Talk:Eteocretan language

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Languages High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

That anyone would even ask for a citation on this shows that some people don't like reading books. Books and websites abound explaining clearly for anyone with a reasonable comprehension of English that Minoan (written in Linear A) is distinct from Greek (written in Linear B). Obviously, if there was any relationship at all, Minoan would have long ago been deciphered. All you have to do is google for links that explain clearly that Minoan is not related Greek:

• http://www.omniglot.com/writing/linearb.htm
• http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/730819
• http://www.travelingclassroom.org/tcf/?p=86

All references in a public library will also confirm the above. The laziness of this person who marked this citation needed to do his/her/its own homework boggles my mind. This just isn't obscure or controversial by any stretch. --Glengordon01 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's Greek – unlike Eteocretan, of course. It's not Proto-Greek; it's as far from Proto-Greek as Mycenaean Greek is.

Refs:

Steven Roger Fischer: Glyphbreaker, Copernicus/Springer 1997 (rather popular book with two parts: one on the Phaistos Disk, Cretan Hieroglyphs, and Linear A, and the other on Rongorongo)

Steven Roger Fischer: Evidence for Hellenic Dialect in the Phaistos Disk, Peter Lang 1988 (the actual scientific monograph which I've unfortunately not read)

That said, however, all those closely related scripts (er… not Rongorongo, of course!!!) don't look as if they had been invented for Greek, so I guess there's a good chance they were invented for Eteocretan, and that in turn suggests that some of the Linear A tablets Fischer hasn't looked at could be in Eteocretan and not in Minoan Greek.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 16:26 CET | 2006/11/5

As much as I enjoyed reading Mr. Fischer's book, his conclusions don't carry the weight of evidence. Using methods like his, many other smart folks have derived completely different translations in a dozen languages -- including several other "Greek" ones. Washi 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask a very simple question, Linear A is partly deciphered using Linear B that is Mycenean Greek, why does this article write "unrelated" to Greek, when in fact parts of it have been deciphered using Greek? I just put the "probably related" there. Since parts of it have been deciphered and hence unrelated is not an appropriate term, by definition for there is a relation certainly.--62.103.251.30 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Linear B and Linear A are writing systems, not languages. Just like the alphabet that we are using here can be used for languages that have nothing in common (e.g., English, Finnish, Turkish, etc., etc., have the same writing system, but no linguistic connection.) So, too, it is clear that Linear B (which has been proven to be Greek) is in a different language from Linear A, even though they are related. (If Linear A were indeed Greek, it probably would have been cracked by now.) semper fictilis 21:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument does not hold, for the simple reason that one cannot assume that Linear A is not a particular language simply because it has not been deciphered yet. The amount and type of text written on the tablets as well as the existence and precise knowledge of archaic versions of Greek (or more precisely "Pelasgian" when referring to such an ancient era) is important in this respect. Do not forget that Linear B tablets contain forms of Greek more ancient than Homer, hence new words or variations have been learned or are still to be learned. After all, the Linear B tablets found so far were not but accounting records - hardly even a simple piece of literature for us to know most of the vocabulary at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.211.87 (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, LInear A and Linear B are essentially the same script. The grammar and vocabulary used in Linear A inscriptions are clearly very different, so much so that it's exceedingly unlikely that Linear A is also another form of archaic Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.62.96 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of visual similarities, and probably some carryover in sign to sound-value correspondences from A to B, but it would be going to far to say that they are "essentially the same script". Maybe if you were willing to call Latin and Cyrillic "essentially the same script"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this material from the article because Wikipedia articles aren't the place to reproduce primary sources. Maybe someone will want to put this on another wikiproject or quote snippets, so I'll leave it on the talk page for now. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remove the term isolate from the lead of the article. I'd say whoever wrote that is unclear on the definition of a language isolate. A language isolate is a language with a reasonable amount of documentation that has been evaluated by scholars for a sufficient period of time to know that the language is not closely related to any other known language or group. You can't say that a language is an isolate until you have enough data on it to determine its classification.

We have insufficient data on Eteocretan to make any such determination. Eteocretan is just unclassified and that's all we've got. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My belief is that the Minoan language is closely related to Phoenician and Hebrew. What's yours? Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Cyrus Gordon believed, but I don't think it's widely accepted... AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My belief is based on an old Greek myth about Europa who is depicted as a Phoenician. Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I hit upon this page, I found these glaring errors:

• The Phaistos Disc is not in Linear A. It is in an unique script that is perhaps a variant of the Cretan Hieroglyphic script, but that still is not the same as Linear A.
• It is uncertain whether Eteocretan (the language of alphabetic non-Greek inscriptions of ancient Crete) was a descendant of whatever language was (or languages were) written in Linear A, Cretan hieroglyphics or on the Phaistos Disc, or came to the island later. It certainly is not the same language: it is more than 1,000 years later, and languages change a lot in 1,000 years.

--WeepingElf (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Weeping is quite correct: the languages of the Phaistos Disk, Linear A and Eteocretan are not the same. This page, in my opinion, is quite lamentable and misleading.

The Eteocretan language is attested in a few fragmentary inscriptions from Dreros and Praisos in eastern Crete, written in the Greek alphabet and dating from the late 7th century to the 3rd century BC. ^[1] There is NO mention of these inscriptions on the Wikipedia page.

The language of Linear A (and, presumably Cretan hieroglyphics) is, as the article correctly says, undeciphered; but it is generally termed 'Minoan'. Linear A inscriptions date from 18th to the 15th centuries BC^[2] There is, as the Weeping Elf says, about a millennium Linear A Minoan, and the attested Eteocretan inscriptions. It may well be that Eteocretan is derived from Minoan, but we cannot be sure of this. Even if it is, going to the Wikipedia Eteocretan page is rather like going a French language page and finding only information about Latin!

The inclusion of the Phaistos Disk simply adds to the misinformation. The authenticity of the Disk is questioned; even by those who accept its authenticity, attribution of date various widely over the 2nd millennium BC^[3] Also, there is no indication that the language represented on the Disk is Minoan; even some of those who accept the disk as genuine have suggested that the disk is of non-Cretan origin. In short, the inclusion of the disk on a page supposedly concerning Eteocretan is a misleading anachronism at best.

If Homer is to be quoted, there really is no excuse to be using Samuel Butler. Do it properly.

Finally, the 'analysis' is incorrect. Linear A (and the Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions) are the only source of attestation of Minoan. Eteocretan, a I have said above and as the 'Known inscriptions' above on this page show, is attested in inscriptions of the 7th to 3rd centuries BC written in versions of the Greek alphabet.

--Cretophilus (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleared out the Augiastic mess the page was (it was almost entirely about Minoan, which may have been an ancestor of Eteocretan, but still a different language, and probably written up by a crackpot), and replaced the entire content by a translation of the page in the German Wikipedia which is shorter but better. --WeepingElf (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful that the Weeping Elf has removed the unsatisfactory page and, as a temporary measure, replaced it with a translation of the more accurate German Wikipedia page.

I am endeavoring to expand this and give more links and fuller references. This may take several days to do, as I also have other commitments. But I would like to see a subject that has occupied me for more than thirty years better presented on Wikipedia.

Cretophilus (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Now, if in a few more weeks you were able to do the same with Minoan ... — kwami (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abductive vandalized this page by undoing the redo Ray Brown and I had done. I have restored the page. --WeepingElf (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reliable secondary sources for the page as you want it. Abductive (reasoning) 15:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is you who is the crackpot here. Eteocretan is not the language of the Linear A inscriptions, and the Phaistos Disk is neither in Eteocretan nor in Linear A. It is you who claims that Socrates was a cat (to refer to the most famous example of abductive "reasoning"), not me. Cretophilus (Raymond A. Brown) knows very well what he does when he writes about Eteocretan. What are your credentials? --WeepingElf (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Or to put it in gentler words: The term Eteocretan is generally used for the alphabetic non-Greek inscriptions of ancient Crete among scholars, and it is those inscriptions Cretophilus's page discusses. The Linear A and Cretan Hieroglyphic inscriptions are about 1,000 years older, and their language is called Minoan. The two languages are certainly not the same (there are probably even linguistic differences between Hieroglyphic Minoan and the younger Linear A Minoan), for even if Eteocretan descends from Minoan (which is likely but not proven), the language can be expected to have changed considerably in the meantime, which has seen the collapse of an entire civilization among other things. Eteocretan should be as different from Minoan as Modern English is from the Old English language of the days of Alfred the Great. Most speakers of today's English would consider Old English a foreign language they do not understand. Hence it is reasonable to consider Minoan and Eteocretan different languages. And what regards the Phaistos Disc, even a cursory inspection will show that the symbols on it have very little resemblance with Linear A. But as you talk about reliable sources, I find it funny that you insist on them because Cretophilus has given them and you didn't. --WeepingElf (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, would you care to explain what problems you see with the sources (Duhoux etc) cited in WeepingElf's revision of this article? After all, the version you are defending cites no modern scholarship at all, only a few primary sources from antiquity. --Hegvald (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be in dispute over what exactly constitutes "Eteocretan". I would like to see both sides explain their positions on the content they find problematic.

Due to the controversial nature this and other related topics. I think many more sources and discussion on which sources are reliable is needed. This is a recurring issue with this article.

—Sowlos 14:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial nature? Where does that come from? Abductive needs their fringe sensors recalibrated, that's all. It is blatantly obvious that proper scholarship will keep the Linear A language(s) and the language(s) of the enigmatic inscriptions in Greek letters more than 1000 years later cleanly separate, though of course it can then ask whether the two are in fact the same language to the extent that a language can stay the same over such a long period of time. And at least since the 1970s, scholars such as Cyrus H. Gordon have in fact done that. [1] Gordon's view that Minoan and Eteocretan are semitic languages was a minority view and probably wrong, but he was still a proper scholar, and presented the differentiation between the two as part of the mainstream background, right in the first sentence of the paper in which he tried to connect them. Much later, linguist Donald Ringe made the distinction in this blog post.

There isn't much scholarly publication about Eteocretan simply because there isn't much to say about the few short and incomplete Eteocretan texts until they have been deciphered. But I can see no real controversy in what little there is. Unless you want to count obsolete hypotheses or listen to obvious crackpots. Hans Adler 08:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial nature? Where does that come from?
Topics in this type of area tend to have a lot of fringe hypotheses around them. In the case of the ancient Balkans there are a lot of ethnic claims. ...not necessarily mainstream controversy, but Wikipedia is exposed to all opinions.

—Sowlos 17:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the mere existence of nationalist fringe doesn't make a topic controversial so long as the fringe has no impact on the academic mainstream or at least on the mass media. I don't think any of this is the case here. Hans Adler 22:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I was unclear. I meant [controversy] here. Which is why I was trying to draw the discussion towards sources, something I would again like to spotlight. Differences in opinion are fine, but people should cite their sources.

—Sowlos 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Linear A language (an ISO name with associated code) to Minoan language. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eteocretan language/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The text says the inscription reads et isalabre komn men inai isaluria lmo tuprmēriēia, but the word iniai appears in the text below it. Which one is it? Jalwikip (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The only clearly complete word on the earliest Praisos inscription is barze, and there is no indication of its meaning."

The Georgian word for "Greek" is berdzeni. Maybe these Minoans had early contact with Indo-Europeans. Just sayin'. Correctrix (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]