@Minagaur Ok now read about the orthography, but there is too often -N at end-word position, instead of -M, there are no syllabic L, R, M... and I can clearly hear the Icelandic ð being pronounced as such... not that I'm such a specialist but this still pulls towards Germanic :)
where is the singer from? what languages does he know? how accurate is his pronunciation of the phonology? who is this band? who wrote/translated this song, and what were their credentials?
It makes a bit more sense with you having explained the ortography. I read your 18 comment explanation on one of your other videos. I am a bit skeptical of your propositions, intruiging as they are. Have you published any papers expanding on the subject and discussing your hypothesis in greater depth? I'd very much like to read more about it.
Is that really proto-indo-europenan? The ortography looks like none of the others I've seen, and it seems a bit too germanic to really be PROTO-indo-european.
Well the orTHogrtaphy is obviously conventional and simplified: for practical-musical reasons: I used greek Ph for aspirated "p" sound, greek Beta for aspirated "b" islandic, germanic þ for aspirated "t" and islandic-germanic ð fod aspirated "d" simple HV for labiovelar, æ for long ai diphthong, à for long closed "a", ò for long closed "o", œ for umlaut long "o", è for shwa sound: this just to give some approximative non phonetic examples: the matter is more complicated and detailed:
I guess the more germanic look is dued to this choice of orthography more than the substance: I'll give you an example: TIS is masculine determinative genitive singular article in germanic languages is should be with consonant dental shift somethig like thes or german des and non still T like in ancient greek. OR SALI is the dative of SALS = salt, germanic languages all developped this sal + t at the end and latin salis or greek hal did not, so we see no germanic suffixes here.
Bhloesom is the genitive plural of bhlos = flower, in germanic languages the common bhlo-stem has been developped with m like blume or bloom and with -s here instead and the ending -om for plural genitive has not been preserved in germanic languages consider gothic genitive plural innovation -e.
òn = we: in indoeuropean we had different stems for first plural person NS was for we intending simply we (and more than 2 people) MES was for inclusive we (and more than 2 people and meaning something like we of the family, we of ours) VEI meant we two, dual, germanic languages extended it to all first plural first person: WIR, VIT, VI, WE in this text instead we have òn (accusative òns) from NS. Hoping I have been exhaustive so far, regards
?? Can you even actually speak this? You seem to have great trouble with maintaining voiced aspirates....
gustjorodedheo 3 months ago
Does sceivsern has anything to do with "grow up"?
Xerdocreisson 4 months ago
More please?
Lenguanuat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and where are the aspirates? BH, GH, GWH G'H etc. ? ??? This is Germanic
Minagaur 4 months ago
@Minagaur Ok now read about the orthography, but there is too often -N at end-word position, instead of -M, there are no syllabic L, R, M... and I can clearly hear the Icelandic ð being pronounced as such... not that I'm such a specialist but this still pulls towards Germanic :)
Minagaur 4 months ago
Comment removed
Minagaur 4 months ago
Is it possible to get a translation?
vatterholm 5 months ago in playlist vatterholm sine favorittvideoer
where is the singer from? what languages does he know? how accurate is his pronunciation of the phonology? who is this band? who wrote/translated this song, and what were their credentials?
JacobAbuhamada 9 months ago
It makes a bit more sense with you having explained the ortography. I read your 18 comment explanation on one of your other videos. I am a bit skeptical of your propositions, intruiging as they are. Have you published any papers expanding on the subject and discussing your hypothesis in greater depth? I'd very much like to read more about it.
luffarantastarn 2 years ago
Is that really proto-indo-europenan? The ortography looks like none of the others I've seen, and it seems a bit too germanic to really be PROTO-indo-european.
What exactly is it?
luffarantastarn 2 years ago 5
Well the orTHogrtaphy is obviously conventional and simplified: for practical-musical reasons: I used greek Ph for aspirated "p" sound, greek Beta for aspirated "b" islandic, germanic þ for aspirated "t" and islandic-germanic ð fod aspirated "d" simple HV for labiovelar, æ for long ai diphthong, à for long closed "a", ò for long closed "o", œ for umlaut long "o", è for shwa sound: this just to give some approximative non phonetic examples: the matter is more complicated and detailed:
jaeghon 2 years ago
I guess the more germanic look is dued to this choice of orthography more than the substance: I'll give you an example: TIS is masculine determinative genitive singular article in germanic languages is should be with consonant dental shift somethig like thes or german des and non still T like in ancient greek. OR SALI is the dative of SALS = salt, germanic languages all developped this sal + t at the end and latin salis or greek hal did not, so we see no germanic suffixes here.
jaeghon 2 years ago
Bhloesom is the genitive plural of bhlos = flower, in germanic languages the common bhlo-stem has been developped with m like blume or bloom and with -s here instead and the ending -om for plural genitive has not been preserved in germanic languages consider gothic genitive plural innovation -e.
jaeghon 2 years ago
òn = we: in indoeuropean we had different stems for first plural person NS was for we intending simply we (and more than 2 people) MES was for inclusive we (and more than 2 people and meaning something like we of the family, we of ours) VEI meant we two, dual, germanic languages extended it to all first plural first person: WIR, VIT, VI, WE in this text instead we have òn (accusative òns) from NS. Hoping I have been exhaustive so far, regards
jaeghon 2 years ago