4,735
edits
Talk:Harākti: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
Fauxlosophe (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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.--[[User:Fauxlosophe|Fauxlosophe]] ([[User talk:Fauxlosophe|talk]]) 05:03, 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.--[[User:Fauxlosophe|Fauxlosophe]] ([[User talk: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… --[[File:Admin.png|35px|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Chrysophylax|<span style="color: #3366BB ;">Chrysophylax</span>]]''' 05:35, 31 August 2013 (CEST) | |||