In my previous post (Odysseus, Uthuze and Utnapishtim), I finished off with the dangling idea that the name Odysseus had reached Anatolia and the Aegean by the second millenium BCE. This shouldn't be a provocative speculation given the facts and communis opinio. However, the question is exactly how the name entered Greek and how a Sumerian name Utu-zi suggested by the Babylonian rendering of the name Utnapishtim (UD.ZItim) might have even influenced Greek if Sumerian is said to have been a dead language by the beginning of the 2nd millenium BCE!
There are additional facts that make this topic very intriguing, such as the fact that Ὀδυσσεύς (''Odusseús'') is but one Greek reflex of the name, others being Ὀλυσσεύς (''Olusseús''), Οὐλιξεύς (''Oulikseús'') and Οὐλίξης (''Oulíksēs'') from whence Latin Ulysses. Notice the alternation of d to l? Strangely enough Robert Beekes identifies a lot of "Pre-Greek" words with this same alternation and many of the pairs seem to me to be rather convincing. As previously mentioned, the Etruscan name shows an aspirated plosive th, yet another phoneme for what is surely the same sound in the beginning.
So here's what I hypothesize to explain all this maddening variation. Let's presume that Beekes' observation of "Pre-Greek" d/l alternation is suggestive of Minoan phonology. The unetymologizable d/l pairs in Greek are afterall inexorably linked to the current awkwardness of the Minoan transliteration (cf. Paleoglot: A new value for Minoan 'd') which doesn't exhibit a natural phonology for a language. I've previously suggested an affricate /t͡ʃ/ for Minoan "d" but I'm lately honestly considering an affricate /t͡θ/, attested in Athabaskan languages, which when unaspirated may be mistaken as either a "d" or an "l", particularly in a language like Mycenaean Greek which evidently lacked this sound. This brings us to a reconstructed Minoan form *Oduze /'Ot͡θut͡se/ which is more in line with the presumed Sumerian form.
Now how might the Sumerian form enter Minoan by chance? Certainly one way would be if a Minoan scribe moderately knowledgeable in Babylonian characters read the Sumerograms UD.ZI literally as Utuzi. The use of the original Sumerian phonetic values for the Babylonian symbols when writing Babylonian long postdates the extinction of the Sumerian language.
Finally, back to the Etruscan aspirated plosive, I would suggest that there may be a correspondance between Minoan "d" /t͡θ/ and Proto-Cyprian *tʰ. (Note: I've now decided to call Proto-Etrusco-Cypriot simply Proto-Cyprian since, for one thing, it's easier to type. Lol.) From Cyprian, we get the derivative languages Etruscan, Lemnian, Rhaetic, Eteo-Cypriot and Eteo-Cretan.
2009-11-09
A Pre-Greek name for Odysseus
Labels: babylonian, greek, history, language, linguistics, minoan, sumerian
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)



4 comments:
Wouldn't a lateral affricate or just lateral fricative (they sound the same to my inexperience ear) make more sense?
I don't know about the rest of the phonetic system of Minoan, so I don't know how typologically plausible it is. But I can definitely see d/l alternation come from ɬ/ɮ (my font is giving me trouble, if these don't show those are: voiceless lateral fricative/voiced lateral fricative). The reflex of Etruscan "th" is a bit harder to me. Which makes me wonder if it is maybe a lateral affricate. That would feel very 'Nahuatl-like'. I wonder if the Minoan phonology can be somewhat compared to Nahuatl, typologically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Nahuatl
When I read the alternations, the first thing that came to my mind was the Mongolian lateral, /ɮ/ alternating with [ɬ]. I help teach ESL, and a Mongolian student of mine sometimes uses it for /d/ and /l/ (neither of which is present in Mongolian), so I can definitely see how a speaker of a language which does have both sounds might mistake it for either. Moreover, if the original phoneme in Proto-Something-Or-Other was a lateral affricate /*dɮ/ or /*tɬ/, I can imagine it ultimately yielding Etruscan /tʰ/.
I have absolutely no idea how this might fit in with the rest of the languages involved (I'm just a humble Iranist), but I thought I'd throw it out there nonetheless.
Now, considering the post you linked to regarding the potential phonetic realization of Minoan "d" and "z": would that man that "z" (as a fricative) is a "th" sound?
This plosive/liquid confusion isn't restricted to the likes of /ɮ/. One might also note Japanese r, an alveolar tap, which sounds often like English d. Also, English medial -t- in many dialects (like mine) becomes a tap, sounding more like an r or d.
The real question is what evidence specifically concerning Minoan is able to yay or nay any of the particular proposals we have available?
Post a Comment