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.
9 Nov 2009
A Pre-Greek name for Odysseus
Labels:
babylonian,
greek,
history,
language,
linguistics,
minoan,
sumerian
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wouldn't a lateral affricate or just lateral fricative (they sound the same to my inexperience ear) make more sense?
ReplyDeleteI 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/.
ReplyDeleteI 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?
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is what evidence specifically concerning Minoan is able to yay or nay any of the particular proposals we have available?
There are some examples for d/l alteration on indo-european ground. we can find it in greek 'to dakru/dakruma' changed into latin 'lacrima' and in latin variation 'odor' and 'olere' originating from the same IE root. although I couldn't find any example concerning such a change in archaic greek.
ReplyDeleteThe Etruscan Uthuze had also other variations as Uthste, Uthuste, Utusthe, Utuze - so the aspiration wasn't so obvious even for native speakers and cannot be treated so seriously ;o)
for *Oduze there's a quite convincing interpretation of Palmer in 'The Greek Language'. I'm not a specialist in any way, but his solution seems very probable to me.
Hanna: "There are some examples for d/l alteration on indo-european ground."
ReplyDeleteYes, but these sporadic changes are not a coherent feature of Proto-Indo-European nor of its languages. They also persist in abundance in a wealth of Greek words of specifically *non*-IE origin, which is why Professor Robert Beekes of Leiden University has devoted his time to the issue.
Read also Paleoglot: A new value for Minoan 'd' where I explain why Minoan had no voiced plosives and that 'd' is instead an affricate or fricative based on phonological grounds.
"The Etruscan Uthuze had also other variations as Uthste, Uthuste, Utusthe, Utuze"
Among other things, you're ignoring a simple statistical fact: this name begins far more often as Uth- than as Ut- in Etruscan. The Greek forms which only contain d or l simply cannot explain away the Etruscan forms. The forms with theta are simply not from Greek and Etruscan's affricate -z- in place of Greek -ss- clearly preserves a form predating that of Classical Greek.
And the fact remains that Etruscan θ /tʰ/ and t /t/ are kept distinct elsewhere, so it's vacuous to not take this a bit more seriously.
Surely then, its archetypal "header form" is Uθuze. Be aware that the variant Utuze may have conceivably been contaminated by the Etruscan verb ut to which I ascribe the meaning 'to deliver' and which pops up often in a ritual context. Such puns happen constantly with mythic names. Variants with -st(h)- are easily accounted for by simple phonetic metathesis of original -z- /tʃ/.
"for *Oduze there's a quite convincing interpretation of Palmer in 'The Greek Language'."
Alright, I'll have to review what he says about that and come back to you.
thank you very much for your answer :o)
ReplyDeleteI'm not very persistant about Greek origin of Odusseus, because as I said I'm not an expert. Although:
I took a look on Beekes' article on pre-greek words and loans. there is 5 examples of d/l alteration. it's not abundant material in any way, but still it is disturbing, that it exists at all. and unfortunately Palmer doesn't explain it.
If you take archaic attic versions of Odusseus, I don't see any reason, why I couldn't take etruscan versions besides 'header form', which is Uthuze?
Besides, forms with theta don't proove it cannot be a loan from Greek, since voiced [d] had to become voiceless due to etruscan phonetics and G. and L. Bonfante mentioned alternation of c:ch, t:th and p:ph.
also gr. lekythos becomes lechtumuza, kylix > culichna, latin Neptunus becomes Nethuns.
anyway I admire your hard work and I must admit I know nothing about Minoan phonology :o)
Hanna: "If you take archaic attic versions of Odusseus, I don't see any reason, why I couldn't take etruscan versions besides 'header form', which is Uthuze?"
ReplyDeleteBecause of the most popular variant with aspirated theta which could never be from any known variants of Greek Ὀδυσσεύς. Spelling isn't just random.
"Besides, forms with theta don't proove it cannot be a loan from Greek, since voiced [d] had to become voiceless due to etruscan phonetics [...]"
Voice is irrelevant here (although you're correct that Etruscans devoiced foreign voiced stops). The issue is the source of Etruscan aspiration. You may ignore my "header form" but the prevalence of theta over tau in Etruscan doesn't change.
"[...] and G. and L. Bonfante mentioned alternation of c:ch, t:th and p:ph."
You mean The Etruscan: An introduction, 2nd ed. (2002), p.78: "The alternation of c: ch, t: th; p: ph may be due to a purely graphic oscillation, but puia is always written with p, and thesan, thancvilus with th." The quote itself already answers your question.
"also gr. lekythos becomes lechtumuza, kylix > culichna, latin Neptunus becomes Nethuns."
Are you even sure that Greek λήκυθον and κύλικνος are native words? I contend that κύλικνος is of Minoan or Eteo-Cretan origin. And Etruscan Neθuns is from Umbrian *Nehtuns.
"anyway I admire your hard work and I must admit I know nothing about Minoan phonology :o)"
Thanks! I try my best to kick ass. Lol. ;o) But please, there's no need for confessing how little you might know. If knowledge is infinite, we're all equally ignorant, aren't we?