Re: CHAT: Punic sources

John Cowan wrote:

> Because they had better sense.  The Romans wiped out Carthage, planted
> the fields with salt, yada yada, and what was the effect?  They had
> to start a new Carthage several miles down the coast.  It was needed
> for trade.
>
> The Carthaginians lived and died by trade, unlike the Romans, who lived
> and died (mostly died) by war.  They would have had no reason to wipe
> out Rome.
Especially since Rome has virtually no redeeming geographic or economic
value. The Tiber isn't notably navigable by anything much larger than a
fishing vessel, and the city itself is several miles inland. Central
Italy doesn't have much in the way of natural resources either.

The only reason Rome has survived as such an important international
focus for so long is because the Romans were willing to throw men and
metal at a problem until it went away. The early Christians wouldn't
have established themselves there if it weren't simply such a damn
important symbol for the universality of the early church. Fat lot of
good it did them, anyway. ;)

I think the alternate Punic-dominated history idea is pretty cool.
David, you could also take the opportunity to educate those of us who
are interested a little bit on Punic as you're developing your conlang.
My Biblical Hebrew grammar mentions Punic once, but only in its
similarity to Phonecian. And even then, the section is only designed to
situate Hebrew among the Semitic languages.

Good luck!

> --
> John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
> One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
>         --Douglas Hofstadter
--
Daniel Seriff
microtonal@sericap.com
http://members.tripod.com/microtonal

Si me iterum insanum appelles, oculum alterum tuum edem.
Wenn du mich nochmal verrückt nennst, werde ich deine andere Auge essen.