Re: [tied] Re: IE, AA, Nostratic and Ringo

----- Original Message -----
From: John Croft <jdcroft@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 July, 2000 4:08 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: IE, AA, Nostratic and Ringo


> Dennis
>
> Regarding linguistics of Crete and the Aegean.
>
> Linear B is a principally syllabic script written with some 89
> different signs which have been deciphered as representing both bare
> vowels (i.e. a, e, i, o, u) and open syllables of the form
> consonant+vowel (e.g. pa, pe, pi, po, pu). Closed syllables
> consisting
> either of vowel+consonant or of consonant+vowel+consonant do not
> occur. In addition to the syllabic signs there are over one hundred
> ideograms (signs representing physical objects, numerals, measures of
> weight and of liquid and dry volumes, and a variety of commodities).
> Forty-five of the Linear B syllabic signs have close equivalents in
> Linear A, while a further ten have more doubtful parallels in the
> older script. There is therefore general scholarly consensus that
> Linear B was derived from Linear A for the purpose of writing a
> different, non-Minoan language which happens to have been deciphered
> as an early form of Greek.
>
> Analysing these features seems to show similarity to no known IE or
> Hamito Semitic language. In fact as the decipherers of Linear B
> point
> out that the clumsy spelling rules are a result of the fact that
> Linear B is derived directly from Linear A, a writing system designed
> for a non-Greek language.

There is a body of opinion (Leonard Palmer for one) that claims that Linear
B cannot be derived directly from Linear A, so that both scripts, while
obviously closely related, go back to an earlier proto-script. This
proto-script in turn is traced back to an earlier script from which the
Cypriot syllabry is also derived.
One implication of this is that the scripts are considerably older than the
attested samples. The oldest example at Phaistos possibly goes back to the
beginning of the 3rd millennium, and by 17th century there several well
established regional variants, so they may well go back to mid-3rd
millennium.
Another implication is that it may well be that Linear B was not originally
created for Greek, but another language altogether (and not the same as the
Linear A language).

>Features such as consonant clusters,
> terminal -s, and distinctions between r and l , g and k, and p and b,
> all of which occur in Greek, do not appear to have been
> characteristic
> of this Minoan language, and hence cause bizarre problems in the
> "spelling" of Greek words in the modified form of Linear A (i.e.
> Linear B) which was used to write Greek.
>
> It is interesting that many of these features are found in Etruscan.
> I would recommend you read Cyril's excellent essay on the subject at
> the IE Database, particularly "The phonetics (of Eteocretian) is also
> surprisingly close to Etruscan (no difference between voiced and
> voiceless consonants, between l and r and hesitation between l and d
> -
> this mutation was common among many Mediterranean languages and
> sometimes was borrowed into Latin....
>

Cyrus Gordon has postulated that the Cretan Semitic likewise did not make
voiced/unvoiced distinction. In fact, Modern Arabic does not distinguish
between k/g and p/b. Consonant clusters (of more than two members) and final
consonants are also not a feature of Semitic (mimation and nunation
notwithstanding). And if the Semitic representations of Egyptian words, and
vice-versa, are anything to go by, there seems to have been considerable
confusion over "r","l" and "n". The "l/d" thing may perhaps be explainable
via a Semitic emphatic. (cf. Galdu/Galzu/GalSu > Akkadian KaSSu - Kassites).
A feature of Linear B is the three-way distinction of
plain-palatised-labialised consonants. This has been proposed for
Afro-Asiatic - is it a feature of Etruscan?
There are two signs that have diphthongal values, /ai/ and /au/, again very
Semitic-like.

> Also the Eteocretian sentence designed as such in an Egyptian papyrus
> (around 1500 BC), but unfortunately there is no word separation there
> and it lacks vowels. The text is sometimes read as such : santi
> kuppap
> waya yaya minti tekakali. What it means, we don't know but can
> believe
> it is not Indo-European.
>
So this may be nothing like the actual language in question. Is the original
written left-to-right or right-to-left?

> Third, the language was sometimes written in the Greek alphabet
> around
> 600 BC in Praisios. There too, there is no word separation. Here is
> an
> example of such inscriptions: onadesiemetepimitspha
> dphnalaraphraisoiinai retsnmtorsardophsano satoisstephesiamun
> animestepalungutat .... So writing in the Greek alphabet does not add
> anything to its deciphering.....
>
> This is unlike anything I have ever seen in Semitic. I'd be
> interested in your reconstructions here.
>
Is this the same language as above? How do we know it is Eteocretan, after
all it's attested some 800 years after the Greek take-over of Crete?
Was it written by a speaker of the language, or is this the impression of a
Greek speaker?

All in all, the one thing that can be said reasonably definitely about
Linear A language is that it contains Semitic words -
kunisu - with the ideogram for wheat, cf. Ak. ku(n)iSu - emmer wheat
qapa and supu - types of pots - cf. Heb.kp and Ugaritic sp
yane - wine - a specifically West Semitic development of the common wine
word
kuminu - cumin - Ak. kammu:nu/Sum. gamun, Heb. kammo:n
sasame - sesame - Ak. SamaSama, Ug. ssmn
samuku - raisin - Heb. simmuq
karopa - a type of vase - Ak. karpatu, Ug. krpnm

Personal names attested also seem to parallel Egyptian lists, e.g. 17th
century "list of names from Kftiw", and show a population with Egyptian,
Semitic, Hurrian and Anatolian names.

Linear B displays the above, as well as words for such important items, such
as
karuso - chrysos - gold , from Sem. kHaru:s
kito - chito:n/kito:n, - cotton, garment from Sem. ktn (Heb. ketonet
"tunic")
rita, lita - linen, from Sem. lt, Ass. litu, Heb.lo:t (emphatic "t")

Ventris and Chadwick, the decipherers of Linear B also wrote :

"...contemporary records (from Mesopotamia and Syria) present the most
useful and significant analogies with the Mycenean tablets...In spite of
some differences of climate and culture, the similarities in the size and
organisation of the royal palaces and in the purposes for which the tablets
were written ensure close parallels not only in the listed commodities and
their amounts, but even on occasion in phraseology and layout...
It will be noted that the ratios and volumes of the biblical system for
liquids show some analogy with the Mycenean; there are reasons for regarding
the former as survivals of a general Canaanite system, traces of which can
be seen in Ugarit...The primary dry unit also corresponds perhaps
accidentally with the Babylonian imeru or 'donkey load' which is similarly
divided into ten."

While they're speaking of Linear B, the same probably holds true for Linear
A.
Of course, this gives no proof of what language Linear A is, but does
indicate an ancient and profound influence from the Middle East.

> For Glen and Dennis again I can only recommend Cyril's conclusion.
>
> The opinion of the scholars about Pre-Hellenic is that this
> particular
> language was spoken in the Aegean area and in southern Italy. This
> language had obvious links with ancient Asia Minor and even Anatolian
> languages (mainly the use of placenames ending in -nd), but there is
> no consensus upon the interpretation among the scholars.
>
> The only thing we can be sure of is that Pre-Hellenic, like Aegean
> and
> many Asia Minor languages (Lemnian, Eteo-Cypriot, Eteo-Cretan) were
> remnants of an old pre-Indo-European language complex, far related
> to
> Indo-European, but not a part of the family (probably linked with the
> expansion of agrarian economy along the coast of Mediterranean around
> 5000 BC), and of which Etruscan and Rhaetian could be later
> offsprings.
>

Cyril's conclusion continues, that we can't tell if this is one language
family or many, and that all versions of their links, affiliations and
origins are purely theoretical.

I find the possible Etruscan linkage intriguing. I would see the parent of
Etruscan - Tyrrhenian - as the language of Troy I/II, which means, they may
well be responsible for the prototype syllabry and its introduction into
Greece and Crete (and Cyprus), where they developed separately into Linear B
and A. This of course does not necessarily mean that the language of Linear
A is Tyrrhenian, still less Asianic.


Either way, it does not advance your Caucasic/Asianic cause, either as a
source of early borrowing or pan-Aegean linguistic unity.

Cheers
Dennis