From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52148
Date: 2008-02-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 4:34 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Nubia (WAS- Re: Limitations of the comparative
method)
> ***
>
> Loprieno is excellent - even when I disagree with him.
>
> I believe the skeleton is n-w-b, nawab with -awa- contract to -â- as in
> Semitic languages. Later in Egyptian, vowels in contact with nasals were
> rounded - â to û.
> ===========
> On what grounds do you change the skeleton of a word ?
> there is complete agreement for n_b_w in sources.
>
> As for *awa > *â (=impossible)
> Egyptian m_w_.t "mother"
> Reconstruction : mawat
> Coptic : maau.
> Hence refuted.
>
> Arnaud
> =================
>
> If Egyptian <b> ever disappears, it will have to be very rare since it is
> regularly <b> in Coptic.
>
> In my opinion, the principal reason for using biliterals was to indicate
> internal vowels not indicated in the regular alphabet.
>
> Patrick
>
> ***
> ===========
> Vowels are *NEVER* indicated
> and sometimes weak consonants like ? l r n are omitted.
> Arnaud
> ===============
***
I explained what Wörterbuch has to say about the spelling for 'gold' as
opposed to 'nuggets' or 'baubles'.
It is online, so read it yourself if you have German.
Vowels are partially indicated in Egyptian: <d> stands for pre-Egyptian /da/
or /di; <t> stand for /du/. The problem is that
voicing/glottalization-aspiration contrast was lost so <d> and <t> stand for
/*d/-/*t?/ and /*t(h)/. What determines which is used is the quality of the
pre-Egyptian vowel.
What do you think <maau> is phonetically? It is /ma:u/.
Patrick
***