Re: OT: an axe to grind

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