Re: Carthage?

Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting "Pascal A. Kramm" <pkramm@...>:
>
>
>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:33:18 +0200, Rodlox <Rodlox@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>this may sound silly...are there any accurate translations of the language
>>>of pre-Roman Carthage?
>>
>>Not that I know of...
>>Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam est.
>
>
> There's supposed to be a few inscriptions from Roman times of Punic written in
> Roman letters. It would be strange if there was _nothing_ left from pre-Roman
> times, but I can't recall having heard of any. I suppose they'll have used some
> form of the Phoenician alphabet.
I've sure I've read things which suggest that the language was not lost at all.
A brief googling reveals, for example, a grammar (dead-tree format only):
http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id9274.htm

I read Johannes Freidrich's "Extinct Languages" a while ago; it's mainly about the
decypherment of dead languages, but he doesn't deal directly with Punic (Carthaginian),
instead he mentions in the context of a few other language; for example, the Numidian
language is partially understood because there are bilingual inscriptions in Numidian
and Latin, and in Numidian and Punic. He then gives a Punic text, translates it without
much comment, and uses the translation to deduce a few features of Numidian. In other
words, he treats Punic just like any other known language. It's a Semitic lang.

Here's a brief sample; it's vowelless :). I'll use _S_ for s-caron, s| for s-macron,
T for t-underdot. He capitalises some words (not in the original, I suppose); There's
no mention what these mean, or indeed what any of the other letter signify. I've
removed the capitalisation and replaced it by _underscores_ around the word.

   (1) t mqdS z bn' b'l' _thgg_ l-_msnsn_ h-mmlkt bn _g'jj_ h-mmlkt bn Zllsn h-SfT
       b-St 's|r S-[mlk]
   (2) mwksn b-St SfT h-mmlkt bn 'fSn  h-mmlkt rbt m't Snk kn Bnj w-SfT bn Ngm bn Tnkw

Well, it continues like that - "X son of Y etc". At least I assume "bn" is "son". I have
to turn to the next page to get the answer, so I have the luxury of guessing :). I also
see one of the few other Semitic roots I recognise: MLK, "king".

For fun (and suspense), here's the Numidian version. t| = t-underline. I guess the "."
marks are word boundaries that appear in the original.

    (6) Sk[n] . _tbgg_ . bnjfS . msnsn . gldt| . w-_gjj_ . gldt| . w-_zllsn_ Sft
    (7) sbsndh . gldt| . sjsh . gld . _mkwsn_
    (8) Sft . gldt| . w-_fSn_ . gldt| . mwsnh . Snk . w-_bnj_ . w-Snk . d-SfT . w-_M[gn?]

The Numidian version seems, at the least, to have different lineation, but I think this
sample covers the same ground as the Punic. The word for "son" seems to be "gld" and
"gldt|", and "w-" is son. Freidrich says "[E]ven this meagre linguistic material makes
it evident that, insofar as the vowelless consonantal skeleton of the language justifies
a conclusion, the Numidian language is of antiquity is identical with the Berber spoken,
as a secondary language to Arabic, in North Africa today...". He then conclude that the
Berber language hasn't changed at all in 2 millenia. Whatever the truth of this, I presume
he not completely off the mark in identifying it as an ancestor of Berber.

Now to English it - (as I suggested, it's the Punic version that's translated here):

(1) This temple-ACC there built the citizens of Thuggs for King Masinissa, son of King
     Gaja, son of the Suffete Zllsn, in the tenth year of the reign
(2) of Micipsa, in the year of King SfT, son of King 'fSn. Commanders of the one hundred
     /were/ Snk, son of Bnj, and SfT, son of Ngm /Magon?/, son of Tnkw.

Apparantly, the Numidians flourished around and after the Second Punic War (218-201 BC),
which gives a rough idea of when we're talking about.

s.
--
To be sure, to be sure

Reply