Active discussions


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)


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)

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)
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)


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)

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


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)

Revertere ad "Devanagari".