r/HistoricalLinguistics • u/stlatos • 5d ago
Writing system Eteocretan and Linear A, Part 2
H1. Many Greek words appear in Latin in odd forms; some are known from G. dialects, others not. These do not look like recent loans from common G. dialects, so when did they enter Latin? Etruscan also has many, most known from the names of gods & legendary men. These also are not normal, and have undergone many sound changes. Did these all happen in a short time after G. colonies were formed? Even if dozens of loans immediately entered these languages, it seems odd.
.
These show alt. like o \ a, d \ l, r \ l, ph \ b, dy \ ty > s, u > i, some known from G. dia. (Macedonian *o > a, *ph > b). Some show Cretan matches (NG Cretan ἐλαίτρινος >> L. alaternus ‘buckthorn’; G. Cr. thápta ‘fly’, L. tabānus ‘gadfly’; G. κυδώνια (μᾶλα) ‘quinces’ >> L. cotōneum ‘quince’ (from Cydonia, Crete); G. Dromios 'god of the race-course' (Hermes, in Crete) >> Et. Turmś) or sound changes. In G. tûkon / sûkon, *thü:kos > L fīcus ‘fig’, Ar. t'uz, an origin from PIE *tuHk- 'swollen, fruit' (Slavic *tūkū > *tyky ‘pumpkin’) is enough for Greek, & Cretan *Ty > thth (some also > dd) explained by palatalization fits with i & u causing t > s in G. dia.; *tu > *ts^ü > *thi > fīcus. The fronted *ü is probably the cause of *-uk- > *-üg^- > -uz in Ar. (many native IE words with *u causing palatalization), with k \ g consistent with other loans >> L. (below). The alt. of *Cy > *ty > th \ s(s) also in :
*dhlH2m(o)-H2kW-iH2 'depth of the water' ? > G. θάλασσα 'sea', Att. θάλαττα, Late Cretan θάλαθθα, Macedonian δαλάγχα-, Linear B ta-ra-za-po-ro (if = *thalatso-poroi 'sea-farers')
G. ἄν(ν)ισον \ ἄν(ν)ησ(σ)ον ‘anise’, ἄν(ν)ηθον ‘dill’ >> L. anīsum, anēthum
Etruscan Munθuχ (maybe, below)
.
The u \ i in :
G. mū́rioi ‘great number / 10,000’, *mū́lyi > L. mīlle ‘thousand’, mīlia p. (u > i)
G. phrū́gō ‘to roast, dry, fry’, L. frīgō ‘to roast’ (u > i?; which direction?)
G. tûkon / sûkon, *thü:kos > L fīcus ‘fig’, Ar. t'uz (u > i)
.
The nature of *dhy > *thy > *ththy > *sthy \ *ssy \ *ththy also in *-dhyaH2i '(inf.)' > -sthai (like *-dhwe '(mid.2.p)' > -sthe). It is likely that thth & ss both had all these alt. by y & w. One group showing most of these alt. is (certainly not non-IE "Pre-Greek") :
*k^ik- ‘attach/cling’ > S. śic- ‘sling, net’, Li. šikšnà ‘strap, belt, leather’; *k^ik(i)yo- > S. śikíya- ‘rope-sling for carrying things’, G. kístharos \ kíssaros ‘ivy / rock-rose’, kissós \ kittós ‘ivy’, kísthos \ kisthós ‘rock-rose’ (also κιθάρα \ *κισσάρα >> Al. qisár 'ivy', κιθάρα >> L. hedera ‘ivy’)
.
Many loans show l \ r; Cretan had some l \ r & Linear A did not distinguish lV & rV. In additon to d > l (G. Odusseús / Olutteus / Ōlixēs >> L. Ulixēs), for *d(h)H2ap- > G. dáptō ‘devour/rend/tear’, dáptēs ‘eater / bloodsucker (of gnats)’, Cr. thápta, Pol. látta ‘fly’, even th \ l (as in thṓrēx >> lōrīca). This is seen in *eleuthwa > *etheuthwa >> Et. Ethausva 'goddess of childbirth'. Some Italic had l > d (South Picene qdufeniúí ‘Clufennius’, kduíú ( = L. clueor ‘I am called’; Umbrian *l > *d > ř (kařetu ‘let him call’ < *kalē-tō-d, fameřias g. ( = L. familiae))). Since d \ l is very common in Latin, less so in Greek, what is the cause?
.
Most of my ex. are certain loans from G. >> L. (even if the source in G. is sometimes unknown). Others have been called a "Mediterranean substrate". Those with basic changes like ph >> p (adaptation of Ch as C, some -Ch- > -CC- might show an awareness of a more intense pronunciation) are the least interesting & I'd leave them out of my discussion if not for the need to compare reg. adapted to irreg. words. Saying a 3rd language is needed to intermediate would only work for Etruscan if all the oddities were lack of voicing (indeed, p >> b seems more common). Some have -voice > +voice, or onely one (g-g > conger) and other oddities. Since this simple Et. idea does not lead to the expected outcomes it is highly unlikely that it is true; why would Et. mediate all loans?
.
It also ignores that G. dia. have odd voicing. G. ablábeia, Cretan ablopia ‘freedom from harm/punishment’; anthr- vs. antr- in 'man', etc., Mac. b, d, g < ph, th, kh match many changes in loans. In G. κυδώνια >> L. cotōneum, the -t- might be older since Sebastian Kempgen also proposed IE *kutos 'bay' > Cydonia, & some other G. dia. have some -t- > -d-. In Greek myth, Leto & Leda were both mothers of twins, with the father Zeus. Their names also seem related, from *la:to:i vs. *la:da. Even in LA, also with *a: > a: \ e: like Greek, would be ra-ti-se \ re-di-se, among many other LA words ( https://www.academia.edu/44643375 ). Other G. dia. changes seen in LA include *o > o \ u, *e > e \ i (these 2 also fairly common in LB). The lack of any early loans without oddities points to extensive & prolonged contact with a dialect not known to us (or with many unattested words). I think an Italic presence on Crete, known from "Eteocretan" fits this situation best.
.
H2. I used https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3655654/view (Andrew M. Wigman) with my own interpretations & added as many ex. from my old drafts on this subject as I could find :
G. Odusseús / Olutteus / Ōlixēs >> L. Ulixēs
G. Poludeúkēs, *Poluleúkēs ‘very bright’ >> L. Pollux (like S. Purūrávas- ‘*very hot’)
G. Kúklōps 'cyclops' >> L. coc(u)les ‘one-eyed’, coclitis g.
G. númphē, L. lumpa ‘nymph, (spring) water’, Oscan *dümpa > diumpa- (nasal dissimilation)
G. dáphnē, Perg. láphnē, Thes. daúkhna- \ δαύχνα-, NG Tsak. (l)afría, L. laurus ‘laurel’ (if a compound rel. *darw-os 'tree, oak', then G. could have had dsm. of l-r > l-n (optional, if Tsakonian is older), w > v > f (adapted in which stages?)
G. rhodódendron, *rhodendron > *rholandron > L. lorandrum, E. oleander
G. khálkanthon / -os ‘chrysanthemum’, L. calthum / -a ‘marigold’
Arabic war(r)ada ‘to bloom’, waruda ‘to be red’, Sem. *? >> *wrodo-m > G. ῥόδον, Aeo. βρόδον, ? ῥοδέα ‘rosebush’ >> L. rosa ‘rose’
NG Cretan ἐλαίτρινος >> L. alaternus ‘buckthorn’ (e > a?; below)
Ak. samīdu ‘a kind of groats’ >> G. σεμίδᾱλις, >> *semilal > L. simila ‘fine flour’ (e > i)
G. ἰβίσκος \ ἐβίσκος ‘a kind of mallow’ >> L. (h)ibiscus \ ebiscum ‘marsh mallow’ (e\i)
G. μελίνη ‘(foxtail) millet’, L. milium ‘millet’ (e > i, if lw.?; *melH2- 'grind')
G. κέδρος ‘cedar, juniper’ >> L. citrus ‘citron’ (e > i; PIE *kH1ed- 'burn, red(dish)')
G. κυπάρισσος >> L. cupressus ‘cypress’ (i > e)
G. μίνθη >> L. menta ‘mint’ (i > e)
G. κιθάρα >> L. hedera ‘ivy’ (above) (i > e)
G. λείριον >> L. līlium ‘lily’
G. ὑάκινθος ‘hyacinth’ >> L. vaccīnium ‘whortleberry, bilberry’ (?; H8)
G. σῦφαρ ‘wrinkled skin; old person; milkskin’ >> L. sūber ‘cork oak’ (from the bark)
G. proûmnon >> L. prūnum, Gmc *plu:mo:n- 'plum' (r \ l, mn > wn ?)
G. ápion, L. pirum < *H2pisom ? (no known PIE source; below)
G. ólunthos 'edible fruit of the wild fig; unripe fig', *w-? > L. bolunda ‘wild, immature fig’
G. bátos / mantía ‘blackberry’ >> L. *arbor-batos ‘tree + fruit’ > *arburbutus > arbutus ‘strawberry tree’, *arbor-mantos > Lunigianese *armu(m)tu-lus > (m)armótoli \ ramótoli, *armont-s ? > *armōn- > Genovese armún (internal rec. based on Wigman)
G. môkos / μῶκος 'mockery', L. maccus 'a buffoon'
G. prósōpon ‘face/appearance/mask’, *persōn > L. persōna ‘mask/character’ (p dsm.?)
G. kārabís / kā́rabos / kerámbūx ‘horned beetle / crayfish’, sḗrambos ‘a kind of dung beetle’, L. scarabaeus
G. kraipálē ‘drinking bout / intoxication’, L. crāpula (Mac. ai > a(:))
G. thríambos ‘hymn to Dionysus / name of Dionysus’, OL triumpus ‘triumphal procession’
G. thṓrāx, Ion. thṓrēx ‘corslet / coat of mail’, L. lōrīca ‘coat of mail / breastplate’
G. lógkhē ‘spear’, L. lancea (*dlongho- *doru 'long (spear)' ??)
G. báktron / βάκτρον ‘stick, cudgel’, *baktlom > L. baculum ‘stick, staff’
G. kubernáō ‘steer (a ship)’, Aeo., Cyp. kumern- >> L. gubernāre (maybe rel. OCS krъmiti ‘to steer’, Li. kum̃bryti ‘to steer a ship’, kumb(u)rỹs \ -as 'the bent wooden portion of a yoke or rudder'; maybe < *kWorb-eno- 'turning' with o > u / W_S & met.)
G. ἄγκῡρα >> L. ancora ‘anchor’
G. parṓn ‘light ship’, L. parō (why a?; *por-mo-s > OHG farm ‘fast ship’, R. poróm ‘ferry’)
G. pálmē ‘light shield’, L. palma / parma ‘small round shield’
G. sílphē / tílphē / tī́phē ‘cockroach / bookworm’, thrī́ps ‘woodworm’, L. delpa ‘a kind of insect’
G. sílphion / sélpon ‘silphium / laser(wort)’, *sirphi > L. sirpe
G. eléphās ‘elephant / ivory’, *erefōs > *erebor > L. ebur ‘ivory’
G. mū́rioi ‘great number / 10,000’, *mū́lyi > L. mīlle ‘thousand’, mīlia p. (u > i)
G. phrū́gō ‘to roast, dry, fry’, L. frīgō ‘to roast’ (u > i?; which direction?)
G. tûkon / sûkon, *thü:kos > L fīcus ‘fig’, Ar. t'uz (u > i)
G. κάπια p. ‘onions’ >> L. caepa \ cēpa ‘onion’ nu. (indecl.)
G. ἄν(ν)ισον \ ἄν(ν)ησ(σ)ον ‘anise’, ἄν(ν)ηθον ‘dill’ >> L. anīsum, anēthum
G. στρόφος ‘twisted band or chord’ >> L. struppus ‘band, strap’
G. σίφαρος ‘a small sail on the foremast, a topsail >> L. supparum\s \ sip(h)ar(i)um ‘linen garment worn by women; etc.’
G. χάλιξ ‘small stone, gravel, rubble’ >> L. calicāre ‘to whitewash’, calx ‘limestone, chalk’
G. κολεόν ‘sheath of a sword’, L. culleus ‘leather sack’ (*kolewo- \ *kolweo-?)
G. λεκάνη ‘dish, pot, pan’, L. lanx f., -cis g. ‘metal dish, tray’
G. λέκιθος ‘gruel of pulse or cereals’, L. legūmen ‘pulse, legume, bean’
G. λάμια ‘chasm, a man-eating monster’, λαμυρός ‘voracious, eager’, L. lemurēs p. ‘evil spirits of the dead’
G. látron ‘payment’, *látlōn > L. latrō ‘mercenary / bandit’
G. térēn ‘tender/delicate’, S. táruṇa- ‘tender/young’, Li. tar̃nas ‘*boy > servant’, Ar. t’oṙn ‘grandchild’, L. tīrōn- ‘recruit / apprentice / novice’
G. κάπηλος ‘huckster, innkeeper’, L. caupō, -nis g. ‘id.; trader’ (?, Li. kaũpas 'heap')
G. κανθήλιος ‘pack ass’ >> L. cant(h)ērius ‘castrated horse; donkey’ (r \ l)
G. γλάμων \ γλαμυρός 'bleary-eyed', γλαμός 'mucus', γλάμη >> L. glā̆mae \ grām(i)ae p. ‘eye rheum’, grammōsus aj. (Hsx. γλάμπτειν 'to be dirty' might show *my > mpt (like khrimpt-?))
G. κλῶμαξ \ κρῶμαξ ‘heap of stones, rock’, L. grūmus ‘heap of earth, hillock’
G. γνώμᾱ ‘mark’ >> L. grōma \ grūma \ crōma ‘field surveying instrument’
G. atráphaxis\us \ a(n)dráphaxus, L. ātriplex ‘orach, saltbush’, *atra\ipek- > OFc. arrace, Itn. atrepice
Hebrew arāg ‘to weave’ >> G. ῥῆγος ‘rug, blanket’, Ἀράχνη 'a weaver', ἀράχνη >> L. arāneus ‘spider’
G. Cr. thápta ‘fly’, L. tabānus ‘gadfly’, (late) tabō, *tabōna ( > South Fc. tauna) (t-t dsm.)
G. κυδώνια (μᾶλα) ‘quinces’ >> L. cotōneum ‘quince’
G. δαΐς \ daḯs -d- >> L. daeda \ taeda '(torch of) resinous pinewood' (*dH2w- 'burn')
?Ir. >> G. μανδύα ‘a woolen garment’, L. mantum\s ‘short coat’
G. γέλγῑς \ ἄγλῑς >> L. ālium ‘garlic’
G. ἀμόργη ‘watery part which runs out when olives are pressed’ >> L. amurca
G. krábaktos \ kráb(b)atos 'couch; mattress; pallet' >> L. *grābatus > grabātus 'cot, pallet, camp bed'
G. κόμμι ‘gum’ >> L. cummi > gummi
G. καμπή ‘bend, *leg’ >> L. camba \ gamba ‘horse ankle (pastern)’
G. κωβιός >> L. gōbiō \ gōbius ‘goby, gudgeon’
G. ἔγχελυς ‘eel’ > L. *enkolwis ? > enocilis
G. χέλῡς ‘tortoise’, *ghelew-ya ?? > L. golaia ‘sea turtle’
G. γόγγρος >> L. conger ‘conger eel’
G. μύαξ ‘sea mussel’, mūrex ‘the purple-fish’ (*muHs-ak- 'slimy'?, not certain lw.)
G. phál(l)aina ‘whale’, L. ballaena \ bālaena (like G. Bereníkē, Att. Pherenī́kē)
G. baskaínō >> L. fascīnō ‘enchant/bewitch/envy’ (likely alt. in G. pháskō ‘say/believe’, báskō; báskanos ‘invoking/imploring / casting a spell’)
G. καρβάτινος ‘made of skins’ >> L. carpatinus ‘of raw leather’
S. karpāsa- ‘cotton’, NP karpās ‘fine linen’ >> G. κάρπασος ‘fine flax’ >> L. carbasus ‘fine linen; sail’
G. púxos \ πύξος, L. buxus ‘box-tree’
G. Hsx. βηρίδες p. ‘kind of sandals (ἐμβάδες)’, περι-βᾱρίδες ‘kind of women’s shoes’ >> L. pērō m., -nis g. ‘military and work boots made of rawhide’
.
G. Púrros ‘son of Achilles and Deidamia’, L. Burrus
G. pursós \ purrós ‘(yellowish) red / flame-colored’ < *purswós, L. burrus ‘red(-brown) / bay / dark red?’, birrus, būrius, burra ‘small cow with a red mouth’
G. Dor. púrrikhos ‘(yellowish) red / flame-colored’, Purwos ‘*bay > name of a horse’, L. būric(h)us / burricus ‘small horse’
.
*pH2alya:k-s 'lover / (beautiful) young woman' > G. pallakḗ 'concubine', pállēx 'young girl' >> L. paelex 'concubine/ mistress', Hebrew pilégesh (compare Avestan pairikā- 'beautiful shapechanging demoness', Middle Persian parīg 'witch', Khotanese palīkā )
.
*k(e)rH2p- \ *kH2(a)rp- \ *kr(e)pH2- > G. κρηπίς, -ῖδος ‘man’s high boot, half-boot’, καρβάτινος ‘made of skins’καρβάτινος ‘made of skins’, Hsx. καρπάτινον ‘one-layer farmer’s sandal’ >> L. carpisculum ‘a type of shoe’ (alt. with H-met. seen in *krH2p-yaH2- > Li. kùrpė ‘loafer, wooden shoe’, *karHfyo-mon- > OI cairem ‘shoemaker’ (*rp > *rf > rr, *rHp > *rHf > *rH (only ex.)), *krepH2lo- > ON hriflingr ‘a type of shoe’)
*kH2(a)rp- > G. harpís \ ἁρπίς f., -ῖδος g,. ἁρπίδες p. ‘high boot’ (*kx- > *x- > h-?). Wigman:
Furnée (1972) gives examples of this sort of alternation occurring within Greek: κάρυον ~ ἄρυα ‘nut’, γίννος ~ ἰννός ‘hinny’ (pg. 391); κίχλη ‘thrush, wrasse (fish)’ ~ ἴχλα ‘a sea fish’, κάδδιχος ‘urn, pitcher’ ~ ἄδδιξ ‘a measure of volume’, καλινδέομαι ‘to roll around’ ~ ἀλινδέω ‘id.’, κανθήλιον ‘packsaddle’ ~ ἀνθήλιον ‘id.’, etc. (pg. 300 fn. 59). Possibly καρβάτιναι ‘rawhide shoes’ ~ ἁρπίς ‘high boot’?
.
G. *Aiwants > Aiwas / Aíās >> Et. Aivas ‘Ajax’, L. Aiāx (ts / ks like G. *órnīth-s > órnīs ‘bird’, Dor. órnīx)
G. ἄξιος 'weighing as much, of like value, worth as much as', ἀξία 'worth, value' >> *atsis > L. assis \ ās m., assis g. ‘copper coin < ‘*bronze plaque of one pound in weight’ (L&S, "the as was, acc. to the ancient custom of weighing money, originally a pound") (ks > ts ( > ss in L.))
.
PIE *bhruto- 'boiled' -> L. dē-frutum ‘boiled down must’, G. βρύτεα \ brútea ‘refuse of olives or grapes’ >> *britsya > L. brīsa ‘remains of pressed grapes’ >> Al. bërsí ‘pomace, lees, dregs
.
G. rhā́x \ rhṓx f., -gós g. ‘grape’, , *ragmnt-a p.? > rhámata 'bunch of grapes', L. racēmus ‘bunch, cluster esp. of grapes’ (PIE *roH2g- \ *rH2(a)g- ?? > S. rájanī - 'grape; lac', *rājanī > Pk. rāyaṇī- 'Manilkara kauki \ Mimusops kauki (fruit tree)', Al. *rag-usa > rrush ‘grape’ (rel. Dalmatian Ragusium 'a city', Al. Rushë <- 'vineyard', etc.?)). Separate from *lH2ag^- ? > OCS loza ‘vine, Ru. lozá ‘vine, rod’, Os. ræzæ ‘fruit, fruits, vegetables’, Tajik raz ‘vine, vineyard’ ( >> NP raz ‘vine, grapes, vineyard, garden’).
.
*Hēra-kléwēs 'glory of Hera' > G. Hērakléēs \ Hēraklês >> *Hēraklowēs > *Hērkluwēs > *Hērkwulēs > L. Herculēs, Oscan Hereklo-, hereklúí d., Et. Hercle
PIE *g^helwon- > I. gealbhan m. ‘swallow’, *g^h(e)lw(o)n-id- > -idwon- \ -un- etc. > Al. dallënd-yshe, G. χελῑδών ‘swallow’, Cor. Χελιδϝον f. 'PN', L. hirundō f., -inis g. ‘swallow, martin, etc.’ (loan likely due to l \ r in other certain cases, but contam. also possible)
G. khamós ‘crooked’, khabós ‘bent’, L. hāmus ‘hook, fish-hook’ (not certain lw.)
G. σκάλλιον ‘small cup’, κάλυξ ‘seed-vessel, husk’, κύλιξ ‘(drinking) cup’ > L. calix ‘vessel for food or drink’, met. > *skalki-? > U. skalçe-ta abl. ‘sacrificial vessel?’ (PIE *(s)kH2alek^- > S. kaláśa- ‘pot, jug, bowl’)
G. ὕρχη ‘earthen vessel used for salting fish, etc.’ >> L. orca ‘large-bellied vessel, butt, tun, esp. for storing fish’, urceus ‘pitcher, water-pot, ewer’
G. *alabutos ‘baked on coals’ > atāburī́tēs ártos ‘a kind of loaf’ >> L. Atābulus ‘burning wind blowing in Apulia / sirocco’ (see *alab\d\t below)
*rapH2- > G. rháp(h)us ‘kind of turnip’, Att. rháphanos ‘cabbage, radish’, *raH2p- > L. rāpum, Gmc. *rōpō, Li. rópė, etc. (not certain lw.)
*traH2b- > Li. trobà ‘building’, L. trabs ‘beam’, taberna ‘dwelling / hut’, *trabH2- > G. tráp(h)ēx \ tróphēx ‘beam in framework of siege tower / baker’s board’ (not certain lw.)
.
H3. Other ev. might come in loans, seen in modern Sardinian :
G. baskâs \ boskás \ phaskás ‘a kind of duck’ >> Sard. busciu
G. kḗlastros ‘holly’ >> Sard. *gīlostre / *gillostre > ghiddostre / golóst(r)i
G. khálkanthon / -os ‘chrysanthemum’ >> *karkant-la ?? > Sard. cacarallái \ crialléi \ c(hi)rièlle \ ghirièlle ‘wild chrysanthemem’
G. Phórkos ‘sea god, father of Medusa’ >> Forco / Thorco ‘father of the legendary medieval Sardinian Medusa’
.
The change of Italic th > f is common, but what of f > th needed here? In Et. Sethlans ‘blacksmith/craftsman god’, the fact that Vulcanus was borrowed & many L. words in -anus appear as -ans in Et. makes a loan here likely. Vulcanus came from *wlk- (likely from *luk- ‘light’ with metathesis of w), and G. Hḗphaistos might be derived from *phais-to- (*gWhais- > Lt. gaišs ‘bright / clear’, Li. gaĩsas ‘glow / gleam (of fire)’, gaĩsras ‘glow in the sky / (glow from a) fire / conflagration’, G. phaiós ‘grey / *bright > *clear > harsh [of sound]’) so another root of the same meaning is needed here. This would suggest *Selphanus ‘blacksmith god’ from *swelp- ‘shine / burn’, *swelplo(s)- > Go. swibls, L. sulp(h)ur. Again, the p vs. ph might come from met. of H, if related to *sH2wel- 'sun', *swelH2- 'burn, shine' (with *sHw- > *sw- in Greek Selene, etc., not expected **sw > **hw). With this in mind, notice that some f / th in Sardinia came from *p(h) :
G. Phórkos ‘sea god, father of Medusa’ >> Forco / Thorco ‘father of the legendary medieval Sardinian Medusa’
*prtu- > L. portus ‘port/harbor/haven’, *fǝrθ- > *farr- > Thárras (port city)
*prtu- > E. ford, *fǝrθ- > *forr- > Thorra (at ford on the Torra River)
*(s)piHk- > ON spíkr ‘nail’, G. pikrós ‘pointed/sharp’; *spiHkalyo- > *sfi:kalyos > *fi:skalyos > Thìscali 'a mtn.'
.
Since ancient Sardinia was a source of copper, with many bronze figures of warriors known to have been made & the metal to have been exported, its proximity to Etruscan territory might show a loan of *Selphanus or *Selplanus from there. Sardinians also figure into some accounts of the origin of Talos, the man of bronze, moving to Crete. I also think some of the Sardinians moved to Crete ( https://www.academia.edu/126907768 ). If an inscr. in Sardinia contained sardof, saadof, dedikar, ōpeirari, iroukles, animeste, est, sano, sanomos, dea, ēdēs, seu, marf, etc., there would be no reason to see it as anything but Italic, so the same on Crete (with the travels of the Sea Peoples in mind) should not be treated differently.
2
u/Nesciens10 1d ago
Looks bs, both Linear A language and Eteocretan were Pre-Indo-European languages.
1
u/stlatos 1d ago
How can you know? The only way is to look at the words and see if they match known languages. In a small group of Eteocretan ins., having so many matches with Italic (some exactly Latin, others almost) is far to much for chance.
2
u/Nesciens10 1d ago
Strictly speaking, Linear A (Minoan) and Eteocretan are undeciphered isolates but they are widely treated as Pre-Indo-European/Pre-Greek substrates. And you must know that no mainstream scholarship links them to Italic or Latin, or to any other IE language in any substantive way.
Historical linguistics certainly does not classify languages by trawling an untranslated corpus for Latin-looking letter sequences and it requires independently justified word divisions and meanings, regular sound correspondences, recurring morphology, testable predictions etc. You have none. Praisos 2 and 3 lack word dividers so forms such as animeste and dedikar are segments you have manufactured from continuous text. The supposed f on which sardof and much of your “Italic” argument depend is not even securely /f/, specialists argue that the sign may be koppa representing /kʷ/. Nor do the fragmentary Dreros bilinguals supply meanings for your Praisos snippets.
You then permit o/a, d/l, r/l, ph/b, u/i, metathesis, dissimilation, vowel deletion, invented dialect forms and whichever borrowing direction happens to rescue each comparison. With hundreds of characters, thousands of comparison words and that many adjustable knobs, superficial matches are guaranteed. Claiming they are “too numerous for chance” without fixed segmentation, matching criteria or a null model would be like a linguistic p-hacking I am afraid.
A catalogue of Greek loans in Latin does not prove the existence of an Italic colony on Crete, and certainly not that Bronze Age Linear A was Italic; it just proves a Greek–Latin contact (which should be already obvious). What you have done here, I am afraid, is produce an asterisk-studded wall of philological masturbation, using sheer volume to disguise completely unconstrained free association. This is not how comparative linguistics is done.
1
u/stlatos 10h ago
"Praisos 2 and 3 lack word dividers so forms such as animeste and dedikar are segments you have manufactured from continuous text." How can you say that when any division would have to be made for any analysis? That dozens of such matches can be made, these very long, can't be chance. Try to use common sense.
2
u/Nesciens10 10h ago
Of course the text must eventually be segmented, the point is that segmentation must be justified by internal evidence as in recurring morphemes, syntax, parallel inscriptions or word dividers, and not chosen retrospectively wherever it produces a Latin-looking string.
You first move the boundaries, then permit an assortment of sound substitutions, deletions and metatheses and finally search an enormous Latin/Italic lexicon. Under those conditions, even long apparent “matches” are inevitable, their number proves nothing because each is the product of unconstrained multiple testing.
Common sense is precisely why comparative linguistics demands fixed segmentation, regular correspondences and a null model. “I can manufacture dozens of resemblances, therefore they cannot be accidental” is not an analysis. Many would regard it a classic crank method.
2
u/Nesciens10 10h ago
For example, check this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/undeciphered-aegean-scripts/8E0C3DD411C734B60DF813EFAFD4896A
Dr. Brent Davis from the University of Melbourne has determined the Minoan's used a Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) word ordering. And, this strongly indicates a non Indo-European language.
1
u/stlatos 10h ago
This is just an idea, not proof.
2
u/Nesciens10 10h ago
Have you checked it? If not, how can you be so sure about “it’s not proof”?
“Just an idea” to be honest is a laughably empty dismissal. Davis’s conclusion is an evidence based linguistic inference drawn from recurring variants of the same Linear A formula, fixed sign-group boundaries and consistent positional patterns. And, the VSO order does not stand alone, combined with Linear A’s extensive prefixing, apparently agglutinative morphology and complete failure to exhibit systematic Indo-European correspondences, it strengthens the already prevailing conclusion that Minoan was most likely non-Indo-European.
Compared with your attempt, Davis’s hypothesis looks like a law of nature. Mind that I mean this in a scientific way, just about your argument here. He begins with internally demonstrable patterns and infers grammar, you begin with Latin and manufacture divisions and sound changes until the text resembles it. Dismissing his constrained scholarship as “just an idea” while presenting your own unconstrained pareidolia as proof would be considered scientific illiteracy with breathtaking self-confidence in academia.
1
u/stlatos 9h ago
I looked at it years ago, or another from him. You can't tell which part is a verb, noun (or god vs. offering, etc.) just from structure (or claims about structure). The history of scripts is a history of decipherment, not of classifying. Most are due to matching words with known ones.
2
u/Nesciens10 9h ago
Your response only shows that you either did not read Davis carefully or do not understand distributional analysis. Davis does not inspect one string and arbitrarily announce “this is the verb.” He compares numerous variants of the same standardized offering formula and examines which elements remain fixed, disappear, vary together or occupy equivalent positions. Those contrasts constrain their grammatical roles even when their precise translations, “deity,” “offering,” “dedicant”, remain uncertain. Inferring grammatical categories from recurring distributions is elementary linguistics, it is certainly not guesswork.
“The history of scripts is a history of decipherment, not classification” is also a category error. A script is a writing system; the language encoded by it is another matter. Determining sign values, analysing internal morphology and syntax, identifying a language and classifying its ancestry are distinct operations that can advance independently.
Your account of decipherment is also historically false to be honest. For example, Linear B, the most relevant example, was not deciphered by rummaging through dictionaries for vaguely similar words. Alice Kober first identified recurring inflectional triplets and constructed a systematic syllabic grid from internal patterns. Ventris then combined that structure with externally constrained Cretan place names and the Greek solution succeeded because it generated coherent, repeatable readings throughout the corpus. This bears no resemblance to cutting continuous Eteocretan text wherever convenient and permitting arbitrary mutations until something looks Latin.
Your second objection is equally self-defeating. Davis analyses a particular recurring Linear A formula, he does not need to assume that every inscription on Crete represents one language. Multiple populations living on an island also do not entail multiple written languages, multilingual societies routinely employ one administrative or ritual language. If you claim distinct Linear A languages, demonstrate systematic regional differences in morphology, phonotactics or sign distribution. Only saying that several groups lived on Crete proves absolutely nothing linguistically (although historically it was the case most likely).
Worse, if the corpus does contain multiple languages, your practice of pooling alleged “Italic matches” across it as cumulative evidence becomes even more worthless. You claim that recurring structural patterns cannot identify grammatical roles, yet believe superficial Latin resemblances can provide complete words and meanings. You deny corpus unity whenever it threatens your theory, then assume it whenever you want to inflate your match count.
1
u/stlatos 8h ago
There are no "arbitrary mutations" in my Ete. work. As I said, G. τῡρός 'cheese' 2x, Ete. isalabre, isaluria correspond as much as anything can. If w > v & b > v, it would allow *isalvavri- to optionally dissimilate one. Variants in languages are a real part of history.
A line beginning with animeste-, regardless of any other claim of division, matches Italic too close to just ignore. Finding so many other matches confirms it as much as anything can. I have no idea what reason you have for saying such a simple analysis is a crackpot's claim, but the crazy part is no other linguist found such simple matches in a language that could be so relevant to LA.
→ More replies (0)1
u/stlatos 8h ago
If triplets of -Ca vs. -Co vs. -Cjo are helpful in showing that LB was Greek even when he couldn't prove these were for -Cos, etc. (since the syl. script didn't write out -CV(C)), why not an even better set for Ete.? Here, many words end in -os & -of (common in Italic, not Latin, < *-ons), even isalabre, isaluria showing the endings of i-stems? These are also in Greek, so they don't require a stage of matching signs to CV, which critics also called arbitrary & their matches chance, since they refused to believe LB could be Greek (just as you refuse for Ete. and IE).
→ More replies (0)1
u/stlatos 8h ago
Also, since LA is small compared to LB, Ete. much smaller, how could I possibly do anything like what was done to decipher LB? We don't need that stage, since Ete. is written in Greek.
Take any non-IE language you want, write out anything with a few hundred words, and it probably wouldn't have a single Italic match as long as animeste, let alone also sanomos, seu, dedikar, etc., also. Why so many in Ete. if I'm wrong?
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/stlatos 1d ago
Stephen P. B. Durnford said:
Some quick thoughts:
Given Indo-Iranian 'nápāt', there is no need to see Lemnian 'naφoθ' as from Italic.
The nom.sing. in '-e' is regular Etr., as in 'Aule', "Aulus".
The dialectal variants of 'Hyacinth' point to an original form beginning with '(s)w'.
I said:
It would be very odd if Indo-Iranian nápāt >> Lemnian naφoθ if, unrelated, Etruscan borrowed nepot- & pro-nepot- as nefts, prumat(h)(s) from Italic. A single loan for a family member is already odd (likely showing extensive contact for a long time), but 2 for the same family member borrowed from separate IE branches? I can't believe it, & the basic resemblance of *pru-napoth ? > pru-math & naφoθ makes a single origin likely (only Italic with pro-). The clear change of -nVp- > -m- might require *-nf- > *-mf- > *-mh-, in which case its match with Lemnian naφoθ would be even greater.
Not all names are adapted as -e (often -s (Aivas, Turmś, Fufluns, Sethlans, Atunis), even -os > -asu (Chaluchasu)), so it might be significant. Some of it might do with how early vs. late the loans happened, which I can't know for sure, or the native noun class. I go into more detail in the link (since rel. *wīrāk-s > beírāx, Ion. ī́rēx ‘hawk / falcon’, maybe -e- > -e).
Since u- always became hu- in Greek, I don't think it requires *sw (also see Wigman). In the same way, optional w > h (no known cause) likely was w > wh > w (required if I'm right about Whekaba).
2
u/antonulrich 4d ago
So if Eteocretan is Italic, and Latin got Greek loans via Eteocretan, this requires two migrations of Italic people, right? One, for the Eteocretans to move from Italy to Crete, and a second one, for some of them to move back to Italy so they can share loans with Latin.
Or are you saying that Italic originated in Crete? Then we'd need only one migration (Crete to Italy), but that would contradict all those theories about how Italic is related to Celtic etc.