|From:||Edward Heil <edheil@...>|
|Date:||Monday, March 8, 1999, 16:56|
>T'aint gobbledygook! See Robert Hetzron, Ed. 1997: The SemiticLanguages,
>Routlege Press, chapter 10: Phoenician and the Eastern CanaaniteLanguages,
>by Stanislav Stegert.
>p. 174 "The Roman playwright Plautus inserted a Punic conversation, in
>Latin script, in his play "Poenulus" (about 200 BCE)." Segert then usesthe
>conversation and words from it in his analysis of Phoenician, showing
>clearly that while the transliteration was shaky, the conversation wasreal
>Canaanite. This is a real, respectable publication, by the by - nocranks
I'll believe it when I get a chance to compare it with the Welsh version
and see if there is any difference in the credibility of their
reconstructions, setting aside the question of the *inherent*
credibility of a Semitic vs. Celtic origin for Phoenician. :)
I'm sure your sources are probably right but why let the facts get in
the way of a good story?
Incidentally, when we performed the play, at the point where the
Phoenician speeches came up, our audience (consisting of high school
latin students) was almost completely bored, since they could barely
comprehend any of the Latin, much less Phoenician. So we decided to
render the Phoenician as *English*, which would be just as
incomprehensible to the Latin speaking characters as Phoenician was!
The audience got to watch as the characters completely failed to
understand the one part of the play that they really *did* understand.
It was kind of trippy.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com