PDA

View Full Version : Alphabets: what's the meaning of their letter names



Hal Fao
03-10-11, 21:58
Latin alphabet is an improved version of the Etruscan one.
We possess no documentary evidence to show us the Etruscan alphabet letter names. But we possess Latin alphabet letter names.
In my opinion, these letter names are mainly Etruscan words, whose meanings we do not understand, that's why we simply call them "letter names".
On the other hand, in a large variety of Italic dialects, it was the Tuscan dialect which "happened" to be recognized as the official language of Italy. Although latinized, this dialect appears to have a strong Etruscan substrate. Even I think that the drafters of the Italian alphabet, either have known very well the meaning of its letter names, or these letter names are inherited in the Tuscan dialect from the depth of the centuries.
As I’ve written previously, the Albanian language is very close to Etruscan, so via Albanian we can identify many of the Italian (Latin) alphabet letter names.
Even Albanian seems to be very conservative in preserving the ancient word-forms which allows us to identify the Greek alphabet letters too.

/a/= In nowadays Albanian, ‘a /a/ means eat. Its regular form is ha/ha/ = eat; Often, in colloquial, just ‘a.
Aj /aj/ = 1- eat; 2- bite (v).
A-ja /aja/ = the letter “a” (literally it means the “a”);
Haja /haja/ = the food.
Considering the fact that this phoneme name in the Greek alphabet is “al-φα”, I think it contains both PIE word al (nourish, grow) and the Greek word φά/ω (eat). So its first form could have been al, φά/ω just the words used by greek and nongreek speakers (which coexisted in ancient Greece).

/bi/ = In nowadays Albanian, pi /pi/ means “drink” (v).
From PIE base: *po(i) = to drink
In Sanskrit:
pibh; pibati = drink (v);
pibeth = may one drink;
pitha = a drink, draught.
Old Sanskrit:
pati = drinks (v).
In Latin:
bibo = drink (v); potare = to drink;
In Greek:
ποτό = drink (n);
In Romanian:
băutură = drink (v).
In O.Ch.Sl:
piti = to drink.
In Russian:
Вода (voda) = water.
Beta is a definite noun. Indefinite: bet-.
Be /be/= drink (v); It’s the name of the Latin alphabet B letter too.
In nowadays Italian: bere = to drink (v); Romanian: bea = drink (n), etc.
Bet- = drink (n), (see below the use of suffix t in Albanian).
Beta = the drink.

/tʃi/ = In nowadays Gheg Albanian, çi /tʃi/ means “to join sexually”. In standard Albanian, qi /khi/. It relates to Albanian word çaj (in some Gheg areas kaj/kaj/).
Çaj /tʃaj/ (to split, to force one’s way through; to gape) from PIE *gh(a)i- (to gape).
Çarje /tʃarje/ (gaping void), shares the same semantics with chaos.
Gojë /gojə/ (mouth), from the same PIE word, *gh(a)i-.

Gamma is a definite noun. Indefinite: gam-.
The only attested Greek words (in any time) which contain this wordroot, are:
Γαμ/ώ /gam-o/ = to join sexually
Γάμο/ς /gamo-s/ = marriage; wedding.
As both words contain the same wordroot, the meaning of gamma is either
the sexual union or the marriage.
So, there is not difficult to understand the correlations γαμ/ώ -gamma (from PIE base *gem(e)- “to marry”) and /ke:/ - /khi/ - /tʃi/.
ke: -the name of the latin alphabet c letter;
khi -the Albanian word qi /khi/ (to join sexually);
tʃi – the Gheg Albanian word çi /tʃi/ (to join sexually) and the Italian alphabet letter c name.
Since the Albanian qi /khi/ sounds like English key, let’s see its etymology too:
See www.etymonline.com
key (1)
"metal piece that works a lock," from O.E. cæg, of unknown origin, with no certain cognates other than O.Fris. kei. Perhaps related to M.L.G. keie "lance, spear" on notion of "tool to cleave with," from P.Gmc. *ki- "to cleaver, split" (cf. Ger. Keil"wedge," Goth. us-kijans "come forth," said of seed sprouts, keinan "to germinate"). But Liberman writes, "The original meaning of *kaig-jo- was presumably '*pin with a twisted end.' Words with the root *kai- followed by a consonant meaning 'crooked, bent; twisted' are common only in the North Germanic languages."
Figurative sense of "that which serves to open or explain" was in O.E.; meaning "that which holds together other parts" is from 1520s. Musical sense of "tone, note" is 15c., but modern sense of "scale" is 1580s, probably as a translation of L. clavis or Fr.clef (see clef; also cf. keynote). Extended c.1500 to "mechanism on a musical instrument."
(bolded by me)

*Ki- [in the meaning “split” and/or “open” like PIE *gh(a)i or *gh(e)i] is also the wordroot of:
In Latin:
Caelum /kaelum/ = sky;
In Italian:
Cielo /tʃelo/ = sky;
In Gheg Albanian:
Çel /tʃel/ = 1- open (v); Çell /tʃell/ - sky. In standard Albanian: Çel = open; qiell/khiell/ = sky.
Çelç /tʃeltʃ/ = glass. In Standard Albanian: qelq /khelkh/ = glass.
Çels / tʃels/ = key. In standard Albanian: Çelës / tʃeləs/ = key (literally it means opener).
Çelt /tʃelt/ = 1- light (opposite of dark). 2- open (adj). In standard Albanian: Çelët / tʃelət/ 1- light (opposite of dark). 2- open (adj).

/di/ = In nowadays Albanian, di /di/ means 1- have idea; 2- illuminate;
3- know (although the correct Albanian word for know is njoh /njoh/).
Old Sanskrit: dhi-; dhiti- (thought, reason, opinion).
From PIE base *dyeu- (to shine)

Delta is a definite noun. Indefinite: delt-.
From PIE base *tel- = “to bear, carry” (?!), meaning also “special natural ability, aptitude”. It’s the root of talent.
In Albanian:
Dell /dell/ = 1- tendon; 2- vein; 3- (fig.) talent.
Diell /diell/ sun.
Old Albanian (reconstructed):
*dellt (delltë) /dellt/= 1- talented (adj); 2- visionary; 3- talent (n); 4- apparence.
*diellt (dielltë) /dielltə/ 1- sunny; 2- shine (n).
*dellta (or diellta)/delta/ = the talent; the vision; the shine.
Here is the use of suffix t in Albanian (and not only) word-formation:
Pak /pak/ = less (opposite of shumë /ʃumə/ = many, very) and pakt /pakt/ =
1- pact; 2- least. In Albanian it’s an adjective noun and literally means “least”;
e pakta = the least (fem.); i pakti = the least (masc.); te pakten (or të paktën)
/tə paktən/ = at least.
pakësoj /pakəsoj/ = to lessen; Paqësoj /pakhəsoj/ to pacify.
Pako /pako/ (paketë or paqetë) = package;
Pakoj /pakoj/ (or pakëtoj) = 1- pack (v); 2- lessen;
Paqe /pakhe/ = peace. Its regular form is pakje /pakje/ = less (n);
Di /di/ = illuminate, have idea, (from PIE *dyeu = shine) and dit (ditë) /ditə/ = day;
i ditur /i ditur/ = versed, illuminated (adj); dietar (or dijetar) /dijetar/ illuminator, ideator.
Çel /tʃel/ (in some Gheg areas kel /kel/) = open (v), and çelt (adj.)/tʃelt/ = 1- light (opposite of dark); 2- open (adj).
As a noun it survives in kelt /kelt/ = celt.
Fus /fus/ (or fut /fut/, both forms are useful) = put (in/into), insert, infuse, and fust (fustë) /fustə/ = dress (n) or futë /futə/ (apron); Literally it means “put (the body) into”.
Ar /ar/ (gold) and art /art/ = golden;
As a noun it survives in art /art/ = art.
Herë /herə/ (time; a period of time; era) and herët /herət/ (early);
Hera = the time; the period of time; the era.
Err /err/ (dim, obscure, wait until nightfall) and errt (or errët) /errət/ dark, darkly; sombre, etc., etc.
Albanian delltë/dielltë (def. dellta/diellta) is not in use, it is replaced with “talent”.
Albanian dell relates to dal (another Albanian word).
Dal /dal/ (sprout, come up, come out, appear, show). It’s in first person, singular.
Del /del/ (sprout/s, come/s up ...). It’s in second and third person, singular.
Te dalet /te dalet/(or: të dalët /tə dalət/) = 1- the sprout, the coming up; 2- the appearance, the show.
Dalt/ë /daltə/ (chisel);
Daltoj /daltoj/ (to chisel).
i dalë /i dalə/ (apt; an apt man; someone who owns a lot of experiences);
i dali /i dali/ (the apt man).
i dalluar /i dalluar/ (distinguished; remarkable; eminent).
Dalloj /dalloj/ (discern);
Dallim /dallim/ (discernment);
Dallgë /dallgə/ (wave);
Dalldi /dalldi/ (1- excessive fondness; 2- ecstasy).

Taranis
03-10-11, 22:10
As I’ve written previously, the Albanian language is very close to Etruscan, so via Albanian we can identify many of the Italian (Latin) alphabet letter names.
Even Albanian seems to be very conservative in preserving the ancient word-forms which allows us to identify the Greek alphabet letters too.

I am very sorry to dismiss your work, but as I have elaborated in detail in this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26431-Etruscans-Illyrians-Pelasgi-tuscans-albanians), Etruscan was a non-Indo-European language, whereas Albanian is an Indo-European language. This is not only my opinion, but also the generally accepted view in science. I can see that you put a lot of effort into this, but Albanian and Etruscan are clearly unrelated languages.


To visualize this, I've picked Albanian numerals:

One - Një (PIE *oino-)
Two - Dy (PIE *dwo-)
Three - Tre (PIE *tri-)
Four - Katër (PIE *kwetwor-)
Five - Pesë (PIE *Penkwe)
Six - Gjashtë / ɟaʃtë (PIE *sek´s-)
Seven - Shtatë / ʃtatë (PIE *septm̥)
Eight - Tetë (PIE *ok´to-)
Nine - Nëntë (PIE *(h1)newn̥)
Ten - Dhjetë / ðjetë (PIE *dek´m̥t)

The Indo-European languages as a whole are rather conservative in respect for the numeral system, and even though Albanian has quite unique sound laws, it's possible to correspond Albanian numerals with PIE numerals, or with numerals from other IE languages. For example, from the above I can tell you that Albanian retains *t, *p completely unchanged from PIE, or that *kw corresponds to *k in Albanian, or *s before positions where front vowels stood in PIE (*i or *e).

In contrast, in Etruscan:

One - Thu
Two - Zal
Three - Ki
Four - Sha
Five - Makh
Six - Huth
Seven - Semph
Eight - Kezp
Nine - Nurph
Ten - Shar

The Etruscan numerals are completely dissimilar form Albanian (or otherwise Indo-European) numerals and there is no way to correspond them. Also, as I pointed out in the other thread from a while back, the sound inventory of Etruscan and Albanian is totally dissimilar.

Hal Fao
03-10-11, 23:47
@ Taranis
On the topic in question (alphabet letter names) you're welcome to express your opinions whether you agree or not.
As for the Etruscan language I know your views, as you have stated so many times. What surprised me is your insistence despite you do not know Albanian

As for Etruscan numerals I managed to identify only the first five numbers:
1 - ni
2 - tu
3 - tris
4 - kathr
5 - pes
Anyway, I'd like to friendly advise you: never say never!

Taranis
04-10-11, 00:20
On the topic in question (alphabet letter names) you're welcome to express your opinions whether you agree or not.
As for the Etruscan language I know your views, as you have stated so many times. What surprised me is your insistence despite you do not know Albanian

Well, I insist on it for two reasons: first, I know the methodology of mainstream linguistics. In particular the comparative method and the concept of sound correspondence, to which the very concept of the Indo-European languages owes its very existence. The second is that I know Albanian well enough to tell you about its sound laws and how Albanian sounds correspond to PIE. In fact, it doesn't matter in this regard if one is talking about Albanian, Celtiberian, Hittite or Tocharian. The rules of the 'game' are always the same.


As for Etruscan numerals I managed to identify only the first five numbers:
1 - ni
2 - tu
3 - tris
4 - kathr
5 - pes

And well, I have to tell you that these are not Etruscan numerals. Also, well, if you play this by the book, and pick up for the moment that Etruscan was related with Albanian, how do you explain that Etruscan had such a different sound inventory from Albanian? Which Etruscan sounds would correspond to Albanian sounds and vice versa? How do you explain that Albanian has the sounds /b/, /d/, /g/, /ɟ/, /ʒ/, /c/, /ð/, /θ/ etc. while Etruscan hasn't? If you do you homework, and can prove without the inch of a doubt which Etruscan sounds correspond to Albanian sounds and vice versa linguists are going to consider the possibility of a relationship (I'm afraid I don't see that happening, however). Otherwise, Jacob Grimm is going to come and bust you...

Well, actually, let me pick up your examples there. First off, let's take a look at the word for 'two' in various branches of IE:

Baltic:
Lithuanian - Du
Latvian - Divi

Celtic:
Breton - Daou
Irish - Dhá
Welsh - Dau

Germanic:
Danish - To
Dutch - Twee
German - Zwei
Gothic - Twai
Norwegian - To
Swedish - Två

Italic/Romance:
Catalan - Dos
French - Deux
Italian - Due
Latin - Duo
Portuguese - Dois
Romanian - Două
Spanish - Dos

Slavic:
Belorussian - Dva
Bulgarian - Dve
Croatian - Dva
Czech - Dvě
Polish - Dwa
Russian - Dva
Serbian - Dva
Slovak - Dve
Slovenian - Dva
Ukrainian - Dva

Other IE:
Greek - Duo
Sanskrit - Dvi
Hindi - Dō

As you can see, with the notable exception of the Germanic languages, in all language families in the list, the word for 'two' starts with *d. As I stated earlier, the Proto-Indo-Europan word for 'two' is reconstructed as 'dwo-'. Now, regarding the Germanic languages, the word is (with exception of German, but note that German 'z' is pronounced as /ts/) consistently *t. From that, we establish the hypothesis that Germanic *t corresponds with PIE *d. So, if we look at a few other English words, and compare it with cognates in other IE languages (I here take Latin), we can confirm this:

(to) teach - dicere
(to) tame - domare
ten - decem
Tues(-day) - Deus

We can establish that English (and by extension, Germanic) *t corresponds with PIE *d. Now, let's take a look at a few English words and their German cognates:

tame - zahm
tap - zapfen
ten - zehn
(to) tie - ziehen
(to) tear - zerren
to - zu

From that we can establish that German /ts-/ corresponds with English (and other Germanic) /t-/, and by extension that German *ts- corresponds with PIE *d.

What does this mean for Etruscan and Albanian? You claimed that an Etruscan word 'Tu' (of unknown meaning, but here assumed to be 'two') corresponds with Albanian 'Dy'. This would imply a shift from *t > *d. Sure, why not. If the hypothesis was correct, then we would *t in Etruscan to be regularly shifted to *d. You take the next Etruscan word, 'Tris' (assumed to mean 'three') and compared with the Albanian word, which however is 'Tre'. Apparently, suddenly Etruscan *t corresponds with *t in Albanian. Which one is it?

The Neogrammarian hypothesis states that 'sound laws have no exception'. If they seemingly have exceptions, these are governed by their own set of rules. So, what do you think is more likely? That Albanian is descended from Etruscan, or that Albanian is descended from Proto-Indo-European?

LeBrok
04-10-11, 04:52
Bravo :78:, great class Taranis. I think I have learned something today. :ecstatic:

Yetos
04-10-11, 11:42
ALFA

well the word φαω (eat) is modern Greek,
the original word in PIE and even to Hellenistic times is Brottomai βροττομαι and the food is βρωσις,
Brottomai is simmilar to bread Brott etc
considering that the Thracian word for bread was Bekos we also find the modern words Bake Bakery Baker etc

So I think the whole approach is incorrect,

Now about the word Gamma the root is the same Celtic
Albanian qij
Greek Γαμε-ω Γαμω
Original meaning is I make sex
the word Γαμος change meaning at Christian times and replace the word μνυομαι - μνηστη - μνεω , Ι give oaths of Faith,

so the original γαμος means I have sex, like the Albanian Kijeme (sorry if i make orthographical mistakes) but the modern means I Get marriage, I give oaths of faith,

Taranis
04-10-11, 12:43
Bravo :78:, great class Taranis. I think I have learned something today. :ecstatic:

Thanks. I'm glad. My work is not done yet, however... :laughing:


ALFA

well the word φαω (eat) is modern Greek,
the original word in PIE and even to Hellenistic times is Brottomai βροττομαι and the food is βρωσις,
Brottomai is simmilar to bread Brott etc
considering that the Thracian word for bread was Bekos we also find the modern words Bake Bakery Baker etc

So I think the whole approach is incorrect,

Now about the word Gamma the root is the same Celtic
Albanian qij
Greek Γαμε-ω Γαμω
Original meaning is I make sex
the word Γαμος change meaning at Christian times and replace the word μνυομαι - μνηστη - μνεω , Ι give oaths of Faith,

so the original γαμος means I have sex, like the Albanian Kijeme (sorry if i make orthographical mistakes) but the modern means I Get marriage, I give oaths of faith,

Yes, I absolutely that the whole approach is incorrect, especially because it ignores the actual development of the alphabet there.

The original alphabet was used by the Phoenicians, and it was very different from the Greek, Etruscan or Latin alphabets because it only represented consonants (much like Hebrew and Arabic today, which keep this convention). The Phoenician alphabet consisted of 22 letters, which had the following values:

Aleph - (glottal stop)
Beth - /b/
Gimmel - /g/
Daleth - /d/
He - /h/
Waw - /w/
Teth - /tˤ/
Heth - /ħ/
Yodh - /j/
Kappa - /k/
Lamedh - /l/
Mem - /m/
Nun - /n/
Samekh - /s/
Ayin - /ʕ/
Pe - /p/
Sade - /sˤ/ (later /ts/)
Qoph - /q/
Resh - /r/
Shin - /ʃ/
Taw - /t/

In Semitic languages, the word still remains readable when you leave out the vowels, but this is impossible to do in Indo-European languages. Now, when the Greeks adopted writing from the Phoenicians, they were presented with the problem that the alphabet doesn't represent vowels, and also that it contains many sound which don't existed in Greek. Thus the Greeks modified the script:

Aleph (glottal stop) became /a/ (Alpha)
He /h/ became /e/ (Epsilon)
Heth /ħ/ became /h/ or long /e/ (Eta)
Teth /tˤ/ became /th/ (later /θ/) (Theta)
Yodh /j/ became /i/ (Iota)
Samekh /s/ became /ks/ (Xi)
Ayin /ʕ/ became /o/ (Omicron)
Qoph /q/ became /k/ (Qoppa)
Sadi /sˤ/ became /s/ (San)
Shin /ʃ/ became /s/ (Sigma)

Likewise, the names of the other letters were also changed, and the names had no other meaning than the letter itself. So in addition to the above:

Beth became Beta
Gimmel became Gamma
Daleth became Delta
Waw became Wau or Digamma (actually written "F")
Zayin became Zeta
Kaph became Kappa
Lamedh became Lambda
Mem became Mu
Nun became Nu
Pe became Pi
Resh became Rho
Taw became Tau

In addition to the above, the Greeks invented four new letters which are not found in Phoenician:

Upsilon to reprent /y/
Phi to represent /ph/ (later /f/)
Chi to represent /kh/ (later /x/)
Psi to represent /ps/
Omega ('big o') to represent long /o/ (as opposed to Omicron 'little o')

Now, this archaic alphabet was very redundant, and as a result many of the letters which were not needed in Greek (or not anymore) were subsequently dumped: Wau or Digamma /w/, Qoppa /k/, San /s/. Also note that in some early variants, /ks/ and /kh/ were swapped.

However, the Etruscans adopted an early form of the Greek alphabet which still included the letters mentioned above (except San).

Alpha - A
Beta - B
Gamma - C
Delta - D
Epsilon - E
Wau/Digamma - F (/w/)
Zeta - Z
Eta - H
Theta - Th
Iota - I
Kappa - K
Lambda - L
Mu - M
Nu - N
Ksi - Sh (/ʃ/)
Omicron - O
Pi - P
Qoppa - Q
Rho - R
Sigma - S
Tau - T
Upsilon - V
Chi - X (Ks)
Phi - Ph
(Psi-shaped Chi) - Kh

The Etruscan language was again very different from Greek, and thus a number of changes were made in regard for the sounds:

- Etruscan didn't distinguish between /g/ or /k/, and thus C, K and Q all represented /k/. However, the Etruscans developed the convention of writing it at specific positions: C before I or E, K before A, and Q before U.
- Similarly, D and T in Etruscan could both represent /t/.
- I would represent both /i/ and /j/.
- B or P would likewise represent /p/.
- O and V would both represent /u/, rather than /o/ and /y/ respectively.

Now, when the Romans adopted the alphabet from the Etruscans, they again made modifications to the alphabet:

- F had it's value changed from /w/ to /f/
- O represented /o/ again, while V would represent both /u/ and /v/.
- Th, Sh, Ph and Kh had no purpose in Latin and were dumped.
- The Romans retained the letters C, K and Q, and in particular developed the convention of using 'QU' to write /kw/. We still use this convention today even in English (for example the word 'question').
- The Greek letter Upslion was added near the rear part of the alphabet as Y to represent Greek /y/.
- However, like Greek, Latin also had the sound /g/ for which it had no letter. In the beginning, C would interchangably represent both /g/ and /k/, but later the Romans developed a new letter by adding a stroke to C, thus creating the letter G. The previous letter at the seventh position (Z) was moved to the end of the alphabet. Thus the Romans had the following alphabet:

ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVXYZ

Later additions were the distinction between I and J, as well as U, V and W from V, thus arriving at the modern-day 26 letter alphabet.

Yetos
04-10-11, 14:33
well I keep my precautions to the above, Personally I believe that Alphabet was Invented by a pre-phoenician culture, More North and west
probably Syrians (Aram) or Hatti,

I repeat that is my personal thoughts, Phoenician I believe were part of This culture,

The above is just the majority of scientists believe and I believe that until today is correct,
but I personally believe that a culture existed from whom Phoenicians and some others split to the known one cultures,

Taranis
05-10-11, 19:07
well I keep my precautions to the above, Personally I believe that Alphabet was Invented by a pre-phoenician culture, More North and west
probably Syrians (Aram) or Hatti,

I repeat that is my personal thoughts, Phoenician I believe were part of This culture,

The above is just the majority of scientists believe and I believe that until today is correct,
but I personally believe that a culture existed from whom Phoenicians and some others split to the known one cultures,

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there, and why you insist you 'believe something despite you cannot prove it'. No offense, that is not a very scientific approach. Anyways, you are both right and wrong in some aspects.

Although as I stated is the oldest in the chain of writing systems as seen above (and indeed, in addition to the Greek, Etruscan and Latin alphabets, the majority of the world's writing systems are descended from the Phoenician alphabet), the Phoenician alphabet itself is not the oldest of such alphabets. There was another alphabet, used by the people of Ugarit (a city state that existed in the late bronze age in modern-day Syria). The Ugaritic alphabet was in many ways similar to the Phoenician one, however it had a very different origin, namely that it used cuneiform-like symbols. In contrast, the letters of the Phoenician alphabet have their origin in the Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Yetos
05-10-11, 20:40
that is what I believe,

That Ugarit is mother of Sinaitic ALphabets,

My personal Opinion is that ALphabet was invented in West minor Asia, and took 2 forms,
the Greek and the Phoenician

The Greek (Kyme alphabet) went west and became the Latin,
while the Phoenician was adopted by Greeks due to pre IE cultures of Area (Hatti - Peleset(Pelasgians))

maybe sea people destroyed a city around cilicia or Lycaonia where I believe Alphabet was invented,

Although your Thesis is what majority accepts today, and the most well developed, by what we know and excavate today, and indeed this is what seems logic today, with today's knowledge,

by what I know Egypt after hieroglyphs had 2 form of alphabet,
1 was local Meroitic
and 2nd was only in North, areas where other cultures had build colonies,

Now why it seems strange that I may have a Personal opinion?

you know how many theories have been changed from early 1900, a new prove relic-ancient sculpture, a new theory,
So it is logical to accept the today theory but keep precautions on what the future will bring,
since that theory misses some links, especialy Cyprus and the south minor Asia coasts cultures, and suddenly from Levant we find connection to Greece?
considering that ships travel 1-2-3 days long and about 50-100 km before next stop, the distance is big, even the travel from Crete to Egypt is a mystery if was at once or via Cyprus.

So don't be surprised with the idea of a new theory in future,

Besides according to Greek language alphabet is a pray to God Helios (Sun)
and that is why is alpha and not alef
its vita (βητα) and not Beth,

Αλ-φα Βη-τα Γα(α)-μα Δ(ε)Ελ-τα Εψ-Ιλων Στι-γμα Ζη-τα κτλ
Sun shine, go to the fields, also drain the mud (ilys = clay for pottery), Stand warm etc

the prove to your theory is that Phoenician sculpture that have been found are older than Greek
The problem in your theory is distance, and letters,
example letter Δ latin D in phoenician is wo !!!!!
letter Θ in greek is (th) in phoenician is qe
symbol with O and + inside is ka in phoenician while K is in both Greek and latin
symbol X in Phoenician is de while in Greek- Latin is ch or ex
upside down Δ is ki etc

so the case of Greek or Latin Alphabet to come from Phoenician is as close it can be as far it can be,
the possibility that both came from a same collapsed culture for me is bigger than one comes from the other,

the only logical is that until today the phoenician scripts that have been found are older,
if tomorrow an excavation brings something new we might say other theory

don't be surprised, My personal Believe is that Both come from Ugarit or a pre-Ugarit culture

Taranis
05-10-11, 21:27
I'm sorry, but what you suggest makes no sense. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Greeks developed their alphabet separated from the Phoenicians from a common other source. There is, in contrast, every reason to believe the Greeks adopted their alphabet from the Phoenicians. I outlined those above:

in the archaic variants of the Greek alphabet, there were some letters that were redundant. If the Greeks had developed their own alphabet, why would they have included Qoppa and San if they also had other letters to represent /k/ and /s/ (Kappa and Sigma, respectively)? This is an overt redundancy that only makes sense if you consider that the Greeks adopted their alphabet from the Phoenicians, and consider that in their alphabet, the sounds represented /q/ and /sˤ/. There is also the fact that the oldest finds of the Greek alphabet are several centuries younger than the oldest writings of the Phoenician alphabet.

The ancient Greek authors (such as Herodotus) even stated that the Greek alphabet was introduced from the Greeks.

I'm sorry, but your hypothesis has absolutely no footing in any sort of evidence.

Kardu
05-10-11, 22:50
Old Georgian alphabet was used also as a pagan calendar and a counting system and many letters are based on the names of Sumerian deities and sacral symbolism. The name of the first letter is An as the Sumerian sky god.

5228 5229

Yetos
06-10-11, 02:33
the quopa in Greek alphabet is not Q but s it symbol is a lighting,
also pi and sanpi has the meaning of φ π πφ Φ=F Π=P sanpi = ph a phongue that later was abandoned

so quopa S still exist in Greek alphabet but is not mentioned or mentioned as s final
number 90 is quopa S

now since you know about Ugarit, and its language then you know that a kind of aramaic even today are still spoken in caucas areas,

the possibility that both alphabet came from one older is bigger, than the one that one comes the another,
considering the linear A and B we still found 15 of the 27 symbols of Linear to Greek alphabet, while with phoenician is only 13
then why to adopt a foreign alphabet 000 kilometers away, and with different sounds????

the logograms that found in Crete and Aegean show Lydian area as exporting to Aegean letters,
Lydia and Lycaonia are west of Ugarit while Levant is east and south,
the possibility that both alphabet come from an older for me is bigger,

Just think what you say if tomorrow in Turkey we found a script older than the phoenician one,
will be say the same theory? I quess not,
so that theory of Phoenician alphabet who comes from Ugarit is accepted simply because we have an older script, and 15 symbols and 13 sounds while we ignore that 9 sounds are different,

besides i cannot quote, I never said that Greeks invented alphabet,
I say that greek Alphabet is not from Phoenician but Ugarit it self ( or a para Ugarit culture) and developed different.

Phoenician rose at 900 BC while myceneans already went to Troy and met Hettit and other cultures,
and Minoans had colony near Ugarit from 1500 BC.

It is just that what archaiology have found, and we assume that Greeks took alphabet from Phoenicians

Besides the number 27 is symbolic to Greek alphabet cause these are the days of moon month, moon diary, while many other sounds are written by 2 letters like ai ei au

my Hypothesis is well known to many linguists,
my Hypothesis is lacking evidence of time,
while your thesis which officially I accept it today is just because archaiology found a script older,
if tomorrow we find something older, then surely we accept another theory,

Taranis
06-10-11, 10:44
I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense. The Greeks had lost their writing system (Linear B) centuries before and were an illiterate people by the time they came into contact with the Phoenicians. There is no relationship between Linear B and the Greek alphabet, and any similarity is coincidential. Also, if the Greek alphabet had developed independently from the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet, we would expect the signs to look totally different from Phoenician. We would also expect it to have a completely different order, yet the order of the Greek alphabet makes only sense if we assume it derived from the Phoenician one.


"Just think what you say if tomorrow in Turkey we found a script older than the phoenician one,
will be say the same theory? I quess not..."

What's the likelihood of that happening? I might as well say "what if say tomorrow a flying saucer is unearthed in Turkey?". Sorry, but Occam's Razor does not agree with you. You even admit that the Phoenician origin is the most obvious explanation, yet why do you prefer a theory for which there is absolutely no evidence? That makes no sense. Where is your problem?

Segia2
06-10-11, 11:46
Alphabetical symbols are based on ideograms wich only make sense through a semitic language. An "a" is an ox (aleph), a "b" is a house (beth), a "g" is a camel (gimmel), and so on...

LeBrok
06-10-11, 17:31
Alphabetical symbols are based on ideograms wich only make sense through a semitic language. An "a" is an ox (aleph), a "b" is a house (beth), a "g" is a camel (gimmel), and so on...

Is it similar to Egyptian phonetics, the way they wrote pharaohs names in cartouche? First letter of names of objects mattered.

Taranis
07-10-11, 14:33
Is it similar to Egyptian phonetics, the way they wrote pharaohs names in cartouche? First letter of names of objects mattered.

Actually, I would say no. The connection between Phoenician letters is between the semantic value of the hieroglyphics and the Semitic word, and not between the phonetic value in the Egyptian language. For example, the letter Mem (/m/) means 'water', but in Hieroglyphic Egyptian, the water symbol actually had the value /n/. For a comparison, look at the Egyptian rendering of the name Alexander:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Name_of_Alexander_the_Great_in_Hieroglyphs_circa_3 30_BCE.jpg/800px-Name_of_Alexander_the_Great_in_Hieroglyphs_circa_3 30_BCE.jpg

LeBrok
07-10-11, 18:33
Cool stuff. Looks like we don't even spell and pronouns name Alexander right. Was it Aleksinders?

Maciamo
07-10-11, 18:46
Cools stuff. Looks like we don't even spell and pronouns name Alexander right. Was it Aleksinders?

Yes, in Egyptian ! But then Alexandria is Al Iskandariyya is Arabic now. Talk about deforming the original pronunciation.

Taranis
07-10-11, 19:33
Cools stuff. Looks like we don't even spell and pronouns name Alexander right. Was it Aleksinders?

The original Greek spelling was "ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ" ("Alexandros" or "Aleksandros"). :)

The interesting part is that Egyptian hieroglyphics were still widely in use during the Hellenistic period. The famous Rosetta stone, which was crucial for the decipherment of ancient Egyptian, comes exactly from that time.

Asturrulumbo
07-10-11, 21:42
Yes, in Egyptian ! But then Alexandria is Al Iskandariyya is Arabic now. Talk about deforming the original pronunciation.

I think "deforming" sounds too negative... Call me an euphemerist, but I would rather call it reforming; which in my opinion is a pretty great thing, as otherwise there wouldn't be different dialects and languages, hehe (although I still wish (who wouldn't?) my native language had retained the PIE laryngeals!)

Yetos
07-10-11, 23:13
I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense. The Greeks had lost their writing system (Linear B) centuries before and were an illiterate people by the time they came into contact with the Phoenicians. There is no relationship between Linear B and the Greek alphabet, and any similarity is coincidential. Also, if the Greek alphabet had developed independently from the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet, we would expect the signs to look totally different from Phoenician. We would also expect it to have a completely different order, yet the order of the Greek alphabet makes only sense if we assume it derived from the Phoenician one.



What's the likelihood of that happening? I might as well say "what if say tomorrow a flying saucer is unearthed in Turkey?". Sorry, but Occam's Razor does not agree with you. You even admit that the Phoenician origin is the most obvious explanation, yet why do you prefer a theory for which there is absolutely no evidence? That makes no sense. Where is your problem?


because the evidence that Greek came out of Phoenician is just by an archaiology timing, a script that found somewhere and is 100 years older,
while phoenician Alphabet is the developed as 'natural choice' of Ugarit,
although I accept, the base of that theory is upon an unstable soil,
Becides by checking linear B we do found a good number of same symbols.

On the other hand we know that parts of Greeks like Minoans had colonies near Ugarit,
Greek is part Greco-Aryan languages which developed North of Ugarit,
and in the usage of the Lydian logogramms and Linears we also see similar letters (if we can use that word)

the theory that Greek comes from Phoenician is not a well based theory,
it is a theory that is trebling, and is accepted only due to archaiologiacal evidence.

the razor of Occam does not reject that maybe both come from same culture,
the use of razor is to cut the 'bad plants' in one field, not to cut another parallel field,

Yetos
07-10-11, 23:16
Alphabetical symbols are based on ideograms wich only make sense through a semitic language. An "a" is an ox (aleph), a "b" is a house (beth), a "g" is a camel (gimmel), and so on...

an a Α as is written in Greek alphabet could be a bow and arrow Aor In Greek
a Δ δελτα could mean Di-El-Tau symbolizing a divine god sun (pyramid with eye of Chorus)

the Greek alphabet as it saved today is after the 500 BC pronounce and spelling due to a pray that was learned by kids,

a pray song that exists 2500 years with same tone and melody,

so the original is unknown
if A comes from ox and alef, or from Aor (arrow) and Al-fa Sun Shine (give us light)
a form like this


http://www.sofiatopia.org/maat/igreekalpha.jpg


look at Greek A, why an ox and why not an Aor (bow), why alef and not Aorioi (similar Aryan means archers)

besides why Bητα comes from beth and not from βη - τα (go to) (order of virb βαινω) ?

Taranis
08-10-11, 10:59
because the evidence that Greek came out of Phoenician is just by an archaiology timing, a script that found somewhere and is 100 years older,
while phoenician Alphabet is the developed as 'natural choice' of Ugarit,
although I accept, the base of that theory is upon an unstable soil,
Becides by checking linear B we do found a good number of same symbols.

Because we find signs in Linear B doesn't automatically mean the two scripts are related. If you take a look at the three scripts below (Old Turkic, Runic and Celtiberian) you see that there is a lot of similar symbols that are completely unrelated:

http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/orkhon.gif
http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/eldrfuthark.gif
http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/celtiberian.gif

There is inevitably going to be some similarity between unrelated scripts, especially if you have only a fairly small inventory of relatively simple signs.


On the other hand we know that parts of Greeks like Minoans had colonies near Ugarit,
Greek is part Greco-Aryan languages which developed North of Ugarit,
and in the usage of the Lydian logogramms and Linears we also see similar letters (if we can use that word)

Sorry but the Minoans were not Greeks. They spoke an unrelated, as of yet undeciphered language. Also, with the Greco-Aryan hypothesis you're making a lot of conjectures and take them as absolute truth: this hypothesis assumes assumes a common ancestry of Greek and the Indo-Iranic languages (as well as Armenian, which is usually included), but it's absolutely not sensible to place this homeland in Anatolia, because we have another branch of the Indo-European languages in Anatolia, the Anatolian language family (including Hittite and Luwian), which is generally considered the most divergent path of Indo-European languages. There is also the issue that Greek is in many ways closer with the Italic and Celtic languages than it is with Indo-Iranic. Also, by the time the Ugaritic alphabet is invented, the Greek language (written in Linear B) is already attested.


the theory that Greek comes from Phoenician is not a well based theory,
it is a theory that is trebling, and is accepted only due to archaiologiacal evidence.

Greek does not come from Phoenician. The Greek alphabet comes from the Phoenician alphabet. And as I said before, it's not based only on archaeological evidence. There's also the Greek names for the letters, the order of the letters, and also the Greek gematria system, which would make no sense if there was no relationship with the Phoenician alphabet.


the razor of Occam does not reject that maybe both come from same culture,
the use of razor is to cut the 'bad plants' in one field, not to cut another parallel field,

I don't understand what you are trying to say there. What I understand is that you are completely opposed to the idea that the Greek alphabet is derived from the Phoenician alphabet, for reasons I do not understand.

Yetos
08-10-11, 13:59
Because we find signs in Linear B doesn't automatically mean the two scripts are related. If you take a look at the three scripts below (Old Turkic, Runic and Celtiberian) you see that there is a lot of similar symbols that are completely unrelated:

http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/orkhon.gif
http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/eldrfuthark.gif
http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/celtiberian.gif

There is inevitably going to be some similarity between unrelated scripts, especially if you have only a fairly small inventory of relatively simple signs.



Sorry but the Minoans were not Greeks. They spoke an unrelated, as of yet undeciphered language. Also, with the Greco-Aryan hypothesis you're making a lot of conjectures and take them as absolute truth: this hypothesis assumes assumes a common ancestry of Greek and the Indo-Iranic languages (as well as Armenian, which is usually included), but it's absolutely not sensible to place this homeland in Anatolia, because we have another branch of the Indo-European languages in Anatolia, the Anatolian language family (including Hittite and Luwian), which is generally considered the most divergent path of Indo-European languages. There is also the issue that Greek is in many ways closer with the Italic and Celtic languages than it is with Indo-Iranic. Also, by the time the Ugaritic alphabet is invented, the Greek language (written in Linear B) is already attested.



Greek does not come from Phoenician. The Greek alphabet comes from the Phoenician alphabet. And as I said before, it's not based only on archaeological evidence. There's also the Greek names for the letters, the order of the letters, and also the Greek gematria system, which would make no sense if there was no relationship with the Phoenician alphabet.



I don't understand what you are trying to say there. What I understand is that you are completely opposed to the idea that the Greek alphabet is derived from the Phoenician alphabet, for reasons I do not understand.


Let me put it in another way
why A alpha is from Alef and not from Al-fa or another pre-culture ?
assumption,

phoenician 22 Greek 27 about 13-15 same, proved relation ship,
accepted,

starting are Ugarit,

so who is infront and who is after who?
an archaiological evidence,
by that we start and say that Phoeniacian is before the Greek,
so if we find another script older, what we say?

on the other hand, phoenician never in aegean, but pelasgians (or peleset) were,
thyrrenians came from minor asia to greece and from there to italy,

so why we put phoenician, and not the etruscans (pelasgians) that had simmilar alphabet? or even the Hatti, since we know that Hatti lived in Attica?

remember that 9 different sounds is a big difference also to put that Greeks accepted phoenician, but a Hatti or a pelasgian one or an Etruscan one,

simply because we are not well informed from the pelasgian language but we are very well about phoenician so we accept the theory of phoenician,
also an archaiological evidence,

so the today thesis tomorrow can be rejected, by an archaiological evidence,

occam razor, can not reject another theory,
so we can't use razor to reject that a possible theory that both come from same source,

Hal Fao
10-10-11, 01:03
- However, like Greek, Latin also had the sound /g/ for which it had no letter. In the beginning, C would interchangably represent both /g/ and /k/, but later the Romans developed a new letter by adding a stroke to C, thus creating the letter G.
We can’t assume. The letter “g” did not exist in early Latin alphabet. This implies that early Latin lacked the consonant “g”, and like etruscans did not distinguish b/p, d/t, g/k, early latins did not distinguish g/k. The consonant “g” was developed later by latins either because of contacts with other peoples (languages) or as a result of internal development of Latin. If the Latin alphabet was developed two or three centuries earlier, I’m quite sure that the letters “b” and “d” could have not figured too.



… how do you explain that Etruscan had such a different sound inventory from Albanian? Which Etruscan sounds would correspond to Albanian sounds and vice versa? How do you explain that Albanian has the sounds /b/, /d/, /g/, /ɟ/, /ʒ/, /c/, /ð/, /θ/ etc. while Etruscan hasn't?
Even the sound inventories of today’s European languages have some differences (of course not so much, but there is). In my opinion, the lack of sounds “b”, “d”, “g” in Etruscan does not mean that it can not be an IE language just for that reason. If Etruscan was an isoglose, be sure that almost no Etruscan word could be found in today’s European languages.



As you can see, with the notable exception of the Germanic languages, in all language families in the list, the word for 'two' starts with *d. As I stated earlier, the Proto-Indo-Europan word for 'two' is reconstructed as 'dwo-'. Now, regarding the Germanic languages, the word is (with exception of German, but note that German 'z' is pronounced as /ts/) consistently *t. From that, we establish the hypothesis that Germanic *t corresponds with PIE *d. So, if we look at a few other English words, and compare it with cognates in other IE languages (I here take Latin), we can confirm this: …
Such similar cases are numerous in all European languages. And not only for the shift *t > *d but for the shifts *p > *b and *k > *g too. This is also one more reason to believe in the extraordinary impact of Etruscan in almost all European languages. So, if we need to establish the hypothesis that in some cases German *t corresponds with PIE *d (and it really does), we need no hypothesis to prove that in such cases German *t corresponds (and it really fits) with Etruscan *t.



What does this mean for Etruscan and Albanian? You claimed that an Etruscan word 'Tu' (of unknown meaning, but here assumed to be 'two') corresponds with Albanian 'Dy'. This would imply a shift from *t > *d. Sure, why not. If the hypothesis was correct, then we would *t in Etruscan to be regularly shifted to *d. You take the next Etruscan word, 'Tris' (assumed to mean 'three') and compared with the Albanian word, which however is 'Tre'. Apparently, suddenly Etruscan *t corresponds with *t in Albanian. Which one is it?

Because Etruscans did not distinguish b/p, d/t and g/k, it’s quite logical that Etruscan *p either corresponds with PIE *b or it fits with PIE *p; Etruscan *t either corresponds with PIE *d or it fits with PIE *t; Etruscan *k either corresponds with PIE *g or it fits with PIE *k.
In the same way as German *t either corresponds with PIE *d (in some cases), or it fits with PIE *t (in other cases).
And if (in return) I ask you the very same question WHICH ONE IS IT, the only answer would be: BOTH OF THEM!
I’m affraid I’m unable for a better explanation, so I wish you understand.


ALFA
well the word φαω (eat) is modern Greek, ...
Sorry to contradict you, but the Greek word φα/ω have the PIE base *bhag-.
I recommend you to visit www.etymonline.com

-phagous
comb. form meaning "eating, feeding on," from Gk. -phagos "eater of," from phagein "to eat," lit. "to have a share of food," from PIE base *bhag- "to share out, apportion, distribute," also "to get a share" (cf. Skt. bhajati "assigns, allots, apportions, enjoys, loves,"bhagah "allotter, distributor, master, lord," bhaksati "eats, drinks, enjoys;" Pers. bakhshidan "to give;" O.C.S. bogatu "rich").
(bolded by me)
as well as:
http://www.lexilogos.com/english/greek_ancient_dictionary.htm
and search for the word φα/ω. You’ll find there a lot of compound ancient Greek words where φα/ω is part of them.

Yetos
10-10-11, 11:01
Phagous does not mean eat

Phagous it was used for a situation of acid work, axe work etc

for example εφαγα ξυλο,

does not mean I ate wood, But i was in situation of Beating

Phagous and Bacteriophagus in English is Virus,

Phagus is a situation of sick Illnes and errosion,

Acid eat metals, Οξεα φαγουσιν Μεταλλοις, oxea phagousin metallis
acid does not eat mettals, but slowly make them weak and thin


Phagous in ancient Greek does not means eat,
means a situation of descendig process

phagous (virus) does not eat, but slowly cretaes a situation of a descending process that change or even dissapear and kill the pre status


in modern Greek after Roman times, phag- also took the meaning of eat, and in many cases its original meaning it is replaced by the composite word δια-βρωσις where we find the correct word βρωσις with the pre-theme δια, meaning something like 'through' or 'with',

besides you may also find the word ροκανιζω, which means I use a torn,

the 2 ancient words are Βρωττομαι and Θρευομαι -Τρεφομαι

why phag- is not? cause even in modern follows only 1 voice and the noun form is φαγητο and φαι which does follow the rules of ancient, but the modern demodic

just look

Βρωττομαι Βρυθω Βρωσις (fem)
Θρευομαι Θρευω Τροφη - Θρεψις (fem)
?????? Φαω Φαγητο ??? (neu)
All neutral nouns endings in -eto comes from western - et like caminet kamineto instead of Kaminos the Greek words
cavallet καβαλετο etc
and they are considered imported form after roman-byzantine times, cause we don't find that form in early and Hellenistic times.

another story is that there is no future in form,
Βρωττομαι εβρωσσα βροσσομαι (pres past fut)
Φαω εφαγα (φαγισω?) so future does not exist

so as word with that form is earlier form, or an older that changed and took another meaning,

Segia2
10-10-11, 15:52
We can’t assume. The letter “g” did not exist in early Latin alphabet. This implies that early Latin lacked the consonant “g”, and like etruscans did not distinguish b/p, d/t, g/k, early latins did not distinguish g/k. The consonant “g” was developed later by latins either because of contacts with other peoples (languages) or as a result of internal development of Latin. If the Latin alphabet was developed two or three centuries earlier, I’m quite sure that the letters “b” and “d” could have not figured too.

Some peoples adopted writing systems that didn't possess their phonologic inventary, just for geographical proximity. The fact that some of them didn't develop new letters doesn't imply that their language lacked certain sounds. In the iberian peninsula you can see examples of this, such as celtiberian language adopting iberian writing system (wich didn't distinguish between voiced and voiceless consonants, hadn't consonantic groups bl/br/kl....)

The differentiated use of latin /g/ and /k/ isn't arbitrary and can't be explained as an internal evolution. Why to use "centum" and "gens" if there isn't a phonetic rule that would lead to a differentiated solution?

Taranis
10-10-11, 21:04
We can’t assume. The letter “g” did not exist in early Latin alphabet. This implies that early Latin lacked the consonant “g”, and like etruscans did not distinguish b/p, d/t, g/k, early latins did not distinguish g/k. The consonant “g” was developed later by latins either because of contacts with other peoples (languages) or as a result of internal development of Latin. If the Latin alphabet was developed two or three centuries earlier, I’m quite sure that the letters “b” and “d” could have not figured too.

I am sorry to say this, but as Segia2 already said, you have a completely wrong assumption there. The letter 'g' did not exist in early Latin because the Romans adopted the Etruscan alphabet, and the Etruscans didn't distinquish between /g/ or /k/. Indeed, the Romans adopted the other Etruscan convention of using 'q' to represent 'k' before 'u' to represent the 'kw' sound in Latin, and as mentioned we even today have kept this convention (English 'question', 'queen').

One critical issue about sound laws is that they have no memories. So assuming for a moment that Latin indeed merged PIE *g and *k at an earlier point, there is no way how Latin at a later point could have separated *g and *k again because a language has no memory of sound changes, because clearly Latin *g and *k correspond with PIE *g (and *g´) and *k (and *k´). The only reasonable assumption here is that early Latin did indeed distinguish between /k/ and /g/, while the early Latin writing system didn't.


Even the sound inventories of today’s European languages have some differences (of course not so much, but there is). In my opinion, the lack of sounds “b”, “d”, “g” in Etruscan does not mean that it can not be an IE language just for that reason. If Etruscan was an isoglose, be sure that almost no Etruscan word could be found in today’s European languages.

What do you mean by 'isoglose'? By the way, this is the case: we do find almost no word in today's European languages.


Such similar cases are numerous in all European languages. And not only for the shift *t > *d but for the shifts *p > *b and *k > *g too. This is also one more reason to believe in the extraordinary impact of Etruscan in almost all European languages. So, if we need to establish the hypothesis that in some cases German *t corresponds with PIE *d (and it really does), we need no hypothesis to prove that in such cases German *t corresponds (and it really fits) with Etruscan *t.

Because Etruscans did not distinguish b/p, d/t and g/k, it’s quite logical that Etruscan *p either corresponds with PIE *b or it fits with PIE *p; Etruscan *t either corresponds with PIE *d or it fits with PIE *t; Etruscan *k either corresponds with PIE *g or it fits with PIE *k.
In the same way as German *t either corresponds with PIE *d (in some cases), or it fits with PIE *t (in other cases).
And if (in return) I ask you the very same question WHICH ONE IS IT, the only answer would be: BOTH OF THEM!
I’m affraid I’m unable for a better explanation, so I wish you understand.

Actually, Indo-European is constructed with a much larger inventory of sounds which have various reflexes in various Indo-European languages. You have five series of stop sounds in total in PIE, each with an unvoiced, a voiced and a voiced+aspirated consonant:

*p, *b, *bh
*t, *d, *dh
*k, *g, *gh
*k´, *g´, *g´h
*kw, *gw, *gwh

Which leave for some example the following reflexes in various branches of Indo-European:

- in the Centum languages (Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Italic and Tocharian) *k´, *g´, *g´h from PIE are merged with *k, *g and *gh respectively, whereas in the Satem languages (Albanian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic) they are turned into fricative sounds instead.

- in the Celtic languages *p from PIE is generally lost (compare Irish 'Athair' vs. Latin 'Pater'). *gw is shifted to *b (compare Gaulish 'bena' and Irish 'bean' with English 'queen'), and *bh, *dh and *gwh become /b/, /d/ and /gw/ (but only after *gw > *b, obviously).

- In Latin, *bh yields *f at the beginning of a word, but *b in the middle of a word, which is why it is 'frater' in Latin, but 'bratir' in Gaulish and 'brother' in English.

- in the ancient Greek language, *bh, *dh and *gh are devoiced to /ph/, /th/ and /kh/ (represented by the letters Phi, Theta and Chi respectively), and later shifted to /f/, /θ/ and /x/ respectively.

- Sanskrit retains *bh, *dh and *gh.

- the Germanic languages make a chain shift (called 'Grimm's Law' or the 'First Germanic Sound Shift'), in which:

*bh > *b, *b > *p, *p > *f
*dh > *d, *d > *t, *t > *θ
*gh > *g, *g > *k, *k > *x (later *h)

A typical example would be the English words 'father' vs. Latin 'pater' or 'hound' vs. 'canis', Latin 'centum' vs. English 'hundred', and so on.

- Albanian, without exception, merged *bh, *dh, *gh, *g´h with *b, *d, *g, *g´ respectively. *g´ later became *ð while *k´ became *θ (which is why Albanian is a Satem language). However, many additional Albanian sound shifts are based on where specifically in a word is sound located:

For example PIE *kw yields /k/ in Albanian in most cases, but yields /s/ before positions where a front vowel (i or e) stood in PIE. For this reason, PIE *kwetores (four) yields Albanian 'katër' but PIE *penkwe yields *pesë.

None of the Albanian sound correspondences would really make any sense if you take Etruscan as the source language, because as mentioned Etruscan is fundamentally non-Indo-European. One very critical issue I would like to bring up here is the absence of /o/ in Etruscan, which is found in PIE as well as Albanian (as well as most IE language).


Some peoples adopted writing systems that didn't possess their phonologic inventary, just for geographical proximity. The fact that some of them didn't develop new letters doesn't imply that their language lacked certain sounds. In the iberian peninsula you can see examples of this, such as celtiberian language adopting iberian writing system (wich didn't distinguish between voiced and voiceless consonants, hadn't consonantic groups bl/br/kl....)

The differentiated use of latin /g/ and /k/ isn't arbitrary and can't be explained as an internal evolution. Why to use "centum" and "gens" if there isn't a phonetic rule that would lead to a differentiated solution?

I absolutely agree with your post here except for a small nitpick: Iberian, just like Celtiberian distinguished between voiced and voiceless stops, but Tartessian (the language for which the oldest writing system of Iberia was actually developed) didn't make such a distinction. It's also in my opinion the most straightforward reason why Tartessian is not a Celtic language. To quote Zeidler (http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html), the Tartessian script is hardly suitable for representing an Indo-European language.