whatmough - on the phonology of the messapic dialect

7/27/2019 Whatmough - On the Phonology of the Messapic Dialect

1/7


2/7

ON THE PHONOLOGYOF THE MESSAPIC DIALECTJ. WHATMOUGH

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

It is disputed whether Messapic is to be classed with the centum-languages or with the satem-languages. Discussion of this problemhas been unduly influenced by comparison with Albanian (a satem-language) and by the commonly made assumption that Albanian canonly be the modern representative of an ancient Illyrian dialect. It isat least clear that Illyrian did not represent the IE palatal stops by sibi-lants, see Hirt, Indogermanen 2.609, and 'Stellung des Illyrischen' inFestschriftfilr Kiepert 181ff. (1894) where Kretschmer's view to the con-trary is criticised. The fact that Messapic appears on the availableevidence' to have nothing corresponding to the labiovelars or labials ofthe centum-languages (Lat. quinque, Gr. re/Lrbs: Alb. pese) thatrepresent the IE velar stops (*penkIe), would seem to make it a priorilikely that the palatals should have been treated as in the satem-lan-guages. But the conclusion is not inevitable. It is probable thatVenetic, which was also an ancient Illyrian dialect, neither labialisedthe velars nor sibilised the palatals;2 and it has been suggested accord-ingly that Venetic belongs to a stratum of IE speech earlier than thecleavage into centum-dialects and satem-dialects, see Conway, AnnualBrit. Sch. at Athens 8.152 (1901-2). If this view, which certainly fitsthe facts, could be accepted as demonstrated, it would be conceivablethat Albanian might be descended from an Illyrian satem-dialect be-longing to a later stratum of Indo-European speech. Other explana-tions, however, are not far to seek, cf. Giles in Camb. Anc. Hist.2.26: it may be that the ancestor of Albanian has perished unrecorded;or perhaps that it was, as has been conjectured, closely related to, or

IThe single plausible example penkeos, penkaheh[e (both proper names,gen. sg. masc., cf. Osc.-Lat. Pompeius, Lat. Quintus) is by itself hardly con-vincing, even if correctly interpreted. Messapic forms are cited from my forth-coming edition of the texts.I Although I use here the traditional terminology I am, of course, aware ofthe bearing which the particular problem of Venetic and Messapic has upon thewider one of the IE gutturals.226


3/7

ON PHONOLOGY OF MESSAPIC DIALECT 227even a dialect of, Thracian. It is at all events improbable that the an-cestor of Albanian was identical with the speech of the ancient Illyrians,of which a recent valuable collection3 of local and ethnic names goesto confirmHirt's view. Thus, side by side with BapbXXtLsor BpSvXLAs)on which almost alone Kretschmer4 based his opinion, seeing in a [d?]the representative of an IE ^ like Alb. 8as in barai 'white', we now havealso Illyrian5 Bargulam, B&p-yaXa nd other forms with g or y, in theface of which it is hard to believe that Kretschmer's account of a inBaps6AXLtis correct. That BapSAbXXis necessarily cognate with Alb.barSi, Skt. bhrd'jatecannot be proved; since, as a proper name, its origi-nal connotation is unknown. Ribezzo, who takes the same view of thetreatment of the gutturals in Illyrian and Messapic as Kretschmer, rejectsthe etymology of BapsbXXLin favour of the connexion proposed bySchulze6 with Illyrian Bardus. In view of the forms with g (,y) therecan be little doubt that 8 in BapbhXXsis a true plosive [d] and not africative [d]; but Ribezzo's own etymology7 of Messapic barzidihi (forKretschmer cognate with BapSbXXts nd barbi) as derived from IE*brgh-, cf. Skt. brhdnt-, breaks down when confronted with Messapicbrigannas, cf. Kelt. Brigantes.It is evident, however, that the several series of gutturals distin-guished in Indo-European should, at the present stage of enquiry atleast, be kept distinct so far as possible, since, so long as it is not clearwhether Messapic labialised the velars or sibilised the palatals, it isimpossible to say with which series the indeterminate gutturals (Brug-mann's 'pure velars') should be regarded as coinciding in treatment;while, if the suggestion above mentioned8 be adopted, it will still benecessary, for purposes of comparison at all events, to make the samedistinction.It is also necessary to consider first forms in which it is claimed thatIE gutturals or their Messapic representatives have already beenidentified. The familiar klaohizis, klohizis (in which ao or o standsfor ou or fzas in orra: Uria, Obplaand aoze, ozen: Uzentum, Oievrov)a 2nd sg. (?) optative of a sigmatic aorist from the root *kley- 'hear',must be set aside; since cognate foims with k appear both in Slavonicand Albanian, and we may have here to do either with borrowings or

3H. Krahe, Die alten balkanillyrischen geographischenNamen (1925).4 Einleitung 265; Glotta 14.95n. (1925).' Krahe 17, 83.1 Eigennamen33n.7 Lingua degli antichi Messapii 23.8Cf. Whatmough, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 130.2 (1925).


4/7

228 J. WHATMOUGHwith an IE variation (k beside kI)in the initial consonant. Moreconvincingwouldbe Hirt's comparisonof vaikanetaos,9 en. sg. masc.,with Gr. O7Kos,Skt. vegd-h.,if we could be certain not only that t-was preserved n Messapic (valefas, later balefas: Valetium,vereta-hetis: Veretum,vasti: &arv;oikoroihi being presumablya borrowingfromGreek) but also that the diphthongoi becameai. Contrasttheethnicon Poediculiand the proper names oibaliahiai[hi:Oebalia,i.e.Tarentum,Verg., G 4.125; Illyr. Oeplus,CIL 3.2891, 2900; oitinai[hi:Ital. Vtius, Vtilius, see Conway, Italic Dialects 188, 198, 257.Kretschmerapparentlybelievesthat baogtas'0(cf. bosat, and perhapsb]aozze3ihi)containsan originalgutturalrepresentedas a sibilant, cf.perhapsIllyr. BeucasCIL3.7830. But, besideIllyr. Beuzas(ib.9156),Beusas -antis (ib. x test., xi, xiv, xvii), Beuzetius -ia (ib. 9929"), Ital.Buccia and Busius, Busidius, Bussenius (Conway, ID 155, 36, 34, 307)that view is untenable. The forms with c are evidently distinct fromthose with s, from which there is no reason to separatethe Messapicforms. The sameargumentappliesequallyto dagtas (cf.dazet,dastas)which, if I understandKretschmeraright,he regardswith baogtasas'wertvolleZeugnisseftir den Guttural-Charakter es Messapischen'.Beside forms with -c- [k]Dacio, Daciscus, etc. (CIL 3), Duceus, Docetius(ID 34,276) andthe frequentDecius'1we haveformswith -s (s)- whichthere is no more reasonto supposeconnectedwith those with -c- thanthere is to suppose that -k- or even -kj- became-s- in Messapic,e.g.Dasius, Dassius, Dasiatus, Dasimius, Dasumius, all common both inItaly and in Illyria, where we find also Dasa, Dasas, Dazas, Dases,Dasianus, Dazanus, Dasmenus, Dasto, see Indices to ID and to CIL 3.AccordinglyI connectthe numerousMessapicnames12with s (, s, ss,z, sz) with the Illyrianones in s (ss, z) regardinghe (Illyrian) nameswith c as quitedistinctfromboth. There remainsKretschmer's iewof barzidihi. Here again there are Illyrian forms, as we have seen,with g; andfurther,quite distinctfromthem,otherforms with s whichthere is no reason to suppose representsan older g or k: Barsemis,Barsimia, Barsimsus(CIL 3.10307, D lxvi), and possibly (with an

I Cf. perhaps Gr. Alcaw, root*Wik-?10On g and 3, see Whatmough Class. Quart. 19.68.11I do not, of course, suggest that Dac-, Doc- (Duc-), Dec- are necessarilycognate; though Doc- may stand to Dec- in the same relation as docgre to decgre.12dassinar, dagta, dagtas, cwras, daszes, dazes, dazet, daze[, Sate[, b6arrc,daze3iai, dazeh[i]as, dazes, daszes, dazihi, dazetis, dazettes, dazetOihi,dazihonas,dazimaihi, dazimas, dazomas, Ad&c7Lor,dazohonnihi, dazonnes, Safos, dazohi (?)Urov, 5arv.


5/7

ON PHONOLOGY OF MESSAPIC DIALECT 229older er preserved?) Bersumno, Birziminium, Berselum, Bersula, cf.Krahe 83. Nor again should Messapic plastas (gen. sg. masc. from*plaset, plazet) be connected, as it was by Deecke, with Placens,Placentius, but rather with the names Plassarus (CIL 3.4376) or (?)with Blasa, Blazziza, Blassius (ib. 7635, 8292, 3074, 1650, 4150, 5498)with p:b as in Messapus : Mirafos, IIvtols : Buxentum, Clampetza:Clambetis.'3 Deecke's account of hagtorres (= *'EK766pos) is equallyuntenable. I connect this form with Latin hostis, cf. Hostilius(ID 32, 34-Calabria, Peucetii; represented also in the borrowedhos0ellihi with Ital. -o-?), gh being represented by h as in the pronominalhi-, in dehatan (:Lat. Jingo), and perhaps in mahehe (:Skt. maha'n?).Finally Olufg 5Bp-ravov (and PfLcaZa' KXaev7-lpla) which H. Peterssoninterprets"4as *yik-ya, comparing Skt. vegi' 'needle', Arm. gilel 'tear,split', may just as well stand for *y?is-ya the divider, cutter, GermanMesser', cf. Skt. vifva- 'on both sides, on different sides', IE *yi- 'two',as in *yi-dh-'divide, separate', cf. OCSI vgja,Skt. vaja' 'branch, bough',Lat. virga for *viz-ga;and if Messapic did not sibilise the palatal stops,then Petersson's etymology becomes untenable.There are a few instances in which it has been proposed by Ribezzo(23ff.) to see examples of the sibilisation of ^or #h. These may be easilydisposed of. Thus the series of names azen, agen, azinne, azena inwhich Ribezzo (28) sees IE *#en-, is far more likely to be connectedwith the names Asinius, Asenius (CIL 3.7118, 10765, 8897, 8895);and the name zarres with Sarius (ib. 1204491; 5.81151o8;Pais, Suppl.10804"', 1182) cf. Sarina, Sarus, Sarronius, Sarnus (CIL 3 Index)and zairikihi with Saerius (ID 155) than with Gr. XaLpc,with whichRibezzo (26) connects them both. The two forms azinnota andinzanixis according to Ribezzo (29) both contain the same root IE *gen-(cf. azen etc. above) and mean respectively 'creavit' and 'finxit'.Taking Ribezzo's view of the meaning, though that is quite uncertain,we may quite as reasonably see in -zin- -zan- the root *sen- (son-)'achieve, complete', cf. Gr. 5avgLt,Skt. san6ti.I should not have thought it necessary to remove these examples,apparently contrary to the view which I take, namely that the palatalstops were not sibilised in Messapic, if there had not been also a con-

1s Cf. Krahe 89. It would also be possible to separate plastas from the namesgiven above and to connect it with Plarius, Plarentius (ID 155, 257, 375, cf.,CIL 3.6183, D xxiii, C vi test., xiv), intervocalic -s- being preserved in Messapic(e.g. Canusium, Genusia, Galaesus, laso6ihi, Busidius and the names citedabove), unless in Plarius etc. -r- is original.14Only the summary, Glotta 15.9 (1926), is known to me.


6/7

230 J. WHATMOUGHsiderable body of positive evidence in favour of that view. To this Inow pass.

Apart from klaohizis, already discussed, we have, as against z from 9(azinnota etc.) oroagenas '(citizen, native) of Uria, Uritis' with -r- for-rr- from -ri-, and with -oa- indicating locality as in a large number ofnames (e.g. daran0oa, dalmaOoa, kritaboa) though the form mightconceivably be merely a patronymic. What cannot be doubted is theequivalence of -genas to Latin -genus, Venetic -xeneh (gen. sg.) in which-g-, -x- represent IE ^(Skt.jdnah) especially when we find also genollihigen. sg. masc. (cf. with a different suffix, Genucius CIL 3.2535, 4471,141472) and the local name Genusia (Peucetii, ID 33). In the rivername Vergellus (ib.) it is probable that we have the same root *yer(e)O-'bend, wind' as in Latin uergo, Skt. vdrjati. The meaning of Messapicargorian (cf. argora-pandes an official title) is admitted by every one tobe 'silver, money', and here again there is evidence of g represented byg (cf. Lat. argentum, Gr. &apyvpos,Skt. rajatdm), for in view of theplace names 'Apyvpihot (Epirus) 'Apybprrt'a (Apulia) the supposi-tion that argorian was borrowed from Greek is quite needless. ThePeucetian local name Geronium (ID 35) also probably contains IEE(cf. Lat. granum, Gr. ypas, 'y'pwv: Skt. jardhh)and in y in the suffixof 'IUruyes (cf. 'OprvyLa)we may have either g or g. It would bepossible to connect Anxa (the older name of Callipolis) with either Lat.ancus or ango, referring either to the shape or to the character (nar-rowness) of the harbour; in the former case the word would be indecisive(IE k), but in the latter we should have g (x = g + s) for IE Ohafter n as in brigannas (see above) after r. The local name trigonoxoaappears to show *gon- 'corner, bend' (Lat. genu, Gr. ybvv, ywvLa:Skt.ja'nu) though borrowing from Greek (cf. rpLywvos)s possible, andin konkolastis seems certain (k, gh), cf. Gr. Kx6Xos,K6'YX7. Theword agraOosseems to show 9 (Lat. ager, Gr. 4'yp6s: Skt. djrah.) andif it is a proper name, as is likely, it will be parallel to such Latinnames as Agrius, Agrestius, Agreius. There are three names in gor-(gor, goro abbrev., gorrih[i, gorvaides, gorretavidihi) which are notdecisive, since in these gOis more plausible: cf. either Lat. gurges, rootgyer-, or Gr. 'yvpbs, also with gU-, Lat. b6ra. Doubtless gronehiasstands in some relation to Granius (Calabri, Daunii ID 32,36), but it isnot clear whether we have gh(^h or gh ?) represented before r by g,cf. Lat. frendo (*gheren-d-an extension of ^her-, see Walde, s.v. andcompare names like Frensidius, Fresidius : frasus ?); or (*erad-:"r--,see Geroniumabove) ;or even gt (*gUren-with -dh- extension perhaps


7/7

ON PHONOLOGY OF MESSAPIC DIALECT 231in Lat. grandis). In magos it is tempting to see *mag- as in Latinmagnus (cf. perhaps maeos: Osc. mais, Lat. maior, mazzes with -zz-from -gj- ?) beside *magh- in mahehe (above), while in xonedonas,xonet0es beside Xaoves, Xwveswe have presumably to do with borrow-ing, though x is probably equivalent to k (not to kh) cf. taimakos:AlaliaXos.Reasonably clear instances of IE / represented by k, both initiallyand medially, occur apart from the form klaohizis (see above), in thefollowing words: korah[i(or -[aihi?) with 5-grade; or, less likely, withepenthesis (as in Greek), ou being written o; or, conceivably with lossof y after r and 'compensatory' lengthening, Gr. Koipos Att. Kbpos,Lat. Cerus, creo: Skt. Vardhah herd', cf., if a proper name, 'Erl-KovpoS(?). Peucetii: Greek ?re~iKr, ith. puszis 'pine', either with the diph-thong preserved as in Oeotoras,or more probably with the (Greek?)spelling eu. kordomaos: Cordus, Cordius (Calabri), Lat. cor, OCS1sridice 'heart'; with -om- (-urn-) as in dazomas beside dazimas (cf. Lat.-imus, -umus) and 5 in the initial syllable. Tarentine "IKKOSwithGreek 'I for 'E?), cf. Venetic Ecco, ekupe0aris. dikoteras (quasi 'Dex-ter'?) :dico (k, cf. Skt. die-).IE k (or k alternating with k and therefore equally indecisive for ourpresent purpose) may occur in the following instances, which it will besufficient merely to enumerate. kelonihi]' (cf. Venetic kelo: Lat.Celsus, but with either k or ky if connected with Lat. Celer, Cillius,see Walde s.v. Luceria, Leuca, XEvKavt. Lacinium promon-turium. nerikiden, cf. Ven. nerikah. vaikaneataos (?) see above.Canusium: K6vLs kalatoras : Lat. caldre. kriOonas, kritaboa.saihikas. inkerma0i : Kpepa'VVpy? balakrahiaihi. krafeihi.koileihi. kavasbo : Kaiw kraapati : carpo? hipaka0i : scalpo ?

For IE ky I find no other certain instances than the one already cited(penkahe[) except dokihi : Sicel AovKnTLOs,at. Docetius, Duceus, dtaco.It would be easy to multiply conjectures, or to write at length on theexamples discussed in this note. But nothing is gained by that method,which has too often marred the earlier stages of investigation of littleknown or ill preserved dialects. All I am concerned with here is topoint out that the view that Messapic was a satem-speech is basedupon quite inadequate evidence, and that it has been too hastilyaccepted by Kretschmer and others."15 Cf. kllahiathl? But why -i-?10 Cf. Jokl in Ebert's Reallexicon, s.v. Illyrier 6.41 (1925).

whatmough - on the phonology of the messapic dialect

Documents