--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:34:25 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
> wrote:
>
> >The point is that there are evidently ample
> >phonemes to choose from in IE that could approximate Semitic
> >ayin, rather than merely ignoring the phoneme, even if the
> >approximation isn't perfect.
>
> PIE had h1 (h?), h2 (x?) and h3 (G/xW?), so an inventory more or
less like
> that of Dutch. Yet in Dutch, `Arafat is pronounced as Arafat, not
Harafat,
> Garafat or Charafat.
Is this meant to be a serious argument? I can't see the smiley. I
seriously doubt that the process goes:
1. Dutchman hears `arafat.
2. Tries to pronounce it, and says Arafat.
Surely the most direct route normally encountered goes:
1. A speaker of Arabic and a European language hears and reads
`arafat.
2. He writes "`Arafat" or "Arafat".
3. Dutch news text uses the simpler form "Arafat".
4. Dutchman says Arafat.
I suspect that the hearing part is often missing from Step 1, but I
may be underrating journalists.
I seriously doubt that the vowels of English /"ar&fat/ have much to
do with the actual Arabic vocalisation.
As an example of a potentially similar process, reading the posting
of 25 October 2003 at <http://www.thai-
language.com/ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=000009>
(Note the hyphen in the domain name) from 'mrentoul', who works on
the Bangkok Post, Thailand's premier business-oriented English
language daily.
Richard.