757
edits
Talk:Harākti: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Laryngeals
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) (→Cuneiform: new section) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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. | 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) | -[[User:Fauxlosophe|Fauxlosophe]] ([[User talk: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) ... [[User:Ashucky|Ashucky]] ([[User talk:Ashucky|talk]]) 16:15, 13 September 2013 (CEST) | |||
== Cuneiform == | == Cuneiform == | ||
Hoho, I did it! Everyone should see it now :D --[[File:Admin.png|35px|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Chrysophylax|<span style="color: #3366BB ;">Chrysophylax</span>]]''' 03:47, 13 September 2013 (CEST) | Hoho, I did it! Everyone should see it now :D --[[File:Admin.png|35px|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Chrysophylax|<span style="color: #3366BB ;">Chrysophylax</span>]]''' 03:47, 13 September 2013 (CEST) | ||