Re: "par coeur" origin
- From: "Neeraj Mathur" <neemathur@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:00:50 +0100
"Franz Gnaedinger" <frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145517544.610160.292850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As for killrating: I wondered why ancient Greek hae phonae
(with omega) for sound, voice, and ho phonos, hae phonae
(with omikron) for murder are that close, so I had a go at
PhON, and found that the six permutations revolve around
the meme of snow and hunting in winter. More tomorrow in
my killrated etymological thread. This morning I wondered
about the inverse of NOPh, which stands for a snow storm.
Reminds me of November, when usually the first snow falls
in Switzerland. If this should be more than a coincidence,
then there must have been an ancient calendar where the
ninth period of time coincided with about our November.
This will be a problem for you, because the 'ph' in these particular Greek
words is very recent. It goes back to a labiovelar, represented as such in
the Linear B texts. The stem for hunt was *ghwen-, and the multiple
development of the labiovelars is clear in that this word gives the verb
'theino' and the noun 'phonos'.
So far, the main objection to Magdalenian as you have described it is that
it is completely irreconcilable with things like the regularity of sound
change.
You have said that you want to approach historical linguistics from a
different approach, one that doesn't involve working backwards from
phonological changes. This is well and good; most linguists are aware that
their method won't allow them to go back beyond certain barriers. However,
the results that you come up with must be compatible with the results of
other historical linguistics if you want them taken seriously.
I mean, to be honest, some of the stuff that gets written about glottalic
theory or the Hittite hi-conjugation is actually not overwhelmingly more
speculative than what you are doing - and that gets accepted as linguistics,
while people here treat you with hostility. The difference is that the stuff
that they pull out of thin air is entirely consistent with the known and
accepted laws of sound change in Indo-European.
I would recommend that you put your Magdalenian project on hold, since at
the moment it cannot hold up to scholarly scrutiny, being inconsistent with
observed and accepted facts of language change. Learn some Sanskrit and
Gothic (you already know Greek and Latin, right?) and if you can, some
Hittite. Then sit down with books like Szemerenyi and internalise the sound
changes that are accepted. It's hard and complex, but many people here have
managed it (Miguel, Douglas, and many others). At that point, revisit your
Magdalenian idea, and see if you can get it to make sense as a theory that
explains Indo-European. If it's consistent, both with itself and established
Indo-European observed fact, you will probably be published by major
journals, and your work will be accepted by the linguistic community.
This is, of course, a route far more difficult than the one you are taking.
But at the moment you look like a rambler and are treated, as we've seen,
quite poorly. If you truly believe that what you're doing is worthwhile as a
line of academic inquiry, then it's worth doing it in a scholarly way. What
you're doing now is far too easy to dismiss.
Remember, ad astra per aspera.
Neeraj Mathur
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "par coeur" origin
- From: Franz Gnaedinger
- Re: "par coeur" origin
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: "par coeur" origin
- References:
- "par coeur" origin
- From: retrosorter
- Re: "par coeur" origin
- From: Franz Gnaedinger
- Re: "par coeur" origin
- From: Christopher Culver
- Re: "par coeur" origin
- From: Franz Gnaedinger
- "par coeur" origin
- Prev by Date: Re: "par coeur" origin
- Next by Date: Re: vacature docent vertalen
- Previous by thread: Re: "par coeur" origin
- Next by thread: Re: "par coeur" origin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading