G.Paolo Tardivo - Prometheus or Amirani / Προμηθεύς ἤ ამირანი

PDF download: G.P. Tardivo - Pre-Greek studies Volume 1

First, let me thank the Paleolexicon team, whose website I have often visited. I would like to briefly illustrate a new theory of the probable relationship between Pre-Greek and some other ancient and modern languages in and around Anatolia.

It is well known that the Greek lexicon contains a considerable number of sub-strata words. Additionally, Greek historians themselves wrote about a “flourishing civilized area in the Ægean Sea”, a powerful kingdom in the isle of Crete. Nevertheless, minor settlements in the Cyclades also arose. Many words were and still are enigmatic in any form and have yet to be convincingly explained. For many long decades and indeed for nearly two centuries, despite several attempts, linguists have dramatically failed to establish the origin of these words.

Sir Arthur Evans discovered tablets during the excavation of Knossos’ palace. Over time two kinds of writing have emerged: Linear A and (Linear) B. The latter was deciphered by an architect, Michael Ventris and his mentor John Chadwick; whilst Linear A has not been cracked yet. Even in the third millennium, experts continue to believe in an isolated language or, at best, in a minor extinct ancient language group.

Fresco from Thera (Santorini)

I devoted my last decade to studying what’s happened to the Ægean area in the Bronze Age, where originally Pre-Greek people come from, and, more important, if any phylogenetic relationship with some languages of the  Anatolian plateau may be existed.

A comparison with neighbourhood Semitic(-Hamitic) language is been attempted since then, relationship between Greeks and Near East cities starting earlier in history; despite that, except for borrowing lexical items, no serious glottochronological origin can be proven.

After Linear B and Hittite decipherment, scholars went to a more deep and clear studies on Indo-European language family. Indo-European studies bearing two centuries of good investigation in the linguistic field; and I can say, it is the more robust and accurate research ever.

To read R. S. P. Beekes (Leiden Uni., NL) brief (PDF, available on-line): “Pre-Greek. The Pre-Greek loans in Greek – 3rd  version, January 2007”, is really worth it. It is a quick introduction on phonological ground; some of his assumption are incorrect; nevertheless, his synchronic point of view still are – as a whole – quite good. In any form, basic feature are seen and shared with R. A. Brown, L. R. Palmer in “...... The existence in the syllabary of a system of opposition plain : palatalized : labialized to the neglect of the oppositions voiceless : voiced : aspirate, which are essential to Greek, strongly suggests that the ancestral form of the syllabary was created for a non-Indo-European language (LP 19. 29). Such phonemic systems are found inter alia among Caucasian languages”. With this words, despite Palmer’s Luwian connection, an initial suspect is looked at. There is a psychological block toward ancient languages to be historically related with unfamiliar languages to scholars.

My research paper it aims to find the correct solution to etymologically unsolved question in Greek language. How do I know if I hold the right answer? Anything based on Science must be LOGIC; in Linguistics such Logic is called RULES; a list of words must follow the same rule in its articulatory environment; rules may change due to position, accent, or the like.

There are several problem within comparative system I propose to, notably the North Caucasian family; which still be rejected in any aspect, from phonology to syntax; there are huge differences between Western Caucasian (Adyghe, Abkhaz-Abaza and extinct Ubykh) and Nakh-Daghestanian or Central-Eastern family (30 languages grouped in 7 branches). Both groups lacks of early attested sources, linguistic reconstruction is rather probable.

My investigation expand to three ancient poorly attested languages, such as Hattic  (a pre-Hittite and non-IE language), and Hurro-Urartian (non-IE and non-Semitic).

Against this hypothesis, mostly scholars are sceptic still. At a glance, it appear to them as ‘a réprise’ of dismantled old theories. In somehow, their critic are correct when and where appropriate. I deeply myself try to see phonological rules and to reject any folk etymology; nevertheless, I see no reason to discharge a priori, before to check if a Pre-Greek word has or has not a chance to meet a counterpart somewhere else; most important are RULES as correct way to demonstrate its validity.

I briefly explain what the issues are:

1. Caucasus is mountain chain, also a “Mountain of tongues”, more than 60 languages are spoken over there; two main kind of ethnic division must be considered: Indigenous and settled. For the first type, a second sharp division include three or two linguistic families (West Caucasian, Nakh-Daghestanian, South Caucasian [with Georgian]); meanwhile IndoEuropean, Uralic, Altaic, Semitic are waves of population over the centuries.
   
2. Linguistic typology shows an abyss between languages / groups / families; phonologic inventory may vary even in dialects of the same language. Morphology and Syntax are no less relevant than phonological feature. In any form, in North Caucasian (both, Western and Nakh-Daghestanian) languages, ERGATIVITY is a distinctive mark.
   
3. Except for Georgian, Armenian and – for a short period of time – Albanian [do not confuse Albania in the Balkans with Caucasian Albania, now Azerbaijan], any other language in Caucasus area has not written record. The research hardly can be proven correct. Reconstruction is very tentative.
   
4. About three ancient languages I quote earlier, lexicon is limited to few words, also repetitive in inscriptions, and sometimes, doubtful in interpretation and meaning. Their relationship with North Caucasian (Western and Central-Eastern), despite several attempts, it is not widely accepted. Further evidence needed in order to establish a secure glottochronology or common roots.