From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52153
Date: 2008-02-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Nubia (WAS- Re: Limitations of the comparative
method)
>
>
> > ==================
> 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
>
> ***
> I repeat :
> 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 add
> Loprieno, 1995 Ancient Egyptian, Cambridge.
> p. 248 note n° 58
>
> Cf. Crum
> http://www.metalog.org/files/crum/221.gif
>
> noub and nouf.
>
> Arnaud
> =============
1. I checked the footnote: it does not say that nb was ever pronounced
[nu:w].
2. I re-read the Chapter in which this footnote appears, again, [nu:w] is
never mentioned.
3. He does mention that Coptic <b> was "probably" a fricative, which he
speculates was the bilabial [β] as opposed to [v]. In view of acknowledged
[f] in Coptic, I prefer to see it as the labiodental [v]. But no one knows
certainly, including Loprieno - nor does he say that he does
4. He does mention that in some dialects, <b> was written <ou>, normally
[w] - usually initially. If Loprieno reflected on the perceived desirability
for a spelling change on that order, he would perhaps have realized that if
<b> were generally pronounced as [w] or [β], a change of spelling would have
been _unnecessary_.
5. The final <b> in <noub> is not _ever_ written with <ou>.
Conclusion, you are wrong on every count.
Patrick