From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52131
Date: 2008-01-31
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: [tied] Nubia (WAS- Re:
Limitations of the comparative method)
> > ============
> > tsalam? t?ob
> >
> > According to Loprieno's reconstructions,
> > Coptic : <noub> or <nouf> to be read [nuw]
> > Egyptian skeleton : n_b_w
> > Reconstruction : na:baw
> > Later on : [nu:b > nuw]
> >
> > I have no idea if we have the right to connect Nubia with n_b_w.
> >
> > Arnaud
>
> ***
> I believe the skeleton is n-w-b,
> Patrick
>
> ***
> Everybody is entitled to believe what he or she wants to,
>
> in the particular case of n_b_w,
> the root is not n_w_b,
>
> and the rest follows from that first truth.
>
> Arnaud
> ==================
***
I just checked in Wörterbuch to refresh my memory, and found that the
spelling is nb except for "Rohstoff", then it is nb.w (gold nuggets or
dust). -w is, after all, the Egyptian plural suffix.
The Coptic spelling is noub so I cannot understand where anyone
knowledgeable would get *nuw.
Perhaps a copying error?
Patrick
***