Re: Interesting pre-Greek article

Jeffrey Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:09:47 -0400, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
>
>>I've just started reading this: http://www.ieed.nl/ied/pdf/pre-greek.pdf
>>
>>which comes from: http://www.ieed.nl/index2.html
>>
>>compliments of the inimitable gLeN gordon of cybalist
>>=========================================================================
>
>
> I could read only the first few pages, but I also noticed the reference to
> R.A. Brown (1985 ?)
The date is correct. It is the date that Hakkert of Amsterdam published
my M.Litt. thesis under the title "Pre-Greek Speech on Crete" (ISBN
90-256-0876-0)

>
> I found the term "Pre-Greek" confusing, though. Some historical linguists
> use "Pre-" for the result of Internal Reconstruction as opposed to "Proto-
> ", the result of the Comparative Method.
What's the difference? Alto pre- must obviously be used this way by some
historical linguists, it seems to me an odd use of pre- which should
mean "before". Maybe as an alternative to the Greek "proto-" the German
"ur-" could have been adopted?

>While I suspect "Pre-Greek" is
> already well-established,
Quite a long time now.

>wouldn't something like "Ante-Greek" have been better for a non-ancestor of Greek?
Trouble is 'ante' too often gets confused with 'anti' (except by
Americans who pronounce the two prefixes differently). I was using the
term pre-Greek to mean simply "before Greek" some 30 years ago. When did
the use of pre- to mean "first early form derived from internal
reconstruction" come into use?

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY