| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illustrate |
 |
|
| message unavailable |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jun 28, 2:01 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]Here is another fairy tale from Calvert Watkins:
start quote:
A number of Indo-European languages show a similar word for the
kinship term “daughter-in-law”: Sanskrit snu, Old English snoru, Old
Church Slavonic snkha (Russian snokhá), Latin nurus, Greek nuós, and
Armenian nu. All of these forms, called cognates, provide evidence for
the phonetic shape of the prehistoric Indo-European word for “daughter-
in-law” that is their common ancestor. Sanskrit, Germanic, and Slavic
agree in showing an Indo-European word that began with sn-. We know
that an Indo-European s was lost before n in other words in Latin,
Greek, and Armenian, so we can confidently assume that Latin nurus,
Greek nuós, and Armenian nu also go back to an Indo-European *sn-.
(Compare Latin nix [stem niv-], “snow,” with English SNOW, which
preserves the s.) This principle is spoken of as the regularity of
sound correspondences; it is basic to the sciences of etymology and
comparative linguistics. 16
Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and Armenian agree in showing the first
vowel as -u-. We know from other examples that Slavic regularly
corresponds to Sanskrit u and that in this position Germanic o (of Old
English snoru) has been changed from an earlier u. It is thus
justifiable to reconstruct an Indo-European word beginning *snu-.
17
For the consonant originally following *snu-, closer analysis is
required. The key is furnished first by the Sanskrit form, for we know
there is a rule in Sanskrit that s always changes to (a sh-like
sound) after the vowel u. Therefore a Sanskrit snu- must go back to an
earlier *snus-. In the same position, after u, an old -s- changes to
kh (like the ch in Scottish loch or German ach) in Slavic; hence the
Slavic word, too, reflects *snus-. In Latin always, and in Germanic
under certain conditions, an old -s- between vowels changed to -r-.
For this reason Latin nurus and Old English snoru may go back to older
*snus- (followed by a vowel) as well. In Greek and Armenian, on the
other hand, an old -s- between vowels disappeared entirely, as we know
from numerous instances. Greek nuós and Armenian nu (stem nuo-) thus
regularly presuppose the same earlier form, *snus- (followed by a
vowel). All the comparative evidence agrees, then, on the Indo-
European root form *snus-. 18
For the ending, the final vowels of Sanskrit snu, Old English
snoru, and Slavic snkha all presuppose earlier - (*snus-), which is
the ordinary feminine ending of these languages. On the other hand,
Latin nurus, Greek nuós, and Armenian nu (stem nuo-) all regularly
presuppose the earlier ending *-os (*snus-os). We have an apparent
impasse; but the way out is given by the gender of the forms in Greek
and Latin. They are feminine, even though most nouns in Latin -us and
Greek -os are masculine. 19
Feminine nouns in Latin -us and Greek -os, since they are an
abnormal type, cannot have been created afresh; they must have been
inherited. This suggests that the original Indo-European form was
*snusos, of feminine gender. On the other hand, the commonplace freely
formed ending for feminine nouns was *-. It is reasonable to suggest
that the three languages Sanskrit, Germanic, and Slavic replaced the
peculiar feminine ending *-os (because that ending was normally
masculine) with the normal feminine ending *-, and thus that the
oldest form of the word was *snusos (feminine). 20
One point remains to be ascertained: the accent. Of those four
language groups that reflect the Indo-European accent—Sanskrit, Greek,
(Balto-)Slavic, and Germanic—the first three agree in showing a form
accented on the last syllable: snu, nuós, snokhá. The Germanic form is
equally precise, however, since the rule is that old -s- went to -r-
(Old English snoru) only if the accented syllable came after the -
s-. 21
On this basis we may add the finishing touch to our
reconstruction: the full form of the word for “daughter-in-law” in
Indo-European is *snusós. 22
It is noteworthy that no single language in the family preserves
this word intact. In every language, in every tradition in the Indo-
European family, the word has been somehow altered from its original
shape. It is the comparative method that permits us to explain the
different forms in this variety of languages by the reconstruction of
a unitary common prototype, a common ancestor.
end quote.
Simple explanation:
The Sanskrit is orginal - Slavic changed it slightly during contact-
acquistion. The Greek etc. are from something entirely different.
We just saw an example with Arabic Julhara/Jawhara and English jewel -
it even seemed like there was "systematic sound change" in
French,Italian and Spanish from Arabic and yet there was a more
credible explanation of the descent of the Romance language words from
a Latin word which didn>t mean "Jewel" at all !
Once again pure aesthetics governs snusha, Usha etc. - they are more
euphonic and cultivated to Indian ears than snusa Usa etc.
Since there is no evidence of Sanskrit having ever changed an
inherited sound from another language, we most certainly don>t know
that
start quote
we know there is a rule in Sanskrit that s always changes to (a sh-
like sound) after the vowel u.
end quote.
and snusos is only a fairy tale.
[/quote]
Sanskrit snuṣā is derived from the word "sun" in the same way as it
happened to sūnu (son; Ger. Sonne => Sohn; Serb. sunce => sinak, sin;
English sun => son);
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/d47a7ddea6d6803b?hl=en&
The basis from which the sun "was born" is Xur-Bel-Gon and this
"source" explains all the variants of the IE names for the sun (sunce,
solnce, soreli, surya, sujah, nānuḥ, saul, sol, helios etc.; Latin
filius seems to be related to Greek helios; Sp. hijo).
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jun 28, 10:38 am, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 2:01 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
Here is another fairy tale from Calvert Watkins:
start quote:
A number of Indo-European languages show a similar word for the
kinship term “daughter-in-law”: Sanskrit snu, Old English snoru, Old
Church Slavonic snkha (Russian snokhá), Latin nurus, Greek nuós, and
Armenian nu. All of these forms, called cognates, provide evidence for
the phonetic shape of the prehistoric Indo-European word for “daughter-
in-law” that is their common ancestor. Sanskrit, Germanic, and Slavic
agree in showing an Indo-European word that began with sn-. We know
that an Indo-European s was lost before n in other words in Latin,
Greek, and Armenian, so we can confidently assume that Latin nurus,
Greek nuós, and Armenian nu also go back to an Indo-European *sn-.
(Compare Latin nix [stem niv-], “snow,” with English SNOW, which
preserves the s.) This principle is spoken of as the regularity of
sound correspondences; it is basic to the sciences of etymology and
comparative linguistics. 16
Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and Armenian agree in showing the first
vowel as -u-. We know from other examples that Slavic regularly
corresponds to Sanskrit u and that in this position Germanic o (of Old
English snoru) has been changed from an earlier u. It is thus
justifiable to reconstruct an Indo-European word beginning *snu-.
17
For the consonant originally following *snu-, closer analysis is
required. The key is furnished first by the Sanskrit form, for we know
there is a rule in Sanskrit that s always changes to (a sh-like
sound) after the vowel u. Therefore a Sanskrit snu- must go back to an
earlier *snus-. In the same position, after u, an old -s- changes to
kh (like the ch in Scottish loch or German ach) in Slavic; hence the
Slavic word, too, reflects *snus-. In Latin always, and in Germanic
under certain conditions, an old -s- between vowels changed to -r-.
For this reason Latin nurus and Old English snoru may go back to older
*snus- (followed by a vowel) as well. In Greek and Armenian, on the
other hand, an old -s- between vowels disappeared entirely, as we know
from numerous instances. Greek nuós and Armenian nu (stem nuo-) thus
regularly presuppose the same earlier form, *snus- (followed by a
vowel). All the comparative evidence agrees, then, on the Indo-
European root form *snus-. 18
For the ending, the final vowels of Sanskrit snu, Old English
snoru, and Slavic snkha all presuppose earlier - (*snus-), which is
the ordinary feminine ending of these languages. On the other hand,
Latin nurus, Greek nuós, and Armenian nu (stem nuo-) all regularly
presuppose the earlier ending *-os (*snus-os). We have an apparent
impasse; but the way out is given by the gender of the forms in Greek
and Latin. They are feminine, even though most nouns in Latin -us and
Greek -os are masculine. 19
Feminine nouns in Latin -us and Greek -os, since they are an
abnormal type, cannot have been created afresh; they must have been
inherited. This suggests that the original Indo-European form was
*snusos, of feminine gender. On the other hand, the commonplace freely
formed ending for feminine nouns was *-. It is reasonable to suggest
that the three languages Sanskrit, Germanic, and Slavic replaced the
peculiar feminine ending *-os (because that ending was normally
masculine) with the normal feminine ending *-, and thus that the
oldest form of the word was *snusos (feminine). 20
One point remains to be ascertained: the accent. Of those four
language groups that reflect the Indo-European accent—Sanskrit, Greek,
(Balto-)Slavic, and Germanic—the first three agree in showing a form
accented on the last syllable: snu, nuós, snokhá. The Germanic form is
equally precise, however, since the rule is that old -s- went to -r-
(Old English snoru) only if the accented syllable came after the -
s-. 21
On this basis we may add the finishing touch to our
reconstruction: the full form of the word for “daughter-in-law” in
Indo-European is *snusós. 22
It is noteworthy that no single language in the family preserves
this word intact. In every language, in every tradition in the Indo-
European family, the word has been somehow altered from its original
shape. It is the comparative method that permits us to explain the
different forms in this variety of languages by the reconstruction of
a unitary common prototype, a common ancestor.
end quote.
Simple explanation:
The Sanskrit is orginal - Slavic changed it slightly during contact-
acquistion. The Greek etc. are from something entirely different..
We just saw an example with Arabic Julhara/Jawhara and English jewel -
it even seemed like there was "systematic sound change" in
French,Italian and Spanish from Arabic and yet there was a more
credible explanation of the descent of the Romance language words from
a Latin word which didn>t mean "Jewel" at all !
Once again pure aesthetics governs snusha, Usha etc. - they are more
euphonic and cultivated to Indian ears than snusa Usa etc.
Since there is no evidence of Sanskrit having ever changed an
inherited sound from another language, we most certainly don>t know
that
start quote
we know there is a rule in Sanskrit that s always changes to (a sh-
like sound) after the vowel u.
end quote.
and snusos is only a fairy tale.
Sanskrit snuṣā is derived from the word "sun" in the same way as it
happened to sūnu (son; Ger. Sonne => Sohn; Serb. sunce => sinak, sin;
English sun =
[/quote]
But of course !
What is more natural than "son>s wife" or "son>s woman" for daughter-
in-law?
You have helped illustrate the lack of common sense of PIEists even
better. "Daughter-in-law" is a derived relationship and whats more
natural than for it to be derived from the word for "son" ?
son);http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/
d47a7ddea6d6803...
[quote]The basis from which the sun "was born" is Xur-Bel-Gon and this
"source" explains all the variants of the IE names for the sun (sunce,
solnce, soreli, surya, sujah, nānuḥ, saul, sol, helios etc.; Latin
filius seems to be related to Greek helios; Sp. hijo).
DV- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Atkinson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
Nathan Sanders wrote:
[quote]"John Atkinson" <johnacko@bigpond.com> wrote:
Nathan Sanders wrote:
Jack Campin - bogus address <bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Is there evidence of sound change be conditioned by
part-of-speech?
I>m not quite sure what you mean, but the answer is probably no.
If two words are homophonous, they will undergo the same sound
changes with the same results, regardless of their parts of
speech. (Keep in mind that I>m talking about systematic change
here. Sporadic change is always possible, and it>s one of the few
ways homophones can diverge.)
Can>t word order affect that? If some particular part of speech
is always sentence-final, won>t it be subject to different sound
changes than a homophone which is aways initial or medial? (I>m
not pretending to have an example).
Note that occurring phrase-finally or phrase-medially is still
technically a phonetic environment, since you have the
absence/presence of some sound following the word.
But yes, this sort of thing could be a way of distinguishing two
homophones (an analogous example is "to" versus "two"; the former is
nearly always unstressed, leading to reduction of the vowel, while
the latter is nearly always stressed, preserving the vowel quality).
A more convincing example (at least in my dialect) is the difference
in the final consonant of <of> and <off>, which were originally the
same word -- when used adverbly <off> it was typically phrase-final,
thus had the voiceless allophone of the OE fricative, while
preposition <of> was frequently followed by a vowel or voiced
consonant, which induced the voiced allophone.
Right, this is the sort of thing I>m talking about. It>s possible for
homophones, by the nature of their meanings or lexical categories, to
appear predominately in different phonetic environments, and
eventually cease being homophonous via leveling of the altered
pronunciation of one of them across all environments (one factor in
language change is allomorphy avoidance, which can sometimes cause one
of many allomorphs to be lexicalized, wiping out many/all of the other
allomorphs).
But it is still the phonetic environment that triggers (or blocks) the
relevant sound change. "Of" didn>t undergo voicing because it was a
preposition---it underwent voicing because it was in a phonetic
environment conducive to voicing, and instances of "of" not in that
environment were changed to match the most commonly used form (again,
not because they are prepositions, but because of another functional
factor).
ISTM that sound changes may occasionally be blocked (at least
temporarily) when they would otherwise lead to loss of an "important"
distinction. I>m thinking of things like the loss of Latin final
/s/ in Spanish, which appears to have been blocked only when it
denoted the plural of nouns (there, it was later extended even to
nouns that didn>t have it in the first place). Today, even that
final /s/ is beginning to be lost in some varieties -- over a
millenium after it was dropped elsewhere.
Without having thought too hard about it, isn>t this sort of thing
pretty close to Analyst>s "sound change conditioned by
part-of-speech"?
Whatever blocked s-deletion was most likely a phonetic environment
that the relevant words typically occurred in. I don>t know the
relevant facts here however, so this is just a guess, but I>d expect
the non-deleting /s/s to have typically occurred pre-vocalically
(causing them to be resyllabified as onsets, and thus, blocking
deletion).
[/quote]
Well, Andrew Woode completely shot down that particular example, at
least as far as Spanish is concerned (should have checked my facts
before posting!). Maybe it (blocked s-deletion in plurals) still works
in other Western Romance languages (Catalan, Occitan, earlier
French?) -- or even Middle English -- but I don>t know enough about them
to say.
I guess the question is whether phonetic environment is the _only_
factor governing sound changes, or whether preservation of an important
(for the language involved) distinction is _ever_ a factor in blocking a
merger or deletion.
[quote]Today, even that final s is beginning to
be lost in some varieties -- over a millenium after it was dropped
elsewhere.
[/quote]
[Andrew:]
[quote]Though in many the phonological distinction in the relevant syllables
is not quite gone (often being expressed in new vowel distinctions).
[/quote]
Like this:
Before s-deletion, <la mula>, [la mula], /la mula / has plural <las
mulas>, [l&s mul&s], /las mulas /.
After s-deletion, <la mula>, [la mula], /la mula / has plural <las
mulas>, [l& mul&], /l& mul& /.
Similarly, /e / > /e, E / and /o / > /o, O /.
If the singular/plural distinction in nouns and adjectives and the
2nd/3rd person distinction in verbs weren>t "important" ones, and
therefore worth maintaining, presumably the loss of final -s wouldn>t
have induced the splits in the vowels in these Eastern Andalusian
varieties? That is:
After s-deletion, <la mula>, [la mula], /la mula/ would have plural <las
mulas>, [la mula], /la mula/.
Here, [a] and [&] have remained allophones of /a /, and <las mulas> is
pronounced [la mula], because the allophony is governed by whether the
syllables are open or closed. The singular/plural distinction would be
completely lost in nouns ending in -a and -o, though it would still be
there in the masculine definite article (/el / vs /lo /), and in nouns
ending in a consonant (<la paz> /la pas / would have plural <las paces>
/la pase /).
In French, final s-deletion _did_ lead to loss of the singular/plural
distinction in most nouns with no compensating split elsewhere.
(Admittedly, French maintains the distinction in both masculine and
feminine definite articles, except when followed by a vowel). Does this
imply that the sing/pl distinction is "less important" in French than in
Spanish?
John. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marco Pagliero
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: Ligurian ending "-asco" |
|
|
On 19 Jun., 22:57, Antnio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]Marco Pagliero wrote:
Hi,
around Turin in north Italy are many toponyms in -asco and -asca.
I can tell you that your large yellow area coincides with occitan, which
lost no s at all (so, if the s was lost, it was at a pre-roman stage). I
can also tell you that the french reflex of -acum is -y, so that>s why
your map shows such a contrast between french and occitan - your french
area is blank because you>d have to look for -y, not -ac.
Thanks Antnio and excuse the long silence, I had much work (luckily).[/quote]
Yes, it is not so simple as I imagined. I found on your suggestion
that I had better known that acus/acum has become -ac in Occitan and -
y in French. ("Aureliacum", le domaine d>Aurle, qui donne "Aurillac"
au sud et "Orly" au nord de la Loire in
http://projetbabel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1462&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105
).
Beside that I>m not sure that -ac and -acq to be the same and in
addition it seems to exist an independent gaulish ending -brac meaning
possibly a marsh.
[quote]Further, your
Britanny looks too yellow, but maybe it reflects that the oil dialect
there kept -ac in contrast with the rest of french.
This was not _my_ britanny but it came from the list of coordinates of[/quote]
all french municipalities :-)
Britanny is proud of her still-alive celtic dialect and they where
1500 still indipendent from France, isn>t it? But I don>t know wether
their Celtic is a relative to Gaulish and what they spoke during the
roman occupation.
It remains the possibility that Galloroman -acus/acum to derive from
Ligurian -asc but I seem alone to see that as possible (I am a fan of
Ligurians, they are told to have resisted invasion a very long time in
the more impervious valleys and beeing a Piemontais I am maybe one of
their descendants, who knows? :-)
When I have time I will try and plot additionally with different
colors the toponymes in -y and in -brac in France and in -aco in
Italy.
Ciao
Marco |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marco Pagliero
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Ligurian ending "-asco" |
|
|
On 21 Jun., 09:37, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]I consulted my historical atlas and found no place
names ending on -asco.
I plotted more tha this, here they are (together with -asca, as -a vs -[/quote]
o doesn>t seem to have any special meaning):
Airasca, Busarasca, Bacedasco, Bagnasco, Barbarasco, Baudenasca,
Becedasco, Beinasco, Binasco, Bogliasco, Borgomasca, Bornasco,
Borzonasca, Bossolasco, Brossasco, Brusasco, Buriasco, Calendasco,
Camposasco, Candeasco, Carasco, Carisasca, Casasco, Cassinasco,
Cedrasco, Cherasco, Cortignasco, Cremasca, Cremasco, Cresciasca,
Dizzasco, Falasca, Fiasca, Finomornasco, Fornovolasco, Fossobrasco,
Gambasca, Garlasco, Germanasca, Godiasco, Grignasco, Grugliasco,
Monteguasco, Marinasco, Lucinasco, Lusurasco, Maggiorasca, Magnasco,
Mercenasco, Mollasco, Monteviasco, Morasco, Noasca, Olgiasca, Osasco,
Parpinasca, Parpinasco, Piasco, Piossasco, Pradibasco, Revigliasco,
Ribellasca, Rimasco, Rosasco, Rovellasca, Tavagnasco, Tarantasca,
Venasca, Vernasca, Verzasco, Villarasca
[quote]The only half match is
Oscella, ancient name of Domodossola near
the Swiss border (Simplon pass Brig / Locarno).
[] Domodossola is a curious
place, surrounded by steep hill and mountain
sides, makes one feel as on the ground of an empty
lake. It goes up on all sides, and especially toward
the Swiss Alps. 'To the sky above', AS CA, would
have been a proper name for this place.
[/quote]
This is an interesting possibility, although many of the places I
listed do lie in the middle of the most flat plains, miles away from
the next hill.
Thanks
Marco P |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Franz Gnaedinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: Re: Ligurian ending "-asco" |
|
|
On Jun 28, 6:11pm, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de> wrote:
[quote]On 21 Jun., 09:37, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
I consulted my historical atlas and found no place
names ending on -asco.
I plotted more tha this, here they are (together with -asca, as -a vs -
o doesn>t seem to have any special meaning):
Airasca, Busarasca, Bacedasco, Bagnasco, Barbarasco, Baudenasca,
Becedasco, Beinasco, Binasco, Bogliasco, Borgomasca, Bornasco,
Borzonasca, Bossolasco, Brossasco, Brusasco, Buriasco, Calendasco,
Camposasco, Candeasco, Carasco, Carisasca, Casasco, Cassinasco,
Cedrasco, Cherasco, Cortignasco, Cremasca, Cremasco, Cresciasca,
Dizzasco, Falasca, Fiasca, Finomornasco, Fornovolasco, Fossobrasco,
Gambasca, Garlasco, Germanasca, Godiasco, Grignasco, Grugliasco,
Monteguasco, Marinasco, Lucinasco, Lusurasco, Maggiorasca, Magnasco,
Mercenasco, Mollasco, Monteviasco, Morasco, Noasca, Olgiasca, Osasco,
Parpinasca, Parpinasco, Piasco, Piossasco, Pradibasco, Revigliasco,
Ribellasca, Rimasco, Rosasco, Rovellasca, Tavagnasco, Tarantasca,
Venasca, Vernasca, Verzasco, Villarasca
The only half match is
Oscella, ancient name of Domodossola near
the Swiss border (Simplon pass Brig / Locarno).
[] Domodossola is a curious
place, surrounded by steep hill and mountain
sides, makes one feel as on the ground of an empty
lake. It goes up on all sides, and especially toward
the Swiss Alps. 'To the sky above', AS CA, would
have been a proper name for this place.
This is an interesting possibility, although many of the places I
listed do lie in the middle of the most flat plains, miles away from
the next hill.
Thanks
Marco P
[/quote]
Thanks for the list of names, I will try to find
a better map of Turin and surroundings. I have
been there myself and liked it very much. As
I recall one can see the Swiss Alps from afar.
Leonardo da Vinci was in Turin, and from there
he ventured into the Swiss Alps and brought
with him amazing drawings. Consider also
Piemont, pied de la montange, foot of the
mountains, southern base of the Swiss Alps.
There is also the valley of Aosta, where early
Italians got into the Rhone valley and founded
the famous Neolithic culture of Sion. Several
ways led from Turin to the mountains and into
Switzerland. Then there is Mount Bego in
southeast France, near the Italian border,
a treasure of rock drawings, a mythic place
high up in the mountains. You have to keep
the wider area in mind, not just the local
environment. But of course my idea might
be wrong, I will consult a better map and
look up those places. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Franz Gnaedinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: Why weren>t the Jews mentioned in amongst Canaanite text |
|
|
On Jun 28, 10:53am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]
The Gezer calendar, paleo-Hebrew, ca. 925 BC (1/4)
Combining the Hebrew calendar from Gezer, around
925 BC, with the Asherah sanctuary as depicted on an
amulet from Teleilat Ghassoul and on the lid of a curved
hippopotame ivory box from Safadi, both belonging to
the culture of Beersheba, Chalcolithic, between 4 500
and 3 500 BC:
Picture a tree of life, surrounded by a dozen poles in
the positions of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 o>clock, and
a four-horned altar inside the circle, in some distance
from the tree. This would be the tree of Asherah and
the altar of El, later of Yahweh. The four-horned altar is
mentioned in Amos, and one such altar was excavated
at Megiddo.
Pole in the position of 1 o>clock: January 20, begin of
the month of hoeing flax
Pole in the position of 2 o>clock: February 19, begin of
the month of barley harvest
Pole in the position of 3 o>clock, East: March 21,
spring equinox, begin of the month of harvest and
feasting
Pole in the position of 4 o>clock: April 20, begin of
the first month of (vine) pruning
Pole in the position of 5 o>clock: May 20, begin of
the second month of (vine) pruning
Pole in the position of 6 o>clock, South: June 19,
close to the summer solstice (June 21), begin of
the month of summer fruit
Pole in the position of 7 o>clock: July 19, begin of
the first month of harvest
Space between the tree of life and the four-horned
altar: 5 and occasionally 6 intermediary days, end
of the old year and begin of the new year, harvest
festival, days of Yahweh, previously of El and Asherah
Pole in the position of 8 o>clock: August 23 or 24,
begin of the second month of harvest
Pole in the position of 9 o>clock, West: September
22 or 23, fall equinox, begin of the first month of
planting
Pole in the position of 10 o>clock: October 22, begin
of the second month of planting
Pole in the position of 11 o>clock: November 21,
begin of the first month of late planting
Pole in the position of 12 o>clock, North: December
21, winter solstice, begin of the second month of late
planting
The Gezer calendar, paleo-Hebrew, ca. 925 BC (2/4)
A year has 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 and occasionally
6 days - harvest festival, in between the two months of
harvest, end of the old year and begin of the new year,
holy days of Yahweh, previously of El and Asherah -,
while 63 continuous periods of 30 days yield 1,890 days
and correspond to 63 lunations. Lunations are counted
as follows:
30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30
30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30
30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30
30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30
yielding 502 443 502 443 days, all in all 1,890 days or
a cycle of 64 lunations. This cycle lasts over five years,
mistake per cycle only one hour. (Lunation of this calendar:
29 days 12 hours 45 minutes; actual lunation from 1989 AD,
average value: 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes 2.9 seconds).
The correct placement of the dozen poles allowed to observe
the sunrises and sunsets on the equinoxes and solstices in
Upper Mesopotamia, a flat horizon provided. Owing to the
lesser geographical latitude and an undulating horizon of hills,
the observatory didn>t work properly anymore in Palestine,
so we may assume a transition from an observatory and
sanctuary to a mere sanctuary - or the well functioning of the
observatory was restored by slight shiftings of some poles.
The poles may have been decorated according to the
meaning of the month they introduced. The tree of life in
the middle could have been replaced with a decorated
pole, especially in the case of a nomadic tribe.
The Gezer calendar, paleo-Hebrew, ca. 925 BC (3/4)
The above model is the closest possible interlocking of the
Asherah sanctuary and the Gezer calendar, and the mere
possibility of such an interlocking testifies to cultural continuity.
The Gezer calendar, a limestone tablet measuring 11.1 cm
(height) x 7.2 cm (width), contains seven lines and a signature
in paleo-Hebrew. The most exciting feature reveled by the
above model is the intermediary period of 5 and occasionally
6 days in between the two months of harvest that mark the
begin of the text: "Two months of harvest," "Two months"
given as dual form, a short word of three letters in the upper
right corner. These two months include the days of Yahweh
in between the years. The signature in the bottom left corner
reads Abijah, meaning: Yah is my father, perhaps from
ABA ShA CA --- father (aba) ruler (sha) sky (ca), my father
is the ruler of the sky, Yahweh, "rider of clouds." This means
that Yahewh is present at the begin and end of the calendar
text, as He is present at the begin and end of a year --
at the end of the old year and begin of the new year, in the
5 and occasionally 6 intermediary days of the harvest festival
in between the two months of harvest. Could the tablet have
been a student exercise? I don>t think so. In my opinion it is
yet another example of the formula: simple yet complex.
The composition is sublime, and unfolds like a book when
combined with the Asherah sanctuary. Consider also the
_seven_ lines. Gezer, some 30 km northwest of Jerusalem,
was founded as a village in the third millennium BC, and later
surrounded by walls. It may be seen as a heir of the Chalcolithic
culture of Beersheba, a name meaning Well of the Divine
Number Seven according to Cyrus H. Gordon.
The Gezer calendar, paleo-Hebrew, ca. 925 BC (4/4)
Yahweh as harvest god confirms Him in the role of TYR
as the one who overcomes in the double sense of rule
and give. He appears as giver of land at the end of book
Amos in the Bible, and then He says of the people of Israel
"... they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof;
they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them."
Yahweh presumably came from mount Seir, fifty km
south of Beersheba. I read Seir as emphatic form of
TYR. In the center and again on the margin of the Tiryns
disk from around 1650 BC we read Ss Ey R or Sseyr
(Derk Ohlenroth) as another emphatic form of Tyr,
Middle Helladic Sseyr Doric Sseus Greek Zeus.
The time around 1650 BC falls into the Second
Intermediate Period of Egypt, with Mediterranean
Sea trade and indications of strong Palestinian cultural
influence. Between Memphis and Avaris we find a
Tell-el-Yahudia, evoking the ending -jahu of the names
on the ostraca from Lachish and Arad from around
600 BC, denoting the persons mentioned as believers
in Yahweh.
[/quote]
The Gezer calendar, postscript
A week had seven days, reflected in the seven lines
of the tablet. 270 weeks are 1,890 days, corresponding
to the long calendar cycle of 64 lunations. I guess a new
sequence of calendar cycles was started when a new
king was appointed. If a king ruled for sixty years,
the mistake was still not even half a day. This small
mistake would then have been corrected when a new
king started a new sequence of calendar cycles. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marco Pagliero
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: Ligurian ending "-asco" |
|
|
On 20 Jun., 18:36, mb wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 11:14 am, Marco Pagliero wrote:
they say it comes from Celtic/Roman -acus meaning village, but where
comes -acus from?)
["They" also say in some places that it could well be an adjectival
ending (like, say, -ish). They don>t really seem to have much to bite
into]
Yes, this is apparently a topic where the one secured information is:[/quote]
it is controversial. This is curious, because on the other hand
everyone can easily learn Ligurian :-)
http://www.mylanguageexchange.com/Learn/Ligurian.asp
But linguistics is not easy, when one can find (about the origins of
the Piedmontais language):
Balma (cavern), from the Celtic Beal (watercourse);
Bealera (brook), from the Celtic Beal (hill);
[quote]
I found the coordinates in some semi-official lists, they are not that
accurate and I deleted half a dozen yellow points falling in the sea,
Belgium or the Switzerlands,
Why on Earth? Belgium and Switzerland are smack within the area.
Already in Ticino -asco/-asca/-azzo makes up a respectable percentage
of place names.
I have nothing against Belgians or Helvetians, but of both lists I[/quote]
used one was of the french, the other of the italian minicipalities,
so no dot was supposed to autonomously migrate over the borders.
But I take yours as an interesting proposal and I will, when I have
some time and if I find the applicable lists, plot this kind of
toponyms from Belgium, Switzerland and Spain.
Can you suggest what could have become of -asco, -brac, and -acum in
the germanic and hiberian languages?
Ciao
Marco p |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marco Pagliero
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: Ligurian ending "-asco" |
|
|
On 23 Jun., 01:21, "Douglas G. Kilday" wrote:
[quote]Marco Pagliero wrote:
around Turin in north Italy are many toponyms in -asco and -asca. The
general opinion there is that they should come from a Ligurian word
"asc" meaning a fortified village. Others say it be related with
Etruscan "-usco" but there are almost no toponyms in -usco in the
Tuscany and none at all in -asco or -asca.
The suffix is ancient Ligurian but it does not mean 'fortified
village'. It forms adjectives and nouns from other nouns or
adjectives.
Yes, I don>t know why my informant thought asc could mean a fortified[/quote]
village, but so I don>t know why you think it is wrong. I understand
that next to nothing is known of Ligurian as a language, the only
remains being in the toponomastic.
http://www.forumromanum.org/latin/buck_1.html says:
"The Ligurians in the northwest have usually been regarded as relics
of an aboriginal, pre-Indo-European, population, but are now thought
by some to be Indo-European. The linguistic remains, consisting
largely of geographical names, are too meagre to be decisive."
[quote]Among the earliest attestations are four rivers mentioned
in the Sententia Minuciorum of 117 BCE (an official document resolving
a boundary-dispute between the citizens of Genoa and their neighbors),
the Neviasca, Vinelasca, Veraglasca, and Tulelasca. The base of
Neviasca is Lig. *neujos 'new' (itself Latinized as a man>s name,
Nevius, CIL 5:7656 etc.); that of Vinelasca probably *wi:nelo- 'wine-
producing region' from *wi:nom 'wine';
This would make of Ligurian an indo european language, I suppose:[/quote]
*neujos 'new' and *wi:nelo- 'wine-producing region' sounds nearly like
Esperanto. Does this Sententia Minuciorum explain the names or barely
mention them?
[quote]Gaulish -a:kos was Latinized as -a:cus and used primarily to name
private estates. It has nothing to do with -asca/o-. What precedes -
a:cus is usually a family name. For example, the fundus Sabinianus in
Italy is now Savignano, while France has Savignac and Savigny from
Sabiniacus, from the gentilicium Sabinius.
Did this ending -ano of Savignano descend from some Sabini-a:kos or it[/quote]
is just the latin adjective ending from Sabinianus?
Thanks
Marco P |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jun 28, 8:09am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 8:01am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
Here is another fairy tale from Calvert Watkins:
start quote:
[/quote]
(It thurns out to be part of the preface to the American Heritage
Dictionary appendix of IE roots in English.)
Analys... dishonestly failed to cite the grammatical portion of the
text, which is even more convincing than the phonological argument s/
he quoted.
[quote]Simple explanation:
The Sanskrit is orginal - Slavic changed it slightly during contact-
acquistion. The Greek etc. are from something entirely different.
[/quote]
Now explain the thousands of other words that fit the Skt < IE
pattern.
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/8.html- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jun 28, 1:28pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
<some trademark childishness>
Care to try again? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jun 28, 1:53pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
<an editorial>
Please see my response to Dusan. Snusha and Sunus cannot be analyzed
separately. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nathan Sanders
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
In article <ZIs9k.15625$IK1.4738@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"John Atkinson" <johnacko@bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders wrote:
"John Atkinson" <johnacko@bigpond.com> wrote:
Nathan Sanders wrote:
Jack Campin - bogus address <bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Is there evidence of sound change be conditioned by
part-of-speech?
I>m not quite sure what you mean, but the answer is probably no.
If two words are homophonous, they will undergo the same sound
changes with the same results, regardless of their parts of
speech. (Keep in mind that I>m talking about systematic change
here. Sporadic change is always possible, and it>s one of the few
ways homophones can diverge.)
Can>t word order affect that? If some particular part of speech
is always sentence-final, won>t it be subject to different sound
changes than a homophone which is aways initial or medial? (I>m
not pretending to have an example).
Note that occurring phrase-finally or phrase-medially is still
technically a phonetic environment, since you have the
absence/presence of some sound following the word.
But yes, this sort of thing could be a way of distinguishing two
homophones (an analogous example is "to" versus "two"; the former is
nearly always unstressed, leading to reduction of the vowel, while
the latter is nearly always stressed, preserving the vowel quality).
A more convincing example (at least in my dialect) is the difference
in the final consonant of <of> and <off>, which were originally the
same word -- when used adverbly <off> it was typically phrase-final,
thus had the voiceless allophone of the OE fricative, while
preposition <of> was frequently followed by a vowel or voiced
consonant, which induced the voiced allophone.
Right, this is the sort of thing I>m talking about. It>s possible for
homophones, by the nature of their meanings or lexical categories, to
appear predominately in different phonetic environments, and
eventually cease being homophonous via leveling of the altered
pronunciation of one of them across all environments (one factor in
language change is allomorphy avoidance, which can sometimes cause one
of many allomorphs to be lexicalized, wiping out many/all of the other
allomorphs).
But it is still the phonetic environment that triggers (or blocks) the
relevant sound change. "Of" didn>t undergo voicing because it was a
preposition---it underwent voicing because it was in a phonetic
environment conducive to voicing, and instances of "of" not in that
environment were changed to match the most commonly used form (again,
not because they are prepositions, but because of another functional
factor).
ISTM that sound changes may occasionally be blocked (at least
temporarily) when they would otherwise lead to loss of an "important"
distinction. I>m thinking of things like the loss of Latin final
/s/ in Spanish, which appears to have been blocked only when it
denoted the plural of nouns (there, it was later extended even to
nouns that didn>t have it in the first place). Today, even that
final /s/ is beginning to be lost in some varieties -- over a
millenium after it was dropped elsewhere.
Without having thought too hard about it, isn>t this sort of thing
pretty close to Analyst>s "sound change conditioned by
part-of-speech"?
Whatever blocked s-deletion was most likely a phonetic environment
that the relevant words typically occurred in. I don>t know the
relevant facts here however, so this is just a guess, but I>d expect
the non-deleting /s/s to have typically occurred pre-vocalically
(causing them to be resyllabified as onsets, and thus, blocking
deletion).
Well, Andrew Woode completely shot down that particular example, at
least as far as Spanish is concerned (should have checked my facts
before posting!). Maybe it (blocked s-deletion in plurals) still works
in other Western Romance languages (Catalan, Occitan, earlier
French?) -- or even Middle English -- but I don>t know enough about them
to say.
I guess the question is whether phonetic environment is the _only_
factor governing sound changes, or whether preservation of an important
(for the language involved) distinction is _ever_ a factor in blocking a
merger or deletion.
Today, even that final s is beginning to
be lost in some varieties -- over a millenium after it was dropped
elsewhere.
[Andrew:]
Though in many the phonological distinction in the relevant syllables
is not quite gone (often being expressed in new vowel distinctions).
Like this:
Before s-deletion, <la mula>, [la mula], /la mula / has plural <las
mulas>, [l&s mul&s], /las mulas /.
After s-deletion, <la mula>, [la mula], /la mula / has plural <las
mulas>, [l& mul&], /l& mul& /.
Similarly, /e / > /e, E / and /o / > /o, O /.
If the singular/plural distinction in nouns and adjectives and the
2nd/3rd person distinction in verbs weren>t "important" ones, and
therefore worth maintaining, presumably the loss of final -s wouldn>t
have induced the splits in the vowels in these Eastern Andalusian
varieties? That is:
After s-deletion, <la mula>, [la mula], /la mula/ would have plural <las
mulas>, [la mula], /la mula/.
Here, [a] and [&] have remained allophones of /a /, and <las mulas> is
pronounced [la mula], because the allophony is governed by whether the
syllables are open or closed. The singular/plural distinction would be
completely lost in nouns ending in -a and -o, though it would still be
there in the masculine definite article (/el / vs /lo /), and in nouns
ending in a consonant (<la paz> /la pas / would have plural <las paces
/la pase /).
In French, final s-deletion _did_ lead to loss of the singular/plural
distinction in most nouns with no compensating split elsewhere.
(Admittedly, French maintains the distinction in both masculine and
feminine definite articles, except when followed by a vowel). Does this
imply that the sing/pl distinction is "less important" in French than in
Spanish?
[/quote]
The sound changes in question were triggered by phonetic factors, and
they happened to occur in such a way as to create a phonemic split.
Eastern Andalusians didn>t predict the forthcoming s-deletion and plan
for it by changing their vowels in advance. The vowel changes just
happened on their, and sometime later, s-deletion happened (both are
independently attested changes). It>s nothing more complex than that,
with the "importance" of number-marking playing no role.
Maintenance of contrast is definitely a functional factor in sound
change, but it doesn>t quite work the way you>re describing. Anna
Lubowicz has offered up a formalization of the kind of thing you>re
talking about with her Contrast Preservation Theory, but there are
some serious problems with her approach (which I discussed in my
dissertation).
The best way to think of how contrast preservation affects sound
change is to look at what happens when a contrast is relatively
difficult to perceive/make. If a sound change is going to occur, one
of two things will happen: the contrast will be given up on resulting
in a merger, or the contrast will be enhanced by making one or both of
the contrasting units more distinct. But either possibility can and
does occur, and across languages, even within languages at different
points in time, we see the same contrast being handled differently,
sometimes merging, sometimes being enhanced (and often, just being
left alone).
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
John Atkinson wrote:
[quote]Well, Andrew Woode completely shot down that particular example, at
least as far as Spanish is concerned (should have checked my facts
before posting!). Maybe it (blocked s-deletion in plurals) still works
in other Western Romance languages (Catalan, Occitan, earlier French?)
-- or even Middle English -- but I don>t know enough about them to say.
[/quote]
The final "s" is still pronounced in French "as" ("ace") and "os"
("bone"). The plural of the latter, also spelled "os", is, however, just
[o].
[snip]
[quote]Like this:
Before s-deletion, <la mula>, [la mula], /la mula / has plural <las
mulas>, [l&s mul&s], /las mulas /.
After s-deletion, <la mula>, [la mula], /la mula / has plural <las
mulas>, [l& mul&], /l& mul& /.
Similarly, /e / > /e, E / and /o / > /o, O /.
[/quote]
Do you mean [A] rather than [&] (the vowel in "cat"). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
