Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Nostratic (was Re: Schwebeablaut (was Re: tolkien?))

From:Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>
Date:Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 14:35
Rob Haden scripsit:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:26:30 +0200, Isaac Penzev wrote: > > >Again, in Old Georgian it was -(i)sa, now it's -(i)s. > > Yes. However, in other Kartvelian languages, the genitive suffix > apparently contains /S/ instead of /s/. Does anyone know more about this?
No wonder. /S/ and /s/ are often swapping places to and fro in too many langs. Cf. Arabic _salâmu_ and Hebrew _Sâlôm_. Moreover, in Ge'ez they find /S/ while the same letter in its daughter Amharic stands for /s/, and Amharic needed a diacritic for representing /S/ in newer loans!
> >"I don't believe in PIE" > > Intriguing quote. Care to explain?
Instead of thinking for better explanation myself, I've recently found a stricingly similar attitude in one of our workshops messages: On Wednesday, December 24, 2003 2:30 AM Keith wrote in <Celticonlang@...>:
> I actually find general IE material rather esoteric. I mostly work > within Celtic where the rules seem fairly well defined, as within > Romance or Germanic. However once you get into the rarified atmosphere > of PIE I'm pretty much lost. It seems that you can prove almost anything > with ablaut and a sufficiently elastic semantic field :)
I feel much the same. Moreover, most of those "reconstructions" are based on presuppositions I cannot share. -- Yitzik who wrote this on the 29th of Kislev, year 5764