Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, from the Ancient‑Greek studies at dis‑tance, that I have per‑formed in Belgium in 2012, the "Smooth‑breathing" and "Rough‑breathing" serves to in‑dicate & marking the ab‑olition of the archaic letter Di‑gamma Ϝ [v] (Smooth) or Sigma/San Σ/Ϻ [ʃ/s] invalid IPA characters (/) (Rough) in the word, the Ϝ or Σ/Ϻ can be at beginning or middle, it de‑pend of the position of the breathing.
{Di‑gamma Ϝ {also called ϜΑΥ : vau/vaw} is V be‑cause W was Υ/ΟΥ [u/w] invalid IPA characters (/) from Phoenician 𐤅 [u], Ϝ don't share shape and sound with Υ / 𐤅, after some‑time Υ be‑came later [y] and [i] in Modern‑Greek ; Pamphylian Digamma/Wau/Waw Ͷ is [w] and is re‑formated one‑line Υ [u] to write it faster in one‑movement, also Ϝ [v] be‑came Latin F [f], V & F are labio‑dental sound and can be con‑fused, when W & F have nothing in com‑mon, so Latin letter F sound [f] come from Ancient‑Greek letter Ϝ sound [v]...}.
In the French pre‑cise book of Ancient‑Greek "Le Grand Bailly" or "Abrégé Bailly" breathing (spirit in French) are re‑pre‑sented in the words and in the de‑finition, in [RAC : racine/root] Section is ad‑ded the original word with Di‑gamma Ϝ or Sigma/San Σ/Ϻ. In older editions of "Le Grand Bailly" or "Abrégé Bailly", the "Table of roots" (which is no longer pre‑sent in the new editions) speci‑fies the list of roots using Di‑gamma Ϝ [v] & Sigma/San Σ/Ϻ [ʃ/s] invalid IPA characters (/), yet in Wikipedia English or French, no one mention that the "Smooth breathing" and "Rough breathing" were used for Di‑gamma Ϝ & Sigma/San Σ/Ϻ re‑moving, why ??? They talk only about a‑spired H (no one can make a‑spired H be‑fore a RHO, it's im‑possible), so it's wrong... Also In Wiktionary page for Ancient‑Greek words using breathing, the W/V or S/SH is never mentioned in "Archaic pro‑nunciation", like for ex‑ample :
ὙΠΕΡ / HYPER that was originally writed ΣΥΠΕΡ / SHYPER [ʃuper] (Latin : SVPERIOR), or
{I don't use ac‑cent acute / grave in Ancient‑Greek words be‑cause at that time they didn't ex‑ist, also writing Ancient‑Greek word in minuscule is an error, be‑cause at that epoch only capital script with‑out ac‑cent ex‑isted, minuscule should be used only for Modern‑Greek in your Wiktionary or Wikipedia...}.
Gmazdên (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
First of all, this is the wrong place for such a discussion, since the people who know about such things aren't necessarily the ones who patrol recent edits, and it's only slightly relevant to this entry- better to ask about this at the About Ancient Greek page. Also, your use of hyphenation in the middle of words is distracting. As to substance: you're jumbling together a long history of sound and orthographical changes as if they all happened at once. Whatever the origin of the rough breathing, it was described by Greek grammarians in enough detail (not to mention being reflected in loans to other languages) so we can say pretty confidently that it really was something like aspiration when it was in use (I don't know enough about the matter of the pronunciation of the aspirated rho to comment, but it looks to me more like a spelling convention than an actual guide to pronunciation). As for the smooth breathing, are you seriously saying that all initial vowels in Ancient Greek started with a digamma? The diacritic may have had its origins in something else, but in the standard orthography as used here it merely indicates the lack of aspiration. As for the grave accent, we only use the acute in entry names, since the grave is only a positional variant. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I ad‑ded this con‑versation here be‑cause like that every‑body reading the article can have this in‑formation, about the hyph‑en I use it to se‑parate pre‑fix and the root, be‑cause if you check their etymo‑logy they are com‑pound words. It's may‑be dis‑tracting for you but for me is more pre‑cise, ex‑act & ac‑curate.... I'm not saying that "all in‑itial vowels in Ancient‑Greek started with a di‑gamma" but only those using "smooth‑breathing", it's the in‑formation that I get in my dis‑tant learning course, and in dictionary like "Le Grand Bailly" or "Abrégé" they use it to... Mangêzd (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but... words in Greek that start with vowels came from words in Proto‑Indo‑European that started with *s, *w, *h₁, *h₂, *h₃, or no consonant. All of these were lost at some point in Attic Greek (but *w became the digamma in West Greek dialects), except when *s (usually) or *w (occasionally) became /h/ (which also developed spontaneously in words such as ἵππος), which was marked in several ways—see w:Heta for more. Various spellings of the name "Hera" in ancient Greek. Left: original spelling, right: modern transcription. Red: consonantal "Heta", blue: vocalic "Eta". 1.) archaic non-Ionic 2.) classical Ionic 3.) intermediate (e.g. Delphi) 4.) intermediate (e.g. Tarentum) 5.) late antiquity. As I recall, no word that had the rough breathing was ever spelled with sigma or san. (Also, please stop using hyphens to separate prefixes. What is etymological is not necessarily correct.) ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ignoring the fact that there is no longer any such thing as a native Ancient Greek speaker, I have studied the language extensively (by the way, the dialects are usually spelled Doric, Ionic, Boeotian, Aeolic; and Thracian and Ancient Macedonian are in fact different languages) I still don't understand what you're trying to say—is it that words with a rough breathing originally started with Σ (they didn't—in Proto-Indo-European they did but by the time Ancient Greek was written it the words were neither written nor pronounced that way) and that words with a smooth breathing originally started with ϝ (only in West Greek, and only when they came from a word beginning with *w in PIE, and only sometimes even then)? If not, it may be more useful to point out specific pages in these books that you are referencing. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 21:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
When I write please don't ad‑d :::: be‑cause with these, at end, we don't have space to re‑spond (keep one ":" for you, zero ":" for me, if a third speak he can add "::" and so on...). Ok you say "‑IC" but in French we say "‑IEN", so I say in English "IAN", my first language is not English so I make mistake... No‑body know the real Proto‑Indo‑European and this imaginated, re‑con‑structed & sup‑posed language as no re‑maining writing be‑cause at that time, scripture even not ex‑ist, all of that are just theory, and I really don't be‑lieve that all Euro‑middle‑east‑asian languages are coming from one unique‑source root‑language, some word can be com‑mon be‑cause of nomadism. (Some‑time in word in Wiktionary etymo‑logy I see those kind of pseudo‑proto‑indo‑european root, and they share nothing in com‑mon with the structure or pro‑nunciation of that word, but they are writed like is sure & certain that it's the origin & good etymo‑logy, for me these are just sup‑position), like you say for Ancient‑Greek "there is no longer any such thing as a native Ancient‑Greek speaker", I'm sure that there is no Proto‑Indo‑European speaker, at least Ancient‑Greek have re‑maining books & arti‑fact, the proto not. I'm sure that, at the origin, all humans tribes up‑on the Earth had dif‑ferent languages and from a very long‑time... So searching in that one‑root di‑rection is a wrong way... (The Bible say that at Babel god di‑vided languages but at that time and only at that place, they shared a com‑mon Sumerian/Semitic language, not Chinese, Indian, Germanic or Slavic one). Well about page, I don't have these books here, I only have the pages of my course in a folder mentioning these books, I also have the well known "Le Grand Bailly" Ancient‑Greek/French dictionary and the Di‑Gamma & Sigma/San is mentioned in section [RAC : Racine/Root] in al‑most every‑page where a smooth or rough‑breath is used, some not and maybe those use the Hêta [h] that you pro‑posed (the old edition have a table of roots at end with word using re‑moved Di‑Gamma & Sigma/San)... I don't com‑pre‑hend that great English searchers & students don't know about this... But what can I do... No‑body knows every‑thing. I searched in vain in Inter‑Net for a page listing all words and variants using Qoppa, Di‑Gamma [v], Pamphylian Di‑Gamma [w], San, Tzampi but with no suc‑cess, nobody have done that work be‑fore, all archives have been burned by mono‑theist in the library of Alex‑andria and others places, so we will never know the totality of these words, the books that we have to‑day are not the original and are re‑writing (I don't know which Ancient‑Greek books is the older one)... You say "I still don't under‑stand what you're trying to say is it that words with a rough‑breathing originally started with Σ [ʃ] or Ϻ [s] and that words with a smooth‑breathing originally started with ϝ [v] or Ͷ Υ [u/w] invalid IPA characters (/) (Pamphylian digamma)", yes, it's what are saying the Belgian courses and "Le Grand Bailly"... Mangêzd (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm using colons because that is how Wiktionary talk pages are formatted. Similarly, Wiktionary policy is to display what is supported by evidence. Academic consensus is that Ancient Greek words did not all begin with consonants. If you'd like specific examples as to why, I can provide them. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 02:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello there! I'd first like to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your comments above (if only because they are quite funny). You are correct in your statement that “No-body knows every-thing” [sic]. I for instance was not super familiar with Le Grand Bailly, so I looked it up and downloaded all 450 MB of the original edition. Let me tell you what I found out:
Georg Curtius's Grundzüge der griechischen Etymologie (1873). This book claims to use Proto-Indo-European reconstructions on the first page of its introduction.
Other new etymological works in French and German, but primarily the Memoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris. The SLP was one of the earliest French publishers to adopt Proto-Indo-European theory.
The point I am making above is that Bailly is using early Proto-Indo-European reconstructions for his etymologies in his text. You cannot hold up le Grand Bailly as contradicting the findings of Proto-Indo-European theory as it uses them as its sources.
As to the specific examples you have used, I have looked at all the entries of le Grand Bailly and will write out the etymological information it provides for the first few:
ὑπέρ “(cf. skr. úpari, et lat. super avec s init.)” → (compare Sanskrit उपरि(upári) and Latin super with initial s)
ἕξ “(cf. lat sex, dor. ϝέξ de *sweks, cf. gall. chwech)” → (compare Latin sex, Doric ϝέξ(wéx) from (Proto-Indo-European) *swéḱs, compare Welsh chwech)
ἐκ “(ἐς pour ἐξ en crét., béot.; avec le datif en arc.-cypr.; cf. lat. ex etc.)” → (ἐς(es) for ἐξ(ex) in Cretan, Boeotian; with the dative in Arcadocypriot; compare Latin ex etc.)
ἔργον “(dor. ϝέργον, cf. ἕρδω; v.h.a. werc, etc.)” → (Doric ϝέργον(wérgon), compare ἕρδω(hérdō), Old High German werc, etc.)
While some of these entries do contain digammas, none of these forms are used as pronunciations or as ]earlier forms but as separate Doric forms. You'll also find that the word ὑπέρ never had an initial sigma and that the initial s in Latin super comes from a later reanalysis of eks-uper in Latin. So, I'm afraid that le Grand Bailly, which seems like a good, if outdated, dictionary, does not support any of your claims. It is true that deletion of PIE *w and *s did result in the majority of words beginning in rough breathing and that in some dialects the ϝ is retained. However, this does not mean that the word ἕξ was ever pronounced [seks] (much less [ʃeks]) during the span of Ancient Greek. If we were discussing Proto-Greek, this would be a different matter, but we are not and I am sure you do not believe Proto-Greek exists in any case.
All of this is beside the point however, which is that you have been being quite rude to the other contributors. This might be overlooked if the majority of your claims were not also false or based out of a misinterpretation of an accurate source. Therefore:
Do not bring up le Grand Bailly to support your argument―it does not.
Do not edit any Wiktionary pages with your theories―they are inaccurate.
Do not use the Tower of Babel as evidence in a scholarly argument―it discredits you.
Do not continue writing with hyphens in your English―it is broken enough already.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Well, it's good that you down‑loaded the book, but it doesn't change nothing to what the pro‑fessors writed in my course, they states that :
Smooth‑breathing are in‑dication of Di‑Gamma re‑moving Ϝ [v] or Υ→Ͷ [u/w] invalid IPA characters (/) sound {Ͷ is faster one‑line way to write Υ ancient value [u] in one movement},
Rough‑breathing for Sigma/San re‑moving [s] or [ʃ],
If you don't want to be‑lieve it's really bad & sad for you. May‑be Shigma & San from Phoenician 𐤔 [ʃ] & 𐤎 [s] was used by the proto‑shella‑nique (dorian form of Hellenic), then the Attic Hellenique re‑moved [ʃ] & [q] (be‑cause the Attic Ancient‑Greek don't used those sounds, and they keeped only the value SAN [s] for Sigma. These letters [ʃ q] don't ex‑ist any‑more in Modern‑Greek and re‑maining re‑writed book of Ancient‑Greek (not original burned one) that we uses today... {About your question, I be‑lieve that the proto‑shella‑nic had ex‑isted in archaic‑time using sound of Phoenician like [ʃ & q] invalid IPA characters (&), for me [w] was more a [u] like sound and was probably pro‑nounced [ua/ue/uo/ui] invalid IPA characters (///) than [wa/we/wo/wi] invalid IPA characters (///)}.
In Albanian some Greek word are used with [ʃ] like :
shurr (piss) from Ancient‑Greek ΟΥΡΩ] → ΣΟΥΡΩ [ʃur], we (Albanian) keeped the old pro‑nunciation, there are other ex‑amples like Kul‑shedra but I don't know all of them,
do you think that URINA / ΟὙΡΟΝ (piss) & VRANUS / ΟΥΡΑΝ ὌΡΑΝ ὨΡΑΝ / אורנוֹס (sky) {from sup‑posed *ϜΟΡΣΑΝΟΣ (but I don't be‑lieve in that origin)} share the same root ? No, one start with [s/ʃ] invalid IPA characters (/) other VRANUS / ΟϜΡΑΝΟΣ [ovran‧os] invalid IPA characters (‧) with [v], and can be linked to shemitic אור ΑϜΡ [avr] (Latin : AVRUM) the light /fire (sky = sun, light & fire) {when the smooth‑breathing is up‑on ᾿Υ then you re‑place it by a Di‑Gamma Ϝ},
ΟΥΡΟΣ (canal, to dig) {from ὈΡΥΓΜΑ ὈΡΥΚΣΩ / ὈΡΥΚΤΩ & ὈΡΥΚΤΟΣ, Latin E‑RECTVS / E‑REGO} &
ΟΥΡΟΣ from ὈΡΟΣ → ϜΟΡΟΣ (montain, hill ; point of ob‑servation) &
ΟΥΡΟΣ from ὉΡΟΣ → ΣὉΡΟΣ (boundary, limit, marking stone)...
Five same words, meaning five thing ??? Bad writing be‑cause of e‑rased Ϝ & Σ/Ϻ
The ex‑ample I used above (S'HYPER, S'HALIOS, S'HEX), doesn't show Sigma/Shigma in [R. (Racine/Root) section] of "Le Grand Bailly" de‑finition but were used in my course, but in others word with rough‑breathing the [R. is there]... But if you want to be wrong it's your pro‑blem....
You say that there are used in se‑parate Doric‑forms, ok, for me Dorian & Eolian are the most original Ancient‑Greek...
I will con‑tinue to write with hyph‑en be‑cause I like that and it's more pre‑cise & ac‑curate, never on any forums (like Nvidia, Intel, Ubisoft, Steam, Hwinfo, Guru3D, Microsoft...) some‑one told me to write how he want, some have asked why I do this but after ex‑planation they under‑standed, I don't think you have the right to told me how to write... Pre‑fix can be se‑parated, since even in Wiktionary.org these words show in etymo‑logy that they are com‑pound words, also I don't use that technique in de‑finition page but only in talk dis‑cussion... But that's not the most im‑portant.
Still you con‑tinue to say that Di‑Gamma Ϝ is [w] when the links & ex‑plication I pro‑vided above told the con‑trary... So you want to in‑duce others in error be‑cause Old Germanic languages (like English de‑rivation) use [w] so for you Ancient‑Greek word to (in Latin W didn't ex‑isted, for writing Old Germanic word they used Double V : VV [w] be‑cause V was [u/v] invalid IPA characters (/) much later, in medieval time, W [w] ap‑peared as a com‑plete letter, all Latin variant like Espagnol, Portuguese, French, Italian use V or U for Latin words, only in English, we find W for Latin words like Wine (in French Vin for VINVM))...
Still in Modern‑Greek or others languages of that location of South‑East Evrope, like :
Macedonian (where I'm from),
Albanian (my origin),
Serbian, Bulgarian,
Turkish,
Italian,
W [w] don't ex‑ist and is not used for original words (we are more near than England of Greece, I think if that sound [w] was used at a old‑time, these neighbor tribes will have it in the alpha‑bet), so why keep saying that Di‑Gamma Ϝ is a [w] & not [v] when clearly Latin F [f] came from Greek Ϝ [v] since [f] & [v] are labio‑dental sound and can be con‑fused, when [w] & [f] have nothing in com‑mon...
In the "Abrégé bailly" of 1965 (N°10‑1340‑26) the "Proto‑Indo‑Evropean" sources that you are mentioned are not pre‑sent, they are in "Le Grand Bailly" (there is "Liste des auteurs & des ouvrages" but all of them are shella‑nic one, in my 2005 edition N°16/7939/8 (re‑viewed by L. Séchan & P. Chantraine", pro‑fesseurs à la faculté des Lettres de Paris", I see the source you mentioned at bottom of the page VIII under the text (with 1. Grundzüge der griechischen Etymologie, von G. Curtius. 4° éd. Leipzig, 1873) but the link you pro‑vided is use‑less be‑cause I don't know the German)...
I can use "Le Grand Bailly" to sup‑port my argument be‑cause (for me it's true), and I don't plan to add ancient‑greek word or etymo‑logy or archaic‑proto‑shella‑nic pro‑nonciation in Wiktionary, but I can do on my private‑web‑page, be‑cause here, non‑academic theory or new hypo‑thesis are al‑ways re‑jected (I just wanted to know about breathing and why no one mention Sigma or Di‑Gamma re‑moving re‑placed by smooth or rough‑breathing in Wikipedia or Wiktionary pages).
The pro‑blem about what you said about Sigma re‑moving in "Crêgu" (truth‑full) {con‑trary of "Greek" (the Roman called the Shella‑nic GRAECVS "un‑truth‑full‑one" or "false‑one")}, it's that you keep just ex‑ample that ac‑credit your re‑sponse, leaving others ex‑ample (using Sigma/San in "Le Grand Bailly [R. section] of the de‑finition") on the side... It's you choice...
Here are others ex‑ample writed in "Bailly" Table of Roots for Sigma re‑moving with Rough‑Breathing :
ἉΜΑ → ΣΑΜΑ (latin SIMVL)
ἉΔΟΣ → ΣΑΔΟΣ (R. ΣΑΔ)
ἉΛΣ → ΣΑΛΣ (R. ΣΑΛ, Latin : Sal)
ἉΛΛΟΜΑΙ → ΣΑΛΛΟΜΑΙ (R. ΣΑΛ, Latin : Salio)
ἉΡΜΑ → ΣΑΡΜΑ {SHARMONIA} (R. ΣΑΡ : union, link)
ἙΔΟΣ → ἙΔΟΣ (R. ΣΕΔ : sit)
Ἑ‑ΣΠΕΤΕ → ΣΕ‑ΣΠΕΤΕ (R. ΣΕΠ : to follow, Latin SEQVOR) from ἙΠΩ → ΣΕΠΩ (tie, to follow) ≠ ΕΠΩ → ϜΕΠΩ (say, Latin VOCARE) {in Greek P be‑came Latin Q}
And lot others but I'm gonna not search for all of them in the thousand pages book, I'm an amateur and I really don't have much time for this, the best way for you is to look in Table of Roots of ancient editions be‑fore 1950 six‑teen re‑vision version (that e‑rased that "list" and re‑moved some [R. ] in‑formations in de‑finitions...
My hypo‑thesis about im‑possible only one‑root for all world languages is good but it seem that you don't want to com‑pre‑hend.
In the past, I have make donation (not big) to Wiktionary.org, so for me, I have the right to con‑tribute and to ex‑press my self be‑cause it's a United‑Nation Uni‑versal Human rights (article 19) and I can also use the right of "Freedom of Speech & Ex‑pression" that the con‑stitution of the U.S.A guaranty, these laws, allow me to do this, if I was a male‑ficent one, I will do it hided with‑out log‑in, but no, I use my name, to be honest and ask the opinion of others in talk‑page, thanks any‑way for your feed‑back... As I said I don't plan to add Ancient or Proto‑Shella‑nic stuff... Mangêzd (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, I am going to gracefully resign from this conversation about Ancient Greek and your hypotheses thereon. I will say your right to free speech of course is protected. That doesn't have actual bearing in this circumstance, but I feel that I would be getting into too much trouble trying to explain why. I warn, though, that if you do edit content using this theory, it may lead to you getting banned, which would be unfortunate. —JohnC510:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Why should I be banned for giving an opinion or sharing my know‑ledge, ad‑mini‑strators are not as bad as this, so no need to threaten me, I've done nothing wrong... Your statement is not very demo‑cratic and open‑minded one... Good day. Mangêzd (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I would add this, what I truly like in "Le Grand Bailly", it's that every word, have in‑formations like :
hyph‑en (pre‑fix se‑parated from the root),
first time writed and by who (author), in Wiktionary etymo‑logy, that's not the case, for ex‑ample you said that HYPER co‑gnate with upariउपरि(upári), but, when this word ap‑peared first, in Hindi or in Greek ? There is no in‑dication in upari or hyper page, is upari older or hyper ? I think that for better com‑pre‑hension for future‑generation, every word ad‑ded in Wiktionary should have at‑tested "date of first use" and in which "book or in‑scription" & "pre‑cise location" of first writing or en‑gravation and if possible, ad‑ding the scan (if book) or photo (if it's upon a stone or else) on the Wiki page as a picture, that would be great for all...
I put for your under‑standing more ex‑amples of re‑moved Sigma in Ypsilon Rough‑breathing really writed in the dictionnary.
ὙΣ ὙΟΣ → ΣΥΣ ΣΥΟΣ [su‧s su‧os] invalid IPA characters (‧‧) also writed in this manner : ΣΥΣ ΣΥΟΣ [su‧s su‧os] invalid IPA characters (‧‧) in "Le Grand Gaffiot" (pig, swine, hog ; Latin : SVS, SVIS ; German Schwein, Danish svin, and more distantly to Polish świnia, Russian свинья)
ΥἹΟΣ → ΣΥΙΟΣ [ʃuj‧os] invalid IPA characters (‧) ([R. ΣΥ] : son ; compare with Latin : SVVS, German : Ich).
Here's the thing—I'm going to give it to you straight: you are making connections based on an incomplete understanding of linguistics. It's a mistake that a lot of people make; I know I have made it myself, and I hope that you also will come to realize your (or your professors') errors. Until then, however, take note that linguistics—like English—is not a field of opinions, it is a field of theories, a word which means "hypotheses that are supported by evidence". One bit of evidence is that there are some words that originally started with a digamma—ἔργον is a great example—and we know this because there are Doric inscriptions (incidentally, Doric is not "more pure", unless you mean "more pure than Koinê", which could arguably be true) that have a digamma (ϝέργον) and also because there are cognates (English work, (Old) Armenian գործ(gorc), Avestan 𐬬𐬀𐬭𐬆𐬰𐬆𐬨(varəzəm), etc.) that have an initial /w/ (or whatever *w became in that language.) Whereas ἐκ has neither of these things—there is no form **ϝεκ anywhere, and no cognates of it have any initial consonants. There's a reason that "here, non‑academic theory or new hypothes[e]s are always rejected"—it's that academic theories are supported by evidence, whereas new hypotheses are not. Incidentally, here is some evidence:
Words that start with a spiritus asper come from:
initial *s: ἕδος, ἕπομαι. In no dialect was this ever spelled with sigma or san; instead we know this because of cognates with initial /s/.
initial *sw: ἕξ (Welsh chwech, other cognates have either /s/ or /w/), inscriptions have hϝ/ϝh/ϝ (where "h" represents heta.)
initial *y: ὅς (Sanskrit यद्(yad), Avestan 𐬫𐬋(yō), Phrygian ιος(ios)), ἧπαρ (Sanskrit यकृत्(yakṛt), Latin iecur, Old Armenian լեարդ(leard)). Only in Cyprian was this ever spelled with a different symbol, and even then only before α.
analogy: ἡμεῖς (with ὑμεῖς, which had in PIE initial *y); most words starting with ὑ and some with ῥ (examples: ὕδρα, ὕδωρ, ὑπέρ, ὑπό, ὑφαίνω, ῥάφυς). In no case do any of these examples have cognates with (equivalents of) initial s- or y- (except Latin super/sub which are from eks-uper and eks-ub) ; and initial w- is due to PIE ablaut.
something obscure: ἵππος (again, no cognates with *s or *y.)
Words that start with a spritius lenis come from:
initial *s: ἔχω, maybe others I can't remember. This is uncommon, but it happened.
(EDIT: okay, not sure what happened there at all. I've put the page back like I meant to have it.)
Hi, thank for feed‑back. I under‑stand what your are saying... Think what you want, as I said I don't plan to make ad‑ds of ancient‑greek or proto‑shella‑nic pro‑nunciation. I just asked some‑thing and you re‑spond that you think that you are right, and I'm wrong and for me you are wrong and I'm right, so no need to talk much more... Mangêzd (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I just re‑sponded to that one be‑cause I'm Shqyptar Albanian (Gheg), and I never used and eared that word (Agon), be‑cause at Skopje (Macedonia) and in Kosovo, we use Sabah, Agon is pro‑bably used by the Tosk Albanian (Shqipëtar Ortho‑dox, living in the south of albania at north of Greece)... But I just wanted to say that if αὐγή it's a "bright light, like fire" then this co‑gnate with Agni, Ignis & Ogon/Agun... F.Y.I. Still, I don't see the link between dawn & agony, there is no one. Mangêzd (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The words you listed come from a different root, reconstructed as Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/h₁n̥gʷnis. In either case the words don't have initial consonants. Additionally: once again, linguistics is not a field of opinions, there is no "for me I am right and you are wrong". What is right is that (1) academic consensus is, among other things, that Proto-Indo-European is a real language which sometimes has initial vowels, (2) this academic consensus is supported by evidence, (3) Wiktionary publishes academic consensus for this reason. This is why your "etymologies" are not shown. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 02:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ok thank for your ex‑planation, but as I said I don't be‑lieve in imagined & re‑con‑structed Proto-Indo-Evropean... So the root h₁n̥gʷnis is false be‑cause h₁n is not used in real ex‑isting word like Og‑on, Ag‑ni, Ig‑nis & Ag‑un (ex‑cept in Hebrew נוגה[nge] replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g) & Arab نجم read it [ngm] replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g) in Egyptian manner), OG AG IG co‑gnate with AYG. This is just my point of view. I don't ob‑ligate no one to be‑lieve it. But even a Academic con‑sensus begin with theory & hypo‑thesis. Mangêzd (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have one more thing to say after thinking a lot about this, you ex‑plain that the Rough‑breathing is a mark showing the a‑spiration [h] and not the Sigma re‑moving [s] or [ʃ], and the Ancient‑Greek words using it are written with H in Latin (ὑπέρ → hyper), but for the Smooth‑breathing there is no a‑spiration [h] & the words using it are not written with a H in Latin, so if the smooth sign is not an in‑dication of Di‑Gamma Ϝ ϝ [v] or Ͷ ͷ [u/w] invalid IPA characters (/) re‑moving why using this sign, it is use‑less, in‑stead they could write normally the Ἀ Ἐ Ἠ Ἰ ὐ Ὠ ῤ → Α Ε Η Ι Ο Υ Ω Ρ, no need to a speci‑fic sign for that... This prove that this theories of [h] is false in a part. Mangêzd (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Since you seem to have know‑ledge about Ancient‑Qrêgu, do you know a page where all words (Doric, Ionian, Eolian, Attic) using Qoppa Ϙ ϙ / Ϟ ϟ are listed, I really need it for my works... Mangêzd (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
