484
βατραχῳδία, 𓉐𓎼𓃭𓃭𓊖
Любит христианин пострадать, но схожесть формы латинских слов позволяет подчеркнуть казус трёх (иные говорят, четырёх) ларингальных согласных: исчезнувших в современных индоевропейских, восстановленных по иррегулярностям в них же, и частично найденных в хеттском.
Pater точно произошло от peh2-ter (что-то вроде "храни-тель"), patior же происходит от peh1 - "ранить".
Peh1 и peh2, однако, не более когнаты, чем быть и бить, или русские и этрусские.
Не более, чем pathos и patēr. Тhета не тау, а пить не бить — хоть славяне три тысячи лет обходились без придыхательных, но противопоставление звонкий-глухой ("русс, стафайс") должно дать понимание различения.
Так что тут не ложная этимология, а соединение во едино трех языков - еврейского, греческого и латинского - как и написал Пилат на Кресте.
Italian conservator Lorenza D'Alessandro working on the conservation of a tomb in the 1980s
https://ukhudshanskiy.livejournal.com/15171286.html
7.14 ... gm.n.f 7.15 sw sḏr(.w) ḥr tmꜣ m sš n pr.f // ḥmw ẖr tp.f 7.16 ḥr ꜥmꜥm n.f // ky ḥr sjn rdwj.fj
царскій сынъ отправляется въ элитный ж.к. Джедъ-Снофру за волшебникомъ Джеди, 110 лѣтъ отъ роду. Джеди каждый день выпивалъ 100 кружекъ пива, съѣдалъ 500 хлѣбцевъ и цѣлую бычью ногу. Онъ могъ приживить на мѣсто отрѣзанную голову, зналъ планы тайныхъ покоевъ Тота.
7.14 ... нашёлъ онъ его 7.15 отдыхающимъ на подстилкѣ у порога своего дома. (Одинъ) слуга 7.16 массируетъ ему голову, другой растираетъ ему ноги.
Любо!
На картинкѣ божества — олицетворенія сосудовъ, въ которые клали внутренности усопшаго.
Такъ что насчётъ топпинговъ у этой пиццы я бы подумалъ.
Въ 2009 году я былъ въ Егѵпетскомъ музеѣ Барселоны. Музей маленькій, но экспонаты неплохіе, особенно, фаюмскіе портреты.
А поразила меня тогда ихъ сувенирная лавка. Тамъ была мощная подборка книгъ по егѵптологіи, въ томъ числѣ, грамматики и словари. Грамматики, Карлъ! Оттуда я привёзъ Гардинера. Думаю, что 99,99% посетителей эти книги не были нужны, а поди же.
А что въ богоспасаемомъ отечествѣ, кромѣ безсмысленныхъ каталоговъ съ картинками, перепечатокъ научпопа прошлаго вѣка и солкинской макулатуры? Грустно это.
As mentioned above, Z. then skips the clear data by which Allen shows that the Latin f was like our f, a labio-dental fricative. Z. asks, “has Allen, by simply referencing an isolated incident regarding the pronunciation of Latin F, shown that Greek speakers of the day pronounced Φ as [ph] and not as the “modern” Greek sound [f]? I think not.” And I, too, think not. A. quotes one of the ancient grammars that makes it abundantly clear what the pronunciation of f was: “[we bring forth] the letter f pressing the lower lip with the upper teeth with a soft breathiness.” More evidence that A. brings to the table will be mentioned below. Z. himself, on the other hand is trying to use “an isolated incident” to prove that the Latin letter f was pronounced [φ] despite the grammarians’ direct evidence. On the contrary, it is unsurprising that the Romans, when they first wrote down the Greek φ, used the Roman p rather than the f precisely because it was a stop rather than a fricative. An English speaker hearing the [ph] of Hindi for the first time would write it as p as well, rather than f. Similarly, the Hindi [th] and [kh] would be written [t] and [k], as it has been demonstrated that English speakers do not hear the difference between the unspirated [p, k, t] and the aspirated [ph, kh, th], since they are allophones in English.
Z. has a propensity to ignore the grammarians unless they are convenient. The grammarians were trying to explain themselves in an era when the science of phonetics had not yet been invented. Yet they seem to do a decent job of being precise, as we can see above. Z. discounts the evidence of Dionysius of Halikarnassos because an author expresses how his “terminology … is full of difficulties” and in the next paragraph wants more evidence from the grammarians! He claims the grammarians are not being “scientific but aesthetic and euphonic,” thereby discounting an entire range of evidence (except, as we seen above, when it is convenient). As we saw above, A. is happy to quote inconvenient evidence as he sifts through the data.
I could continue with Z.’s discussion of Robert Browning’s treatment of Β Δ Φ and Φ Θ Χ, but it would take up too much space and be rather repetitive. Suffice it to say, Z. continues to make observations that indicate unfamiliarity with basic linguistics and a misrepresentation of Erasmian pronunciation. His linguistic blunders include: lack of understanding of how language changes, confusion between assertion and explanation, confusion between ‘letter’ and ‘phoneme’ and between ‘ephonoy’ and ‘allophony’.
Z.’s most glaring omission, though additional evidence given from one of several grammars that claim the same thing, ‘F litteram imum lab[i]um superis imprimentes dentibus … leni spiramine’ translated “[we bring forth] the letter f pressing the lower lip with the upper teeth with a soft breathiness.” This seems pretty good evidence that Z. has left out.
Having addressed these shortcomings, I will work through Z.’s work on the aspirates (or what he calles fricatives) Θ, Φ, and Χ and then show how A. actually argued his case. We will go in order of Z.’s arguments, something did not have the courtesy to do for A, but rather ignoring almost all his evidence.
Z’s ARGUMENTS ON ASPIRATES
Z.’s first argument is that it makes no sense that Greek should have represented the sounds [th], [kh], and [ph] using the Greek letters Θ, Χ, Φ if they were really ‘two sounds’. Instead, he claims that just as English uses ‘ph’ and ‘f’ for the same sound, Greek used both ΠΗ and Φ for the same fricative f sound in different periods. His first argument is a bald assertion that one thing indicates another without actual evidence. His second argument is an expression of incredulity (something he does a lot, which reveals a lack of linguistic understanding, as we’ll see later).
Z. then addresses Allen’s arguments, by incorrectly calling him “a leading Erasmian”, when, in fact, his reconstruction of Attic Greek pronunciation is emphatically not Erasmian. He quotes Allen’s discussion of the difficulties various modern language-speakers would have in pronouncing Greek as though it were evidence for Greek pronunciation. He then procedes to partially quote Allen’s use of Grassman’s law, skipping the majority of his evidence. Despite the careful work of the ancient Greek grammarians, Z. acts as though we should discount their descriptions of Greek pronunciation because “no phonetician today” would describe things the way they did. He continually uses emotive language to describe Allen’s motives without really addressing the evidence: e.g., “admits,” “brushes aside,” “vague,” “struggled to justify,” when none of these descriptions very well describe the tone of Allen’s scholarly analysis. In fact, unlike Z., A. often is willing to say, “so it seems” – an expression of humility.
As Z. continues his argument, he expresses the opinion that doubling of aspirates is “too cumbersome and against the natural flow of the language.” Ironically, Allen addresses just this question in his note on φθ and χθ (1968, pp.24-25), where he cites several languages in which aspirates are used in sequence. Z. claims that A. has a “tendentiously exaggerated (aspirated) transcription of Armenian for prayer”, in which Z. confuses “exaggerated” for “aspirated”. A. certainly makres the consonants as aspirated (a phonological observation) but says nothing of them being exaggerated. Z. continues to show linguistic illiteracy, something that comes across over and over again in his analysis. He quotes A. as being in contradiction to the famous grammarian Smyth because A. says that the ph, th, and kh should be pronounced in the same syllable, where as Smyth’s examples are ones that are pronounced in different syllables. What he omits is that Smyth himself says that the English examples are like the Greek, “though h here is in a different syllable from the stop’ (Smyth, Greek Grammar, p.13). In otherwords, Smyth is saying the same thing as A. Even if this was not true, the citations have nothing to do with Z.’s argument. A. is very fair with the evidence, clearly indicating, as Z. cites, that evidence for stop + aspirated-stop is unclear for the period after the 5th century B.C. And yet, Z. uses this not as an indication that such combinations had existed but instead saying (without any evidence) that “Greek phonology does not support [these pronunciations], such pronunciation in fact being unnatural.”
looted frieze == looted language
Читать полностью…
Собственно, дѣло вотъ въ чёмъ: человѣкъ спокойно объясняетъ, что греки — носители языка и лучше знаютъ, какъ говорить на своёмъ языкѣ, чѣмъ носители кабинетныхъ лысинъ. Этому произношенію уже 2000 лѣтъ, камонъ, покажите любой другой языкъ, такъ хорошо сохранившійся.
Читать полностью…
Гарри Поттеръ и петроградскіе чекисты
Читать полностью…
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hcDLN9UmGmg
Читать полностью…
/channel/zApiskistranika/5000
волко-посадочная полоса.
https://ortheos.livejournal.com/3036628.html
Читать полностью…
Господи, не знаю, чего мне просить у Тебя. Ты один ведаешь, что мне потребно. Ты любишь меня паче, нежели я умею любить себя.
Отче, даждь рабу Твоему, чего сам я просить не умею. Не дерзаю просить ни креста, ни утешения: только предстою пред Тобою. Сердце мое Тебе отверсто; Ты зришь нужды, которых я не знаю. Зри и сотвори по милости Твоей. Порази и исцели, низложи и подыми меня. Благоговею и безмолвствую пред Твоею святою волею и непостижимыми для меня Твоими судьбами.
Приношу себя в жертву Тебе. Нет у меня другого желания, кроме желания исполнять волю Твою. Научи меня молиться. Сам во мне молись! Аминь
Статуэтка посвященная Хекате – богине дождя, влаги, жизни, женственности, материнства, плодородия и соответственно ежегодными разливами Нила. Изображалась в виде лягушки или женщины с лягушкой на голове, а также с лягушачьей головой. Была очень уважаемой – поскольку разливы Нила означали хорошие урожаи, акушерки называли себя служанками Хекат, а беременные женщины носили на шее амулеты с изображением лягушки на лотосе.
Читать полностью…
Вопрос 4§.
админ у тебя есть девушка?
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSgyFuww4xQ
Читать полностью…
Учитъ рыбу плавать, а грека говорить по гречески.
Читать полностью…
This, again, is assertion. He says, “Clearly Allen’s “proof” so far has no basis,” and yet by default the gemination of φ, θ, χ to πφ, τθ, κχ, for example needs explanation as to why the sound [f] should double to [pf], [θ] to [tθ], and [χ] [kχ] instead of the rather common [pph], [tth], and [kkh] found in many languages. Z. skips A.s argument that assimilation takes place before the fricative σ but not before the letters θ, χ, φ, and yet in modern Greek this assimilation is extended to these letters. Z.’s conclusion is that A. has “thus far struggled to justify the difference between π, τ, κ and φ, θ, χ”! He does cite Jannaris correctly, but he, likewise bases his arguments on Greek phonology largely on English pronunciation and the “physiological impossibility” of pronouncing them. It is important to note that Jannaris is writing almost 100 years before A. and that A. addresses this concern in his note on φθ and χθ (Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar,1898: pp.57-58; Allen 1968, pp.24-25). Linguistics has come a long way since 1898, and I think Jannaris would be amazed at what sounds the human mouth can pronounce.
As Z. closes his arguments on the the Greek aspirates, he addresses some Latin texts describing the letter f. His purpose is to challenge the typical view that the Latin f corresponds to our f and to thereby prove that the Greek φ actually corresponds to the [f] sound. Quintilian wrote, as the Loeb edition translates: “The sixth letter of our alphabet has to be blown out through the teeth, and the voice is hardly human, or rather not a voice at all. Even when it is followed by a vowel, it is somehow jagged, and when it fractures (frangit) a consonant, as it does in the word frangit itself, it is more uncouth still.” Z. inexplicably includes three different translations, and then makes several observations: a) [f] is not an unpleasant sound, b) Cicero’s [sic] f should be a bilabial fricative [φ], c) the closest sound to this in Greek is [χ] because the lips would have to be rounded and you can’t round the lips, apparently for a [u] after saying the bilabial [φ] sound. This last observation is followed with a reference to Cicero (quoted by Quintilian) who discusses how a Greek had trouble pronouncing a Latin word. I will quote the Latin because Z. quotes a mistranslation of it: nam contra Graeci aspirare F ut φ solent, ut pro Fundanio Cicero testem, qui primam eius litteram dicerre non possit. Z. translates, “for the Greeks on the other hand are accustomed to aspirate [= aspirated F or Φ], whence Cicero, in his oration for Fundanius, laughs at a witness who could not sound the first letter of that name.” The phrase nam contra Graeci aspirare F ut φ solent would correctly be translated “for the Greeks on the other hand are accustomed to aspirate F as Φ”. In otherwords, they misprounounce F as Φ.
Z.’s argument is questionable on all counts: a) the unpleasantness of a sound is not an objective linguistic observation, b) the description of Quintilian’s f sounds like it could be bidental, and since the lips are not mentioned it is hard to come up with a bilabial interpretation, c) it is somewhat unclear from this text what sound the Greek speaker made when uttering the word Fundanius, but the word aspirare in Latin refers to an [h] sound, so it seems likely that [ph] is meant rather than [f]. The argument that it must have been a fricative, since the Latin f was a fricative perhaps is based on a comment made by Jannaris that the Greek φ must have been a fricative because it is regularly used to transliterate the Latin f (p.57). One problem with this is that speakers of many languages without a particular fricative will replace that fricative with a stop with the same point of articulation rather than with another fricative. An example would be when an Indonesian attempts to say theory, they end up saying [tiri] and not using the Indonesian fricative [ʃiri]. This kind of “must have” argument is, again, not based on linguistic data, but on intuition, which is a poor substitute.
Есть и критики такого подхода (изъ рецензіи на Амазонѣ):
From the United States
Prometheus
1.0 out of 5 stars The Worst Type of Scholarship
Reviewed in the United States on August 31, 2023
Worst Kind of Scholarship
As someone who has been teaching Greek for more than fifteen years and has long had an interest in the pronunciation of Greek, this book was a huge disappointment.
Before getting into a detailed review, I will recommend instead the following resources for the study of Greek pronunciation:
1) Vox Graeca for an intro to the pronunciation of Classical Greek
2) Randall Buth’s website for the Biblical Language Center for a good free overview of the evidence for Koine pronunciation and the pedagogical options.
3) A Short Guide to the Pronunciation of New Testament Greek by Kantor, which covers the same ground as Zachariou’s book, but with careful and thoughtful scholarship. This is a short version of Kantor’s massive tome The Pronunciation of New Testament Greek
Zachariou’s book is the epitome of bad scholarship inasmuch as he misrepresents or misunderstands “the opposition”, consistently misquotes the authors he cites, shows no understanding of linguistics, and cherry-picks data while claiming others are doing the same. Because a review of his entire book would be too lengthy, I will focus only on one section (the aspirates Θ, Φ, Χ) and show why I think this book is likely to mislead anyone who does not know the literature well. (Page numbers are not provided, since this is a review of the Kindle version.)
First, Z. pits the Historical Pronunciation against the Erasmian. While people do use the Erasmian as a pedagogical tool (see Randall Buth’s discussion), no scholar that I know of would argue that the Erasmian pronunciation is actually accurate to any time period in Greek history. In addition, there are many places in which Z. misstates the nature of the Erasmian pronunciation, such has his claim that “under Erasmian influence, the use of PH for Φ returned.” Erasmian pronunciation, in fact, uses the [f] pronunciation, not the [ph] pronunciation (again, see Buth; though Zachariou cites one author from 1898, Lindsay, who does describe Erasmians as using the aspirated pronunciation).
Z. misreads, misunderstands, or misquotes the authors he cites in almost all instances that I was able to track down the quotes. For instance, he says that “Lindsay observes, “It is highly probable that Latin F was at some time bilabial, as it is to this day in Spanish” (Latin Language, 1894: p.99). For some reason he does not express a more precise claim of Lindsay’s that there is “no doubt whatever that f was a labiodental spirant” (p.98) during the Augustan period. We might add that it would be odd to suggest that Latin’s f would start as a bilabial (classical), shift to labio-dental (2nd centuray), and return to a bilabial (Spanish) without some corroborating evidence. More examples of his habit of misrepresentation will appear below.
We can see from the evidence above that Z. cherry-picks his data. After he finishes discussing one isolated quote by Quintilian (amongst scores of other pieces of evidence given by Allen (A.) (Vox Graeca, 1987), he accuses A. of “masterful litanies of cherry-picked multilingual elements”. It will be clear below, in the analysis of Θ, Φ, Χ, that A. is anything but hasty in his conclusions. One example of Z. cherry-picking his conclusions occurs in his discussion of two difficult-to-interpret Quintilian accounts of the letter f in Latin, concludes that “Cicero’s F could have been a bilabial fricative[.]” Later he says “It simply shows a possible interpretation other than Allen’s,” and concludes with an accusation of cherry-picking (without giving examples). He does not even mention A.’s admission that some evidence could be interpreted as suggesting that the f was a bilabial fricative (Vox Latina, 1978: p.35).
не обошлось безъ еретиковъ-каѳоликовъ.
Читать полностью…
зять тёщу // потащилъ въ рощу etc
Читать полностью…
ṯbtj (читается чебети) — сандаліи. Отъ этого слова произошли украинскіе чоботы.
Рельеф в египетском храме. Египет, 1968 год
Калейдоскоп