Hi Piotr,
It is only now that I manage to write in response.
> No. When Old Persian inscriptions were first worked out,
familiarity with
> Sanskrit was certainly helpful, but now Old Persian studies are
a completely
> independent field. If you want to prove that an inscription is in a
Slavic
> language, you must interpret it in Slavic terms.
I get your point, but to what extent do you allow for a certain
mixing of languages in doing this translation? I have a problem
with a simply linear A leads to B logic. You may need to
incorporate a C, and the measure of this side influence may not
be possible to define so strictly. Just wondering, since my
language seems to be a big mixture anyway. I don't think it is
realistic to expect that any total clarity will be achieved, with or
without the help of the inscriptions. On the other hand, if you
aspire the total clarity, you may need to throw out important
things simply because they do not match the scheme. I
consider this a loss, although you may call it unscientific.
Btw, I have ordered Besevliev from the Staatsbibliothek, but I
made a very stupid mistake and ordered it to be delivered in the
other building of the library. I will have it in a few days and will try
posting some of the inscriptions (I changed my mind on the
timing, since I don't think I have problems with my exams and
since it is always possible to write a late response). I was only
wondering if posting pictures would be okay in this list.
The fact that some words
> seem to make sense in terms of Old Prussian or Latvian
doesn't support your
> thesis. The same holds for Indic and Iranian.
This is not *my* thesis. This is one thesis that influenced me
strongly and I still think it could well be true or at least lead to the
truth, be it through its being refuted. Both are okay for me.
Eva