Did the archaic nominative and/or genitive singular feminine ending in ja/ya in Mycenaean Greek derive from the Minoan language?In the glossary below of: A: masculine Mycenaean Linear B words ending in jo B: feminine Mycenaean Linear B words ending in ja C: Minoan Linear A words ending in ja These are the keys: nom. = nominative gen. = genitive All Linear B entries are drawn Latinized as is from Chris Tselentis’ Linear A Lexicon. A: Most Linear B nouns in jo are nominative: A-da-ra-ti-jo Adrastios nom. ai-ki-a2-ri-jo aigihalios = coastal, of the coast gen. a-ka-ta-jo Aktaios nom. a-ke-re-wi-jo Agrevios nom. akorajo= used for communal purposes + for the marketplace gen. a-mi-ni-si-jo Amnisos nom. a-pi-no-e-wi-jo ethnic name of Amphinoevioi gen. arejo = areios (divine epithet)nom. a-te-mi-ti-jo = Artemitios nom. da-ja-ro = Daiaros nom. da-mi-ni-jo = Damnios nom. da-ta-ja-ro = Dataiaros nom. da-wi-jo = ethnic name of Davios gen. de-u-ka-ri-jo = Deukalion nom. di-ka-ta-jo = Diktaios Cf. Linear A nom. di-u-jo + diwijo = belonging to Zeus gen. du-ni-jo = Dynios nom. dwo-jo = of two gen. e-to-ni-jo = etonion = free-hold nom. e-wi-ta-jo = ethnic name of Evitaios nom. kakijo = made of copper gen ku-te-se-jo = kyteseios = made from ebony gen. B: Most Linear words in ja are nominative: a-ko-ra-ja= used for communal purposes + for the marketplace gen. a-mo-te-wi-ja armothevia = description of a pot (gen. sing.?)gen. a-ne-moi-ere-ja = priestess of the winds nom. a-ni-ja = ania = reins (neut. pl.) nom. a-pa-ta-wa-ja = ethnic name of Aptarfaia nom. a-ra-ka-te-ja = alakateiai = weavers nom. a-ra-ru-ja = ararya = bound, equipped nom. a-re-ja = areia (divine epithet) nom. a-si-ja-ti-ja = Asiatiai nom. a-si-wi-ja = Asivia nom. a-te-re-wi-ja = Atreivia nom. da-wi-ja = ethnic name of Davia gen. de-di-ku-ja = dedikyia = being apprenticed adjectival di-pi-si-ja = ethnic name of Dipsia gen. di-u-ja = diyia = priestess of the god Zeus nom. e-qe-si-ja = related to a follower gen. e-ru-mi-ni-ja = elymniai = roof beams nom. e-sa-re-wi-ja = Esalevia nom. e-to-ki-ja = entoihia = fittings for insertion in walls nom. e-wi-ri-pi-ja = ethnic name of Evripia gen. i-je-re-ja = priestess nom. i-ni-ja = personal name = Inia nomm. i-pe-me-de-ja = personal name =Iphemedeia nom. ka-da-mi-ja = somee product related to garden cress nom. ka-ki-ja/ka-ke-ja = made of copper = khalkia gen. ka-pi-ni-ja = kapnia = chimney nom. ke-ra-me-ja = personal name = Kerameia nom. ke-ro-si-ja = geronsia = council of elders nom. + gen. ke-se-ne-wi-ja = xenwia adjectival ko-ki-re-ja = kolhireia = shell=shaped, spiral adjectival ko-no-si-ja = Knosia = ethnic name of Knossos gen. nu-wa-i-ja = numfaia = kind of textile of water-lily colour nom. + gen. pa-ta-ja = paltaia = arrow nom. po-si-da-e-ja = Posidaeia nom. pu-ka-ta-ri-ja = type of cloth nom. pu2-te-ri-ja = phuteria = planted, cultivated adjectival qe-ra-si-ja = Kerasia (name of goddess) nom. ra-e-ja = laheia = made of stone gen. ra-ja = Raia nom. ri-ne-ja = lineiai = flax workers nom. ro-u-si-je-wi-ja = Lousieveia = originating in/from Lousos gen. se-to-i-ja = Setoia nom. si-to-po-ti-ni-ja= sitopotnia = goddess of grain nom. + gen. te-o-po-ri-ja = Theophoria = religious feast nom. ti-ri-ja= tria = three nom. we-a-re-ja = vealeia = made of glass adjectival + gen. C: what are all the Minoan Linear A words below ending in ja supposed to represent? Are all or even some of them either nouns or adjectives? Just because they are in Mycenaean Linear B does not constitute proof that they are in Linear A. Nevertheless, they could be. NOTE that it is highly unusual, if not inexplicable, for there to be 57 words with the ultimate ja in Linear A, but none whatsoever ending in jo. This leads me to believe that it is extremely risky to assume that all of these Minoan words with ultimate ja are either nominative or genitive feminine singular. Just because they are in Mycenaean Linear B does not at all necessarily imply that they are so in Linear A. That would be jumping to conclusions. Nevertheless, there may be a case for assuming that Minoan Linear A words with ultimate ja may possibly be either nominative or genitive feminine singular, in which case it would appear that the Mycenaean nominative or genitive feminine singular words with the ultimate ja may possibly be derived from their Minoan precedents. But there is no way of proving this. C: 57/988 Minoan Linear A words with the ultimate ja: amaja aseja asuja dija Cf. LB di-u-ja = diyia = priestess of the god Zeus duja esija ija iruja itaja jadireja 10 jasaja jatoja kija kiraja koja kuja kupa3rija * kupaja masaja (of larger? L&S 426) masuja 20 mireja (belonging to a sheep? L&S 443) musajanemaruja namarasasaja nenaarasaja nemaruja nenaarasaja nukisikija * oteja pa3kija paja 30 pasarija * pija piwaja qapaja qeja radasija * raja rasasaja redamija * reduja 40 reja saja/sajea sejarapaja sidija * sija sudaja suja Sukirteija tija tikuja 50 tiraduja tuimaja Tukidija Tunija waja (land) wija zanwaija 57 These 57 Minoan Linear A words may be either: 1 the primordial nominative singular feminine OR 2 the primordial genitive singular feminine OR 3 neither The last scenario is just as probable as the first two.
Tag Archive: nominative
Minoan Grammar: Nouns & adjectives: Masculine: ultimate u, nominative masculine singular: Part 2: D-Z depu-tanirizu 86-150depu kopu kumapu matapu nisupu 90 qepu ra2pu rapu sasupu sokanipu 95 supu adaru akaru atiru dideru = emmer wheat 100 dimaru diru ditajaru jaru kaporu 105 karu kasaru kekiru kiru koiru NM 110 koru NM maru miru muru naru 115 nazuru niru padaru qaqaru ra2ru 120 saru setamaru saru siru tamaru terusi(declension) 125 dusu kunisu = emmer wheat usu zusu siitau 130 aratu kisusetu majutu mesenerutu nutu 135 rera2tusi (declined) ripatu sarutu semetu senu 140 sezatimitu sitetu sutu juu duzu 140 kupazu manarizu mazu nazuku nasuru 145 pikuzu pu2juzu radizu suzu tanirizu 150
Minoan Grammar: Nouns & adjectives: Masculine: ultimate u, nominative masculine singular: Part 1: A adu-winu 1-85Apparently, there are fewer than the 200 nouns and adjectives for the nominative, masculine singular of nouns and adjectives than I had estimated. However, 150 is still a significant cross-section of of our Minoan Linear A Lexicon of 950+ words, accounting for 15.8 % of all vocabulary in the Lexicon. adu dimedu edu inaimadu jadu 5 judu madadu minedu nadu napa3du 10 nisudu qetiradu radu repu3du reradu 15 ridu sezaredu teridu watepidu wazudu 20 wirudu zaredu zudu aju araju NM 25 kaju kumaju kureju pirueju sareju 30 uju daku dejuku jaku japaku 35 jaripa3ku jatituku jumaku kaku NM kuruku NM 40 maruku nazuku niku nupa3ku pa3ku 50 pa3pa3ku paku NM? piku qasaraku qenamiku 55 radakuku raku rekotuku reku ripaku 60 romaku samuku suniku NM taku NM temeku 65 tenatunapa3ku teniku titiku tunapa3ku zapaku 70 dinau karunau sijanakarunau Akanu daminu 75 jakisisinu jarinu kupa3nu nijanu nutu 80 panuqe senu tenu tinu winu 85
Linear A seals: Part 2 + Minoan grammar, nominative singular masculine in u:Linear A seal HM 570.1g confirms beyond doubt that the word situ is New Minoan, i.e. Mycenaean-derived for “wheat”, a tight match with Mycenaean sito. But it establishes a lot more than just that. Since there are well over 200 Minoan words, whether Old Minoan or Mycenaean-derived New Minoan, all of which terminate in u, the circumstantial evidence is very strong that u is the nominative masculine singular of Minoan nouns and adjectives regardless. I have no idea what jetana means, as it is clearly Old Minoan.
Linear A seals: Part 1 + Minoan grammar, enclitic ne = in/on:
On these Linear A seals we find the word patane, apparently a variant of patos (Greek) = “path”. But how can we account for the divergence from standard Greek spelling? In the Mycenaean dialect, the preposition “in” was proclitic and expressed as eni, hence eni pati (locative singular). But as I have already pointed out several times in previous posts, when any word is imported from a source superstratum language (in this case, Mycenaean) into a target language (in this case, the Minoan language substratum), its orthography must be changed to comply with the spelling conventions of the target language. This phenomenon also occurs in English, where 10s of thousands of Norman French and French words are imported, but where in a great many cases, the French spelling must be adjusted to conform with English orthography. To cute just a few examples of French orthography adjust to meet the exigencies of English spelling, we have:
French to English: albâtre = alabaster bénin = benign cloître = cloister dédain = disdain épître = epistle forêt = forest fanatique = fanatic gigantesque = gigantic gobelet = goblet loutre = otter maître = master plâtre = plaster similitude = similarity traître = treacherous and on and on. This phenomenon applies to every last substratum language upon which a superstratum from another language is imposed. Likewise, in the case of Old Minoan, it is inevitable that the orthography of any single superstratum Mycenaean derived word has to be adjusted to meet the exigencies of Minoan orthography. The most striking example of this metamorphosis is the masculine singular. Mycenaean derived words in Minoan must have their singular ultimate adjusted to u from the Mycenaean o. There are plenty of examples: Akano to Akanu (Archanes) akaro to akaru (field) kako to kaku (copper) kuruko to kuruku (crocus/saffron) mare (mari) to maru (wool) Rado to Radu (Latos) simito to simitu (mouse) suniko to suniku (community) Winado to Winadu (toponym) woino to winu (wine) iyero to wireu (priest) But these same words terminate in u in Minoan. And there are well over 150 in the extant Linear A lexicon of slightly more than 950 words. As we can clearly see on Linear A seal HM 570.1a, the word patane is typical of several Minoan words, all of which also terminate in ne. These are: aparane asamune dakusene dadumine jasararaanane kadumane namine parane patane qetune sikine wisasane It distinctly appears that all of these words are in the Minoan dative/locative case, and that the enclitic ultimate therefore means “in” or “on”. This will have to be substantiated by further research, but for the time being, let us assum that this conclusion is at least tentatively correct.
KEY POST! The truly formidable obstacles facing us in even a partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A: Any attempt, however concerted, at even a partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A is bound to meet with tremendous obstacles, as illustrated all too dramatically by this table:These obstacles include, but are not prescribed by: 1. The fact that there are far fewer extant Minoan Linear A tablets and fragments, of which the vast majority are mere fragments (no more than 500), most of them un intelligible, than there are extant tablets and fragments in Mycenaean Linear B (well in excess of 4,500), of which the latter are mostly legible, even the fragments. 2. The fact that Mycenaean Linear B has been completely deciphered, first by Michael Ventris in 1952 and secondly, by myself in closing the last gap in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B, namely, the decipherment of supersyllabograms in my article, “The Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B”, in the illustrious international archaeological annual, Archaeology and Science, ISSN 1452-7448, Vol. 11 (2015), pp. 73-108, here:
This final stage in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B has effectively brought closure to its decipherment. As illustrated all too conspicuously by this table of apparent roots/stems and/or prefixes of Minoan Linear A lexemes and their lemmas, we are still a long way off from being able to convincingly decipher Minoan Linear A. At the categorical sub-levels of the syntax and semiotics of Minoan Linear A, we cannot even begin to determine which categories to isolate, let alone what these categories are. Allow me to illustrate in discriminative terms: 3. As the table of Minoan Linear A so-called roots & stems + prefixes above all too amply highlights, we cannot even tell which first syllable or which of the first 2 syllables of any of the Minoan Linear A words in this list is/are either (a) roots or stems of the Minoan Linear A lexemes or lemmas which it/they initiate or (b) prefixes of them, even if I have tentatively identified some as the former and some as the latter (See the table). 4. In the case of roots or stems, which ones are roots and which are stems? What is the difference between the two in Minoan Linear A? Let us take a couple of entries as examples to illustrate my point: 4.1 The 3 words beginning with the apparent root or stem asi, (I cannot tell which is which), the first 2 syllables of asidatoi, asijaka & asikira may not even be roots or stems of these words at all, but prefixes of 3 probably unrelated words instead. Who is to know? 4.2 If asidatoi, asijaka & asikira are either nouns or adjectives, what is the gender and number of each one? To say the very least, it is rash to assume that asidatoi is plural, just because it looks like an ancient Greek masculine plural (as for example in Mycenaean Linear B teoi (gods) or masculine plurals in any other ancient Greek dialect for that matter, since that assumption is based on the most likely untenable hypothesis that Minoan Linear A is some form of proto-Greek, in spite of the fact that several current linguistic researchers into Minoan Linear A believe precisely that. The operative word is “believe”, since absolutely no convincing circumstantial evidence has ever come to the fore that Minoan Linear A is some form of proto-Greek. 4.3 The conclusion which I have drawn here, that Minoan Linear A may not be proto-Greek, arises from the fact that almost all of the Minoan words in this table bear little or no resemblance at all even to Mycenaean Greek. 4.5 But there clearly exceptions to the previous hypothesis, these being words such as depa and depu, of which the former is a perfect match with the Homeric, depa, meaning “a cup”. On the other hand, depu is less certain. However, in my preliminary tentative decipherment of 107 Minoan Linear A words (which are to appear in my article to be published in Vol. 12 of Archaeology and Science, 2017-2018), I have come to the tentative conclusion that the ultimate u in almost all Minoan Linear A words is quite likely to be a macro designator. If this were so, depu would be larger than depa. So a translation along the lines of [2] “a large cup” or “a libation cup” might be in order. Still, I could be dead wrong in this assumption. 4.6 However, the lexeme depa does appear to reveal one probable characteristic of Minoan Linear A grammar, that the ultimate for the feminine singular may very well be a, as in so many other languages, ancient or modern (let alone Greek). If that is the case, then words such as asijaka, asikira, keta, kipa, saja, sina and tamia may possibly all be feminine singular... that is to say, if any, some or even all of them are either nouns or adjectives, clearly a point of contention in and of itself. Who are we to say that one or more of these words may instead be adverbs or some person, singular or plural, of some conjugation in some tense or mood of some Minoan Linear A verb? On the other hand, at least one or more or even most of these words and the other words in this table ending in a may be nouns or adjectives in the feminine singular. But one again, who can say at all for sure? 4.7 If the ultimate u is supposed to be a macro designator, how then are we to account for the fact that [3] maruku, which very much looks like a (declensional) variant of maru, means “made of wool”, which itself has nothing whatsoever to do with a macro designator, if at the same time the apparent lexeme maru actually does mean “wool”? After all, one might conclude, maru looks a lot like Mycenaean Linear B mari or mare, which as everyone knows, does mean “wool”. But it is just as likely as not that the assumption that maru means “wool”, and its variants maruku “made of wool” ? (a guess at best) and maruri = “with wool” have nothing whatsoever to do with wool in Minoan Linear A. 4.8 In fact, the hypothesis that maruri = “with wool” is based on yet another assumption, namely, that the termination ri is dative singular, similar to the commonplace dative singular oi, ai or i in Mycenaean Linear B. But if that is the case, this implies that Minoan Linear A is probably proto-Greek, for which there is no substantive evidence whatsoever. So we wind up mired in a flat out contradiction in terms, in other words, an inescapable paradox. 4.9a Next, taking all of the words beginning with the root or stem? - or prefix? sina [4], what on earth are we to make of so many variants? Perhaps this is a conjugation of some verb in some tense or mood. If that is the case, we should expect 6 variations, first, second and third persons singular and plural. Or should we? What about the possible existence of the dual in Minoan Linear A? But here again we find ourselves smack up against the assumption we have just made in 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 & 4.8, that the putative Minoan verb beginning with the so-called root or stem sina is itself proto-Greek. But I have to ask out loud, are you aware of any verb in ancient Greek which begins with the root or stem sina? Well, according to Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, there are in fact 2, which I have Latinized here for ease of access to those of you who cannot read Greek, and these are, (1) sinamoreo (infinitive sinamorein), which means “to damage wantonly” and (2) sinomai, “to plunder, spoil or pillage”. The problem is that neither of these ancient Greek verbs bears any resemblance to or corresponds in any conceivable way with the 7 Minoan Linear A variants post-fixed to sina. So I repeat, for the sake of emphasis, are these 7 all variants on some Minoan Linear A verb or are they not? 4.9b What if on the other hand, all 7 of these variants post-fixed to sina are instead a declension of some Minoan noun or adjective in Linear A? It is certainly conceivable that there are 7 cases in the Minoan language, in view of the fact that plenty of ancient and modern languages have 7 cases or more. Latin has six: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative. But ancient Greek has only 5, nominative, genitive, dative and accusative and vocative, the ablative absolute (which occurs in Latin) subsumed under the genitive absolute. From this perspective, it would appear quite unlikely that the 7 Minoan Linear A variants on sina are proto-Greek declensions, especially in light of the fact that, once again, none of them bears any resemblance to the ancient Greek, sinapi = “mustard”, sinion = “sieve” or sinos = “hurt, harm, mischief, damage” (nominative). 5. Moving on to taniria and tanirizui [5], we could of course once again draw the (most likely untenable) conclusion if taniria is a feminine singular noun, then tanirizui must be/is dative singular, following the template for the dative singular in Mycenaean Linear B (i, ai or oi). But once again, there is no word in ancient Greek bearing any resemblance to these critters. And once again, even if Minoan Linear A had a dative singular, why on earth would it have to end in i? 6. However, when we come to the 4 words reza, adureza, kireza and tireza, we are confronted with another phenomenon. 3 of these 4 words (adureza, kireza and tireza) each in turn apparently are prefixed by adu, ki and ti. Makes sense at first sight. However, once again, appearances can be terribly deceiving. Nevertheless, in my preliminary decipherment of Minoan Linear A, I have drawn the tentative conclusion that all four of these words are intimately interconnected. And in the actual context of the few extant Minoan Linear A tablets and fragments in which these 4 terms appear, it very much looks as if they are all terms of measurement. But you will have to await the publication of my article on the tentative decipherment of 107 Minoan Linear A words in Vol. 12 (2017-2018) of Archaeology and Science to discover how I came to this conclusion. 7. Notwithstanding the fact that almost all of the words in this highly selective table of Minoan Linear A lexemes and lemmas (whichever ones are which), with the exception of depa and depu, as well as winu, which may be the Minoan Linear A equivalent of Mycenaean Linear B woino = “wine”, appear not to be proto-Greek, that does not imply that at least a few or even some are in fact proto-Greek, based on this hypothesis: a number of words in Mycenaean Linear B, all of which appear to be proto-Greek, disappeared completely from later ancient Greek dialects. Among these we count a number of Mycenaean Greek words designating some kind of cloth, namely, pawea, pukatariya, tetukowoa and wehano [pg. 94, The Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B, in Archaeology and Science, Vol. 11 (2016)], plus several other Mycenaean Linear B words listed in the same article, which I do not repeat here due to space limitations. However, I must toss a wrench even into the assumption that the words designating some kinds of cloth (but which kinds we shall never know) are Mycenaean Linear B Greek or even proto-Greek, when they may not be at all! What if a few, some or all of them are in the pre-Greek substratum? If that is the case, are they Minoan, even if none of them appear on any extant Minoan Linear A tablet or fragment? Who is to say they are not? For instance, there is another so called Mycenaean or proto-Greek word, kidapa, which may very well mean “(ash) wood” or “a type of wood”, found only on Linear B tablet KN 894 N v 01. This word has a suspiciously Minoan ring to it. Just because it does not appear on any extant Minoan Linear A tablet or fragment does not necessarily imply that it is not Minoan or that it at least falls within the pre-Greek substratum. CONCLUSIONS: It must be glaringly obvious from all of the observations I have made on the Minoan Linear A terms in the table above that the more we try to make any sense of the syntactic and semiotic structure of the Minoan language in Linear A, the more and more mired we get in irresolvable contradictions in terms and paradoxes. Moreover, who is to say that the so-called proto-Greek words which surface in Minoan Linear A are proto-Greek at all, since they may instead be pre-Greek substratum words disguised as proto-Greek. We can take this hypothesis even further. Who is to say that the several so-called proto-Greek words we find in Mycenaean Greek, all of which disappeared completely from the ancient Greek lexicon in all Greek dialects after the fall of Mycenae ca. 1200 BCE, are also not proto-Greek but are instead in the pre-Greek substratum or even, if they fall into that substratum, that they are instead Minoan words or words of some other non Indo-European origin? We have landed in a real quagmire. So I find myself obliged to posit the hypothesis that, for the time being at least, any attempt at the putative decipherment of Minoan Linear A is inexorably bound to lead straight to a dead end. I challenge any philologists or linguist specializing in ancient languages to actually prove otherwise even with circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
The Extreme Significance of the Syllabograms JO and SI in Mycenaean Greek (Click to ENLARGE):This table is pretty much self-explanatory. About the only thing I wish to call to your attention is this: the syllabogram SI is not only highly flexible in its usages (5), but in its adaptability to expressing several alternative combinations of word endings: sij si ci. Much more on this later. I will soon explain how the Mycenaeans managed to adapt the Linear A morphed to Linear B syllabary to express the phonetic values of ancient Greek, which they actually did quite well, considering the serious restraints the Linear B script imposed on them. Richard