and Arians.HinGambleGoth wrote:
20th of July is a special day in Germany, since Stauffenberg wanted to assassinate the Beast. And then someone says "Arians". Thanks for destroying the spirit.
and Arians.HinGambleGoth wrote:
...first off, nobody was talking about Arians. They were talking about Aryans. These are two entirely distinct things. Second, if you insist on being upset by the word 'Aryan', you should probably avoid threads about PIE, given that the 'I' in that is a reference to the Aryans. More generally, if you get upset by random discussions of ancient history, I suggest you grow a thicker skin.Egerius wrote: 20th of July is a special day in Germany, since Stauffenberg wanted to assassinate the Beast. And then someone says "Arians". Thanks for destroying the spirit.
Don't worry! IE studies do seem to attract weird theories and crackpot "researchers" like a magnet.HinGambleGoth wrote:Ok, this is sliding off-topic, I just mentioned a few crack-pot theories, that reminds me of the guy in Ancient Aliens. It was a joke. There have been many wacky theories over the years, and the Nazis exploited that frequently.
What a rarity! A translation of the Lord's prayer into 19th century-spec PIE, no less.Lambuzhao wrote:http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/J ... europ.html
kʷód?HinGambleGoth wrote:jūz sindi wilþijai hundōs!
(Emphasis by me)Salmoneus wrote: ...first off, nobody was talking about Arians. They were talking about Aryans. These are two entirely distinct things. Second, if you insist on being upset by the word 'Aryan', you should probably avoid threads about PIE, given that the 'I' in that is a reference to the Aryans. More generally, if you get upset by random discussions of ancient history, I suggest you grow a thicker skin.
Hwat?atman wrote:HinGambleGoth wrote:kʷód?HinGambleGoth wrote:jūz sindi wilþijai hundōs!
"dogs" in PIE is (should be) ḱwónes. A palatalized and at the same time labialized velar stop would presumably be too much even for Proto-Indo-EuropeansLambuzhao wrote:...ḱʷónes...
I. I think it's untenable for Late PIE, and it's not just my personal opinion: it's the consensus view among real Indo-Europeanists. But if we talk about earlier stages of PIE, then maybe...Egerius wrote: Now back to the topic:
I. Atman, what do you think about the PIE glottal hypothesis.
II. Do you have a piece of advice on how to start a PIE-inspired a priori conlang? (It's already Kentum)
III. Does the word *kāweh1n-s adhere to PIE phonotactics and do you have any other thoughts on it? It means dog.
The [ḱʷ] is both glottalized and labialized. (Palatalised would be indicated by a ʲ . And maybe you're right about velar stops, but some sounds can be and in some natlangs are both palatalized and labialized at the same time; Akan appears to be an example.)atman wrote:"dogs" in PIE is (should be) ḱwónes. A palatalized and at the same time labialized velar stop would presumably be too much even for Proto-Indo-EuropeansLambuzhao wrote:...ḱʷónes...
Time for a little reality check.eldin raigmore wrote:The [ḱʷ] is both glottalized and labialized. (Palatalised would be indicated by a ʲ . And maybe you're right about velar stops, but some sounds can be and in some natlangs are both palatalized and labialized at the same time; Akan appears to be an example.)
The reconstructed form really is *[ḱʷónes], as Lambuzhao said, where the "apostrophes" represent glottalization rather than palatalization.
And apparently the speakers of the descendant languages agreed with you that ḱʷ was "too much", and revised it to either kʷ or ḱ , depending.
But there are plenty of living natlangs that have a glottalized labialized consonant; indeed several (e.g. kʷaḱʷala) have two and some (e.g. Archi, Lak, Rutul, Tlingit) have more than two.
Twenty-five in UPSID's database have [ḱʷ] and twelve have [q́ʷ].
PIE is/was SOV. So te gʷeréwmi, if gʷeréwmi is even a thing.Lambuzhao wrote:gʷeréueh1i, Eldiné
congratulate<OBJECTIVE>PRS.2SG <Eldin>VOC.SG
or is it
gʷeréumi te
congratulate<SUBJECTIVE>PRS.1SG 2SG.ACC
[/spoiler]
≈ 'Thanks'
[/spoiler]
SOV - D'oh! But, according to Verbix, it is such a thing. What to do about *gwer(u)? Use *gar instead? Should I use Medio-Passive Voice?atman wrote:Time for a little reality check.eldin raigmore wrote:The [ḱʷ] is both glottalized and labialized. (Palatalised would be indicated by a ʲ . And maybe you're right about velar stops, but some sounds can be and in some natlangs are both palatalized and labialized at the same time; Akan appears to be an example.)
The reconstructed form really is *[ḱʷónes], as Lambuzhao said, where the "apostrophes" represent glottalization rather than palatalization.
And apparently the speakers of the descendant languages agreed with you that ḱʷ was "too much", and revised it to either kʷ or ḱ , depending.
But there are plenty of living natlangs that have a glottalized labialized consonant; indeed several (e.g. kʷaḱʷala) have two and some (e.g. Archi, Lak, Rutul, Tlingit) have more than two.
Twenty-five in UPSID's database have [ḱʷ] and twelve have [q́ʷ].
Remember that PIE has its own romanization, it doesn't use IPA or something. Palatalized velars aka palatovelars aka front velars aka palatals in PIE orthography are indicated with an accent (ḱ and its plain voiced and breathy voiced siblings). These stops are never reconstructed with labialized counterparts (unlike the plain velar aka back velar stops).
Basically ḱʷ doesn't exist in any reconstruction of PIE, and telling us what such a phoneme became in the descendants is ridiculous. In reality, "dogs" is reconstructed as ḱwónes, with a cluster of a palatalized velar stop and a labiovelar approximant at the beginning. Such clusters contrasted with simple labialized stops in PIE at the "plain velar" point of articulation, however.
Bottomline: you made so many mistakes you'll have to sacrifice a cow to the ancient IE gods, or else...
PIE is/was SOV. So te gʷeréwmi, if gʷeréwmi is even a thing.Lambuzhao wrote:gʷeréueh1i, Eldiné
congratulate<OBJECTIVE>PRS.2SG <Eldin>VOC.SG
or is it
gʷeréumi te
congratulate<SUBJECTIVE>PRS.1SG 2SG.ACC
[/spoiler]
≈ 'Thanks'
[/spoiler]
I don't wanna be a Destroyer of Worlds, I don't wanna be a Destroyer of Worlds...Now they are become Eldin and Lambu, destroyers of words (cit.)
http://thehasbeenhymn.files.wordpress.c ... b-lamb.jpgYou can get away with sacrificing a little lamb , we're friends.
Very good. They always tell us we must make sacrifices in life...Lambuzhao wrote:Quote:
You can get away with sacrificing a little lamb , we're friends.
http://thehasbeenhymn.files.wordpress.c ... b-lamb.jpg
I found a root gʷérH- "to praise" which should be what you were looking for. It inflects as a nasal-infixed present in Vedic Sanskrit.Lambuzhao wrote: SOV - D'oh! But, according to Verbix, it is such a thing. What to do about *gwer(u)? Use *gar instead? Should I use Medio-Passive Voice?