Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT: an axe to grind

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Monday, February 13, 2006, 8:46
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:46:22 -0500, R A Brown
[snip]
>> Thus Furnée does not say that _pelekus_ is borrowed from the >> Akkadian, but he suggests that both are independent borrowings of a >> pre-IE (and by implication pre-Semitic) neolithic 'Kulturwort'. I >> imagine that double-headed axes for tree felling were quite important >> to neolithic peoples :) > > > I'm vaguely suspicious of such "vaguely primitive, of unspecified > nature" etymologies by, well, nature. The word must have had a home at > some point,
Furnée places the home in the north of 'Vorderasien' which, if I am not mistaken, is that part world that we Brits called the 'Near East' when i was a youngster, but is now more commonly called 'Middle East' (which in those far off days didn't begin till you got to Iran), i.e. from Mediterranean coast to Iraq.
> and for it to have spread between Greece and India (taking > in Mesopotamia),
I assume he would consider the Indic forms to have been picked up by IE-speakers as they migrated towards the subcontinent.
> it fairly definitely must have been a home within one > of the established and familiar major families.
We do know from written evidence that non-IE (and non-Semitic) languages were spoken in ancient Asia Minor, e.g. Kaskian, Hattic (the 'true Hittite'), Hurrian, Urartian. Urartian indeed is attested well into the early part of the 1st millennium BCE. Even at the end of the 1st Millennium BCE we find non-IE & non-Semitic languages in the area: Pontic, Paphlagonian, Mariandynian, Cappadocian & Cataonian. The problem is that the fragmentary nature of the surviving evidence makes it difficult to trace their development & group them in clear 'family groups'. But they existed. There is also the fact that a large part of the vocabulary of the IE languages such as Hittite (Nesite)), Palaic, Luwian, Tabalic, and the later Lydian, Carian, Cilician, Pisidian etc. is of non-IE origin. There is certainly clear evidence IMO of the existence in this area of non-IE & non-Semitic langs which cannot, because of our restricted knowledge, be placed in established and major families.
> One only has to look at > the other terms that surely must have been essential to Neolithic (or > even Mesolithic) life (as witnessed by the global archeological > record), in comparison with the linguistic record traceable to > something near the same period. It's clear that primitive technology > does not spring into existence fully-formed over the span of > continents, complete with a premade panlinguistic term (more modern > technology,
Yes, of course. I assume Furnée would counter that it was a chance borrowing from one specific area. As the guy is now dead we cannot ask him. I have tried to find out more about Akkadian _pilaqqu/pilakku_ and have discovered, inter_alia, the following: http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/fascism/witzelmisattribute.html {quote} He [Witzel] actually mentions only two, and I may perhaps concede his first point, viz. that "Ved. parashu, 'axe', is not from Mesop. pilakku, 'spindle'" though such a link has been accepted by many European academics (e.g. T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin 1995, p.620) and is by no means an invention of Indian eccentrics. {quote} http://www.encislam.brill.nl/data/EncIslam/C7/COM-0207.html {quote} In Akk. it appears as pilakku, which denotes the whorl of the spindle as well as the double-edged axe (to be distinguished from the single-edged axe, Akk.p§àu......... The double significance is readily explained by the resemblance of the whorl with the head of the double-axe, both being round and pierced so as to be mounted on the spindle, or else on the handle. {/quote} I have also come across Proto-Nostratic theories & sites dealing with mystic 'lightening' symbols :) The question seems to be whether the Akkadian _pilakku/pilaqqu_ just means "spindle, whorl" (which is presumably Beekes' position) or whether it also meant "double-ax". Also several articles connect the word with Arabic _falaqa_ "to split, to divide lengthwise". If the Greek was a borrowing from a Semitic *plq it might account for the hesitation between single and double kappa as the semitic [q] was adopted into Greek. Is *plq a Semitic root? Does anyone know? I guess all that we can safely say is that _pelekus_ (pelekkos etc) has no obvious PIE root and some have suggested a connexion with Akkadian _pilakku/pilaqqu_, tho this is contested, and/or with a Semitic root *plq (to split) seen in Arabic _falaqa_. -- Ray ================================== ray@carolandray.plus.com http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Reply

Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>