zompist bboard

WE ARE MOVING - see Ephemera
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:18 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: h4 and h5
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:17 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:39 pm
Posts: 859
Location: The Eastern Establishment
I know it's generally accepted that PIE had only three laryngeals, but I have heard that somebody has postulated h4 and h5. What's his justification, and what happened to them?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: h4 and h5
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:40 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 1630
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Daquarious P. McFizzle wrote:
I know it's generally accepted that PIE had only three laryngeals, but I have heard that somebody has postulated h4 and h5. What's his justification, and what happened to them?


There are seveal theories which add more laryngeals to the usual set of three. What such designations as "h4" or "h5" mean, depends on the author. AFAIK, there really is no good evidence for such extra laryngeals.

_________________
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: h4 and h5
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:41 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:33 am
Posts: 396
Location: Wizard Tower
Daquarious P. McFizzle wrote:
I know it's generally accepted that PIE had only three laryngeals, but I have heard that somebody has postulated h4 and h5. What's his justification, and what happened to them?


I don't know about *h5, but *h4 is intended to explain places where PIE appears to have *h2, but Hittite lacks an [h], while *h2 should leave [h]. *h5 may be the same, but for o-coloring, since *h3 also left [h] in Hittite, though under slightly restricted conditions, IIRC.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: h4 and h5
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:47 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:29 pm
Posts: 75
Location: Low Hell, MA
TheGoatMan wrote:
I don't know about *h5, but *h4 is intended to explain places where PIE appears to have *h2, but Hittite lacks an [h], while *h2 should leave [h]. *h5 may be the same, but for o-coloring, since *h3 also left [h] in Hittite, though under slightly restricted conditions, IIRC.


That's exactly why *h5 is proposed. There's also been *h6 proposed which has the same coloring properties as *h1 but appears in HIttite as <h>.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:49 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
From the sound of all this, would it not be simpler to just propose that there had been some kind of irregular shifting or elision of such somewhere in what could be called pre-Anatolian, rather than assuming, in a quasi-Neogrammarian fashion, completely regular sound changes between Anatolian and PIE proper? Having six laryngeals sounds like an overly complex phonological system just to explain the differences between the rest of IE and Anatolian, and that these extra three laryngeals are paired with the other three laryngeals but differ only with regard to their fate in Anatolian make them seem like only a contrivance to avoid positing irregular phonological changes which likely had no actual phonological reality.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 7:36 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
Travis B. wrote:
From the sound of all this, would it not be simpler to just propose that there had been some kind of irregular shifting or elision of such somewhere in what could be called pre-Anatolian, rather than assuming, in a quasi-Neogrammarian fashion, completely regular sound changes between Anatolian and PIE proper? Having six laryngeals sounds like an overly complex phonological system just to explain the differences between the rest of IE and Anatolian, and that these extra three laryngeals are paired with the other three laryngeals but differ only with regard to their fate in Anatolian make them seem like only a contrivance to avoid positing irregular phonological changes which likely had no actual phonological reality.
It reminds me of the ridiculously complex phoneme inventories Russian Nostraticists propose for Proto-Nostratic, mostly, IMO, because they are insistent that Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian are Nostratic languages, which I think is a load of bull. Most of those reconstructed phonemes are a form of handwavium.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 7:46 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 11:29 pm
Posts: 823
Why not postulate h6, h7, and h8, while we’re at it, and then we can put the words on a chessboard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:24 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:33 am
Posts: 396
Location: Wizard Tower
Shm Jay wrote:
Why not postulate h6, h7, and h8, while we’re at it, and then we can put the words on a chessboard.

Unfortunately, this seemed to be part Szemerényi's reasoning for saying there was only one laryngeal. To my knowledge, very few authors suggest that there were more than the three Laryngeals, as each extra one is invoked to explain progressively smaller numbers of irregularities.

I concede that there may be something of a case for *h4, but am unconvinced. The rest are dubious at best.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: h4 and h5
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:30 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 03, 2003 3:04 pm
Posts: 821
TheGoatMan wrote:
Daquarious P. McFizzle wrote:
I know it's generally accepted that PIE had only three laryngeals, but I have heard that somebody has postulated h4 and h5. What's his justification, and what happened to them?


I don't know about *h5, but *h4 is intended to explain places where PIE appears to have *h2, but Hittite lacks an [h], while *h2 should leave [h]. *h5 may be the same, but for o-coloring, since *h3 also left [h] in Hittite, though under slightly restricted conditions, IIRC.


I believe Gsandi's personal version of PIE has h4 and h5, maybe even h6 as well. If so, his site has justification. However, I'm not 100% sure on that, even though it would be utterly trivial for me to go to his website and check. Too lazy.

_________________
"It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be said, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
The Gospel of Thomas


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:14 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:29 pm
Posts: 75
Location: Low Hell, MA
Travis B. wrote:
From the sound of all this, would it not be simpler to just propose that there had been some kind of irregular shifting or elision of such somewhere in what could be called pre-Anatolian, rather than assuming, in a quasi-Neogrammarian fashion, completely regular sound changes between Anatolian and PIE proper? Having six laryngeals sounds like an overly complex phonological system just to explain the differences between the rest of IE and Anatolian, and that these extra three laryngeals are paired with the other three laryngeals but differ only with regard to their fate in Anatolian make them seem like only a contrivance to avoid positing irregular phonological changes which likely had no actual phonological reality.


I think this is why *h5 and *h6 never caught on. There were very few examples of them. As far as I know they can be explained without recourse to irregularities. For example one of them is the word *me:, "to meaure". Hittite has a laryngeal, so this would point to *h6. The explanation that I've seen is that PIE had original long vowels, *e: and *o:. So the proper reconstruction would be *me:h2 (I'm pretty sure it's *h2, but I'm going from memory here). Long vowels aren't colored by laryngeal which is why this isn't *a:.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:19 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:29 pm
Posts: 75
Location: Low Hell, MA
TaylorS wrote:
It reminds me of the ridiculously complex phoneme inventories Russian Nostraticists propose for Proto-Nostratic, mostly, IMO, because they are insistent that Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian are Nostratic languages, which I think is a load of bull. Most of those reconstructed phonemes are a form of handwavium.


A few weeks ago I would have agreed about Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian not being part of Nostratic, but I've made a discovery that's caused me to rethink my objections. But that's a subject for another thread. I absolutely agree that their phoneme inventories are ridiculous. I think a lot of those phonemes disappear once you consider conditioning environments and consonant clusters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:21 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:29 pm
Posts: 75
Location: Low Hell, MA
Shm Jay wrote:
Why not postulate h6, h7, and h8, while we’re at it, and then we can put the words on a chessboard.


Szemerenyi mentions one hypothesis that has about a dozen laryngeals. One can hardly take such a hypothesis seriously.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: h4 and h5
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:36 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:29 pm
Posts: 75
Location: Low Hell, MA
Xephyr wrote:
I believe Gsandi's personal version of PIE has h4 and h5, maybe even h6 as well. If so, his site has justification. However, I'm not 100% sure on that, even though it would be utterly trivial for me to go to his website and check. Too lazy.


He has six, but two of these are labialized versions of *h2 and *h3. As near as I can tell he posits these to explain instances of Hittite <hu> where other languages point to *w. So they are not the same as traditional *h4 and *h5. He does include an *h6 which is the same as *h1 except it appears in Hittite as <h>. I know of only 2 or 3 examples of this so I'm not convinced.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:07 pm 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:49 pm
Posts: 32
Is the idea to project the laryngeals as separate phonemes? If so, then the more there is the more problematic it gets, but if it is phones or just theoretical gaps then I don't see a problem. I'm not familiar with PIE, but when I say theoretical gap, I mean positing a sound to fill something that would not make sense according to regular sound change. That does not mean that that sound is necessarily separate, but it is more conservative to suggest that, according to the method of finding regular sound changes, the method leads us to require to posit a new sound, even if probabilistically it was not actually a separate sound.

_________________
My conlang Aptaye. Check it outttt

Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:00 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
Etherman wrote:
TaylorS wrote:
It reminds me of the ridiculously complex phoneme inventories Russian Nostraticists propose for Proto-Nostratic, mostly, IMO, because they are insistent that Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian are Nostratic languages, which I think is a load of bull. Most of those reconstructed phonemes are a form of handwavium.


A few weeks ago I would have agreed about Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian not being part of Nostratic, but I've made a discovery that's caused me to rethink my objections. But that's a subject for another thread. I absolutely agree that their phoneme inventories are ridiculous. I think a lot of those phonemes disappear once you consider conditioning environments and consonant clusters.
A-A seems to have originated in NE Africa, which is why attempts to connect it to IE within the past 15,000 years seem foolish. That said, I do think PIE may have borrowed a lot of vocab from Proto-Semitic, but I don't know enough about A-A languages to assess Glenn Gordon's ideas about Proto-Semitic borrowings into PIE (though *septm has to come from PS *sabbatum, it just has to!).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:04 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:34 am
Posts: 402
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
I remember seeing one reconstruction online somewhere which included a bilabial or labiodental fricative and shifted the plain velars back to uvular and the palatalised velars back to velar leaving the labiovelars as they are with corresponding voiceless fricatives for each as well as a glottal plosive:

/p t k kʷ q/
/b d g gʷ ɢ/
/p' t' k' k'ʷ q' ʔ/
/ɸ s x xʷ χ h/
/m n/
/r l/
/w j/

/ɸ/ and /xʷ/ were proposed as two varients of *h3 with /χ/ and /x/ as two varients of *h2 and /ʔ/ and /h/ as two varients of *h1 although I can't remember whether they were suggesting they were allophones of a single phoneme which underwent different sound changes or six distinct phonemes which later merged into three.

IIRC the main point was that within the Anatolian branch, the six sounds "coloured" the vowels as indicated by their current labelling but one was deleted while the other was retained. I can't remember exactly what was said but it was something along the lines of, with h3 for example, that either /ɸ/ or /xʷ/ was deleted after vowel-colouring occurred while the non-deleted one was retained simply as ḫ. The same would then be true of /χ/ and /x/ where one is deleted and the other retained and so on for /h/ and /ʔ/. In other branches, however, the two sounds "merged" and were both subsequently deleted after vowel-colouring.

Personally I'm still a bit iffy on exactly what the laryngeals were and how many of them there might have been but I have a hard time imagining that if there were six of them that they'd all be between the velar and glottal POAs or that they'd all be fricatives.

_________________
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:35 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:29 pm
Posts: 75
Location: Low Hell, MA
sangi39 wrote:
Personally I'm still a bit iffy on exactly what the laryngeals were and how many of them there might have been but I have a hard time imagining that if there were six of them that they'd all be between the velar and glottal POAs or that they'd all be fricatives.


Nobody really knows how they were pronounced. I've seen them variously described as glottals, velars, uvulars, and pharyngeals, with or without voice and/or labialized distinctions. Usually they're assumed to be fricatives and/or stops, but Bomhard reconstructs two of them as affricates.

There are certain indications that *h3 was voiced. Unlike *h1 and *h2, *h3 did not cause aspiration in Indo-Iranian so *h3 was probably a stop while *h1 and *h2 were probably voiceless fricatives. If the Glottalic Theory is correct (but I don't think it is) then maybe *h3 is /?/ because it would glottalize preceding voiceless stops which correspond to traditional plain voiced stops.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:58 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:43 pm
Posts: 707
Location: Three of them
At one time there were supposed to have been no less than ten laryngeals.

_________________
Zompist's Markov generator wrote:
it was labelled" orange marmalade," but that is unutterably hideous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:02 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
sangi39 wrote:
I remember seeing one reconstruction online somewhere which included a bilabial or labiodental fricative and shifted the plain velars back to uvular and the palatalised velars back to velar leaving the labiovelars as they are with corresponding voiceless fricatives for each as well as a glottal plosive:

/p t k kʷ q/
/b d g gʷ ɢ/
/p' t' k' k'ʷ q' ʔ/
/ɸ s x xʷ χ h/
/m n/
/r l/
/w j/

/ɸ/ and /xʷ/ were proposed as two varients of *h3 with /χ/ and /x/ as two varients of *h2 and /ʔ/ and /h/ as two varients of *h1 although I can't remember whether they were suggesting they were allophones of a single phoneme which underwent different sound changes or six distinct phonemes which later merged into three.

IIRC the main point was that within the Anatolian branch, the six sounds "coloured" the vowels as indicated by their current labelling but one was deleted while the other was retained. I can't remember exactly what was said but it was something along the lines of, with h3 for example, that either /ɸ/ or /xʷ/ was deleted after vowel-colouring occurred while the non-deleted one was retained simply as ḫ. The same would then be true of /χ/ and /x/ where one is deleted and the other retained and so on for /h/ and /ʔ/. In other branches, however, the two sounds "merged" and were both subsequently deleted after vowel-colouring.

Personally I'm still a bit iffy on exactly what the laryngeals were and how many of them there might have been but I have a hard time imagining that if there were six of them that they'd all be between the velar and glottal POAs or that they'd all be fricatives.
This is interesting, thanks! I also think that the "plain velars" were uvulars and the "palatovelars" were velar, and this originated out of a merger of Proto-Europic /a/ and /@/ in early PIE (which is why I think Proto-Europic had a 4-vowel system, not a 3-vowel one).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:20 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:43 am
Posts: 398
Location: Moscow, Russia
TaylorS wrote:
It reminds me of the ridiculously complex phoneme inventories Russian Nostraticists propose for Proto-Nostratic, mostly, IMO, because they are insistent that Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian are Nostratic languages, which I think is a load of bull. Most of those reconstructed phonemes are a form of handwavium.

Etherman wrote:
I absolutely agree that their phoneme inventories are ridiculous.

Interesting. "Russian Nostraticists" who included Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian in Nostratic might refer to Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky. Whose reconstructed phoneme inventory is "ridiculously complex", I wonder? Or is this an example of how North American universities teach people to quote their sources?

Also, will it make things too complex for some racists' brains learning that Illich-Svitych was an ethnic Ukrainian, and Dolgopolsky is a pureblooded Jew and Israeli?

TaylorS wrote:
A-A seems to have originated in NE Africa, which is why attempts to connect it to IE within the past 15,000 years seem foolish.
Before calling something foolish, you might consider the idea that when you measure time in KY's, it is a bit bizarre to blame people for not counting *hundreds* of kilometers. The distance is in fact ridiculous, if you look at a map; it's much smaller than that between your current home and the area where your ancestral dialect was spoken a few *hundreds* of years ago, or between that area and where PIE was spoken just *six* KY ago. To supply you with some examples which you may not wish to accept from somebody who is so shamelessly Russian (and angry at you).

TaylorS wrote:
[...](though *septm has to come from PS *sabbatum, it just has to!).

You missed a *pharyngeal* in your Proto-Semitic, I think. Foolish sounds, they're always too many and in ridiculous inventories, and nobody cares about them anyway.

sangi39 wrote:
I remember seeing one reconstruction online somewhere which included a bilabial or labiodental fricative and shifted the plain velars back to uvular and the palatalised velars back to velar leaving the labiovelars as they are with corresponding voiceless fricatives for each as well as a glottal plosive:

/p t k kʷ q/
/b d g gʷ ɢ/
/p' t' k' k'ʷ q' ʔ/
/ɸ s x xʷ χ h/
/m n/
/r l/
/w j/

/ɸ/ and /xʷ/ were proposed as two varients of *h3 with /χ/ and /x/ as two varients of *h2 and /ʔ/ and /h/ as two varients of *h1 although I can't remember whether they were suggesting they were allophones of a single phoneme which underwent different sound changes or six distinct phonemes which later merged into three.

IIRC the main point was that within the Anatolian branch, the six sounds "coloured" the vowels as indicated by their current labelling but one was deleted while the other was retained. I can't remember exactly what was said but it was something along the lines of, with h3 for example, that either /ɸ/ or /xʷ/ was deleted after vowel-colouring occurred while the non-deleted one was retained simply as ḫ. The same would then be true of /χ/ and /x/ where one is deleted and the other retained and so on for /h/ and /ʔ/. In other branches, however, the two sounds "merged" and were both subsequently deleted after vowel-colouring.

Really and absolutely fascinating stuff! Please, try to recall the souce!

sangi39 wrote:
Personally I'm still a bit iffy on exactly what the laryngeals were and how many of them there might have been but I have a hard time imagining that if there were six of them that they'd all be between the velar and glottal POAs or that they'd all be fricatives.

...in a language where consonant labialization was in principle phonemic (on velars).

Etherman wrote:
Nobody really knows how they were pronounced. I've seen them variously described as glottals, velars, uvulars, and pharyngeals, with or without voice and/or labialized distinctions.

It is interesting to observe how nobody has the guts to say "velars". Loans to/from Hittite don't seem to point to any PoA further back, AFAICT.

Also, do any reconstructions try to account for the fact that Hittite, actually, had two distinct "laryngeals"?

_________________
Basilius


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:33 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:33 am
Posts: 396
Location: Wizard Tower
Basilius wrote:
Also, will it make things too complex for some racists' brains learning that Illich-Svitych was an ethnic Ukrainian, and Dolgopolsky is a pureblooded Jew and Israeli?


While this is interesting, I really don't think this disqualifies them from being "Russian Nostraticists", in which "Russian" is to be taken as identifying a school of thought, rather than a nationality.

Nice touch on throwing the word "racist" around, btw.

Basilius wrote:
Foolish sounds, they're always too many and in ridiculous inventories, and nobody cares about them anyway.

Are you always this dickish?

Basilius wrote:
Also, do any reconstructions try to account for the fact that Hittite, actually, had two distinct "laryngeals"?

Unless am completely misunderstanding you, yes. They are called *h2 and *h3.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:31 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
Geez, I think I struck a nerve. :roll:

A-A clearly originated in Africa, while my version of Nostratic originated in Central Asia around 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. There is no evidence, archeological or genetic, of a movement of people between Central Asia and NE Africa 14,000 years ago


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:38 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
Basilius wrote:
Interesting. "Russian Nostraticists" who included Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian in Nostratic might refer to Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky. Whose reconstructed phoneme inventory is "ridiculously complex", I wonder? Or is this an example of how North American universities teach people to quote their sources?

Basilius wrote:
Also, will it make things too complex for some racists' brains learning that Illich-Svitych was an ethnic Ukrainian, and Dolgopolsky is a pureblooded Jew and Israeli?

Basilius wrote:
Before calling something foolish, you might consider the idea that when you measure time in KY's, it is a bit bizarre to blame people for not counting *hundreds* of kilometers. The distance is in fact ridiculous, if you look at a map; it's much smaller than that between your current home and the area where your ancestral dialect was spoken a few *hundreds* of years ago, or between that area and where PIE was spoken just *six* KY ago. To supply you with some examples which you may not wish to accept from somebody who is so shamelessly Russian (and angry at you).

Basilius wrote:
You missed a *pharyngeal* in your Proto-Semitic, I think. Foolish sounds, they're always too many and in ridiculous inventories, and nobody cares about them anyway.

Basilius wrote:
Really and absolutely fascinating stuff! Please, try to recall the souce!

Basilius wrote:
...in a language where consonant labialization was in principle phonemic (on velars).

Basilius wrote:
It is interesting to observe how nobody has the guts to say "velars". Loans to/from Hittite don't seem to point to any PoA further back, AFAICT.

Also, do any reconstructions try to account for the fact that Hittite, actually, had two distinct "laryngeals"?

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:16 pm 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:51 pm
Posts: 66
Basilius wrote:
Also, will it make things too complex for some racists' brains learning that Illich-Svitych was an ethnic Ukrainian, and Dolgopolsky is a pureblooded Jew and Israeli?

Seriously, a discussion of PIE laryngeals is turning into a flamewar? Now I've seen everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:15 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:01 pm
Posts: 51
Location: /ai/ < [a:]
You have never seen everything on the internet.

_________________
Pthug wrote:
Viktor77 wrote:
I grew up my entire life surrounded by a Special Ed educator.

i can imagine

Catch me on YouTube.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group