On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:32:01 , "Glen Gordon"
<
glengordon01@...> wrote:
>>I'm confused: who was the stele raised for? "Phoke"? That's
>>impossible, as his name isn't even mentioned on the front part.
>
>Yes, Fuke.
Lemnian doesn't use <u>, it only has <o>, so we can let that pass.
However, <ph> is not <f>.
>Let's face it. The stele isn't the most finely crafted piece of work known
>to man. The text as it appears in online depictions appears losely scribbled
>on by a paraplegic craftsman without any deep planning into the overall
>design. What's mentioned on the front appears to hastily explain what he
>did, how long he lived, and what the location involved was.
Without mentioning his name? Well, I'm even more impressed now. It
takes you just *one night* to decipher/translate the Lemnos stele,
which has remained essentially untranslated ever since its discovery
in 1844, and on which not a few scholars have spent years upon years
of work... And, to add to our amazement, you've done it without ever
having as much as *seen* an ancient funerary stele, and thus being led
astray by the expectation that the person's name should figure in it
prominently.
>Of course, Miguel! It should be obvious to anyone that has an even passing
>knowledge of Etruscan that /zivai/ is a verb related to death (or maybe
>life, now that I think about it) (Etr. ziva).
But that's written with a <z>, not with <s'>. The Lemnos stele is
written in the Greek alphabet. If "my" <$> (<s'> in most
transcriptions) had been a variant of zeta, it would have been
transcribed as <z>, not as <s'>, don't you think?
>He is certainly not called
>"Zivai"... In fact, wouldn't we expect _two_ names (first and last) instead
>of a petname caption??
In 6th century BC Lemnos?
>Further, the other mention of /zivai/ is in /zivai sialchveiz aviz/ on the
>side, a typical phrase found in many Etruscan texts as well, either meaning
>"dead at the age of forty" or "living till the age of forty", but certainly
>not "Zivai, age of forty" (?!), a counterintuitive pattern. Can you find
>Etruscan phrases that follow your pattern? I bet not.
To begin with, the Etr. genitive is -s or -$, not -z.
Can you find Etruscan funerary inscriptions that don't start with the
name of the deceased? Very few, I bet.
"My pattern" is: "NAME avils NUMERAL-s (NUMERAL-s avils) VERB.
Let's see in Beekes' & van der Meer's chapter on funerary
inscriptions:
Most of them have just the name and (m|p)atronymics. OK. Let's see
the ones that mention age:
thui clthi mutniathi vel velu$a avils cis zathrmisc seitithiali$a
here in this (in) sarcophage [lies] Vel Vel's (son), of age [of] 3 and
[of] 20, Seitithi's (son).
larthi einanei $ethres sec ramthas ecnatial puia larthl cuclnies
velthuru$la avils huths celchs
Larthi Einanei, Sethre's daughter (and) of Ramtha Ecnatia, wife of
Larth Culcnie, (son) of Velthur, of age [of] 4 [of] 30.
lucer latherna svalce avil XXVI
Lucer Latherna lived age 26.
rav. velani ar. ril XLII leine
Ravnthu Velani (daughter) of Arnth old [=ril] 42 died [=leine].
vel leinies larthial ruva arnthialum clan velusum prumath$ avils
semph$ lupuce
Vel Leinies brother of Larthi and son of Arnth and grandson of Vel of
age (of) 7 died.
nerinai ravnthu avils ril LIIX ati cravzathuras velthurs lrthalc
Ravnthu Nerinai of age old 58, mother of the Cravza's, (of) Velthur
and (of) Larth.
velthur partunus larisali$a clan ramthas cuclnial zilch cechaneri
tenthas avil svalthas LXXXII
Velthur Partunu (son) of Laris, son of Ramtha Cuclnia, zilach of
justice(?) having-been, age having-lived 82.
larth arnthal plecus clan ramthasc apatrual eslz zilachnthas avils
thunem muvalchls lupu
Larth son of Arnth Plecu and Ramtha Apatrua, twice having been zilach,
of age (of) 49 died.
etc. etc.
The overwhelming majority conforms to the pattern "NAME avils
NUMERAL-s VERB". I rest my case.
>Miguel, your reasoning is frustrating. Since there is little motivation to
>read the central text from down to up, your analysis must be flawed.
Notwithstanding the fact that everything else on side A is written
down to up?
>>Sivai ["ruler" in Serona] at 60 years and 5(?) years died(?)
>
>Look, Miguel, I will repeat this no further. Most people who aren't locked
>up in a padded cell will agree that /maraz/ (compare Etruscan maru, mare
>"official") and Etruscan /mach/ ("five") have absolutely NOTHING to do with
>each other. We cannot tweak -ch- out of -r- no matter how much we squint.
I already said that the equation <mara> ~ <mach> was not convincing.
Nevertheless, <mara> must be a numeral, and <mach> comes closest.
Especially considering that the form muvalch "50" (muv-alch) doesn't
have the -ch either (one is reminded of PIE *pen-kwe "...and 5", so
maybe: *mawa-k(h) "...and 5"? [Etr. -c(h) is equivalemt to PIE
*-kwe]). Still no -r-, though.
>>(B-top)
>>Holaie$i:phokiasiale:$eronaith:evistho:toveronarom:haralio:$ivai:epte>$io:arai:ti$:phoke
>>(For Kolaios of Phokia "ruler" in Serona ... Sivai ...)
>
>So you're saying /Phokiasi/ is Phocaea? Or are you saying that Phocaea is
>/Phoki/? Don't you notice the double genitive ending? You either must accept
>the double genitive with the translation of Phocaea as /Phok[i/e]/ or you
>can keep the single genitive and claim the name to be /Phokiasi/. Can't have
>both. The unlikeliness of /Phokiasi/ is overwhelming however.
Phokia = Phocaea
Phokia-si = of Phocaea (or: Phocaean).
Phokia.si-ale = of the Phocaean
Holaie-si Phokia.si-ale = of Holaie the Phocaean
See the funerary inscriptions above. Maybe a better grasp of Etruscan
would be recommendable before trying to decipher Lemnian...
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...