13 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

Some notes on structure of verb of disc inscription idiom

Alexander Akulov

independent scholar; St.Petersburg, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]

Abstarct

Pendlebury and Otkupshchikov have proved that Phaistos disc inscription is read from center to periphery. Word order of all languages of ancient Mediterranean region and neighbor areas was SOV, and it’s rather logical to suppose the same for the language of disc. Having known word order it is possible to single out blocks containing predicates/verbs in the text of inscription. These blocks have plumed head sign in their ends (terminal right positions). Blocks A3, A15 show that Minoan has reduplication of root and well elaborated prefixation. Minoan can’t be relative of Etruscan since Etruscan hasn’t prefixation, but can probably be relative of Anatolian languages, or Hattic or Sumerian. Adding of some known readings hasn’t given any result for verbal forms decoding, but allowed to identify name Tetija (block B8) that seems to be Minoan form of Tethys.

Key words: Phaistos disc; Minoan language; Tetija; Tethys; writing system deciphering

1. Problem introduction

Phaistos disc (pic. 3) was found by expedition led by Halbherr in 1908 in Phaistos on the island of (pic 1); the disk is dated about middle or late Minoan (second millennium B.C.); the disc is supposed to be an artifact of Crete origin (Duhoux 2000; Trauth 1990). Its writing system is (Ipsen 1929); writing system is of Cretan origin and its continuation is (Timm 2004). There are about fifteen different attempts to decipher Phaistos disc, i.e.: attempts to attach certain particular reading to the inscription. Some of them are more plausible, some less. However, all they can’t be considered as successful since they aren’t based on analysis of structure of inscription (especially grammatical structure), but are based on ‘artist sees so’ principle and on desire to attach certain language and particular meaning to the inscription.

Pic. 1. Map of Crete representing main Minoan sites (source: Kommos Excavation Crete) 14 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

Pic. 2. Crete and neighbor Mediterranean region (source: Background of history )

Pic. 3. Phaistos disc drawing (source: Phaistos Disk)

15 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

Any attempt to decipher Phaistos disc should start with determination the directionality of the inscription and then should be determined positional distributions of predicates and subjects. Any attempt to decipher the inscription should not begin without formal analysis of its grammatical structure.

2. Grammatical structure of the inscription

2.1. Directionality

Evident and clear proves that the disc is read from center to periphery were shown yet by Pendlebury and later they were enforced by Otkupshchikov. Main argument is the following: in any Minoan inscriptions anthropomorphic signs never ‘look’ in the beginning of inscription (Pendlebury 1939). Another proof is the fact that signs are placed closer in right part of blocks/cells: it can be only if signs were placed from center to periphery, from left to right (Otkupshchikov 2000).

2.2. Borders of sentences

2.2.1. Some important trivia

Before determination of sentences borders should be made the following remarks:

a) The inscription is supposed to be not a list of words, but a text, i.e.: a chain of connected sentences. If the inscription is just word list it hardly can be deciphered at all

b) The inscription represents a complete text; on each side text has a beginning and an end.

c) All signs are signs of syllabary, i.e.: there are no so called determenitaives or

d) Each block/cell contains a word.

e) Upon current stage it doesn’t matter what side of disc is face side.

2.2.2. Word order

As far as all languages of ancient Mediterranean region, of and neighbour areas were languages of SOV word order so it seems very logical to suppose that language of Phaistos disc had the same word order.

2.2.3. Positions of predicates

Directionality and word order are known so it’s possible to determine positions of predicates.

As far as the text is read from center to periphery and word order is SOV so the last words on side A and on side B are predicates.

2.2.4. Verbs as markers of borders of sentences

As far as blocks in the ends of A and B sides have been identified as predicates/verbs so it’s possible to suppose that other alike blocks also are verbs. Blocks on the ends of A and B sides 16 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

(A31 and B13; pic. 5, pic. 6) have so called plumed head sign in their end, and there are also some other blocks with the same characteristic feature.

Pic. 4. Plumed head sign

Since verbs are supposed to be placed upon the very end position of sentences so it’s possible to determine ends of sentences and thus it’s possible to determine borders of sentences.

Pic. 5. A side. Blocks are numbered from center to periphery; sentences are separated by empty spaces. 17 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

Pic. 6. B side.

2.3. Some preliminary notes on structure of verb of Phaistos disc idiom

2.3.1. Reduplication, prefixation and incorporation

It seems that blocks A3 and A15 (pic. 7) represent forms with reduplication.

Pic. 7. Verbal blocks with reduplication

18 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

As far as reduplication usually takes place in root so in current case it’s a marker of root and it’s possible to single out prefixes and suffixes. Despite I suppose that there are three prefixes in A3 and A15, but these prefixal signs also can actually be one prefix that simply consists of three syllables or two prefixes one of which consists of two syllables.

It seems to be higly possible that prefixes also are represented at least in the following blocks: A12, A18, B14. However, it’s impossible to say something definite about the rest blocks since it’s not possible now to determine their roots.

Block A9 seems to represent an example of compounding or incorporation (probably there also are infixes) since terminal left position is occupied by the same element that is supposed to be root. However, as far as writing system is syllabary so terminal left element of A9 can be just a prefix that is expressed by the same syllable as root.

Pic. 8. Supposedly an example of incorporative complex

Thus Minoan language evidently had reduplication and rather well elaborated prefixation. It seems to be highly probable that Minoan had polypersonal conjugation, however, now it’s not possible to state something definite about it.

2.3.2. Auxiliary verbs

If we take a look at pic. 5 we can see that blocks A10, A13, A16 evidently are something alike auxiliary verbs/modifiers of A9, A12, A15 correspondently, i.e.: it seems that in corresponding sentences there are verbal groups.

2.3.3. Probable meaning of plumed head and ‘shield’ signs

Plumed head sign (pic. 4) is regularly added to any verbal form1 of the text, i.e.: not just to finite verbs, but also to auxiliary verbs so it hardly can be personal marker. It is possible to suppose that it can be marker of a modality or a tense. The same can be said about so called ‘shield’ sign (pic. 8) that is regularly placed before plumed head, however unlike plumed head, that is placed in suffixal position only, ‘shield’ can also be placed in initial position (A7, A26, A30, B26) but in these blocks ‘shield’ obviously expresses another grammatical meanings.

Pic. 9. Shield sign

1 Actually there can be also other verbal forms in the text since in current paper only evidently seen verbs have been determined. 19 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

3. Tetija – Tethys

As far as readings of certain signs of the disc are known due to comparison with signs of Linear A (An attemp to read Phaistos Disc; Phaistos disc) so it’s possible to attach known readings to corresponding signs (pic 10, pic 11). Unfortunately none of forms indetified in current paper as verbal can be read completely.

Pic. 10. Side A with known readings attached; X is mark of unknown reading. 20 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

However, on B side among words that can be read completely there is a word that is read tetija (block B8). This tetija probably can be Minoan name of Tethys who according to was a Titan daughter of Uranus and Gaia, and the wife of her brother Titan Oceanus, and the mother of the river gods and the Oceanids; she is one of the most ancient deities. As far as was closely connected with sea so it’s completely natural and logical to suppose Minoan origin of this deity.

Name of Tetija seems to be one of nouns (names of deities) in that sentence (B4 – B14).

Pic. 11. Side B with known readings attached

4. Some intermediate conclusion

It would be helpful for further deciphering if would be discovered that Minoan is a relative of some language. However, available data on verbal grammar of Minoan are not sufficient yet to 21 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016) make some definite conclusions about its relatedness with some other language2. Minoan can probably be a relative of Hattic, or Anatolian, or Sumerian: they all have rather complicated verbal structures with well elaborated prefixation.

There is also a hypothesis that Minoan is a relative of Etruscan (Yatzemirski 2011). The fact that Minoan has well elaborated prefixation means that Minoan can’t be relative of Etruscan since Etruscan has no prefixation (Rix 2008). Language that has well elaborated prefixation can’t be relative of language with badly elaborated one (Akulov 2015a).

Another hypothesis says that Minoan phonotactic structure of word is much alike that of so called Banana languages (Proto-Tigridian substrate languages). In Sumerian there are some words with repetition of the same syllable: Bunene, Inanna, Huwewe, i.e.: words which structure is much alike structure of English word banana, due to this fact these hypothetical languages were conventionally called Banana languages. Words of banana structure were supposed to be not of Sumerian, but of substrate origin (Diakonoff 1988).

I suppose that so called words of banana structure didn’t originate from any substrate languages, but are of very Sumerian origin, i.e.: there were no so called Banana languages at all. I would say also that it seems highly possible that Minoan language probably can be a relative of Sumerian.

References

Akulov A. 2016. Prefixation Ability Index and Verbal Grammar Correlation Index prove the reality of Buyeo group. Acta Linguistica Asiatica, Vol 6, No 1; pp.: 81 – 97

Akulov A. 2015a. Prefixation Ability Index (PAI) as a powerful typological tool of historical linguistics. Lingua Posnaniensis, Volume 57, Issue 1 (Jun 2015); pp.: 7 – 24

Akulov A. 2015b. Verbal Grammar Correlation Index (VGCI) method: a detailed description. CAES, Vol.1, № 4; pp.: 19 – 42

An attempt to read the Phaistos Disc http://www.kereti.de/textEngl.html – accessed September 2016

Background of ancient Greek history http://erenow.com/ancient/ancient-greece-from- prehistoric-to-hellenistic-times/1.html – accessed September 2016

Diakonoff I. M. 1988. Istoriya Drevnego Vostoka. Zarozhdenie drevneishikh klassovykh obshchestv i pervye ochagi rabovladel’cheskoi tsivilizatsii. Chast I Perednyaya Aziya I Egipet (History of Ancient East. Emergence of the most ancient class societies and first focuses of slave-holding civilization. Part I Western Asia and Egypt). Nauka, Moscow

2 Grammatical structure of verb is key point when question is attributing of a language to a group and a stock (Akulov 2015b, 2016). 22 CAES Vol. 2, № 3 (September 2016)

Duhoux Y. 2000. How not to decipher the Phaistos Disc. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 104, No. 3; pp. 597 – 600.

Ipsen G. 1929. Der Diskus von Phaistos. Indogermanische Forschungen, Band 47; pp.: 1 – 41

Kommos Excavation Crete. Kommos maps & Site Views http://www.fineart.utoronto.ca/kommos/kommosMaps.html – accessed September 2016

Otkupshchikov Yu. V. 2000. Festskii disk. Problemy deshifrovki (Phaistos disc. Problems of decipher). Izdatelstvo SPbGU, St. Petersburg

Pendlebury Jh. D. 1939. The archaeology of Crete: an introduction. Methuen, London http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/pendlebury1939/0008 – accessed September 2016

Phaistos Disc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc – accessed September 2016

Rix H. 2008. Etruscan, in Woodard D. R. (ed.) The Ancient Languages of Europe. Cambridge University Press, New York; pp.: 141 – 164

Trauth M. 1990. The Phaistos Disc and the Devil’s Advocate. On the Aporias of an Ancient Topic of Research. Glottometrika 12; pp.: 151 – 173

Timm T. 2004. Der Diskos von Phaistos – Anmerkungen zur Deutung und Textstruktur. Indogermanische Forschungen 109; pp.: 204 – 231

Yatzemirskii S. A. 2011. Opyt sravnitel’nogo opisaniya minoyskogo, etrusskogo i rodstvennykh im yazykov (An attempt of comparative description of Minoan, Etruscan and other related languages). Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, Moscow