Weiss attempts to crack it by properly noting the preterite verb at the end. However drawing blanks on precise values, he describes hktaonosi as a possible 'pertinentive' and suspects that soromš : aslaš looks like a subject phrase. The last suggestion must be based on his training in Italic Indo-European languages but this language family won't help him here. Scholars agree that Lemnian is related to Etruscan and entirely non-Indo-European.
To begin deciphering this inscription, we must first transliterate this inscription better. Since we know from the Lemnos Stele that the Lemnian alphabet used omikron for /u/, we should replace o with u. If anything, this helps make the relationship with 'o-less' Etruscan more obvious, aiding in translation. Also the third item, hktaonosi, is surely malformed since we also know from Etruscan study that this is a language with a fixed stress accent on the first syllable. The cluster hk- is quite impossible so this spelling must either be a transliteration error or a scribal misspelling for, presumably, *hektaunusi.
Weiss is correct that the last word is a preterite verb, specifically a perfect preterite which Etruscan marks in -ace. The stem hel- is also comparable to Etruscan where it appears to mean 'to slay, to kill'. This immediately establishes that this sentence refers to an offering being made.
We should analyse hktaunusi as a dative in -si signifying 'for' since this case suffix is found identically in Etruscan. Presumably then, aslaś h[e]ktaunusi is to whom the sacrifice was performed. Judging by other inscriptions of this nature, it's no doubt the name of an individual. This leaves surumś, an apparent type-I genitive in -ś which must be what was sacrificed.
We arrive at a provisional translation of "[Surum] has been slain for Axulos Hektaion." I presume here that the name of the recipient in question is Greek, a conclusion that I doubt would be objectionable considering its context on an Aegean island.
Hi Glen! I have a bit different explanation of the phrase in mind. The core concept is similar, the only difference lies in the interpretation of datives and genitives, if they co-occur, in a single phrase. Use it or discard it, it's up to you.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if this could be another example of a Tyrhhenian "double dative" formation. To put it short, neither Etruscan, nor Lemnian had any separate dative and ablative cases. As you well know, the dative case could fulfill either role, when the direction was otherwise obvious from the context. But if one needed to clearly separate the donor from the receiver, then Etruscans apparently used a different structure: When the dative case was forced to choose between the "dative" or "ablative" sense of use, it tended to take up the latter (expressing the donor), leaving the receiver to be expressed by a bare genitive. It is clear that the genitive can sometimes express the receiver (dative-like sense of usage) even without the "double dative" (e.g. Unial Astres on the Pyrgi Tablets). But the "double dative" is clearly observable in Lemnian, compare holaiezi φokiasiale (dative, stand-alone formation) with holaiez naφoθ ziazi ("double dative" - one donor [in dative], one receiver [in genitive]). (It is another question whether words like φokiasiale and wanalasial carry a single case marker or chains of genitive-dative cases). So, as a result, I would rather interpret soromz as the receiver and hktaonosi (or aslaz hktaonosi) as the donor. It is just pure imagination, but does hktaonosi have anything to do with 'hecatomb' (ἑκατόμβη) ?
The phenomenon (if correctly interpreted) would remind me to the one seen in my native language, Hungarian, which lacks a proper genitive case (due to the existence of an alternative possessive-marking system). Dative can be used to express both genitive and dative meanings, but when an ambiguity would arise, the dative is forced back to its original sense of use, and the owner's name will stand in a bare nominative case. I wondered - could such parallels mean that the original sense of meaning expressed by the Aegean dative was in fact ablative?
Bayndor: "I was wondering if this could be another example of a Tyrhhenian 'double dative' formation."
ReplyDeleteNope. Suffixaufnahme alone is possible here, but these are **NOT** datives. Datives are marked in -si, not -s.
See my file: Etrusco-Lemnian declension [pdf].
"To put it short, neither Etruscan, nor Lemnian had any separate dative and ablative cases. As you well know, the dative case could fulfill either role,[...]"
Very false. Evidently you're confused about the cases, and quite frankly, the Etruscanists I've read are just as confused. Here's a summary of case usage for Etrusco-Rhaetic languages:
Genitive (-as/-al):
Origin or possession.
Dative (-asi/-ale):
Purpose or goal.
Directive (-is):
Motion towards.
"It is clear that the genitive can sometimes express the receiver (dative-like sense of usage) even without the 'double dative' (e.g. Unial Astres on the Pyrgi Tablets).
Oy veh. First, Unial-Astres 'of Uni-Ashtarte' could be a misreading for Unialas-tres 'for/to the Temple of Uni' (cf. spureś-treś [LL 2.ii] 'for/to the city').
Second, ignore what you read from Bonfante et alia about "genitives with dative function". Their sole examples involve the one verb tur 'to give'. The recipient and the possessor are synonymous in these cases because the verb is inherently punctual and resultative. So there's still only a genitive of origin/possession in the end.
"But the 'double dative' is clearly observable in Lemnian, compare holaiezi φokiasiale"
Thanks for disproving yourself. ;o) Here, Suffixaufnahme marks two elements that together refer to a single concept, namely our dearly departed Hulaie the Phocaean.
(It is another question whether words like φokiasiale and wanalasial carry a single case marker or chains of genitive-dative cases.)
Obviously the latter: Vanal-as-ial and Φuki-as-iale. *Vanal is a name (cf. Etr Venel) and Φuke is 'Phocaea'.
Bayndor: "It is just pure imagination, but does hktaonosi have anything to do with 'hecatomb' (ἑκατόμβη)?
ReplyDeleteSince hktaonosi is a dative in -si, it can only mean 'for hktaon'.
In inscriptions, datives typically mark people as it does in the Lemnos Stele. If a name, I think of Hektaion (<? ἑκταῖος 'sixth') and this reminds me of the Roman praenomen Sextus.
Well looky looky. A piece of the puzzle just feel into my lap: Hekataios of Miletos. So there is such a Greek name afterall and an ancient one at that.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your detailed, and critical answer!
ReplyDeleteI think I should have written "avoidance of double dative" instead of "double dative" (between quotation marks), since I wanted to stress the phenomenon of not seeing datives in some places where they are expected to be used (e.g. the deceased person's name in the first line of the Lemnos Stele is featured as Hoaiez [*Hulaieś] which is apperently a genitive). But I hope you got what I indented to say.
Staying with Hktaonosi, it's not a bad parallel what you have found in Greek. Maybe the ambiguous reading of the ancient Heth letter (*h in some dialects, *e: in others) can explain why they did not insert any vowel after that one. So the term is not necessarily a misspelling.
Bayndor: "(e.g. the deceased person's name in the first line of the Lemnos Stele is featured as Hoaiez [*Hulaieś] which is apperently a genitive)."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly you expect. Hulaieś naφuθ simply means "Hulaie's grandson" and there's no need for a dative in that context.
"Maybe the ambiguous reading of the ancient Heth letter (*h in some dialects, *e: in others) can explain why they did not insert any vowel after that one.
That was exactly what I thought and it made me think that the scribe himself was Greek. I can imagination there must have been much Greek-Lemnian bilingualism on the island.
[b]...I'm not sure exactly you expect. Hulaieś naφuθ simply means "Hulaie's grandson" and there's no need for a dative in that context....[/b]
ReplyDeleteNo need, but the dative with genitive meaning does exist in my own language, Dutch.
Glen's (normal genitive) hoed (Glen's hat)
is often expressed as
Glen zijn hoed (Glen his hat). Here Glen was originally a dative, but in modern Dutch dative endings are virtually non-existent.
All you're saying is that in some languages what we call "genitive" and what we call "dative" sometimes overlap.
ReplyDeleteI can't emphasize enough that these names we use for cases aren't exact from language to language. So if Dutch should mix a function of a genitive with that of a dative (however you define that term) it's not of consequence to what we actually find in Etruscan itself.
The inexactness of correspondences between cases is much like that for prepositions or postpositions. Learning French as a child, I had a hard time beating myself out of saying "c'est sur la télé" for "it's on TV" (as in a program). The correct phrase is "c'est à la télé" because the preposition "sur" is interpreted literally in French. (If I were refering to cat sleeping literally ON the TV, then I may use "sur".) The French phrase too is translated back into English literally as "it is at the T.V." which is yet some other nuance altogether.
So what does "on" really mean? What's "for", "at", "to" or "from"? What's a "genitive case"? Does it have the same function in every language? We must ask these questions when learning new languages because things are not equivalent, even superficial case names like "genitive" and "dative".
In Etruscan, the genitive is fundamentally possessive while the dative is fundamentally purposive. This is not necessarily the case in other languages which are said to use "genitive" and "dative" cases.
There is a picture on "rasenna blog".
ReplyDeleteIt is surprising.
"soromsh aslash" is the lower line!
I leave the rest to you.
Ah, you're right, Zu! Everybody can check it out at Rex Wallace's website: Rasenna Blog: New Lemnian inscription.
ReplyDelete