Comentarios

Pulsa este icono si opinas que la información está fuera de lugar, no tiene rigor o es de nulo interés.
Tu único clic no la borarrá, pero contribuirá a que la sabiduría del grupo pueda funcionar correctamente.

---

1. 

   #1 Teshub 26 de jul. 2007

   Confirmando la posibilidad de simples préstamos lingüisticos puntuales de la familia semítica al minoico:

   
   

   Dieter Rumpel, Traces of Inflections in Minoan Linear A, ANISTORITON: In Situ Volume 9, March 2005, Section P051:

   
   

   Now, if we accept Gordon's reading SuMaTiZaITe with the probable pronounciation SuMa(n)TiZaITe15, we find an almost full parallel, phonetically as well as probably semantically, in the Hebrew bible: "Shaemaen Zait" = "Olive-Oil"16.
   Unfortunately, this is a status constructus, meaning that Zait and not Shaemaen takes the genitival position (->"oil of olives"). But that has low impact, because both words in Hebrew are almost synonymous:

   
   

   "Sh-M-N" is translated as (1)"fat, fertile (ground), strong (person)", (2)"fresh (olive-)oil, wild olives, ointment/unguent (also for the inauguration of priests and kings!!)".
   "Z-I-T" is translated as "olive-tree, olive-oil, olives in general, oil in general".17

   
   

   Forms of both words are widespread in semitic languages, even in hamitic Egypt a town- name "Keb-suman" = "Fatty Hill" is reported. Thus, there is no small probability that indeed one or both words are also found in Minoan, be it as foreign or borrowed word, or even stemming from an original substrate.

   
   

   Es decir, que "aceite" o "aceituna" en minoico podría ser un préstamo del egipcio...lo que no quita que según el resto de la fórmula de libación interpretada por el mencionado autor, resulte que el minoico fuese una lengua aglutinadora de palabras (como el alemán), con el genitivo sajón (como el inglés), con declinaciones (como las lenguas hititas)....

   
   

    

   
   

   
   

   O como lo define escuetamente John Younger, de la Universidad de Kansas (Linear A texts, normalized)....sin tener relación directa con ninguna familia lingüistica, lo más probable es que el minoico esté emparentado con el hitita luvita, pues probablemente Creta fue colonizada desde Anatolia a inicios del neolítico.

   
   

   Since Crete appears to have been deliberately colonized in developed Neolithic, probably from SW Anatolia, it would seem logical to assume that the Minoan language was related to one of the Indo-Hittite dialects, most probably Luvian.

   
   

   It is possible to direct our search for the Minoan language more concretely: the few recognizable verbs (see below) seem to use -SI and -TI (vel sim.) as alternating forms, perhaps as singular and plural respectively.

   
   

   (a tener en cuenta que la terminación TET es muy habitual en los verbos hititas)

   
   

   Y la pronunciación del minoico, integrado o completado mediante su lectura junto al equivalente micénico posterior, por similitudes con el hitita, también resultaría acreditado (Virginia Hicks, The Language of the Minoans, ANISTORITON: Viewpoints Volume 9, September 2005, Section V053)

   
   

   The following sound change conventions show the relationship of Minoan to PIE, Hittite / Luwian,  and Greek:
   
      a.  The PIE o-colored laryngeal h3 develops into "u" rather than "o" - as in the totaling word ku-lo (Greek holon) which occurs on too many Minoan tablets to list.
   This also occurs in such words as u-na-ka-na-si (Greek oneiros + (gi)gnasi) -part of the Libation formula, on KO Z1, and in other spellings on PK Z11 and PK Z12.
   A further example is the word pu2-re-ja on PK Za16.  The word for "dream" in PIE is listed as *h3nrio (Beekes 1995, 268).
   
     b.  "K" occurs where Greek has an "h" or rough-breathing mark and PIE contains an e-colored laryngeal h1.  Ku-lo is the best example of this.  Other examples are ki-ro (for the temple) on HT 1 and elsewhere; the nominative ki-ru appears on MI Z1.
   This is opposed to the Greek hiron (temple).  The rough breathing in Greek is caused by an original e-colored laryngeal, *ish1ros > *iheros > hieros or hiros. 
   
   c.  Where Greek or Hittite has an s at the end of a syllable, Minoan appears to do without. (Atanuwijawa or Atanodjuwaja show *atanu as opposed to Luwian astanus; -ijawa marks  the first as "city of the sun" much like Hittite Istanuwa.)
   
   d.  Internal laryngeals occurring in a syllable that already has a vowel, are dropped (Asasara as  opposed to ashasaras/ishasaras).

   
   

   (...)

   
   

   PK Za11, an incomplete inscRIPtion:
   A-ta-no-dju-wa-e a-di-ki-te-te [..]
   O, Sun Goddess (in the vocative, cf. Luwian astanus=sun, djuwaja = PIE *deiuih2),
   you were wronged (cf. adikeomai, although the ending is more Hittite (-tet))
   
   Pi-te-ri a-ko-a-ne
   You are persuaded (cf. peitho but once again with a more Hittite ending) by the assembly (cf. agon)

   
   

   En cuanto al origen semítico de las palabras terminadas en ossos, según la mayoría de lingüistas, por ejemplo, Parnassos, es una palabra luvita (hitita) y no semita -parna es casa en luvita y sos un pronombre posesivo-....así como todas las estructuras griegas en ss y nth, que casualmente son las que definen a las poblaciones pre-griegas del territorio micénico.

   
   

   Margalit Finkelberg, Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition, Tel-Aviv University, Cambridge University Press, 2005

   
   

   As early as 1896, Paul Kretschmer drew scholarly attention to the fact that since the suffixes -nth- and -ss-, often attested in place-names in Greece, Crete and Asia Minor, cannot be identified as Greek, they should be taken as pointing to the existence of a pre Hellenic linguistic substratum. In 1928, J. Haley and C. W. Blegen, in their seminal article ‘The coming of the Greeks’, showed that the distribution on the map of Greece of the geographical names identified by Kretschmer and others as  belonging to the pre-Hellenic substratum closely corresponds to the map of distribution of Early Bronze Age archaeological sites. This allowed the authors to associate the pre-Hellenic substratum with the people who inhabited Greece till the end of the Early Bronze Age and to move the date of the Greek arrival in Greece, formerly believed to have taken place ca. 1600 bc, to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2050–2000 bc).

   
   

   But what about the linguistic identity of the Aegean substratum? It is well known that the suffixes -nth- and -ss- on the basis of which it was identified are closely paralleled by the suffixes  nd- and -ss- of the languages of Asia Minor attested in the Classical period, such as Lycian, Lydian and Carian. The discovery and decipherment of Hittite and other Bronze Age Anatolian languages has shown that they are closely related to the languages of Asia Minor and that the suffixes -nth- and –ss should be identified as typically Anatolian or, to be more precise, Luwian. Thus, the place-name Parnassos has consistently been analysed as a possessive adjective typical of the Luwian language, formed from a root which is likewise Luwian, for the word parna means ‘house’ in both Luwian and Lycian.

   
   

   This evidently gives us a new perspective on the much-discussed issue of Near Eastern influences on Greek civilisation, which has recently received a substantial boost in M. L. West’s The East Face of Helicon.8 To the best of my knowledge, this perspective has not yet been fully explored.

   
   

    

Hay 1 comentarios.
1