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

_PE_ 14:64 erratum: _ _ >> _ _

Expand Messages
  • laurifindil
    On page 64 of PE 14, l. 11, we read that _ _ _b_, _m_ as root- modification (where represents an edh in the text). Should that not be _ _
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 22, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On page 64 of PE 14, l. 11, we read that "_<dh>_ > _b_, _m_" as root-
      modification (where <dh> represents an edh in the text). Should that
      not be "_<bh>_ > _b_, _m_" (where <bh> represents a barred-b)?
      On the same page, we read that _w_ can be modified into _m_ and _b_,
      and on page 63 we read : "<bh> usually written _w_ (in Q. phonology)".

      E. Kloczko

      [Yes indeed, it should read <bh> (i.e., barred-b). The item in question
      was a late addition to the typescript in ink, and what in fact must surely be
      a barred-b was written in such a manner as to appear to be an edh at first
      glance. Thanks for catching this! CFH]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.