Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- From: David B <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:06:39 GMT
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:05 am, David B <tronospamc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Peter T. Daniels wrote:The _only_ languages written "without vowels" were Phoenician andI didn't put "without any vowels" (amazing how much ambiguity can creep
Egyptian, and there were no "monotheistic 'sacred' texts" in either of
them.
into the simplest of messages)...
I didn't say you did. I copied exactly what you wrote and added an
accurate comment.
Why don't you tell us what you meant by "monotheistic 'sacred'
texts... writ[ten] without vowels"?
I mean the sort of text where the Messenger of God can accidentally become genitive (and an object of a sentence) when he's supposed to be nominative (and a subject of the sentence).
David B.
PS That example is very relevant to modern Persian and Urdu.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- From: Yusuf B Gursey
- Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- References:
- Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- From: David B
- Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- From: David B
- Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- Prev by Date: Re: The secret of the number fourteen
- Next by Date: Re: OE biddan and Serbian pitanje; asking and iskanje
- Previous by thread: Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- Next by thread: Re: The chimera of Ogam Consaine?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|