From: Rick McCallister
Message: 51551
Date: 2008-01-20
> Sorry, I cannot.cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>
> Actually, I would be proud to be considered another
> Merritt Ruhlen. Although I have disagreements, I
> consider him mainly on the right track with
> Greenberg.
>
> Furthermore, I regard it as unnecessary if Arabic
> and Egyptian can be cited. I ordered a Tamazight
> dictionary just now; I will see what that might
> contribute.
>
> So, I guess, I respectfully disagree.
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick
> McCallister<mailto:gabaroo6958@...>
> To:
>
><proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...>>
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic
> Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)
>
>
> But you need to if you mistrust Ehret. At the
> least,
> you need to list others' opinions. Otherwise you
> risk
> being labled as another Merrit Ruhlen.
> If you redo AA, it would strengthen your case.
>
> --- Patrick Ryan
>
> wrote:McCallister<mailto:gabaroo6958@...<mailto:gabaroo6958%40yahoo.com>>
>
> > I am not prepared to completely redo PAA which,
> in
> > my view, would be required. Criticizing Ehret
> would
> > require criticizing his whole system of PAA
> > phonology, and I do not have the resources
> > *reference books here at home) to do it, nor
> really
> > the interest.
> >
> > I will look into Tamazight.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rick
> >
>
>cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > To:
> >
>
>
> ><proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language%40msn.com><mailto:proto-language%40msn.com>>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic
> > Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)
> >
> >
> > Yes, there are problems but at least cite Ehret
> > and
> > whoever else has done AA roots. If you disagree,
> > say
> > so and why. It will help your credibility.
> > My understanding is that Arab loanwords come
> > mainly
> > from other AA languages (mainly Aramaic,
> Egyptian,
> > Berber) and IE (mainly Persian, Greek and
> > Romance).
> > And that Romance, Egyptian and Berber loanwords
> > tend
> > to be regionalisms. Si if a word is Classical
> > Arabic,
> > check it against Aramaic, Persian and Greek. But
> > if
> > you're dealing with regionalisms such as
> > burtuqal/burtu'an "orange", skwila "school",
> > znafuria
> > "carrot", it's probably a loanword
> > But do at least look through Berber --there are
> > Tamazight and other dictionaries online. There
> > should
> > be etymological dictionaries for Berber and
> Hausa,
> > possibly for Somali, who knows for Omotic.
> >
> > --- Patrick Ryan
> >
>
>
> > wrote:McCallister<mailto:gabaroo6958@...<mailto:gabaroo6958%40yahoo.com><mailto:gabaroo6958%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > > If we find a word in Arabic, we have two
> > choices: 1)
> > > to regard it is deriving from Semitic, or 2)
> to
> > > regard it as a loanword. I think most would
> > agree
> > > that native words greatly outnumber loanwords,
> > so it
> > > is a fair presumption that the odds favor any
> > Arabic
> > > word being native, I.e. derived from Semitic.
> > >
> > > We have excellent Arabic dictionaries which
> > > facilitate etymological comparisons.
> > >
> > > Unless we have good reason to label an Arabic
> > word a
> > > loanword, it is likely (but not certain) that
> > the
> > > word derives from Semitic.
> > >
> > > Our Egyptian sources are also well developed
> so
> > that
> > > it is often possible to match Egyptian and
> > Arabic
> > > words.
> > >
> > > Almost everyone agrees that the AA work that
> has
> > > been done is highly unreliable so that
> > comparisons
> > > between PIE and PAA are not very feasible. I
> > agree,
> > > they would be most desirable; and if I could
> use
> > > them, I would.
> > >
> > > As for Berber, is there a Berber etymological
> > > dictionary which links Berber to either Arabic
> > or
> > > PAA? If there is, I do not know of it. Hence,
> > Berber
> > > is only a grace-note.
> > >
> > > With Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic, I am afraid
> > my
> > > impression is that the proto-languages that
> have
> > > been reconstructed are as questionable as the
> > PAA
> > > material. I could always be convinced
> otherwise,
> > I
> > > suppose.
> > >
> > > So, a comparison among PIE, Arabic, and
> Egyptian
> > > seems most practical in view of the materials
> > > available.
> > >
> > > Of course, I add Sumerian, which gives us some
> > > insight into the original vowels.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Rick
> > >
> >
>
>
> >cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > To:
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> > >=== message truncated ===
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic
> > > Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)
> > >
> > >
> > > PIE Arabic is a waste of time --go back to AA
> > and
> > > you
> > > can't find the AA root, at least give roots
> from
> > > Semitic, Berber, Egyptian, Cushitic, Omotic
> and
> > > Chadic. No one will take PIE Arabic seriously
> > > unless
> > > you're positing loanwords
> > >
> > > --- "fournet.arnaud"
> > >
> >
> >
>