Re: Beekes.

Den 27. jul. 2008 kl. 00.35 skreiv Paul Bennett:
>
> He also gives very little coverage of notation systems other than
> the traditional "plain / voiced / voiced-aspirate" consonants, and
> the numbered 3-laryngeal system (i.e. "h_1, h_2, h_3") -- I
> personally happen to like the glottalic notation and "h^e, h^a, h^o".
I agree wholeheartedly. The numbered laryngeal system is just about
the foggiest notation in existence.

> I also prefer "c" and "q" over "k-acute" and "k^w", so I may not be
> entirely mainstream on this.
Guess I'm more mainstream here.

Den 26. jul. 2008 kl. 18.14 skreiv Edgard Bikelis:
>
>
> It never hurts to read new descriptions of something. I would
> recomend both, along with Brugmann ; )
Brugmann is more than a 100 years old. Don't we understand PIE a
little better now? Anyway, his 5 volume opus may be hard to access
for me.

> and the chapter about PIE on Ringe's 'From PIE to Proto-Germanic'.
A bit expensive, but I could have the chapter copied, perhaps.

> There are more books, but I suppose that beyond those we have just
> articles left.
I should like something on how to classify verbs. So far,
Thurneysen's classification of Old Irish verbs is the best lead I
got. I guess weak verbs are a relatively late PIE innovation, and the
further back we go, the fewer they get, but no IE families seem to
have branched off completely without them. (I haven't studied
Hittite, though.) Then there are subclasses inside the weak and strong.

> The last two volumes of the English translation of Brugmann are to
> be found on archive.org... verbs and indices / indexes.
More trustworthy than the Beekes translation, I hope.

> There is the www.ieed.nl too.
Pretty good resource, but I didn't see any classification at all in
any of the etymological dictionaries I browsed just now. The thing to
do for classification seems to be to study dictionaries of old
languages, like Vedic, Greek, Old Irish, Gothic. The good ones seem
to have good classification. I have a bad one in Greek.

> To understand the meaning or the morphology? I got the morphology
> reading Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin at the
> same time,
I have read it, and have it on my shelf. Seems like it's a pretty
good source for PIE, too. Should keep it handy.

> and having the Macdonell's Vedic Grammar for Students at hand, too.
Good idea, I guess.

> A greek grammar would not hurt either... but I'm still to decide
> which one is clear enough.
I have an old one published by the Joint Association of Classical
Teachers. Seems useful enough.

> No clue about the dutch text, sorry...
Maybe Dirk knows. Is he here? Anyway, the book apparently is sound
enough, though it nags me that I bought a translation without knowing
it, as Dutch is one of the few languages I can read.

LEF

Reply