tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post6389453731073622482..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: To be or not to have. That is the question.Glen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-34535634836133372142012-01-09T11:45:19.205-06:002012-01-09T11:45:19.205-06:00I don't know if this has any relevance or inte...I don't know if this has any relevance or interest to you at all, but it might at least be food for thought (as if you need more!!). <br /><br />a) Modern Greek frequently uses the verb έχω (to have) in the 3rd person as an impersonal verb meaning 'there is/are'.<br /><br />b)It is not at all unusual for Greek to omit the verb είμαι (to be) and simply use a noun followed by an Dave Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704972481150474111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-75019182579519938972008-02-16T06:59:00.000-06:002008-02-16T06:59:00.000-06:00David Marjanović: "Then you have a shorter tongue ...<B>David Marjanović: <I>"Then you have a shorter tongue than I do."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Yes, it's true. I must live with the shame of an ordinary, stubby tongue. It doesn't do neat tricks like some people's tongues but it gets the job done and that's the important thing, hahaha. :)<BR/><BR/>You have to consider though that there are differences in languages: what phonetic cues are considered Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-90174835780637265632008-02-15T18:40:00.000-06:002008-02-15T18:40:00.000-06:00and coincidentally, the *s in *-ks- would have nec...<I>and coincidentally, the *s in *-ks- would have necessarily been alveolar next to a velar stop since it's near impossible to pronounce a dental *s immediately after retracting the tongue.</I><BR/><BR/>Then you have a shorter tongue than I do. Honestly, my /s/ is "dental" (laminal-alveolar or laminal denti-alveolar) as always in /ks/, and German is pretty full of /ks/ (every loaned <I>x</I> is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-67852951910356994492008-02-12T07:45:00.000-06:002008-02-12T07:45:00.000-06:00Phoenix: "But I'll see if I'm able to find the cor...<B>Phoenix: <I>"But I'll see if I'm able to find the correct ritual texts over at the university. I'll then update my blog with translations. I bet you'd find that interesting ;)"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Cool! Blog power!Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-71689122372810035202008-02-12T07:44:00.000-06:002008-02-12T07:44:00.000-06:00Phoenix: "Still such a loan from Semitic is highly...<B>Phoenix: <I>"Still such a loan from Semitic is <I>highly</I> unlikely simply from the nature of the root."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Now for some hard questions: Is there a concrete justification for your emphatic assessment of "<I>highly</I> unlikely" and what is this "nature of the root" to which you're specifically referring? <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you're approaching the problem through the coloured lensGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-50630869427074418402008-02-11T19:39:00.000-06:002008-02-11T19:39:00.000-06:00Definitely an interesting theory. Still such a loa...Definitely an interesting theory. Still such a loan from Semitic is <I>highly</I> unlikely simply from the nature of the root. If you'd be correct that would mean contact between Indo-Europeans and Semites must have been <I>very</I> intensive. <BR/><BR/>Now of course we come to a loop.<BR/><BR/>First we say 'you can only be sure that there was intensive contact by showing loanwords'.<BR/><BR/>AndAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com