Disputatio:Devanagari

Emendavi

Emendavi quia (a) devanagari et in linguas non-Indicas scribendas (Lingua Bodo, Lingua Santali etc.) utitur, et in linguas quae minime grege Hindi participant (e.g. Lingua Marathi); (b) grex Hindi rarius (nisi fallor) "familiam" appellatur; (c) lingua Sanscrita et devanagari et multis aliis scripturis scribitur! Re vera paginam longiorem componere oportet ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sinaitica

Andrea, recordor te suffixo -tic-distinguisse inter linguas et protolinguas. Ergo rectene scripsi scriptura Sinaitica si eam velim valere ac "proto Canaanite"? Quid de Brahmica? --Ioscius ^∞ 13:34, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re vera tales suffixi minime mihi interest, mi Iosci! Credo te meminisse disputationis antiquae cuiusdam cum Iacobo e qua volui me sine vulneribus gravibus extrahere ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ita olim in Taberna scripsi:

My studies of language classification tell me that any attempt to impose regular hierarchies with terminological rules for different kinds of language-family names (Burmic, Burmish, Bodic, Bodish etc.) turn[s] out to be a fool's errand. Language change and diversification doesn't answer to definable levels of hierarchy. Some linguists enjoy thinking up names like that; others get their kicks in other ways! There's no universally accepted system.
All I mean to say is that if such words in -ic exist in modern linguistic literature, and represent a family or grouping that we want to make an article for, it would be easy and unobjectionable (I think) to adapt them into Latin.
Gabriel, I certainly don't mean to say that the termination -ic is always used for proto-languages. It's just a Greek adjectival suffix that has become familiar in Latin; it has many uses. And it is in fact used in Renaissance Latin, and after, for the names of quite a lot of individual languages. I see no problem with that. [Someone, I think Mucius, afterwards pointed out that -ic- is native Latin, though of course it is also Greek.]

OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deva

What case is deva in this tatpuruṣa? It looks nominative to me, as the a is short as opposed to the seemingly more logical instrumental long ā, but that is not generally the preferred case... --Ioscius ^∞ 14:02, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the great feature of compounding the fact that you don't actually need to express the case? Or am I mis-remembering? This was all a long time ago. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. So the case just comes out in the analysis of the compound but not in surface structure? Long ago for you, and still in the future for me ;] --Ioscius ^∞ 14:35, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict:] Monier-Williams would make this compound adjective devanagari either a "karmadharaya" or a "genitively dependent tatpurusha", I think, depending whether you take "deva" as adjective or noun: "(sc. the script) of the divine city" or "(sc. the script) of the city of the gods". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might think of deva- as consisting of a root + theme vowel (< PIE *deiw-o-); cf. deva-datta 'divo-datus'. No case involved. --Neander 14:53, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I was confused by the wording at en:Tatpurusha. You have both cleared it up! --Ioscius ^∞ 15:20, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phonologia

Utinam quis peritus nominum Latinorum rebus phoneticis aptorum inspiciat quid mali in tabulis sub capitulo ==Litterae== scripserim. Gratias et prius ago! --Ioscius ^∞ 19:51, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]