Minoan is written in a simple hieroglyphic script called Linear A. It's called "linear" in the sense that it's less hieroglyphic than it is a series of abstract lines once intended to form images that are now often next to impossible to piece together. Since many of the symbols are shared with the related script, Linear B, the script of the Mycenaean Greek language, it's logical to presume until proven otherwise that the Minoan symbols have the same or similar values to those found in Greek. However despite Linear B being cracked, Linear A currently defies categorization and all that can be reasonably sure about it is that it wasn't being used for an Indo-European or Semitic language since it shows no grammatical patterns relating to either of these language groups despite several attempts.
Things get really interesting when we plug in the Linear B values into the Linear A symbols because we end up with what appears to be an oddly lop-sided stop series as a result:
| bilabial | coronal | velar |
| p | t d | k, q |
We may observe the odd gap involving an apparent absence of voiced b and g to go with d. My strategy is so far to take for granted that Minoan really was a language lacking voicing contrasts in stops (simple Occam's Razor again) and that the transcription using Linear B values largely reflects reality. However if true, then it suggests that some values like that normally transcribed as d must be off a little since the above gaps are very rare to non-existent in world languages. We then might look for a more reasonable value for d that rebalances this phonology in a more natural way and even more preferably, a value that also explains its eventual usage in Greek.
If there are no voicing contrasts in Minoan stops, then it seems to me that the likeliest value for d is something more like an unaspirated affricate: /tʃ/. There are also two apparent sibilants s and z in this language, so perhaps with d and z having the same point of articulation we might similarly suggest a value of /ʃ/ for z.
This admittedly casual thought of mine comes with some interesting side-effects though, for good or for bad. While we find the name of a Cretan town, ku-do-ni-ja 'Kydonía', written in Greek Linear B, we also find a Minoan parallel in Linear A, ku-do-ni (HT 13.4, HT 85 a.4) ~ ka-u-do-ni (HT 26 b.2-3), which might then be rewritten as Kaučoni /kawtʃoni/. I'm not the first to equate these names in both scripts together. And is it possible that the name Kydonia is ultimately a Minoan word for 'quince', I wonder? All idle thoughts perhaps, but this is what my busy mind has been thinking of so far and maybe a reader out there has something more to add here... ?
Indeed this is a good remark and an interesting proposition. Since linguistics is my hobby,I have also pondered about the pelicularity of the minoan linear sylllabary.
ReplyDeleteThe phoneme system of the underlying language undoubtedly shows some pelicularities: there is strong indication on the absence of (most) voiced consonants. As for the vowels, 'E' is rare, and the vowel 'O' is even less well represented in linear A inscriptions (is it possible that the 'O'-signs stood for long 'U' ?).
Altogether, these features suggest that the phonetic system of Minoan language was apparently close to the Etruscan-Lemnian and the Anatolian languages. Since these languages belong to different families, it is possible that what we see is in fact an "Aegean areal effect", resulting in lexical exchange and phonological assimilation.
Now, if this theory is true, we may attempt to reconstruct the Minoan phoneme system. If we use the Etruscan-Lemnian system as a model, we get the following: There is no distinction between voiced and voiceless consonants (the former are essentially absent), but we have a second, 'ejective' series of consonants (ph, th, sh, etc.). For some of this second series of consonants, we have examples in the Linear A/B scripts: the best is the case of LinAB*29 = PU2. It only occurs in special positions, such as in LinB da-pu2-ri-to-jo (labyrintheion) or in LinA ja-di-ki-te-te-du-pu2-re. The fact that the *29 sign has special value (not just = PU) was discovered long ago. PU2 was supposedly ejective (*phu), and typically occurs in places where one would expect at least partial voicing of consonants (cluster 'ph-r' in our examples).
But we can carry our hypothesis further. If there was a series of signs for 'P' (pa, pe, pi, po, pu) and 'PH' (pa3,?,?,?,pu2), then what about the other consonants? Apart from the very problematic R-series (the exact values of ra2 and ra3 are very dubious), there is another one well-known pair of series: the 'D' and the 'T' series. If we disregard the additional T and D signs (such as ta2, twe, two, dwe and dwo - more on these later), we may get a perfect pair of the simple T and the ejective TH. As for me, I think that the D-series actually represents the 'T' sound, while the T-series in fact stands for 'TH'. Yet prooves for theory are meager. We may compare ja-di-ki-te-te-du-pu2-re with the eteocretan text fragment 'TUPRMERIEJA' - if the identification of 'tupr' is correct, then the du-sign is actually *tu.
As for the presence of affricates, the rare eteocretan texts indeed suggest their presence as well. So it is certainly a meaningful attempt, if we try to identify their corresponding signs in Minoan. There are several possible candidates. First is plain D or T signs. Second, there are the additional D and T-series signs (e.g. ta2 or twe), that are considerably rare in linear A texts (some of the signs aren't represented at all). Third, there is the Z-series (za, ze, ?, zo, ?). Ass for me, I prefer the third solution. If the Minoan language indeed lacked all voiced consonants, then what was the value assigned to LinAB *17 (=za)? As the sign *17 occurs requently on word-endings in linear A, and commonly with the preceding vowel 'I' as -i-za, it is not impossible to suppose an identification with the frequent pre-greek substratum ending -issos (or -issa). As the Greek language does have a perfect 'Z' sound (and always had), the development -i-za > -issa is only likely if the Minoan sign was an affricate (*ts), that the Greek rendered to a stressed 'S'.
As for the equation of ku-do-ni with ka-u-do-ni, there is an important caveat: the latter word-stem re-occurs on the HT tablets differently, as ka-u-de-ta. So ka-u-do-ni might not be Kydonia (= ku-do-ni). On the other hand, you may reason with the (undoubtable) equation between the eteocretan words ISALURIA and ISALABRE (different declinated forms of a stem *isalawr = goat's cheese).
Welcome, Andras,
ReplyDelete"Since these languages belong to different families, [...]"
Never assume. Given current knowledge, a relationship between Minoan and the conclusively non-Indo-European/non-Semitic Etrusco-Lemnian languages cannot be ruled out. Nonetheless, this possibility should not bias a diligent analysis of the Minoan syllabary so let's proceed.
"[...] There is no distinction between voiced and voiceless consonants [...], but we have a second, 'ejective' series of consonants (ph, th, sh, etc.)."
Another assumption: ejectives. Aside from the fact that ejective fricatives like /sʼ/ are uncommon in languages, this doesn't even fit the phonologies of the surrounding area where the only thing remotely similar might be the Semitic pharyngeal series.
Yet if we replace your ejectives with pharyngeals, we get back to the possibility of mere aspiration (regardless of articulation) being a distinctive contrast in Minoan stops, a feature found in Etrusco-Lemnian dialects.
"PU2 was supposedly ejective (*phu), [...]"
I challenge all my commenters to supply facts over hearsay. I loathe imprecise chitchat and turn fierce when people fail to cite references.
Since Linear B uses pu₂ as both /bu/ in da-pu₂-ri-to-jo *daburíntʰoyo 'of the labyrinth' (KN Gg 702) and /pʰu/ in pu₂-te-re *pʰutēres 'planters' (Chadwick, Reading the Past - Linear B and related scripts, p.27), this is inadequate evidence for any ejective series.
"We may compare ja-di-ki-te-te-du-pu2-re with the eteocretan text fragment 'TUPRMERIEJA' [...]"
Why may we so at all?
"As for the equation of ku-do-ni with ka-u-do-ni, there is an important caveat: the latter word-stem re-occurs on the HT tablets differently, as ka-u-de-ta."
A caveat based on an assumption is empty. You must first show that ka-u-de-ta has any relation to ka-u-do-ni aside from superficial resemblance.
"On the other hand, you may reason with the (undoubtable) equation between the eteocretan words ISALURIA and ISALABRE (different declinated forms of a stem *isalawr = goat's cheese)."
Calling it "undoubtable" is a mischaracterization of the facts. Something so obscure, from a non-Minoan language yet, can hardly prove an alternation of au/u in Minoan, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. Non sequitur.
In the Dreros #1 inscription, we may certainly doubt that these two words represent different declensional forms, although they could be related somehow if the twice-repeated Greek stem turo- is any indication. Frustratingly, we have little to go on here. I must admit that positing a root *isalawr- behind these two forms is, if anything, rather clever.
[I] If we replace ejectives with pharyngeals, we get back to the possibility of mere aspiration (regardless of articulation) being a distinctive contrast in Minoan stops, a feature found in Etrusco-Lemnian dialects. [/I]
ReplyDeleteI have to admit: you are absolutely right about this remark. It seems certainly a better-founded concept to suppose a primary difference between certain consonantal series based on aspiration/non-aspiration.
I must admit too, that Minoan tablets offer rather sparse insights to the whole system of language. Especially problematic is the fact that Minoan texts (and even linB greek texts) are prone to simplify consonantal clusters (so: Phaistos = pa-i-to with -st- -> -t-, in both LinA and LinB). Frankly said, I do not know how common is the same phenomenon for vowels in linA texts. I couldn't find enough evidence.
Nevertheless, the presence of "surplus" characters for certain consonantal series poses a problem for interpretation. The most common assumption is, that they represent different types of consonants, by labialisation (example: LinAB *04=TE <-> *87=TWE).
I would like to ask you: do you believe that this was indeed a primary contrast found in the Minoan language? Or would you rather think of some aspiration or palatalisation (Beekes' pre-greek theory) as a source of contrast? Or would you put your 5 cents with the difference being in the length of vowels (suggested after Van Effenterre's works on Eteocretan texts)? I can tell you I was a fan of Beekes' theory until I checked all the independent (not yet assigned or partially assigned) linear A signs that could carry a phonetic value. There are simply not enough of them to support a double contrast (three full consonantal series).
Also, please forgive me for not citing literature references in my first post. I am usually not that sloppy, but the blog limited my text (so I had to throw out some sentences).
"Especially problematic is the fact that Minoan texts (and even linB greek texts) are prone to simplify consonantal clusters (so: Phaistos = pa-i-to with -st- -> -t-, in both LinA and LinB)."
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about that is if pa-i-to is the city "Phaistos" (HT 97a.3, 120.6) as we find it spelled in Linear B, it doesn't seem likely that this Minoan city was given a foreign Greek name Phaistos. So I wonder if it's possible that, if anything, the Linear A pa-i-to represents a pronunciation like *Pʰaizo (z = /ts/) with an affricate later corrupted in Greek. Not sure.
"I would like to ask you: do you believe that this was indeed a primary contrast found in the Minoan language? Or would you rather think of some aspiration or palatalisation (Beekes' pre-greek theory) as a source of contrast?"
I think, if there are any stop contrasts in Minoan, a feature of aspiration is the likeliest answer (but only because I'm pursuing the idea that Minoan is to be classified as a "Proto-Aegean" language related to Etruscan, Lemnian and Rhaetic).
I don't think we can learn much from some symbols, like those representing twe, pte or dwo, since they don't necessarily come from Linear A values, or these values may have changed in the B script (eg. maybe LA *tu → LB twe or LA *to → LB dwo as a couple of possibilities for the sake of argument). Or maybe some Linear B values are based on *Greek* words that the symbols represented and then would have no relationship to Linear A values.
"Or would you put your 5 cents with the difference being in the length of vowels (suggested after Van Effenterre's works on Eteocretan texts)?"
Arbitrary theories don't help us and need not be mentioned. There's no direct evidence for vocalic length nor is it even represented in Linear B. Thus, these ideas are very easy to reject outright.
Since we don't have much evidence to go on, I believe the best way to crack Minoan is ultimately not in trying to arrive at an accurate phonology but instead to comprehend the Libation Formula both as a whole and in part since the Libation Formula seems to be rather sadly one of the longest Minoan texts we have available to us.
"There are simply not enough of them to support a double contrast (three full consonantal series)."
This is only from assuming that stop contrasts were important enough for scribes to record. Can we assume this? Greek scribes got by just fine without contrasting the phonemic voice or aspiration contrasts of its stops. Why do we assume differently for the Minoans?
From what I see from the writing itself, there's probably nothing at all to go on to show a clear written contrast in stops between aspirate/inaspirate or any other contrast. If we can be certain that Minoan speakers were the ones who first established this script and had reasonably represented their language with it (which is the premise on which my above entry is built), the Linear B values make a voicing contrast unlikely but I doubt there's much more we may infer beyond that about the phonology.
If related to Etrusco-Lemnian languages, I'd expect Minoan would have a possible, hidden aspiration contrast in stops as well as some affricates if the Linear A d-series is related to common Etrusco-Lemnian affricate *z. However, labialized stops, palatalized stops and now ejectives seem to me to be purely imaginative overkill, based on nothing concrete.
The strategy of Beekes to use Greek words and names of foreign origin (or more accurately "allegedly foreign", mind you) as evidence for certain characteristics of the Minoan phonology is interesting but unavoidably imprecise. We shouldn't grasp at straws.
(Late to the topic, but here goes anyway…)
ReplyDeleteI recall seeing a value of /tʃ/ proposed for Greek delta in some descendant alphabet somewhere too. Have you gone over any such issue before in an Etruscan-related context perhaps?
As for the asymmetry of only having one voiced stop, just for the record, there certainly are precedents - the UPSID has 17 examples of languages with a single voiced stop, tho only 3 of them a coronal stop (and even then one of them appears to pattern together with a /β/). (Modern Finnish is another data point, but on the artificial side.)
Also, Semitic emphatics were likely originally ejectiv, not pharyngealized. [1]
(I do think a lack of voicing contrast still sounds the plausiblest for Linear A however)
Also, is the ka-u-do-ni / ku-do-ni connection really any less hypothetical than that to ka-u-de-ta? Is there any precedent for either alternation (-au-/-u-, -oni/-eta)?
Belated or not, there's no time limit, Tropylium. Thanks for the input all the same!
ReplyDeleteTropylium: "As for the asymmetry of only having one voiced stop, just for the record, there certainly are precedents [...]"
You've merely found that such things are exceedingly rare. Tell me, what would a reasonable person choose: A) the fantastical, delightful & rare, or B) Occam's Razor?
We can find any linguistic pattern to fit any whim. As I already explained, when taken literally, the transliterated values in Minoan are greatly at odds with the statistical tendency of world languages as a whole. Since nothing proves that the offending transliterated values accurately reflect Minoan sounds, Logic obligates us to reevaluate this Mycenaean-based transliteration, not justify it in blind faith.
"Also, Semitic emphatics were likely originally ejectiv[e], not pharyngealized."
Since we're talking about Minoan of the 2nd millenium BCE, the proposed phonologies of Proto-Semitic (c.5000 BCE) or even earlier Proto-Afro-Asiatic are entirely anachronistic to this topic and thus irrelevant.
Pharyngealized stops, not ejective ones, were the norm in neighbouring West Semitic languages of the Minoan period, such as in Ugaritic (read Zemánek, The origins of pharyngealization in Semitic, page 4).
When I mentioned "the Semitic pharyngeal series" in an above comment, I was referring not to Proto-Semitic phonology but to the collective phonologies of Semitic languages (particularly West Semitic languages) of the Minoan period.
"Have you gone over any such issue before in an Etruscan-related context perhaps?"
No. First, in Etruscan, which lacks voicing contrasts, the letter delta is without concrete purpose. So it's seldom used other than as an alternative to tau which represents unaspirated voiceless /t/.
Second, the pecular relationships between the Semitic-based scripts later shared by Greeks and Etruscans can't be expected to be the same as those concerning the Linear scripts.
"Also, is the ka-u-do-ni / ku-do-ni connection really any less hypothetical than that to ka-u-de-ta?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at but if we're talking about phonetic and contextual similarity, absolutely!
An alternation of u/au is much less of a stretch than splicing a root **kaud- without even bothering to justify the resultant endings **-oni and **-eta.
However, I've not yet found another lexeme with this same u ~ au alternation. However, if the comparison is sound, I personally doubt the spelling difference represents an actual phonetic alternation.
"Is there any precedent for either alternation (-au-/-u-, -oni/-eta)?"
ReplyDeleteYes, PIE *sus ~ *sausos.¹
"Tell me, what would a reasonable person choose: A) the fantastical, delightful & rare, or B) Occam's Razor?"
Occam's Razor, in the applicable the formulation, is a tool, not a rule, and while it can certainly be useful, we should be wary of overapplying it. To do so would be to run the risk of erring on the side of blandness, in contravention to language's observationally confirmed zest. While individual typological rarities and other linguistic oddballs are by their very nature rare, they are as a group quite common. Thus, while English might not have, for example, diagonal vowel harmony like Mongolian, it does have semi-deictic voicing of word-initial interdental fricatives (e.g. "there", "though", "thy"), and while Persian may have neither, it does exhibit a bizarre change of -id to -in in the colloquial pronunciation of the second person plural ending, and while West Frisian may have none of these things, it does have a truly breathtaking number of vowels and diphthongs. It is normal for a language to be abnormal in some way. Additionally, these abnormalities mean something. We don't know what, but any quantum physicist will tell you that that one experiment which annoyingly refuses to live up to your explanations contains deep secrets waiting to be unraveled.
Sergei Andropov: "Yes, PIE *sus ~ *sausos."
ReplyDeleteMore generally, the reduction of diphthongs (ie. /aw/ > /o/ ~ /u/; /aj/ > /e/ ~ /i/) is quite common, as is the converse pattern.
A theory based on a cross-linguistic tendency is preferable over an analysis that resorts to ad hoc slicing of words, which is why I must reject the idle ka-u-de-ta - ka-u-do-ni comparison suggested by other commenters. It's 'eyeballing', pure and simple.
"Occam's Razor, in the applicable the formulation, is a tool, not a rule, and while it can certainly be useful, we should be wary of overapplying it."
Nonsense: Without THIS rule we simply have *NO* rule. Your appeal to whim draws you into self-indulgent madness with nothing to help you but the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Tell us what principle your computer runs on other than Logic.
Your fear is misplaced. You don't fear the OVERapplication of Occam's Razor but the MISapplication of it. We musn't judge the rule at fault for irrational theorists.
If your accusation is true that I've misapplied it, you would identify where I've misapplied it using relevant facts. So far, you haven't.
We both agree that Minoan's sound system as currently transcribed is exceedingly rare, so it hardly matters that 'oddball languages' are common as a group. Since you haven't proven that Minoan truly lacks /g/ and /b/ while retaining /d/, your path of reasoning is based on imaginary facts and is ergo flawed. We are logically forbidden to theorize more than necessary and it's not necessary to have blind faith in the modern transcription of Minoan.
When and only when you demonstrate conclusively that the phonology as transcribed is real and not a modern artifice, then you're warranted in lecturing me on the misapplication of Occam's Razor.
First of all, I am not making any claims one way or the other regarding Minoan, I'm taking issue with the grounds on which you rejected an assertion. I do this primarily because Logic is almost universally spurned these days, and I do not wish to see one of its few adherents accidentally discard it.
ReplyDeleteThere is more than one formulation of Occam's Razor. The only one of these that is Logically binding is the original formulation, "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", which can be expressed in mathematical terms by saying that A+B=C is better than A+D-D+B=C. Thus, for example, it is illogical for us to posit on the basis of available evidence a formulation of Grimm's Law that includes t>tˤ>t>tʰ>θ. The more common formulation, and the one that you are using, is that we should, in our explanations, favor simpler arguments over complex ones. While this one is a valuable tool in guiding our inquiries, it cannot be said to be a tenet of logic.
Now, note that I said above, "on the basis of available evidence." This is the key, and is why we as historical linguists should be wary of treating either formulation of Occam's Razor as a hard and fast law. In our field, there is a spectacular amount of evidence that is not, and never will be, available — the droguli I mentioned a while ago. Regarding the above example, we have no way of knowing whether or not Grimm's law was preceded in Germanic by a brief period of pharyngealization that ended before it could affect any other sound changes. We can say that it is unlikely, we can say that it cannot be posited according to what we know, but we cannot say that for certain that it did not happen. Due to the limitations of the comparative method, it is beyond our ken.
These dangers are even greater for the informal formulation, which should not be logically binding anyways. To again use Grimm's Law as an example, the simplest thing to do is to view it as just a normal chain shift: t>tʰ>θ, d>tʰ, dʰ>d. The more complex thing is what Voyles does: t>tʰ, [tʰ,dʰ]>[θ,δ], d>tʰ, and then eventually δ>d in most environments. While this is more phonetically elegant than the classic view, strict observance of the informal formulation of Occam's Razor would require us to state that it did not happen. This would, however, be in error, as is evidenced by the orthographic alternation of SVEVI ~ SVEBI (Modern German Schwaben) seen in Roman sources.
Thus, with regards to the issue at hand, neither logic nor Logic requires us to reevaluate Minoan transcription (which is of course provisional anyway). The informal formulation of Occam's Razor does suggest that we do so, but all it can do is suggest. Even that suggestion should be lesser grounds for the reevaluation of Minoan d than your observation of the d ~ l ~ th alternation in Whatshisname's various appellations.
Again, I make this point only because I know of your unquestionable desire to conform to Logic.
Sergei Andropov,
ReplyDeleteTrolls by definition ignore facts, even simple and clearly defined ones, while appealing desperately to every logical fallacy known to humankind.
You insist on ignoring the simple facts I already explained to you clearly:
1. Minoan transcription is based solely on Mycenaean values and remains unverified.
2. The resultant transcription-based sound system shows a highly implausible sound system based on universal language tendencies and collected statistics.
Whilst transparently ignoring these incontrovertible facts, you exploit numerous fallacies such as appeal to ignorance (ie. "it is beyond our ken"), ad populum (ie. irrelevant mention that adherants of Logic are rare in society), ad hominem (ie. that adherants of Logic are additionally maligned, and by association, I as well) and the suspicious lack of comprehension concerning Occam's Razor (ie. the idea that Grimm's Law and subsequent modifications are somehow *not* arrived at precisely by this most logical principle when all indications show otherwise).
When you have facts relevant to this topic without appeals to fallacies, I will gladly post your comments.
"Again, I make this point only because I know of your unquestionable desire to conform to Logic."
Indeed it's precisely due to this open desire that I'm also open to attack by disturbed anti-intellectual anarchists who have nothing better to do with their time. It's rather sad that you can't share in this desire, demonstrated by your replacement of "our" in your statement with a more condascending use of "your".
As if it's not patently obvious from simple deduction that Minoan 'd' cannot be trusted at face value and that this *is* indeed a logical path of inquiry, everyone may read my reference, Geoffrey Sampson, Writing systems - A linguistic introduction (1990), p.72, which clearly states for all to read:
ReplyDelete"The fact that Linear B script does distinguish between voiced and voiceless among the dentals need not imply that Minoan speech included a voiced/voiceless distinction at just that place of articulation and no others (which would be linguistically rather implausible - if a voicing contrast is used at all in a language it normally runs right across the various categories of consonants)." (boldface mine)
On this blog, those who bring me to task on Logic should at least have the decency to have references ready. Ignorance is a distraction to intellectual debate and I won't tolerate it since all who have a connection online to access my blog also have access to vast sums of information if they go to the bother of looking for it. We're still awaiting Sergei's references.