Re: Greek kitharis

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

>
> --- 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.

I gave my reasons for it, including changes in Nuristani.

>
> So do I finally have it right, is your claim that Proto-
> I.-Ir. *ky~tHry~ could have given rise to Gk. 'kithari-'

Yes.

> which then, by stages, could have given rise to Persian
> 'seta:r'?

No, I didn't claim it then, but in response to Piotr's rejection of
his earlier claim I said it could be possible, not that it was
definitely true.

>
> > 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.

I did not. I'll repeat it: I said nothing about any Iranian word
in the message you replied to with 'No'.

>
> > > > 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 .

I don't know what you're talking about. You may have misunderstood
something, so make the nature of your objection clear.

>
> --- 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'.

No.

>
> > 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.

Is saying 'No' a denial of likelihood or of possibility? I claimed
nothing concerning what you discussed. Why do you keep saying I
claimed anything about Iranian when I've repeated myself so often?

>
> > > 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'".

No, I use '' around the meaning, for example, L vir 'man'.

> 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.

I assumed all here would recognize an English word.

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

I don't think I've done anything confusing. The person whose
message I replied to understood I hadn't said anything about the point
he was most interested in, and so asked me again.

>
> > > 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'.

I didn't say Greek > Iranian; if there's any relation it would be
something like Nur > G; Nur > Iranian, independently.

>
> > 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~,

I never said Proto-I-Ir; the unknown language was compared to
Nuristani and Khowar.

> 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'?

I didn't suppose any, I said it was possible by folk etymology, and
only after you thought I had said something I hadn't.

English has a centuries-old convention of naming different plants by
descriptive names, including those of birds, so there would be no
reason to suppose dia. E sparrowgrass to be related to asparagus if no
other records survived centuries from now.

>
> 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'.

All known languages not currently classified as IE are actually from
one branch of IE: Indo-Iranian. No matter which ancient language I
thought originated the borrowed words, it would be very close to all
others, from PIE *kantlo-.

>
> 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'

No.

> and 'sitar'

Yes.

> after all,
> but merely to deny the obviousness of the incorrectness of
> Piotr's older claims about the same?

I did that after your first message (based on your
misunderstanding). Don't confuse my original reply with another issue
I brought up later.

Piotr said they were related, Francesco saw both that and claims
that indicated a native origin everywhere else. When he asked for
opinions, I didn't mention that aspect. He knew I didn't, and asked
if I had anything else to say. You misunderstood me, and said I was
wrong. Piotr said he was wrong before. I said he couldn't be certain
he was wrong because of the possibility of folk etymology (at least,
not "obviously wrong").

>
> 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