tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post6208289228245960359..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Learning, the unending battle against paradoxGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-73215348657322263222012-03-30T15:27:18.820-05:002012-03-30T15:27:18.820-05:00Thanks for your apology and for the otherwise inte...Thanks for your apology and for the otherwise intelligent conversation. It's too bad you won't answer other questions I posed and I get the strong impression that you have some sort of hidden axe to grind with me. This isn't a reasonable debate if only one side feels willing to answer questions.<br /><br />So we'll resume one day when you're feeling better. Best wishes.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-2618045217611651322012-03-30T05:01:16.461-05:002012-03-30T05:01:16.461-05:00My apologies for the "got to be kidding"...My apologies for the "got to be kidding" comment, that was inappropriate. The comment should have been: There is a correlation between syntactic use and the writing of -j, namely that -j correlates with participial use. The same correlation can be seen in the verbs II gem., where reduplication correlates with infinitival use. So I'd say that there is good reason to believe that (Michael Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815836241154280105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-1574758842822644282012-03-29T18:41:30.616-05:002012-03-29T18:41:30.616-05:00Moving on now, none of this snarky nonsense speaks...Moving on now, none of this snarky nonsense speaks against <b>*sanáwi</b> > Sahidic <i>snau</i> which shows no sign of an ayin anyway (particularly impossible in the feminine) and the Semitic data still shows <b>*a</b> (Hebrew <i>shnayim</i> שניים). What then?<br /><br />Callender's got <b>*sínway</b> for "two", Loprieno's got <b>*sinuwwvj</b>, and Woodard's got <b>*Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-50559703478917797272012-03-29T18:13:36.745-05:002012-03-29T18:13:36.745-05:00For other would-be commenters here, let me make so...For other would-be commenters here, let me make something perfectly clear. I expect commenters to tell me *directly* without snarky overtones how and why something is in error. I'm willing to accept that I (and apparently others) have misinterpreted an inscription. This subject demands a great deal of attention afterall but it's another thing to make offensive remarks like "you got Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-85463768034397134352012-03-29T18:03:39.519-05:002012-03-29T18:03:39.519-05:00Obviously I'm not but your aim is clear: to co...Obviously I'm not but your aim is clear: to condescend. You're a dime a dozen online.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-20409430194408916502012-03-29T14:51:34.919-05:002012-03-29T14:51:34.919-05:00Show how the two forms are separate words despite ...<b>Show how the two forms are separate words despite the identical feminine suffix.</b><br /><br />Haha you got to be kidding :-)Michael Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815836241154280105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-14297634767995677442012-03-29T14:51:32.082-05:002012-03-29T14:51:32.082-05:00And if this is a misunderstanding about its semant...<b>And if this is a misunderstanding about its semantic value, it's a very common misunderstanding, if indeed.</b><br /><br />My understanding is taken from the book you linked in your post (just look at the Dutch translation in the snippet!). At least in the scholarly literature, your interpretation does not seem so widespread.Michael Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815836241154280105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-54160565271549037232012-03-29T14:11:26.938-05:002012-03-29T14:11:26.938-05:00Michael Hahn: "Nice try, but msj.t is a femin...<b>Michael Hahn: "Nice try, but msj.t is a feminine participle in this example."</b><br /><br />Show how the two forms are separate words despite the identical feminine suffix. Active participles and infinitives aren't distinguished in all languages (ie. Mandarin, Etruscan) and they carry similar semantics afterall.<br /><br /><b>"As you certainly know, šnʿ was a unit of mass, Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-44740942821471190362012-03-29T09:55:22.640-05:002012-03-29T09:55:22.640-05:00And why should I prove against a falsehood? Try ag...<b>And why should I prove against a falsehood? Try again.</b><br /><br />Nice try, but msj.t is a feminine participle in this example.<br /><br /><b>Yes, it would have secondarily acquired an ahistorical ayin by association with "one". No big whoop.</b><br /><br />As you certainly know, šnʿ was a unit of mass, and it seems quite natural that šinah and šunuh are transcriptions of šnʿ andMichael Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815836241154280105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-77332701537914143282012-03-29T02:08:25.813-05:002012-03-29T02:08:25.813-05:00"How do you explain the -h-? The interpretati...<b>"How do you explain the -h-? The interpretation in the book you linked (šnʿ.wj) seems a bit more plausible, given the -h-"</b><br /><br />Yes, it would have secondarily acquired an ahistorical ayin by association with "one". No big whoop. The ayin isn't present in the Semitic cognate as far as I know though.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-27676176775272222992012-03-29T02:02:08.886-05:002012-03-29T02:02:08.886-05:00"As long as you don't show why the Egypti...<b>"As long as you don't show why the Egyptians never wrote the -j- in infinitives like your *msy.t [...]"</b><br /><br />And why should I prove against a <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=kW8Mzji0XRgC&pg=PA189&dq=msj.t+birth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VQh0T-SOL8jMtgfD6viNBg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=msj.t%20birth&f=false" rel="nofollow">falsehood</a>? Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-75031189131711077712012-03-29T01:03:16.021-05:002012-03-29T01:03:16.021-05:00MEgy *sanáwi 'two' (rendered directly in c...<b>MEgy *sanáwi 'two' (rendered directly in cuneiform as ši-na-ah-wu in EA 368)</b><br /><br />How do you explain the -h-? The interpretation in the book you linked (šnʿ.wj) seems a bit more plausible, given the -h-.Michael Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815836241154280105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-85023658499771544302012-03-29T00:58:48.385-05:002012-03-29T00:58:48.385-05:00I'm certain you're aware "to give bir...<b>I'm certain you're aware "to give birth" is a triliteral msy, not biliteral. So its deverbal noun in -t is evidently msy.t originally.</b><br /><br />You should go to the grammar literature to see that the hieroglyphic writings consistently show that the -j of weak verbs like msj only appeared (even in Old Egyptian) in certain conjugational forms where it can just as well be Michael Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815836241154280105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-32862751210844625622012-03-28T18:21:06.921-05:002012-03-28T18:21:06.921-05:00I get grumpy when some stray from the necessarily ...I get grumpy when some stray from the necessarily strict rules of rational debate. I'm a stickler but it's for good reason. I dare say that you've manipulated the argument in at least three ways:<br /><br />1. You neglect to <b>prove your statement</b> that the first syllable was open in <i>msy</i> "since at least Late Egyptian". Or do you mean its derivative <i>msy.t</i>? Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-67487422775225171872012-03-28T01:37:39.395-05:002012-03-28T01:37:39.395-05:00It's spelled msy and I await proof of your cla...<b>It's spelled msy and I await proof of your claim that the syllable is assuredly open "since at least Late Egyptian".</b><br /><br />The Coptic "infinitive" is derived from the old infinitive (if you look at the development of verbal morphology, you see that the Coptic infinitive appears where Late Eyptian has an infinitive), and the infinitive of msj was mst, of course.Michael Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815836241154280105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-61418886825211756212012-03-27T19:50:29.130-05:002012-03-27T19:50:29.130-05:00Michael Hahn: "How do you explain the i/a alt...<b>Michael Hahn: "How do you explain the i/a alternations in Coptic [...]"</b><br /><br />From Middle Egyptian <b>*ī</b>/<b>*i</b>.<br /><br /><b>"[...] and there are cases like mise < *mst(sic) 'to give birth'"</b><br /><br />It's spelled <i>msy</i> and I await proof of your claim that the syllable is assuredly open "since at least Late Egyptian".<br Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-60383498197640044792012-03-27T16:07:45.622-05:002012-03-27T16:07:45.622-05:00How do you explain the i/a alternations in Coptic ...How do you explain the i/a alternations in Coptic (see Peust p. 175 for examples)? They seem to be quite analogous to the o/ō alternations, and there are cases like mise < *mst "to give birth" where it seems quite clear that i has been in an open syllable at least since Late Egyptian.Michael Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815836241154280105noreply@blogger.com