LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  August 2007, Week 2

CONLANG August 2007, Week 2

Subject:

Re: Carthage (was: C etc.)

From:

R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:06:07 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

Eric Christopherson wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:57 AM, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>> 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.

'Portmanteau' was badly chosen. I meant it was blend of Greek & Punic.
> 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.

I didn't know that - thanks. A Punic __Qart H.ado_ would account for a 
Doric Greek _Karkha:dO:n_. It would be fairly natural to Hellenize a 
foreign word ending in -o thus. The Punic _H._ is rendered by _kh_ in 
Greek which, I believe, is found in some other Semitic borrowings. The 
_t_ between the _r_ and _kh_ is simply dropped; it would not have 
conformed to Greek phonotactics and possible was not "heard" by the 
Greeks who first met the Carthaginians in Sicily.

The non-Doric Greeks elsewhere would naturally render the _Karkha:do:n_ 
of Doric speakers as _KarkhE:dO:n_, as Doric [a:] very often, tho not 
always, corresponded to [E:] elsewhere.

I've never seen an explanation given for the Latin version. But my guess 
is that they adopted at first the Doric form of the Greeks of Sicily & 
southern Italy, i.e. _Karkha:do:(n)_ (the Romans were likely to have 
pronounced Greek omega as [o:] and dropped the final -n early on).

Then coming into direct contact with Carthaginians themselves, began 
substituting _th_ instead of _kh_ in the middle of the word. Both [k_h] 
and [t_h] were not normal Latin sounds and both were interpreted as 
_two_ consonants by the Romans, not one as the Greeks did, hence it 
seems to me very likely that [t_h] appeared to the Romans as a fair 
rendering of the _tH._ in the Punic name.

I can imagine a period of hesitancy over the pronunciation during which 
a sort of metathesis took place in which the velar and dental values of 
the 2nd and 3rd consonants swapped, thus: /kark_ha:do:/ ~ /kart_ha:go:/ 
- the latter stuck.

Another possibility is that the 'metathesis' had nothing to do with the 
Punic form but simply arose from a process of dissimilation, i.e. they 
found k....k_h tricky!

The simple answer, of course, is that short of time travel and having 
field workers record the early forms used among the Romans, we'll never 
know for certain    :)

-- 
Ray
==================================
[log in to unmask]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options