From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 56769
Date: 2008-04-05
>>>Cuneiform enables wa : wa-hri, wa-ndi etcThose words, if they have /wa-/, are written with initial
>>>
>>>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.
>==============
>
>On account of what wa is impossible,
>
>Laroche, Glossaire Hourrite,
>wahri "true, faithfull" PIE werH1
>wali "worm"
>wandi "right side"
>Who invented that wa is /fa/ ?The cuneiform sign PI (= GES^TU), Hittite syllabic value
>>>==============There aren't many good online overviews on the current state
>>>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>.
>>
>> =======================
>
>Who invented that ?