Re: CHAT: Punic sources

Raymond Brown wrote:

> >Fat lot of
> >good it did them, anyway. ;)
>
> Certainly - the Roman Church has survived fairly well for nearly 2000 years.
I was referring more to the idea of Christian universality, which, in
fact, never really existed. There were strong dogmatic divisions between
the eastern and western churches from the very beginning. Not to mention
many smaller divisions (i.e., Nestorians, Coptics, Byzantines, Romans,
Celtics, etc., etc.).

> >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.
>
> 'Punicus' means Phoenician - 'tis the same language.
Here's the passage I was referring to, from Paul Jouon's 1923 French grammar:

Phoenician, which is represented by the inscription of King Kilamuwa
(9th cent.) and by fairly numerous inscriptions later than the fifth
cent., is closely related to Hebrew. The Punic dialect of Carthage and
her colonies is related to Phoenician.

I forgot to include the word "dialect".

> >And even then, the section is only designed to
> >situate Hebrew among the Semitic languages.
>
> ...and IIRC similar to Biblical Hebrew.
Yep.

> Ray.
>
> =========================================
> A mind which thinks at its own expense
> will always interfere with language.
>                    [J.G. Hamann 1760]
> =========================================
--
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.