Re: 'dyeus' chronology

Shiv-Raj/Knife-King:

Brian did not refer to the English sound /m/. You may wish to check out linguistic annotation, then you will discover that /M/ is a "symbol of convenience" to write the sound conveyed, that capital annotations tend to be ad hoc and that Francesco did an excellent job in conveying the sounds represented by /M/, which, as I suspected, pretty much correspond to final /-m/ in certain varieties of Lowland Spanish, which are also environmentally conditioned.

From: shivkhokra <shivkhokra@...>
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 12:46:14 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: 'dyeus' chronology

No Brian they are not irrelevant. All ansuvars in Harvard Kyoto are written as an "M" and they are not pronounced "M". My example distinguish these cases.

Secondly in another post I have requested Dr Brighenti to show us how each of the sanskrit words would be pronounced syllabically so that we can understand if he knows anusvar phonetics.

Regards,
Shivraj

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>
> At 5:55:02 AM on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, shivkhokra wrote:
>
> > Dear Dr Brighenti,
>
> > Pronunciation of anusvar sound in sanskrit word "Sundhi"
> > <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF#Sans>
> > (meaning destruction) and "sunhrutra or sinhrutra"
> > <http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.6:1:39.apte>
> > (meaning destroyer) is *identical* and the sound one would
> > hear is an "n" sound. In otherwords the anusvar ("the dot
> > character in devnagari") corresponds with the letter "n"
> > in the syllabic spellings given above.
>
> Also irrelevant.
>
> > In contrast the anusvar in RV 1.1.1
> > <http://tinyurl.com/rv111> is pronounced differently and
> > the words "Purohitam" and "Hotaram" (just look for the two
> > words with "." above them in the first sukta) are spelt
> > syllabically with m sound as I have written.
>
> Yet more irrelevance. Francesco addressed examples of this
> type in his post.
>
> > You have just proved my assertion of anusvar understanding
> > given in the previous post.
>
> One the contrary, you've just proved that you didn't
> understand what Francesco wrote, and you're starting to make
> a good case that your understanding of anusvAra is weak.
>
> Brian
>