Re: Mitanni and Matsya

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:30:05 +0200, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>=============
>varuna should just be wa-ru-na.
>Cuneiform enables wa : wa-hri, wa-ndi etc
>
>We have : uruwana- and a-ru-na
>uru and a are not a possible match for va-
>There is no reason they should not write wa
>if it was /va/ or /wa/ when they could write wa.

Well, they couldn't write <wa> (PI) in initial poition,
because that was pronounced /fa/ (/fe/, /fi/, /fo/, /fu/) in
Hurrian.

They might've written it ú-a.

>> I also consider that the same applies to Indara [int?ara]
>> because -d- in Hurri points at [t?] glottalized stop.
>
>What do you mean by saying that it "points at [t?]"?
>DRW
>==============
>I consider that a single voiced grapheme
>stands for glottalized in Hurri
>Indara (not intara) is [int?ara]

The Mitanni Hurrian text writes it <in-tar> (<in-da-ra> in
the Hittite version). Neither Hurrian nor Hittite do in fact
distinguish between voiced and voiceless cuneiform graphemes
(<ta> equals <da>), but only between single and geminate
(<at-ta>/<at-da> does not equal <a-ta>/<a-da>).

The Mitanni syllabary even does away with the orthographic
distinction completely, and standardizes on a single
cuneiform CV sign (whether originally voiced or voiceless).
Therefore, Mitanni Hurrian has only <ta>, never <da>.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...