Re: Etymology of Greek Word Muia??

From: Miguel Carrasquer (mcv_at_wxs.nl)
Date: 03/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:43:05 GMT

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:02:37 -0000, "Douglas G. Kilday"
<fufluns@chorus.net> wrote:

Funny, I never saw grapheus' message. It must have tripped
some anti upper-case filter installed somewhere.

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2005 07:30:48 -0800, grapheus@www.com wrote:
>>
>> >Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> >> On 13 Mar 2005 01:34:14 -0800, grapheus@www.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> The Greek word is based on *mus- (*mus-ih2 > *musya) because
>> >> >> *-sy- regularly develops to -y- (by way of -sy- > -hy- >
>> >> >> -yy-), although sometimes we see an irregular development
>> >> >> *-sy- > *-y- > zero (e.g. the o-stem genitive *-osyo > -oio
>> >> >> [Homer] or -oo = -ou [Attic]).
>> >> >
>> >> >Wrong assumption ! The Proto-Ionic decipherment of the Phaistos Disk
>> >> >has shown that the Homeric -<-oio> and <oo> forms have TWO DIFFERENT
>> >> >ORIGINS. One comes from *-osyo, the second from *oyo.
>> >>
>> >> Bull***. There is no *-oyo,
>> >
>> >Ha,ha,ha !... Your "explanation" of the duality of the Homeric forms
>> ><-oio> and <-oo> is UNIQUELY BASED upon the "Risch-Chadwick Theory",
>>
>> I have no idea what the "Risch-Chadwick" theory is.
>
>I suppose you are kidding !..

No.

>> The PIE gen.sg. of o-stems is *-osyo. There is no **-oyo.
>
>Except that in some Greek dialects, *-osyo has become *-oyo, what
>explains the Homeric duality -oio / ou > -oo. See Lejeune "Trait de
>Phon tique grecque", p. 114, accepting the simplification of -yy- in
>-y-.

Yes, that's what I said (I checked in Lejeune's Phonétique
historique du Mycénien et du Grec Ancien, p. 132-133, where
*-yy- is described as "le traitement régulier", and *-y- as
"réduction occasionelle de *-yy- à -y-").

>> >considered as a DOGMA : As this duality DOESN'T EXIST in MYCENAEAN,
>> >you POSTULATE "an irregular development of *-sy " (your words)...

Lejeune's words, in fact.

>> Indeed. This is also seen in denominative verbs (Homeric
>> tele o: vs, Attic-Ionic tel o: > tel :) and in thematic
>> formations derived from s-stems (Homeric/Attic t leios vs.
>> Ionian (Herodotus) t leos).
>
>YES !.. And these examples can be explained by the existence of
>"Proto-Ionic" !
>More generally, many of the "double forms" in the Homeric texts can be
>explained by the "double source" of those texts : an ancient one
>(Proto-Ionic) -- a more r cent one ("Ionic" tricto sensu).

Homer's language is a mix of several dialects. The main
component is Ionian, but there are also Aeolian and Attic
elements (the Attic element may not be original, but merely
due to the fact that the text as we have it was written down
in Athens). The genitive in -oio is Ionian, the genitive in
-ou, sporadically seen in Homer, seems to be Attic, but may
be a metric substitution for Aeolic/Thessalian -oi (< -oio).

>> If Faucounau's "decipherment" of the Phaistos Disk relies on
>> the existence side by side of two genitive forms *-osyo and
>> *-oyo, then that's one more reason why the decipherment is
>> rubbish.
>
>If you read his decipherment, there is no such a thing.

Ah, proof that grapheus is not Faucounau! Take B VII
(26/30), where F. reads the genitives kro-syo-o (khruseioo)
and i-po-o (hippoo).

>> Greek *-s- seems to be a problem for Faucounau: the first
>> line of the "decipherment" reads:
>>
>> ka-s-r-ko-syo pa-yi-s a-ri-o a-a-mo
>> kas (A)rgosyo payis Ario(:n) a(h)amo(s)
>> and of Argos child Ario:n without-equal
>>
>> Proto-Greek *kasi (< *kati[?]) gives kai everywhere (including
>> Ionian), only Cypriot has kas.
>
>YES !. An <kas> is accepted as AN ARCHA SM.

No it isn't. It's simply an apocopated form of original
*kasi.

>> Note that the development
>> *Vti > Vsi in Greek necessarily comes after the loss of
>> PIE *-s- between vowels and before *y.
>
>SIMPLISTIC REASONING !.. Both developments (sibillation of -Vti and
>-s->-h-) are INDEPENDENT !.. Moreover, the second change
>(disappearance of -s-) has NEVER BEEN COMPLETE IN GREEK !.. But, of
>course, you don't care. For you all the -s- have the same birthday's
>date!!!!

Au contraire, I care very much about the relative
chronology. Original *-s- between vowels was lost in Greek,
which means that the development *-Vti- > -Vsi- can only
have taken place _after_ the loss of intervocalic *-s- had
taken its course. Otherwise, all assibilated t's would have
been eliminated as well.

>> F.'s poor attempt at
>> explaining Grk. poiweo: "I make" as from *potiweo: is
>> utterly incompatible with a genitive desinence -osyo.
>
>NOT AT ALL !.. *YOU* see it as incompatible because you are REASONING
>in a TOTAL NEGLECT of the COMPLEXITY of the FACTS. The same reasoning
>would lead to "A PRIORI" NEGATE the existence of DATIVE in -si like
><polesi> in Classical Grek. Well, sorry, but THESE DATIVES DO EXIST
>!!!!

The usual explanation for i-stem -isi and u-stem -usi is
analogy with the C-stems, where -Csi was not lost, and
especially the s-stems, which had Dpl. -es-si (Homeric
poliessi).

The development poti > posi necessarily comes after the
development -osyo > -oy(y)o has run its course.

>> "Rgosyo" (or Argosyo, whatever: Faucounau has the supposed
>> author of the inscription, Ario:n, write his own name
>> indifferently as *a-ri-o, *o-ri-o or *ri-o)
>
>WRONG ! Read J.F.'s book !.. a-ri-(h)o is the regular form --
>o-ri-(h)o is a contracted form < a-ri-o> with the
>article/demonstrative. As the form *ri-o with apokop , it is the
>result of the versification.

Which versification?

>>seems to imply
>> that -s- was maintained in the genitive ending. On the
>> other hand *s- in *sm.mos > (h)amos (in fact homos < *somos
>> "equal") would already have been lost. This is clearly
>> absurd: *-s- normally should drop in *-sy- before it drops
>> in initial position.
>
>Once again, you are REASONING WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
>COMPLEXITY of the CHANGES !..
>a)- The root *SeM- : "equal" is a VERY ANCIENT root, and the initial s-
>is SURELY "proto-IE.

Surely.

>It has given German zu-sammen, but Latin similis,
>with two different changes of the vowel. Why it would have not given in
>Greek a form <*Hamos> , as in Avestan ?

Because you cannot maintain simultaneously that -s- = -s-
and s- > h-. The Avestan o-stem genitive sg. is -ahya,
stupid.

>b)- on the contrary, the -s- of the genitive *-syo is A LOT MORE RECENT
>(It is NOT found in German or Latin, for instance).

As Douglas has already explained, it *is* in Italic.
It's also in Germanic. It is in fact everywhere:

Ved. -asya
Av. -ahya
Grk. -oio, -oo
Slav. -eso (in the pronoun c^eso "of what")
Latin -uiiu- (< *-osyo [cuiius, huiius]), -i:u- (< *-esyo
[illi:us, isti:us]), -i: (< *-esyo, *-yosyo?)
Celtiberian -o: < *-o(s)yo, other Celtic -i: (< *-esyo?,
*-yosyo?)
Gothic *-es(a) < *-esyo, other Germanic *-as(a) < *-os(y)o.
Armenian -oy < *-osyo
Luwian -assa- < *-osyo-

>There is therefore no "absurdity", as you are pretending with your
>SIMPLISTIC REASONING, which TOTALLY NEGLECTS the DATATION PROBLEM !...
>
>> Final -s is always maintained in Greek, but Faucounau has
>> pa-yi-s with -s written, and in the same line a-mo
>> with -s not written.
>
>YES. This is a FACT OF THE SCRIPT, not a fact of language. The scribe
>"had to" mention the final -s of <payis> for versification (and better
>comprehension) motives, not the final -s of <hamos>.

If you're going to invent (Faucounau, that is) a
non-syllabic sign -s- (something utterly alien to the Aegean
syllabaries), then why not use it?

>> The combination -st- is also a problem: /s/ is not written
>> in lae-yi-to (supposedly le:(w)iston), but written in
>> pi-sto-ma (supposedly pist omai)
>
>SAME EXPLANATION as hereabove. You could find similar "scribal
>incoherences" in Mycenaean or in the Cypriot Syllabic script.

No we don't.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@wxs.nl