Talk:Carian language

Uocila suggestions

There is an interesting Russian book by Yuriy Otkupschikov (Юрий Откупщиков), the professor of Classical philology at the St. Petersburg State University, entitled "Pre-Greek substrate" (Догреческий субстрат), Leningrad, 1988, 263 p, where the author summarizes his 25 years research on the Carian and palaeobalcanic problem. As readers probably know, he suggested in the late 60's his own interpretation of the Carian alphabet and got a language quite close to Greek and other Palaeobalcanic dialects (Thracian, Phrygian, and Macedonian). This got little support at that time (and apparently later), so that the book was an attempt to justify this point of view from two sides: from the analysis of Carian names and onomastics as well as other linguistic evidence preserved in Greek texts on one hand, and from an attempt to read newly discovered Carian inscriptions in Egypt, on the other. In both cases Otkupschikov came to the conclusion that the Carian was a Palaeobalcanic dialect with quite transparent onomastical links especially to the Thracian and Phrygian. The book is very well written, it's a seldom pleasure to read, and I have found there no linguistic mistakes except for the original assumption: while the linguistic evidence seems very solid, it remains unclear whether it belongs to the genuine Carian element in that language or to an adstrate brought by Palaeobalcanic infiltrations. The deciphering of Carian inscriptions is beyond my competence. Examples of the latter are: (Masson 20, right to left): Μακυθω υη Σκινυκωχε Νεγοκωχε (Masson 34, right to left): ΑϜξονω υη Νεμαιω χε Νεγοκω χε ΙλϜεγλτω χε (Masson 26, right to left): Νησω Μονκηω ΙσχαιαϜω (Masson 7, right to left): ΑϜδερω ΥϜμχδηω Υετιμεω (Friedrich 29 = Shevoroshkin 46, right to left): Υωοζ Νεχω Θυτιμεω etc. When I met Otkupschikov in September 2005 and asked about the fate of his interpretation, he said he did not develop that topic as he was focused on the Balto-Slavic research, and since he was about 80 years old, he had no plans to do further investigations. He did not know about newer attempts to decipher the Carian language, as well as about the bilingue. I have not seen so far the newer works mentioned in this Wikipedia article, but taking into consideration 100 years of Carian interpretations I can assume these are not the final ones ;-) In any case, Otkupschikov's material deserves a thorough analysis since the Palaeobalcanic links of the Carian, whatever origin they could have had, seem to be underestimated in the Carian interpretations. --Uocila 08:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed para

I removed this questioned statement as verification appears impossible:

"The language was heavily influenced by older aboriginal languages of Anatolia, such as the pre-Indo-European tongue of the Leleges who also dwelt in Caria (and with whom the Carians were sometimes confounded)."

The fragments of Carian are few enough and progress had been made only in the last decade. Lelegian fragments amount to zero so how can any statement possibly be made about its influence on Carian? The Leleges in Anatolia are semi-legendary anyway and their relationship to the Carians unknown. The Leleges article indicates that the name was not a self-name anyway, so the Leleges could be anyone and are probably not the same as all the other Leleges elsewhere. So, the statement is just a guess and can't be verified. As such it is non-encyclopedic.Dave (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent bibliography on Carian language (post 2010s)

I'm leaving here an article on Carian's place in the PIE family language (source from 2013): Adiego Ignasi-Xavier. Carian identity and Carian language. In: 4th Century Karia. Defining a Karian identity under the Hekatomnids. Istanbul : Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes-Georges Dumézil, 2013. pp. 15-20. (Varia Anatolica, 28) [www.persee.fr/doc/anatv_1013-9559_2013_ant_28_1_1280] 01:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:EC12:30AF:8230:EF8C (talk)

linglist

Across several articles, someone has added "|ref = linglist", which displays incorrectly in the box. 216.8.188.31 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Adabükü 28 November 2022

I am reverting the edits made by Adabükü on 28 November, bceause I am not convinced by the reasons given in the edit summaries. However, I have no technical knowledge of the subject of this article, and I would be grateful for comments from knowledgeable people.Sweet6970 (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/2732?lang=ena Please reedit what I made. Several archielogical items found recent years Adabükü (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Adabükü:Thank you for your response. However, I still do not understand the reasoning for your edits.

In your first edit [1], you say that the Carian symbols for vowels were borrowed from a Greek alphabet. You have now provided a link to the book Hellenistic Karia - Recent developments in the decipherment of Carian - Ausonius Éditions (openedition.org). I did a search on this for ‘vowel’ and I can’t find any statement that the symbols were borrowed from a Greek alphabet. Any statement on Wikipedia should have a source to back it up. Is there something in the book which supports your statement?

Your second edit [2] replaces The writers born in these new cities reported that the people among whom they had settled were called Carians and spoke a language that was "barbarian", "barbaric" or "barbarian-sounding." No clue has survived from these writings as to what exactly the Greeks might mean by "barbarian." The reportedly Carian names of the Carian cities did not and do not appear to be Greek. Such names as Andanus, Myndus, Bybassia, Larymna, Chysaoris, Alabanda, Plarasa and Iassus were puzzling to the Greeks, some of whom attempted to give etymologies in words they said were Carian. For the most part they still remain a mystery. with Carians were not Greek and Greek colonizations came to province later. The text you deleted is a fuller version of what you say. In your edit summary, you seem to object to the use of the word ‘barbarian’ – but this is the word which the ancient Greeks used for anything non-Greek. See [3]. So this word is not used as an insult in this context. I have made an edit to the article to clarify this.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Caria is not Greek colonization. Dors were colonization and Caria was the civilization who settled in Anatolia before Greek invasions. Their alphabet is not Greek alphabet as you can see the symbols. Article also saya that by 1994 Scientists thought Carian Language was Greek. As I said you before, in Carian alphabet, there are justsome letters which gives the same sound like in Modern Greek. Caria Lydia Throad Mylasa are Luwian civilizations also familiar with Hittite Civilizations, according to Hittite foundings, their dialect, alpabet exactly the same each other.

Adabükü (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article which contradicts what you say. If you want to make a change to the article, please say exactly what change you want. If you want to put in new information, you will need to provide a reference. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Was b lenited?

I suspect that b was a plosive, not a fricative. There are instances of w between consonants. The approximant w likely had a fricative allophone in these environments. If w had a fricative allophone and b was a fricative, a merger of b and w would be likely, while in reality they are clearly separate. A plosive b, while contrasting with fricative d, would not merge with w. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:F145:3BC6:8DBB:9F67 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)