Review

Reader Reviews about our works, including our grammar of Modern Indo-European, Proto-Indo-European lexicon, vocabularies and etymological dictionaries, translated texts, etc.

Review

Postby phoenix on Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:04 pm

Hey,

I'm glad I stumbled across this project. Although still young it seems like you are well on your way to creating a very interesting Neo Indo-European.

I do have some trouble with the grammar though. At times it isn't exactly clear.

Especially the orthography is very confusing. In the PDF grammar it seems that long vowels are marked with an underline, but this isn't found back anywhere else, while in a language in which vowel length is of such vital important it seems silly to not mark it.

Besides that I have a question about the "a". It is said that it is supposed to represent the laryngeal h2. Which seems like a good correspondence. And it is to be pronounced as `schwa'. But in the vowel system in the grammar it also states an "a" and an "a:". Would a correspond to h2e and a: to eh2? And if so, how are these three different sounds going to be distinguished in writing?

Sorry for the many questions, but I hope that my question will bring clarity so I can put myself to learning this language.

I also hope these questions are in the right place :)
phoenix
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:57 pm

About Long Vowels and the Schwa Indogermanicum

Postby indoeuropean on Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:02 am

Hi, Phoenix, Welcome to Dnghu.org Forum

Yes, you have asked in the right place, but we were very busy revising the old grammar, and no mail arrived when you wrote here, sorry for the delay.

First of all, I invite you to read our new version at

http://dnghu.org/en/Indo-European%20grammar/

About your specific questions:

1.
Especially the orthography is very confusing. In the PDF grammar it seems that long vowels are marked with an underline, but this isn't found back anywhere else, while in a language in which vowel length is of such vital important it seems silly to not mark it.


With our new grammar 2.0, I hope the long vowels question is solved (we had the same feelings about it). We wrote it that way because we wanted it to be read easily by all, and especially because we designed it for a university project, not exactly for linguists or interested people - we planned to write a new, revised one before the summer 2006, but (as you can see) that wasn't the case...

However, the simplified writing system of version 1.0 remains valid (but for the 'c' value) if one has no access to UTF-8, thus the macrons and accents remain a 'learning-mark', so to speak.

2.
Besides that I have a question about the "a". It is said that it is supposed to represent the laryngeal h2. Which seems like a good correspondence. And it is to be pronounced as `schwa'. But in the vowel system in the grammar it also states an "a" and an "a:". Would a correspond to h2e and a: to eh2? And if so, how are these three different sounds going to be distinguished in writing?


We obviously mixed the older "schwa indogermanicum" with the laryngeals' theory, because of the different approaches of our books - we hope that question has been solved in the new grammar, with the a-only approach.

It is indeed a controversial simplification (as we suppose an older IE II laryngeal-stage, from which Anatolian split, and a newer IE III, from which the rest derived), but we still think it necessary to avoid the laryngeals' question, however artificial it may seem.

Where a schwa was reconstructed, we take an a-, and we pronounce a-, as in pater (not ph2ter), or anamos (anemos), or anamalis (animal), or artidhaks (artifice), etc. It is not a final decision, though; we will keep working on its details, especially because of the "purer PIE - loan translations - loan words" struggle that we find in each vocabulary building...

Thank you for your interest. Remember the grammar is now GFDL/ CC-by-sa, just in case you want to make your own improvements and publish your own grammar without having to wait for us to work with you!

Carlos
indoeuropean
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:31 am

Postby phoenix on Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:19 pm

Thanks for the answers!

I was quite surprised to not find the verb in what you call the morphology volume. After all the forming of the Indo-european verb is about morphology isn't it?

When will the verbal morphology be available? Will it be in the syntax volume?

So far this is an enormous improvement on the previous version.

Personally though, I would drop the feminine, and make it, like Hittite masculine-feminine vs. neuter. First of all it avoids having to learn which words are feminine and which are masculine, and second of all, even in PIE III there's still debate whether there was actually a feminine.

Being an Indo-European student in Leiden, my preference goes out to the Laryngeal theory. I doubt I'll be able to change the plans on how you've handled the `a'. But wouldn't it be an idea to have to laryngeals as velar fricatives? One voiceless (h1), one voiced (h2), and one labialised voiced(h3). It makes the ablaut in the inflection of the noun a lot more logical to me.


Nevertheless, keep up the good work and I'm looking forward to the second edition of the grammar!
phoenix
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:57 pm


Return to Reader Reviews: Criticism & Corrections of Grammar, Vocabulary, etc.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron