geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

[geoffreycaveney]

(continued)

1. The omission rules are not stable.

You have used Linear B as an example where Greek could be written with a hugely different script. However, according to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the omission rules seem quite stable and constant for me. For example:

Omission Rules:

1. Final -l, -r, -n, -m, -s and some diphtongs cannot be expressed in Linear B, so they are simply omitted.
   
2. Consonant clusters are sometimes expressed by inserting an adjacent vowel.
   
3. However, initial s in consonant clusters is usually omitted.
   
4. Linear B has only k/q, so k/kh/g are not distinguished.
   
5. Linear B has only p, so p/ph/b are not distinguished. Except a possible phu is used sometimes.
   
6. Linear B has d/t, so d/t are distinguished, but t/th are not.
   
7. Linear B has only r, so l/r are not distinguished.
   
8. Linear B has j/w, so they are properly used.
   

And let us see some example of words:

a-pi-qo-ro = amphiquoloi (1) (5) (7)
a-te-mi-ti-jo = artemitios (1) (6) (8)
a-to-ro-qo = anthrōquos (1) (6) (7)
ko-no = skhoinos (1) (3) (4)
ko-no-so = knōsos[/i] (1) (2) (4)
ku-ru-so = khrusos (1) (4) (7)
ku-wa-no = kuanos (1) (4) (8)
o-da-tu-we-ta = odatwenta (1) (6) (8)
phu-te-re = phutēres (1) (5) (6) (7)
pu-te = phutē (5) (6)
qo-u-ko-ro = guoukoloi (1) (4) (7)
ti-ri-po = tripos (1) (2) (5) (6) (7)
tu-ri-so = tulisos (1) (6) (7)

They all fit the simple rules above quite well.

As we know, without relatively fixed rules, it would be hard to interpret from defected script back into original script.

For example, last month, I heard a Japanese saying a new word I’ve never heard before: sokui. To figure out what it might be, I have done these things in my mind.

1. From context (The Sokui of the Emperor is going to be in May) I know it’s a verb-noun or noun, so adjacents are not possible.
   
2. The k is a short consonant, not long consonant, so this is probably a Sino-Japanese word or a native Japanese word, but almost impossible to be an English word.
   
3. If it is a native Japanese word, there is no way I could figure it out by guessing. Go on with Sino-Japanese word.
   
4. In Sino-Japanese word, each kanji corresponds to 1 or 2 morae, so so-ku-i must be at least two kanji.
   
5. I searched in my mind and found no Kanji could be read as kui, so soku-i is the most possible candidate. So-ku-i is also possible, but most Sino-Japanese words are 2-kanji words. We’ll come back later if soku-i fails.
   
6. Japanese i usually corresponds to wei in Mandarin Chinese, with 位 (seat, place) being very common. Because Chinese wei was transliterated into Middle Japanese wi, and then Middle Japanese wi became Modern Japanese i.
   
7. At this step, a Chinese word 即位 jíwèi (enthrone, enthronement) came into my mind. This word fits the context well.
   
8. I verified the Japanese reading of 即 and it is certainly soku.
   
9. Resolved the new word sokui as enthronement.
   

As you could see, there are many rules that helped me during the deduction.

However, in your You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., you have to add arbitrary suffixes:

interpretation:
" ouk-ouden  an  [e]meis  kathar'[a]  ethelom[en]  autes  ti'-[o]poies  ekheis  ou  ethel'[ei]  oks[e]os "

" ουκ-ουδεν  αν  [η]μεις  καθαρ'[α]  εθελομ[εν]  αυτες  τι'-[ο]ποιες  εχεις  ου  εθελ'[ει]  οξ[ε]ως "

I’m not a professional in Greek, so I cannot be certain if these suffixes could be omitted in this way but still recognized by readers. I would place a question mark here.

(This is long, so I’ll write in separate posts)

Chen Zhe: Once again, thank you for your detailed commentary on my theory. I am grateful and appreciative for the careful attention that you have given to my ideas.

I explained the logic behind the possibility of omitting "[e]" in "[e]meis" in a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in this thread.

The word "kathar'[a]" is an adverb: "purely, neatly, plainly, clearly". Even if one were to interpret this word as an adjectival form somehow, the overall meaning of the sentence would not change much: "...we purely [don't] want/wish for..." vs. "...we pure ones [don't] want/wish for...." In this word, with this root, in this place in the sentence, the suffix simply can't affect the meaning in any very significant way. 

Moreover, in this case in Greek pronunciation we have elision of the final vowel before the initial vowel of the following word. In pronunciation, it is actually more natural to drop this vowel than to pronounce it. Modern example to illustrate the point: The second line of the Greek folk song "Pes mou pos ginete" begins with the words "αφου εχεις..." ("aphou ekheis..."). You can read the lyrics You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Now listen to Greek singer Haris Alexiou sing the line at 0:25 to 0:30 of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. You will hear that she sings "af-ekhis...." She does not pronounce the vowel of the final diphthong of the first word at all, even though it has the stress accent of the first word on it.

By far the most significant omission is that of "ethelom[en]". But I note first of all that I found this same abbreviation of this same suffix, the 1st person plural verb ending, three more times in the following line alone. The MS text is at least consistent in this respect. Second, the meaning of the abbreviated suffix is not in doubt, because the subject "we" was explicitly stated in the word "[e]meis". In short, I see no way that the words " 'meis ethelom' " could possibly be unclear to any Greek speaker and reader. I note further that in modern Greek, the "-n" of this suffix has already been dropped completely.

In fact, if in the author's late medieval dialect the "-n" of the suffix had already been dropped, then the further elision of the final vowel before the initial vowel of the following word would also be natural and normal in Greek.

The only other arbitrary suffix in this line is in "ethel'[ei]". First of all, once again, and most importantly, this is above all elision of a final vowel before the initial vowel of the following word. Again, this is completely natural and normal in Greek.

In this case, it is the second part of the verb phrase "ekheis...ethel'[ei]", meaning "you-have...wanted/wished for". In fact, in this post-classical Greek grammatical construction, the syntax is rather similar to modern English. The omitted suffix "[ei]" is rather similar to the "ed" at the end of "wanted" or "wished". So this omission creates a Greek phrase rather akin to an English phrase like "you have...want" or "you have...wish". The meaning would not be unclear at all. But more importantly, the elision of the final vowel before a following initial vowel is the natural and normal pronunciation in Greek.

Geoffrey