Talk:Eteocretan language
 | Greece Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Languages Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Minoan ain't Greek
That anyone would even ask for a citation on this shows that some people don't like reading books. Books and websites abound explaining clearly for anyone with a reasonable comprehension of English that Minoan (written in Linear A) is distinct from Greek (written in Linear B). Obviously, if there was any relationship at all, Minoan would have long ago been deciphered. All you have to do is google for links that explain clearly that Minoan is not related Greek:
All references in a public library will also confirm the above. The laziness of this person who marked this citation needed to do his/her/its own homework boggles my mind. This just isn't obscure or controversial by any stretch. --Glengordon01 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure it's Greek – unlike Eteocretan, of course. It's not Proto-Greek; it's as far from Proto-Greek as Mycenaean Greek is.
- Refs:
- Steven Roger Fischer: Glyphbreaker, Copernicus/Springer 1997 (rather popular book with two parts: one on the Phaistos Disk, Cretan Hieroglyphs, and Linear A, and the other on Rongorongo)
- Steven Roger Fischer: Evidence for Hellenic Dialect in the Phaistos Disk, Peter Lang 1988 (the actual scientific monograph which I've unfortunately not read)
- That said, however, all those closely related scripts (er… not Rongorongo, of course!!!) don't look as if they had been invented for Greek, so I guess there's a good chance they were invented for Eteocretan, and that in turn suggests that some of the Linear A tablets Fischer hasn't looked at could be in Eteocretan and not in Minoan Greek.
- David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 16:26 CET | 2006/11/5
- As much as I enjoyed reading Mr. Fischer's book, his conclusions don't carry the weight of evidence. Using methods like his, many other smart folks have derived completely different translations in a dozen languages -- including several other "Greek" ones. Washi 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
May i ask a very simple question, Linear A is partly deciphered using Linear B that is Mycenean Greek, why does this article write "unrelated" to Greek, when in fact parts of it have been deciphered using Greek? I just put the "probably related" there. Since parts of it have been deciphered and hence unrelated is not an appropriate term, by definition for there is a relation certainly.--62.103.251.30 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Linear B and Linear A are writing systems, not languages. Just like the alphabet that we are using here can be used for languages that have nothing in common (e.g., English, Finnish, Turkish, etc., etc., have the same writing system, but no linguistic connection.) So, too, it is clear that Linear B (which has been proven to be Greek) is in a different language from Linear A, even though they are related. (If Linear A were indeed Greek, it probably would have been cracked by now.) semper fictilis 21:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Known inscriptions
I removed this material from the article because Wikipedia articles aren't the place to reproduce primary sources. Maybe someone will want to put this on another wikiproject or quote snippets, so I'll leave it on the talk page for now. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
| Involved users |
|---|
Dreros 1
Part of the inscription (lines 3 to 5) is written in Greek, probably the Doric dialect. Due to the lack of preservation of many of the words, it is difficult to ascertain what even the Greek text is saying. It has been pointed out that <ewade> (lines 3-4) may be "it is decided". Another suggestion is that <turon> (line 4) and <ton turon> (line 3) refers to "goat cheese" which is further connected to what are believed to be Pelasgian words for 'goat' found in various forms in Greek dialects (ιξάλη, ιζάλη, ιζάνη, ισάλη, ισσέλα, ιτθέλα, ισθλη, ισσέλη) showing a goat-like root *itsala which is perhaps present in Eteocretan <isalabre> (line 1) and <isaluria> (line 2). The word <inai> is found also on the Praisos 2 artifact on line 2 and may be a verb (cf. Etruscan <en-aš> and <en-iac-a>). Dreros 2The following inscription was published by Henri van Effenterre.[1] The artifact originates from the Delphinion in Dreros and contains an inscription written on a long block made from grey schist. It is not preserved in entirety and so there are chips on either end of the artifact that obscure the text. Parts of the artifact have been lost but thankfully we at least have what was recorded before its disappearance.
The text is in fact a bilingual inscription. Part of the text is recognizably Doric Greek, and so there is hope that the Eteocretan text at least partially repeat similar notions. The Greek section of the text was written above in minuscule letters and is translated thus:
The Eteocretan text is much shorter suggesting that it is merely a summary of the Greek text:
Merieia, may be a reference to the divinities known to the Greeks as the Moirae, often referred to as the Fates, who measure the destiny of humankind. Praisos 1
Praisos 2
What is intriguing about this longer text is its evident mention of the city of Praisos, showing differing inflections as well. We see this city's name on line 2 (<φraiso-i> 'in Praisos') and again on line 6 (<φraiso-na> 'of Praisos'). Praisos 3
Praisos 4
Praisos 5
Praisos 6
|
- ^ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 70, 1946 (Paris), pages 602 & 603.