Bert wrote:So [face=SPIonic]ei(=j [/face]and [face=SPIonic]tij[/face] don't belong to the next word but to the one after that, ie; to [face=SPIonic]a)nh\r[/face]
This does make sense in the translation but why would the word [face=SPIonic]a)rxo\j [/face]be inserted.
In the poetic traditions of most or all of the early Indo-European languages we find texts, often in large numbers, which for one reason or another present, or seem to present, some sort of obstacle between the hearer - the "reader" - and the message. And it often seems that that "obstacle" is in some sense what that society considers art. paro 'ks.akaamaa hi devaah. 'For the gods love the obscure', as we read in the Shatapathabraahmana 18.104.22.168 and many places elsewhere in Vedic literature.
Is there any significance in the fact that the verb is right at the end?
annis wrote:Ok, one last thought.
I grabbed the Scholia D H. van Thiel makes available, and it glosses thus:
A 144/Zs [face=spionic]e)/stw: gene/sqw[/face] ZYQ
Bert wrote:annis wrote:A 144/Zs [face=spionic]e)/stw: gene/sqw[/face] ZYQ
ZYQ meaning... (maybe; something like that??)
Users browsing this forum: Adelheid and 14 guests