Re: Lat. gladius and Sorothaptic

So how is it pronounced? My best guesses are jinhenxas or jinhenjaS (the spelling is inconsistent in that there is no second broad vowel in the final

syllable <j? = slender d /d', j/ OR supposing the second <d> is pronounced /jinjhenxas(S)/. But it's an old word.

From: "ceiserith@..." <ceiserith@...>
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Lat. gladius and Sorothaptic

Sorry about the other message; a button got hit accidentally.

In a message dated 8/25/2012 10:42:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, oalexandre@... writes:

>> > I do *nothing* of the kind, but I see no point in
> > continuing calling them "laryngeals" and use an algebraic
> > notation.
>
>> Too bad; that's their name. It's well understood by those
> who work in the field, and only an idiot would worry
> overmuch about whether it's phonetically apt.
>
>Because it's used for the sake of "tradition", a concept which is more
religious than scientific.

Since their is still disagreement in how at least some of them were pronounced, there is little harm in using a term that describes a way in which they *weren't.* In fact, there might be an advantage, since it will keep one way from being smuggled in by terminology. Before I knew how to pronounce the Irish "dindshenchas," I pronounced it, in my head, as "din-hoo-hah," because I knew that when I finally learned the correct pronunciation I would never mix it up with the way I had been saying it before. At this point, no one will get confused with how laryngeals are pronounced, thinking that they were actually laryngeals.

Keeping the name also allows the earlier literature to continue to be read without translation.

Ceisiwr Serith