper name "Eloise".
Eloise? What Eloise? You're drunk you silly bastard,
look let me translate that for you:
ouk elabon polin;
où qu'est la bonne Pauline?
alla gar
à la gare
elpis ephe kaka
elle pisse et fait caca
You owe me a bottle of Talisker.
grapheus
> grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
>
> >
> > I've already mentioned them, but people like Peter and you cannot
> >read me without special distorting glasses !...
> > I repeat that 1)- the word "Syria" was clearly, at the beginning,
> >the name given BY THE GREEKS to a country called "Aram" by other
> >peoples. 2)- the word "Syria" cannot be a distorsion by the Greeks
> >of the P.N. "Assyria", for several reasons, one of them being that
> >this P.N. belongs to a whole FAMILY like "Syros", "Syrtos", etc. used
> >by the Ancient Greeks to designate different places. 3)- ALL the
> >names from this FAMILY have a PERFECT Indoeuropean etymology. As I
> >wrote, they are coming from the IE root *tver- : "to pull with a
> >rope". There are therefore STRONG LINGUISTICAL MOTIVES to attribute
> >this P.N. to the first GREEKS who visited the Syrian coast.
>
> 2 and 3 are hypotheses. Hypotheses are not evidence for other
> hypotheses. Are you familiar with the term "begging the question"?
Are you familiar with the terms "PROBABLE hypotheses" and "UNPROBABLE
hypotheses" ?..
>
> >4)- There are, on the other hand, STRONG ARCHAEOLOGICAL MOTIVES that
> >these "first Greeks to visit the Syrian coast" were the
> >"Proto-Ionians" (See for instance the Umm-el-Marra findings, and what
> >J.Faucounau has written in the Chapter 6 of his book "Les
> >Proto-Ioniens...") 5)- Attributing the invention of the Proper Name
> >"Syria" to the Proto-Ionians is all the more plausible as the Greek
> >words coming from the IE root *tver- have ALL the required
> >CHARACTHERISTICS for being "Proto-Ionic words" .
>
> This means nothing unless their characteristics also completely
> disqualify them from coming from any other language.
RIDICULOUS !... This is not the way SCIENCE works !... One has not to
show that "all other hypotheses" are wrong to demonstrate that the
Earth is (approximately) a SPHERE !..
ONLY in mathematics, a RIGOROUS demonstration is needed to demonstrate
a theory. In all the other sciences, the demonstration that a theory
is correct is JUST A MATTER OF PROBABILITIES.
But I know that there is in this Group a bunch of guys, lead by our
friend Peter, who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between an
hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be right, and another
hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be wrong !...
>
> > (But I cannot, of
> >course, fully develop here this linguistical argument, mainly in
> >front of listeners who, like Peter, you and others, have NEVER READ A
> >LINE of J.Faucounau's books and papers. How could they understand the
> >"Homeric argument", for instance ?.. They have NO IDEA of what it
> >could be !.. )
> >
> >
> >>That's like saying the word "grok" (invented by Robert
> >> Heinlein) isn't attested either in Proto-Ionic or in any language of
> >> the region in which it was spoken for 1,000 years afterwards, yet you
> >> have strong evidence that "grok" existed in Proto-Ionic.
> >
> >Please, stop these stupid and MEANINGLESS comparisons !...
>
> "Meaningless" = "if I didn't reject them then I'd have to reject my
> own theory".
I wrote "meaningless" because, in the "Syria" case, WHERE IS the
equivalent of Robert Heinlein ?.. And in the "Grok" case, WHERE IS THE
FAMILY of words equivalent to "Syria", "Syros", Syrtos", etc ?..
You are making comparisons of things which are TOTALLY UNRELATED !...
> >
> >>
> >> By the way, if Proto-Ionic isn't a dead language, I'd like to know
> >> where in the world its active speakers are living.
> >
> >This STUPID QUESTION shows that you DON'T KNOW A SINGLE WORD of the
> >"Proto-Ionian Theory"!.. One cannot pretend to SERIOUSLY discuss
> >about a theory, if he has NOT MADE THE EFFORT of being aware of it
>
> Proto-Ionian Theory says that Proto-Ionic isn't a dead language? Or
> that a dead language doesn't mean what I think it means? My question
> stands. You said you weren't talking about a dead language.
> Proto-Ionic is either alive or not. If it is alive, it has speakers. I
> asked you where they are. Either you can tell me where they are or
> you're making up stories. This is a black-and-white question. My
> unfamiliarity with a particular theory is irrelevant.
Here again, you are REASONING IN BLACK-AND-WHITE, PLAYING WITH WORDS
!!!
What is, in BLACK-AND-WHITE, a "dead language" ?.. A language, of
which ALL the words have disappeared !.. If only a word has survived,
say the "Black-and-White Logicians", it's no more "dead" !!! .. So,
are you calling GREEK a "dead language" ?.. Me, NO !.. Like I don't
call "Proto-Ionic" a "dead language" because most of ITS vocabulary
can be found in later IONIC, and even to-day, with a non-negligible
percentage, in MODERN GREEK !...
But, of course, CONCEPTS like "percentage", "surviving language", etc.
are UNKNOWN to you and Peter !.. LIKE the concept of "probability" ,
they are NOT BLACK OR WHITE CONCEPTS !!!!
grapheus
Harlan Messinger
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.04030...@posting.google.com...
> Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<k24e40512oepp6agq...@4ax.com>...
> > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I've already mentioned them, but people like Peter and you cannot
> > >read me without special distorting glasses !...
> > > I repeat that 1)- the word "Syria" was clearly, at the beginning,
> > >the name given BY THE GREEKS to a country called "Aram" by other
> > >peoples. 2)- the word "Syria" cannot be a distorsion by the Greeks
> > >of the P.N. "Assyria", for several reasons, one of them being that
> > >this P.N. belongs to a whole FAMILY like "Syros", "Syrtos", etc. used
> > >by the Ancient Greeks to designate different places. 3)- ALL the
> > >names from this FAMILY have a PERFECT Indoeuropean etymology. As I
> > >wrote, they are coming from the IE root *tver- : "to pull with a
> > >rope". There are therefore STRONG LINGUISTICAL MOTIVES to attribute
> > >this P.N. to the first GREEKS who visited the Syrian coast.
> >
> > 2 and 3 are hypotheses. Hypotheses are not evidence for other
> > hypotheses. Are you familiar with the term "begging the question"?
>
> Are you familiar with the terms "PROBABLE hypotheses" and "UNPROBABLE
> hypotheses" ?..
Yes. Neither of which alters the fact that a hypothesis is not evidence. It
may *lead* to more, contingent hypotheses--corollaries. It is not *evidence*
for any hypothesis. Until a hypothesis is fact, it is not evidence.
>
> >
> > >4)- There are, on the other hand, STRONG ARCHAEOLOGICAL MOTIVES that
> > >these "first Greeks to visit the Syrian coast" were the
> > >"Proto-Ionians" (See for instance the Umm-el-Marra findings, and what
> > >J.Faucounau has written in the Chapter 6 of his book "Les
> > >Proto-Ioniens...") 5)- Attributing the invention of the Proper Name
> > >"Syria" to the Proto-Ionians is all the more plausible as the Greek
> > >words coming from the IE root *tver- have ALL the required
> > >CHARACTHERISTICS for being "Proto-Ionic words" .
> >
> > This means nothing unless their characteristics also completely
> > disqualify them from coming from any other language.
>
> RIDICULOUS !... This is not the way SCIENCE works !... One has not to
> show that "all other hypotheses" are wrong to demonstrate that the
> Earth is (approximately) a SPHERE !..
Of course you have to. Of course people did have to.
For the spherical nature of the earth to be analogous, the situation would
have to be that (1) we haven't been able to ascertain the shape of the earth
directly; (2) the earth has characteristics that are *consistent with* earth
being a sphere; (3) it is unknown whether other shapes exist with which
those same characteristics are consistent. In this situation you would not
have proof that the earth is a sphere.
It would remain a hypothesis until (4) condition 3 had been eliminated by a
demonstration that the characteristics in question *are* inconsistent with
every other shape, or (5) condition 1 had been eliminated by the achievement
of direct observation.
Amazingly, the analysis I just gave is exactly what happened. When it was
demonstrated that various characteristics (the way ships seem to sink into
the ocean as they sail away; the shadow of the earth on the moon during an
eclipse; various solar and celestial observations) of the earth are
consistent with it being (nearly) spherical AND that these same
characteristics are inconsistent with every other shape, then, and only
then, was the hypothesis of earth's sphericality proved. Until then, it was
a hypothesis.
> ONLY in mathematics, a RIGOROUS demonstration is needed to demonstrate
> a theory. In all the other sciences, the demonstration that a theory
> is correct is JUST A MATTER OF PROBABILITIES.
> But I know that there is in this Group a bunch of guys, lead by our
> friend Peter, who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between an
> hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be right, and another
> hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be wrong !...
You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis being probably
right and the same hypothesis being proved. Add to that your funny way of
assigning probabilities, and one can see why you think you have proofs of so
many things for which proofs don't exist.
>
> Here again, you are REASONING IN BLACK-AND-WHITE, PLAYING WITH WORDS
> !!!
> What is, in BLACK-AND-WHITE, a "dead language" ?.. A language, of
> which ALL the words have disappeared !..
In what way am *I* playing with words if I'm using "dead language" to mean
what "dead language" is normally used to mean, while you're making up your
own idiosyncratic meaning for it and then berating me for not following your
lead?
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
> I repeat that 1)- the word "Syria" was clearly, at the beginning,
>the name given BY THE GREEKS to a country called "Aram" by other
>peoples. 2)- the word "Syria" cannot be a distorsion by the Greeks
>of the P.N. "Assyria", for several reasons, one of them being that
>this P.N. belongs to a whole FAMILY like "Syros", "Syrtos", etc. used
>by the Ancient Greeks to designate different places.
That's not a reason why Syria can't be from Assyria. It's
not even a reason why the name Syria must be Greek (c.q.
Proto-Ionian). I might as well say that "this P.N. belongs
to a whole FAMILY like "Surabaya", "Surakarta", etc., used
by the `Ancient' Indonesians to designate different places."
Syria most likely comes from Assyria. Herodotus says so.
Tvedtnes theory about Hurri > Shuri sounds interesting, but
I'd need to know more. What about the city of Tyre (Grk.
Turos)? The modern Arabic is S.u:r, but what was it in
Phoenician or Aramaic?
>3)- ALL the
>names from this FAMILY have a PERFECT Indoeuropean etymology. As I
>wrote, they are coming from the IE root *tver- : "to pull with a
>rope".
The preferred etymology is PIE *swer-, *swer-bh- "to turn,
to sweep", see Boisacq p. 849 (sub sairo:).
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On 4 Mar 2004 03:05:32 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> wrote:
>
> > I repeat that 1)- the word "Syria" was clearly, at the beginning,
> >the name given BY THE GREEKS to a country called "Aram" by other
> >peoples. 2)- the word "Syria" cannot be a distorsion by the Greeks
> >of the P.N. "Assyria", for several reasons, one of them being that
> >this P.N. belongs to a whole FAMILY like "Syros", "Syrtos", etc. used
> >by the Ancient Greeks to designate different places.
>
> That's not a reason why Syria can't be from Assyria. It's
> not even a reason why the name Syria must be Greek (c.q.
> Proto-Ionian). I might as well say that "this P.N. belongs
> to a whole FAMILY like "Surabaya", "Surakarta", etc., used
> by the `Ancient' Indonesians to designate different places."
>
> Syria most likely comes from Assyria. Herodotus says so.
>
> Tvedtnes theory about Hurri > Shuri sounds interesting, but
> I'd need to know more. What about the city of Tyre (Grk.
> Turos)? The modern Arabic is S.u:r, but what was it in
> Phoenician or Aramaic?
Phoenician Tsade Resh, thus presumably Aramaic Tet Resh.
> >3)- ALL the
> >names from this FAMILY have a PERFECT Indoeuropean etymology. As I
> >wrote, they are coming from the IE root *tver- : "to pull with a
> >rope".
>
> The preferred etymology is PIE *swer-, *swer-bh- "to turn,
> to sweep", see Boisacq p. 849 (sub sairo:).
Miguel Carrasquer
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> What about the city of Tyre (Grk.
>> Turos)? The modern Arabic is S.u:r, but what was it in
>> Phoenician or Aramaic?
>
>Phoenician Tsade Resh, thus presumably Aramaic Tet Resh.
Yes, if the Proto-Semitic was *T.u(:)r- (Phoen s. ~ Aram t.
~ Arab z.).
That would leave open the possibility that Tyre (the most
important sea-gate to Syria) was first borrowed into Greek
by its Phoenician name as *Súr-os (> Suría), later by its
Aramaic name as Túros (both with short /u/ in Greek, BTW).
Whether we choose this option, or the one suggested by
Herodotus, the Syrian Aramaeans are left with a denomination
that's either Assyro-Babylonian (As^s^ur- > Syria) or
Phoenician (S.ur- > Syria).
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:13:02 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
: <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
:>> What about the city of Tyre (Grk.
:>> Turos)? The modern Arabic is S.u:r, but what was it in
:>> Phoenician or Aramaic?
:>
:>Phoenician Tsade Resh, thus presumably Aramaic Tet Resh.
"rock", "cliff"
: Yes, if the Proto-Semitic was *T.u(:)r- (Phoen s. ~ Aram t.
: ~ Arab z.).
arabic is *DH* (D. in your notation, if I understand it correctly).
Z / z. is just for convenience, based upon the persian recitation as
[z] or the interdental-less arabic colloquial pronounciation in
classical loanwords as z. / Z .
: That would leave open the possibility that Tyre (the most
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.04030...@posting.google.com...
> > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<k24e40512oepp6agq...@4ax.com>...
> > > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I've already mentioned them, but people like Peter and you cannot
> > > >read me without special distorting glasses !...
> > > > I repeat that 1)- the word "Syria" was clearly, at the beginning,
> > > >the name given BY THE GREEKS to a country called "Aram" by other
> > > >peoples. 2)- the word "Syria" cannot be a distorsion by the Greeks
> > > >of the P.N. "Assyria", for several reasons, one of them being that
> > > >this P.N. belongs to a whole FAMILY like "Syros", "Syrtos", etc. used
> > > >by the Ancient Greeks to designate different places. 3)- ALL the
> > > >names from this FAMILY have a PERFECT Indoeuropean etymology. As I
> > > >wrote, they are coming from the IE root *tver- : "to pull with a
> > > >rope". There are therefore STRONG LINGUISTICAL MOTIVES to attribute
> > > >this P.N. to the first GREEKS who visited the Syrian coast.
> > >
> > > 2 and 3 are hypotheses. Hypotheses are not evidence for other
> > > hypotheses. Are you familiar with the term "begging the question"?
> >
> > Are you familiar with the terms "PROBABLE hypotheses" and "UNPROBABLE
> > hypotheses" ?..
>
> Yes. Neither of which alters the fact that a hypothesis is not evidence.
You are PLAYING AGAIN WITH WORDS instead of adopting a SCIENTIFIC
ATTITUDE !... So, showing that an HYPOTHESIS has less than one chance
out of 10 BILLIONS of being wrong is not bringing "EVIDENCE" that
this hypothesis *IS* "scientifically" correct !.. And showing that an
hypothesis has less than one chance out of 10 billions of being right
is not, in your opinion, bringing "EVIDENCE" that it *IS*
scientifically wrong !... Sorry, but I have another idea of what
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is !...
As I already wrote :
>
> > ONLY in mathematics, a RIGOROUS demonstration is needed to demonstrate
> > a theory. In all the other sciences, the demonstration that a theory
> > is correct is JUST A MATTER OF PROBABILITIES.
> > But I know that there is in this Group a bunch of guys, lead by our
> > friend Peter, who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between an
> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be right, and another
> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be wrong !...
>
> You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis being probably
> right and the same hypothesis being proved.
YES !.. Because in Science, a PROOF is always a "high probability of
the theory being correct" !..
But I know that you want to IGNORE words like "Probability",
"approximation", "percentage", etc...
You IGNORE the ONLY "truly scientific logic", which is what has been
called "the Fuzzy Logic" by some...
> Add to that your funny way of
> assigning probabilities, and one can see why you think you have proofs of so
> many things for which proofs don't exist.
> >
> > Here again, you are REASONING IN BLACK-AND-WHITE, PLAYING WITH WORDS
> > !!!
> > What is, in BLACK-AND-WHITE, a "dead language" ?.. A language, of
> > which ALL the words have disappeared !..
>
> In what way am *I* playing with words if I'm using "dead language" to mean
> what "dead language" is normally used to mean, while you're making up your
> own idiosyncratic meaning for it and then berating me for not following your
> lead?
You have not answered my question : " Are you calling GREEK a "dead
language" ?"...
grapheus
grapheus
As long as you will VOLUNTARILY IGNORE the "Proto-Ionian Theory", you
will be obliged to make PHONETICAL ACROBATICS to explain the GREEK
Turos versus SEMITIC "Sur" !...
Greek is NOT a language which has been spoken by people having a
PHONETIC TENDENCY to change strong S into T . On the contrary !... The
Greek tendency is to change strong S > weak S > H < zero !... Talking
about a borrowing into Greek of *Suros for TYR is JUST ABSURD...
The true solution has been given by J. Faucounau in the Chapter 6 of
his book "Les Proto-Ioniens..." But, of course, YOU IGNORE that, and
stick on to the "Risch-Chadwick Theory" !...
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
<y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>:>Phoenician Tsade Resh, thus presumably Aramaic Tet Resh.
>
> "rock", "cliff"
>
>: Yes, if the Proto-Semitic was *T.u(:)r- (Phoen s. ~ Aram t.
>: ~ Arab z.).
>
>arabic is *DH* (D. in your notation, if I understand it correctly).
I thought I'd try an alternative for what in ASCII is the
rather clumsy looking /t_./ (the bar and the dot should be
_under_ the <t>).
I'm in fact partial to the reconstruction (due to Diakonov,
I think) of the Semitic s(h)ibilants as regular series of
dental, postalveolar and lateral fricatives and affricates
[voiceless, emphatic and voiced], as follows:
traditional:
s c c. 3 s^ s s. z
s^ c^ c^. 3^ (s^) t_ t_. d_
L £ £. --, (s') s' s'.
which give Akkadian:
s^ s s. z
s^ s^ s. z
s^ s^ s.
Hebrew:
s^ s s. z
h s^ s. z
s' s' s.
Aramaic:
s^ s s. z
h t t. d
s s `
and Arabic:
s s s. z
h t_ z. d_
s^ s^ d.
> Z / z. is just for convenience, based upon the persian recitation as
> [z] or the interdental-less arabic colloquial pronounciation in
>classical loanwords as z. / Z .
Yes, it makes for a symmetrical notation <t.>, <d.>; <s.>,
<z.>, for what is phonetically /t~/, /d~/, /s~/, /ð~/.
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
>As long as you will VOLUNTARILY IGNORE the "Proto-Ionian Theory", you
>will be obliged to make PHONETICAL ACROBATICS to explain the GREEK
>Turos versus SEMITIC "Sur" !...
>Greek is NOT a language which has been spoken by people having a
>PHONETIC TENDENCY to change strong S into T . On the contrary !... The
>Greek tendency is to change strong S > weak S > H < zero !... Talking
>about a borrowing into Greek of *Suros for TYR is JUST ABSURD...
Phoenician s.ur- (which at the time sounded /c~ur-/, with a
velarized dental affricate) would have been borrowed into
Greek as súr-(os). The change of Greek s- > h- [*] is
prehistoric, and was long over by the time the Greeks came
into contact with the Phoenicians. The fact that the city
name in Greek is in fact Túros shows that it was not
borrowed from Phoenician, but from Aramaic t.ur-. That is
not strange per se (Aramic was the lingua franca of the
whole Middle East), but it *is* a bit strange that the
native Phoenician term would not have been recorded at all
in Greek. If we derive Suría (Syria) from *Suros, that
partially alleviates that problem.
[*] Labialized sW- (from IE *sw- and *tw-) gives s- in
Greek, so initial s- is in no way disallowed.
Harlan Messinger
I am not. I am telling you that you are wrong.
>instead of adopting a SCIENTIFIC
>ATTITUDE !
Does "scientific" mean "fast and loose with the facts"?
>... So, showing that an HYPOTHESIS has less than one chance
>out of 10 BILLIONS of being wrong
Let's start with the fact that you have no basis for your
probabilities.
> is not bringing "EVIDENCE" that
>this hypothesis *IS* "scientifically" correct !
Right. Because no matter how probable something is, there is a
possibility that it isn't true, and if *in fact* it isn't true, then
it just as false as if you hadn't ascribed a high probability of truth
to it in the first place. Being probably true does not mean being
*truer*.
>.. And showing that an
>hypothesis has less than one chance out of 10 billions of being right
>is not, in your opinion, bringing "EVIDENCE" that it *IS*
>scientifically wrong !... Sorry, but I have another idea of what
>SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is !...
It is grossly apparent that you do. The problem is that your idea is a
delusion.
>
>As I already wrote :
>>
>> > ONLY in mathematics, a RIGOROUS demonstration is needed to demonstrate
>> > a theory. In all the other sciences, the demonstration that a theory
>> > is correct is JUST A MATTER OF PROBABILITIES.
>> > But I know that there is in this Group a bunch of guys, lead by our
>> > friend Peter, who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between an
>> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be right, and another
>> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be wrong !...
>>
>> You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis being probably
>> right and the same hypothesis being proved.
>
>YES !.. Because in Science, a PROOF is always a "high probability of
>the theory being correct" !..
>But I know that you want to IGNORE words like "Probability",
>"approximation", "percentage", etc...
>You IGNORE the ONLY "truly scientific logic", which is what has been
>called "the Fuzzy Logic" by some...
I know what "fuzzy logic" is. I see that you misunderstand it. And I'm
curious about how it acquired the designation the "only truly
scientific logic". As far as I know, all that means is that it
appealed to you, and you decided that from now on that's how science
would work for you, and it was now up to everyone else to adopt your
misguided view.
>
>> Add to that your funny way of
>> assigning probabilities, and one can see why you think you have proofs of so
>> many things for which proofs don't exist.
>> >
>> > Here again, you are REASONING IN BLACK-AND-WHITE, PLAYING WITH WORDS
>> > !!!
>> > What is, in BLACK-AND-WHITE, a "dead language" ?.. A language, of
>> > which ALL the words have disappeared !..
>>
>> In what way am *I* playing with words if I'm using "dead language" to mean
>> what "dead language" is normally used to mean, while you're making up your
>> own idiosyncratic meaning for it and then berating me for not following your
>> lead?
>
>You have not answered my question : " Are you calling GREEK a "dead
>language" ?"...
Greek, along with English, Dutch, Polish, Arabic, Japanese, and
Swahili, is not a dead language. But we were talking about Proto-Ionic
which, like Latin, Ancient Greek, and Old English, is a dead language.
Peter T. Daniels
Do you know Alice Faber's phonetic reconstructions, which have been
adopted by e.g. John Hueherngard in *Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East* and by W. von Soden['s editor] in the 1995 edition of *Grundriss
der Akkadischen Grammatik* (where they are mistakenly attributed to,
IIRC, W. Farber)?
grapheus
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> >> What about the city of Tyre (Grk.
> >> Turos)? The modern Arabic is S.u:r, but what was it in
> >> Phoenician or Aramaic?
> >
> >Phoenician Tsade Resh, thus presumably Aramaic Tet Resh.
>
> Yes, if the Proto-Semitic was *T.u(:)r- (Phoen s. ~ Aram t.
> ~ Arab z.).
>
But the FACT is that "rock" is sur in Ugaritic, Phoenician and
Hebrew, and there is NO *zur : "rock" in Arab !.. (See Noth : "Die
Isrealitischen Personennamen..." p. 129 and 156 ss).
What means that YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG !.. There is NO *Tur :
"rock" in Proto-Semitic, and the word sur: "rock" does exist ONLY in
the West-Semitic languages which were IN CONTACT WITH THE
PROTO-IONIANS !...
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<tlnf40dm1kns7r0e4...@4ax.com>...
> > On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:13:02 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> > >> What about the city of Tyre (Grk.
> > >> Turos)? The modern Arabic is S.u:r, but what was it in
> > >> Phoenician or Aramaic?
> > >
> > >Phoenician Tsade Resh, thus presumably Aramaic Tet Resh.
> >
> > Yes, if the Proto-Semitic was *T.u(:)r- (Phoen s. ~ Aram t.
> > ~ Arab z.).
> >
>
> But the FACT is that "rock" is sur in Ugaritic, Phoenician and
> Hebrew, and there is NO *zur : "rock" in Arab !.. (See Noth : "Die
> Isrealitischen Personennamen..." p. 129 and 156 ss).
No, it's not sur, it's s.ur (Modern Hebrew [tsur]).
Brockelmann's Lexicon syriacum says it's found in Hebrew and throughout
Aramaic, but not in Arabic (or any other Semitic language).
You have just revealed that you are ignorant of Semitic languages, yet
you try to use them in your discussion, which would seem to make you an
IGNARROGANT, no?
> What means that YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG !.. There is NO *Tur :
> "rock" in Proto-Semitic, and the word sur: "rock" does exist ONLY in
> the West-Semitic languages which were IN CONTACT WITH THE
> PROTO-IONIANS !...
Miguel Carrasquer
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> I'm in fact partial to the reconstruction (due to Diakonov,
>> I think) of the Semitic s(h)ibilants as regular series of
>> dental, postalveolar and lateral fricatives and affricates
>> [voiceless, emphatic and voiced], as follows:
>>
>> traditional:
>> s c c. 3 s^ s s. z
>> s^ c^ c^. 3^ (s^) t_ t_. d_
>> L Ł Ł. --, (s') s' s'.
>
>Do you know Alice Faber's phonetic reconstructions, which have been
>adopted by e.g. John Hueherngard in *Civilizations of the Ancient Near
>East* and by W. von Soden['s editor] in the 1995 edition of *Grundriss
>der Akkadischen Grammatik* (where they are mistakenly attributed to,
>IIRC, W. Farber)?
Not really. Do they differ from what I gave above?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:07:45 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> >> I'm in fact partial to the reconstruction (due to Diakonov,
> >> I think) of the Semitic s(h)ibilants as regular series of
> >> dental, postalveolar and lateral fricatives and affricates
> >> [voiceless, emphatic and voiced], as follows:
> >>
> >> traditional:
> >> s c c. 3 s^ s s. z
> >> s^ c^ c^. 3^ (s^) t_ t_. d_
> >
> >Do you know Alice Faber's phonetic reconstructions, which have been
> >adopted by e.g. John Hueherngard in *Civilizations of the Ancient Near
> >East* and by W. von Soden['s editor] in the 1995 edition of *Grundriss
> >der Akkadischen Grammatik* (where they are mistakenly attributed to,
> >IIRC, W. Farber)?
>
> Not really. Do they differ from what I gave above?
Remember Diakonoff is talking about Afroasiatic ("Semito-Hamitic"), and
this is Semitic only:
s ts ts' dz
T T' D
£ t£' (where T, D are the interdentals and £ is vl.
lat.)
The two parenthesized items aren't relevant to PSem (They're Diak.'s AA
reconstructions, merged away in PSem).
The above from Huehnergard.
Yusuf B Gursey
In sci.lang Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in <n2lg40lf05rmrbodm...@4ax.com>:
: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 04:10:37 +0000 (UTC), Yusuf B Gursey
: <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
: and Arabic:
: s s s. z
: h t_ z. d_
: s^ s^ d.
modern standard arabic empahtic d (D), Da:d
is in fact a lateralized voiced interdental emphatic
fricative in early classical arabic.
the lateral character is attested in the earliest
descriptions and is known to conaservative qur'an
reciters (someone asked about it in soc.religion.islam)
and MItchell claims to have heard it recited.
note also spanish alcalde from al-qa:Di:
a dialect pronounciation of *sh*in with a lateral
character was also noted by an early arab grammarian.
Miguel Carrasquer
I agree on the dental and postalveolar/interdental series.
The dental series /s/ /ts/ /ts'/ /dz/ is identical to what I
gave (except for notation) and to the original PAA: /s/,
/c/, /c./, /3/.
The PAA post-alevolar series /c^/, /c^./, /3^/ (one can also
write: /tS/, /tS'/, /dZ/) had very likely already yielded
interdentals in Proto-Semitic: /T/, /T'/, /D/ (or /t_/,
/t_./, /d_/; or /þ/, /Þ'/, /ð/).
The emphatic lateral tL' (£') [I use /L/ for the fricative
voiceless lateral as in Welsh <ll>, and the pound sign for
the corresponding affricate <£> = <tL>] is also OK.
I would disagree on PAA/PS *s^, which I don't think had been
merged away in PS: we have the East Semitic 3rd. person
pronoun s^uwa (+ variants) vs. *huwa (+ variants) elsewhere
(this [rare] sound also occurs as the causative verbal
marker).
As to PAA *L vs. *£, the difference is apparently still made
in Soqotri (/s^/ vs. /s./) and perhaps some other South
Arabian languages/dialects, although the two have merged
everywhere else in Semitic (including, I think, in
Epigraphic South Arabian). Orël & Stolbova give the
examples:
PS *s'ib- "wind" (Akk. s^ub-tu, Soq. s^iboh)
PS *s'ub- "burn, be hot, set fire" (Akk. s^aba:bu, Arab
s^bb, Soq. s^bb)
as opposed to (Orël & Stolbova /s^/ = /£/):
PS *s^a`r- "hair, wool" (Akk. s^a:rtu, Ug. s^`rt, Hbr
s'e:`a:r, s'a`(a)ra:, Aram (Syr) s^a`ro:, Arab. s^a`r-, Gz.
s'e`ert, Soq. s.a`ihor).
grapheus
> grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
>
> >"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<c27ou6$1pepjo$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> >> news:337ae51f.04030...@posting.google.com...
> >> > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<k24e40512oepp6agq...@4ax.com>...
> >> > > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
>
> Does "scientific" mean "fast and loose with the facts"?
>
It means keeping in mind that BLACK-AND-WHITE LOGIC is not an
appropriate "scientific" attitude!.. In the REAL WORLD, between
"always" and "never", there are a lot of gradations like : "almost
always", "very often", "now and then", "occasionally", etc.
> >... So, showing that an HYPOTHESIS has less than one chance
> >out of 10 BILLIONS of being wrong
>
> Let's start with the fact that you have no basis for your
> probabilities.
That is what YOU say, because you refuse to look at the whole file,
under the pretext it is not in BLACK-AND-WHITE !...
>> >.. And showing that an
> >hypothesis has less than one chance out of 10 billions of being right
> >is not, in your opinion, bringing "EVIDENCE" that it *IS*
> >scientifically wrong !... Sorry, but I have another idea of what
> >SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is !...
>
> It is grossly apparent that you do. The problem is that your idea is a
> delusion.
That is WHAT *YOU* SAY !... Because you want to IGNORE concepts like
"Probability" !...
>
> >
> >As I already wrote :
> >>
> >> > ONLY in mathematics, a RIGOROUS demonstration is needed to demonstrate
> >> > a theory. In all the other sciences, the demonstration that a theory
> >> > is correct is JUST A MATTER OF PROBABILITIES.
> >> > But I know that there is in this Group a bunch of guys, lead by our
> >> > friend Peter, who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between an
> >> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be right, and another
> >> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be wrong !...
> >>
> >> You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis being probably
> >> right and the same hypothesis being proved.
> >
> >YES !.. Because in Science, a PROOF is always a "high probability of
> >the theory being correct" !..
> >But I know that you want to IGNORE words like "Probability",
> >"approximation", "percentage", etc...
> >You IGNORE the ONLY "truly scientific logic", which is what has been
> >called "the Fuzzy Logic" by some...
>
> I know what "fuzzy logic" is. I see that you misunderstand it.
Oh NO !... As its "inventor", Lofti Zadeh, wrote : "Fuzzy Logic rests
on the idea that all things admit of degrees" . It's the CONTRARY of
reasoning in "BLACK-AND-WHITE" , as you do !..
> And I'm
> curious about how it acquired the designation the "only truly
> scientific logic".
Because we live in a world where the "Black-and-White" approach leads
to STUPIDITIES !..
For instance your following answer :
>You have not answered my question : " Are you calling GREEK a "dead
> >language" ?"...
>
> Greek, along with English, Dutch, Polish, Arabic, Japanese, and
> Swahili, is not a dead language. But we were talking about Proto-Ionic
> which, like Latin, Ancient Greek, and Old English, is a dead language.
IN SPITE of THE FACT THAT A MODERN GREEK CAN UNDERSTAND ANCIENT GREEK
without any problem, vocabulary and grammar being "approximately"
(sorry for this word that you want to IGNORE !) the same...
Similar question : If a guy who has no hair is BOLD, is a guy who has
only ONE SINGLE hair bold or not?..
grapheus
grapheus
> On 5 Mar 2004 00:31:38 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> wrote:
>
> >As long as you will VOLUNTARILY IGNORE the "Proto-Ionian Theory", you
> >will be obliged to make PHONETICAL ACROBATICS to explain the GREEK
> >Turos versus SEMITIC "Sur" !...
> >Greek is NOT a language which has been spoken by people having a
> >PHONETIC TENDENCY to change strong S into T . On the contrary !... The
> >Greek tendency is to change strong S > weak S > H < zero !... Talking
> >about a borrowing into Greek of *Suros for TYR is JUST ABSURD...
>
> Phoenician s.ur- (which at the time sounded /c~ur-/, with a
> velarized dental affricate) would have been borrowed into
> Greek as súr-(os).
At least, we agree on one point !.. *IF* there had been a borrowing
from Phoenician, the Greek word would have been *Syros, NOT TYROS.
But the FACT is that is was Tyros !.. Therefore, one is lead to
reverse the loan direction : from Proto-Ionic Greek to Phoenician ...
>The change of Greek s- > h- [*] is
> prehistoric, and was long over by the time the Greeks came
> into contact with the Phoenicians.
That is what you say, but it's UNIMPORTANT for the Tyros-problem. So,
I'll not contradict you ...
> The fact that the city
> name in Greek is in fact Túros shows that it was not
> borrowed from Phoenician, but from Aramaic t.ur-.
The only "small problem" is that there is NO ATTESTATION, as far as I
know, of a *Tur -: "rock" in Aramaïc !... But you probably don't care
!.. DOGMA "cannot" be wrong !..
grapheus
Wolf Kirchmeir
>At least, we agree on one point !.. *IF* there had been a borrowing
>from Phoenician, the Greek word would have been *Syros, NOT TYROS.
>But the FACT is that is was Tyros !.. Therefore, one is lead to
>reverse the loan direction : from Proto-Ionic Greek to Phoenician ...
There is logically another possibility, that there was no loan either way. I
don't know enough about those old languages to suggest any way of testing
that possibility, but I'm sure you know enough to do so. Just don't yell, it
triggers my bullshit detector.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River, Ontario, Canada
"Knowledge defines the boundaries of ignorance"
(after Augustine, Mcluhan and others.)
{drop first and last letters in address for correct email}
grapheus
> grapheus wrote:
> >
> > Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<tlnf40dm1kns7r0e4...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:13:02 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> > > >> What about the city of Tyre (Grk.
> > > >> Turos)? The modern Arabic is S.u:r, but what was it in
> > > >> Phoenician or Aramaic?
> > > >
> > > >Phoenician Tsade Resh, thus presumably Aramaic Tet Resh.
> > >
> > > Yes, if the Proto-Semitic was *T.u(:)r- (Phoen s. ~ Aram t.
> > > ~ Arab z.).
> > >
> >
> > But the FACT is that "rock" is sur in Ugaritic, Phoenician and
> > Hebrew, and there is NO *zur : "rock" in Arab !.. (See Noth : "Die
> > Isrealitischen Personennamen..." p. 129 and 156 ss).
>
> No, it's not sur, it's s.ur (Modern Hebrew [tsur]).
>
> Brockelmann's Lexicon syriacum says it's found in Hebrew and throughout
> Aramaic, but not in Arabic (or any other Semitic language).
>
> You have just revealed that you are ignorant of Semitic languages, yet
> you try to use them in your discussion, which would seem to make you an
> IGNARROGANT, no?
I'm not as ignorant as Semitic languages as you pretend. 1)- It's sure
that I should have written more correctly <s.ur> instead of <sur>. I
did this "writing simplification", because there was here NO risk of
confusion. In the same way, I did'n't mention the length of the
vowel.. 2)- Where is the contradiction between what I wrote : "rock
is <sur> in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Hebrew, i.e. in the languages which
were in contact with the Proto-Ionians, but NOT in Arabic", and with
what Brockelmann wrote ?.. We are saying THE SAME THING, with me
citing Ugaritic, and him citing Aramaic in the list of the West
Semitic languages ...
I notice that, once again, you are more prompt in criticizing the FORM
than the BASIC !.. TYPICAL of YOUR way of discussing !..
>
> > What means that YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG !.. There is NO *Tur :
> > "rock" in Proto-Semitic, and the word sur: "rock" does exist ONLY in
> > the West-Semitic languages which were IN CONTACT WITH THE
> > PROTO-IONIANS !...
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
t.ur is glossed in Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum as 'mons'; he says it
occurs throughout Aramaic and in Hebrew, and nowhere else in Semitic (he
did not have Ugaritic in 1928).
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<1jmg4052vakgi3jjd...@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Mar 2004 00:31:38 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >As long as you will VOLUNTARILY IGNORE the "Proto-Ionian Theory", you
>> >will be obliged to make PHONETICAL ACROBATICS to explain the GREEK
>> >Turos versus SEMITIC "Sur" !...
>> >Greek is NOT a language which has been spoken by people having a
>> >PHONETIC TENDENCY to change strong S into T . On the contrary !... The
>> >Greek tendency is to change strong S > weak S > H < zero !... Talking
>> >about a borrowing into Greek of *Suros for TYR is JUST ABSURD...
>>
>> Phoenician s.ur- (which at the time sounded /c~ur-/, with a
>> velarized dental affricate) would have been borrowed into
>> Greek as súr-(os).
>
>At least, we agree on one point !.. *IF* there had been a borrowing
>from Phoenician, the Greek word would have been *Syros, NOT TYROS.
>But the FACT is that is was Tyros !.. Therefore, one is lead to
>reverse the loan direction : from Proto-Ionic Greek to Phoenician ...
The Phoenicians borrowed their name of Tyre from the
Proto-Ionians? You've gotta be kidding.
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
>I'm not as ignorant as Semitic languages as you pretend. 1)- It's sure
>that I should have written more correctly <s.ur> instead of <sur>. I
>did this "writing simplification", because there was here NO risk of
>confusion. In the same way, I did'n't mention the length of the
>vowel.. 2)- Where is the contradiction between what I wrote : "rock
>is <sur> in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Hebrew, i.e. in the languages which
>were in contact with the Proto-Ionians, but NOT in Arabic",
So you claim <s.ur> is a borrowing from Proto-Ionian. Did
proto-Ionian have the emphatic affricate <c.> (/ts~/)?
Harlan Messinger
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.04030...@posting.google.com...
> Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<i1qg40pmnv8jolklf...@4ax.com>...
> > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
> >
> > >"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<c27ou6$1pepjo$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > >> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:337ae51f.04030...@posting.google.com...
> > >> > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in
message
> > news:<k24e40512oepp6agq...@4ax.com>...
> > >> > > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
> >
> > Does "scientific" mean "fast and loose with the facts"?
> >
>
> It means keeping in mind that BLACK-AND-WHITE LOGIC is not an
> appropriate "scientific" attitude!.. In the REAL WORLD, between
> "always" and "never", there are a lot of gradations like : "almost
> always", "very often", "now and then", "occasionally", etc.
Consider the black-and-white nature of your attitude, which is that
fuzziness is now *always* OK and scientific.
Fuzzy logic is not a justification for sloppy thinking. It hasn't made
quackery more scientific than it was before.
>
> > >... So, showing that an HYPOTHESIS has less than one chance
> > >out of 10 BILLIONS of being wrong
> >
> > Let's start with the fact that you have no basis for your
> > probabilities.
>
> That is what YOU say, because you refuse to look at the whole file,
> under the pretext it is not in BLACK-AND-WHITE !...
It's more along the lines that I understand what the nature of probabilities
is, and when it comes to the kind of material you're talking about, it's not
really very applicable. Are you talking about a repeatable phenomenon with
an underlying probability density function and a sample set of some size and
an enumerable set of conditions on which the outcome is contingent? No.
>
> >> >.. And showing that an
> > >hypothesis has less than one chance out of 10 billions of being right
> > >is not, in your opinion, bringing "EVIDENCE" that it *IS*
> > >scientifically wrong !... Sorry, but I have another idea of what
> > >SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is !...
> >
> > It is grossly apparent that you do. The problem is that your idea is a
> > delusion.
>
> That is WHAT *YOU* SAY !... Because you want to IGNORE concepts like
> "Probability" !...
Not at all. I believe I understand probability much more deeply than you do.
>
> >
> > >
> > >As I already wrote :
> > >>
> > >> > ONLY in mathematics, a RIGOROUS demonstration is needed to
demonstrate
> > >> > a theory. In all the other sciences, the demonstration that a
theory
> > >> > is correct is JUST A MATTER OF PROBABILITIES.
> > >> > But I know that there is in this Group a bunch of guys, lead by our
> > >> > friend Peter, who CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between an
> > >> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be right, and
another
> > >> > hypothesis having one chance out of a million to be wrong !...
> > >>
> > >> You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis being
probably
> > >> right and the same hypothesis being proved.
> > >
> > >YES !.. Because in Science, a PROOF is always a "high probability of
> > >the theory being correct" !..
> > >But I know that you want to IGNORE words like "Probability",
> > >"approximation", "percentage", etc...
> > >You IGNORE the ONLY "truly scientific logic", which is what has been
> > >called "the Fuzzy Logic" by some...
> >
> > I know what "fuzzy logic" is. I see that you misunderstand it.
>
> Oh NO !... As its "inventor", Lofti Zadeh, wrote : "Fuzzy Logic rests
> on the idea that all things admit of degrees" . It's the CONTRARY of
> reasoning in "BLACK-AND-WHITE" , as you do !..
All things?
Does everything Lofti Zadeh says become literal truth, as if by fiat?
>
> > And I'm
> > curious about how it acquired the designation the "only truly
> > scientific logic".
>
> Because we live in a world where the "Black-and-White" approach leads
> to STUPIDITIES !..
> For instance your following answer :
>
> >You have not answered my question : " Are you calling GREEK a "dead
> > >language" ?"...
> >
> > Greek, along with English, Dutch, Polish, Arabic, Japanese, and
> > Swahili, is not a dead language. But we were talking about Proto-Ionic
> > which, like Latin, Ancient Greek, and Old English, is a dead language.
>
> IN SPITE of THE FACT THAT A MODERN GREEK CAN UNDERSTAND ANCIENT GREEK
> without any problem, vocabulary and grammar being "approximately"
> (sorry for this word that you want to IGNORE !) the same...
Yes, in spite of it, because dead language means "no longer spoken", not "no
longer comprehensible by people by virtue of the language that they do
speak". For someone who likes to accuse people of playing word games, you're
very good at it.
Getting back to Proto-Ionic, which was the point, modern Greeks wouldn't
understand it unless they had studied it. Proto-Ionic is a dead language.
> Similar question : If a guy who has no hair is BOLD, is a guy who has
> only ONE SINGLE hair bold or not?..
(FYI, that's "bald".)
If you have a bowl of pure egg whites, you can whip them into a nice stiff
meringue. If you have even a trace of yolk in there, you can forget about
it.
Brian M. Scott
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in
<news:c2at0k$1qp7g0$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de> in
sci.lang:
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.04030...@posting.google.com...
[...]
>> Oh NO !... As its "inventor", Lofti Zadeh,
Lotfi.
[...]
Wolf Kirchmeir
>> Oh NO !... As its "inventor", Lofti Zadeh, wrote : "Fuzzy Logic rests
>> on the idea that all things admit of degrees" . It's the CONTRARY of
>> reasoning in "BLACK-AND-WHITE" , as you do !..
>
>All things?
>
>Does everything Lofti Zadeh says become literal truth, as if by fiat?
No, but many things that others claim he said are false. I don't see grapheus
using fuzzy logic.
In any case, Zadeh refers to degrees of truth, not probability, as grapheus
does. Zadeh showed how to calculate the truthvalue (validity) of arguments
that include such "fuzzy" statements. His mathematics (or logical calculus if
you will) is quite precise, which should not be surprising. But Zadeh doesn't
deal with the logic of probability arguments, since that's covered by already
existing mathematics (which grapheus has demonstrated he understand poorly if
at all, so it's not surprising he misunderstands fuzzy logic.)
Not that it matters. Grapheus, despite his invocation of probabilities, seems
unable to appreciate the fact that there is a probability (maybe very small -
I can't judge that) that he is wrong. Probabilities work both ways. If the
probability is 0.99 that A is true, then there is a 0.01 probability that A
is false. BTW, that is a large enough probability that it can, for example.
make a drug test useless. It all depends on the error rates. It seems to me
that error rates in identifying word origins can be quite high (and there is
also no guarantee that errors are of the kind that cancel each other, as they
do in other kinds of argument or calculation).
IOW, argument about the origin of a word will always be more or less
inconclusive, because if there is no doubt, that is, no possibility of error,
there is no argument. And to the extent that other arguments are based on
conclusions about language, those arguments also are inconclusive. If
carefully done, they will point to the kind of evidence that will strengthen
the conclusion, but there will always be some probability of error.
grapheus
Correct !.. Sorry for the mis-typing !.. And thanks for the
correction...
But I notice that Harlan Messinger did not notice my error... Would he
ignore Lotfi Zadeh, as he ignores what a "calculation of
probabilities" is ?..
grapheus
grapheus
It's YOU who are kidding, refusing to accept the EXISTENCE of the
PROTO-IONIANS in the Aegean during the Early Bronze Age !...
The Proto-Ionian Theory is one of the best established theory that I
know, in spite of his detractors WHO HAVE NEVER DISPROVED A SINGLE
PROOF that it is correct... I am asking you : WHO has disproved the
so-called "Astronomical Proof" ?.. WHO has disproved the many
"Linguistical Proofs"?.. Not to talk about all the many other
proofs...
With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those
"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory :
Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a
satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city
known as Sur- by the Semitic peoples?.. WHEN the city was created ?..
WHY was it created ON AN ISLAND, like most of the "Proto-Ionian
Trading posts ?.. Why Alexander-the-Great did not destroy the city,
just killing the inhabitants, when he conquered it?.. Why Tyr and
Sidon were allied ?.. WHY were the "Phoenicians" from Tyr and Sidon a
maritime people ?... Etc. Bring the Proto-Ionians into the picture,
and ALL those questions find a SATISFACTORY ANSWER !...
NOT enough, of course, for DOGMATIC people like YOU !.. You have
NEVER seriously got a look at the PROOFS, never been able to refute a
single one of them, never read a single reference, but you go on with
your motto : "The Proto-Ionian Theory CONTRADICTS the "Risch-Chadwick
Theory". It "MUST" therefore be wrong !"...
An attitude WORSE than at the time of Galileo !...
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
>With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those
>"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory :
>Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a
>satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city
>known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains
that.
grapheus
> On 6 Mar 2004 04:36:46 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> wrote:
>
> >With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those
> >"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory :
> >Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a
> >satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city
> >known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
>
> You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains
> that.
>
You must have some trouble understanding what I wrote !...
I repeat it, just for you : *IF* the Canaanites created on the coast
of Syria a harbour they called S.ur : "the rock", several things
become strange : 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?.. 2)- Why
this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always
been a SEMITIC harbour ?.. 3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur,
transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the
borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic
tendency of the Greek language. 4)-Why the word S.ur : "rock" does
exist only in the (Semitic) languages of peoples having been in
contact with the Greeks ?.. 5)-Etc.
Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear
: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has
been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the
coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are
several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of
Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other
Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the
native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A
borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change
Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing. That this word got later
the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc.,
makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the
Greeks 5)- Etc.
But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments
?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written
about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can
always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is
*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to
Greek. But I challenge you to be able to bring a SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE
of a Semitic word in S. borrowed by the Greeks and changed into a
word in T !.. Ready to accept the challenge ?..
grapheus
Peter T. Daniels
Perhaps the Greek form is borrowed from the Aramaic form, with t. (Tet).
GEO
wrote:
>The emphatic lateral tL' (£') [I use /L/ for the fricative
>voiceless lateral as in Welsh <ll>, and the pound sign for
>the corresponding affricate <£> = <tL>] is also OK.
>
My apologies for an OT question:
Is this Welsh sound similar to the Spanish double L (ll)?
Thank you.
Geo
Miguel Carrasquer
No. Spanish <ll> is a palatal voiced lateral continuant.
Welsh <ll> is a dental/alveolar voiceless lateral fricative.
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<d5jj40h7stiqqjlbk...@4ax.com>...
>> On 6 Mar 2004 04:36:46 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those
>> >"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory :
>> >Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a
>> >satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city
>> >known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
>>
>> You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains
>> that.
>>
>
>You must have some trouble understanding what I wrote !...
>I repeat it, just for you : *IF* the Canaanites created on the coast
>of Syria a harbour they called S.ur : "the rock", several things
>become strange : 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?..
Why not?
>2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always
>been a SEMITIC harbour ?..
.. just like Sidon.
>3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur,
>transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the
>borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic
>tendency of the Greek language.
There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic
T.ur.
>4)-Why the word S.ur : "rock" does
>exist only in the (Semitic) languages of peoples having been in
>contact with the Greeks ?..
Within Semitic, it's confined to the NW Semitic dialect,
like no doubt many other words.
>5)-Etc.
Yeah.
>Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear
>: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has
>been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the
>coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are
>several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of
>Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other
>Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the
>native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A
>borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change
>Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing.
You don't know much about phonetics do you? Or about NW
Semitic. A Greek Túros would have been borrowed in NW
Semitic as Tur-. What possible reason could there be *not*
to borrow Greek /t/ as Semitic /t/?
>That this word got later
>the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc.,
>makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the
>Greeks 5)- Etc.
>
>But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments
>?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written
>about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can
>always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is
>*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to
>Greek.
Neither is possible, of course.
Phoenician S.ur- would have given Greek *Sur-.
Greek Tur- would have given Phoenician *Tur-.
The only possibility is a native NW Semitic word *t_.ur
"rock, cliff", regularly giving Phoenician S.ur and Aramaic
T.ur.
Greek borrowed the Aramaic form.
A borrowing from Greek into Semitic is absolutely impossible
on linguistic grounds (neither Greek nor "Proto-Ionian" had
a voiceless emphatic interdental fricative /t_./: that's a
Semitic phoneme, almost by definition).
>But I challenge you to be able to bring a SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE
>of a Semitic word in S. borrowed by the Greeks and changed into a
>word in T !.. Ready to accept the challenge ?..
Why would I want to do a stupid thing like that?
In very old borrowings, Greek (PIE in general) /t/
correponds with NW Semitic /s^/ (tauros ~ s^u:r "bull"), PS
*/t_/.
grapheus
> On 6 Mar 2004 10:45:26 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> wrote:
>
> >Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<d5jj40h7stiqqjlbk...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 6 Mar 2004 04:36:46 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >With the TYRE-name problem, we are, in fact, dealing with one of those
> >> >"minor" pieces of evidence in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory :
> >> >Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is the only theory EXPLAINING in a
> >> >satisfactory way the "mystery" : WHY the Greeks called Tyr- a city
> >> >known as S[.]ur- by the Semitic peoples?..
> >>
> >> You haven't explained how the "Proto-Ionian Theory" explains
> >> that.
> >>
> >
> >You must have some trouble understanding what I wrote !...
> >I repeat it, just for you : *IF* the Canaanites created on the coast
> >of Syria a harbour they called S.ur : "the rock", several things
> >become strange : 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?..
>
> Why not?
Because it's a STUPID thing to built a harbour on a rocky place, with
no communication by land with the hinterland !..
On the contrary, foreign seamen wil do that, to avoid attacks by the
natives...
But you are probably unable to understand such a thing !.. It DOES'N'T
FIT with *YOUR* DOGMA : that "Proto-Ionians have never existed" !...
>
> >2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always
> >been a SEMITIC harbour ?..
>
> .. just like Sidon.
NO !.. Sidon, like Tyr, were special places, with a "foreign policy"
often different from the rest of the country... For instance : they
were the cities allied to the Philistines, during Biblical times...
But I suppose that you don't care...
>
> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur,
> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the
> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic
> >tendency of the Greek language.
>
> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic
> T.ur.
BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar
borrowing !..
But, of course, you don't care !.. YOUR word is God's word !..
>
> >4)-Why the word S.ur : "rock" does
> >exist only in the (Semitic) languages of peoples having been in
> >contact with the Greeks ?..
>
> Within Semitic, it's confined to the NW Semitic dialect,
> like no doubt many other words.
>
Thanks for the confirmation !..
> >5)-Etc.
>
> Yeah.
>
> >Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear
> >: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has
> >been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the
> >coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are
> >several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of
> >Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other
> >Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the
> >native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A
> >borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change
> >Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing.
>
> You don't know much about phonetics do you?
I may return the compliment to you !..
> Or about NW
> Semitic. A Greek Túros would have been borrowed in NW
> Semitic as Tur-. What possible reason could there be *not*
> to borrow Greek /t/ as Semitic /t/?
Because the Greek consonant T is phonologically DIFFERENT from the
Semitic T, as shown by the changes INSIDE the SEMITIC LANGUAGES
between D, T, and T.
These fluctuations are particular to Semitic. They show that the
pronunciation-system of the consonants is DIFFERENT in the Semitic
languages on one hand, and in the IE languages in general
on the other... Have you ever learn about "General Phonetics" ?...
>
> >That this word got later
> >the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc.,
> >makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the
> >Greeks 5)- Etc.
> >
> >But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments
> >?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written
> >about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can
> >always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is
> >*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to
> >Greek.
>
> A borrowing from Greek into Semitic is absolutely impossible
> on linguistic grounds (neither Greek nor "Proto-Ionian" had
> a voiceless emphatic interdental fricative /t_./: that's a
> Semitic phoneme, almost by definition).
At least, we agree on one point !.. That is what I said, a few lines
hereabove : BOTH LANGUAGES HAVE NOT THE SAME PRONUNCIATION-SYSTEM !...
But what you don't understand is that there is NO NEED for
Greek/Proto-Ionic to have an interdental fricative for the borrowing :
GREEK T > SEMITIC T. /S. to occur !... It's a NORMAL thing, with
borrowings, that the people who ignore the EXACT PRONUNCIATION tries
to render it by something not too far away from it !... See for
instance Frenchmen saying "ze" to renter English "the", or Spanish
people saying "ye" for rendering French "je" , etc.
>
> >But I challenge you to be able to bring a SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE
> >of a Semitic word in S. borrowed by the Greeks and changed into a
> >word in T !.. Ready to accept the challenge ?..
>
> Why would I want to do a stupid thing like that?
Because it would demonstrate that you would be right and me wrong !..
But, of course, you probably know that winning this challenge is
impossible for you... Better calling it "stupid" , right?...
>
> In very old borrowings, Greek (PIE in general) /t/
> correponds with NW Semitic /s^/ (tauros ~ s^u:r "bull"), PS
> */t_/.
EXCELLENT !... Thank you for confirming WHAT I WROTE !... See
hereabove...
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<kmmk401m2hb5me3o5...@4ax.com>...
>> On 6 Mar 2004 10:45:26 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
>> wrote:
>>> 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?..
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because it's a STUPID thing to built a harbour on a rocky place, with
>no communication by land with the hinterland !..
>On the contrary, foreign seamen wil do that, to avoid attacks by the
>natives...
According to local tradition, Tyre (Old Tyre, Palaetyrus)
was built on the mainland. Only later was the city on the
island built.
>But you are probably unable to understand such a thing !.. It DOES'N'T
>FIT with *YOUR* DOGMA : that "Proto-Ionians have never existed" !...
>
>>
>> >2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always
>> >been a SEMITIC harbour ?..
>>
>> .. just like Sidon.
>
>NO !.. Sidon, like Tyr, were special places, with a "foreign policy"
>often different from the rest of the country... For instance : they
>were the cities allied to the Philistines, during Biblical times...
>But I suppose that you don't care...
City-state usually have their own policies. If Tyre was
usally allied with Sidon, that fits in well with the local
tradition that Tyre was a daughter (colony) of Sidon.
>> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur,
>> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the
>> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic
>> >tendency of the Greek language.
>>
>> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic
>> T.ur.
>
>BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar
>borrowing !..
Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can.
Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian
Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words.
>> >Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear
>> >: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has
>> >been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the
>> >coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are
>> >several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of
>> >Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other
>> >Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the
>> >native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A
>> >borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change
>> >Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing.
>>
>> You don't know much about phonetics do you?
>
>I may return the compliment to you !..
>
>> Or about NW
>> Semitic. A Greek Túros would have been borrowed in NW
>> Semitic as Tur-. What possible reason could there be *not*
>> to borrow Greek /t/ as Semitic /t/?
>
>Because the Greek consonant T is phonologically DIFFERENT from the
>Semitic T, as shown by the changes INSIDE the SEMITIC LANGUAGES
>between D, T, and T.
There are no changes inside the Semitic langauges between
/d/, /t/ and /t./. They are maintained as distinct
phonemes.
In borrowings from foreign words (such as Greek), I'm pretty
sure only /d/ and /t/ are used, not the marked phoneme /t./.
So Greek delta is generally borrowed as dalet, and Greek tau
and theta are borrowed as taw. In any case, they are never
borrowed as the emphatic affricate /s./.
>> >That this word got later
>> >the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaïc, Phoenician, etc.,
>> >makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the
>> >Greeks 5)- Etc.
>> >
>> >But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments
>> >?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written
>> >about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can
>> >always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is
>> >*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to
>> >Greek.
>>
>> A borrowing from Greek into Semitic is absolutely impossible
>> on linguistic grounds (neither Greek nor "Proto-Ionian" had
>> a voiceless emphatic interdental fricative /t_./: that's a
>> Semitic phoneme, almost by definition).
>
>At least, we agree on one point !.. That is what I said, a few lines
>hereabove : BOTH LANGUAGES HAVE NOT THE SAME PRONUNCIATION-SYSTEM !...
>
>But what you don't understand is that there is NO NEED for
>Greek/Proto-Ionic to have an interdental fricative for the borrowing
Oh yes there is.
The alternation within Semitic (Hebrew/Phoenician /s./ vs.
Aramaic /t./) *requires* an emphatic interdental fricative.
The proof is provided by Egyptian, where Tyre is called
/D_r/, and Sidon [= S.ayda] /D_dnn/. Phoenician /s./
corresponds to Egyptian <d_>, see James Hoch, "Semitic Words
in Egyptian Texts" for an exhaustive analysis of the
correspondences. Egyptian <d_> was also an emphatic
consonant.
grapheus
> On 7 Mar 2004 01:47:01 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> wrote:
>
> >Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<kmmk401m2hb5me3o5...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 6 Mar 2004 10:45:26 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> >> wrote:
> >>> 1)- Why creating a port on an island ?..
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> >Because it's a STUPID thing to built a harbour on a rocky place, with
> >no communication by land with the hinterland !..
> >On the contrary, foreign seamen wil do that, to avoid attacks by the
> >natives...
>
> According to local tradition, Tyre (Old Tyre, Palaetyrus)
> was built on the mainland. Only later was the city on the
> island built.
1)- This is not confirmed by archaeology.
2)- Even if it was true - what is possible - , there is no
contradiction. IF YOU KNEW BETTER the History of the Proto-Ionians,
you would know that they generally established their trading posts ON
AN ISLAND or on a peninsula, but not too far from a village inhabited
by the natives. Surprising?.. NO !.. It's a RATIONAL solution, which
combines security with the desire to trade...
But, of course, YOU have chosen TO IGNORE the Proto-Ionians' History
!...
>
> >But you are probably unable to understand such a thing !.. It DOES'N'T
> >FIT with *YOUR* DOGMA : that "Proto-Ionians have never existed" !...
> >
> >>
> >> >2)- Why this city was allied to Sidon, but not to Byblos, which has always
> >> >been a SEMITIC harbour ?..
> >>
> >> .. just like Sidon.
> >
> >NO !.. Sidon, like Tyr, were special places, with a "foreign policy"
> >often different from the rest of the country... For instance : they
> >were the cities allied to the Philistines, during Biblical times...
> >But I suppose that you don't care...
>
> City-state usually have their own policies. If Tyre was
> usally allied with Sidon, that fits in well with the local
> tradition that Tyre was a daughter (colony) of Sidon.
Of course !.. Both had probably the same Proto-Ionian origin, in
contrast with Byblos !..
>
> >> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur,
> >> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the
> >> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic
> >> >tendency of the Greek language.
> >>
> >> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic
> >> T.ur.
> >
> >BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar
> >borrowing !..
>
> Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can.
> Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian
> Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words.
Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been
"heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !... Please, go on !..
>
> >> >Change now the direction of the borrowing, and anything becomes clear
> >> >: 1)- The existence of the Proto-Ionians is a sure thing. 2)- It has
> >> >been shown that these seamen loved small islands situated near the
> >> >coast to establish their trading posts in foreign land 3)- There are
> >> >several reasons to believe that the Proto-Ionians were the founders of
> >> >Tyr at its very beginning (Like what happened to almost all the other
> >> >Proto-Ionian "ports of call", the city was soon taken back by the
> >> >native inhabitants of the country : here the Canaanites). 4)- A
> >> >borrowing by a Semitic people of the Greek word "Tyr", with change
> >> >Tur>S.ur, is phonetically a normal thing.
> >>
> >> You don't know much about phonetics do you?
> >
> >I may return the compliment to you !..
> >
> >> Or about NW
> >> Semitic. A Greek Túros would have been borrowed in NW
> >> Semitic as Tur-. What possible reason could there be *not*
> >> to borrow Greek /t/ as Semitic /t/?
> >
> >Because the Greek consonant T is phonologically DIFFERENT from the
> >Semitic T, as shown by the changes INSIDE the SEMITIC LANGUAGES
> >between D, T, and T.
>
> There are no changes inside the Semitic langauges between
> /d/, /t/ and /t./. They are maintained as distinct
> phonemes.
>
?????... But this point is irrelevant, and I will not discuss it...
> In borrowings from foreign words (such as Greek), I'm pretty
> sure only /d/ and /t/ are used, not the marked phoneme /t./.
What do you mean ?.. That at the time of borrowings, there was no
letter in the Aramaďc alphabet to render the emphatic ?..
> So Greek delta is generally borrowed as dalet, and Greek tau
> and theta are borrowed as taw. In any case, they are never
> borrowed as the emphatic affricate /s./.
If the alphabet used was no more making the distinction, surely !...
>
> >> >That this word got later
> >> >the meaning of "rock" , ONLY in Ugaritic, Aramaďc, Phoenician, etc.,
> >> >makes no problem : ALL these peoples have been in contact with the
> >> >Greeks 5)- Etc.
> >> >
> >> >But, of course, how could YOU understand the value of these arguments
> >> >?.. YOU IGNORE the Proto-Ionian Theory, and what has been written
> >> >about points 1) to 3) hereabove !... As for the point 4) , you can
> >> >always go on denying what a change T>S. from Greek to Semitic is
> >> >*phonetically* more satisfactory than a change S.>T from Semitic to
> >> >Greek.
> >>
> >> A borrowing from Greek into Semitic is absolutely impossible
> >> on linguistic grounds (neither Greek nor "Proto-Ionian" had
> >> a voiceless emphatic interdental fricative /t_./: that's a
> >> Semitic phoneme, almost by definition).
> >
> >At least, we agree on one point !.. That is what I said, a few lines
> >hereabove : BOTH LANGUAGES HAVE NOT THE SAME PRONUNCIATION-SYSTEM !...
> >
> >But what you don't understand is that there is NO NEED for
> >Greek/Proto-Ionic to have an interdental fricative for the borrowing
>
> Oh yes there is.
>
> The alternation within Semitic (Hebrew/Phoenician /s./ vs.
> Aramaic /t./) *requires* an emphatic interdental fricative.
IN SEMITIC, YES !.. NOT IN GREEK !..
When will you understand that the BORROWER has NO NEED to have THE
SAME PHONETIC SYSTEM as the pillaged language ?.. Because the
BORROWER replaces a sound by an APPROXIMATION OF HIS OWN : A Spanish
will say : "yé souis" to imitate a Frenchman saying : "je suis" ,
etc.
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
>> >> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur,
>> >> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the
>> >> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic
>> >> >tendency of the Greek language.
>> >>
>> >> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic
>> >> T.ur.
>> >
>> >BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar
>> >borrowing !..
>>
>> Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can.
>> Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian
>> Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words.
>
>Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been
>"heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !...
>Please, go on !..
Mark, V 41: "talitha kum(i)". Aramaic <t.ale:t_o: qo:mi>.
BTW, Aramaic /t./ is just as dental as Greek /t/. It's just
emphatic, which Greek /t/ isn't. It would of course be
heard by Greeks as their /t/. What else?
>> In borrowings from foreign words (such as Greek), I'm pretty
>> sure only /d/ and /t/ are used, not the marked phoneme /t./.
>
>What do you mean ?.. That at the time of borrowings, there was no
>letter in the Aramaïc alphabet to render the emphatic ?..
Of course not.
>> So Greek delta is generally borrowed as dalet, and Greek tau
>> and theta are borrowed as taw. In any case, they are never
>> borrowed as the emphatic affricate /s./.
>
>If the alphabet used was no more making the distinction, surely !...
The alphabet has nothing to do with. Sorry to have confused
you with lingistic terminology you're apparently not aware
of.
>> The alternation within Semitic (Hebrew/Phoenician /s./ vs.
>> Aramaic /t./) *requires* an emphatic interdental fricative.
>
>IN SEMITIC, YES !.. NOT IN GREEK !..
>When will you understand that the BORROWER has NO NEED to have THE
>SAME PHONETIC SYSTEM as the pillaged language ?.. Because the
>BORROWER replaces a sound by an APPROXIMATION OF HIS OWN : A Spanish
>will say : "yé souis" to imitate a Frenchman saying : "je suis" ,
>etc.
Exactly. And not <ye tuí> or <ye zuí>, especie de coño,
which is what you're suggesting. The Semites had a /t/, and
a /t./ to boot, so they would never have borrowed Greek /t/
as /T./. End of story.
Anyways, leaving aside grapheus' irrelevant ramblings, the
really interesting part of the question remains: can the
Greek word Suría be derived from Phoenician /s.ur-/ "Tyre",
or is Herodotus' explanation as Suría < Assuría perferrable?
An interesting datum is that Suroi means "Syrians", while
Surioi means the same as Assurioi.
Yusuf B Gursey
: On 7 Mar 2004 11:00:40 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
: wrote:
:>> >> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur,
:>> >> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the
:>> >> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic
:>> >> >tendency of the Greek language.
:>> >>
:>> >> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic
:>> >> T.ur.
:>> >
:>> >BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar
:>> >borrowing !..
:>>
:>> Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can.
:>> Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian
:>> Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words.
:>
:>Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been
:>"heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !...
:>Please, go on !..
: Mark, V 41: "talitha kum(i)". Aramaic <t.ale:t_o: qo:mi>.
actually (emphatic) T <-> tau
/t/ ([t], [*th*]} <-> theta
was used in both directions (in their greek loanwords as well) by
Hellenizing jews, aramaic speakers in both late Hebrew and Aramaic and in
Syriac as well. (to a certain extent this spilled over into Arabic whose
early contacts with greek was through syriac). so just look at the
Biblical names that entered through the LXX
however when the greeks adapted the phoenician alphabet theta was
phoenican /T/ and tau phoenician /t/
so also q <-> kappa
/k/ ([k], [*kh*] <-> chi
so you get the transcription you quoted.
: BTW, Aramaic /t./ is just as dental as Greek /t/. It's just
Miguel Carrasquer
<y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>however when the greeks adapted the phoenician alphabet theta was
>phoenican /T/ and tau phoenician /t/
But that was not based on phonetic considerations, rather to
the contrary: Semitic /t/ [optionally aspirated] was closer
to Greek /th/ than Semitic /t./, which, as an emphatic, was
never aspirated. But the most common (unmarked) sound in
Semitic was /t/, written <tau>, just as in Greek. Once it
was decided that Greek /t/ was to be rendered by the
unmarked letter <tau>, that left <t.êt> free to be used for
rendering Greek /th/, for which the Phoenician alphabet
lacked a representation. Compare the choice of common
<s^în> (/s^/) to render Greek /s/, even though marked
<samek> (/s/) was closer to the mark phonetically.
The other "doublets" (from the Greek point of view), <kap>
vs. <qop> and <he:> vs. <h.et>, were resolved differently,
but markedness played a role here as well: unmarked <kappa>
became the usual representation of /k/, while <qoppa> was
not utilized to write Greek /kh/ [different symbol swere
invented for that], but instead was left functionless and
eventually disappeared (the Etruscans took to using it to
write /ku/, which is why we've still got it). The marked
aspirate <h.> was allowed to represent the Greek rough
breathing /h/ (until the Ionians turned (h)êta into a way to
write /ê/), while unmarked <he:> was used to write the vowel
/e/.
In Hellenistic times, Semitic pronuncation had changed
slightly, so that non-emphatic stops had become fricatives
in certain positions (e.g. intervocalically when not
geminated or finally):
p > f, b > v
t > t_, d > d_
k > x, g > g_
In these positions, Greek would have used phi, theta and khi
(also in the process of becoming fricatives) to render pe:,
taw, and kaf. That explains Aram. t.alit_a => Grk. talitha.
Where taw, kaf and pe: were not fricative, they could still
be transcribed by Greek tau, kappa and pi and viceversa
(e.g. Hebr. mistorin "mystery" with <taw>), although
emphatics are also possible (Grk. Tripoli > Arab.
T.ara:bulus).
grapheus
> On 7 Mar 2004 11:00:40 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >3)-Why the Greeks borrowed the word S.ur,
> >> >> >transforming it into Tur(os) ?.. Such a phonetic change when the
> >> >> >borrowing occured would be UNIQUE in Greek and AGAINST the phonetic
> >> >> >tendency of the Greek language.
> >> >>
> >> >> There was no change. The word was borrowed from Aramaic
> >> >> T.ur.
> >> >
> >> >BALONEY !.. You cannot cite a single other example of a similar
> >> >borrowing !..
> >>
> >> Of a Greek borrowing from Aramaic? Of course I can.
> >> Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Assyrian and Persian
> >> Empires. Greek borrowed a large number of Aramaic words.
> >
> >Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been
> >"heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !...
> >Please, go on !..
>
> Mark, V 41: "talitha kum(i)". Aramaic <t.ale:t_o: qo:mi>.
>
Is that you call an "EARLY" borrowing ?... Your example is coming
from a Hellenizing *JEW*, living in the Christian Era !!!!! His
transcription is in TOTAL CONTRADICTION with the equivalence : Semitic
emphatic T. = Greek theta, which DATES from the times when the Greeks
borrowed the Phoenician alphabet, i.e. c. 900BC !...
And, example against example, what about the "transcription" Greek
Turannos (with T) by Semitic (via the Philistine language) Hebrew
Seranim ?... Here we are in front of a TRUE borrowing from Greek to
Semitic, with Greek T becoming S like for Greek Turos> Semitic Sur..
In your example, we are just in front of a LATE JEW writer, using
Greek tau where TRUE GREEKS were using theta, centuries before!... If
*YOU* find this convincing, you may keep your opinion for yourself, I
don't care. You have shown your incompetency...
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<2otm40pqcje6t48ku...@4ax.com>...
>> On 7 Mar 2004 11:00:40 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
>> >Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been
>> >"heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !...
>> >Please, go on !..
>>
>> Mark, V 41: "talitha kum(i)". Aramaic <t.ale:t_o: qo:mi>.
>
>Is that you call an "EARLY" borrowing ?...
No, it's a case where /t./ is transcribed ads Greek /t/, as
requested.
>Your example is coming
>from a Hellenizing *JEW*, living in the Christian Era !!!!! His
>transcription is in TOTAL CONTRADICTION with the equivalence : Semitic
>emphatic T. = Greek theta, which DATES from the times when the Greeks
>borrowed the Phoenician alphabet, i.e. c. 900BC !...
That equivalence is totally false, as I have explained
elsewhere. As shown by the letter name alpha ~ alep, the
Greek aspirate series (ph, th, kh) was closest phonetically
to the Semitic voiceless non-emphatic series (p, t, k). The
Semitic emphatics, by their very nature and origin (from
PAA/PS ejectives), are the very antithesis of the aspirates.
To Greek ears, the aspiration of Semitic non-geminated /p/
(as in *alp > alpha) was audible enough to use phi to
transcribe the name of the letter. This was not (yet) the
case with /t/ and /k/ (e.g. bęta not *bętha, sigma not
*simkha). The Arabic unconditional development p > f
confirms this. The lack of an emphatic */p./ (merged with
*/b/ early on in Semitic) to counterbalance the aspirate
nature of /p/ is probably responsible for the assymetry.
Better said: unlike Greek, which had a series /d/ [+voiced]
~ /t(.)/ [-voiced, -aspirated] ~ /th/ [-voiced, +aspirated],
the Semitic features were differently arranged: /d/
[+voiced] ~ /t(h)/ [-voiced, -emphatic] ~ /t./ [-voice,
+emphatic]. The lack of /p./ in the labial series left /p/
as [-voiced, -emphatic], or equivalently: [-voice,
+aspirated].
>And, example against example, what about the "transcription" Greek
>Turannos (with T) by Semitic (via the Philistine language) Hebrew
>Seranim ?... Here we are in front of a TRUE borrowing from Greek to
>Semitic,
A very doubtful one, in fact.
>with Greek T becoming S like for Greek Turos> Semitic Sur..
That's s.ur with tsadę, and seren (pl. seranîm) with samek,
you imbecile.
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 01:04:27 +0000 (UTC), Yusuf B Gursey
: <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:>however when the greeks adapted the phoenician alphabet theta was
:>phoenican /T/ and tau phoenician /t/
: But that was not based on phonetic considerations, rather to
yes.
: the contrary: Semitic /t/ [optionally aspirated] was closer
: to Greek /th/ than Semitic /t./, which, as an emphatic, was
: never aspirated. But the most common (unmarked) sound in
: Semitic was /t/, written <tau>, just as in Greek. Once it
: was decided that Greek /t/ was to be rendered by the
: unmarked letter <tau>, that left <t.êt> free to be used for
: rendering Greek /th/, for which the Phoenician alphabet
: lacked a representation. Compare the choice of common
: <s^în> (/s^/) to render Greek /s/, even though marked
: <samek> (/s/) was closer to the mark phonetically.
: The other "doublets" (from the Greek point of view), <kap>
: vs. <qop> and <he:> vs. <h.et>, were resolved differently,
: but markedness played a role here as well: unmarked <kappa>
: became the usual representation of /k/, while <qoppa> was
: not utilized to write Greek /kh/ [different symbol swere
: invented for that], but instead was left functionless and
: eventually disappeared (the Etruscans took to using it to
: write /ku/, which is why we've still got it). The marked
: aspirate <h.> was allowed to represent the Greek rough
: breathing /h/ (until the Ionians turned (h)êta into a way to
: write /ê/), while unmarked <he:> was used to write the vowel
: /e/.
/e:/
: In Hellenistic times, Semitic pronuncation had changed
: slightly, so that non-emphatic stops had become fricatives
: in certain positions (e.g. intervocalically when not
: geminated or finally):
: p > f, b > v
: t > t_, d > d_
: k > x, g > g_
: In these positions, Greek would have used phi, theta and khi
: (also in the process of becoming fricatives) to render pe:,
the LXX uses these in all positions.
: taw, and kaf. That explains Aram. t.alit_a => Grk. talitha.
grapheus
> On 8 Mar 2004 04:10:23 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> wrote:
>
> >Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<2otm40pqcje6t48ku...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 7 Mar 2004 11:00:40 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus)
> >> >Then quote a single one, in which the Aramaic emphatic T. has been
> >> >"heard by the Greeks" as their dental T !...
> >> >Please, go on !..
> >>
> >> Mark, V 41: "talitha kum(i)". Aramaic <t.ale:t_o: qo:mi>.
> >
> >Is that you call an "EARLY" borrowing ?...
>
> No, it's a case where /t./ is transcribed ads Greek /t/, as
> requested.
>
> >Your example is coming
> >from a Hellenizing *JEW*, living in the Christian Era !!!!! His
> >transcription is in TOTAL CONTRADICTION with the equivalence : Semitic
> >emphatic T. = Greek theta, which DATES from the times when the Greeks
> >borrowed the Phoenician alphabet, i.e. c. 900BC !...
>
> That equivalence is totally false, as I have explained
> elsewhere. As shown by the letter name alpha ~ alep, the
> Greek aspirate series (ph, th, kh) was closest phonetically
> to the Semitic voiceless non-emphatic series (p, t, k).
Correct. But irrelevant !..
>The
> Semitic emphatics, by their very nature and origin (from
> PAA/PS ejectives), are the very antithesis of the aspirates.
>
> To Greek ears, the aspiration of Semitic non-geminated /p/
> (as in *alp > alpha) was audible enough to use phi to
> transcribe the name of the letter. This was not (yet) the
> case with /t/ and /k/ (e.g. bęta not *bętha, sigma not
> *simkha).
Correct. But irrelevant !.. The problem is NOT in the equivalence
Semtitic t = Greek tau , but Semitic emphatic T. = Greek theta !..
> The Arabic unconditional development p > f
> confirms this. The lack of an emphatic */p./ (merged with
> */b/ early on in Semitic) to counterbalance the aspirate
> nature of /p/ is probably responsible for the assymetry.
>
> Better said: unlike Greek, which had a series /d/ [+voiced]
> ~ /t(.)/ [-voiced, -aspirated] ~ /th/ [-voiced, +aspirated],
> the Semitic features were differently arranged: /d/
> [+voiced] ~ /t(h)/ [-voiced, -emphatic] ~ /t./ [-voice,
> +emphatic]. The lack of /p./ in the labial series left /p/
> as [-voiced, -emphatic], or equivalently: [-voice,
> +aspirated].
All this is chit-chat, just a try to let the reader to forget the HARD
FACT !..
>
> >And, example against example, what about the "transcription" Greek
> >Turannos (with T) by Semitic (via the Philistine language) Hebrew
> >Seranim ?... Here we are in front of a TRUE borrowing from Greek to
> >Semitic,
>
> A very doubtful one, in fact.
But more RELEVANT to the <Turos/Sur> problem than the transcription in
Greek of an Aramaďc word by a Hellenizing JEWISH writer !..
>
> >with Greek T becoming S like for Greek Turos> Semitic Sur..
>
> That's s.ur with tsadę, and seren (pl. seranîm) with samek,
> you imbecile.
So what ?.. Have you ever heard about the confusion of both sounds by
some peoples ?.. Why not by the Philistines, who were the
intermediaries in this case ?..
grapheus