Laryngeals
IIRC Balto-Slavic shows remnants of laryngeals existing quite late in some sound changes :P could be that you just have a retained archaism in Harākti :P especially having three genders which no Anatolian language has but all Indo-European do :p (if going by Indo-Hittite) :P love IE conlangs tho! --
Chrysophylax 02:42, 31 August 2013 (CEST)
Grammatical aspects like M/F might be a borrowing from Greek over the years however it definitely implies a later split with the other PIE languages than the early break off of Anatolian. But as a possibly Pseudo-Fringe Theorist whom you may quote for your article, I have my own pet theory; I think the grammatical relation to later Indo-European languages is too close for it to have split way back in the days that Anatolian split off. Further looking at the brief gloss given I think I could , the sounds seem to be more closely related to other PIE languages; [Lucwan] "ānnis" v. [Harākti] "mahtēr" with Latin "māter" and proto-Celtic *mātīr. "Danghāh" is language which seems to derive from Tongue, compare then [Lucwan] lālis with Latin lingua, and Proto-Celtic "tangʷat" [Teangue in Modern Irish]. A, I'd be happy to testify that Harākti is infact a language born around the split of the Celtic and Italic languages and perhaps a surviving relative of the Galatian language after millenia of Anatolian and Greek phonetic influence.--Fauxlosophe (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2013 (CEST)
"Italic and especially Celtic also share some archaic features with the Hittite language (Anatolian languages) and the Tocharian languages.[5] (...) The r-passive (mediopassive) was initially thought to be an innovation restricted to Italo-Celtic until it was found to be a retained archaism shared with Hittite and Tocharian." While I personally don't subscribe to Italo-Celtic as more than the result of areal feature diffusion I think Harākti does fit in as being somewhat of an intermediate chronologically somewhat between the Italic, Celtic, and Hittite families. Furthermore, the usage of -i for the thematic genitive really does put this language near "Italo-Celtic" in area. I would argue against it being a relative of Galatian as being a Gallic language would make it P-Celtic while Harākti has retained kʷ as kʷ (Thus being "Q-Italo-Celtic-Harāktic"). Since Harākti doesn't change p at all, I don't think it's very probable to put it under Celtic at all (cf. PIE > Common Celtic p->ɸ) but in its own grouping. You may quote my rebuttal too ;) I and Faux could become scholars arguing over Harākti, haha… -- Chrysophylax 05:35, 31 August 2013 (CEST)
My compatriot raises an interesting argument as I was looking in particular at the historic precidence as to my knowledge, neither Q-Italic or Q-Celtic Tribes established substantial colonies near Turkey. If it is to be interpreted as a Galatian descendant, it would require us to make substantial changes to our conception of Galatian as not a Celtic language but an Italio-Celtic language with a P-Celtic substratum particularly in regards to naming during the Galatian times. Thus giving Harākti a sort of historical basis there. However, other methods of Migration are possible and if one should be discovered, I would be happy to amend my thesis allowing Galatian to remain untouched and giving more credance to the Italic part of the family to which it does seem more closely related phonetically. -Fauxlosophe (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2013 (CEST)
- I seem to have completely missed your discussion about the language here! You've actually pointed out a couple of problems I've been having with the language. Parts of its grammar show close relationship with Hittite while at the same time it shows the general agreement with other IE languages, vocabulary included. So you guys would place Harākti in a separate branch that split off sometime between the Anatolian and Italic/Celtic/Italo-Celtic splits? My idea behind the gender in Harākti was that it originally had an animate-inanimate distinction but it was influenced by a(n Italo-Celtic?) language with the three-way gender distinction because while it has gender, there's a lot of syncretism and feminine and masculine nuns are often declined the same, while neuter nouns are always declined separately, so pointing towards an earlier animate-inanimate distinction, perhaps. There's also no gender distinction between in participles (it's just masculine-feminine/animate vs. neuter/inanimate) ... Ashucky (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2013 (CEST)
Cuneiform
Hoho, I did it! Everyone should see it now :D -- Chrysophylax 03:47, 13 September 2013 (CEST)