There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
From: Eugene Oh
1b. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
1c. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
From: Eugene Oh
1d. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
1e. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
2. OT: relay and yahoo
From: Jeffrey Jones
3.1. Re: Neanderthal and PIE
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
3.2. Re: Neanderthal and PIE
From: Andreas Johansson
4a. YAGGT (was Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long
From: Lars Mathiesen
4b. Re: YAGGT (was Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (
From: Eric Christopherson
5a. OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
From: Larry Sulky
5b. Re: OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
From: Paul Bennett
5c. Re: OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
From: Peter Collier
5d. Re: OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
From: Matthew Turnbull
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:29 pm ((PDT))
Christophe's post contained the clause "battling gods was not considered
unusual", which made me a little confused for a while: since when did it
become standard fare for humans to challenge the preeminence of deities?
Then it struck me, after approximately 5 milliseconds. It also reminded me
of the other thread about participles. I gave it a brief thought, and don't
think Latin, Greek or any of the Romance languages have such an ambiguity.
Neither do Chinese, Japanese or Korean. Does German? Or is English is only
language with such a muddle?
Eugene
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Selon Lars Finsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > Atlantis seems to be really required content in juvenile fantasies.
>
> Seems to be. I have mine as well ;) . OK, this seems to have become a long
> post
> as well, you are warned!
>
> > My Atlantids also were interplanetary. And I traced their history
> > back to more than 30,000 years BP. They definitely could have met the
> > Neanderthals - and did, according to my still readily readable notes.
> >
>
> My Atlandids called themselves Dhastem (or Ddastem, depending on the
> transliteration scheme I used). They were humans, more advanced than we are
> now,
> but not starfaring. Their technology was also quite different from ours,
> with
> more advances in chemistry and biology than what we have right now, but in
> physics they were only slightly more advanced than us. They didn't have the
> global communication network we have, for instance, which might be because
> they
> mainly kept to their island in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
>
> I know they called their language Astou, although I don't remember how they
> called their continent (it's somewhere in my notes). Unlike other
> Atlantis(es?),
> the history of the Dhastem can be traced no further than 10,000BC, and they
> were
> still around when Ancient Greece began using the Greek alphabet. Indeed,
> the
> only examples of Astou we have are artefacts found in Greece, and the
> language
> is written with an archaic form of the Greek alphabet. It seems the Dhastem
> thought their own writing system was somehow sacred, and wouldn't use it
> outside
> their island. On the small Dhastem colonies they had on other continents,
> they
> would only use indigenous writing systems to write their language, usually
> adapting them more or less efficiently (they didn't need perfect
> transliteration
> systems).
>
> The island of the Dhastem was destroyed somewhere around 700BC, a cataclysm
> suffered by the whole world (and probably the origin of various Flood
> legends).
> It was not moral corruption that destroyed the island, nor failed Dhastem
> experiments. The Dhastem were certainly imperialistic, and felt themselves
> superior to the primitive cultures around them, but they were not morally
> corrupt as such. They just thought it was their duty to protect the
> primitive
> people around them. And they did, against another technologically advanced
> civilisation based on a continent in the middle of the Pacific ocean, which
> I
> called Mu, for lack of a better name. The people of Mu were technologically
> advanced humans like the Dhastem, but through history they became a
> theocracy,
> which slowly began to take a turn to the fanatic, the xenophobic, until
> they
> started attacking the Dhastem who they considered sinners that were soiling
> the
> world and prevented it to reach true perfection. The Dhastem defended
> themselves
> with better technology than Mu had expected, and for decades a Cold War
> followed. Small battles happened here and there, but mostly the continents
> of
> the Dhastem and of Mu were spared. The "primitive" civilisations on the
> other
> continents could only watch, and many considered the Dhastem and Mu to be
> some
> kinds of gods anyway, and battling gods was not considered unusual, as we
> can
> see in various legends around the world.
>
> The Cold War was broken when Mu unleashed a weapon of unknown nature
> against the
> home continent of the Dhastem. Reason would have made clear that Mu was
> signing
> its own death warrant that way, but by that time people on Mu were so
> fanatic
> that the few people that tried to warn of their impending doom were
> attacked and
> slaughtered as infidels. The Dhastem knew Mu was developing such a weapon
> early
> enough, and knew very quickly what it could do, as they had developed
> something
> similar but had refused to use it, but their cover attempts to prevent Mu
> from
> using it failed. When they detected the weapon being used, it was already
> too
> late. As I wrote earlier, the Dhastem had this belief of superiority, and
> never
> even considered that their continent could ever be targeted itself by a
> weapon
> that couldn't be stopped by their defences. They had no recourse. Their
> continent, which was already straddling the Atlantic riff and wasn't the
> most
> stable place to live, was completely and utterly destroyed, and sank into
> the
> ocean. Only one small bit stayed above water level, once everything
> settled:
> Iceland, which unfortunately was completely uninhabited at the time of the
> Dhastem (being the top of a mountain too high for humans to inhabit it).
> The
> cataclysm caused giant tsunamis to sweep over the coasts of Europe, Africa
> and
> America. Shock waves across the Earth woke up volcanoes and caused
> earthquakes
> everywhere. Those shock waves ended up concentrating themselves on the
> opposite
> point of the Earth, which was where the continent of Mu was situated. They
> created a kind of super earthquake that shattered the continent and made it
> sink
> as well. Mu destroyed itself when they tried to destroy the Dhastem.
>
> It took months before things settled. Very few Dhastem survived (the very
> few of
> them who lived in colonies, a few hundreds at maximum). Even fewer Mu
> people
> survived (Mu was very centralist and didn't have colonies). The colonies
> didn't
> use much technological items (they didn't want them to fall into the hands
> of
> the "primitive people" around them), and certainly didn't keep many books
> (since
> they refused to have anything with their original writing system anywhere
> except
> on their own continent). So their technology slowly faded and the survivors
> themselves ended up mixing with the people around them, over the course of
> centuries, so that by the time of the Roman empire all that was still known
> generally were distorted legends. Some "secret societies" kept some
> artefacts
> that were miraculously spared, as well as some knowledge, and a few books
> written in that Astou transliterated using the Greek alphabet, and that's
> the
> only thing that reached us and allows us to know the Dhastem existed at
> all.
>
> I'll need to recheck my notes. I especially like the Astou language, which
> features an Indo-European-like morphology for nouns, but a more
> South-American-like morphology for the verbs.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl
>
> It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:47 am ((PDT))
On 2008-10-16 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> The island of the Dhastem was destroyed
> somewhere around 700BC, a cataclysm suffered by
> the whole world (and probably the origin of
> various Flood legends). It was not moral
> corruption that destroyed the island, nor failed
> Dhastem experiments.
My Atlantis -- called rather daftly Äthlåm,
although the Indo-Europeanly inclined may note
that the Äthlåmtl (Atlantean) language had /tl
thl dl/ phonemes corresponding to the traditional
PIE phoneme combinations with *þ (now identified
as *tk *dhgh *dg) because I had grocked that (a)
*þ was problematic and (b) modern Icelandic and
some North American Indian languages (as I called
them) had sounds roughly like /tl dl/ and (c) I
wanted to create a connexion between PIE *kþôn
'earth' (now *dhghjo:m) as well as Germanic _land_
and _Atlantis_ -- didn't submerge due to moral
corruption, but due to a natural seismic
cataclysm. It was the later TÄthlåm (Titan) god-
dictator Dyaus who pushed the moral corruption
hypothesis.
I looked up my old notes -- most of them in neat
typescript rather than Latin or Äthlåmtl
handwriting! -- and it seems that I in stages
abandoned the Mid-Atlantic island location. First
I decided that the earliest and most important
colony in what they called The Great Lands (echoes
of Tolkien) was Äthlåmtls (Atlas) in North
Africa. I read or cobbled together from different
sources a theory that prior to the ruin of
Äthlåm and the end of the Ice Age the Nile flew
east across the future Sahara and out into the
Atlantic, and inevitably the North African colony
eventually *became* Atlantis! I even had picked up
the native name of ancient Egypt _k(e)m(e)t_ and
decided that it derived from -- you guessed it --
Tlåmät! Thus Atlantis dried up rather than
submerged, and it *was* outside the Pillars of
Hercules *and* related to Egypt.
There are some late (dated) notes on the
language, the lexicon of which was heavily
influenced by such PIE as I had picked up,
although all such correspondences were explained
as loans from various descendant Atlantean
languages into PIE itself and early IE
languages. I was of course able to borrow from
Egyptian too, and had apparently grokked that an
_e_ in modern transcriptions of Egyptian could
correspond to several different vowels or zero.
Interestingly the PIE word *kmtom '100' "comes
from" the name of the Atlantean Senate
Thlämtlom, which had 100 members.
The vowel inventory of Äthlåmtl was suspiciously
similar to that of Swedish; I created linguistic
connexions by letting _å ä ö ü_ correspond to
different vowels among _a e i o u_ or zero in the
'dialects': å > a/o, ä > a/e/i/Ø, ö > o/e/Ø,
ü > u/i. I obviously hadn't realized that what I
called 'pure vowels' could change just as much as
'mixed vowels'. Length and stress marking is
confused and erratic.
Consonantal changes were curiously centered around
the /tl thl dl/ sounds, although stops and
fricatives could change into each other along the
axis pattern t -- th -- dh -- d, and fricatives
could change into each other along the axis f --
th -- s -- sh -- kh. I had no idea about the
difference between aspirates and fricatives
(calling them all _spiranter_). I had obviously no
idea about the regularity of sound change: the
notes bristle with statements like "In Dleivic thl
for lte most part became ksh" and "ts usually
became k in Åthlümpic". The chain of changes
between thl and khth is thl -: tsl -: ksl -: kthl
-: kth -: khth! :-) To my credit it should be
noted that Dleivic and Åthlümpic were not names
for Sanskrit and Greek, but for the Atlantic
'dialects' influencing each of them.
Äthlåmtl had a rich derivational morphology but its
grammar was almost completely isolating. Even
tense inflection was done with auxiliaries: wäz
was both past tense marker and a kind of
suppletive past tense of äz 'to be', created with
a prefix o/å--a/ä meaning 'old' and found also
in the word Äthlåm. Similarly vu vacillated
between future tense marker, suppletive future of
'to be' and a separate verb 'become' or noun
'future'. There was no deep thought behind this
except fore some half-undertood reading about the
roots that became 'to be' in Germanic.
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:45 am ((PDT))
To put it tersely, this must be the most fascinating account of a
con-Atlantis that I've ever read. -boggle
Eugene
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On 2008-10-16 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> > The island of the Dhastem was destroyed
> > somewhere around 700BC, a cataclysm suffered by
> > the whole world (and probably the origin of
> > various Flood legends). It was not moral
> > corruption that destroyed the island, nor failed
> > Dhastem experiments.
>
> My Atlantis -- called rather daftly Äthlåm,
> although the Indo-Europeanly inclined may note
> that the Äthlåmtl (Atlantean) language had /tl
> thl dl/ phonemes corresponding to the traditional
> PIE phoneme combinations with *þ (now identified
> as *tk *dhgh *dg) because I had grocked that (a)
> *þ was problematic and (b) modern Icelandic and
> some North American Indian languages (as I called
> them) had sounds roughly like /tl dl/ and (c) I
> wanted to create a connexion between PIE *kþôn
> 'earth' (now *dhghjo:m) as well as Germanic _land_
> and _Atlantis_ -- didn't submerge due to moral
> corruption, but due to a natural seismic
> cataclysm. It was the later TÄthlåm (Titan) god-
> dictator Dyaus who pushed the moral corruption
> hypothesis.
>
> I looked up my old notes -- most of them in neat
> typescript rather than Latin or Äthlåmtl
> handwriting! -- and it seems that I in stages
> abandoned the Mid-Atlantic island location. First
> I decided that the earliest and most important
> colony in what they called The Great Lands (echoes
> of Tolkien) was Äthlåmtls (Atlas) in North
> Africa. I read or cobbled together from different
> sources a theory that prior to the ruin of
> Äthlåm and the end of the Ice Age the Nile flew
> east across the future Sahara and out into the
> Atlantic, and inevitably the North African colony
> eventually *became* Atlantis! I even had picked up
> the native name of ancient Egypt _k(e)m(e)t_ and
> decided that it derived from -- you guessed it --
> Tlåmät! Thus Atlantis dried up rather than
> submerged, and it *was* outside the Pillars of
> Hercules *and* related to Egypt.
>
> There are some late (dated) notes on the
> language, the lexicon of which was heavily
> influenced by such PIE as I had picked up,
> although all such correspondences were explained
> as loans from various descendant Atlantean
> languages into PIE itself and early IE
> languages. I was of course able to borrow from
> Egyptian too, and had apparently grokked that an
> _e_ in modern transcriptions of Egyptian could
> correspond to several different vowels or zero.
> Interestingly the PIE word *kmtom '100' "comes
> from" the name of the Atlantean Senate
> Thlämtlom, which had 100 members.
>
> The vowel inventory of Äthlåmtl was suspiciously
> similar to that of Swedish; I created linguistic
> connexions by letting _å ä ö ü_ correspond to
> different vowels among _a e i o u_ or zero in the
> 'dialects': å > a/o, ä > a/e/i/Ø, ö > o/e/Ø,
> ü > u/i. I obviously hadn't realized that what I
> called 'pure vowels' could change just as much as
> 'mixed vowels'. Length and stress marking is
> confused and erratic.
>
> Consonantal changes were curiously centered around
> the /tl thl dl/ sounds, although stops and
> fricatives could change into each other along the
> axis pattern t -- th -- dh -- d, and fricatives
> could change into each other along the axis f --
> th -- s -- sh -- kh. I had no idea about the
> difference between aspirates and fricatives
> (calling them all _spiranter_). I had obviously no
> idea about the regularity of sound change: the
> notes bristle with statements like "In Dleivic thl
> for lte most part became ksh" and "ts usually
> became k in Åthlümpic". The chain of changes
> between thl and khth is thl -: tsl -: ksl -: kthl
> -: kth -: khth! :-) To my credit it should be
> noted that Dleivic and Åthlümpic were not names
> for Sanskrit and Greek, but for the Atlantic
> 'dialects' influencing each of them.
>
> Äthlåmtl had a rich derivational morphology but its
> grammar was almost completely isolating. Even
> tense inflection was done with auxiliaries: wäz
> was both past tense marker and a kind of
> suppletive past tense of äz 'to be', created with
> a prefix o/å--a/ä meaning 'old' and found also
> in the word Äthlåm. Similarly vu vacillated
> between future tense marker, suppletive future of
> 'to be' and a separate verb 'become' or noun
> 'future'. There was no deep thought behind this
> except fore some half-undertood reading about the
> roots that became 'to be' in Germanic.
>
> /BP 8^)>
> --
> Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
> à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
> ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
> c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:55 am ((PDT))
On 2008-10-17 I wrote:
> sources a theory that prior to the ruin of
> Äthlåm and the end of the Ice Age the Nile flew
> east across the future Sahara and out into the
^^^^
That should be "west" of course. A case of
what John Cowan calls Rightleftsia...
/BP
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long!))
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:06 am ((PDT))
On 2008-10-17 Eugene Oh wrote:
> To put it tersely, this must be the most fascinating account of a
> con-Atlantis that I've ever read. -boggle
>
> Eugene
>
I actually believed in the possibility of a Saharan
Atlantis for the longest time, including the trans-
Saharan Nile bit. Then I began to believe in the
Black Sea Flood theory and connecting Atlantis
with that, before I finally realized that all the
ancient Greeks and Romans understood perfectly
well that Plato made up the whole thing!
/BP
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. OT: relay and yahoo
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:17 pm ((PDT))
For those of you who are participating in the relay coming up, I've been having
trouble with yahoo mail today (MSIE crashes every other message and Firefox
takes minutes to load each page while flashing stuff on and off; I have W98,
so the choice of browsers is limited.), so it may take a while to respond.
For those who didn't know about the relay, the projected starting date is
Nov.23.
Jeff
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Neanderthal and PIE
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:09 am ((PDT))
On 2008-10-16 Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> It is, however, pretty certain that no human being
> living today has Neanderthal ancestors, which probably means
> that the two species were not interfertile, or produced only
> sterile offspring like mules.
That was the hypothesis of th Finlandish paleontologist
Björn Kurtén, which I so irresponsibly snatched and
expanded on.
Messages in this topic (40)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Neanderthal and PIE
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:33 am ((PDT))
Quoting Lars Finsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Den 15. okt. 2008 kl. 18.05 skreiv Jörg Rhiemeier:
> >
> > Most anthropologists are of the opinion that the Neanderthals
> > simply went extinct and did not contribute to the modern human
> > gene pool. If they were, as evcidenced by their artifcats,
> > qualitatively less creative than our species, unable to invent
> > new things or to create and appreciate fine art and music and
> > all that, and possessing only a comparatively rudimentary
> > language, this alone should have constituted a species barrier.
> > No matter whether interbreeding was biologically possible or
> > not, hardly any Cro-Magnon human would even have considered
> > mating with a Neanderthal!
>
> I don't quite agree with you on that. After all, another thing that's
> typical of modern humans is the great variety in tastes, which is, I
> think, linked to the imaginative ability. I wouldn't deny the
> possibility that some might have been attracted to the big brutes.
Neanderthals may have been brutes, but they weren't particularly big. Average
adult male height was around 166cm, slightly less than for Cro Magnon. Being of
heavier build, they presumably weighed more than Cro Magnon on average, but
hardly any great difference there either. There'll have been plenty overlap in
either measurement.
Whether Neanderthals and moderns could and did interbreed is disputed among
palaeoanthropologists. Prof. John Hawks, whose blog http://johnhawks.net/weblog
is recommended reading for anyone interested in human evolution, thinks they
probably did, but that Neanderthal genes were mostly weeded out of the gene pool
by subsequent selection.
--
Andreas Johansson
Messages in this topic (40)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. YAGGT (was Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (Long
Posted by: "Lars Mathiesen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:12 am ((PDT))
2008/10/16 Eugene Oh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Christophe's post contained the clause "battling gods was not considered
> unusual", which made me a little confused for a while: since when did it
> become standard fare for humans to challenge the preeminence of deities?
> Then it struck me, after approximately 5 milliseconds. It also reminded me
> of the other thread about participles. I gave it a brief thought, and don't
> think Latin, Greek or any of the Romance languages have such an ambiguity.
> Neither do Chinese, Japanese or Korean. Does German? Or is English is only
> language with such a muddle?
In English, the present participle has merged with two different
verbal nouns. Compare German "die Lesung", "das Lesen", "lesende".
Adding to the ambiguity in English, the verbal noun sense has gained
the ability to take an object; in other Germanic languages, the object
must be demoted to an oblique.
IIRC, "battling gods" would be either "das Kämpfen gegen Götter" or
"kämpfende Götter" in German, although I don't think the first form is
much used. ("Gegen Götter zu kämpfen" sounds better, using the
infinitive that just happens to have the same form). Also, "kämpfen"
cannot be transitive in German, slightly skewing this example; in the
transitive case, you get "das Lesen von Bücher" and "Bücher zu lesen,"
for instance.
--
Lars
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: YAGGT (was Re: Juvenile fooleries (was Re: Neanderthal and PIE (
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:54 am ((PDT))
On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:56 AM, Lars Mathiesen wrote:
> 2008/10/16 Eugene Oh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Christophe's post contained the clause "battling gods was not
>> considered
>> unusual", which made me a little confused for a while: since when
>> did it
>> become standard fare for humans to challenge the preeminence of
>> deities?
>> Then it struck me, after approximately 5 milliseconds.
Indeed, the only way to interpret "battling gods was ..." would be as
you did. If he had said "battling gods were ...", "battling" would be
a participle rather than a gerund.
>> It also reminded me
>> of the other thread about participles. I gave it a brief thought,
>> and don't
>> think Latin, Greek or any of the Romance languages have such an
>> ambiguity.
>> Neither do Chinese, Japanese or Korean. Does German? Or is English
>> is only
>> language with such a muddle?
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
Posted by: "Larry Sulky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:53 am ((PDT))
Efforts to revive the Arapaho language:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/17arapaho.html?pagewanted=2
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
Posted by: "Paul Bennett" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:26 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Efforts to revive the Arapaho language:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/17arapaho.html?pagewanted=2
Am I the only one hearing the line "HOOOOOOOOLD a chicken in the air"
at this point?
Maybe you have to be of a certain age, and British...
Paul
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
Posted by: "Peter Collier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:08 pm ((PDT))
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 6:26 PM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Efforts to revive the Arapaho language:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/17arapaho.html?pagewanted=2
>
> Am I the only one hearing the line "HOOOOOOOOLD a chicken in the air"
> at this point?
>
> Maybe you have to be of a certain age, and British...
>
>
>
> Paul
I guess you do
P.
"...Stick a deckchair up your nose..."
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: OT: Arapaho language writeup in NY Times
Posted by: "Matthew Turnbull" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:13 pm ((PDT))
hold a chicken . . . ummm, what?
Messages in this topic (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
