Re: [tied] Thracian Sounds
- 01-09-03 00:34, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> I'll give you a modern example, then. The Thai consonant phonemeIt is, however, weakened by the fact that Iranian [þ] is rather
> inventory is a superset of the Greek inventory, except that Thai /ng/
> does not have a stop allophone and Thai does not have /z/. Thais can
> mishear English [þ] as /s/; they do not hear it as /tH/, /t/ or /f/. The
> only systematic distortion I can think of might be caused by the
> existence of hushed affricates /tS/, /tSH/, but I think that that
> strengthens rather than weakens my argument.
consistently represented as Greek <tH> (Mithradates, Parthamaspates,
Pissuthnes [OPer. pis^is^yaoþna-], etc.), just like [f] and [x] become
Gk. <pH>, <kH> (fravartis^ > Phraortes, haxa:manis^ > akHaimene:s
[Achaemenes]). An apparent exception is OPer. þatagus^ --> Sattagydia,
but the Sattagydians were not Old Persian speakers and the Greeks may
well have taken the name from a different Iranian dialect (OPer. þ < *k^
corresponds to /s/ in Avestan, Median, etc. and I believe þatagu- <
*k^m.to-gWu- '[the country of] a hundred cows'); cf. Babyl.
sa-at-ta-gu-u, Elam. satakus^.
- m_iacomi wrote:
>>what means the word in Bulgarian?
>> I was thinking of that but there are the problems with "breaz"
>> (piebald) and there should be a very unusual metathesis in one of
>> these words: barzã versus breaz.
> The word is from Bulgarian "breaz" (which could maybe be linked
> with the same root as Albanian "(i) bardhë". Diphthong /ea/ in
> that position can not arise from a substratal word.
>> About colours: we use colours to denominate vegetables, but weThere is no bird known to me which is denominated after its colour. And
>> do not use them for denominating birds, do we?
> Generally not, because the number of colours is limited while
> the number of birds' species is larger enough. Though in this
> particular case, people just did name the bird looking at its'
> general colour. Calling biological things with colours' name is
> not unusual in Romanian and calling this particular bird making
> reference to its' colour is common in several languages. So
> there is no reason preventing Romanians to call it in a similar
> manner: it is perfectly possible and it's what happened.
> Marius Iacomi
white is the goose too. I doubt that "barza" meant white. I don'T have a
better explanation but even Albanian does not help here . If in Alb.
there should have been the word "bardhë"= stork, then one could say,
yes, look , this is this. But there it is not a such bird. I assume that
your "particular case" is very weak argued having just a phonetical
similitude as basis and an wished semantical development.
If the "zã" is a suffix like in "pupa-za", "cinte-za" then we will have
to deal with a root as "bar-za".
Any idea regarding birds like storks and which will relate to "bar-"?