Re: Carthage (was: C etc.)

On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:57 AM, R A Brown wrote:

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>> Quoting R A Brown <ray@...>:
>>> K virtually disappeared. It was retain as an abbreviation for the
>>> proper
>>> name Casca, and also, where context made clear, for Carthage,
>>> Calends,
>>> calumny (calumnia) and 'caput' (head).
>>  Reminds me: was _Carthago_ pronounced as _Cart-hago_, reflecting
>> more closely
>> Phoenician/Punic _Qart-H.adasht_, or _Car-thago_ as if from Greek?
>
> Interesting question. As you obviously know it was not from the
> Greek name for the city which was _Karkhe:do:n_ (or, presumably, in
> Doric Greek _Karkha:do:n_).
>
> The Latin form is certainly closer to the Punic name. Presumably
> the Romans would have picked up the name of the city from peoples
> of Sicily, both Greek & Carthaginian - indeed, it was the struggles
> between these two colonial powers (never mind the native Sicels,
> Sicanian & Elymians) that got the Romans first involved with the
> Carthaginians.
>
> While Latin Cart- would be fair Latinization of Punic _Qart_
> (city), -ha:go: (genitive: -ha:ginis) is too far removed from
> _H.adasht_ (new) for the Latin to be directly derived from the
> Punic. The Latin name looks almost as tho it is a 'portmanteau
> formation': a Latinized blend of Doric Greek & Punic. In which case
> I think _Car-tha-go_ is likely to have been the normal
> syllabification from the start.
How is it a portmanteau, though? I don't see exactly what the
ingredient parts would have been.

Incidentally, a classicist I know told me a few years ago that Punic
had a habit of abbreviating words by truncating them and adding -o,
thus giving _Qart H.ado_ (and possibly _Hanno_?). He didn't offer an
explanation for the /g/, though.

>
> As hostilities grew bitter between the two nations, then it is very
> unlikely IMO that any attempt would have been made to reflect a
> Punic pronunciation & by the high Classical period, Punic had
> probably ceased to be spoken.
>
>> Greek loans
>> must have accounted for by far the most instances of |th| in
>> Classical Latin.
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> --
> Ray

Reply