Talk:Schleicher's fable

message: This text should be written using the notation for laryngeals that is used in the Proto Indo-European language article. --Saforrest 13:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be misrepresenting the work and theories of the authors. Feel free to add a third version, with laryngeals. That is the very purpose of the text after all, to illustrate a theory of how PIE could have looked. We won't really know the correct form until we have time travel anyway. And last I heard, laryngeal theory was falling out of favor, besides wikipedia is to have NPOV. --Kaleissin 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Falling out of favour?!?! What in the world are you talking about? Now that Szemerenyi is dead, there's not a serious IEist around who doesn't believe in laryngeals. The only matter of argument now is how many there were, and the vast majority of IEist have settled on 3. You must be thinking of glottalic theory, which was big in the 1980s but is now considered passe. CRCulver 04:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: indeed. Laryngeals are now accepted enough to go without mention. Everybody assumes at least one or two, most people have settled on three, and some on four. At least the "Hittite" one, h2 is as unspectacular as English h. Even Szemerenyi accepted that, I think he was mostly being polemical about the term "laryngeal" which is indeed a misnomer. dab (ᛏ) 09:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laryngeals 

message: I know that Schleicher's fable has following shape in:
Proto-Indo-European with laryngeals:
H3ou̯is h1éku̯o(s)es-kwe. H3ou̯is, kwesi̯o u̯l̥Hneh2 ne h1est, h1éku̯oms spekét, h1óinom gwr̥h3um wóghom wéghontm̥, h1óinom-kwe mégeh2m bhórom, h1óinom-kwe dhHghmónm̥ h1oh1ku bhérontm̥. H3owis nu h1éku̯obhi̯os u̯eu̯kwét: kerd h2éghnutoi h₁moí h1éku̯oms h2égontm̥ wiHrom wídn̥tei. H1éku̯o(s)es tu u̯eu̯kwónt: Klúdhi, h3ówi! kerd h2éghnutoi nsméi wídntbhi̯os: H2ner, pótis, h3ou̯i̯om-r̥ u̯l̥Hneh2m̥ su̯ébhi gwhermóm u̯éstrom kwrnéuti. Neghi h3ou̯i̯om u̯l̥Hneh2 h1ésti. Tod kékluu̯os h3ou̯is h2égrom bhugét.
Proto-Indo-European without laryngeals:
Ówis ékwōs-kwe. Ówis, kwésio wl̥̄nā ne est, ékwoms spekét, óinom (ghe) krum wóghom wéghontm, óinom-kwe mégām bhórom, óinom-kwe dhghmónm ṓku bhérontm. Ówis nu ékwobh(i)os wewkwét: krd ághnutoi moí, ékwoms ágontm wrom wídntei. Ékwōs tu wewkwónt: Klúdhi, ówi! krd ághnutoi nsméi wídntbh(i)os: anér, pótis, ówjom-r wĺnām sébhi khermóm wéstrom kwrnéuti. Ówjom-kwe wl̥̄nā ne ésti. Tod kékluwos ówis ágrom bhugét.
Proto-Indo-Iranian:
Avis ak’vasas-ka. Avis, jasmin varnā na āst, dadark’a ak’vans, tam, garum vāgham vaghantam, tam, magham bhāram, tam manum āku bharantam. Avis ak’vabhjas avavakat; k’ard aghnutai mai vidanti manum ak’vans ag’antam. Ak’vāsas avavakant: k’rudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāns karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjas-ka varnā na asti. Tat k’uk’ruvants avis ag’ram abhugat.
But which shape has Schleicher's fable in:
Proto-Indo-Uralic:
Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian:
Proto-Indo-Hittite:
Proto-Indo-Hellenic:
Proto-Indo-Slavic:
Proto-Indo-Aryan:
I got these protolanguage names and fable variants from:
http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean/indo-european.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/s076/f332917.htm
But I can't find nowhere missing fable versions relevant to missing protolanguages.
Can you provide me relevant variants of this fable or at least missing forms of Indo-European/Indo-Iranian "-s" nominative ending relevant to missing protolanguages?
I need this to compare protolanguages and improve this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable
Feel free to write these variants directly in this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable
Wikinger 12:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikinger, all these versions have authors, and you'll need to cite them. You cannot just copy reconstructed texts off the internet. dab (𒁳) 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already added source to two versions added by me in article links, because I don't know exact format of citation tags. Wikinger 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to review WP:RS. What are you talking about? Your source is an online article hosted by dnghu.org. At least make explicit who is the author of the content you are ripping off. --dab (𒁳) 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schleicher's fable in various protolanguages 

message: By the way, the terms "Indo-Uralic", "Indo-Tyrrhenian", and "Indo-Hellenic" are basically utterly meaningless... AnonMoos 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus can you provide me these missing versions of PIE "-s" nominative ending for purpose of comparing protolanguages at least for Indo-Hittite? I simply need to know which earliest protolanguage from missing ones still has "-s" nominative ending, and how this ending differentiates between missing protolanguages. Wikinger 11:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, you do not sound as if you had an idea what you are talking about. Let me stress once again that these "versions" have authors, which we need to cite, we cannot just "provide" more versions as if they grew on trees. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide me these versions with relevant citations and I will use these versions along with citations in Wikipedia, and if citations aren't deliverable, at least please provide me them for my private usage outside Wikipedia articles. As citation template, I will use citation currently used by versions from Dnghu's site, but with other authors and reference links relevant to versions provided by you. Is that possible? I simply want to know properties of these missing protolanguages at least by using their variants of PIE "-s" nominative. Which are variants of "-s" nominative relevant to other missing protolanguages? Wikinger 19:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking for something like Proto-Nostratic, or postulated intermediate stages between it and Proto-Indo-European? Has Bomhard been able to resist the temptation to take Schleicher back another millennium or two? Are you looking for proto-languages of Indo-European sub-families that have lost the -s (which I think happens late in all branches), or are you talking about postulated pre-Indo-European forms which haven't yet developed the -s? Not that I can help you either way, but possibly someone else can. Koro Neil (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found some versions in http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language and now I am interested how are looking pre-PIE forms of Schleicher's Fable, such as Early Proto-Indo-Hittite, Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian and Proto-Indo-Uralic, that are earlier than PIE. Where I can find them? I need them all to improve some PIE-related wikis, including this one linked by me, and DNGHU wiki. 77.243.225.87 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Refer to comment of "21:54, 15 October 2007" above... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protolanguages

message: I think Wikinger's changes should be undone. The new versions added are not among those well known in Indo-European linguistics - contrary to the previous versions, which are all from important publications, or well-known researchers. Also, Wikinger did not offer any linguistic comments to these new versions, which makes them pretty useless. Any one else in favour of deleting that stuff? -- Uluboz 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These versions needs to be presented, because Proto-Indo-Iranian variant and very nearly Proto-Indo-Hittite variant with laryngeals is displayed in article, along with plain Proto-Indo-European variant without laryngeals. These variants otherwise would be missing from article. I noticed that original Schleicher's variant looks nearly as Proto-Indo-Aryan language, that in turn very closely resembles Proto-Indo-Iranian language. Wikinger 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should be copied to wikisource with as many versions as there exist, I saw one version in Proto-Indoiranian. The current article could however limit itself to the most accepted versions and then Proto-Indoeuropean only. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 'various Protolanguages' 

message: Is there any source where they try to pronounce the text? --77.181.247.48 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: animated version and in the movie Prometheus--88.73.14.65 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound 

message: There definitively is something wrong with the width of the example sections. Probably this has to do with the PIE template. Could someone take a look at it? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: > Schleicher (1868):
Avis akvāsas ka
Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam.
Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti.
Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat. <
THis part is highly confusing in the article? I mean how could anyone seriously propose this text, even 150 years ago? It has zero letter E in it, even though E is by far the most common sound made by humans, not merely by choice but due to bio-physiology! 79.120.172.118 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: PIE was originally based a bit too heavily on Sanskrit. It was believed that, like Sanskrit, PIE didn't have a short e or o sound, only as long vowels. Later it was discovered that PIE did have e and o, and they had simply collapsed into a in Sanskrit. It'sMeCarsonCole (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-rror obvious. 

message: The various linguists seem to use different conventions for phonetic transcription. Sure, I realise that IPA evolves, but comparing those versions that appear to use the same character sets (viz., H. Craig Melcher and Andrew Byrd), the divergences are of a sort that makes me question whether they are a matter of style, rather than having substantive consequences for the way they might be vocalised:
Is it at all realistic to fish for capable editors who might upload recitations of the various versions?
--Patronanejo (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded the note in the article on notational differences, and removed the image.   That image is interesting for talk-page discussions, but isn't much use on the article itself.  As for audio recordings, I happen to know that there are recordings of people reading "Beowulf" and the prologue to Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" while attempting the original pronunciations, but those are actual written texts.  Schleicher's fable involves a whole extra level of hypotheticality.  For example, most Proto-Indo-European reconstructions now posit multiple laryngeals, but there isn't much information as to how the different reconstructed laryngeals would have been pronounced, while the glottalic theory claims that that some of the stop consonants in the standard reconstruction of PIE are wrong, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing versions 

message: In many cases, such as "wóĝhom" and "u̯óǵʰom", the reconstruction is exactly the same, but only the notation is different.  I don't see what this image adds to the article... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded the note in the article on notational differences, and removed the image.   That image is interesting for talk-page discussions, but isn't much use on the article itself.  As for audio recordings, I happen to know that there are recordings of people reading "Beowulf" and the prologue to Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" while attempting the original pronunciations, but those are actual written texts.  Schleicher's fable involves a whole extra level of hypotheticality.  For example, most Proto-Indo-European reconstructions now posit multiple laryngeals, but there isn't much information as to how the different reconstructed laryngeals would have been pronounced, while the glottalic theory claims that that some of the stop consonants in the standard reconstruction of PIE are wrong, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: purpose of this image in the article?

message: Melchert's reconstruction is not sourced, and I couldn't find in his publications. Also, as shown above, Melchert's and  Byrd's are suspiciously similar, they differ solely in notation. Plus, Melchert's has three a mistakes; "(dh)gĥémonm̥", "h₂éĝeti", and "h₂wl̥h₁nā́h₁" which should be "(dh)ĝhémonm̥", "h₂áĝeti" and "h₂wl̥h₁náh₂" respectively. Also I'm pretty sure Melchert reconstructs "sheep" as "h₃éu̯is" not "h₂owis", so I think it should probably be removed. --Tom 144 (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Hi all!
When reading this on my phone, I noticed that I see some tofu characters instead of the correct characters.
Specifically, I see some tofu in Adams (1997), Lühr (2018), Melchert (2009, revisited 2014) and Byrd (2013).
I don't see any tofu in any of the other versions.
Does anyone know what might be causing the tofu specifically in these versions, and how I could fix them? (And if my description of the problem isn't detailed enough, let me know what other info would help to figure out what the problem is. I'm not very good with tech stuff)
If so, it might also be helpful to put some technical info at the start of the page, to let people know what they need to do for everything to render correctly.
Thanks for reading!
JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical issue (tofu characters)