History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedMinoan civilization originated in Anatolia!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
Author
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 19:50
Other sources that connect Hurrian people to those in Cyprus, Crete, and Etruscan lands.

Urartian Bronzes in Etruscan Tombs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4199609

Quote He stressed the importance of the trade route Van-Carchemish-Al Mina on the Syrian coast-Rhodes-Corinth-Italy and pointed out that there is no sign of Phoenician influence on certain types of bronces such at the bronze handle attachments for buckers or cauldrons...whose distribution ranges from Urartu in Armenia to Vetulonia and Paeneste in Italy.'
...

It is generally accepcted that the examples of this type found in Asia are Urartian, and that most of the Aegean examples are copies by Greek workmen of the Vannic [Uratian] originals.
...

The question of the route used by the metalsmiths who brought Urartian bronzes to Etruria calls for some discussion. In this there is a little doubt of the importance of Crete. The close relationship between the Barberini base and the "Zeus" shield from the Idaean cave in Crete has already been noted...But there are now further indications which point to an Urartian origin not only for the Barberini cauldron base but also for the "Zeus" shield.
...

Some scholars would be prepared to see here indications of Asiatic-Italian contact attributable to the Sea raiders with their Asiatic cut-and-thrust swords, amongst whom we can number the earliest Etruscan invaders...it would follow that these first invaders, who may well have originated as far away as Eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia, were followed up by settlers and metalsmiths from the Urartu-Azerbaijan region who kept in touch with their original homeland..

...

The Armenoid type, of which we can find so many examples in Early Etruscan Art, is to be found at home in Urartu and in the areas controlled by her in North Syria.

...we have in Cyprus examples of the bronze winged sirens, but with a bull's not a human head, of a type which can be found among Urartian bronzes at Altin Tepe and Karmirblau, and also in Samos.
...

This equipment is shown on the "Hunters" shield from Mount Ida in Crete and on the Bronze quiver and belt from Knossos, Kunzer....The close resemblance between the helmet, belt, and short tunic of the "warrior" relief on the Boghazkoy [Hittite]  gate with that worn by the soldiers on the Cretan bronzes raises the question whether in fact the Boghazkoy relief may not belong to the same period (8th century, so it originated earlier); the Transcaucasian analogies to the axehead certainly reinforce this suggestion.
...

Kunze also lists siren figures from Olympia which he considers undoubted imports. These siren figures are closely comparable to the Vetulonia examples anc can be constrasted with others from Olympia which are obvious Greek copies of Urartian originals.


Edited by CiegaSordomud - 16-Dec-2008 at 19:52
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 21:24
Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

Other sources that connect Hurrian people to those in Cyprus, Crete, and Etruscan lands.


There is one suggestion about a Hurrian connection with Cyprus, as well as there's a theory of Illyrian connection (!) with Cyprus, as well as a Finnic connection. Basically, there's a wild theory for everything in history. Why draw such extremes though and bypass main problems when you have more logical explanations?

Cyprus is located in an area that was surrounded by afro-asiatic speaking people and anatolians. The eteocypriots were using their language as well as the mixed Arcadocypriot dialect of Greek until the 4th century. They have written billingual documents that are readable both in plain greek writting and Linear C (The Cypriot Linear script).

Meanwhile, on the north shore a language that i call "a mixed product" develops by Greek and Anatolian populations. Namely, the Pamphylian dialect of Greek. It incorporates Greek, heavily influenced by anatolian elements and even Phrygian. Nothing strange about that considering the populations living in the area, while the name itself means "land of all races".

What is to be noted linguistically, and therefore I give my credits to Friedrich and Gardhausens anatolian theory, is that some "strictly" Pamphylian words cognate easily with Cypriot. Just few examples:

Cypriot               Pamphylian                English
Weto                   Wettia                        year
Korwa                 Korwalina                    little girl
Ellowoikos           Ellothemis                   brave
Diw                      Diwo                           Zeus

Another interresting note is that Cyprus born Aphrodite as she was known to the Greeks had the name Anassa. Anassa means "breath" in Greek, but it seems like a borowing from the pre-Greek anatolian languages. In order to stick to that ana- prefix, another example is the syllables a-ro-to-wa-na-ko-so-ko. The wa-na-ko cognates with Linear B syllables like wa-na-ka, wa-na-ka-te, wa-na-ka-te-ro etc all products of wanax (later greek anax). The first syllables (a-ro-to) is probably arto, equivalent to the greek aristos.

Note as well, that the Arcadian populations that settled in the island have their own story. They and other pre-Doric, pre-Achaean people of Peloponesus were autochthonus, no matter if their speech developed in such way to fit in the Hellenic group of languages. As O. Masson (a history of ancient Greece, Cambridge) notes on the eteo-Cypriot names, they can be identified as Greek partially but with non-Greek endings e.g Ni-ka-to-ro, A-na-sa-ko-ra, A-ri-si-to-no-se.

Enough with the anatolian part...Let's see the south and eastern populations. Skylax, mentions the "Lepethis of the Phoenicians". When I look at archaic Cypriot art it's more than evident that it has more influence from Phoenicia and Egypt than any other non-Greek civilization.






Edited by Flipper - 18-Dec-2008 at 21:24


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Pablito View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Dec-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pablito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 21:39
Well, Mycenaean were Greeks  - no doubt - before real Greeks coming in, further, they spoken an archaic Greek language or dialect.
Conversely, they adopted a lot of pre-Mycenaean Greek words; basileus, galaktos, (w)anax, etc......... are Greek at all. Even nowdays Greek language contains 40% or even more of Greek non-IE lexicon.
A clear sample is '(the) Sun', helios in Greek (like German Sonne, Lat. Sol, Russian Sol-ntze, etc......), which is IE; even talôs it means '(The) Sun' and it is Greek non-IE, obviously, a sub-strata word.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 22:06
40% non-IE lexicon is far fetched...Where did you get that number from? If that was true then it wouldn't be classified as a fully qualified IE language.

How would Phrygian and Armenian which are clearly IE languages, stand close to Greek while other non IE languages don't?


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Dec-2008 at 16:12
Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

Well, Mycenaean were Greeks  - no doubt - before real Greeks coming in, further, they spoken an archaic Greek language or dialect.
Conversely, they adopted a lot of pre-Mycenaean Greek words; basileus, galaktos, (w)anax, etc......... are Greek at all. Even nowdays Greek language contains 40% or even more of Greek non-IE lexicon.
A clear sample is '(the) Sun', helios in Greek (like German Sonne, Lat. Sol, Russian Sol-ntze, etc......), which is IE; even talôs it means '(The) Sun' and it is Greek non-IE, obviously, a sub-strata word.

I second Flipper, 40% seems just too much.
 
Helios seems IE ( s before vowels becomes h in Greek )
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 19-Dec-2008 at 16:13
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2008 at 01:14
Anatolia included several different cultures and people, not all of them were IE.
 
Second, the Phoenicians came after regular maritime trade was ocurring between Syria, Cilicia, Crete, Cyprus, etc. The same with the Greeks, who followed after the Minoans were already active in the Mediterrenean.
Back to Top
Pablito View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Dec-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pablito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2008 at 23:47
By name:
Chilbudios: "Helios seems IE ( s before vowels becomes h in Greek )"
Yes, it is perfectly Greek-IE.
Talo^s    is Greek non-IE.
Chilbudios and Flipper: "40 %......". No problem. Meanwhile language is classified or belonging to this or that group or family (mainly) by grammar (morpho-syntax); lexicon is split in percentage, e.g: Language ABC (any), could have a lexicon of  22% from 1,  15% from 2,  9% from 3.
1, 2, 3 stands for any other language.
CiegaSordomud: "Anatolia included several different cultures and people, not all of them were IE."
It is true. Hittite itself is IE, along with Luwian and others; but the lexicon clearly shown a sub-strata elements.
Plus "Second, the Phoenicians came after regular maritime trade was ocurring between Syria, Cilicia, Crete, Cyprus, etc. The same with the Greeks, who followed after the Minoans were already active in the Mediterrenean."
ibidem.
Flipper: ".Where did you get that number from? If that was true then it wouldn't be classified as a fully qualified IE language.".
Prof. Onofrio Carruba told me a 40% of Greek is not IE. Chantraine, Boisacq, Walde-Pokorny, Frisk, etc...... (more or less) are not unlikely. Prof. O. Carruba actively working until 2006 at Pavia University in Aegean-Anatolian studies; he is now retired.
So, if somebody think to a "Minoan civilization originated in Anatolia", I agree; plus "non-IE and non AfroAsiatic (or Ham-Sem.)", [I agree] double up.

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Dec-2008 at 11:10
Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

No problem. Meanwhile language is classified or belonging to this or that group or family (mainly) by grammar (morpho-syntax); lexicon is split in percentage, e.g: Language ABC (any), could have a lexicon of  22% from 1,  15% from 2,  9% from 3.
1, 2, 3 stands for any other language.
 By non-IE do you mean here pre-IE? (all your examples are of pre-IE words)
The vocabulary of modern Greek is basically formed of:
-pre-IE inherited lexicon
-IE inherited lexicon
-borrowings from other languages: Semitic languages, other IE languages like Persian or Latin, Turkic languages etc.
-internal word derivations
 
It seems to me quite unlikely that the archaic non-IE words (substratum plus very early borrowings and their derivations) would go up to 40% in modern standard Greek. Perhaps all non-IE words (i.e. including relatively recent loans from languages like Ottoman Turkish) and their derivations, but even then I'm not so sure about it.
 
 
Back to Top
Pablito View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Dec-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pablito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Dec-2008 at 23:53
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

No problem. Meanwhile language is classified or belonging to this or that group or family (mainly) by grammar (morpho-syntax); lexicon is split in percentage, e.g: Language ABC (any), could have a lexicon of  22% from 1,  15% from 2,  9% from 3.
1, 2, 3 stands for any other language.
 By non-IE do you mean here pre-IE? (all your examples are of pre-IE words)
Yes, it is.
The vocabulary of modern Greek is basically formed of:
-pre-IE inherited lexicon
-IE inherited lexicon
-borrowings from other languages: Semitic languages, other IE languages like Persian or Latin, Turkic languages etc.
-internal word derivations
Does it seems to me that you perfectly understand how language it working. Ancient Greek contains a lot of pre-IE lexical items, a small percentage  are clearly Semitics.
 
It seems to me quite unlikely that the archaic non-IE words (substratum plus very early borrowings and their derivations) would go up to 40% in modern standard Greek. Perhaps all non-IE words (i.e. including relatively recent loans from languages like Ottoman Turkish) and their derivations, but even then I'm not so sure about it.
Once again, you are perfectly all right. Sub-strata [or pre-IE] include also borrowings. Newcomers followed ancient traders' route.
My assumption is based on the available evidence.
A sample:
Pre-Greek                                                Hurrian                                                 ProtoNorthCaucasian
aisye^te^r     'prince'                               shaw     'mighty'                                   * shewV     'height'
akhyron 
       'chaff'                                 harw/b-  'straw'                                    * xhwerxh    'straw'
[Pre-Greek: ph= phi, th= theta, kh= khi, e^, o^=  eta, omega, y= upsilon.
 Hurrian: h, sh = fricatives
 PNC : sh = fricative, xh = uvular fricative].
Look: Pre-Greek a-, ai- > Hurrian and PNC * 0- [zero]. First one is interesting, for the simple reason A-M Tremouille and Ilse Wegner explained Hurrian goddess name Shawushka as derivative form from [adj.] shaw-'great' , that is mean '[The] Great one'; and it is not a coincidence that PNC form for 'height' has similar phonological feature. So, Pre-Greek 'princely [youth]' as Aristarco wrote, it agree with Hurrian goddess name (and adjectival root) and PNC 'height', also I proposed a common root as * (ai)shwe- or similar then, at the end it described 'smth or smb on top'.
Something similar [semantically]  exist in Greek-IE, words like oi megaloi or Aristo-cracy.

 
 
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 01:04
Sha is an Elamite word for Great. Found in the name Napirisha, "Great God." It might be also where Persian Shah (king) derived from.
Back to Top
Pablito View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Dec-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pablito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 15:30
Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

Sha is an Elamite word for Great. Found in the name Napirisha, "Great God." It might be also where Persian Shah (king) derived from.


I am not surprised about that. This is what prof. John Colarusso (McMaster Uni., Ontario, Canada) like to hear of. He wrote to me to a possible macro-family including Elamo-Dravidian and NorthCaucasian languages.
Personally I prefer to work to an Aegean-Anatolian sub-strata and ProtoNorthCaucasian - including Hurro-Urartian and Hattic - languages link, in so far more reliable.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 16:34

Pablito,

Thank you for your appreciations!

About your assumption and examples, on one hand akhyron (I'll preserve your transliteration conventions) was recently proved to mean (also) "straw" (see Chadwick's corrections of LSJ), thus your second example contains a semantical identity (if the Hurrian form is correct, I know little about Hurrian) and thus is more persuasive than it originally looked.

But on the other side, I'm not so sure about some other aspects of this hypothetical link.

1. Is aisye^te^r the original form of this word?
In LSJ: aisymne^te^r, -e^ros "ruler, prince" (Homer, Iliad, 24.347); looking in several editions of Iliad, I found both aisye^te^ri and aisymne^te^ri in text, I wonder which is the original one?
In Liddell, 1889 ed: aisymne^te^r (aisymnao^) "a prince" (I guess the verb would mean something like "to rule over")

I also looked in the glosses of Hesychius, and I found aisye^te^ri (A 59), aisymne^tai (A 63) which I located in Homer, Odyssey, 8.258.

So my question is the original, archaic form with "mn" or without? (it's interesting to note however that Beekes regards the "mn" group "quite possible in PIE words, but [...] frequent in Pre-Greek", moreover regards the group "ymn" as an indicator of the pre-Greek substratum, giving also the verb aisymnao^ among examples)

2. Not long ago, on some other thread, this interesting link was posted:
http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm

I usually go with linguistic theories where evidence is strong and interconnected. I am skeptic about those hypotheses and theories built from few examples. Certainly, you may have more aces in your sleeve to support this a-/ai- in Pre-Greek which vanished in PNC and Hurrian, but until the proper evidence will be mounted (here or in some scholarly studies), I think it's wise not to attach pre-Greek to another language for which we do not have persuasive evidence, even for the simple reason that will bring a bias in our future researches.

And I did not yet understand, how could one tell in such a case when it's a genetical link and where there are two languages in contact which get to share some vocabulary, some phonological features, etc.?

 

Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 02:37
'Persuasive' evidence is hard to come by, especially with relatively unknown languages. Still, a hypothesis can be made, and some form of relation can be created. To me they key is not diverging into either extreme of an argument, becaused the nature of language/cutural formation is varied. Not a single explanation can apply in all cases (for example, some of those Pre-IE roots in Greek could be from a population native to the area, proto-Kartvelian/South Caucasian,  or a later arrival like Hurrian).
 
These are probable cognates between Etruscan and Sumerian. Althought they are sometimes labeled as 'false' cognates due to fewer evidence. You have to think of the probability of having this set of basic words to be very similar to each other.
 
Sumerian being more ancient and becoming extinct sooner, I wouldn't attribute it as an absolute direct ancestor to Etruscan, but there is definetly a connection. Sumerian was used as a classical language for thousands of years after it was replaced by Semitic languages. There is a probability that it survived into western Anatolia, used by some elites in a Hurrian or post-Sumerian population, and it entered into the founding Etruscan population.
 
This viewpoint is very similar to that of Urartian, which some consider to be a conservative, classical form of Hurrian. Preserved over time as intrusions of other languages (mainly IE) became common.
 
Etruscan am (to be), and Sumerian am (to be)
Etruscan ac (to make, act) and Sumerian ak (to make,act)
Etruscan an (he/she/it) and Sumerian ane (he/she/it)
Etruscan ipa (who, which) and Sumerian aba (who)
Etruscan mi (I/me) and Sumerian ma (I/me)
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 11:09
Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

By name:
Chilbudios: "Helios seems IE ( s before vowels becomes h in Greek )"
Yes, it is perfectly Greek-IE.
Talo^s    is Greek non-IE.


I have not much time to comment much right now, but before this goes out of control, i should start correcting some elementary mistakes.

Talos is 100% indoeuropean...It is from the IE (s)tal- which means "to stick out" or "extend out or project in space" or in a more informal way "to jut out".

Cretans used Talos as an equivalent to the Sun. The sun does many of the things above. It sticks out from the horizon and projects its light.

The -os ending is common in IE languages like Greek, Thracian, Phrygian, Albanian and the list goes on...

The Greek equivalent of Tal- is Stel- like the IE-root word. E.g Stelechos. In Germanic languages the root is Stal-. In Celtic, i'm not 100% sure but i think it is Tail-.

Also, you have another IE root of Tal- which means "sprout". Taleos or Talios is the word in Greek. Tala is in indian and i think it also corresponds a palm tree.



Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 11:10
When one wants to see in linguistics a positivist discipline and not some speculative wordplay then he has provide evidences even for hypotheses. "Relatively unknown" is not an excuse, but a reason to be careful, decent, rational.
 
Let me give you an example I am very familiar with. Thracian is a relatively unknown IE language. However, some scholars identified isoglosses, relationships, etc. How did they do that? For instance, the isoglosses were drawn mainly from the toponymy were based on more than 100 names and most of matches are perfect and most of the variations are completely regular (for instance, justifiable by the changes in prounciation and spelling in Ancient Greek and Latin)! (and the material is now improved with studies on the epigraphical record, including anthroponymy,  etc.).
In such conditions how would you expect to make plausible a case based on few words?
 
The probability of some words to be very similar in two unrelated languages is higher than you'd expect (please check the link from my previous post).
Or this one, from the same site:
 
 
 
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 18:30
Dont even compare Thracian with Hurrian. We know a lot about IE languages and can make pretty good comparisons with others we already have information on, and in most cases its like comparing dialects if you get to a close enough language.

With what 'macrofamily' are you going to compare Hurrian or Etruscan to? Its not that simple.

Actual work has been done with Uralic/Etruscan, Hurrian/North Caucasian, Elamitic/Dravidian, and their proof has been acceptable thus far, except to the extremists on the other side that dont accept any language connections except IE. So you also have to be rational and at least keep some tentative hypothesis at your disposal until further evidence comes.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 00:36
We actually know much more of Hurrian than we know of Thracian. Because in Hurrian we have tens of inscriptions while in Thracian some 3-4 (all virtually untranslated, almost any scholar studying them came with his own "translation", actually some groundless speculation based on some assumed IE cognates). In Hurrian we can articulate full sentences, but not in Thracian. We know some things about Hurrian grammar, but very little of the Thracian one. True we know several important things about Thracian, something about its phonology, we have some tens translateable words, we know very little about its grammar, but that was my point. These small things are the result of a much more solid corpus of evidence compared with what usually it is given to relate Sumerian to Etruscan or whatever other similar exotic links.
 
We don't need macrofamilies if we don't have the proper evidence. Sumerian is usually labeled as isolate and that is a good enough description given our present knowledge.
 
What you call 'actual work' is rather controversial scholarship, because of the failure of those scholars to present persuasive evidence. Your position to label the other camp as 'extremist' is disingenous considering the normal thing is to provide proper evidence and this did not happen (and it's not at all related to IE connections, no one would oppose Semitic or Altaic or whatever other connections if proper evidences are given). How could be one extremist just for asking a persuasive case before blindly believing in a hypothesis? To be rational is to be skeptic when facing such speculations.
 
Tentative hypotheses are often sources of bias. And considering what you posted so far (pushing the links between Hurrians and whatever other Mediterranean people), I think you prove my point.
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Dec-2008 at 00:36
Back to Top
Pablito View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Dec-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pablito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 23:19
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Pablito,

Thank you for your appreciations!

About your assumption and examples, on one hand akhyron (I'll preserve your transliteration conventions) was recently proved to mean (also) "straw" (see Chadwick's corrections of LSJ), thus your second example contains a semantical identity (if the Hurrian form is correct, I know little about Hurrian) and thus is more persuasive than it originally looked.

But on the other side, I'm not so sure about some other aspects of this hypothetical link.

1. Is aisye^te^r the original form of this word?
In LSJ: aisymne^te^r, -e^ros "ruler, prince" (Homer, Iliad, 24.347); looking in several editions of Iliad, I found both aisye^te^ri and aisymne^te^ri in text, I wonder which is the original one?
In Liddell, 1889 ed: aisymne^te^r (aisymnao^) "a prince" (I guess the verb would mean something like "to rule over")

I also looked in the glosses of Hesychius, and I found aisye^te^ri (A 59), aisymne^tai (A 63) which I located in Homer, Odyssey, 8.258.

So my question is the original, archaic form with "mn" or without? (it's interesting to note however that Beekes regards the "mn" group "quite possible in PIE words, but [...] frequent in Pre-Greek", moreover regards the group "ymn" as an indicator of the pre-Greek substratum, giving also the verb aisymnao^ among examples)

2. Not long ago, on some other thread, this interesting link was posted:
http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm

I usually go with linguistic theories where evidence is strong and interconnected. I am skeptic about those hypotheses and theories built from few examples.

To be skeptic it's fine. Problem is when it persist endlessly. Unetymologized words must have a cognate somewhere, unless is really impossible. Mind ! Hittite and Mycenaean Greek scholar(s) (who's string those language to IE family) were baffled at beginning; only after (a) decade their theory has  been  accepted.

Certainly, you may have more aces in your sleeve to support this a-/ai- in Pre-Greek which vanished in PNC and Hurrian, but until the proper evidence will be mounted (here or in some scholarly studies),

Yes, it is. I have got 100's of such comparison accepted even from accademics people.

I think it's wise not to attach pre-Greek to another language for which we do not have persuasive evidence, even for the simple reason that will bring a bias in our future researches.

[snip]

And I did not yet understand, how could one tell in such a case when it's a genetical link and where there are two languages in contact which get to share some vocabulary, some phonological features, etc.?

This is a very interesting question, and it is part of 'Basic in Linguistics'.

Language is seen in different way before return a verdict. The statement is (in diachronic and/ or synchronic way)

By phonological feature (quite complicate): V(owel) and C(onsonant); so, CCVC, CCV, VCC, VCV, etc........in the root

By morphology : All world languages' are classified one of three 'class': 1-         monosyllabic (e.g: Chinese)

                                                                                                                  2-         agglutinative (e.g: Japanese, Turk)

                                                                                                                  3-        flexive (e.g: English)

By Syntax, word order  S(ubject) - O(bject) - V(erb), so : SVO, SOV, VSO, VOS, etc......; plus A(djective) - N(oun) or viceversa (NA ~  AN).

By semantics. It make sense in my own language (or group or family) not in the other one(s).

By other minor aspects. Mind ! There is a lot of (pseudo) words with no root: Nursery (CV x2, like tata, juju, caca, lili, etc.........) and onomatopeic (e.g: English spalsh, clap, etc.......). History, environment,  (possibly) contact with others, hisorical development, means (of life), etc.......are also  part of Glottochronology.

Once you set up all this feature (with few exception(s)), you are safe and........peace of mind. Exception should be treaty as part of secondary rules or borrowings.

I hope I satisfied  your query. That is why scholars always disputed each other about dadada dadada dadada dadada



Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Dec-2008 at 21:14

Quote To be skeptic it's fine. Problem is when it persist endlessly. Unetymologized words must have a cognate somewhere, unless is really impossible. Mind ! Hittite and Mycenaean Greek scholar(s) (who's string those language to IE family) were baffled at beginning; only after (a) decade their theory has  been  accepted.
I don't think one can forget being skeptic just for the sake of not being skeptic endlessly. The end should be marked by evidence.
There are a lot of words we can't etymologize, either they do not have cognates or if they do, they do have in languages which are extinct and unknown or partly known.

As for the history of linguistics, for a succesful theory there are a lot of speculations which were proved wrong. And let's not forget that the discovery of a language like Hittite or Mycenean Greek was caused by a large corpus of texts, something we don't have for pre-Greek (if it is only one language and not several). There's no similar discovery of an unattested language, the ones we know so far were built with perseverance, consensus and caution over many decades (or even centuries for languages like PIE).

However, the history of linguistic discoveries can teach us some precious lessons. Let's take Hittite, for instance. Many of the early "decipherments" of this language were mostly wrong, In late 19th century Sayce "deciphered" the bilingual Hama inscription, however most of his sign identifications were wrong. Even after Winckler discovered the great Boghazköy archive, there were still scholars like Weidner going in the wrong direction in their attempts to decipher this language. The scholars of early 20th century didn't know, for instance, of Suppiluliuma, but of Supalulu (as they read this name from Egyptian inscriptions). IIRC in those years Knudtzon alone speculated Hittite to be an IE language (based on several texts, however) but later retracted his hypothesis not having a solid basis to support it. The wide acceptance of Hittite's IE character came with the work of the Czech scholar Hrozny, who's usually also credited with the first real decipherment of this language. Let's also note that Hrozny initially thought of Hittite as a non-IE language.
In an interview in a Czech publication Hrozny declared about his daring hypotheses (my translation from Romanian, which in turn is from a book translated from Czech): "I like to mention that I do not care at all about my hypotheses and I gladly sacrifice even the most beautiful hypothesis of mine if it results in knowledge leading to scientific truth, the only one which I'm interested in."

Mycenean Greek has a similar story. It was long before that Linear B, a "Minoan script" (as thought by Evans, more exactly he thought of it as some sort of revision of Linear A, but encoding the same language) was recognized to be an early form of Greek, and this recognition came with proper evidence, Ventris' decipherment. Let's also note that Ventris held stranger initial hypotheses, like several other scholars in his time, i.e. that "Minoan" and Etruscan were related. Also before Ventris actually came with his deciphering, a lot of strange theories relating Minoan words to Greek, Basque and other languages, some ridiculed by Ventris himself. For instance, in an article published in AJA in 1940, he mentions Stawell's reading of Minos as "Mother, Nymph, Savior" (Stawell actually went further in suggesting that the language of Phaistos Disk is also some variation of Ionian Greek). Though Linear B was eventually proven to be an earlier form of Greek, that is untrue for the other Aegean scripts and moreover her "evidences" are today regarded as inacceptable.

The morale of such stories is that the hypotheses lacking solid evidence were often wrong and arguably fruitless and even burdensome, considering the bias they caused and the effort needed by scholarship to discard them (Beekes himself argued on pre-Greek theories "'Pelasgian' has done much harm and it is time to definitely reject it").


Quote
Yes, it is. I have got 100's of such comparison accepted even from accademics people.
And which are the most persuasive evidences in this direction? I hope you don't mind my doubts, but on the whole I found that comparision rather unpersuasive. Besides that unanswered question from my previous post there are also several phonological incongruencies or at least doubts (e.g. the vocalism). And besides, when checking the scholarly perspective of Pre-Greek, apparently the most wide-spread opinion is that we can't assign it with a reasonable certainty to a single other known language. For instance, Yvex Duhoux on pre-Greek in A History of Ancient Greek (A. F. Christidis ed., 2007), Anna Morpurgo Davies in the chapter "The linguistic evidence. Is there any?" in The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean (Gerald Cadogan ed., 1986) and even R. S. P. Beekes.

Quote
Once you set up all this feature (with few exception(s)), you are safe and........peace of mind. Exception should be treaty as part of secondary rules or borrowings.

I hope I satisfied  your query. That is why scholars always disputed each other about dadada dadada dadada dadada

It was rather a rhetorical question (but I wouldn't have minded to be proven wrong). Though I disagree with some of the details of your presentation, you seem to admit that a case for pre-Greek (or any other relatively unknown and unattested languages) cannot be safe because we can't "set up all those features".



Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Dec-2008 at 21:24
Back to Top
Pablito View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Dec-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pablito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Dec-2008 at 19:32
About Mycenaean and Hittite, an IE theory has been  accepted time to time.
Further, Rosetta stone make Egyptian decipherment easy and reliable; unfortunately, not all ancient languages  had a 'Rosetta stone'.
I do not mind if you arise some doubt, it is coherent with your point of view.
The phrase "
we can't assign it with a reasonable certainty to a single other known language." it is correct, as prof John Colarusso wrote to me "Linguists are notoriously conservative".
Some linguists are 'hunters'. They try any effort, exact matches and good result coming from hardwork, not easy way.
Years ago (10-15), I  already saw  NorthCaucasian feature in Pre-Greek language; infortunately I did not have materials   (books, Internet, etc....) or  scholars to talk about; plus no books edited outside U.S.S.R, very rare and in rubbish paper. 
Now is different, I collect a lot of stuff, I do  any effort for the best result; NOW  scholars do not reject my proposal.
I hope you (and all Forum)  understand.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.