Talk:Phrygian language

message: There is no mention yet of its centum or satem classification (which from what I remember is still debated). I know that Greek chamai ("on the earth") has a Phrygian cognate beginning with 'z' (zama or something, don't remember), and there is also zamelon (slave; meaning "earth-bound" roughly; if that's the right spelling). Decius 00:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: What are we saying regarding the relation of Phrygian and Armenian? Sadly, not enough of Phrygian is known to be sure, and Armenian made some weird changes, between 600 BC and 400 AD. But Phrygian may be, as it were, the missing link between Greek and Armenian. I am particularly intrigued by the gunai(k)- stem. In Armenian gunay-k, the k is a desinence, while in Greek/Phrygian it is completely irregular. dab (ᛏ) 28 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)
:The article continues to state "Ancient historians and myth did associate it with Thracian and maybe Armenian, on grounds of classical sources.". What assiociation was made by "ancient historians" of connections with Thracian, and, especially, with Armenian? I avoid applying those little tags, but this does need a source. --Wetman 01:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenians

message: Albanian bukë 'bread; meal, meal-time' was listed as a cognate for Phrygian bekos 'bread', but the Albanian word is a borrowing from Latin bucca 'cheek'.  so, i have removed it.  i also added a large number of cognates for the words in the short glossary.
Flibjib8 02:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bukë 

message: These changes by 66.81.157.116 look destructive and there is no discussion on the talk page that suggests why these changes are happening. John Vandenberg 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are made by a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user: see User:Ararat_arev.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes by 66.81.157.116 

message: Herodotus only mentioned that the Phrygians originated from Thrace and moved in Asia Minor. He also mentioned that the Armenians were Phrygians colonists. And that is already mentioned! The paragraph that the "In the Herodotus' History they are known to live together with the ancient Macedonian population." is not cited and I don’t personally know such a paragraph! Can someone provide more information? Till then I temporarily removing it
Seleukosa 12:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed unsourced matterial 

message: Is the Phrygian word attagos perhaps related to the Greek word for goat — aíx (αἴξ), aigós (αἰγός)? Hspstudent (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert or anything, but I would guess it is. --15lsoucy (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Attagos

message: cut from article:
(snip)
----
first, this list is unreferenced, inviting the clueless to add random oter entries, which means we end up with a contaminated list where some entries are valid and others aren't
Second, what's with the listing of random IE cognates? I can understand Greek and Armenian cognates, to illustrate the proximity of Phrygian to these languages, but why would anyone list Persian or Latin, let alone Albanian or Romanian??
Third, it isn't usual to grace languages articles with "lists of words". Wikipedia articles aren't dictionaries. Those of the above entries that can be substantiated with a reference should be transwikied to wiktionary. 
--dab (𒁳) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt that this can be done, and I will be most grateful if you actually do it. I suggest we remove the list once again and put it here, and you can put back the words with references at your own pace whenever you like. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabulary list

message: *anar, 'husband', from PIE *ner- 'man'; cf. Gk: anḗr () "man, husband" 
*attagos, 'goat'; cf. Arm: tik "leather skin",aytig "goat" 
*Bagaios, "Zeus", from PIE *bheh2gos "apportioner"; cf. Doric Greek: bagos (βάγος) "leader" 
*balaios, 'large, fast', from PIE *bel- 'strong'; cognate to Gk: bélteros () "better" 
*belte, 'swamp', from PIE *bhel-, 'to gleam'; Gk: bálte (βάλτη) 
*brater, 'brother', from PIE *bhrater-, 'brother' 
*daket, 'does, causes', PIE *dhe-k-, 'to set, put' 
*germe, 'warm', PIE *gwher-, 'warm'; cognate to Gk: thermós () "warm" 
*kakon, 'harm, ill', PIE *kaka-, 'harm'; cf. Gk: kakós () "bad" 
*knoumane, 'grave', maybe from PIE *knu-, 'to scratch'; cognate to Gk: knáō () "to scratch" 
*manka, 'stela', Arm: manuk, mankakan "child, childish".
*mater, 'mother', from PIE *mater-, 'mother'; 
*meka, 'great', from PIE *meg-, 'great'; Gk: mégas (μέγας) "great", Arm: metz "great" 
*zamelon, 'slave', PIE *dhghom-, 'earth' 
*tas, 'those' Gk: tas "those"
*upsodan, 'above' Gk: hupsóthen (ὑψόθεν) "above"
*ke, 'and', from PIE *-kwe "and"
*gelaros, 'sister in law'; Gk (Doric): gallaros "sister in law"
----
it would be useful to give a number of references to actual inscriptions where the respective words are attested. Also, etymological comparison needs to be referenced; e.g. tios was compared to theos in the list, which is clearly wrong; the correct comparandum would probably be Zeus (Dios). In fact, we can just exploit Lubotsky's database for the most part. It has Ti- comparing with Zeus. I will put this one back with references.
--dab (𒁳) 09:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: to be moved back to article with references

message: I've found out that several "subjects" aka "linguists" intentionally try to avoid the OBVIOUS written message in the text (inscription):
quote: "Another possible theonym is bago-, attested as the accusative singular bag̣un in G-136.[12] Lejeune identified the term as *bhagom, in the meaning "a gift, dedication" (PIE *bhag- "to apportion, give a share"). But Hesychius of Alexandria mentions a Bagaios, Phrygian Zeus (Βαγαῖος Ζεὺς Φρύγιος) and interprets the name as δοτῆρ ἑάων, "giver of good things". "
"BAGO", BOGU, BHAGO, BOG" comes from Slavic & Sanskrit term "Bhaga" - "god" or "godly" and please no more OCCULT distortions. This Article is one big occult nonsense...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.111.14 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The root for bekos is PIE *bheg- to warm, roast, bake. In Old English it is bacan (to bake) and old Norse baka. Phrygian is an Indo-European language and even though we have limited vocabulary about it, it is perfect for demonstrating its relation with other IE languages.Fkitselis (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentional distortion of "Satem"(proto-Slavic, Sanskrit, Lithuanian) language in the text  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Phrygian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814123554/http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cphrygian&first=1 to http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cphrygian&first=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I run my new paraphrased version in a text comparison application before i edited it in, and it gave me a match of 67.7%. Now that might seem a lot, but take note that most of this is because of the linguistic examples and the citations provided by the author, with the former being essential for the reader to understand the text, the later maybe not so much and can be taken out thus lessening the match. I also don't like the title you gave previously (Plagiarism, again). You didn't even assumed good faith, just outright accused me of plagiarism. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a content dispute. In principle, the content is worthy of inclusion. This is about how you represent the data of the source in this page. One you cannot take over complete structures (section divisions, bullet lists etc.) from the source and just alter the wording a bit here and there. Please reply to  and address this directly on your talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply Austronesier. I know this is not content dispute, just a matter of WP:PARAPHRASE. Also, i think this should be addressed in this talk page in case someone wants to assist with the paraphrase. It is relevant to the article after all. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're still approaching the whole issue as if it were a task of "paraphrasing" that source, then you have failed to comprehend the very basics of what this is all about. In that case, you really should stay well away from editing any articles on scholarly topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an attempt of paraphrase by me which you didn't find adequate per WP:PARAPHRASE, and that's ok, i accept that. I am relatively new in Wikipedia and i am learning everyday while trying to be constructive. Instead of insulting me you might as well assist with it. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Paraphrase of "Isoglosses" section

message: Hello Austronesier. I was the one who added the table that was removed. It was many months ago. I do respect your view, but i believe this is a rather ambiguous case. The information contained in this table is straightforward and fundamental, leaving no room for much rephrasing. Alternatively what would you propose? Would a repositioning of the table's rows or columns make it better? I would very much like to read of FPaS' view as well regarding this. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about it and i believe that a repositioning of the table's rows (it can be in alphabetic order), a division of the Phonetic, Morphological, and Lexical sections into three independent tables, and a reference to pages 234-238 (presenting in detail the compilation of isoglosses) instead of page 239 (presenting a summary of the aforementioned isoglosses in the form of a single table), would technically make it an independent summary of the isoglosses by me. Would this make it better? Furthermore, i don't know if it matters, but i recall having contacted the author Tomeu Obrador-Cursach back in September, 2020, informing him that i used his "Isoglosses" table for this Wikipedia article, and he told me that he was ok with it, as long as it wasn't from his book The Phrygian Language (2020) published by Brill Publishers, because he didn't have the rights to it. I can forward via email the exchange i had with him to any fellow editor who would like to confirm this. By the way, i know this doesn't qualify as WP:DCM, but again, i believe the above proposition would be ideal without violating copyright guidelines. This is just a summary of his original (detailed) compilation of isoglosses, presenting only fundamental information (suffixes, roots, etc.). Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isoglosses table 

message: There was conflicting information regarding the predominant writing direction of Old-Phrygian, left-to-right (dextroverse) or right-to-left (sinistroverse). Claude Brixhe (2008), 'Phrygian', in: Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press), pp. 69-80: p. 73, states that "a little less than one-third" was written from right to left (majority dextroverse). On the contrary, Obrador Cursach (2018), p. 35, implies that the majority was sinistroverse: according to him only a small minority ("66 out of 395" Old-Phrygian inscriptions) were "dextroverse". 
I suspected an inadvertant interchanging of the words "sinistroverse" and "dextroverse" by Obrador Cursach on p. 35. I therefore tallied his comprehensive catalogue of inscriptions in the same book, pp. 349-420. This showed that in fact 84 out of ca. 548 Old-Phrygian inscriptions listed were marked "←", and therefore the minority is in fact "sinistroverse" (reading from right to left). So apparently Brixhe is right, Obrador Cursach inadvertantly interchanged the words "dextroverse" and "sinistroverse".
By the way, I find it remarkable that my counts systematically exceed the number of inscriptions Obrador Cursach has counted in his book. For example, I count a total of 548 Old-Phrygian inscriptions against Obrador Cursach's 395. Also the number of boustrophedon inscriptions is 18 according to Obrador Cursach, while my count yields 35. However, all relative proportions are virtually the same as Obrador Cursach's.
20:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing direction