Discussion:
How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?
(too old to reply)
Dingbat
2017-06-17 06:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left. The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/11/what-do-dead-languages-sound-like

How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?

Bob Vant, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire

• Post your answers – and new questions – below or email them to ***@theguardian.com. Please include name, address and phone number.
Franz Gnaedinger
2017-06-17 07:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left. The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/11/what-do-dead-languages-sound-like
How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?
Bob Vant, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire
I proposed an answer to that question years ago. Let a singer like
Bob Dylan pick up a song and try out. A poem or a song is written in
such a way that the words please the speaking apparatus, and if you go
for that aspect, you have the best chance to find out what a word was
pronounced like. The best German, in my opinion, was written by Goethe
and Freud, and in both cases has a very pleasing oral quality. If we had
only their writings left, no other sample of German, scholars of a later
time could find out how German was pronounced from them, relying on how
the mouth loves best to formulate those words.
Franz Gnaedinger
2017-06-22 06:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
I proposed an answer to that question years ago. Let a singer like
Bob Dylan pick up a song and try out. A poem or a song is written in
such a way that the words please the speaking apparatus, and if you go
for that aspect, you have the best chance to find out what a word was
pronounced like. The best German, in my opinion, was written by Goethe
and Freud, and in both cases has a very pleasing oral quality. If we had
only their writings left, no other sample of German, scholars of a later
time could find out how German was pronounced from them, relying on how
the mouth loves best to formulate those words.
Sound algebra marginalized the physiology of speaking. Singers rely on their
voice (art being the human measure in a technical world), avoid complicated
(or technical) formulations, love words that roll over the tongue, coordinate
breath and song lines. Bob Dylan called his songs exercises in tonal breath
control. A lyrical or sacred text in an extinct language is best interpreted
by a gifted singer. Psalms were sung. The word incantation comprises Latin
cantare 'sing'.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-17 07:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left. The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/11/what-do-dead-languages-sound-like
How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?
How do you know what present-day English sounds like?
A.
Dingbat
2017-06-17 09:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left. The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/11/what-do-dead-languages-sound-like
How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?
How do you know what present-day English sounds like?
By listening to speakers.
Christian Weisgerber
2017-06-17 13:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
How do you know what present-day English sounds like?
If you ask on alt.usage.english, the conclusion is that we can't
know. Between posters who have been arguing at great effort for
twenty years that they can't possibly learn any sort of objective
phonetic alphabet, and the lack of an agreed standard language,
which means that any attempts to describe English pronunciation
will be shot down by posters who insist on their peripherial dialect
from, say, Northern England or Australia, the overall result is
that English pronunciation appears to be unknowable.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Arnaud Fournet
2017-06-17 15:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Arnaud Fournet
How do you know what present-day English sounds like?
If you ask on alt.usage.english, the conclusion is that we can't
know. Between posters who have been arguing at great effort for
twenty years that they can't possibly learn any sort of objective
phonetic alphabet, and the lack of an agreed standard language,
which means that any attempts to describe English pronunciation
will be shot down by posters who insist on their peripherial dialect
from, say, Northern England or Australia, the overall result is
that English pronunciation appears to be unknowable.
That was the point ! :):)
Though I don't really agree with that over-pessimistic PoV.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-18 12:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Arnaud Fournet
How do you know what present-day English sounds like?
If you ask on alt.usage.english, the conclusion is that we can't
know. Between posters who have been arguing at great effort for
twenty years that they can't possibly learn any sort of objective
phonetic alphabet, and the lack of an agreed standard language,
which means that any attempts to describe English pronunciation
will be shot down by posters who insist on their peripherial dialect
from, say, Northern England or Australia, the overall result is
that English pronunciation appears to be unknowable.
The great American Descriptivist Robert A. Hall, Jr., insisted that there's no such
thing as "a language," just myriad idiolects, and anything bigger is an abstraction,
a reification.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-18 12:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Arnaud Fournet
How do you know what present-day English sounds like?
If you ask on alt.usage.english, the conclusion is that we can't
know. Between posters who have been arguing at great effort for
twenty years that they can't possibly learn any sort of objective
phonetic alphabet, and the lack of an agreed standard language,
which means that any attempts to describe English pronunciation
will be shot down by posters who insist on their peripherial dialect
from, say, Northern England or Australia, the overall result is
that English pronunciation appears to be unknowable.
The great American Descriptivist Robert A. Hall, Jr., insisted that there's no such
thing as "a language," just myriad idiolects, and anything bigger is an abstraction,
a reification.
I would prefer "social contsruct". It exists because society
makes it so, defines it so.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-18 13:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Arnaud Fournet
How do you know what present-day English sounds like?
If you ask on alt.usage.english, the conclusion is that we can't
know. Between posters who have been arguing at great effort for
twenty years that they can't possibly learn any sort of objective
phonetic alphabet, and the lack of an agreed standard language,
which means that any attempts to describe English pronunciation
will be shot down by posters who insist on their peripherial dialect
from, say, Northern England or Australia, the overall result is
that English pronunciation appears to be unknowable.
The great American Descriptivist Robert A. Hall, Jr., insisted that there's no such
thing as "a language," just myriad idiolects, and anything bigger is an abstraction,
a reification.
I would prefer "social contsruct". It exists because society
makes it so, defines it so.
I doubt the expression "social construct" existed in Hall's day, and I expect he
would have rejected it, having far more avidly embraced behaviorism than his
claimed mentor Bloomfield. In his dotage -- in hindsight, maybe the first sign of his
decline -- he wrote a memoir of his time with Bloomfield (which amounted to a few
months at Yale and contained numerous misstatements of fact regarding Bloomfield's
earlier time in Chicago). A later sign was his pamphlet defending the authenticity of
the Kensington Rune Stone: Hockett gave me his inscribed copy because he didn't
want it in his house any more. He was also said to have become a Holocaust-denier,
but I don't know that he ever put that into writing.
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-20 19:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 13:32:23 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
that any attempts to describe English pronunciation
will be shot down by posters who insist on their peripherial dialect
from, say, Northern England or Australia, the overall result is
that English pronunciation appears to be unknowable.
Yet it is.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-17 12:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left.
In general, we can't get at the "accents" of defunct regional dialects, the closest
we can get is the phonemes, which are most likely what was being written down.

David Crystal recently compiled a Pronouncing Dictionary of every word in Shakespeare,
with a 60-large-page introduction on the available data, which include rhyme patterns
and what the orthoepists of the day had to say. There were no orthoepists in Middle
English times, so we rely on things like Caxton's prefaces, where he talks about how
hard it is to decide how to spell words because people from different parts of
England say them differently or even have different words (his "eggs" example
is famous).

An interesting discovery when Crystal's reconstructions are used in stage productions
is that they don't sound like any specific modern regional dialect, but instead
people from around the English-speaking world say it sounds sort of like their own
area's rustic speech. And a reason for this is that the settlers set out for the most
part during the 17th century, bringing with them something like what can be reconstructed
for Shakespeare, so the modern varieties are descendants of what they had in common.
(20th-century RP began to develop in London in the late-18th, early-19th century.)
Until recently, there was hardly any significant verbal interaction between the
separated communities, so the local variants developed independenty from the same base.
Post by Dingbat
The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.
Um, so what?
Post by Dingbat
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/11/what-do-dead-languages-sound-like
How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?
Bob Vant, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire
No, thank you.
Christian Weisgerber
2017-06-17 14:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
David Crystal recently compiled a Pronouncing Dictionary of every word in Shakespeare,
Presumably this one:
The Oxford Dictionary of Original Shakespearean Pronunciation
Oxford University Press (24 Mar. 2016)
ISBN 978-0199668427
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An interesting discovery when Crystal's reconstructions are used in stage productions
is that they don't sound like any specific modern regional dialect, but instead
people from around the English-speaking world say it sounds sort of like their own
area's rustic speech.
Actually, the comments typically say that it sounds like rustic
speech from ELSEWHERE. Possibly from the respective other side of
the Atlantic. Which makes a lot more sense, because people are
finely atuned to what their local speech sounds like, but they are
rather less familiar with other accents.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And a reason for this is that the settlers set out for the most
part during the 17th century,
Circa 1800 for the major southern hemisphere colonies.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-18 12:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Peter T. Daniels
David Crystal recently compiled a Pronouncing Dictionary of every word in Shakespeare,
The Oxford Dictionary of Original Shakespearean Pronunciation
Oxford University Press (24 Mar. 2016)
ISBN 978-0199668427
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An interesting discovery when Crystal's reconstructions are used in stage productions
is that they don't sound like any specific modern regional dialect, but instead
people from around the English-speaking world say it sounds sort of like their own
area's rustic speech.
Actually, the comments typically say that it sounds like rustic
speech from ELSEWHERE. Possibly from the respective other side of
the Atlantic. Which makes a lot more sense, because people are
finely atuned to what their local speech sounds like, but they are
rather less familiar with other accents.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And a reason for this is that the settlers set out for the most
part during the 17th century,
Circa 1800 for the major southern hemisphere colonies.
Here's how I summarize it in my book:

"The Early Modern systematization of English spelling was studied by F. H. Brengelman, “Orthoepists, Printers, and the Rationalization of English Spelling” (1980), on the basis of the enormous body of data collected by E. J. Dobson, English Pronunciation 1500–1700 (1957).* The spoken English language of the 17th–18th centuries, too, is what underlies the great dialectal variety of modern Englishes: English-speakers from around the world recognize the reconstructed Shakespearean “Original Pronunciation” as somehow similar to their own variety and different from twentieth-century “Received Pronunciation” and “Mid-Atlantic Stage English,” as explored by David Crystal, Original Shakespearean Pronunciation (2016), x with n. 1.**

"* Kristian Berg and Mark Aronoff, “Self-Organization in the Spelling of English Suffixes” (2017), though, find, by investigating historical corpora of English in 70-year chunks from 1350 to 1710, that certain of the adjective-forming suffixes they studied ( ic, al, el, and ly) had several coexisting variants for centuries and did not attain standard spellings until the 18th century, whereas ous and le were set by 1500. This suggests to me that the concern of the orthoepists, and their influence, was limited to the content words of English and especially the stressed vowels found in them.**

"** This was brought out especially clearly by David Crystal and Ben Crystal, interview, “All Shakespeare All the Time” (2016)."
Dingbat
2017-06-18 05:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left.
In general, we can't get at the "accents" of defunct regional dialects, the closest
we can get is the phonemes, which are most likely what was being written down.
David Crystal recently compiled a Pronouncing Dictionary of every word in Shakespeare,
with a 60-large-page introduction on the available data, which include rhyme patterns
and what the orthoepists of the day had to say. There were no orthoepists in Middle
English times, so we rely on things like Caxton's prefaces, where he talks about how
hard it is to decide how to spell words because people from different parts of
England say them differently or even have different words (his "eggs" example
is famous).
An interesting discovery when Crystal's reconstructions are used in stage productions
is that they don't sound like any specific modern regional dialect, but instead
people from around the English-speaking world say it sounds sort of like their own
area's rustic speech. And a reason for this is that the settlers set out for the most
part during the 17th century, bringing with them something like what can be reconstructed
for Shakespeare, so the modern varieties are descendants of what they had in common.
(20th-century RP began to develop in London in the late-18th, early-19th century.)
Until recently, there was hardly any significant verbal interaction between the
separated communities, so the local variants developed independenty from the same base.
Post by Dingbat
The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.
Um, so what?
In case it's helpful in determining the pronunciation. It's sweven in Middle English. This gives cognates in other languages:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/sweven
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/11/what-do-dead-languages-sound-like
How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?
Bob Vant, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire
No, thank you.
Christian Weisgerber
2017-06-18 14:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/sweven
Wiktionary gives the pronunciation /swevn/ for Old English swefn,
which is plausible.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/swefn#Old_English

For the most part, deriving Old English pronunciation from the
spelling is straightforward. You need to know whether a vowel was
long or short; nowadays long vowels are marked with a macron, but
that is sometimes skipped or lost due to character set issues. A
basic rule to be aware of is that <f>, <s>, <þ> also represent the
voiced allophones [v], [z], [ð]. <c> and <g> can be a bit tricky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English#Orthography
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-19 08:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left.
In general, we can't get at the "accents" of defunct regional dialects, the closest
we can get is the phonemes, which are most likely what was being written down.
Sometimes one is lucky like in the case of Classical Arabic where
philologists record how the phonemes are articulated and even
positional allophones and dialect variation.

Cross checking with transcriptions from other languages help.

Greek - Aramaic - Arabic transcriptions from Late Antiquity
has led to discussions about the details of the pronounciations
of these three languages and their regional variaties. Not
much is certain, but there is good and sometimes controversial
discussion. Far better than nothing.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
David Crystal recently compiled a Pronouncing Dictionary of every word in Shakespeare,
with a 60-large-page introduction on the available data, which include rhyme patterns
and what the orthoepists of the day had to say. There were no orthoepists in Middle
English times, so we rely on things like Caxton's prefaces, where he talks about how
hard it is to decide how to spell words because people from different parts of
England say them differently or even have different words (his "eggs" example
is famous).
An interesting discovery when Crystal's reconstructions are used in stage productions
is that they don't sound like any specific modern regional dialect, but instead
people from around the English-speaking world say it sounds sort of like their own
area's rustic speech. And a reason for this is that the settlers set out for the most
part during the 17th century, bringing with them something like what can be reconstructed
for Shakespeare, so the modern varieties are descendants of what they had in common.
(20th-century RP began to develop in London in the late-18th, early-19th century.)
Until recently, there was hardly any significant verbal interaction between the
separated communities, so the local variants developed independenty from the same base.
Post by Dingbat
The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.
Um, so what?
Post by Dingbat
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/11/what-do-dead-languages-sound-like
How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?
Bob Vant, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire
No, thank you.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-19 11:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left.
In general, we can't get at the "accents" of defunct regional dialects, the closest
we can get is the phonemes, which are most likely what was being written down.
Sometimes one is lucky like in the case of Classical Arabic where
philologists record how the phonemes are articulated and even
positional allophones and dialect variation.
Using terminology whose interpretation has been lost. They're still arguing about
what Sibawayh's descriptions might have meant.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Cross checking with transcriptions from other languages help.
Greek - Aramaic - Arabic transcriptions from Late Antiquity
has led to discussions about the details of the pronounciations
of these three languages and their regional variaties. Not
much is certain, but there is good and sometimes controversial
discussion. Far better than nothing.
Again, on the phonemic, not the phonetic level.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-19 11:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left.
In general, we can't get at the "accents" of defunct regional dialects, the closest
we can get is the phonemes, which are most likely what was being written down.
Sometimes one is lucky like in the case of Classical Arabic where
philologists record how the phonemes are articulated and even
positional allophones and dialect variation.
Using terminology whose interpretation has been lost. They're still arguing about
what Sibawayh's descriptions might have meant.
Better than nothing.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Cross checking with transcriptions from other languages help.
Greek - Aramaic - Arabic transcriptions from Late Antiquity
has led to discussions about the details of the pronounciations
of these three languages and their regional variaties. Not
much is certain, but there is good and sometimes controversial
discussion. Far better than nothing.
Again, on the phonemic, not the phonetic level.
No, these discussions centered on the phonetic level.

Isn't pronounciation of the bgdkpt consonants the phonetic
level?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-19 13:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left.
In general, we can't get at the "accents" of defunct regional dialects, the closest
we can get is the phonemes, which are most likely what was being written down.
Sometimes one is lucky like in the case of Classical Arabic where
philologists record how the phonemes are articulated and even
positional allophones and dialect variation.
Using terminology whose interpretation has been lost. They're still arguing about
what Sibawayh's descriptions might have meant.
Better than nothing.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Cross checking with transcriptions from other languages help.
Greek - Aramaic - Arabic transcriptions from Late Antiquity
has led to discussions about the details of the pronounciations
of these three languages and their regional variaties. Not
much is certain, but there is good and sometimes controversial
discussion. Far better than nothing.
Again, on the phonemic, not the phonetic level.
No, these discussions centered on the phonetic level.
See Richard Steiner's *Fricative Laterals ...* (1976), which I think was his Penn
dissertation (though he also participated in one crucial sociolinguistic study
for Labov, and that may be what got him his degree). He gathers all available philological
data and comes to a phonetic conclusion -- but if you read the book carefully, you
discover that he never actually justifies the phonetic symbols he uses. Alice Faber,
a phonetician, did a bit better but never finished writing the synthesis (her Texas
dissertation was on the classification of the Semitic languages; we were Cornell
undergraduates together).

I've never seen Steiner's later work on Affricated Tsade because it was incredibly
expensive and apparently of insufficient interest to nearby libraries. I expect
it uses similar arguments to come to a different conclusion from Faber's; it's Faber's
that has pretty much carried the day.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Isn't pronounciation of the bgdkpt consonants the phonetic
level?
That depends entirely on your theory of phonemics. Steve Kaufman published in JAOS
an article showing that shwa isn't phonemic in Aramaic if bgd kft is, or maybe vice
versa (whichever position he took doesn't matter to the question). The point
is that you don't need _both_ to be -- an argument Harris or Hockett would have loved.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-19 17:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left.
In general, we can't get at the "accents" of defunct regional dialects, the closest
we can get is the phonemes, which are most likely what was being written down.
Sometimes one is lucky like in the case of Classical Arabic where
philologists record how the phonemes are articulated and even
positional allophones and dialect variation.
Using terminology whose interpretation has been lost. They're still arguing about
what Sibawayh's descriptions might have meant.
Better than nothing.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Cross checking with transcriptions from other languages help.
Greek - Aramaic - Arabic transcriptions from Late Antiquity
has led to discussions about the details of the pronounciations
of these three languages and their regional variaties. Not
much is certain, but there is good and sometimes controversial
discussion. Far better than nothing.
Again, on the phonemic, not the phonetic level.
No, these discussions centered on the phonetic level.
See Richard Steiner's *Fricative Laterals ...* (1976), which I think was his Penn
dissertation (though he also participated in one crucial sociolinguistic study
for Labov, and that may be what got him his degree). He gathers all available philological
data and comes to a phonetic conclusion -- but if you read the book carefully, you
discover that he never actually justifies the phonetic symbols he uses. Alice Faber,
a phonetician, did a bit better but never finished writing the synthesis (her Texas
dissertation was on the classification of the Semitic languages; we were Cornell
undergraduates together).
I had read that article. There has been considerable work by
Al-Jallad on Old Arabic based on the transcriptions I just
mentioned and I would call it "phonetic" analysis. Some
of it may be controversial I agree.

We went through this before. I agree that the phonetics
are much more poorly attested than the phonemics and more
controversial. But sometimes the data is at least better than
zero.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've never seen Steiner's later work on Affricated Tsade because it was incredibly
expensive and apparently of insufficient interest to nearby libraries. I expect
it uses similar arguments to come to a different conclusion from Faber's; it's Faber's
that has pretty much carried the day.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Isn't pronounciation of the bgdkpt consonants the phonetic
level?
That depends entirely on your theory of phonemics. Steve Kaufman published in JAOS
an article showing that shwa isn't phonemic in Aramaic if bgd kft is, or maybe vice
versa (whichever position he took doesn't matter to the question). The point
is that you don't need _both_ to be -- an argument Harris or Hockett would have loved.
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-19 20:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-20 15:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
I am talkiing about Aramaic loanwords and proper names
of the 1st half of the 1st meillenium CE found in Arabic
and Ancient North Arabian idioms close to Arabic.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-20 16:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
I am talkiing about Aramaic loanwords and proper names
of the 1st half of the 1st meillenium CE found in Arabic
and Ancient North Arabian idioms close to Arabic.
Then you should say so.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-21 02:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
I am talkiing about Aramaic loanwords and proper names
of the 1st half of the 1st meillenium CE found in Arabic
and Ancient North Arabian idioms close to Arabic.
Then you should say so.
"The source of Aramaic loan-vocabulary for Old Arabic seems
to be a desert or steppe variety of Aramaic that did not
have positional spirintization of stops"
Based on my previous post I assumed that you (and others) knew
what I was talking about and that everyone had confidence in me
that I would never imply that Arabic is a daughter language of
Arabic (which is sort of an urban legend that has some currency
these days).
You seemed to be reporting what someone called Al-Jallad said somewhere, in
whom I would have no expectations as to knowledge at all.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-21 21:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
I am talkiing about Aramaic loanwords and proper names
of the 1st half of the 1st meillenium CE found in Arabic
and Ancient North Arabian idioms close to Arabic.
Then you should say so.
"The source of Aramaic loan-vocabulary for Old Arabic seems
to be a desert or steppe variety of Aramaic that did not
have positional spirintization of stops"
Based on my previous post I assumed that you (and others) knew
what I was talking about and that everyone had confidence in me
that I would never imply that Arabic is a daughter language of
Arabic (which is sort of an urban legend that has some currency
these days).
You seemed to be reporting what someone called Al-Jallad said somewhere, in
whom I would have no expectations as to knowledge at all.
He is one of the leading experts on Old Arabic and
Ancient North Arabian. A great linguist as far as
I am concerned. I have brought to attention several
of his articles in this group. I highly recommend
you follow his publictions (even if I have some
personal reservations about certain conclusions
of his)
Arnaud Fournet
2017-07-12 13:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
I am talkiing about Aramaic loanwords and proper names
of the 1st half of the 1st meillenium CE found in Arabic
and Ancient North Arabian idioms close to Arabic.
Then you should say so.
"The source of Aramaic loan-vocabulary for Old Arabic seems
to be a desert or steppe variety of Aramaic that did not
have positional spirintization of stops"
Based on my previous post I assumed that you (and others) knew
what I was talking about and that everyone had confidence in me
that I would never imply that Arabic is a daughter language of
Arabic (which is sort of an urban legend that has some currency
these days).
You seemed to be reporting what someone called Al-Jallad said somewhere, in
whom I would have no expectations as to knowledge at all.
He is one of the leading experts on Old Arabic and
Ancient North Arabian. A great linguist as far as
I am concerned. I have brought to attention several
of his articles in this group. I highly recommend
you follow his publictions (even if I have some
personal reservations about certain conclusions
of his)
All of a sudden, PTD, the abjadkadabra pontificating idiot, discovers truth exists. And he's not aware of it, he's not part of it. Oh my god.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-07-12 15:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You seemed to be reporting what someone called Al-Jallad said somewhere, in
whom I would have no expectations as to knowledge at all.
He is one of the leading experts on Old Arabic and
Ancient North Arabian. A great linguist as far as
I am concerned. I have brought to attention several
of his articles in this group. I highly recommend
you follow his publictions (even if I have some
personal reservations about certain conclusions
of his)
All of a sudden, PTD, the abjadkadabra pontificating idiot, discovers truth exists. And he's not aware of it, he's not part of it. Oh my god.
The other day Fournet posted an extremely confused message to the ANE2 list showing
that he has no understanding of the process of publication of scientific research.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-07-12 21:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You seemed to be reporting what someone called Al-Jallad said somewhere, in
whom I would have no expectations as to knowledge at all.
He is one of the leading experts on Old Arabic and
Ancient North Arabian. A great linguist as far as
I am concerned. I have brought to attention several
of his articles in this group. I highly recommend
you follow his publictions (even if I have some
personal reservations about certain conclusions
of his)
All of a sudden, PTD, the abjadkadabra pontificating idiot, discovers truth exists. And he's not aware of it, he's not part of it. Oh my god.
The other day Fournet posted an extremely confused message to the ANE2 list showing
that he has no understanding of the process of publication of scientific research.
No, my post was very clear.
Apparently, you're the only idiot who failed to understand it,
as usual... I would dare say.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-07-13 02:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You seemed to be reporting what someone called Al-Jallad said somewhere, in
whom I would have no expectations as to knowledge at all.
He is one of the leading experts on Old Arabic and
Ancient North Arabian. A great linguist as far as
I am concerned. I have brought to attention several
of his articles in this group. I highly recommend
you follow his publictions (even if I have some
personal reservations about certain conclusions
of his)
All of a sudden, PTD, the abjadkadabra pontificating idiot, discovers truth exists. And he's not aware of it, he's not part of it. Oh my god.
The other day Fournet posted an extremely confused message to the ANE2 list showing
that he has no understanding of the process of publication of scientific research.
No, my post was very clear.
Apparently, you're the only idiot who failed to understand it,
as usual... I would dare say.
Evidently you didn't look at any of the responses.

You confused the functions of three different specialists: the referee; the copy-editor; and the proofreader.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-07-13 10:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You seemed to be reporting what someone called Al-Jallad said somewhere, in
whom I would have no expectations as to knowledge at all.
He is one of the leading experts on Old Arabic and
Ancient North Arabian. A great linguist as far as
I am concerned. I have brought to attention several
of his articles in this group. I highly recommend
you follow his publictions (even if I have some
personal reservations about certain conclusions
of his)
All of a sudden, PTD, the abjadkadabra pontificating idiot, discovers truth exists. And he's not aware of it, he's not part of it. Oh my god.
The other day Fournet posted an extremely confused message to the ANE2 list showing
that he has no understanding of the process of publication of scientific research.
No, my post was very clear.
Apparently, you're the only idiot who failed to understand it,
as usual... I would dare say.
Evidently you didn't look at any of the responses.
You confused the functions of three different specialists: the referee; the copy-editor; and the proofreader.
I overreacted to a post about scientific proofreading, and I wrote about my experiences with peer-review. I think most people understood my post as dealing with peer-review of course, which indeed was the case.
It takes your perverted sick mind to think I confused three different specialists: the referee; the copy-editor; and the proofreader. All that only exists in your paranoid and idiotic sick brain.
There's in fact no issue, and never was, in the first place.
A.
DKleinecke
2017-06-20 22:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
I am talkiing about Aramaic loanwords and proper names
of the 1st half of the 1st meillenium CE found in Arabic
and Ancient North Arabian idioms close to Arabic.
Then you should say so.
"The source of Aramaic loan-vocabulary for Old Arabic seems
to be a desert or steppe variety of Aramaic that did not
have positional spirintization of stops"
Based on my previous post I assumed that you (and others) knew
what I was talking about and that everyone had confidence in me
that I would never imply that Arabic is a daughter language of
Arabic (which is sort of an urban legend that has some currency
these days).
I thought you were perfectly clear.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-20 22:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
I am talkiing about Aramaic loanwords and proper names
of the 1st half of the 1st meillenium CE found in Arabic
and Ancient North Arabian idioms close to Arabic.
Then you should say so.
The sentence should have read soemthing like this:

"The source of Aramaic loan-vocabulary for Old Arabic seems
to be a desert or steppe variety of Aramaic that did not
have positional spirintization of stops"

Based on my previous post I assumed that you (and others) knew
what I was talking about and that everyone had confidence in me
that I would never imply that Arabic is a daughter language of
Arabic (which is sort of an urban legend that has some currency
these days).
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-20 22:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Al-Jallad recently argued that the desert or steppe varieties of
Aramaic which was the source for Old Arabic did not have bgdkpt
sprinitization and different varieties of Aramaic did not
spirintize the whole set.
Aramaic can't have been a source for Arabic, because half a dozen Proto-Semitic consonants
had merged away in Aramaic, and had merged differently in Hebrew, and are attested in
Ugaritic, and remain distinct in Arabic.
I am talkiing about Aramaic loanwords and proper names
of the 1st half of the 1st meillenium CE found in Arabic
and Ancient North Arabian idioms close to Arabic.
Then you should say so.
"The source of Aramaic loan-vocabulary for Old Arabic seems
to be a desert or steppe variety of Aramaic that did not
have positional spirintization of stops"
Based on my previous post I assumed that you (and others) knew
what I was talking about and that everyone had confidence in me
that I would never imply that Arabic is a daughter language of
Arabic (which is sort of an urban legend that has some currency
"a daughter language of Aramaic"
these days).
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-21 18:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT): Yusuf B Gursey
Based on my previous post I assumed that you (and others) knew
what I was talking about and that everyone had confidence in me
that I would never imply that Arabic is a daughter language of
Arabic (which is sort of an urban legend that has some currency
these days).
Aramaic, second time?
Or first time?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-21 21:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:18:17 -0700 (PDT): Yusuf B Gursey
Based on my previous post I assumed that you (and others) knew
what I was talking about and that everyone had confidence in me
that I would never imply that Arabic is a daughter language of
Arabic (which is sort of an urban legend that has some currency
these days).
Aramaic, second time?
Or first time?
Arabic is a daughter language of
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Aramaic.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2017-06-19 05:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left. The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.
More relevant is that the Icelandic cognate is svefn "sleep", and it is obviously related to sofa "to sleep", which is common Scandinavian (sova in Sswedish). The Swedish cognate is sömn, and I guess in Old Icelandic it was *svofn with an ogonek under o.
Pete Olcott
2017-06-19 17:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The sound of dead languages probably sound like the voices on the zombie shows, gurgling and raspy.
Post by Dingbat
In this context, I'd like to know how yourn (Middle English) and swefn (Old
English) sounded. We have these words in writing but there are no native
speakers left. The Sanskrit cognate of the latter is swapna, with the same
meaning, dream.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/11/what-do-dead-languages-sound-like
How do we know what “dead” languages sounded like?
Bob Vant, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire
--
(Γ ⊨ _FS A) ≡ (Γ ⊢ _FS A)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-19 20:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
The sound of dead languages probably sound like the voices on the zombie shows, gurgling and raspy.
Feel free not to post on topics you know nothing of, such as human language.
Pete Olcott
2017-06-19 21:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Pete Olcott
The sound of dead languages probably sound like the voices on the zombie shows, gurgling and raspy.
Feel free not to post on topics you know nothing of, such as human language.
I really only know about the mathematics of human languages so on this thread I made a joke.
--
(Γ ⊨ _FS A) ≡ (Γ ⊢ _FS A)
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2017-06-19 21:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Pete Olcott
The sound of dead languages probably sound like the voices on the zombie shows, gurgling and raspy.
Feel free not to post on topics you know nothing of, such as human language.
I really only know about the mathematics of human languages so on this thread I made a joke.
We are not amused.
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-20 19:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:29:59 -0700 (PDT): M?cis?aw Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Pete Olcott
The sound of dead languages probably sound like the voices on the zombie shows, gurgling and raspy.
Feel free not to post on topics you know nothing of, such as human language.
I really only know about the mathematics of human languages so on this thread I made a joke.
We are not amused.
LOL!!!
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-20 19:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:22:38 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Pete Olcott
The sound of dead languages probably sound like the voices on the zombie shows, gurgling and raspy.
Feel free not to post on topics you know nothing of, such as human language.
Geweldig, dit!
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2017-07-12 09:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:22:38 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Pete Olcott
The sound of dead languages probably sound like the voices on the zombie shows, gurgling and raspy.
Feel free not to post on topics you know nothing of, such as human language.
Like.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2017-07-13 10:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:22:38 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Pete Olcott
The sound of dead languages probably sound like the voices on the zombie shows, gurgling and raspy.
Feel free not to post on topics you know nothing of, such as human language.
Like.
Although taken as the joke it no doubt is, Pete's statement is of
course rather funny.

Loading...