Re: [tied] Lemnos stele and dear Fuke... Wait a minute...

On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:30:56 , "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>.
>
>Funny. Yet, Etruscan lacks "o". It doesn't clue you in that the lack of "o"
>in Etruscan equals the supposed "lack of 'u'" in Lemnian and that Lemnian
>"o" and Etruscan "u" might be the same damn vowel?

Yes, that's what I meant.

>Can you list some real
>languages for me that have this kind of u-less, triangle-pointing-upwards
>vowel system? There is no logical arguement against /f/ replacing /ph/ in
>the transliteration, so your words are wasted.

Etruscan has <f> and <ph>. Lemnian, as far as the text of the stele
goes, has <ph>, but it doesn't have <f> (it also doesn't use <z> in
the stele, when there was a perfectly good Greek letter to use). Even
if Lemnian had /f/, there's no reason it should have used <ph> to
render it. The letter <v> would be a more likely alternative.

>>>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'>.
>
>I write /z/ simply for better clarity. That it represents a "sh"-sound, I'm
>not denying.

I doubt it's a "sh", as it's much more common than sigma. More than
likely, in this text sigma <s> is /S/, and the sign transcribed as
<s'> (or <$> or <z>) is the plain /s/.

>However, while the pronunciation of the /z/ (your /$/) is such,
>the relationship of Lemnian /zivai/ to Etruscan /ziva/ is completely valid,
>given that we have the same confusion in Etruscan itself! Like /zal/ = /esl/
>"two".

Any other examples? Like before a vowel?

>>In 6th century BC Lemnos?
>
>Is it possible that the dating is somehow 500 years off?

No.

>>To begin with, the Etr. genitive is -s or -$, not -z.
>
>Since this /z/ letter is a "sh"-sound as we are both aware, it matches the
>Etruscan genitive perfectly (Etruscan -sa/-s'a).

But then there goes your interpretation of <S'ivai>.

>>Can you find Etruscan funerary inscriptions that don't start with the
>>name of the deceased? Very few, I bet.
>
>... But where the hell is the "start" to this thing, anyways??

Not at "Phoke", which is at the end of a sentence, in any case.

>>"My pattern" is: "NAME avils NUMERAL-s (NUMERAL-s avils) VERB. [...]
>>[...]
>>The overwhelming majority conforms to the pattern "NAME avils
>>NUMERAL-s VERB". I rest my case.
>
>First of all, this is not your pattern exactly. Your real pattern of
>interpretation in the Lemnian text appears to be:
>
> "sivai aviz sialchveiz mara-z-m aviz aumai"
> NAME aviz NUMERAL-z (NUMERAL-z-m aviz) VERB
> ^^^^^^^^^
>Very deceptive on your part. The only difference, but a major difference,
>between your fantasy and the overall reality lies in the fact that the
>second supposed numeral of yours "mara-" is connected not only to /-z/ or
>even /-m/ "and" but to another /aviz/! This doesn't follow the pattern you
>describe or what you've substantiated at all. Further, one tends to put the
>lower bases before the higher ones ("five" BEFORE the word for "40"). We see
>this done for "17" = /ci-em zathrum/ or "27" = /ci-em cealch/. Where is your
>numerical pattern attested? It simple cannot by any leap of the imagination
>be interpreted as "45" or "65".

It can very easily.

>>lucer latherna svalce avil XXVI
>>Lucer Latherna lived age 26.
>
>>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.
>
>These phrases that you listed follow my own pattern: /zivai aviz sialchveiz/
>"He lived 40 years".

They mention the name first. Very deceptive on your part.

>>Notwithstanding the fact that everything else on side A is written
>>down to up?
>
>Everything on the sides. Not necessarily in the center.

Everything else, yes. Furthermore, only by reading down to up, we get
a phrase with the same structure as on the side inscription (sivai
avis sialchvis marasm avis aomai // sivai evistho seronaith sialchveis
avis marasm av[is ais]). That's an important observation.

>>>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.
>
>Make up your mind. You can't sip from both glasses. Either /mara/=/mach/ is
>unacceptable or it is not. We both agree that it is NOT convincing. So, your
>continued assumption that /mara-/ is a numeral floors me for its chaotic
>artistry. Your logic is unfocused and confused. Logically, you may at the
>very most say that /mara-/ MAY be a numeral but since you have no evidence
>whatsoever to support your claim, either phonetically or based on phrasal
>patterns, you're falling on deaf ears.

The only way to interpret <avis sialchveis marasm avis> is as a
compound numeral.

>>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.
>
>No, no, no. You need guidance, my boy. From what I find, the correct reflex
>of *penkWe in Etruscan was most likely to have been */fec(e)/.

You seem to think I was equating *pen[kwe] with *mawa[k(h)]. I
wasn't. I was merely equating the *kwe / kh part.

>>Phokia = Phocaea
>>Phokia-si = of Phocaea (or: Phocaean).
>>Phokia.si-ale = of the Phocaean
>>Holaie-si Phokia.si-ale = of Holaie the Phocaean

OK, that should be:

Phokia = Phocaea
*Phokia-si = of Phocaea (or: Phocaean) > Phokias = of Phocaea
*Phokia.si-ala = of the Phocaean
*Phokia.si-ala-i = for the Phocaean
Holaie-s-i Phokia.s'i-ale = for Holaie the Phocaean

The genitive is *-si > -s or *-ala > -al, the dative (gen+loc) *-si-i

> -si or *-ala-i > -ale.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...