Talk:The king and the god
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Actually if you look at Sampson's page:
- It seems the text was not originally composed by Sen; rather he identified a traditional text.
- As Sampson found it published, the text used "the spelling system traditional among Indo-Europeanists." Sampson transliterated it to his own system because he didn't know how to display it in HTML. Sampson cites J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London and Chicago, 1997.
Does someone have access to Mallory and Adams who could provide their spelling? --teb728 21:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
you are right, I checked it out. dab (ᛏ) 08:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, nice improvement--it makes a really professional article! I would suggest one more change: Use the Unicode or IPA template on the PIE text. Whatever the merits of italicizing individual words, italics hurt the legibility of continuous text. --teb728 21:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that there are disagreements about the original sound values, so IPA wouldn't be useful, here. 81.232.72.148 15:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Names edit
What are the full names of the individuals here? Hard to link without knowing. Rmhermen 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Articles and unstressed personal pronouns edit
The first reconstruction given here surprises me in its lavish use of demonstrative pronouns as (all but) unstressed personal pronouns and articles. (- or at least of the 3. sg. m. nom. demonstrative.) It feels very modern to me, and contrary to all we seem to know of older Indo-European languages, as far as my knowledge goes - and that of many others, I fancy. Has anybody an explanation to give, please - in the article, not here! - whether that the reconstruction is likely chronocentric, or that it relies on some (what?) evidence little known among educated amateurs like me? Keinstein 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Apart from that, it seems to be TOO Latin-like. 12.71.155.26 (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)