The Ancient Languages of Europe - Roger D. Woodard.pdf内容摘要: This page intentionally left blank
THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF EUROPE
This book, derived from the acclaimed Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Lan-
guages, describes the ancient languages of Europe, for the convenience of students and
specialists working in that area. Each chapter of the work focuses on an individual language
or, in some instances, a set of closely related varieties of a language. Providing a full de-
scriptive presentation, each of these chapters examines the writing system(s), phonology,
morphology, syntax, and lexicon of that language, and places the language within its proper
linguistic and historical context. The volume brings together an international array of schol-
ars, each a leading specialist in ancient language study. While designed primarily for scholars
and students of linguistics, this work will prove invaluable to all whose studies take them
into the realm of ancient language.
Roger D. Woodard is the Andrew Van Vranken Raymond Professor of the Classics at the
University of Buffalo. His chief research interests lie generally within the areas of Greek and
Roman myth and religion, Indo-European culture and linguistics, the origin and develop-
ment of writing among the Greeks, and the interaction between Greece and the ancient
Near East. His other books include The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (2007),
Indo-European Sacred Space (2006), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient
Languages (2004), Ovid’s Fasti (with A. J. Boyle, 2000), Greek Writing from Knossos to Homer:
A Linguistic Interpretation of the Origins of the Greek Alphabet (1997), and On Interpreting
Morphological Change (1990). He has also published numerous articles and served as Presi-
dent of the Society for the Study of Greek and Latin Language and Linguistics from 1992 to
2001.
The Ancient
Languages of Europe
Edited by
roger d. woodard
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
Information on this title: /9780521684958
© Cambridge University Press 2008
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2008
ISBN-13 978-0-511-39352-5eBook (EBL)
ISBN-13 978-0-521-68495-8paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Contents
List of figurespage vi
List of tables vii
List of mapsix
List of contributors x
Notes on numbering and cross-referencingxi
List of abbreviationsxii
Prefaceroger d. woodardxv
Preface to the first edition roger d. woodard xix
1 Language in ancient Europe:
an introduction roger d. woodard 1
2 Attic Greek roger d. woodard14
3 Greek dialectsroger d. woodard50
4 Latin james p. t. clackson73
5 Sabellian languages rex e. wallace96
6 Venetic rex e. wallace 124
7 Etruscanhelmut rix 141
8 Continental Celticjoseph f. eska 165
9 Gothicjay h. jasanoff189
10 Ancient Nordic jan terje faarlund 215
Appendix 1. Indo-European henry m. hoenigswald, 230
roger d. woodard, and
james p. t. clackson
Appendix 2. Full tables of contents from The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
World’s Ancient Languages, and from the other volumes in the
paperback series247
Index of general subjects 252
Index of grammar and linguistics255
Index of languages258
Index of named linguistic laws and principles 261
v
Figures
1.1 Cretan hieroglyphic inscription and portrait stamped on a sealing. From
Evans 1909:272 page 2
1.2 The Phaistos Disk (side A). From Evans 1909:plate XII 3
1.3 The Caslir Situla. From Conway, Whatmough and Johnson 1933 II:286
2.1 The vowel phonemes of Classical Attic Greek 17
5.1 South Picene inscription. From Marinetti 1985:219 98
5.2 Oscan inscription. From Yves Duhoux (1988), “A propos des Inscriptions
Osques dites Iuvilas et du texte Vetter 94,” in Yoel Arbeitman (ed.), A Linguistic
Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz, by permission of Peeters Publishers,
Louvain-la-Neuve, 198899
6.1 Venetic votive inscriptions. From Pellegrini and Prosdocimi 1967:163 (6.lA),
488 (6.lB) 125
6.2 Venetic epitaphs. From Pellegrini and Prosdocimi 1967:56 (6.2A), 330 (6.2B),
195 (6.2C) 126
6.3 Latino-Venetic inscription. From Pellegrini and Prosdocimi 1967:222130
9.1 The Germanic languages189
vi
Tables
1.1 A partial inventory of Cypro-Minoan characterspage 4
1.2 Irish Ogham (Craobh-Ruadh); font courtesy of Michael Everson 5
2.1 The Greek alphabet 15
2.2 The consonantal phonemes of Classical Attic Greek16
2.3 Ablauting noun patterns of Proto-Indo-European 27
3.1 The Linear B script (from O. Dickinson, The Bronze Age, 1994, p. 196)54
3.2 The Cypriot syllabary55
3.3 Epichoric Greek alphabets56
4.1 The Archaic Latin alphabet 75
4.2 The consonantal phonemes of Latin76
4.3 Latin nominal paradigms81
5.1 National Oscan alphabet, c. 250 BC100
5.2 Umbrian alphabet, Iguvine Tablets I–Vb7, c. 250 BC101
5.3 The consonantal phonemes of Oscan 102
5.4 The consonantal phonemes of Umbrian 104
5.5 Sabellian noun stems107
5.6 Sabellian personal endings111
6.1 Venetic alphabet princeps (c. 500 BC). From G. Fogolari and A. L. Prosdocimi,
I Veneti Antichi, 1988, p. 333128
6.2 Spelling of Venetic dental stops129
6.3 The consonantal phonemes of Venetic 130
7.1 The Etruscan alphabet of archaic inscriptions 143
8.1 The Celtic adaptation of the Iberian script; courtesy of Roland D. Woodard166
8.2 The Lugano script; courtesy of Roland D. Woodard168
8.3 Hispano-Celtic nominal inflection 173
8.4 Lepontic nominal inflection 174
8.5 Gaulish nominal inflection175
8.6 Present endings of Continental Celtic 178
8.7 Preterite endings of Continental Celtic 178
9.1 Wulfila’s alphabet191
vii
viii List of tables
9.2Gothic nominal stems202
9.3Gothic strong and weak verb paradigms 208
10.1 The Northwest Germanic futhark217
10.2 Ancient Nordic nominal stems221
A.1Proto-Indo-European nominal endings 239
Maps
1The Greek dialects of the first millennium BC and
neighboring languages between pages 49–50
2The ancient languages of Italy and surrounding regions
(for the Greek dialects of Italy and Sicily, see Map 1)123–124
ix
Contributors
james p. t. clacksonUniversity of Cambridge
joseph f. eskaVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-
sity
jan terje faarlundUniversitetet I Oslo
henry m. hoenigswald† University of Pennsylvania
jay h. jasanoff Harvard University
helmut rixAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
rex e. wallaceUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst
roger d. woodardUniversity of Buffalo (The State University of
New York)
x
Notes on numbering and cross-referencing
This volume is one of five paperbacks derived from The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s
Ancient Languages (WAL), with the content now organized by region for the convenience of
students and specialists wishing to focus on a given area of the ancient world.
Cross-references to material within this volume use its own internal chapter numbers.
Any cross-references to other chapters of the original WAL refer to the chapter numbers in
that work, and are prefixed by WAL. The contents list of WAL is reproduced at the back of
this volume, as are the contents of the respective volumes of the paperback series derived
from it.
xi
Abbreviations
Any abbreviation that deviates from the form given below is noted within the text of the
individual chapter or within a chapter-specific list.
Linguistic termsdir.directive
dir. obj. direct object
abl.ablative
disj. disjunctive
abs.absolutive
du. dual
acc.accusative
dur.durative
act.active
emph.-pcl.emphatic particle
adj.adjective
encl. enclitic
adv.adverb (adverbial)
eq. equative
all.allative
erg.ergative
anim. animate
ext.extended
aor.aorist
fem.feminine
art.article
final-pcl.final-particle
asp.aspirated
fut.future
aux.auxiliary (verb)
gdve. gerundive
caus. causative
gen.genitive
cl. clause
ger.gerund
coll. collective
impf. imperfect
com.common
impftv. imperfective
comp. comparative
impv. imperative
comt. comitative
inan. inanimate
conj. conjunction
inc.inclusive
conjv.conjunctive
indef. art. indefinite article
conn. connective
indet.indeterminate
cons. consonant
indic.indicative
constr. construct (state)
inf.infinitive
cont. continuant
instr.instrumental
cop.copula
interr. interrogative
dat.dative
intr. intransitive
def. art. definite article
iter. iterative
dem.demonstrative
juss. jussive
det.determinate
loc.locative
detv. determinative
mediopass.mediopassive
dial. dialect
mid.middle
xii
List of abbreviationsxiii
N. nountop.topicalizer
neg. negativetr. transitive
neut.neuterV.verb
nom. nominativevar.variant
NP noun phrase vent. ventive
num. numbervoc.vocative
obj. objectvow.vowel
obl. oblique VPverbal phrase
opt. optative
part.participle
Languages
pass.passive
pcl. particleAkk.Akkadian
per. personAr. Arabic
perf.perfect Ass.Assyrian
perfv. perfectiveAv. Avestan
perfvz.perfectivizer Bab.Babylonian
pert.pertinentiveCis. Gaul.Cisalpine Gaulish
pl.pluralEg. Egyptian (Old, Late, Earlier)
pluperf. pluperfectEng.English
poss. suff.possessive suffix Etr.Etruscan
postp. postpositionGk. Greek
PP prepositional phraseGmc.Germanic
prec.precative Go. Gothic
preC.preconsonantalHisp.-Celt. Hispano-Celtic
pref.prefixHitt. Hittite
prep.preposition IEIndo-European
pres.present Lat.Latin
pret.preterite Lep.Lepontic
preV.prevocalicLuv.Luvian
pro. pronoun Lyc.Lycian
prosp. prospective MAMiddle Assyrian
quot.quotative particleMBMiddle Babylonian
refl.reflexive NANeo-Assyrian
rel. pro.relative (pronoun)NBNeo-Babylonian
rel./connec. relative/connective OAOld Assyrian
sg.singularO. Akk. Old Akkadian
soc. sociative caseO. Av.Old Avestan
SOVSubject–Object–Verb OBOld Babylonian
(word order)OHG Old High German
spec.specifier OPOld Persian
splv.superlative PGProto-Greek
stat.stative PGmc. Proto-Germanic
subj.subject PIE Proto-Indo-European
subjunc. subjunctive PIIr. Proto-Indo-Iranian
subord.subordinate/subordinator/ PIr.Proto-Iranian
subordination markerPMS Proto-Mije-Sokean
subord.-pcl. subordinating particlePSProto-Semitic
suff.suffixPSo.Proto-Sokean
s.v. sub voceSBStandard Babylonian
xiv List of abbreviations
Skt. Sanskritdict. dictionary
Sum. Sumerianintro.introduction
Y. Av. Young Avestan lit.literally
NAnot applicable
NSnew series
Other
trad. traditional
abbr.abbreviationtranslit. transliteration
Preface
Preliminary remarks
What makes a language ancient? The term conjures up images, often romantic, of archeol-
ogists feverishly copying hieroglyphs by torchlight in a freshly discovered burial chamber;
of philologists dangling over a precipice in some remote corner of the earth, taking impres-
sions of an inscription carved in a cliff-face; of a solitary scholar working far into the
night, puzzling out some ancient secret, long forgotten by humankind, from a brittle-leafed
manuscript or patina-encrusted tablet. The allure is undeniable, and the literary and film
worlds have made full use of it.
An ancient language is indeed a thing of wonder – but so is every other language, all
remarkable systems of conveying thoughts and ideas across time and space. And ancient
languages, as far back as the very earliest attested, operate just like those to which the
linguist has more immediate access, all with the same familiar elements – phonological,
morphological, syntactic – and no perceptible vestiges of Neanderthal oddities. If there was
a time when human language was characterized by features and strategies fundamentally
unlike those we presently know, it was a time prior to the development of any attested
or reconstructed language of antiquity. Perhaps, then, what makes an ancient language
different is our awareness that it has outlived those for whom it was an intimate element
of the psyche, not so unlike those rays of light now reaching our eyes that were emitted by
their long-extinguished source when dinosaurs still roamed across the earth (or earlier) –
both phantasms of energy flying to our senses from distant sources, long gone out.
That being said, and rightly enough, we must return to the question of what counts
as an ancient language. As ancient the editor chose the upward delimitation of the fifth
century AD. This terminus ante quem is one which is admittedly “traditional”; the fifth is
the century of the fall of the western Roman Empire (AD 476), a benchmark which has
been commonly (though certainly not unanimously) identified as marking the end of the
historical period of antiquity. Any such chronological demarcation is of necessity arbitrary
– far too arbitrary – as linguists accustomed to making such diachronic distinctions as Old
English, Middle English, Modern English or Old Hittite, Middle Hittite, Neo-Hittite are keenly
aware. Linguistic divisions of this sort are commonly based upon significant political events
and clearly perceptible cultural shifts rather than upon language phenomena (though they
are surely not without linguistic import as every historical linguist knows). The choice
of the boundary in the present concern – the ancient-language boundary – is, likewise
(as has already been confessed), not mandated by linguistic features and characteristics of
the languages concerned.
However, this arbitrary choice, establishing a terminus ante quem of the fifth century, is
somewhat buttressed by quite pragmatic linguistic considerations (themselves consequent
xv
xvi Preface
to the whim of historical accident), namely the co-occurrence of a watershed in language
documentation. Several early languages first make a significant appearance in the histori-
cal record in the fourth/fifth century: thus, Gothic (fourth century; see Ch. 9), Ge’ez
(fourth/fifth century; see WAL Ch. 14, §1.3.1), Classical Armenian (fifth century; see WAL
Ch. 38), Early Old Georgian (fifth century; see WAL Ch. 40). What newly comes into clear
light in the sixth century is a bit more meager – Tocharian and perhaps the very earliest
Old Kannada and Old Telegu from the end of the century. Moreover, the dating of these
languages to the sixth century cannot be made precisely (not to suggest this is an especially
unusual state of affairs) and it is equally possible that the earliest attestation of all three
should be dated to the seventh century. Beginning with the seventh century the pace of
language attestation begins to accelerate, with languages documented such as Old English,
Old Khmer, and Classical Arabic (though a few earlier inscriptions preserving a “transi-
tional” form of Arabic are known; see WAL Ch. 16, §1.1.1). The ensuing centuries bring an
avalanche of medieval European languages and their Asian contemporaries into view. Aside
from the matter of a culturally dependent analytic scheme of historical periodization, there
are thus considerations of language history that motivate the upper boundary of the fifth
century.
On the other hand, identifying a terminus post quem for the inclusion of a language in the
present volume was a completely straightforward and noncontroversial procedure. The low
boundary is determined by the appearance of writing in human society, a graphic means
for recording human speech. A system of writing appears to have been first developed by
the Sumerians of southern Mesopotamia in the late fourth millennium BC (see WAL Ch.
2, §§1.2; 2). Not much later (beginning in about 3100 BC), a people of ancient Iran began
to record their still undeciphered language of Proto-Elamite on clay tablets (see WAL Ch.
3, §2.1). From roughly the same period, the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system emerges
in the historical record (see WAL Ch. 7, §2). Hence, Sumerian and Egyptian are the earliest
attested, understood languages and, ipso facto, the earliest languages treated in this volume.
It is conjectured that humans have been speaking and understanding language for at
least 100,000 years. If in the great gulf of time which separates the advent of language and
the appearance of Sumerian, Proto-Elamite, and Egyptian societies, there were any people
giving written expression to their spoken language, all evidence of such records and the
language or languages they record has fallen victim to the decay of time. Or the evidence
has at least eluded the archeologists.
Format and conventions
Each chapter, with only the occasional exception, adheres to a common format. The chapter
begins with an overview of the history (including prehistory) of the language, at least up to
the latest stage of the language treated in the chapter, and of those peoples who spoke the
language (§1, h is t o ri c al an d c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s). Then follows a discussion of
the development and use of the script(s) in which the language is recorded (§2, w r i t i n g
s y s t e m s); note that the complex Mesopotamian cuneiform script, which is utilized for
several languages of the ancient Near East – Sumerian (WAL Ch. 2), Elamite (WAL Ch. 3),
Hurrian (WAL Ch. 4), Urartian (WAL Ch. 5), Akkadian and Eblaite (WAL Ch. 8), Hittite
(WAL Ch. 18), Luvian (WAL Ch. 19) – and which provides the inspiration and graphic raw
materials for others – Ugaritic (WAL Ch. 9) and Old Persian (WAL Ch. 28) – is treated in
most detail in WAL Chapter 8, §2. The next section presents a discussion of phonological
elements of the language (§3, p h o n o l o g y), identifying consonant and vowel phonemes,
and treating matters such as allophonic and morphophonemic variation, syllable structure
Preface xvii
and phonotaxis, segmental length, accent (pitch and stress), and synchronic and diachronic
phonological processes. Following next is discussion of morphological phenomena (§4,
mo rp h o lo g y), focusing on topics such as word structure, nominal and pronominal
categories and systems, the categories and systems of finite verbs and other verbal elements
(for explanation of the system of classifying Semitic verb stems – G stem, etc. – see WAL
Ch. 6, §3.3.5.2), compounds, diachronic morphology, and the system of numerals. Treatment
of syntactic matters then follows (§5, s y n t a x), presenting discussion of word order and
coordinate and subordinate clause structure, and phenomena such as agreement, cliticism
and various other syntactic processes, both synchronic and diachronic. The description of
the grammar closes with a consideration of the lexical component (§6, l e xi c o n); and the
chapter comes to an end with a list of references cited in the chapter and of other pertinent
works (bi bli o g rap h y).
To a great extent, the linguistic presentations in the ensuing chapters have remained
faithful to the grammatical conventions of the various language disciplines. From discipline
to discipline, the most obvious variation lies in the methods of transcribing sounds. Thus, for
example, the symbols ś, .s, and .t in the traditional orthography of Indic language scholarship
represent, respectively, a voiceless palatal (palato-alveolar) fricative, a voiceless retroflex
fricative, and a voiceless retroflex stop. In Semitic studies, however, the same symbols are
used to denote very different phonetic realities: ś represents a voiceless lateral fricative while
.s and .t transcribe two of the so-called emphatic consonants – the latter a voiceless stop
produced with a secondary articulation (velarization, pharyngealization, or glottalization),
the former either a voiceless fricative or affricate, also with a secondary articulation. Such
conventional symbols are employed herein, but for any given language, the reader can readily
determine phonetic values of these symbols by consulting the discussion of consonant and
vowel sounds in the relevant phonology section.
Broad phonetic transcription is accomplished by means of a slightly modified form of
the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). Most notably, the IPA symbols for the palato-
alveolar fricatives and affricates, voiceless [ʃ] and [tʃ] and voiced [] and [d], have been
replaced by the more familiar [š], [č], [ž], and [] respectively. Similarly, [y] is used for the
palatal glide rather than [j]. Long vowels are marked by either a macron or a colon.
In the phonology sections, phonemic transcription, in keeping with standard phonologi-
cal practice, is placed within slashes (e.g., /p/) and phonetic transcription within square
brackets (e.g., [p]; note that square brackets are also used to fill out the meaning of a gloss
and are employed as an element of the transcription and transliteration conventions for
certain languages, such as Elamite [WAL Ch. 3] and Pahlavi [WAL Ch. 30]). The general
treatment adopted in phonological discussions has been to present transcriptions as phonetic
rather than phonemic, except in those instances in which explicit reference is made to the
phonemic level. Outside of the phonological sections, transcriptions are usually presented
using the conventional orthography of the pertinent language discipline. When potential
for confusion would seem to exist, transcriptions are enclosed within angled brackets (e.g.,
<p>) to make clear to the reader that what is being specified is the spelling of a word and
not its pronunciation.
Further acknowledgments
The enthusiastic reception of the first edition of this work – and the broad interest in the
ancient languages of humankind that it demonstrates – has been and remains immensely
gratifying to both editor and contributors. The editor would like to take this opportunity,
on behalf of all the contributors, to express his deepest appreciation to all who have had a
xviii Preface
hand in the success of the first edition. We wish too to acknowledge our debt of gratitude
to Cambridge University Press and to Dr. Kate Brett for continued support of this project
and for making possible the publication of this new multivolume edition and the increased
accessibility to the work that it will inevitably provide. Thanks also go to the many kind
readers who have provided positive and helpful feedback since the publication of the first
edition, and to the editors of CHOICE for bestowing upon the work the designation of
Outstanding Academic Title of 2006.
Roger D. Woodard
Vernal Equinox 2007
Preface to the first edition
In the following pages, the reader will discover what is, in effect, a linguistic description
of all known ancient languages. Never before in the history of language study has such a
collection appeared within the covers of a single work. This volume brings to student and
to scholar convenient, systematic presentations of grammars which, in the best of cases,
were heretofore accessible only by consulting multiple sources, and which in all too many
instances could only be retrieved from scattered, out-of-the-way, disparate treatments. For
some languages, the only existing comprehensive grammatical description is to be found
herein.
This work has come to fruition through the efforts and encouragement of many, to all of
whom the editor wishes to express his heartfelt gratitude. To attempt to list all – colleagues,
students, friends – would, however, certainly result in the unintentional and unhappy ne-
glect of some, and so only a much more modest attempt at acknowledgments will be made.
Among those to whom special thanks are due are first and foremost the contributors to this
volume, scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of the languages of ancient hu-
manity, without whose expertise and dedication this work would still be only a desideratum.
Very special thanks also go to Dr. Kate Brett of Cambridge University Press for her profes-
sionalism, her wise and expert guidance, and her unending patience, also to her predecessor,
Judith Ayling, for permitting me to persuade her of the project’s importance. I cannot neglect
mentioning my former colleague, Professor Bernard Comrie, now of the Max Planck Insti-
tute, for his unflagging friendship and support. Kudos to those who masterfully translated
the chapters that were written in languages other than English: Karine Megardoomian for
Phrygian, Dr. Margaret Whatmough for Etruscan, Professor John Huehnergard for Ancient
South Arabian. Last of all, but not least of all, I wish to thank Katherine and Paul – my
inspiration, my joy.
Roger D. Woodard
Christmas Eve 2002
xix
chapter 1
Language in ancient
Europe: an introduction
roger d. woodard
The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the
Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of
them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly
have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three,
without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists:
there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothik and the
Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the
old Persian might be added to the same family.
Asiatick Researches 1:442–443
In recent years, these words of an English jurist, Sir William Jones, have been frequently
quoted (at times in truncated form) in works dealing with Indo-European linguistic origins.
And appropriately so. They are words of historic proportion, spoken in Calcutta, 2 February
1786, at a meeting of the Asiatick Society, an organization that Jones had founded soon
after his arrival in India in 1783 (on Jones, see, inter alia, Edgerton 1967). If Jones was
not the first scholar to recognize the genetic relatedness of languages (see, inter alia, the
discussion in Mallory 1989:9–11) and if history has treated Jones with greater kindness than
other pioneers of comparative linguistic investigation, the foundational remarks were his
that produced sufficient awareness, garnered sufficient attention – sustained or recollected –
to mark an identifiable beginning of the study of comparative linguistics and the study of
that great language family of which Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Celtic, and Old Persian
are members – and are but a few of its members.
All of the chapters that follow are devoted to languages belonging to the Indo-European
language family – with one exception: Etruscan. This is not by editorial design, but by
historical accident. Many of these are languages whose speakers clustered at points along the
northern rim of the central Mediterranean basin. Over half are languages spoken wholly or
partially within the space of the Italian Peninsula.
There were languages spoken in Europe prior to the expansion of the Indo-European
peoples across the European continent – an event that unfolded over a period of millennia,
likely having its inception in about the middle of the fifth millennium BC. For the most
part, evidence of those “Old European” languages survives only as shadows cast across the
grammars and lexica of the Indo-European languages: they were simply spoken too early in
Europe’s history to have had the opportunity to achieve a written form that would survive
in the historical record.
The earliest documented Indo-European languages of Europe were those that had the
good fortune to be spoken in a time after the advent of writing systems suitable for their
recording and in places in which those writing systems were created – or to which their
1
2 The Ancient Languages of Europe
Figure 1.1 Cretan hieroglyphic inscription and portrait stamped on a sealing
use expanded – and to be written on materials that escaped decay within the natural en-
vironment in which they were produced and deposited. For most – though not all – of
the Indo-European languages of Europe, a single writing system provided the key – di-
rectly or indirectly, immediately or through some evolutionary chain – to epigraphic sur-
vival. That writing system was not, however, the “Indo-Europeans’ gift to Europe.” It was,
on the contrary, the adaptation by one particular Indo-European people of a pre-existing
writing system of southwest Asia, whose roots can be traced now with some certainty to
Egypt (see the Introduction to the companion volume entitled The Ancient Languages of
Syria-Palestine and Arabia). That writing system was, of course, the Greek alphabet (see
Ch. 2, §2).
And what of the residue – i.e. those languages of ancient Europe that have been preserved
using something other than alphabetic writing? The Greeks – the very designers of the
“alphabet” – had prior to the time of its creation, during the Mycenaean era, recorded their
language on clay tablets using the syllabic script that Sir Arthur Evans, the distinguished
British archeologist (1851–1941), dubbed Linear B; and among the Greeks of Cyprus, a
related script – the Cypriot syllabary – remained in use long after the creation of the alphabet.
Aside from these varieties of Greek, the languages of Europe that were written with a non-
alphabetic script are at the present time poorly understood – if at all. The inverse corollary
holds only in part, for some of the ancient languages of Europe, though indeed written
in a script based upon the Greek alphabet – sometimes only slightly modified – remain
undeciphered.
The Linear B syllabary of the Mycenaean Greeks was almost certainly based on the Cretan
script that Evans called Linear A (see more on this below) – a still undeciphered writing
system. In fact, three different undeciphered scripts have survived in the remains of the
pre-Greek, Minoan civilization (as also named by Evans) of ancient Crete. The oldest of
these is called Cretan Hieroglyphic or Cretan Pictographic (see Fig. 1.1) and its use is dated
to the period 2000–1600 BC, seal stones providing the bulk of examples. The pictographic
symbols making up the script probably have a syllabic value.
The second of the undeciphered Cretan scripts is known from only a single document,
the Phaistos Disk (dated to about 1700 BC; see Fig. 1.2). The disk has been the object of
repeated attempts at decipherment since its discovery in the early twentieth century. While
success has often been claimed, none of the proposed decipherments carries conviction.
Linear A, the third of the Minoan scripts, is the best represented of the three. Dating
from about the mid nineteenth to mid fifteenth centuries BC, Linear A documents partially
overlap chronologically with those written in Cretan Hieroglyphic, though in terms of
historical development, the former may trace its origins to the latter. Linear A, in turn,
language in ancient europe3
Figure 1.2 The Phaistos Disk (side A)
appears to be the source of the Mycenaean Greek script, Linear B (see Ch. 3, §§1.1; 1.2; 2.1),
though a simple direct linear descent is not probable. Of the three Minoan scripts, Linear
A holds the greatest hope for decipherment. Recent work by Brown (1990) and Finkelberg
(1990–1991) has taken up a notion proposed by Palmer in the middle of the twentieth
century (e.g., Palmer 1968) which would identify the Linear A language as a member of
the Anatolian subfamily of Indo-European. On the Cretan scripts see, inter alia, Chadwick
1990; Palaima 1988; Woodard 1997.
Mention should also be made of the undeciphered language called Eteo-Cretan. Much
later than the three Bronze Age Minoan scripts, Eteo-Cretan is preserved in inscriptions
written in the Greek alphabet. On Eteo-Cretan, see Duhoux 1982.
Prior to the emergence of Greek writing on Cyprus, attested by about the middle of
the eleventh century BC (and the somewhat later appearance of Phoenician; see WAL
Ch. 11, §1.2; Ch. 2, §2), the island was inhabited by a people, or by groups of people, who
were recording their speech in the undeciphered set of scripts called Cypro-Minoan (see
Table 1.1). As the name suggests, these Cypriot writing systems appear to have their origin
in a writing system of Minoan Crete, Linear A being the likely candidate. Archaic Cypro-
Minoan is the name given to the script found on only a single inscription, dated to about
1500 BC. This script has been analyzed as the likely ancestor of the more widely attested
Cypro-Minoan 1, found in use between approximately the late sixteenth and twelfth centuries
BC. A distinct script, Cypro-Minoan 2, has been found on thirteenth-century documents
from the site of Enkomi. Yet a third, Cypro-Minoan 3, dating also to the thirteenth century
BC, has turned up not on Cyprus but in the remains of the ancient Syrian city of Ugarit (see
WAL Ch. 9, §1; on the Cypro-Minoan scripts, see especially E. Masson 1974, 1977; Palaima
1989). Cypro-Minoan remains undeciphered.
4 The Ancient Languages of Europe
Table 1.1 A partial inventory of Cypro-Minoan characters
À ¿ õ¤ Ö ô
ƒ á Δ≈ Ü ú
° ÿ òÅ ∫
≠ É ¡± ∏
ü ⁄ æ™ «
à ù Õ‹ Ñ
Æ • »¨ ”
∞ … ªŒ Ä
´ Ω §ö Ç
Cypro-Minoan 1 appears to have provided the graphic model for the Greek syllabary of
Cyprus (see Ch. 3, §2.2). This Greek syllabic script was in turn not only used for writing
Greek but also adopted for some other language of Cyprus, as yet undeciphered, dubbed
Eteo-Cypriot. The Eteo-Cypriot inscriptions are commonly regarded as the documentary
remains of an indigenous people of Cyprus who had withstood assimilation to the commu-
nities of Greek and Phoenician settlers. After Greek and Phoenician settlement of Cyprus,
Eteo-Cypriots appear to have concentrated particularly in the area of Amathus (on the
Eteo-Cypriot inscriptions, see O. Masson 1983:85–87).
From Portugal and Spain come ancient inscriptions recorded in those scripts called
Iberian, broadly divided into two groups, Northeast and South Iberian. The latter group
includes the variety of the script called Turdetan, after the ancient Turdetanians, of whom the
Greek geographer Strabo wrote: “These are counted the wisest people among the Iberians;
they write with an alphabet and possess prose works and poetry of ancient heritage, and laws
composed in meter, six thousand years old, so they say” (Geography 3.1.6). One form of the
Northeast Iberian writing system was adopted by speakers of Celtic for recording their own
language (Hispano-Celtic or Celtiberian; see Ch. 8, especially §2.1), and these Celtic docu-
ments are interpretable (for the language, see Ch. 8, especially §§3.1; 3.4; 4.2.1.1; 4.3.6; 5.1).
However, the Iberian scripts were used principally for a language or languages which are
not understood, in spite of the fact that there also occur Iberian-language (Old Hispanic)
inscriptions written with the Greek and Roman alphabets, and even bilingual texts. On the
Iberian scripts and language(s) see, inter alia, Untermann 1975, 1980, 1990, 1997; Swiggers
1996; Diringer 1968:193–195.
While the South Picene language of eastern coastal Italy appears to be demonstrably
Indo-European (belonging to the Sabellian branch of Italic; see Ch. 5), the genetic affiliation
of its meagerly attested northern neighbor, North Picene, remains uncertain (though the
two were formerly lumped together under the name East Italic or Old Sabellian). Though
completely readable (being written in an Etruscan-based alphabet), North Picene remains
largely impenetrable, in spite of the fact that a Latin – North Picene bilingual exists (a
brief inscription, the identity of the non-Latin portion of which has been disputed). For an
examination toward a tentative translation of the long North Picene inscription, the Novilara
Stele, see Poultney 1979 (providing a summary of earlier attempts at interpretation).
The documentation of Insular Celtic – the Celtic languages of Ireland and Britain – (as
opposed to Continental Celtic; see Ch. 8) which has survived from antiquity is very meager
indeed, and is limited to Irish. The script used in recording this early Irish is the unusual
alphabetic system called Ogham (see Table 1.2); most of its characters consist of slashing
language in ancient europe5
Table 1.2 Irish Ogham (Craobh-Ruadh); font courtesy of Michael Everson
Symbol TranscriptionNameSymbol Transcription Name
l b beithe qhúath
m l luis rddair
n f fern sttinne
o s sail tccoll
p n ninuqceirt
v m muin {aailm
w g gort |oonn
x nggétal }uúr
y z straif ~eedad
z r ruis iidad
eaébadoi ór
iaiphı́n ui uilen
aeemancholl
lines, longer and shorter (notches being used at times for vowel characters), giving the
impression that it was originally designed to be “written” by means of an ax or some similar
sharp instrument, with wood serving as a medium. The Ogham inscriptions, which date as
early as the fourth century AD (and perhaps as early as the second century), can be read
(owing to our knowledge of later Irish) but consist largely of personal names and provide
little data on which can be constructed a linguistic description of Ogham Irish. For such
descriptions of Insular Celtic, the linguist must await the appearance of Old Irish and Old
Welsh manuscripts in about the eighth century AD (and hence Ogham Irish is not treated
in the present volume).
There is, however, a second ancient language of Britain which is written with a variety of
Ogham, the language of Pictish. The Picts, who receive their name from Latin Picti “painted
ones” (presumably referring to the practice of tattooing, though other etymologies have been
proposed), inhabited portions of modern Scotland, along with the Scots, a Celtic people of
Irish origin. A much broader, earlier distribution of the Picts has also been claimed. The
Picts are known for their production of stone monuments on which are engraved intriguing
images of animals and other designs, at times accompanied by Ogham inscriptions. The
language of the Pictish Ogham inscriptions is not understood; it is not Celtic and probably
not Indo-European. On the Pictish language, see Jackson 1980; for Ogham generally, see
McMannus 1991.
In addition to the above enumerated poorly understood ancient languages of Europe
(non-Greek Cretan and Cypriot languages, Iberian, North Picene, and Pictish), several other
European languages are attested that are somewhat better known, though too meagerly so, it
was judged, to be assigned individual chapters in this volume of grammatical descriptions.
Brief discussion of these – many of which were spoken in or near Italy – now follows.
1. SICEL
From Sicily come several inscriptions written in a language which appears to be Indo-
European; a number of glosses are claimed as well (see Conway, Whatmough, and Johnson
6 The Ancient Languages of Europe
1933 II:449–458; on Sicel generally, see Pulgram 1978:71–73 with references). The name
assigned to the language, Sicel or Siculan, is that given by Greek colonists to the native
peoples of Sicily whom they there encountered in the eighth century BC. Little is known
about the ethnicity of these Siceli. The form esti occurs in Sicel, seemingly the archetypal
Indo-European “(s)he is.” Interpretations of other inscriptional forms show considerable
variation. Tradition held that the Siceli had migrated to Sicily from the Italian peninsula:
thus, Varro (On the Latin Language 5.101) writes that they came from Rome; Diodorus
Siculus (Library of History 5.6.3–4) records that the Siceli had come from Italy and settled
in the region of Sicily formerly occupied by a people called the Sicani. On the basis of the
available linguistic evidence, however, Sicel cannot be demonstrated to be a member of the
Italic subfamily of Indo-European (see Ch. 4, §1).
On the inscriptional fragments from western Sicily identified as Elymian, see Cowgill and
Mayrhofer 1986:58 with references.
2. RAETIC AND LEMNIAN
From the eastern Alps, homeland of the tribes called Raeti by the Romans, come a very few
inscriptions in a language which has been claimed to bear certain Indo-Europe
发表于 2022-6-21 22:16:52
文档下载
