@olawikander.bsky.social @bnuyaminim.bsky.social Any idea why Greek adds an -α to phoenician letter names (e.g. αλφα for אלף etc.), instead of e.g. the thematic vowel -ο? Is there an ending in early Northwest Semitic to account for this, apart from an accusative (which should not be relevant)? - ThreadSky

schaljoh.bsky.social • 33 days ago

@olawikander.bsky.social @bnuyaminim.bsky.social
Any idea why Greek adds an -α to phoenician letter names (e.g. αλφα for אלף etc.), instead of e.g. the thematic vowel -ο? Is there an ending in early Northwest Semitic to account for this, apart from an accusative (which should not be relevant)?

Comments

schaljoh.bsky.social•33 days ago

The Aramaic -a at the end of nouns must be too late for this? And as a novation not compatible with Phoenician origins of the Greek letters?
Or could the Greek letter names be younger than the alphabet?

schaljoh.bsky.social•33 days ago

And would a letter name like for example λαμβδα point to a construct state of למד indicating a suffixation in Semitic? I know the segolats may have been monosyllabic still: alp, dælth for example but lamed, is that even a segolat?

bnuyaminim.bsky.social•33 days ago

I do think the names are younger, hope to write about that sometime. I guess the -a could be from Aramaic, but the Aramaic letter names don't actually have it. So I wonder if it's a way to integrate word-final consonants and clusters that are impermissible in Greek.

schaljoh.bsky.social•33 days ago

I don’t know Greek morphophonology well enough to ensure whether the choice of -α in that case calls for an explanation. If the vowel was short it stands out as not the most common nominal ending. Maybe knowledge of Aramaic could have influenced that choice hypercorrectly?

schaljoh.bsky.social•33 days ago

Of course an -o would drag a nominative ending with it: -on or -os. So -a may have an advantage there.

schaljoh.bsky.social•33 days ago

The -α/ατ- nouns were not that uncommon, even productive probably?

mweissohcgl.bsky.social•33 days ago

All clusters except ks, ps, and -ts (probably) were impermissible and only r, n, s are permissible finals. A prop vowel was necessary. Why α was chosen is hard to say. (1) Letters are indeclinable nt. and other nt. end in -a. (2) Cf. σίττα (st!) and ψίττα (pst!)calls to animals with paragogic -a.

bnuyaminim.bsky.social•33 days ago

So one thing that bugs me if the Greek names were taken directly from Phoenician, and the Phoenician names were like the ones we know from Hebrew and Syriac... why didn't nun and resh keep their final consonant?

mweissohcgl.bsky.social•33 days ago

For rho maybe misanalysis in the sequences rossin?

olawikander.bsky.social•33 days ago

People have already said smart things in this thread - got into it too late :-) . But thanks for including me anyway!

robertobatisti.bsky.social•32 days ago

On the origin of the Semitic and Greek letter names see this 2008 paper by Andreas Willi. The prop-vowel -α and the loss of -n, -š in νῦ, ῥῶ are discussed on p. 413; the vocalism of ῥῶ, on p. 414.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27564173.pdf

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply