<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jul 11 2006, 02:57 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 11 2006, 02:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post 62 (Dhu):
I'm fine with the Gorgon being possibly Indic.
But do you think there is any real connection between Perses (Latin, perhaps also Greek for Persian) and the name Perseus?
[right][snapback]53408[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
Neither the mycenean founder Perseus nor the Goddess Persephone is derivable in the Greek languge, without the usual linguistic special pleadings and acrobatics. Given their intimate asscoiation with the Gorgons, Pomegranates and a whole host of other asiatic motifs, it is quite natural to derive them from the names of the founding Persian tribes. Pomegranates are used as a substitute for Homa in Avestan rites for the dead. we do not get a clear picture of their ritualistic significance if we go only by the disjointed greek narrative of persephone. We should not be surprised at such assocations- eg the entire collection of Aesop's is derivable from the Jatakas. Probably we should be looking for a devolution origin of the myceneans from mideastern persians as well as the hittites.
Perseus' connection to Persia was also polemically pointed out by the ancient Persians themeselves when they sought to subdue their peripheral greek extensions.
Talageri: http://www.voi.org/books/rig/ch9.htm
<i>âGreek and Sanskrit share many complex grammatical features: this is why many earlier linguists were misled into regarding them as examples of the most archaic stage of Proto-Indo-European. However, the similarities between the two languages are now regarded as innovations that took place during a late period of PIE , which we call stage III. One of these Indo-Greek innovations was also shared by Armenian; all these languages it seems, existed in an area of mutual interaction.â64
Thus we get: âGreek Armenian, Phrygian, Thracian and Indo-Iranian. These languages may represent a comparatively late form of Indo-European, including linguistic innovations not present in earlier stages. In particular, Greek and Indic share a number of distinctive grammatical featuresâ¦â¦â65
The following are some of the innovations shared only by Indic, Iranian, Greek and Armenian (Thraco-Phrygian); features which distinguish them from the other branches, particularly the other living branches:
a. âThe prohibitive negation *mE is attested only in Indo-Iranian (mA), Greek (mE) and Armenian (mi); elsewhere, it is totally lacking⦠and there is no difference in this respect between the ancient and modern stages of Greek, Armenian or Persianâ;66 or, for that matter, sections of Indic (eg. the prohibitive negation mat in Hindi).
b. âIn the formation of the Perfect also, there is a clear âdistinctionâ between Indo-Iranian and Armenian and Greek on the one hand, and all of the other languages on the other.â67
c. The âIndo-European voiceless aspirated stops are completely attested only in Indo-Iranian and Armenian⦠Greek⦠clearly preserves two of the three voiceless aspirated stops whose existence is established by the correspondence of Indo-Iranian and Armenian.â68 All the other branches show âcomplete fusionâ69 of these voiceless aspirated stops.
d. âThe suffix *-tero-, *-toro-, *-tro- serves in bell Indo-European languages to mark the opposition of two qualities, but only in two languages, Greek and Indo-Iranian, is the use of the suffix extended to include the formation of secondary adjectival comparatives⦠This development, by its very difference, points to the significance of the Greek and Indo-Iranian convergence⦠Armenian, which has a completely new formation, is not instructive in this regard.â70 But, âLatin, Irish, Germanic, Lithuanian and Slavic, on the other hand, borrow their secondary comparative from the original primary type.â71
e. âThe augment is attested only in Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek; it is found nowhere else.â72 And it is âsignificant that the augment is not found in any of the other Indo-European languages⦠The total absence of the augment in even the earliest texts, and in all the dialects of Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, is characteristic.â73
Hence, âthe manner in which Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic eliminated the imperfect and came to express the preterite presupposes an original, Indo-European, absence of the augment throughout this group of languages. We thus have grounds for positing two distinct Indo-European dialect groups.â74
f. The division of the Indo-European branches into two distinct groups is confirmed by what Meillet calls the Vocabulary of the Northwest: âThere is quite a large group of words that appear in the dialects of the North and West (Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic) but are not found in the others (Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek)⦠their occurrence in the dialects of the North and West would indicate a cultural development peculiar to the peoples who spread these dialects.â75
</i>
I'm fine with the Gorgon being possibly Indic.
But do you think there is any real connection between Perses (Latin, perhaps also Greek for Persian) and the name Perseus?
[right][snapback]53408[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
Neither the mycenean founder Perseus nor the Goddess Persephone is derivable in the Greek languge, without the usual linguistic special pleadings and acrobatics. Given their intimate asscoiation with the Gorgons, Pomegranates and a whole host of other asiatic motifs, it is quite natural to derive them from the names of the founding Persian tribes. Pomegranates are used as a substitute for Homa in Avestan rites for the dead. we do not get a clear picture of their ritualistic significance if we go only by the disjointed greek narrative of persephone. We should not be surprised at such assocations- eg the entire collection of Aesop's is derivable from the Jatakas. Probably we should be looking for a devolution origin of the myceneans from mideastern persians as well as the hittites.
Perseus' connection to Persia was also polemically pointed out by the ancient Persians themeselves when they sought to subdue their peripheral greek extensions.
Talageri: http://www.voi.org/books/rig/ch9.htm
<i>âGreek and Sanskrit share many complex grammatical features: this is why many earlier linguists were misled into regarding them as examples of the most archaic stage of Proto-Indo-European. However, the similarities between the two languages are now regarded as innovations that took place during a late period of PIE , which we call stage III. One of these Indo-Greek innovations was also shared by Armenian; all these languages it seems, existed in an area of mutual interaction.â64
Thus we get: âGreek Armenian, Phrygian, Thracian and Indo-Iranian. These languages may represent a comparatively late form of Indo-European, including linguistic innovations not present in earlier stages. In particular, Greek and Indic share a number of distinctive grammatical featuresâ¦â¦â65
The following are some of the innovations shared only by Indic, Iranian, Greek and Armenian (Thraco-Phrygian); features which distinguish them from the other branches, particularly the other living branches:
a. âThe prohibitive negation *mE is attested only in Indo-Iranian (mA), Greek (mE) and Armenian (mi); elsewhere, it is totally lacking⦠and there is no difference in this respect between the ancient and modern stages of Greek, Armenian or Persianâ;66 or, for that matter, sections of Indic (eg. the prohibitive negation mat in Hindi).
b. âIn the formation of the Perfect also, there is a clear âdistinctionâ between Indo-Iranian and Armenian and Greek on the one hand, and all of the other languages on the other.â67
c. The âIndo-European voiceless aspirated stops are completely attested only in Indo-Iranian and Armenian⦠Greek⦠clearly preserves two of the three voiceless aspirated stops whose existence is established by the correspondence of Indo-Iranian and Armenian.â68 All the other branches show âcomplete fusionâ69 of these voiceless aspirated stops.
d. âThe suffix *-tero-, *-toro-, *-tro- serves in bell Indo-European languages to mark the opposition of two qualities, but only in two languages, Greek and Indo-Iranian, is the use of the suffix extended to include the formation of secondary adjectival comparatives⦠This development, by its very difference, points to the significance of the Greek and Indo-Iranian convergence⦠Armenian, which has a completely new formation, is not instructive in this regard.â70 But, âLatin, Irish, Germanic, Lithuanian and Slavic, on the other hand, borrow their secondary comparative from the original primary type.â71
e. âThe augment is attested only in Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek; it is found nowhere else.â72 And it is âsignificant that the augment is not found in any of the other Indo-European languages⦠The total absence of the augment in even the earliest texts, and in all the dialects of Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, is characteristic.â73
Hence, âthe manner in which Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic eliminated the imperfect and came to express the preterite presupposes an original, Indo-European, absence of the augment throughout this group of languages. We thus have grounds for positing two distinct Indo-European dialect groups.â74
f. The division of the Indo-European branches into two distinct groups is confirmed by what Meillet calls the Vocabulary of the Northwest: âThere is quite a large group of words that appear in the dialects of the North and West (Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic) but are not found in the others (Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek)⦠their occurrence in the dialects of the North and West would indicate a cultural development peculiar to the peoples who spread these dialects.â75
</i>