Contemporary language.

[llama_nom]

> are the linguistic/academic authorities in accord as far as
reconstructed PG vocab is concerned? It's a minor issue but one I
want to be clear on in any event.

Well, for a lot of words they are in accord, but there are also many
debated etymologies/reconstructions, unknowns, and multiple equally
convincing possibilities.  In some cases this is due to lack of clear
evidence from which to decide which variant is older; in others it may
be because PG is an idealized abstraction, and the competing variants
go right back to PG or further.

LN


--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Justïn <justinelf at ...> wrote:
>
> I completely agree that we need to standardise a was in which to
> reconstruct the words.  One question I have is the source of
> Protogermanic, are we all using the same source for Protogermanic and
> are the linguistic/academic authorities in accord as far as
> reconstructed PG vocab is concerned?  It's a minor issue but one I
> want to be clear on in any event.
> 
> I would love for this group to at least begin standardising
> reconstructed vocab and inferred grammar, etc. if only more were
> interested in being involved.  It would be amazing to see a published,
> definitive work come out of our conversations to help make revived
> Gothic a possibility, but it's a heavy burden with precious little
> accountability for two or three scholarly would-bes to bear.
> 
> Here's for hoping!  How far are you on revising your list, Fredrik?
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070411/d11812c2/attachment.htm>