Re: Greek kitharis

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, mine was a post to a thread devoted to the question
> > of whether 'sitar' and 'kithara' are etymologiclly related or
> > not, with that last sentence being my answer to that question.
>
> You thought I said sitar was related; I said nothing about it
> at all.

Well I apologize then. Although now more than ever your
supposed *ky~tHry~ seems to have fallen out of a clear
blue sky.

So do I finally have it right, is your claim that Proto-
I.-Ir. *ky~tHry~ could have given rise to Gk. 'kithari-'
which then, by stages, could have given rise to Persian
'seta:r'?

> Rather than replying to the person who asked the question, you
> told me "No" for no reason (he understood my message; he asked
> me again if I thought they were related since I hadn't answered
> that part).

No, the 'no' was indeed for you, since you claimed the
word 'setar' could be based on something besides its
originally three strings.

> > > The message in this thread that apparently sparked the recent
> > > question is below; complain to him if you disagree.
> >
> > No, it was your mention of Indo-Iranian.
>
> What are you saying "No" to?

To your claim quoted with triple arrows just above .

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't complain about your post, but merely denied the
> > claims therein.
>
> I made no claims about the origin of sitar;

No, but about the origin of 'sita:r' and of 'seta:r'.

> you said I was wrong about something I didn't say. What are
> you saying is wrong about my words: "He didn't have any need
> to complain about my answer, but he did anyway." Do you think
> complaining about my answer is different from complaining about
> my claims as you understood them?

I didn't _complain_ about anything. I just denied the
likelihood of what you claimed.

> > I'm afraid I don't know what "E three-peat" and "E repeat"
> > mean,
>
> E = English

Oh, I see now. You meant "English 'three-peat'". It
would help avoid confusion if, when you mean to talk
about a word itself and not its referent, you would put
the word in quotes. Abbreviating 'English' as 'Eng.'
rather than 'E' would also help.

You're presumedly trying to inform and/or convince your
readers of your point of view, not burden them with
riddles to solve.

> > but if you're trying to claim that 'sitar' could have given rise
> > to 'zither', 'guitar', then again I have to express my doubts.
>
> I didn't say anything at all about that direction of borrowing.

Very well, but then I still have to express doubt, that
'kithara' could have given rise to 'sitar'.

> My implication, which I thought would be clear to everyone, was
> that if *kithar > *c^ithar in Persian (or something similar)
> a possible attempt at folk etymology (that I mentioned) might
> result in a change (like asparagus > sparrowgrass, *harbena-
> > hornbeam, etc.).

Yes, but with no other evidence at all for a Proto-I.-Ir.
*ky~tHry~, and a systematic and centuries-old convention
in Iran of distinguishing lutes on the basis of number of
strings, why suppose any other origin than the latter for
'seta:r'?

Moreover lyres, as well as lutes, are supposed by most to
have originated in Mesopotamia, where Babylonian has the
word 'qatros' for the lyre. I don't know the etymology or
age of this word, or anything else about the Bablylonian
language, but 'qatros' seems to me the best place to start
looking for the origin of the Greek words 'kithara' and
'kitharis'.

By the way, for anybody interested in the subject, there's
an interesting article, 'The origin of the Greek Tortoise-
Shell Lyre', which also touches some on the kithara, at
www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/ftp04/mq24822.pdf .

> > The question isn't one of comparing the form of the words alone,
> > it must be understood. Quite a bit is known about the history
> > of these musical instruments and their designations, with which
> > facts any theory about their etymologies needs to accord.
>
> Since I didn't know anything about it, I said nothing. My
> response concerning the origin of sitar came when Piotr said
> he had made an obvious blunder, but I disagreed (if it really
> was a blunder, it wasn't obvious).

So then you didn't mean to make any suggestion of your own
about the etymologies of 'kithara' and 'sitar' after all,
but merely to deny the obviousness of the incorrectness of
Piotr's older claims about the same?

Very well then. Since obviousness or lack thereof is rather
subjective and dependent on point of view, I have nothing to
say about it.

David