682
edits
Talk:Harākti: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Fauxlosophe (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
"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) | "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) | ||
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. | |||
-[[User:Fauxlosophe|Fauxlosophe]] ([[User talk:Fauxlosophe|talk]]) 04:22, 1 September 2013 (CEST) | |||