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

Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Nubia (WAS- Re: Limitations of the comparative method)

Expand Messages
  • fournet.arnaud
    ... Vowels are partially indicated in Egyptian: stands for pre-Egyptian /da/ or /di; stand for /du/. ============== You have the right to change the
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > I believe the skeleton is n-w-b, nawab with -awa- contract to -â- as in
      > Semitic languages. Later in Egyptian, vowels in contact with nasals were
      > rounded - â to û.
      > ===========
      > On what grounds do you change the skeleton of a word ?
      > there is complete agreement for n_b_w in sources.
      >
      > As for *awa > *â (=impossible)
      > Egyptian m_w_.t "mother"
      > Reconstruction : mawat
      > Coptic : maau.
      > Hence refuted.
      >
      > Arnaud
      > =================

      Vowels are partially indicated in Egyptian: <d> stands for pre-Egyptian /da/
      or /di; <t> stand for /du/.
      ==============
      You have the right to change the order of phonemes in a word
      as in n_b_w,
      invent laws that don't work, as is m_w_.t
      and invent a fancy theory about Egyptian indicating vowels.
      BUT
      by doing so, you have just achieved scientific self-destruction.
      Arnaud
      =================
      What do you think <maau> is phonetically? It is /ma:u/.
      Patrick
      ============
      Interesting question.
      Actually a reduplicated letter is a way of indicating glottal stop,
      so
      a probably better reconstruction that mawa.-t
      is *according to me* ma?wa.-t "mother"
      ?w being a single phoneme.
      So coptic maau is to be read [ma?w]
      I think the root is the same as in :
      - PIE maH2ter "mother",
      - Egyptian m_s "to beget, to bear"
      The root should be m_?-
      either suffixed by -w or -t.
      The change *t > s in Egyptian is regular.
      *p t k > f s x.
      Now,
      an objection to Egyptian m_s being *m_?_s
      is that ? is never written.
      But,
      In Coptic, Moses can be written Môu-ses
      Reduplicated vowel again !!
      hence [mo:?ses]
      Glottal stop is there.

      If we go back to maH2ter,
      I suppose that the root is in fact m_H2t-
      and the cut maH2-ter is false.
      As far as I am concerned I consider
      maH2t-er to be a participle of verb m_H2-t
      the bearing one > the mother.
      and -r/-n alternation is
      maH2t-er = nominative
      maH2t-en = oblique cases

      Arnaud
      =================
    • fournet.arnaud
      ... 4. He does mention that in some dialects, was written , normally [w] - usually initially. If Loprieno reflected on the perceived desirability for a
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > ***
        > I repeat :
        > According to Loprieno's reconstructions,
        > > > Coptic : <noub> or <nouf> to be read [nuw]
        > > > Egyptian skeleton : n_b_w
        > > > Reconstruction : na:baw
        > > > Later on : [nu:b > nuw]
        > noub and nouf.
        >
        > Arnaud
        > =============
        4. He does mention that in some dialects, <b> was written <ou>, normally
        [w] - usually initially. If Loprieno reflected on the perceived desirability
        for a spelling change on that order, he would perhaps have realized that if
        <b> were generally pronounced as [w] or [β], a change of spelling would have
        been _unnecessary_.
        5. The final <b> in <noub> is not _ever_ written with <ou>.
        Conclusion, you are wrong on every count.
        Patrick
        =================
        I kindly remind you
        that Coptic is written with the Greek alphabet,
        urhh no, with the Greek "alfawet".
        At the time, Coptic existed,
        Greek Bêta is [w].
        When it comes to "some dialects",
        the word "star" is **always** siou.
        out of Egyptian s_b_3 "star".
        b is written -ou-
        As usual, you are incredibly over-assertive
        and under-informed.
        Arnaud
        =================
      • Patrick Ryan
        ... From: fournet.arnaud To: Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 1:09 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied]
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
          To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 1:09 AM
          Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Nubia (WAS- Re: Limitations of the
          comparative method)


          > > ***
          > > I repeat :
          > > According to Loprieno's reconstructions,
          > > > > Coptic : <noub> or <nouf> to be read [nuw]
          > > > > Egyptian skeleton : n_b_w
          > > > > Reconstruction : na:baw
          > > > > Later on : [nu:b > nuw]
          > > noub and nouf.
          > >
          > > Arnaud
          > > =============
          > 4. He does mention that in some dialects, <b> was written <ou>, normally
          > [w] - usually initially. If Loprieno reflected on the perceived
          > desirability
          > for a spelling change on that order, he would perhaps have realized that
          > if
          > <b> were generally pronounced as [w] or [β], a change of spelling would
          > have
          > been _unnecessary_.
          > 5. The final <b> in <noub> is not _ever_ written with <ou>.
          > Conclusion, you are wrong on every count.
          > Patrick
          > =================
          > I kindly remind you
          > that Coptic is written with the Greek alphabet,
          > urhh no, with the Greek "alfawet".

          ***

          You do not need to remind me of anything. I studied several semesters of
          Coptic at a recognized university for Oriental studies.

          ***


          > At the time, Coptic existed,
          > Greek Bêta is [w].
          > When it comes to "some dialects",
          > the word "star" is **always** siou.
          > out of Egyptian s_b_3 "star".
          > b is written -ou-
          > As usual, you are incredibly over-assertive
          > and under-informed.
          > Arnaud
          > =================

          You might want to look at

          http://www.biblicalgreek.org/links/pronunciation.php

          Greek beta was possibly pronounced [β], a labial approximant rather than
          [w].

          In view of the modern pronunciation of it as [v], I am tempted to think it
          was also [v] then.

          How <siou> is written has not to do with the question of whether <nb(w)> was
          ever pronounced as [nu:w]; the question is, was there ever a spelling of
          [*nouou] to justify that surmise.

          Patrick

          ***
        • Patrick Ryan
          ... From: fournet.arnaud To: Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 1:01 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied]
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
            To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 1:01 AM
            Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Nubia (WAS- Re: Limitations of the
            comparative method)


            <snip>

            > ============
            > Interesting question.
            > Actually a reduplicated letter is a way of indicating glottal stop,
            > so
            > a probably better reconstruction that mawa.-t
            > is *according to me* ma?wa.-t "mother"
            > ?w being a single phoneme.
            > So coptic maau is to be read [ma?w]
            > I think the root is the same as in :
            > - PIE maH2ter "mother",

            ***

            If Coptic had a glottal stop, which I doubt even though this is current
            received wisdom,
            I believe they would have invented or borrowed a sign from LE Demotic for
            it.

            Greek had e:ta and o:mega but no sign for a long [a]; doubling it would have
            been a common alternative to diacriticals.

            I have no problem with *ma?aw as a basis for <maau> if we allow that
            the -a?a- had become â, particularly in view of O&S's <ma?tin>, 'wife,
            woman'.

            "according to" you is wrong. There is no glottalized [w] in any language of
            the area.

            Wrong on *maH-ter-. This is Nostratic *ma?(a)-.

            A longer form as in Egyptian may exist in Germanic: OHG <muoma>, 'aunt'
            (*ma:u-?).


            Patrick

            ***




            > - Egyptian m_s "to beget, to bear"
            > The root should be m_?-
            > either suffixed by -w or -t.
            > The change *t > s in Egyptian is regular.
            > *p t k > f s x.
            > Now,
            > an objection to Egyptian m_s being *m_?_s
            > is that ? is never written.
            > But,
            > In Coptic, Moses can be written Môu-ses
            > Reduplicated vowel again !!
            > hence [mo:?ses]
            > Glottal stop is there.
            >
            > If we go back to maH2ter,
            > I suppose that the root is in fact m_H2t-
            > and the cut maH2-ter is false.
            > As far as I am concerned I consider
            > maH2t-er to be a participle of verb m_H2-t
            > the bearing one > the mother.
            > and -r/-n alternation is
            > maH2t-er = nominative
            > maH2t-en = oblique cases
            >
            > Arnaud
            > =================
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.