Hi Jens,
> On Sat, 24 May 2003, fortuna11111 wrote:
>
>
> > [...]
> > Ops, that about the voiced/voiceless was new to me. Now I see.
> > Kapiert.
>
> Wirklich, Eva? Then go tell your countrymen. The rule is known to
> everybody but never endorsed expressis verbis.
This is what I call muscle logic. Males are always tempted. I did
not intend to make the whole issue political, Jens, although my first
(American) degree is in Journalism. I am studying for a second degree
in IE liguistics and have only now started. I am not acquainted with
all the basic knowledge you may be referring to. And I am not German.
You made many assumptions wrong.
I guess it is just too much
to
> accept such a simple solution to a problem that has been discussed
as long
> as /e/ and /o/ have been known to both exist in PIE; that was
exactly 100
> years at the time I put forward the rule. To my great surprise it
appears
> to have been completely accepted by writers on this list, but I
don't
> suppose it is a requirement for being here.
I don't think you are the person to set requirements about anything,
or am I wrong? Sounds a bit pompous. Generally, the scientific
method implies much of what is already written may be wrong. One such
assumption of wrong-ness attracted me towards this field. So now I
basically want to see what people believe that they know on the
subject. I also want to get to know their methods. By the way, an
observation I have made is coparative liguists often discuss languages
that they don't know in depth. In most cases they have just read a
grammar or something of the kind, quickly skimming through grammatical
rules and forms, but their knowledge hardly extends to the depth and
soul of the language. I find this to be wrong. I speak four
languages "in depth" and I really want to go on applying this attitude
to language study. On the other hand, I want to get to know better
the comparative method and then see what I can do with both combined.
I think there is a lot to do.
> Why may I not have my little pleasures?
I just thought you may not want to explain since this is also
laborious. Timje limits are something I can understand.
I understand your question
to mean
> where you can read about IE linguistics.
I read a lot about IE linguistics, but I am concentrating on other
parts of it right now. So I will have to read more on what you are
talking about in order to be able to discuss it further. Much of what
I have to do is just boring stuff like getting to know your terms
(definitions). Means of expression are a very important thing. If
you don't know the tools, you cannot start doing the work. I thought
this should be clear for a scientist.
If I'm wrong correct me,
and I'll
> be more specific next time.
You can be as specific as you wish. I appreciate all information and
ideas and I don't even translate everything into politics and
political camps :-)
>
> One of the only modern manuals that are not preaching personal and
> untenable nonsense is Andrew Sihler: New Comparative Grammar of
Greek and
> Latin, Oxford UP, 1995.
Thanks for the reference, but I think I will just re-read your old
message and ask my questions so that you know what I mean. I don't
think I will start reading a comparative grammar of Greek and Latin
before I have done Greek. I will do it next semester since now I am
doing three languages and concentrating on Indo-Iranian. One thing at
a time. But I may look at this grammar you are offering to me in
summer.
By the way, to clear your political concerns, Germans read in all
possible languages at the university, so all the possible literature
you are talking about is actually being used as a reference here. I
read in Bulgarian, Russian, English and German. I miss French as a
research language, so I think I will have to learn it quickly as well.
The problem with sources is more on the practical side and hence my
question: where do I get to read that which I want to read. I have
skimmed through so much literature that is simply un-usable, etc. Can
you imagine how much of useful and useless literature you can find at
the Staatsbibliothek-Berlin? And that's just one of the libraries
here.
It extensively treats Lat. and Gk. in a
pan-IE
> context, providing much of the information needed to integrate the
other
> branches also.
I am more into Indo-Iranian now. I will concentrate on Slawistik next
semester. I will put this grammar on my list of references.
Other basic textbooks are: Oswald Szemerenyi:
Introduction
> to Indo-European Linguistics, Oxford UP 1996 (paperback 1999).
Michael
> Meier-Bruegger: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, de Gruyter,
Berlin -
> New York 2002.
Hihi, I know this author and have used the book.
The part on laryngeals is fine in the latter, while
other
> matters are treater more informatively in the former; one needs them
both.
And you need many others.
> Apparently list members prefer R.S.P.Beekes; Comparative
Indo-European
> Linguistics, An Introduction. Amsterdam/Philedalphia 1995:
Benjamins.
Okay, That I have also used for my exam :-)
That
> ought to be known if only because it is the one most writers on the
list
> refer to;
Everything is known in Berlin, Jens :-) It is just that some of it
might not have reached me, naturally.
The last no-nonsense presentations of
PIE
> were Meillet's Introduction a l'etude comparative des langues
> indo-europeennes, 7e ed., Paris 1937 (largely unchanged since 1903),
> reprint 1964 University of Alabama, and Karl Brugmann: Kurze
vergleichende
> Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 1-2. Strassburg 1902-04,
reprint
> deGruyter, Berlin - New York (one volume) 1970. Meillet and Brugmann
can
> sometimes still be bought cheap, try www.abe.com and see if they've
got
> them.
I will definitely find them in the library. I am generally frustrated
I can only read Meillet in translation. That will change soon.
> Many of the things we are discussing on the list, however, have
not
> entered the world of handbooks (yet, perhaps never will), or have
only
> entered it in imperfect and partly distorted form. By staying on the
list
> you can contribute to the brew out of which future scholarship will
> perhaps be distilled.
That should be the whole point.
I run now, cause I am already late.
Eva