User talk:Spinovenator: Difference between revisions
WeepingElf (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
WeepingElf (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I think para-Kartvelian is not entirely crazy, it could have existed but maybe it was not such a massive family with Semitic or Indo-European. --[[User:Spinovenator|Spinovenator]] ([[User talk:Spinovenator|talk]]) 15:04, 10 May 2018 (PDT) | I think para-Kartvelian is not entirely crazy, it could have existed but maybe it was not such a massive family with Semitic or Indo-European. --[[User:Spinovenator|Spinovenator]] ([[User talk:Spinovenator|talk]]) 15:04, 10 May 2018 (PDT) | ||
Meanwhile, I am back to the notion that Mirian, as I call it now, is distantly related to Kartvelian, but it is a good deal remoter than the relationship between Hesperic and IE, more like IE and Uralic. There will be hardly any lexical cognates, and a few morphological resemblances. What regards Proto-Kartvelian perhaps having been a plain nominative-accusative language, this can't be ruled out for sure (as the ergative suffixes of the individual Kartvelian languages are not cognate), but it may well have been the case that Proto-Kartvelian already was split-ergative but the original ergative suffix eroded by sound change and individually renewed in the modern languages. At any rate, there is no reason why Proto-Mirian couldn't have been split-ergative! --[[User:WeepingElf|WeepingElf]] ([[User talk:WeepingElf|talk]]) 07:00, 11 May 2018 (PDT) | Meanwhile, I am back to the notion that [[Mirian]], as I call it now, is distantly related to Kartvelian, but it is a good deal remoter than the relationship between Hesperic and IE, more like IE and Uralic. There will be hardly any lexical cognates, and a few morphological resemblances. What regards Proto-Kartvelian perhaps having been a plain nominative-accusative language, this can't be ruled out for sure (as the ergative suffixes of the individual Kartvelian languages are not cognate), but it may well have been the case that Proto-Kartvelian already was split-ergative but the original ergative suffix eroded by sound change and individually renewed in the modern languages. At any rate, there is no reason why Proto-Mirian couldn't have been split-ergative! --[[User:WeepingElf|WeepingElf]] ([[User talk:WeepingElf|talk]]) 07:00, 11 May 2018 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:01, 11 May 2018
Welcome to FrathWiki! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the [Help:Contents help pages]. Again, welcome and have fun! WeepingElf (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2017 (PST)
I have deleted the "Tommian" pages for two reasons: 1. I have dropped the idea of a large Para-Kartvelian family. 2. The family was named after a former bandmate of mine who turned out to be a fraud. --WeepingElf (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2018 (PDT)
I think para-Kartvelian is not entirely crazy, it could have existed but maybe it was not such a massive family with Semitic or Indo-European. --Spinovenator (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2018 (PDT)
Meanwhile, I am back to the notion that Mirian, as I call it now, is distantly related to Kartvelian, but it is a good deal remoter than the relationship between Hesperic and IE, more like IE and Uralic. There will be hardly any lexical cognates, and a few morphological resemblances. What regards Proto-Kartvelian perhaps having been a plain nominative-accusative language, this can't be ruled out for sure (as the ergative suffixes of the individual Kartvelian languages are not cognate), but it may well have been the case that Proto-Kartvelian already was split-ergative but the original ergative suffix eroded by sound change and individually renewed in the modern languages. At any rate, there is no reason why Proto-Mirian couldn't have been split-ergative! --WeepingElf (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2018 (PDT)
