|
Post by greekslav on Jan 13, 2008 11:17:50 GMT -5
The borrowing of the Phoenician script by traders or craftsmen from Hellas has long been established both by the surviving ancient sources and by studies of linguists and historians. Meanwhile, the majority of scholars agree that the adaption occurred in the late ninth or early eighth century BC. Scholars also agree that the actual place of the adoption had to be a commercial center, where Hellenes and Phoenicians intermingled.
Among the many suggestions referring to the place of adoption of the Phoenician signs by the Hellenes and the development of the alphabet most possible are the islands of Rhodes, Crete, and Cyprus and the trading colony at al-Mina in north Syria. However, recent archaeological evidence suggests that Cyprus, an island situated on the East-West Mediterranean trade routes and one of the major grading centers in the Mediterranean world in the ninth and eighth centuries BC, should be considered as the actual place of the adaption by visiting traders from Hellas, who created the alphabet in order to facilitate their mercantile transactions.
This process presupposes Phoenician and Hellenic coexistence in the place of the initial adaption and knowledge of the Hellenic population of the Phoenician script, so that they would have explained its use to the visiting traders from Hellas. Archaeological excavations testify to the existence of both Hellenic and Phoenician settlements on Cyprus. The Hellenic settlements date back as early as the Bronze Age, while Phoenician settlements on the island date to as early as the ninth century BC. These can be attested by the recent findings of a late eleventh-century BC bilingual, Cypriot syllabary and an early ninth-century BC bilingual, Cypriot-Phoenician inscription on Cyprus. Meanwhile, recent excavations on the island have revealed a Phoenician settlement, dated to the ninth century BC. During the period of the adaption, Hellenes, especially Euboeans, were in close contact with Cyprus and its Hellenic and Phoenician settlements. In addition to this, it is important to note that in the Hellenic Cypriot syllabary there were signs for the designation of vowels, indicating how the idea of an exclusively phonetic script could have been achieved. Therefore, the Hellenic population of Cyprus, who knew both the Cypriot and Phoenician scripts, taught visiting Hellenes both the Phoenician script and its mercantile function as well as the employment of phonetic elements in writing. Then, the visiting Hellenes, adapting the Phoenician sings in their new form as exclusively phonetic elements, created the alphabet and spread it along their travels.
|
|
|
Post by ariusaristos on Jan 13, 2008 17:53:01 GMT -5
what kind o zionf propaganda is that....
|
|
|
Post by slowdent on Jan 13, 2008 18:00:39 GMT -5
I can buy the patent thingy, but as you said it is a tool and usually when you give a tool to smn you demonstrate how it works. This sudden change of script seems peculiar. did they really change? you find so many common words with greek roots. the latin alphabet is a variation of the Greek as previously said "It is generally held that the Latins adopted the western variant of the Greek alphabet in the 7th century BC from Cumae, a Greek colony in southern Italy. " www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Roman-alphabetmany of the sea-related toponyms are Greek a small example www.jenny.mull.com/map3.jpg Tresnish islands: a small complex of three (treis) islands (nhsoi) of Scotland (skotos=dark) Other than that the language has to evolve. That is what happened and still happens. After all what is stated it is that the Greek language is the mother of western european languages.
|
|
|
Post by ariusaristos on Jan 13, 2008 18:09:30 GMT -5
why the phoinikes changed their language and after spoke Greek and wrote in Greek letters!
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Jan 13, 2008 22:31:36 GMT -5
why the phoinikes changed their language and after spoke Greek and wrote in Greek letters! Not quite right. Your words do not agree with the words of Herotodus. While you say that in time, the Phoenicians "changed their language and the type (or shape) of their letters", Herodotus said: "The Phoenicians who came with Cadmus - amongst whom were the Gephyraei - introduced into Greece, after their settlement in the country, a number of accomplishments, of which the most important was writing, an art till then, I think, unknown to the Greeks. At first they used the same characters as all the other Phoenicians, but as time went on, and they changed their language, they also changed the shape of their letters.they=Greeks
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 13, 2008 22:55:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 13, 2008 22:56:19 GMT -5
It goes on to say;
But, the archaeological excavations in Greece during the last 15 years have given us many more great surprises: The Greeks were writing using not only Linear A and B, but also a type of writing identical to that of the alphabet since at least 6000 B.C.
I think you may have better luck with the Rosetta stone NOT as well.
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Jan 13, 2008 23:39:46 GMT -5
"The Greeks created the first phonemic alphabet when they adapted the Phoenican alphabet to write Greek. They used a number of Phoenician letters that represented consonant sounds not present in Greek to write Greek vowels." www.omniglot.com/writing/alphabets.htm"The Greek alphabet has been in continuous use for the past 2,750 years or so since about 750 BC. It was developed from the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet and the order and names of the letters are derived from Phoenician." www.omniglot.com/writing/greek.htm"The Greek alphabet (Ελληνικό αλφάβητο) is an alphabet consisting of 24 letters that has been used to write the Greek language since the late 8th or early 8th century BC. It was the first alphabet in the narrow sense, that is, a writing system using a separate symbol for each vowel and consonant. It is the oldest alphabetic script in continuous use today. The letters were also used to represent Greek numerals (numbers), beginning in the 2nd century BC. In addition to being used for writing modern Greek, its letters are today used as symbols in mathematics and science, particle names in physics, as names of stars, in the names of fraternities and sororities, in the naming of supernumerary tropical cyclones, and for other purposes. The Greek alphabet is descended from the Phoenician alphabet and in turn gave rise to the Gothic, Glagolitic, Cyrillic, and Coptic, as well as the Latin alphabet. The Greek alphabet is also considered a possible ancestor of the Armenian alphabet. It is unrelated to Linear B and the Cypriot syllabary, earlier writing systems for Greek." www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Greek_alphabetGreek tradition derives the alphabet from the Phoenicians. Cadmus, the founder of Thebes, and legendary inventor of the alphabet, was the son of Agenor, king of Phoenicia. Not only does he bear a Phoenician name (from qadmu, possibly meaning “first”), but several features of his legend have marked Phoenician affinities, and the legend itself reflects an historical situation several generations before the Trojan War. It is quite likely, however, that the legend confuses the introduction of a syllabic form of writing on the Greek mainland before the Trojan War and the introduction of the Phoenician alphabet to the Greek world several generations after the Trojan War. In any case, the Phoenician derivation of the Greek alphabet is a matter of plain fact. The early Greek alphabet is the Phoenician alphabet, with some adaptations to the necessities of the Greek language which, being an Indo-European tongue, was totally different from the Semitic tongue of the Phoenicians. The most important of these adaptations was the use of five Phoenician letters (representing three Phoenician gutturals and two semi-vowels) to indicate vowels. All 22 letters of the Phoenician alphabet represented consonants. One of the letters used by the Greeks as a vowel, Phoenician waw, used as Greek üpsilon, was also required by the Greeks as a semi-vowel with the sound w (its original value in Phoenician), and so it was used, in two variant forms, twice over in the Greek alphabet―once in its Phoenician position (No. 6), in its old semi-vocalic character,6 and again at the end of the alphabet (No. 23) in. its new character as a vowel-letter. (The letters which follow upsilon in the Greek alphabet were added subsequently and do not concern us here.) The names of most of the Greek letters are simply the Phoenician names taken over into Greek along with the letters. Alpha, beta, gamma, delta are meaningless in Greek, except as they serve to denote letters of the alphabet; but their original Phoenician forms, aleph, beth, gimel, daleth and so on (practically identical with the Hebrew names of the letters) are not only the names of letters but have a meaning of their own. The Phoenician alphabet was written from right to left, as four of its derivatives, the Hebrew, Samaritan, Syriac and Arabic alphabets, are written to the present day. The earliest Greek writing also ran from right to left. When Herodotus (Hist. v, 59) says that he saw “Cadmeian characters” engraved on tripods in a temple in the Boeotian Thebes, he may be referring to right-to-left writing. The next stage in Greek writing was the writing of alternate lines right to left and left to right; this practice was known as writing boustrophedon (“ox-turning-wise”), as it resembled the alternate directions followed in ploughing, up one furrow and down the next. Then came the third stage, in which the left-to-right direction was standardized, and this has remained the direction in which the Greek alphabet and its derivative, the Roman alphabet, are written to this day. This matter of the direction of writing has no such metaphysical significance as some people like to read into it; it is a matter of pure convention. www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jtvi/alphabet_bruce.pdf
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Jan 13, 2008 23:46:25 GMT -5
In celebrating of freedom of expression, the anti-Phoenician side of this issue has been published, in books and on the web, although it has very few references to support it.
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Jan 14, 2008 0:29:13 GMT -5
stratige I am not kart but a simple search gives www.igogreece.com/en/GreeceReviews.asp?revCateg=4&id=31The interest for Greek resulted from the ascertainment of scientists of information technology and computers that the advanced computers of the future will accept as a "meaningful" language only Greek. All the other languages are characterized as "manufactured".any comments? Yes Slow, looking at the bottom of your link it says... From the Greek Ministry of Culture
Translated by Mike StefanidisSeriously Slow, you needed to check at UCI and read what they say exactly about this library.. The TLG® Digital Library became available to the scholarly community in CD ROM format in 1985. Three updates of the TLG disk were subsequently issued. The last TLG CD ROM ( TLG E) was released in February 2000 with 76 million words of text. In April 2001, the TLG® became available online to subscribing institutions and individuals. The web version currently provides access to 3,800 authors and 12,000 works, approximately 99 million words. It is updated quarterly with new authors and works. www.tlg.uci.edu/Now, let me explain, there are 99 million words of texts, that is: the computer added up the number of words in the texts they translated and included in their library of Greek language texts from Homer 800bc to 1453ad. It does not say anywhere in this link to the uci.tlg that Greek contains 99 million words..lolol.. Keep dreaming slow, you might one day understand English.
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Jan 14, 2008 0:42:28 GMT -5
what kind o zionf propaganda is that.... Actually, you left out a part: Scholars also agree that the actual place of the adoption had to be a commercial center, where Hellenes and Phoenicians intermingled.
Many different peoples intermingled at commercial centers in ancient times, and as they do today. I am sure that you have been to the International Trade fair in Thessaloniki and saw the vast amounts of different peoples advertising their goods there. How could people trade their goods if they do not intermingle?
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Jan 14, 2008 0:56:25 GMT -5
Alphabet and language are two different things. It is true that the Estrucans adopted the western variant of the Greek alphabet, but the alphabet is only a tool to convey the sounds of language. Every language sounds different, and has a different sound for each letter of the alphabet. As with any language, even Greek, there are words that has been borrowed from another language.
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Jan 14, 2008 1:34:49 GMT -5
Thus, Fore proved that the Greeks were writing and speaking Greek at least 1400 years before the appearance of the Phoenicians and their script in history.A SCIENTIFIC MONSTROSITYAccording to linguistic theory, an "alphabet" is defined as "the sum of symbols following a specific sequence and order used to ascribe the essential utterances of a language, under the condition that each utterance represents only one symbol and vice-versa". Consequently, in alphabetical script (as an example, in the writings of the people of Europe, America, Australian, as well as the other parts of the world) each letter represents one essential sound. This is not true for the imperfect alphabets expressed through syllables where each symbol represents a syllable (with two or more voiced sounds). For example, in Greek Linear A and B, there is a symbol that represents the syllable ko (k + o), asymbol that represents the syllable po (p + o), etc. In Phoenician writing (which has only consonants and no vowels), this situation is even worse, as far as we can tell from the small amount of existing samples. In Phoenician, each symbol is not equivalent to one specific syllable, but to a variety of syllables, and thus the reader can use his imagination when attempting to decipher the sounds. For example, there are consonants which can be read as either ba, bou, be, bi, bo, etc. Others that can be read as gou, ga, ge, go, and so on.Consequently, Phoenician script does not constitute an alphabet, and is not even an advanced form of syllabic script nearing the perfection of the equivalent Greek syllabic writings. It is truly amazing to think that, in the academic world of the past 150 years, the almost contradictory term of "Phoenician alphabet" has been established, which, in reality refers to a type of writing that has nothing to do with an alphabet. It is even more unbelievable to think that the scientific dogma that Greek came from Phoenician has been enforced. Not only is Phoenician not an alphabet, it is a less advanced form of writing than Greek Linear A and B. So, professor G. Babiniotis' statement that "Phoenician writing is something like a syllabic alphabet" must be rejected and replaced with the correct characterization of Phoenician as a "purely concise syllable system of writing," as stated by the former president of the Greek Society of Philologists, Pan. Georgountzos (see "The Alphabet: A Greek Discovery" by Pan. Georgountzos, Davlos, issue 142, October 1993, page 8242). [/quote] Now, to break down a few pertinent parts of this questionable and dubious article by Dimitris I. Lambrou.. >>A SCIENTIFIC MONSTROSITY
According to linguistic theory, an "alphabet" is defined as "the sum of symbols following a specific sequence and order used to ascribe the essential utterances of a language, under the condition that each utterance represents only one symbol and vice-versa". Consequently, in alphabetical script (as an example, in the writings of the people of Europe, America, Australian, as well as the other parts of the world) each letter represents one essential sound.<<a) which linguistic theory? not that I disagree with the definition as given, but there are a number of linguists who would. So which linguistic theory are we operatng under? >>This is not true for the imperfect alphabets expressed through syllables where each symbol represents a syllable (with two or more voiced sounds).<<Which is why these aren't alphabets, but syllaberies. >> For example, in Greek Linear A and B, there is a symbol that represents the syllable ko (k + o), a symbol that represents the syllable po (p + o), etc. In Phoenician writing (which has only consonants and no vowels), this situation is even worse, as far as we can tell from the small amount of existing samples. In Phoenician, each symbol is not equivalent to one specific syllable, but to a variety of syllables, and thus the reader can use his imagination when attempting to decipher the sounds. For example, there are consonants which can be read as either ba, bou, be, bi, bo, etc. Others that can be read as gou, ga, ge, go, and so on. Consequently, Phoenician script does not constitute an alphabet, and is not even an advanced form of syllabic script nearing the perfection of the equivalent Greek syllabic writings. <<This is a gross misunderstanding of Phoenician and other Semitic alphabets. Each symbol stands for a consonantal sound. Vowels are deduced from context, but are not signified in the consonantal symbol. Thus, it is an alphabet, not a syllabery, and isn't as slippery as the writer makes it sound. But already when such fallacies and falsehoods are introduced into the discussion, how can one truly expect the remainder to be better? >>It is truly amazing to think that, in the academic world of the past 150 years, the almost contradictory term of "Phoenician alphabet" has been established, which, in reality refers to a type of writing that has nothing to do with an alphabet. It is even more unbelievable to think that the scientific dogma that Greek came from Phoenician has been enforced<<The first sentence is already a gross misunderstanding and was addressed above, the second sentence is misleading in that no one claims that Greek as a language came from Phoenician, only that the forms of the symbols that graphically represent sounds were adopted by the Greek from the Phoenicians or other North Semitic people using a similar alphabet. . >>Not only is Phoenician not an alphabet, it is a less advanced form of writing than Greek Linear A and B. So, professor G. Babiniotis' statement that "Phoenician writing is something like a syllabic alphabet" must be rejected and replaced with the correct characterization of Phoenician as a "purely concise syllable system of writing," as stated by the former president of the Greek Society of Philologists, Pan. Georgountzos (see "The Alphabet: A Greek Discovery" by Pan. Georgountzos, Davlos, issue 142, October 1993, page 8242). <<First, how does one determine that an undeciphered text is more or less advanced than another known text? Seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. As for Linear B, so what? I'm not sure I agree, but let's say this is correct. Does it prove that the Greeks didn't adopt the alphabet from the Phoenicians? No, it actually could in fact show the opposite, the Greeks adopted it and improved on it. While the good professor's comment is interesting regarding a "concise syllable system", deciphered Phoenician isn't based on syllables, but on sounds, very much like Hebrew. Ajax, your source is smashed and this Phoenician Alphabet Deception by Lambrou has been killed to its core.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 14, 2008 1:57:12 GMT -5
and yet the Alphabet remains a Greek invention... go figure.....
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Jan 14, 2008 2:21:30 GMT -5
>>THE GREEKNESS OF THE ALPHABET a) Archaeological Evidence The theory that the alphabet is a Phoenician discovery has been maintained through the argument, among other things, that certain symbols of Phoenician writing are similar to the letters of the alphabet. For example, the Phoenician alef is the reverse or sideways Greek "A." This argument was a strong one until about 100 years ago, when linguists and historians still maintained that the Greeks did not know how to write before 800 B. C.! Around 1900 A.D., however, Arthur Evans excavated the Greek Minoan Crete and discovered the Greek Linear writings, whose symbols corresponded to 17 of the 24 letters of the Greek Alphabet.<<Well here?s a principle problem. The issue is not whether or even when the Greeks learned to write or not, its explaining the gap between 1200 and 800 or so when there is no evidence for writing of any kind and when it does reappear is strikingly different than Linear B. Just as one short step here, if Linear B was so close to the alphabet now, why did it take fifty years, almost sixty, for anyone to figure that out? Why did it need deciphering if it in fact were the alphabet of Greek? Further, the similarities between the letters of the Phoenicians are well established, it isn?t simply a ?few?, it is the majority. Further, Linear B is a syllabery, not an alphabet, and those signs that seem to correspond to later Greek letters represent different sounds than they do later, although in many cases the correspondence between a Linear B symbol and a Greek alphabet one are questionable at best while on the other hand the correspondence of Linear B symbols to Linear A symbols is large and unquestioned. >>Given that (A), the most ancient evidence of the Greek scripts (Linear A and Linear B) that were later discovered in Pylos, Mycenae, Menidi and Thebes -- but also in more northern areas up to the Danube river as well -- were dated to before 1500 B.C. And (B), that the Phoenicians and their writings appear in history no earlier than 1300 BC, Evans was the first person to express doubts about the theory that the Greeks received their script from the Phoenicians. He put forward the scientific suspicion that it was probably the other way round.<<Well, first Linear A has not been deciphered yet, so it is unknown whether or not it is a ?Greek? script. If we believe Evans whom the article?s author does seem to like to cite, Linear A AND Linear B are BOTH Minoan, Evans to the end of his days rejected the notion that Linear B represented Greek, one of the reasons it took so long to decipher it. So we?re down to Linear B and my second point. Here, we must note that more recent dating of Linear B materials has placed them all pretty exclusively to the 13th century BCE only, making the height of Mycenaen influence very short lived by comparison to the Minoan. But even more so, Linear B is NOT the Greek alphabet. Linear B, again, is a syllabery containing over 60 symbols plus other graphs that signify specific nouns and verbs and diphthongs. So the fact that Linear B, which represents the Greek language, precedes the Phoenicians has absolutely NO bearing on the later adoption and adaptation of the Semitic alphabet to the Greek language.circa 800-700 BCE. These are completely unrelated. >>The doubts pertaining as to who was first -- the Phoenicians or the Greeks -- in discovering writing,<<Worth stating again: the issue and question is not who first discovered writing. That honor goes to other peoples in other parts of the world anyway. The issue is when and how did the Greeks first begin to use an alphabet to write their language, and that seems to be about 800 BCE and seems to have been based on the alphabet used by Northwest Semitic peoples like the Phoenicians, who were moving into Ionia, Cyprus, Crete, Sicily, No. Africa, and so coming into contact with Greek city states at the time that the Greeks started using an alphabet that is so clearly similar to one the Phoenicians already were using. Thus, the article is fighting the wrong battle altogether. >> became a certainty when French professor, Paul Fore, an internationally acclaimed specialist on Prehistoric Archaeology, published a report in Nestor (an American Archaeological Journal of the University of Indiana -- 16th year, 1989, page 2288). In this report, he submits and deciphers plates with Greek Linear writing found at the cyclopean wall of Pilikates, in Ithaca, dated, through the use of modern scientific methods, back to 2700 B.C., The language of these plates was Greek, <snippage> Thus, Fore proved that the Greeks were writing and speaking Greek at least 1400 years before the appearance of the Phoenicians and their script in history.<<A) No one disagrees that the Greeks were around speaking Greek in this period. B) Fore showed that they were using a writing system at this period, but once again as above, the system was NOT an alphabet, Fore does not make that claim. So once again, this has nothing to do with whether or not the Greeks adopted the Phoenician alphabet, has no bearing on that question whatsoever. >>But, the archaeological excavations in Greece during the last 15 years have given us many more great surprises: The Greeks were writing using not only Linear A and B, but also a type of writing identical to that of the alphabet since at least 6000 B.C. In fact, at Dispilio, in the lake of Kastoria, in northern Greece, professor G. Houmouziadis discovered a plate with writing very similar to that of the alphabet, which was dated, using radioactive Carbon-14 and visual photothermal methodology, back to 5250 B.C. (see Davlos, issue 147). Three years later, N. Samson, a curator of the Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Department, discovered shards of vases ("ostraka") with letters identical to the present Greek alphabet while excavating at the "Cyclop?s Cave," on the deserted island of Yioura, near the inhabited island of Alonnissos, in the Northern Sporades island complex. These vases were dated to 5,500 to 6,000 B.C. with the same methods (see "Davlos," issue 185, May 1997). The same archaeologist, while performing excavations on the island of Milos, discovered vessels of the proto-cycladic period (mid-3rd millennium B.C.) with letters identical to the Greek letters: "X," "N," "M," "K," "Î" [ksi],"Ð" , "Ï," & "Å." (See N. Samson's interview in Davlos, issue 204, December 1998, page 12749.)<< This is quite a claim. And one would expect that if true, that not only were the Greeks using the present alphabet to write, but were doing so some 2500 years before the Chinese, Sumerians, and Egyptians, the world press and world professional community would be vitally interested! This would be a far more important discovery than Evans? or Schlieman?s. But what I find when I do a bibliographic search is absolute silence both in the world press and in databases of professional journals. I even talked to a friend at Oxford and a US friend, one a Homeric specialist, the other an archaeologist and art historian of the pre-historic Greek period, and neither has heard of these discoveries. It seems the only source is ?Davlos? and that makes me very suspicious of the credibility of these claims. Have independent scholars examined these finds and verified that indeed what is written is written in an alphabet? That they indeed are as old as this article says? If so, where? Considering the mistakes already pointed out in the article, I have my doubts that the article is citing things correctly anyway. Ajax, you need to try harder with getting solid non Greek sources for your claims..
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Jan 14, 2008 2:22:04 GMT -5
Part IV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE HERODOTUS EXTRACT All the Greek writers who mention the alphabet (they called it "grammata") consider it a very ancient Greek invention (by Prometheus, Palamedes, Linus, etc). The theory of the Phoenician alphabet was always, and is still, based on an exception to this general rule. This exception is an excerpt from Herodotus, that he himself presents as his 'personal opinion' ("ùò åìïé äïêååé" = "as it seems to me"). This opinion was formed based on the sayings of others, as he himself mentions in the previous paragraphs ("áíáðõíèáíïìåíïò" = taking information from others). Let us have a look at the Herodotus' excerpt (History, E 58): No it isn't. That Herodotus tells this story helps confirm the theory, if Herodotus is historical, but it certainly isn't the basis of the theory. The theory is based in large part on the similarities of the names of the letters and their shapes in early inscriptions as compared with Phoenician shapes of the same period. Since it is observable that the movement is from less advanced to more advanced rather than from highly advanced to less advanced, it naturally leads one to conclude that the Greeks who left no evidence of having written in an alphabet before began to do so AFTER coming into contact with the Phoenicians. That's the short form anyway. >>[58. As far as the Phoenicians, they, who arrived with Cadmus, including the Gefiraioi, had lived in many other places and introduced also arts (new and unknown) to the Greeks; in fact, and also (some) writing, which had not been known to the Greeks before that, as I think, first this writing which was used by all the Phoenicians. With the passing of time, however, the Phoenicians changed this type of writing along with their language.]
The most important thing about this excerpt is that in the critical phrase " ama tin foni metevallon kai ton rhithmon ton grammaton," it is disclosed that the Phoenicians-Gefiraioi that went to Viotia with Cadmus brought some form of writing with them. But, as the Phoenicians "changed their language" (they learned Greek, in other words), they also changed their writing (they started writing, therefore, with the existing ancient Greek writing that already existed in Viotia). Although this statement was made by Herodotus, the translators, subsequently, provided the translation [meaning] that the local Greek Viotes and not the Phoenician emigrants changed their language and writing and adopted the Phoenician!<WOW, how not to read what the text says. Where our chap's translation above has 'With the passing of time however the Phoenicians changed this type of writing along with their language' actually reads in the text "At the same time the sound and form of the letters were changed" For those online only, www.perseus.tufts.edu has both the Greek text of this chapter and an English translation, and there are other translation at various places on the Net to compare Landrou's translation to the source and mine. Further, the Perseus site has a lookup tool so you can look up every single word. Anyway, Herodotus very plainly says 1) Cadmus and company brought 'grammata', letters with them and introduced the Greeks to the, 2) says nothing about Cadmus and co. useing the same system of letters that the other Phoenicians used 3) and says nothing about them changing either their language or their alphabet. Herodotus very clearly does NOT say that Cadmus and company adopted an already existing Greek alphabet: in fact in the next lines immediately after what our author quotes H. says: At that period most of the Greeks in the neighborhood were Ionians; THEY WERE TAUGHT THESE LETTERS BY THE PHOENICIANS AND ADOPTED THEM, WITH A FEW ALTERATIONS, FOR THEIR OWN USE?...very clearly H. sees the Phoenicians as teaching the Greeks how to write with an alphabet. This author is guilty of circular reasoning, that is if the Phoenicians changed their language and changed their writing accordingly that means that there was a pre-existing Greek writing system. Of course, one can only argue this by ignoring the rest of what Herodotus says. (BTW, those interested will find H's comments in Book 5.58) >>This generally incoherent reference to the alphabet, as it has been saved, has been obviously altered and meddled with, who knows by whom and when. Let us look at the suspicious continuation of the text, as it has arrived to us:
Around them (the Phoenicians) lived at that place during that year (year of Cadmus) Ionian Greeks, who received through contact or through teachings by the Phoenicians their writings, changing their own writing which they used little. When using this writing and since this writing had been introduced to Greece by Phoenicians, they called it Phoenician, as was just.<<Why is it incoherent? It is pretty straightforward; the Greek is here transliterated and translated: perioikeon de spheas ta polla tôn khôrôn touton ton khronon Hellênôn Iônes, hoi paralabontes didakhêi para tôn Phoinikôn ta grammata, metarruthmisantes spheôn oliga ekhreônto, khreômenoi de ephatisan, hôsper kai to dikaion ephere, esagagontôn Phoinikôn es tên Hellada, Phoinikêia* keklêsthai*. Most (of) those Greeks living around them (the Phoenicians) in the region at the time were Ionian, who taking to themselves the letters taught by the Phoenicians they changed them in form a small degree. Doing thus they called, as it carries justice the Phoenicians introducing them into Greece, them Phoenicea?. In this translation I've tried to be somewhat literal. I take great exception to the translation offered by our author quoted above, either his ancient Greek is wanting or his English or something because he has misunderstood some key elements in the passage. For instance. he says that the Phoenicians 'changing their own writing which they used little' is an impossible reading of the Greek. Ta grammata are letters, not writings, metaruthmisantes is a participle from the verb meaning to change the shape or form of something, spheon refers back to grammata, 'them', and oliga like waise refers back to grammata and expresses how their shape or form was changed: a little, not a lot. Thus, rather than the Phoenicians changing their writing, it describes the Greeks adapting the Phoenician system 'changing their form a little' to represent Greek rather than Phoenician, not unlike how Linear B derived from Linear A. What is suspicious here is not the text as it has come down to us, my critical edition has no significant variant readings or lacunae listed here, rather the author's reading of Herodotus is suspicious, particularly since he makes it say something it doesn't, and then attacks the text based on that misunderstanding, classic straw man fallacy not to mention just messing up the meaning of Herodotus' prose. >> This is how the "Phoenician Theory" was substantiated and is maintained as an obvious forgery.<<The only forgery is the criminal way in which Herodotus is being made to say what he clearly doesn't say. Part 3Having said all that, the article writer is making an assumption here, and seems to want to include only the worthies he mentions in this assumption. That assumption is that finding 'shapes' that are similar to or even identical with the shapes of the letters of the later alphabet means that the two are identical. This is a false assumption, it needs to be shown that these shapes are an alphabet and signify particular sounds, not syllables, nouns, or just look pretty. I have a nephew who at age 3 was making shapes and playing with blocks with letters on them, but he certainly didn't know how to read in spite of his imitation of those shapes. Another example is the swatstika. That shape is known from tiles in a temple on Malta from 2500 BCE, but I don?t know of anyone who would argue that this means that the Nazis were present on bronze age Malta, the shape is certainly there, the meaning is not. And that's the question, does the presence of these symbols, or something that looks like them, indicate that this is an alphabet? Judging from the cagey way the article's author cites the authors in Davlos, I would say that the authorities the author is citing do NOT make that equation, otherwise, the author would just quote the authorities saying that they believe there is an alphabet at work in these letters and have done. Since he doesn't so easily prove his point, I think it safe to assume that the authorities he cites do not make the assumption that the author is making. Again, let me differentiate between an alphabet and writing and also point out that some symbols are universal and easy to make, the presence of something like an X or M for instance is not an indication of an alphabet. I ask because there is a some doubt about the author's find in 1994. First, before anyone else saw it, it disintegrated. Second, the photos that were taken are of poor quality. One expert of my acquaintance noted that from what he could tell of the so-called Displis scripture looked more like worm damage than the reconstructed symbols of Hormouziadis. In short, it is far from agreed that the Dispolis find constitutes writing at all much less that it is writing with an alphabet. >>It is apparent that these archaeological discoveries have given a "comical' character to the so-called "Phoenician Theory" on the discovery of writing. <<As seen, this is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that the presence of symbols similar to those later used in the Greek alphabet indicate that it is the Greek alphabet, nor does it indicate those peoples who were the Greeks were in the peninsula as early as 5200 BCE, in fact this early Balkan culture at Dispilio is not considered to be a Greek culture at all by the archaeologists, thus, the similarities there do not support the conclusion that the author here is drawing, if those similarities even exist. >>In addition, these archaeological discoveries have revolutionized chronological dating of Greek history as it is taught today, as well as the world history of civilization itself. (See also the book by Con. Koutrouvelli, "Re-establishing the Chronology of Prehistoric Times based primarily on astronomical information from Ancient Writers," Davlos Publishing, 1999.)<<I'm beginning to sense a 'theme', seems the source of all truth is Davlos Publishing and its flagship magazine. If some of this 'information' were found in several refereed scholarly journals, then its time to sit up and take note. The fact that they are all in publications by a single publishing company with the stated purpose of promoting Greek language and culture makes this 'revolution' in chronological dating suspicious and probably not worth its salt. >>b) The somewhat mathematical proof<snippage> Ah yes, the 'ancient and all knowing code' theory reaches Greece, similar to the secret knowledge codes of Runes, Druids, ancient pre-historic religions, and of course, lest I forget, the apex of human civilization, Atlantis from which we have all devolved but the secrets of which are preserved in the magic marks on stone, wood, wax, and paper 'grammata'! This is pseudo-mystic mumbo jumbo, not scientific, and I note once again, published by Davlos, and no other.
>>This theory Completely rejects the theorem that the Greek language came from another language (the so-called "Indo-European"), since it is proven to be the only non-conventional language of the world. In other words, the only language where a relationship between the "word" (as a form) and the "meaning of the word" is established. <<
Since by the author's own admission above, they only worked on Greek, and no other languages, this claim is mere hyperbole (Greek words!!), and of course will be denied by those believers who say that Gaelic or Hebrew or Chinese or Mayan represent the highest achievement of human development, and of course these believers can prove that their particular take on the question is more valid that this one. In short, we've crossed a line between scientific and historical investigation and mysticism. I'd suggest that this article, particularly this portion on the supposed mystic meaning of upsilon (eepsilon?) ranks up there with wishful thinking.
>>Consequently, it is proven that Greek is the first and only created language of the human species which provided the basis for all "conventional" languages, as are all the other languages of the world (where there is no causative relationship between the form and the meaning).<<
Whoa! How is that proven even if we accept his claims in the snipped bit of the article? If we accept his method and its applications and therefore his conclusions the only thing he has proven is that there is deeper meaning to each Greek letter graph than merely signifying a sound. It certainly doesn't prove that this means that it is first or the root of all other languages. In fact, if anything it proves on an evolutionary model that Greek is the LAST language to be developed. I wonder how we can get a "concave" or convex kind of meaning into a word like hupnos (sleep), the "u" being the upsilon, or even in the name of the graph, the u psilon--the naked or bare convex? Huh...
>>Comparatively, this theory shows that the symbols of the Phoenician writings and their nouns, e.g., "alef" =ox, "beth" = hut, "gimel = camel, etc., not only do not contain coded meaning, but are also associated or refer to [the] primitive animal conditions [one would expect in a culturally backward society]. <<
Yep, and so? Well, I wouldn't say culturally backward society, I would say an iron age or previous level of society, which by the way the Greeks were in their bronze age at the time. Unless of course you are trying to claim that the Greeks in spite of all the archaeological evidence really were industrialized and not bronze age at all. hehe..
>>The "Phoenician Theory" was established in Europe during a time, when, as the renowned British classical scholar, S. G. Rembroke (The Legacy of Greece, Oxford University Press, 1984) wrote, "The Phoenicians were given an intermediary role "that is not based on any historical information"<<
Not at all. Look, the 'theory' works this way: After approximately 1200 BCE there is practically no evidence of writing, of large inhabited cities, of significant buildings such as palaces, or even stunning pottery and art. Between 1200 and about 800 there is very little of anything. About 800 though we begin to see growth, we hear of writing, we begin to see some Greek outreach and colonization, we see the Cycladic style of pottery and so on. There are no inscriptions here. We know that the Phoenicians at this point were also reaching further out into the Mediterranean and establishing colonies and were great traders, in fact there are a number of Phoenician words in HOMERIC Greek, so at a very early strata in the alphabetic period that have to do with colors and trade goods, it stands to reason that since, the early Greek inscriptions from 800-600 show letter forms similar to the Phoenician letter form, the Phoenician words borrowed into Greek, that the Greeks adopted and then adapted the Northwest Semitic alphabet as represented by the Phoenicians. I'm not sure why that's such a bad thing, but it isn't to try and prove some sort of transmission from the Hebrews to the Greeks, esp. since we're talking about the Jews at about the time of Amos, still going quite strong.
>>. A role, in other words, of the transporter of wisdom and civilization from the "chosen" people of Israel to the "uncivilized" nations, and specifically the Greeks. This, of course, could be forgiven, since this was established around the end of the Medieval Ages, when religious fanaticism and backwardness had reached such a point that the daughter of Agamemnon, Iphigenia, is presented as the daughter of Iephtha; Deukalion is presented as Noah; Appis is a consul of Joseph; Apollo, Priam, Tiresias, and Orpheus are corrupted personae of Moses; the story of the Argonauts is the crossing of the Israelites from Egypt to Palestine, and other similar distortions. The above are noted by Rembroke.<<
Well, first this is a non sequitur, the fact that Jews and then Christians sought to include Greek figures into their own biblical schema starts happening from the time of Alexander the Great, and sure it continues up to the Enlightenment, but so what? And our nineteenth and twentieth century American leaders also had a particular view of history starting in Sumeria and slowly moving westward to culminate first in Britain in 19th century and then USA in middle 20th. That view has now been rejected, but just as Newton's test of gravity still rings true in spite of the rejection of Newtonian physics, so too does the Phoenician Theory and the linguistic bases of Indo-European remain true in spite of the rejection of the cultural triumphalism and view of history of 19th century scholarship.
>>And we conclude: At the time, Hellenism was in comatose spiritual condition regarding national and historical awareness, and therefore totally unable to defend its history and civilization, and for this reason could not react and did not react. Today, it is with our tolerance that our language is deemed "Indo-European," and our writing "Phoenician," our Athena and our Socrates are presented as "Blacks," and our civilization as "African." What spiritual situation are we in now? [i.e.,What?s our excuse this time?]<<[/b] More fallacies. The language is Indo-European, its syntax, morphology, sound changes, and word base make it so. No one says Greek 'writing' is Phoenician, it is only the alphabet that was ADOPTED and ADAPTED from the Phoenician; by way of analogy Chaucer's Canterbury Tales isn't Arabic because it imitates 1001 Arabian Nights. And the rest, while some have made those arguments, are by no means accepted by the scholarly community at large, so to include well-founded theories (no matter how badly misrepresented) with unaccepted theories is merely a rhetorical trick, not illuminating scholarship. >>Notes:
On page 13745 of this article, is a picture of a piece of shard [pottery] dated to 6,000 B.C., found on the islet of Youra of the North Sporades island complex with Greek alphabetical writings. One can see the letters "A," "Y," & "D" [alpha, eepsilon, and delta ], almost identical to the Greek letters of the classical alphabets. This finding proves that the Greek alphabet is older than the Greek Linear writings. This finding also completely and definitely disproves the false theory that the Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians, who made their historical appearance around 1300 B.C., in other words about 4,500 to 5,000 years after the creation of this plaque at Youra.<<Once again, it is assumed that the presence of these similar signs indicates that those signs have their alphabetic values. Once this is recognized as an unproven assumption, the rest of the 'argument' becomes fallacious. >>On page 13747 are shown letter-symbols from the Proto-cycladic vessels of Milos (mid-third millennium B.C.). One can distinguish the [letter] "X" [chi] to the left and the [letter] "N" to the right. These letters are written just as the letters of the Greek alphabet are written today. Other vessels were also found with "M," "K," "Î" [ksi], "Ð" , "O," and "E."<< Two lines that cross each other (i. e. X) is one of the most obvious in human history. This doesn't mean that the presence of an X had a sound value of a chi anymore than an X in English does (having the sound value of ks). Similarly the other letters, and pictures aren?t all that clear to begin with. Wishful, hopeful thinking. " Ajax, your source is poor and proves nothing but that Lambrou is an inadequate and amateur mouthpiece for the Greek ministry of language and culture/propaganda and Davalos Pub. Co. only print their 'versions' of Greek origins and Greek history as well. Get some other non Greek sources for your silly claims.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 14, 2008 2:47:35 GMT -5
Kanaris you got to love her effort though Axxx what are we doing on here ? We could be at the French rivera sipping some drinks while the rest go and figure. We Greeks have earned it, thanks to our ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Jan 14, 2008 2:50:28 GMT -5
Kanaris you got to love her effort though Axxx what are we doing on here ? We could be at the French rivera sipping some drinks while the rest go and figure. We Greeks earned it, thanks to our ancestors The world owes us a debt of gratitude. Your current propagandists are undoing anything honorably done by the ancient peoples of Balkans. They are discrediting their own honor and history.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 14, 2008 2:53:09 GMT -5
Your current propagandists are undoing anything honorably done by the ancient peoples of Balkans. They are discrediting their own honor and history. You must be mistaken, I am a Greek and not a FYROMian " Former Yugoslavia Republic of Yugoslavia Of =) "
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 14, 2008 3:03:12 GMT -5
Albhonney there is no Macedonians seperate from the Greeks. Where did they teach you this ?
They are FYROM or Southern Slavs or west Bulgarians tell me do you think they were any proto Slavs or Bulgarians ? Was Plato a proto Bulgarian ?
|
|