Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Diphthongs

Expand Messages
  • alex
    ... oh, I see now where. I just wondered since I could not find this name in the Dacian/Thracian material I have. It is also a sequence on Ezero ring. Alex
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Aigius wrote:
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@t...> wrote:
      >> Aigius wrote:
      >>> ZEL-TUM (Dacian) > ZE-LO-TUM > ZO-LO-TUM > ZO-LO-TU > ZO-LO-TO
      >>
      >>> Regards, Aigius
      >>
      >>
      >> who sustains this word should be Dacian?
      >
      > I think that there is such sentence on Ezero ring:

      oh, I see now where. I just wondered since I could not find this name in
      the Dacian/Thracian material I have. It is also "a sequence" on Ezero
      ring.

      Alex





      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29.04.2005
    • david_russell_watson
      ... I think we re seeing one right now. ;^) David
      Message 2 of 17 , May 1 12:04 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Aigius" <segijus@y...> wrote:
        >
        > Are You able to see Lithuanian characters?

        I think we're seeing one right now. ;^)

        David
      • Aigius
        ... Better version of this Baltic translation of Ezero ring may be found at: http://www.istorija.net/forums//thread-view.asp?tid=1044 Why nonsensical? Have You
        Message 3 of 17 , May 1 7:43 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel J. Milton" <dmilt1896@a...>
          wrote:
          > This nonsensical Lithuanian "translation" of the Ezero ring may
          > be found at:
          > http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=5
          > 317&messageid=1076350221
          >
          > Other translations may be found at:
          > http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_6.html
          > These are very likely wrong too, but they seem to have been made
          > by professional linguists.
          > Dan Milton

          Better version of this Baltic translation of Ezero ring may be found
          at:
          http://www.istorija.net/forums//thread-view.asp?tid=1044
          Why nonsensical? Have You better version?

          Regards, Aigius
        • elmeras2000
          ... ... may ... made ... found ... The version you use is indeed very close to the original. The website you refer to has the reading:
          Message 4 of 17 , May 1 4:40 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Aigius" <segijus@y...> wrote:
            > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel J. Milton"
            <dmilt1896@a...>
            > wrote:
            > > This nonsensical Lithuanian "translation" of the Ezero ring
            may
            > > be found at:
            > > http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=5
            > > 317&messageid=1076350221
            > >
            > > Other translations may be found at:
            > > http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_6.html
            > > These are very likely wrong too, but they seem to have been
            made
            > > by professional linguists.
            > > Dan Milton
            >
            > Better version of this Baltic translation of Ezero ring may be
            found
            > at:
            > http://www.istorija.net/forums//thread-view.asp?tid=1044
            > Why nonsensical? Have You better version?
            >
            > Regards, Aigius

            The version you use is indeed very close to the original. The
            website you refer to has the reading:

            RULISTËNAS NËRËNA TILTAN ES, KUORA ZIEDUM ANT ILËS ÛP TAMI YRA ZELTA.

            The actual reading is in clear Greek letters which give cause for no
            difficulties as far as the reading is concerned (<E:> is eta, omega
            does not occur):

            1 ROLISTENEASN
            2 ERENEATIL
            3 TEANE:SKOA
            4 RAZEADOM
            5 EANTILEZY
            6 PTAMIE:E
            7 RAZ //
            8 E:LTA

            There is no marking of word division. The first six lines are
            written on the face of the ring, taking up all the space there is,
            while the seventh line has some free space on both sides of <RAZ>.
            The eighth line <E:LTA> (it not <ATLE:>) is written on the side of
            the ring. This indicates that the eighth line does not belong to the
            text of the main face which ends with the letters -RAZ . There is
            therefore no word "ZELTA".

            A first crude analysis may depart from the sequence <KOA> which also
            occurs on the inscription from Kiolmen, no matter whose reading one
            believes. I suggest this means "and", especially since it offers a
            nice structural grid:

            If we cut out <Rolisteneasnereneatilteane:s koa razea>, it would
            seem that we have an enclitic "and" inserted between two words, one
            ending in -s, the other in -ea. We can get the same pairing if we
            cut <Rolisteanes Nerenea Tilteane:s koa Razea>, which would offer
            the parallelism needed to justify the use of "and". This could
            mean "R.N. and T.R." with "and" enclitic after the first element of
            the second member. If this reflects two names, both consisting of a
            personal name in the nominative and a family name in a different
            case, presumably genitive, then the following <domeanti> may well be
            a verb of which they are the subjects. If postconsonantal /j/ is
            written with <E> (5x <EA>), the sequence IE:- is likely to begin a
            word. That isolates <lezyptam> which would be the object.

            Except for the probable genitive in -a (-ea in yo-stems?), this is
            now not very much like Lithuanian. And why would it be? It is
            Thracian.

            Jens
          • Aigius
            ... This is like Proto Baltic. ... Ivan Duridanov: The comparative studies with the Baltic languages were very helpful in the case of some unclear personal
            Message 5 of 17 , May 2 3:11 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@c...> wrote:
              > Except for the probable genitive in -a (-ea in yo-stems?), this is
              > now not very much like Lithuanian.

              This is like Proto Baltic.

              > And why would it be? It is
              > Thracian.
              >
              > Jens

              Ivan Duridanov: "The comparative studies with the Baltic
              languages were very helpful in the case of some unclear personal and
              geographical Thracian names and provided new insights into the
              Thracian vocabulary. It turned out that the Thracian language is in
              close genetic links with the Baltic languages [For more details see
              my work: Thrakisch-dakische Studien, I. Teil, Balkansko ezikoznanie,
              XIII, 2, Sofia, 1969]."

              Regards, Aigius
            • altamix
              ... it is enough if one counts how many words are interpreted by Duridanov as meaning bog in his Thracian-Baltic correspondancies. So many different words
              Message 6 of 17 , May 2 4:11 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Aigius" <segijus@y...> wrote:

                > > And why would it be? It is
                > > Thracian.
                > >
                > > Jens
                >
                > Ivan Duridanov: "The comparative studies with the Baltic
                > languages were very helpful in the case of some unclear personal
                > and geographical Thracian names and provided new insights into the
                > Thracian vocabulary. It turned out that the Thracian language is in
                > close genetic links with the Baltic languages [For more details see
                > my work: Thrakisch-dakische Studien, I. Teil, Balkansko
                > ezikoznanie,
                > XIII, 2, Sofia, 1969]."
                >
                > Regards, Aigius



                it is enough if one counts how many words are interpreted by
                Duridanov as meaning "bog" in his Thracian-Baltic correspondancies.
                So many different words with the meaning "bog" cannot be existent in
                one language. Due his alleged and forced comparations, one cannot pay
                too much for the ideas presented by Duridanov. So far I remember,
                Deçev (to speak just about a compatriote of him) rejects the idea
                of
                Duridanov too.

                Since we are here, one has to mention that Duridanov sees a lot of
                correspondancies between Baltic and Thracian but he affirms
                too "there is no corresponance between Slavic and Thracian". That
                will mean the contact between Baltic and Slavic are all of later
                nature, somewhere in the christian time. Does it fit in the Baltic-
                Slavic relationship on the timeline?

                Alex
              • Aigius
                ... Again, if translation of Ezero ring is correct, there was neuters ending -UM in Thracian language then. Proto Baltic language didn t have such ending.
                Message 7 of 17 , May 2 11:22 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@t...> wrote:
                  > Since we are here, one has to mention that Duridanov sees a lot of
                  > correspondancies between Baltic and Thracian but he affirms
                  > too "there is no corresponance between Slavic and Thracian". That
                  > will mean the contact between Baltic and Slavic are all of later
                  > nature, somewhere in the christian time. Does it fit in the Baltic-
                  > Slavic relationship on the timeline?
                  >
                  > Alex

                  Again, if translation of Ezero ring is correct, there was neuters
                  ending -UM in Thracian language then. Proto Baltic language didn't
                  have such ending. Slavic languages have neuters ending -O, which, I
                  think, was derived from neuters ending -UM. So, there is no
                  relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages, but there is
                  relationship between Thracian and Slavic languages. For example:

                  Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZELTIS > ZELTAS > Latvian word ZELTS
                  Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZELOTIUM > ZOLOTIUM > ZOLOTUM > ZOLOTU >
                  Russian word ZOLOTO
                  Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZLETIUM > ZLATIUM > ZLATUM > ZLATU > Polish
                  word ZLATO

                  Regards, Aigius
                • Daniel J. Milton
                  ... of ... Baltic- ... ********* In an impressive analysis in Cybalist 37489, Jens said that there is no word ZELTA (much less ZELTIUM) on the Ezero ring,
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 2 12:53 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Aigius" <segijus@y...> wrote:
                    > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@t...> wrote:
                    > > Since we are here, one has to mention that Duridanov sees a lot
                    of
                    > > correspondancies between Baltic and Thracian but he affirms
                    > > too "there is no corresponance between Slavic and Thracian". That
                    > > will mean the contact between Baltic and Slavic are all of later
                    > > nature, somewhere in the christian time. Does it fit in the
                    Baltic-
                    > > Slavic relationship on the timeline?
                    > >
                    > > Alex
                    >
                    > Again, if translation of Ezero ring is correct, there was neuters
                    > ending -UM in Thracian language then. Proto Baltic language didn't
                    > have such ending. Slavic languages have neuters ending -O, which, I
                    > think, was derived from neuters ending -UM. So, there is no
                    > relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages, but there is
                    > relationship between Thracian and Slavic languages. For example:
                    >
                    > Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZELTIS > ZELTAS > Latvian word ZELTS
                    > Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZELOTIUM > ZOLOTIUM > ZOLOTUM > ZOLOTU >
                    > Russian word ZOLOTO
                    > Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZLETIUM > ZLATIUM > ZLATUM > ZLATU > Polish
                    > word ZLATO
                    >
                    > Regards, Aigius
                    *********
                    In an impressive analysis in Cybalist 37489, Jens said that there
                    is no word ZELTA (much less ZELTIUM) on the Ezero ring, adding
                    convincing linguistic arguments to what seems apparent fron looking at
                    photographs of the ring itself.
                    Duridanov, in what I take to be an authoritative Thracian word list
                    elsewhere on the Web, has nothing like this word.
                    Aigius, if you disagree, then state your reasoning. It seems to me
                    the minimum moral requirement for posting on Cybalist is paying
                    attention to others' postings. It's a privilege that I don't like to
                    see abused, for amateurs like us to be answered by professionals
                    Dan Milton
                  • Daniel J. Milton
                    ... of ... Baltic- ... ********* In an impressive analysis in Cybalist 37489, Jens said that there is no word ZELTA (much less ZELTIUM) on the Ezero ring,
                    Message 9 of 17 , May 2 1:49 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Aigius" <segijus@y...> wrote:
                      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@t...> wrote:
                      > > Since we are here, one has to mention that Duridanov sees a lot
                      of
                      > > correspondancies between Baltic and Thracian but he affirms
                      > > too "there is no corresponance between Slavic and Thracian". That
                      > > will mean the contact between Baltic and Slavic are all of later
                      > > nature, somewhere in the christian time. Does it fit in the
                      Baltic-
                      > > Slavic relationship on the timeline?
                      > >
                      > > Alex
                      >
                      > Again, if translation of Ezero ring is correct, there was neuters
                      > ending -UM in Thracian language then. Proto Baltic language didn't
                      > have such ending. Slavic languages have neuters ending -O, which, I
                      > think, was derived from neuters ending -UM. So, there is no
                      > relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages, but there is
                      > relationship between Thracian and Slavic languages. For example:
                      >
                      > Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZELTIS > ZELTAS > Latvian word ZELTS
                      > Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZELOTIUM > ZOLOTIUM > ZOLOTUM > ZOLOTU >
                      > Russian word ZOLOTO
                      > Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZLETIUM > ZLATIUM > ZLATUM > ZLATU > Polish
                      > word ZLATO
                      >
                      > Regards, Aigius
                      *********
                      In an impressive analysis in Cybalist 37489, Jens said that there
                      is no word ZELTA (much less ZELTIUM) on the Ezero ring, adding
                      convincing linguistic arguments to what seems apparent fron looking at
                      photographs of the ring itself.
                      Duridanov, in what I take to be an authoritative Thracian word list
                      elsewhere on the Web, has nothing like this word.
                      Aigius, if you disagree, then state your reasoning. It seems to me
                      the minimum moral requirement for posting on Cybalist is paying
                      attention to others' postings. It's a privilege that I don't like to
                      see abused, for amateurs like us to be answered by professionals
                      Dan Milton
                    • elmeras2000
                      ... My answer to that is a simple no. Before a certain point in time, Baltic and Slavic were one. But the Baltic languages have not been under so much
                      Message 10 of 17 , May 2 4:23 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@t...> wrote:

                        > Since we are here, one has to mention that Duridanov sees a lot of
                        > correspondancies between Baltic and Thracian but he affirms
                        > too "there is no corresponance between Slavic and Thracian". That
                        > will mean the contact between Baltic and Slavic are all of later
                        > nature, somewhere in the christian time. Does it fit in the Baltic-
                        > Slavic relationship on the timeline?

                        My answer to that is a simple no. Before a certain point in time,
                        Baltic and Slavic were one. But the Baltic languages have not been
                        under so much influence from Iranian and Greek as has Slavic, so many
                        old words are only retained in Baltic. That means of course that
                        isoglosses with other branches tend to involve "Baltic alone" more
                        often than "Slavic alone".

                        Jens
                      • Vassil Karloukovski
                        ... there are more pictures of the Ezero ring, including its back face which contains some additional lettering (somebody s initials?) at
                        Message 11 of 17 , May 14 11:21 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@c...> wrote:

                          > > > Other translations may be found at:
                          > > > http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_6.html
                          > > > These are very likely wrong too, but they seem to have
                          > > > been made by professional linguists.
                          > > > Dan Milton
                          > >
                          > > Better version of this Baltic translation of Ezero ring may be
                          > > found at:
                          > > http://www.istorija.net/forums//thread-view.asp?tid=1044
                          > > Why nonsensical? Have You better version?
                          > >
                          > > Regards, Aigius


                          there are more pictures of the Ezero ring, including its back face
                          which contains some additional lettering (somebody's initials?) at
                          http://www.kazanlak.com/egallery/thumbnails.php?album=9&page=1


                          Regards,
                          Vassil

                          > The version you use is indeed very close to the original. The
                          > website you refer to has the reading:
                          >
                          > RULISTËNAS NËRËNA TILTAN ES, KUORA ZIEDUM ANT ILËS
                          ÛP TAMI YRA
                          > ZELTA.
                          >
                          > The actual reading is in clear Greek letters which give cause for
                          > no difficulties as far as the reading is concerned (<E:> is eta,
                          > omega does not occur):
                          >
                          > 1 ROLISTENEASN
                          > 2 ERENEATIL
                          > 3 TEANE:SKOA
                          > 4 RAZEADOM
                          > 5 EANTILEZY
                          > 6 PTAMIE:E
                          > 7 RAZ //
                          > 8 E:LTA
                          >
                          > There is no marking of word division. The first six lines are
                          > written on the face of the ring, taking up all the space there is,
                          > while the seventh line has some free space on both sides of <RAZ>.
                          > The eighth line <E:LTA> (it not <ATLE:>) is written on the side of
                          > the ring. This indicates that the eighth line does not belong to
                          > the text of the main face which ends with the letters -RAZ . There
                          > is therefore no word "ZELTA".
                          >
                          > A first crude analysis may depart from the sequence <KOA> which
                          > also occurs on the inscription from Kiolmen, no matter whose
                          > reading one believes. I suggest this means "and", especially since
                          > it offers a nice structural grid:
                          >
                          > If we cut out <Rolisteneasnereneatilteane:s koa razea>, it would
                          > seem that we have an enclitic "and" inserted between two words, one
                          > ending in -s, the other in -ea. We can get the same pairing if we
                          > cut <Rolisteanes Nerenea Tilteane:s koa Razea>, which would offer
                          > the parallelism needed to justify the use of "and". This could
                          > mean "R.N. and T.R." with "and" enclitic after the first element of
                          > the second member. If this reflects two names, both consisting of a
                          > personal name in the nominative and a family name in a different
                          > case, presumably genitive, then the following <domeanti> may well
                          > be a verb of which they are the subjects. If postconsonantal /j/
                          > is written with <E> (5x <EA>), the sequence IE:- is likely to begin
                          > a word. That isolates <lezyptam> which would be the object.
                          >
                          > Except for the probable genitive in -a (-ea in yo-stems?), this is
                          > now not very much like Lithuanian. And why would it be? It is
                          > Thracian.
                          >
                          > Jens
                        • elmeras2000
                          ... Hello, that sounds interesting. Is there writing on its back too, and this has not been noticed?? I can t get the website to show me any other picture than
                          Message 12 of 17 , May 14 3:23 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Vassil Karloukovski"
                            <v.karloukovski@l...> wrote:
                            >
                            > there are more pictures of the Ezero ring, including its back face
                            > which contains some additional lettering (somebody's initials?) at
                            > http://www.kazanlak.com/egallery/thumbnails.php?album=9&page=1
                            >

                            Hello, that sounds interesting. Is there writing on its back too, and
                            this has not been noticed?? I can't get the website to show me any
                            other picture than the front of the ring. Could you please tell us
                            what you see if you can get at the picture showing the back of the
                            ring. Thank you.

                            Jens
                          • Vassil Karloukovski
                            ... Hello, neither the booklet of Duridanov on the Thracian language nor the multivolume History of Bulgaria from the 80 s whose materials (text, pictures) I
                            Message 13 of 17 , May 16 3:25 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@c...> wrote:

                              > Hello, that sounds interesting. Is there writing on its back too,
                              > and this has not been noticed?? I can't get the website to show me
                              > any other picture than the front of the ring. Could you please tell
                              > us what you see if you can get at the picture showing the back of
                              > the ring. Thank you.


                              Hello,
                              neither the booklet of Duridanov on the Thracian language nor the
                              multivolume History of Bulgaria from the 80's whose materials
                              (text,
                              pictures) I used to compile the page on Duridanov's interpretation of
                              the Ezero ring mention anything being written at the back side of the
                              disc. The pictures of the ring from kazanlak.com are temporarily
                              available at http://www.kroraina.com/thracia/kalo/ , at the very end
                              of the page.

                              However, it appears that kazanlak.com have put scans of a _silver
                              copy_ of the ring. Some differences crop out when compared with the
                              pictures of the original golden ring. It seems the author of these
                              scans of "silver Thracian rings" is a local jeweller. If so, they
                              have been inappropriately placed in the gallery documenting the
                              important recent discovery near Kazanlak of the tomb of Seuthes III,
                              an Odryssian dynast from the time of the diadochi and an adversary of
                              Lysimachus. A very unpleasant story, I am still trying to get to the
                              bottom it. Sorry about the mess.

                              Regards,
                              Vassil


                              > Jens
                            • elmeras2000
                              ... Yes, that seems to be right. The website even states something like silver ring with a turning crown, 1 - 2 , giving the front as 2 and the back as 1. The
                              Message 14 of 17 , May 16 4:07 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Vassil Karloukovski"
                                <v.karloukovski@l...> wrote:

                                > However, it appears that kazanlak.com have put scans of a _silver
                                > copy_ of the ring.

                                Yes, that seems to be right. The website even states something
                                like "silver ring with a turning crown, 1 - 2", giving the front as 2
                                and the back as 1. The original is of course in gold. Thank you for
                                the information, Vassil.

                                Jens
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.