Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 14 March 2006

the claim that there was a Greek elite installed at Troy in the 13th century is almost mainstream (see Alaksandus). Not "accepted", but "possible, no problem". Since it is undisputed that Greeks were all over the place by 1400 BC, and widely accepted that there may have been a Ionic-Mycenean split by that time, this goes nowhere towards establishing Ionians in the 3rd millennium, let alone the early 3rd millennium. Keep the claims separate. "Greeks were in Troy", fine. "Ionians in 3000 BC", different animal. dab (ᛏ) 13:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But what Faucounau really cares about is that Ionians were in the Aegean in 1700 BC or so, so that his decipherment is not impossible. The business about 2900 BC is intended to prove that - and enlist the archaeo-astronomers in his cause.Septentrionalis 15:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the Ionian-Mycenaean split by then? If this is mainstream, the linguistic argument may be reducible to a cross-reference. Septentrionalis 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If I've correctly understood J.F.'s theory, the 13th century Troy would be a city populated by a mixed population : Luwians and descendents of the Proto-Ionians, with double names : Pâris (Luwian)/ Alexandros (Greek). This view is, of course, against the mainstream, thinking that Alexandros/Alexandus would be an Achaean/Mycenaean from the "Akhijawa kingdom". J.F's arguments are : 1)-none of the Hittite Tablets related to Akhijawans mentions "Wilusa" -- the Hittite tablets mentioning "Wilusa" mention also "Lazpa" -- but as W. Lamb in Thermi has written, there has been no Mycenaeans in Lesbos, contrary to Samos, Rhodes, Miletos, etc. To solve this riddle, some, as J.Freu, have been as far as denying that Lazpa = Lesbos (See RANT 1-2004)., in order to keep the equation : Alexandus = an Achaean king. 2)- Almost no Mycenaean pottery has been found at Troy before Troy VIIa, i.e. after the conquest of the city by the Achaeans. Well, the Alexandus Treaty was signed before that !... 3)- Apollon was the Alexandus' God. There is no god of this name in the Linear B tablets. (User 80.90.57.154, 17:10, 3 March 200§)

That will take work to make into article text. If Apollo is a tribal god of the Ionians (and the Dorians), but not of the Achaeans, a partition so long ago as 2900 sounds unlikely. But there is an old argument that Homer's Apollo Smintheus, god of mice and darkness, is a local (Trojan?) cult. I guess I should go read Renfrew (JF p. 61). Septentrionalis 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I share this view (and I suppose that J.F. would accept it. He has written something on this, but I can't remember where): it seems that Apollon was mainly a Trojan God, as shown by the Alexandus Treaty. (User 80.90.57.154, 16:30, 3 March 2006)

paddle

I don't think this is the place to discuss Grimm's law. And even if it were, it wouldn't apply to paddle (noun), since that's a Latin loan in English. It is a little bit different for paddle (verb) apparently, but this doesn't seem to be under discussion. If it were, we would find ourselves in precisely the territory of the one "exception" to Grimm's law, English path, explained, for lack of anything better, as an Iranian(!) loan. For the purposes of Faucounau, paddle (n.) is from Latin patella. dab (ᛏ) 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we are talking about paddle (v.). This was influenced by paddle (n.), but originally meant just "to tramp about" and has cognates in Low German/Dutch, but for further etymologization faces the same problems as path. Not a compelling argument (obscurus per obscurium), to be sure, but we cannot dismiss it with reference to the "spade" meaning. dab (ᛏ) 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted; I'll recheck OED. JF, writing in French, chooses Eng. paddle, which implies he thinks it's native (else why not choose the Latin or French representatives of patella?) Septentrionalis 00:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, but is he talking about paddle (v.) or paddle (n.)? dab (ᛏ) 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)