Re: Pelasgian origins

----- Original Message -----
From: Rex H. McTyeire <rexbo@...>
To: <cybalist@eGroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 02 March, 2000 7:50 PM
Subject: [cybalist] Re: Pelasgian origins


> "John Croft" adds:
> > Regarding the origins of the Pelasgians, thought you people may >like
> this:
>
> > Palaechthon and Pelasgus 1.
> > Palaechthon is the father of Pelasgus 1, after whom the >Pelasgians,
> inhabitants of the Peloponnesus, were called. Pelasgus >1, who some call
son
> of Zeus & Niobe 1, and others Autochthonous, >(Sons of the Soil) is
> remembered as the king of Argos to whom the >first Danaans (Achaeans)
came.
> { Aes.Supp.250. Aes.Supp.250 and passim; Apd.2.1.1, 3.8.1; DH.1.11.2;
> Pau.8.22.1.}
>
> > Also does anyone know of Phlastia? Apparently it was near Scyron
> >(near Corinth). Another PLST word.
>
> Phlastia is a newby but a goodie. Add it to the list with Placia on the
> Hellespont, from wence Pelasgi were forced out, moving into Athens.
>
> And you thought there was confusion before? (Wait:-)
> Pelasgus: May be an adjective used as a noun by Appollodorus yielding
> Aeschylus' story. >
>

Here's another idea.
I have already posted that in Hesychios' dictionary, an alternative form is
given as PELASTIKOS, which when combined with Philistia and Egyptian prst,
makes me think that in fact PELAST- is the original form. John's post above
concerning Phlastia is, to my mind, additional evidence.
Further, the sequence /-sg-/ seems unlikely, or at least un-Greek. Other
than before or after a voiceless stop, or word finally, /s/ in Greek
aspirated to /h/ and ultimately disappeared. This, to me, lends weight to
the idea that the original form had a /t/ not a /g/.
Now, further to Rex's info above that Pelasgos was originally an adjective,
and if
the original form was *pelastos, this suggests the possibility that what we
have here could be a superlative of /palaios/, /*palai+istos/ (the
comparative
/palaiteros/ shows that the thematic /o/ could be dropped).
So /*pelastos/ could simply mean "oldest, most/extremely ancient".
The name Palaechthon also looks like /palai/+our old friend /chthon/
"earth" as in autochthon.

Even if my derivation is wrong, I'm still pretty sure that the original word
had a /t/, which would rule out parallels with /g/ words that have been
cited, such as Paeligni and pelagos.

If I'm right however, this bears out my contention that Pelasgian is not the
name of any one people, but of extremely ancient people in general.

The problem I've always had with this macro-Pelasgia idea is the
relationship of the non-Greek Pelasgians with the Pelasgians of Argos who
must have been Greek-speaking. If not, where did the Greek language come
from?

By the way, Rex, would I be right in assuming, from your reading of the
Suppliants, that you agree that the colonisation of Pelasgian Argos by
Danaos the Egyptian is to be taken seriously as a historical reality? The
colonisation of Greece by Egyptians and Phoenicians certainly more than
fulfils your criteria :

>However, when a constant implication appears in
>literature across periods and cultures (Livy) that also finds support in
>scattered arch results, it is not a single indicator any longer, and must
be
>addressed. As Mark and Sabine suggest: ignoring it requires significant
>contrary indicators. One can not "opinion" or "guess" away the
"reinforced"
>indicator with out proof.

Cheers
Dennis