On the Minoan Language blog, Andras Zeke counters my entry against a prefix *i- in Minoan with a new idea that the morpheme in question was a separate deictic instead. Clever, however only I-QA-*118 (HT44) ~ QA-*118 (KH 10) and I-DA-MA-TE (AR Zf1) ~ DA-MA-TE (KY Za 2) are available as evidence for this vocalic utterance, only significant if we assume that the two items of each pair have identical meaning. The pair YA-SA-SA-RA-ME (TL Za 1) ~ A-SA-SA-RA-ME (PR Za 1) only suggests a consonantal onset but this then is poor evidence for a purported morpheme that's independent of the word it precedes. Instead, if we assume that the pairs with I-/∅- are proper, the disappearing initial *i- is likely an unaccented vowel prone to syncope. This leaves just YA-SA-SA-RA-ME ~ A-SA-SA-RA-ME to explain, which isn't likely to be due to some disappearing morpheme, there one minute and gone the next.
In Prefixes in Minoan, I alluded to the Proto-Aegean phonotactic constraint against word-initial *y- which is evident not only in Minoan but in Etruscan as well. Of the 1504 words and names logged in my Etruscan database, not a single one shows an underlying word-initial /j-/. There's no question to me then that Etruscan phonotactics simply barred the glide from word-initial positions altogether. The apparently random alternation of YA-SA-SA-RA-ME ~ A-SA-SA-RA-ME in Minoan can be most parsimoniously explained by the same constraint. Given this feature in the language, symbols for YA and A would naturally be interchangeable in word-initial positions, as well as the pairs YE/E, YU/U, etc.
Aegean languages aren't the only ones to do this and I'm starting to see an interesting pattern around the Eastern Mediterranean. Egyptian too wrote ỉ (for consonant /j/) in places where /j/ no longer existed. So while the name of the god Amon was spelled out as ỉ-m-n in the vowelless script, the name was pronounced *ʔAmúna in the second millenium BCE (hence Coptic amoun). In other words, like I suggest for Linear A, Egyptian script wrote phantom glides in word-initial position while having developed a phonotactic constraint against word-initial /j/. More on this in Egyptian writing systems and grammar [pdf] by Shawn Knight.
Only recently did I have a brainwave about Greek and its development from Proto-Indo-European (PIE). Many IEists historically have noted that PIE *y- becomes either h- (PIE *yēkʷr̥ 'liver' > ἧπαρ hepar) or z- (PIE *yes- 'to seethe' > ζέω zéō). I never thought of this innovation in the context of this Minoan constraint rule before but I should have thought of this earlier in hindsight. Perhaps this is food for thought?
Then there are the hints in Anatolian languages of a possible similar constraint that I have to look into, at least where *ye- is concerned.[1][2][3] All in all, there appears to be a geographical pattern of linguistic areal influence here with Minoan at the center.
NOTES
[1] Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Issue 62 (2006) (see link): "However, the lack of any sure reflexes of */ie-/ in either Palaic or Lydian precludes the possibility of certain CAnat. status for this conditioned yōd-loss. (MELCHERT AHP 1994a: 75, KIMBALL HHP 1999: 361-2)."
[2] Melchert, Anatolian historical phonology (1994), p.75 (see link): "Hittite, Luvian, and Lycian give evidence for loss of initial */y/ before */e/. There are no certain examples for */ye-/ in Palaic and Lydian, so attribution of this change to PA must remain tentative."
[3] Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor (2008), p.42 (see link) concerning Palaic: "The absence of examples of initial /y/ is surely accidental, but the lack of initial /r/ is systematic, as elsewhere in the ancient Anatolian languages." (identical to Melchert's statement in 1994:206).
Showing posts with label _paleoglot: etruscan dictionary updates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label _paleoglot: etruscan dictionary updates. Show all posts
20 Feb 2010
9 Feb 2010
An online Etruscan Dictionary has arrived
The programming muse has got me inspired and I whipped up a Flash program the other day to make my Etruscan database more searchable and user-friendly for people. I hate to brag but I think it might be the very first one ever online! (That's actually sort of sad considering that the web browser's been around for sixteen years now.) My dictionary is placed on the Extras page along with my Sinat and Game of Ur games. I've designed it to search one or multiple words at once.I've briefly tested it out and seems to work fine for me so far. However, Actionscript, the computer language behind Flash, is an unpredictable bastard and likes to play games with my head all the time... so I can never be sure. There might also be a Unicode issue that could be a problem for some browsers. Anyways, hopefully it works for you all and there's always room for improvements. Tell me your experiences. Live long and prosper, friends.
2 Nov 2009
A modification of Indo-Aegean, plus some new grammatical ideas on Minoan
I like to explore new ideas and test them as always. One of my ever-evolving ideas is on the idea that Indo-European and Aegean are related to a common Proto-Indo-Aegean ancestor datable to 7000 BCE. Or so I've been thinking up to now but...
I decided to explore a radical new extrapolation that's got a grip on my mind recently. What would be the consequences to my theories if Proto-Indo-Aegean were dated to as much as a thousand years later in 6000 BCE? The first interesting thing about this fresh perspective is that 6000 BCE is just about the time before Proto-Semitic began to affect Mid IE (MIE) according to my currently defined chronology. Another interesting thing is that if we take for granted a more Balkans-positioned MIE vis-à-vis the later Ukraine-positioned PIE proper, then it begs the question: Where would this theoretical Proto-Aegean of mine be sitting at this time? The most obvious answer would be that it would lie somewhere to the west and/or south of the Balkans in the general area that it historically emerged (see graphic above). Yet my theory also positions Old IE (OIE) back in the northerly territory occupied by later Late IE such that the geographical path from OIE to MIE to PIE looks like a meandering vee that points towards the Aegean Sea (see graphic below). This isn't problematic since nothing says that languages have to spread progressively in only one direction over the course of time. However, this pattern, if taken as correct for the sake of argument, teases in me a further idea that Aegean would have been brought to Greece and/or Turkey by that very southerly movement that brought Mid IE into the same trading zone. It's as if to say that what I call "Old IE" circa 7000 BCE is to be revised as a still-evolving Indo-Aegean and the beginning of the Mid IE period should be called "Old IE" at 6000 BCE. It's as if the temporary spread of an early stage of PIE to the Balkans and the spread of a related Aegean branch perfectly coincide to warrant further pondering.
Given the general conceptual arguments in favour of this deviation from standard, I went towards examining all the morphological what-ifs with even more profound consequences. The unfortunate problem with Etruscan, Lemnian and Rhaetic (and probably too with Eteo-Cypriot and Eteo-Cretan) is that no personal endings appear to be attached to verbs in these languages despite the fact that many features like the 1ps and its oblique form (mi and mini), demonstratives and the declensional system (ie. the demonstrative accusative, s-genitive, animate and inanimate plural endings) all find direct connections to PIE. If Aegean is related to PIE then something has happened to these endings and they've disappeared at some unknown point in time motivated perhaps by reasons that are lost in the mists of time.
I refuse to believe the answers aren't recoverable and I don't particularly like mist. I've been poring over Minoan texts recently and while very hesitant at first, I've been rethinking on the published but nonetheless speculative view by some that -SI and -TI are the 3ps and 3pp endings respectively. This is an obviously PIE-inspired interpretation and given the lack of success in translating Minoan with PIE values, we have reason to be skeptical.
Yet...
It's interesting to observe that if we stick by my values of the Libation Formula such that *una (U-NA) means 'libation' (cf. Etruscan un 'libation') with plural *unar (U-NA-RU), and *kan- in KA-NA-SI/KA-NA-TI is cognate with Etruscan cen- 'to bring', then not only do we have a perfectly sensible phrase "a libation was given"/"libations were given" that coincides with the fact that it's written on several Cretan libation tables, but if we take the variation KA-NA-TI in PK Za 11 to be correctly read and written on purpose by scribes to indicate a different inflection, then what we have here is a language with personal endings that apparently have not been completely lost! It would seem that -TI might indeed correlate with plural subjects while -SI would correlate with singular ones.
If we additionally corroborate this with CR (?) Zf 1 (an inscribed gold pin) where we find a perfectly Etruscoid sentence with the ubiquitous SOV word order and with intriguingly Indo-European-like verbal endings, A-MA-WA-SI KA-NI-JA-MI (*Amawasi kaniami 'I (ie. the pin itself) was brought for Amawa'[1]), then we have a very exciting verbal system that might help crack the language: 1ps *-mi (cf. PIE *-mi), 3ps *-si (cf. PIE *-ti), and 3pp *-ãti (cf. PIE *-énti).
The reasons for this strange hodgepodge grammar, neither fully Etruscan nor fully PIE by any sensible definition, would then relate back to the modified chronology that I suggest above. Speculation? You bet. But worth a look, I think.
NOTES
[1] Ego-focussed dedicatory inscriptions such as these were plentiful in later Etruria and were also found in the Greek and Faliscan languages as well. Read for example Pallottino, The Etruscans (1955), p.253 (see link) who testifies to the Faliscan inscription eco quto ... enotenosio ... 'I (am) the pitcher of ... Enotenus ...'.
I decided to explore a radical new extrapolation that's got a grip on my mind recently. What would be the consequences to my theories if Proto-Indo-Aegean were dated to as much as a thousand years later in 6000 BCE? The first interesting thing about this fresh perspective is that 6000 BCE is just about the time before Proto-Semitic began to affect Mid IE (MIE) according to my currently defined chronology. Another interesting thing is that if we take for granted a more Balkans-positioned MIE vis-à-vis the later Ukraine-positioned PIE proper, then it begs the question: Where would this theoretical Proto-Aegean of mine be sitting at this time? The most obvious answer would be that it would lie somewhere to the west and/or south of the Balkans in the general area that it historically emerged (see graphic above). Yet my theory also positions Old IE (OIE) back in the northerly territory occupied by later Late IE such that the geographical path from OIE to MIE to PIE looks like a meandering vee that points towards the Aegean Sea (see graphic below). This isn't problematic since nothing says that languages have to spread progressively in only one direction over the course of time. However, this pattern, if taken as correct for the sake of argument, teases in me a further idea that Aegean would have been brought to Greece and/or Turkey by that very southerly movement that brought Mid IE into the same trading zone. It's as if to say that what I call "Old IE" circa 7000 BCE is to be revised as a still-evolving Indo-Aegean and the beginning of the Mid IE period should be called "Old IE" at 6000 BCE. It's as if the temporary spread of an early stage of PIE to the Balkans and the spread of a related Aegean branch perfectly coincide to warrant further pondering.
Given the general conceptual arguments in favour of this deviation from standard, I went towards examining all the morphological what-ifs with even more profound consequences. The unfortunate problem with Etruscan, Lemnian and Rhaetic (and probably too with Eteo-Cypriot and Eteo-Cretan) is that no personal endings appear to be attached to verbs in these languages despite the fact that many features like the 1ps and its oblique form (mi and mini), demonstratives and the declensional system (ie. the demonstrative accusative, s-genitive, animate and inanimate plural endings) all find direct connections to PIE. If Aegean is related to PIE then something has happened to these endings and they've disappeared at some unknown point in time motivated perhaps by reasons that are lost in the mists of time.
I refuse to believe the answers aren't recoverable and I don't particularly like mist. I've been poring over Minoan texts recently and while very hesitant at first, I've been rethinking on the published but nonetheless speculative view by some that -SI and -TI are the 3ps and 3pp endings respectively. This is an obviously PIE-inspired interpretation and given the lack of success in translating Minoan with PIE values, we have reason to be skeptical.
Yet...
It's interesting to observe that if we stick by my values of the Libation Formula such that *una (U-NA) means 'libation' (cf. Etruscan un 'libation') with plural *unar (U-NA-RU), and *kan- in KA-NA-SI/KA-NA-TI is cognate with Etruscan cen- 'to bring', then not only do we have a perfectly sensible phrase "a libation was given"/"libations were given" that coincides with the fact that it's written on several Cretan libation tables, but if we take the variation KA-NA-TI in PK Za 11 to be correctly read and written on purpose by scribes to indicate a different inflection, then what we have here is a language with personal endings that apparently have not been completely lost! It would seem that -TI might indeed correlate with plural subjects while -SI would correlate with singular ones.
If we additionally corroborate this with CR (?) Zf 1 (an inscribed gold pin) where we find a perfectly Etruscoid sentence with the ubiquitous SOV word order and with intriguingly Indo-European-like verbal endings, A-MA-WA-SI KA-NI-JA-MI (*Amawasi kaniami 'I (ie. the pin itself) was brought for Amawa'[1]), then we have a very exciting verbal system that might help crack the language: 1ps *-mi (cf. PIE *-mi), 3ps *-si (cf. PIE *-ti), and 3pp *-ãti (cf. PIE *-énti).
The reasons for this strange hodgepodge grammar, neither fully Etruscan nor fully PIE by any sensible definition, would then relate back to the modified chronology that I suggest above. Speculation? You bet. But worth a look, I think.
NOTES
[1] Ego-focussed dedicatory inscriptions such as these were plentiful in later Etruria and were also found in the Greek and Faliscan languages as well. Read for example Pallottino, The Etruscans (1955), p.253 (see link) who testifies to the Faliscan inscription eco quto ... enotenosio ... 'I (am) the pitcher of ... Enotenus ...'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)