Re: Carthage?

On Monday, November 29, 2004, at 11:02 , 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.
Ach!!!! - Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam ESSE.

> 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,
It most certainly would strange as the Carthaginians had built up quite a
sizable empire before they were destroyed by the Romans in the 3rd cent
BCE.

> but I can't recall having heard of any. I suppose they'll have used some
> form of the Phoenician alphabet.
Yes, they did.
==============================================

On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, at 04:56 , Stephen Mulraney wrote:

[snip]
> 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
You are correct. The phoenician colony of Carthage dates IIRC from the 9th
cent BCE - so a good few hundred years for them to leave some records
before the Romans destroyed the city. But by the time the Romans did this,
  the Carthaginians had set up their own colonies around the western
Mediterranean and _Punic_ (the Carthaginian language) survived the
destruction of the city. In fact Punic inscriptions cover almost a
thousand years, from the 9th century BCE down to the 1st century BCE.
Inscriptions have been found in North Africa (obviously), Spain, the
Belearic islands, southern France, Sicily and Malta. (It was in fact the
quarrels between Greeks & Carthaginians in Sicily that gave the Romans the
excuse to begin hostilities against the rival super-power of the western
Med.)

> 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),
...with good reason - it did not require decipherment    :)

The Romans called the Carthaginians _Poeni_ and their language _lingua Pu:
nica_ (hence our 'Punic')*; these words are obviously connected with our
word 'Phoenician' (<-- Greek: Phoinike: "Phoenicia")**. The Carthaginians
used the well-known Phoenician alphabet & their language was essentially
that of the Phoenicians which any competent Semeticist can read. I believe
it is quite similar to Biblical Hebrew.

*early Latin _oe_ often become long-u in later Latin, e.g. _oenus_ -->
u:nus "one".
** Latin _Carthaginienses_ referred either to the inhabitants of _Nouua
Carthago_ (New Carthage) in Spain - the modern Cartegena - or to the
inhabitants of the new Roman city of Carthage, founded by the Emperor
Augustus on the site of the old north African city.

It was in fact a bit like the position a former colony of Britain known as
the USA - it uses the same alphabet and essentially the same language, and
also - just like ancient Carthage - it has ceased to be a colony & become
a separate nation and is now more powerful than its former homeland. The
position of Carthage & Phoenicia was very similar.

Anyway, it means there is no problem reading Carhaginian inscriptions, at
least not the early ones. Unlike the analogy above where our American
cousins, tho differing occasionally in spelling, have not developed the
written form of the alphabet they inherited, the Carthaginians did develop
their writing system quite independently of their Phoenican homeland. The
early inscriptions, like most early Semitic inscriptions, rarely indicated
vowels; but by the mid 3rd cent BCE _plene writing_ (use of certain
letters to indicate vowels) had become common & systematic. The Neo-Punic
writing of the later centuries under the Romans became extremely cursive
and is, I understand, quite difficult to read.

> 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.
Absolutely - it is well known. But tho I've snipped the Numidian bit -
that's much more interesting  :)

[snip]

> 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
Indeed - to answer Rodlox's question: "Yes, there are to be sure, to be
sure"      ;)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Reply