Re: Constructed natlangs
|From:||Kenji Schwarz <schwarz@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, February 16, 1999, 0:36|
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Brian Betty wrote:
> well-reasoned, if sparse, analysis of the topic. I have inquired on the
> Ancient Neareast list to see if anyone has more recent works on Eme-sal,
> but no responses yet. Diakonoff wrote in 1974 as if there were some degree
> of depth to his info on Eme-sal; I am hoping there are other texts on the
> subject that might allow me to clarify his analysis. Clearly Eme-sal was a
> dialect in the true sense of the word, as it has different lexemes than
> Eme-ku and the same pattern of sound replacement that the Chukchee women's
> style shows, albeit a much more complicated one. The strange thing is that
> all the evidence I have shows only persons in the non-male (= female) class
> of beings is shows to speak Eme-sal. What does that indicate?
I think I have references to several other articles on this issue in
Sumerian -- I'll dig around in my Blighted Box of Bibliographies.