--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Josh" <linguist2005@...> wrote:
> My
> question is did the Minoan language have any influence on the
> Mycenaean?
Given the general consensus that Minoan civilation exerted a powerful
influence on Mycenaean civilation, chances are that Mycenaean was
full of Minoan loans. Moreover, given the virtual consensus that
Greek was intrusive to Greece, chances are that it incorporates
substratum material both structural and lexical.
Unfortunately, since Minoan has not been deciphered and since the
linguistic situation in what is now Greece in the second and third
millennium BC is totally unknown, these general likelihoods cannot be
tested or made more specific.
> I am inclined to doubt that they had a serious influence on the
> language as the Mycenaeans, as the Mycenaeans had a very different
> character than the Minoans (i.e. much more warlike) and probably
had
> a well developed language.
I'm inclined to disagree. Mycaenaean society was admittedly very
different in character from Minoan society, but all the same it
incorporated an enormous amount of Minoan stuff. The argument about
having "a well developed language" does not hold water. Just about
every language is wide open to outside influences.
> Arugments that support an influence would be that the Mycenaean
> writing system was based off of the untranslated Minoan writing
> system.
Unless I'm mistaken, that is consensus.
> Also, the frequent appearance of Semitic names in some of
> the Minoan language that is translated. (These parts are translated
> by moving backwards from Mycenaean and assuming that symbols kept
> their sounds)
Most specialists assume that Mycenaean writing (Linear B) is an
adaptation of Minoan writing (Linear A). Given that assumption it is
natural to assume that signs common to both syllabaries have more or
less the same value. But it is very difficult to get any further (and
some specialists are unwilling to go even this far).
Decipherments are a dime a dozen and none of them has convinced
anybody outside the friends and acquaintances of the would-be
decipherers and sometimes not even them. Candidates are usually
chosen from among the Anatolian or Semitic languages, but most of the
usual suspects have been suggested at one time or another as well.
In any case the language is not recognizeably Indo-European. In
addition the structure of the verbal forms is very un-IE and
externally resembles somewhat the structures found in Hattic and
North West Caucasian. Note that these points do not prove that Minoan
is not IE. Moreover, the point about the verb is about structure and
powerless to prove anything about the genetic affiliation of Minoan.
(Although personally I would jump for the Hattic/NWCauc connection if
for some reason I was forced to take a stand.)
In my view the most sensible and articulate specialist on Minoan is
the Belgian classicist Yves Duhoux. Most of what he writes is in
French. If you can't read French you may want to consult his
articles "Pre-Hellenic Language(s) of Crete", The Journal of Indo-
European Studies 26 (1998), p. 1-39, and "How Not to Decipher the
Phaistos Disc: A Review", American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000),
p. 597-600. Other stuff in English that may come in useful:
Bennett, Emmett L.; 1998: "The 3 R's of the Linear A and Linear B
Writing Systems". Semiotica 122, 1998, 139-63.
Pope, M. and J. Raison; 1978: "Linear A: changing perspectives".
Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 14,
5-64.
[A classical publication on Linear A is D.W. Packard, Minoan Linear
A, Berkeley, 1974. Unless I'm mistaken this is the same Packard who
later got involved in the production of computer printers.]
This is one of those subjects where Internet resources can only lead
you astray if you want to do serious work. The reason is on the one
hand that it is a highly specialized field only very few people are
active in, and on the other that, like similar fields, it is infested
with crackpots.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Willem