From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2001 #1 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Tuesday, January 2 2001 Volume 2001 : Number 001 Re: ane Kaukasic and Kushitic ane Ge`ez--Grabar--Glagolitsa ane test message - IGNORE Re: ane Ge`ez--Grabar--Glagolitsa Re: ane Ge`ez--Grabar--Glagolitsa ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 08:31:15 -0500 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Kaukasic and Kushitic nyokabi@kingcon.com wrote: > > Peter Daniels wrote: > >What do we "know" about the connection of the alphabet? A few of the [Armenian and Ethiopic] > >letters have similar shapes, but they do not represent similar sounds, > >and there is no similarity overall in "inner form" or "outer form." > > I meant we know that a "tradition" or a "theory", whichever it > turns out to be ( I am waiting on Th. Ghembaze to enlighten me), > is out there in the published realm alleging that there is such > a connection. If its hogwash, I'm sure it's in your book on > writing systems, which I obviously need to look at! Everyone notes that a few of the Armenian letters look like Ethiopic letters. > Well after a long and frustrating search I finally found the > culprit who gave me, at least, this idea that the Armenian alphabet > had been borrowed from the Ethiopians: Y.M. Kobishanov , who, at the > time of writing about Aksum in the UNESCO History of Africa, was from > the "USSR". > p 398: [my notes] The vocalized Ethiopic alphabet so closely reproduce > the phonematic system of Ge'ez that it is inconceivable that any but an > Ethiopian could have been its creator. This alphabet, with the > addition of some signs, has been in continuous use in Ethiopia till > this day and is generally regarded as the outstanding achievement > of the Aksumite civilization. There is cetainly nothing controversial about this statement (unless, of course, one doesn't wish to devalue everything else about Aksumite civilization!). It seems to me, though, that the inventor of the system of indicating vowels was aware of the Indian system of doing so, though not in all the details (since Indian scripts, unlike the Ethiopic script, have means of indicating lack of a vowel on a consonant letter). > Soon after its creation the Ethiopic vocalized script began to > influence the scripts of Transcaucasia. D.A. Olderogge suggested > that Mesrop Mashtotz used the vocalized Ethiopic script when he > invented the Armenian alphabet. At the end of the 5th c. AD the > Ethiopic script may have been introduced into Armenia by the Syrian > Bishop Daniel. It was through the mediation of N. Syria that Aksum > and Armenia had cultural relations at this time." For another example of the "reliability" of the UNESCO History of Africa, see the notorious footnote 21 appended to, of all things, Joseph Greenberg's survey article on the languages of Africa. > I didn't write down the Olderogge reference. Although it might > be judged to be a waste of time, I would now be interested > to look it over. Sometimes, usually, it's for that one little > reference in footnote 39. Does anyone know where he expounded > this theory? No, n. 39 is simply "Procopius, pp. 275-7," and it isn't attached to the passage you quote ... ah, here it is, on the last page of the article: "The basic principles of vocalized Ethiopic script have no analogy in the whole Semito-Hamitic world, but are typical of Indian alphabets. ... The hypothesis of Indian influence on the reformers of the old consonantal Ethiopic alphabet seems to be quite probable. "The hypothetical Greek influence on the creation of the Ethiopic alphabet has not been proved, although the Greek origina of the system and the main signs of Ethiopic figures, as they first appeared in Ezana's inscriptions, is certain." [the two paragraphs you quoted come here -- p. 399, not n. 39] Note 71: "D. A. Olderogge 1972, pp. 195-203." Which is, "L'Armnie et l'thiopie au IVe sicle (a propos des sources de l'alphabet armnien)" IVe Congrs international des tudes ethiopiennes, pp. 195-203. [I have not seen this] > I wonder if this might be where Ghembaze got her reference to > a tradition about "common ancestors." Perhaps Frumentius and > the 7 saints who appeared in the late 5th c AD were distantly > "related" to Bishop Daniel. Having become the Ethiopian bishop > Abba Salama, the originally Syrian Frumentius came to be considered > an Ethiopian ancestor? > > Question: were the so-called Proto-Ethiopic inscriptions written > in the South Arabian alphabet or in the vocalized Ethiopic > alphabet? Or was there a non-vocalized stage of the latter? An intermediate form. Ethiopic inscriptions take on vocalization suddenly, at the same time they exhibit Christian content; which is why it seems to me Christianity could have been brought to Ethiopia by the ships that brought the trade from Christian parts of India. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 00:29:06 +0300 From: "Basil Lourie" Subject: ane Ge`ez--Grabar--Glagolitsa This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_04DA_01C07453.03DE9400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Towards the discussion re: possible relation between Ethiopic and = Armenian alphabets: The Olderogge references are the following (one of them was quoted = without some data): 1. D.A. Olderogge, Les anciennes relations entre l'Armenie et l'Ethiopie (Histoire d'une ecriture) Moscou 1969 (IV Conference Internationale des etudes ethiopiennes) [separate booklet], 2. Idem, L'Armenie et l'Ethiopie au IV siecle (a propos des sources de l'alphabet armenien), in: IV Congresso Internationale di Studi Etiopici. (Roma, 10-15 aprile 1972). T. I (Sezione storica) (Roma, 1974) = (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Anno 381 - 1974. Quaderno N 191 [1]. Problemi = attuali di scienza e di cultura) 195-203 These studies retain some value as a starting point for the further researches. After this, the third alphabet appeared in the same line, = whose similarity with the Ethiopic is much more striking: an old Slavonic = alphabet called "Glagolitsa" (esp. in its ancient rounded shape). As it appears to some scholars, all these three alphabets (and somewhat = even fourth, old Georgian "Asomtavruli" whose affinities with the Armenian = are discussed endlessly) betray a similar *stylistic* approach. This is not = to say that there was any direct influence, but rather some close milieu, probably that of the Syrian missionaries with a Monophysite background. I am deeply interested in this topic, because I have found that an old Slavonic hagiographic legend about the invention of the Slavonic = alphabet "Solunskaya Legenda" ("The Legend of Thessalonica" -- having nothing to = do with the Vitae of St. Cyril and Methodius!) is a poor translation from Syriac, with some words remaining untranslated (I am very grateful to Sebastian Brock who helped me a lot in this research). The Slavic = scholars are now accepting my conclusion that SL is a translation or a reworking = of a lost Syriac original, but are generally refusing to accept my historical explanation (that Glagolitsa was invented by a Syrian missionary in Macedonia in the late 7th or the early 8th cent.; notify probable synchronism with the development of Ge`ez script, whose early chronology = is not very clear, after all). There is a direction of research that I am unable to explore myself (I'm = a historian of theology and related matters, by no means a linguist!). = Beside the similar shapes, Glagolitsa and Eth. Ge`ez are both appropriated to transliterate not only the Greek texts but also the Semitic ones. As to Ge`ez, it is widely understood. As to Glagolitsa, it is rather my guess. = At least, there are, in the earliest Bible translations into Slavonic, some features that may be considered as an attempt to transliterate the Greek proper names in a Syriac way, which is also a well known feature of the translations from Greek into Eth. made by Syrians (on which cf. Guidi = etc.); e.g., the earliest Glagolitsa had no sign for the Greek theta, so, Greek = and Cyrillic Slavonic "Martha" was "Marta" in Glagolitsa... I would be always glad to share my observations on the Glagolitsa and related topics with any interested linguist. Basil Lourie Xristianskij Vostok St. Petersburg Russia - ------=_NextPart_000_04DA_01C07453.03DE9400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Towards the discussion re: possible relation between Ethiopic and=20 Armenian
alphabets:

The Olderogge references are the following = (one of=20 them was quoted without
some data):

1. D.A. Olderogge, Les = anciennes=20 relations entre l'Arménie et l'Ethiopie
(Histoire d'une = écriture) Moscou 1969=20 (IV Conférence Internationale des
études = éthiopiennes) [separate=20 booklet],
2. Idem, L'Arménie et l'Ethiopie au IV siècle = (à propos des sources=20 de
l'alphabet arménien), in: IV Congresso Internationale di = Studi=20 Etiopici.
(Roma, 10-15 aprile 1972). T. I (Sezione storica) (Roma, = 1974)=20 (Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei. Anno 381 - 1974. Quaderno N 191 [1]. = Problemi attuali
di scienza e di cultura) 195-203

These = studies retain=20 some value as a starting point for the further
researches. After = this, the=20 third alphabet appeared in the same line, whose
similarity with the = Ethiopic=20 is much more striking: an old Slavonic alphabet
called "Glagolitsa" = (esp. in=20 its ancient rounded shape).

As it appears to some scholars, all = these=20 three alphabets (and somewhat even
fourth, old Georgian "Asomtavruli" = whose=20 affinities with the Armenian are
discussed endlessly) betray a = similar=20 *stylistic* approach. This is not to
say that there was any direct = influence,=20 but rather some close milieu,
probably that of the Syrian = missionaries with a=20 Monophysite background.

I am deeply interested in this topic, = because I=20 have found that an old
Slavonic hagiographic legend about the = invention of=20 the Slavonic alphabet
"Solunskaya Legenda" ("The Legend of = Thessalonica" --=20 having nothing to do
with the Vitae of St. Cyril and Methodius!) is a = poor=20 translation from
Syriac, with some words remaining untranslated (I am = very=20 grateful to
Sebastian Brock who helped me a lot in this research). = The Slavic=20 scholars
are now accepting my conclusion that SL is a translation or = a=20 reworking of a
lost Syriac original, but are generally refusing to = accept my=20 historical
explanation (that Glagolitsa was invented by a Syrian = missionary=20 in
Macedonia in the late 7th or the early 8th cent.; notify=20 probable
synchronism with the development of Ge`ez script, whose = early=20 chronology is
not very clear, after all).

There is a direction = of=20 research that I am unable to explore myself (I'm a
historian of = theology and=20 related matters, by no means a linguist!). Beside
the similar shapes, = Glagolitsa and Eth. Ge`ez are both appropriated to
transliterate not = only the=20 Greek texts but also the Semitic ones. As to
Ge`ez, it is widely = understood.=20 As to Glagolitsa, it is rather my guess. At
least, there are, in the = earliest=20 Bible translations into Slavonic, some
features that may be = considered as an=20 attempt to transliterate the Greek
proper names in a Syriac way, = which is=20 also a well known feature of the
translations from Greek into Eth. = made by=20 Syrians (on which cf. Guidi etc.);
e.g., the earliest Glagolitsa had = no sign=20 for the Greek theta, so, Greek and
Cyrillic Slavonic "Martha" was = "Marta" in=20 Glagolitsa...

I would be always glad to share my observations on = the=20 Glagolitsa and
related topics with any interested = linguist.

Basil=20 Lourié
Xristianskij Vostok
St.=20 Petersburg
Russia
- ------=_NextPart_000_04DA_01C07453.03DE9400-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 15:58:36 -0600 From: "John C. Sanders" Subject: ane test message - IGNORE Just a test message to ANE after the New Year's rollover of the Digest. - -- John C. Sanders, Head Oriental Institute Computer Laboratory 1155 East 58th Street Chicago, IL 60637 773-702-0989 voice 773-702-9853 fax jc-sanders@uchicago.edu http://oi.uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:04:01 +0300 From: "Basil Lourie" Subject: Re: ane Ge`ez--Grabar--Glagolitsa This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0531_01C07460.46C87A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And the following is my answer to Peter Daniels: - --------------- Dear Peter, > I don't see the least similarity between Glagolitic and the others! One Russian scholar (who is a specialist in the ancient Russian = literature) G.M. Prokhorov provided a comparative table (I can mail it to you via = either e-mail or regular mail), while with no special knowledge of the early = forms of the Glagolitic. His rather (too) long study is interesting as an = attempt to see Glagolitic as one of the alphabets invented by the Christian missionaries. His article is in Russian. The similarity of the *old* = (NB: "rounded", not Croatian!) Glagolitic with the Ge`ez is so striking, that = a great Russian Slavic scholar academian S. Orlov once (in 1930s) named an Ethiopic ms "Glagolitic"! > > > I am deeply interested in this topic, because I have found that an = old > > Slavonic hagiographic legend about the invention of the Slavonic alphabet > > "Solunskaya Legenda" ("The Legend of Thessalonica" -- having nothing = to do > > with the Vitae of St. Cyril and Methodius!) is a poor translation = from > > Syriac, with some words remaining untranslated (I am very grateful = to > > Sebastian Brock who helped me a lot in this research). The Slavic scholars > > Is an edition available? CSCO, perhaps? Unfortunately, there is no edition taking into account the readings of = all the 5 mss. However, the standard discussion of the text and = historiography (with no text!) is, since recently: Vasilka T''pkova-Zaimova, Anisava Miltenova, "Istoriko-apokaliptichnata knizhnina v''v Vizantija i v srednevekovna B"lgarija", Sofia 1996, in "Prilozhenie" (Appendix), p. 311-321 (cf. p. 313 about my "Syriac" = reading, with typos in the transliterations of the Syriac words, alas). The best available edition is: B.St. Angelov, Solunska legenda, in: = Idem, Iz starata b"lgarska, ruska i sr"bska literatura, [vol.] 2, Sofia 1967, = 44-66. > > > are now accepting my conclusion that SL is a translation or a = reworking of a > > lost Syriac original, but are generally refusing to accept my = historical > > explanation (that Glagolitsa was invented by a Syrian missionary in > > Macedonia in the late 7th or the early 8th cent.; notify probable > > synchronism with the development of Ge`ez script, whose early = chronology is > > not very clear, after all). > > No, that is several hundred years later than Ge`ez, whose early > chronology is known perfectly: the inscriptions are dated. I mean that there are some characters (like Ge`ez T-shaped sign for Gr. "psi") whose exact date may be unclear. I don't recall well, but may be = even Ge`ez sign for Gr. "pi" is not known from the earliest inscriptions. > > > There is a direction of research that I am unable to explore myself = (I'm a > > historian of theology and related matters, by no means a linguist!). Beside > > the similar shapes, Glagolitsa and Eth. Ge`ez are both appropriated = to > > transliterate not only the Greek texts but also the Semitic ones. As = to > > I don't have any idea what you mean by that ... Ge`ez has (of course) every of 22 characters of the Semitic alphabet = plus some additional ones for the transliterated Gr. loanwords (e.g., = *p.ap.as*). Because of the Semitic nature of Ge`ez, there was no need of a specific = sign for theta (because in the Semitic languages we already have two kinds of "t" -- t and t.). The situation of the Slavonic was quite different. Therefore, Cyrillic has a sign for theta, as well as for other Gr. = letters. However, the Glagolitic theta is a very late addition, and was never = used in most of the cases when the theta would be at place. So, the earliest Slavonic orthography for "Martha" is *Marta*, and so on. Such a feature = is important when one is trying to find if a given translation from Greek = was done by Semitic people (cf. I. Guidi's criteria going back to his 1880s publication). The lack of theta in the earliest Glagolitic is even more difficult to explain, because the other Gr. letters were represented = (but again, without ksi and psi, which have never been transliterated into = Syriac as well). Moreover, the earliest Glagolitic had some characters whose purpose is almost unknown. I guess, that these letters may be invented as = equivalents of those Semitic phonems (and letters) which are alien to both Gr. and Slavic phonology. But I am unable to elaborate on this (while I have = some -- unpublished -- observations of preliminary nature). > Have you written any of this up? (Unfortunately I probably would no > longer be able to read it if it's in Russian!) I have published an article in Russian (alas...) about the SL in its historical context (and another in French -- but only re: its = theological context, with no interest for our topics). Now I am preparing a = monograph (in Russian) where the earliest contacts between the Syrian and the = early Slavic worlds will be a major point. The chapter re: SL will be somewhat rewritten. I am still hoping to find a direct source of a crucial = episode of SL (so far, I have found some evidences that such a source ever = existed)... I could provide you any help (esp. photocopies and bibliography) if you = are interested in anything of the above. - ------=_NextPart_000_0531_01C07460.46C87A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And the following is my answer to Peter = Daniels:
 
---------------
Dear Peter,

> I don't see the least similarity between = Glagolitic=20 and the others!

One Russian scholar (who is a specialist in the = ancient=20 Russian literature)
G.M. Prokhorov provided a comparative table (I = can mail=20 it to you via either
e-mail or regular mail), while with no special = knowledge=20 of the early forms
of the Glagolitic. His rather (too) long study is=20 interesting as an attempt
to see Glagolitic as one of the alphabets = invented=20 by the Christian
missionaries. His article is in Russian. The = similarity of=20 the *old* (NB:
"rounded", not Croatian!) Glagolitic with the Ge`ez is = so=20 striking, that a
great Russian Slavic scholar academian S. Orlov once = (in=20 1930s) named an
Ethiopic ms "Glagolitic"!

>
> > I = am=20 deeply interested in this topic, because I have found that an = old
> >=20 Slavonic hagiographic legend about the invention of the=20 Slavonic
alphabet
> > "Solunskaya Legenda" ("The Legend of=20 Thessalonica" -- having nothing to
do
> > with the Vitae of = St.=20 Cyril and Methodius!) is a poor translation from
> > Syriac, = with some=20 words remaining untranslated (I am very grateful to
> > = Sebastian Brock=20 who helped me a lot in this research). The = Slavic
scholars
>
> Is=20 an edition available? CSCO, perhaps?

Unfortunately, there is no = edition=20 taking into account the readings of all
the 5 mss. However, the = standard=20 discussion of the text and historiography
(with no text!) is, since=20 recently:

Vasilka T''pkova-Zaimova, Anisava Miltenova,=20 "Istoriko-apokaliptichnata
knizhnina v''v Vizantija i v srednevekovna = B"lgarija", Sofia 1996, in
"Prilozhenie" (Appendix), p. 311-321 (cf. = p. 313=20 about my "Syriac" reading,
with typos in the transliterations of the = Syriac=20 words, alas).

The best available edition is: B.St. Angelov, = Solunska=20 legenda, in: Idem, Iz
starata b"lgarska, ruska i sr"bska literatura, = [vol.]=20 2, Sofia 1967, 44-66.

>
> > are now accepting my = conclusion=20 that SL is a translation or a reworking
of a
> > lost Syriac = original, but are generally refusing to accept my historical
> = >=20 explanation (that Glagolitsa was invented by a Syrian missionary = in
> >=20 Macedonia in the late 7th or the early 8th cent.; notify = probable
> >=20 synchronism with the development of Ge`ez script, whose early=20 chronology
is
> > not very clear, after = all).
>
> No,=20 that is several hundred years later than Ge`ez, whose early
> = chronology=20 is known perfectly: the inscriptions are dated.

I mean that there = are=20 some characters (like Ge`ez T-shaped sign for Gr.
"psi") whose exact = date may=20 be unclear. I don't recall well, but may be even
Ge`ez sign for Gr. = "pi" is=20 not known from the earliest inscriptions.


>
> > = There is=20 a direction of research that I am unable to explore myself = (I'm
a
>=20 > historian of theology and related matters, by no means a=20 linguist!).
Beside
> > the similar shapes, Glagolitsa and = Eth. Ge`ez=20 are both appropriated to
> > transliterate not only the Greek = texts but=20 also the Semitic ones. As to
>
> I don't have any idea what = you mean=20 by that ...

Ge`ez has (of course) every of 22 characters of the = Semitic=20 alphabet plus
some additional ones for the transliterated Gr. = loanwords=20 (e.g., *p.ap.as*).
Because of the Semitic nature of Ge`ez, there was = no need=20 of a specific sign
for theta (because in the Semitic languages we = already=20 have two kinds of
"t" -- t and t.). The situation of the Slavonic was = quite=20 different.
Therefore, Cyrillic has a sign for theta, as well as for = other Gr.=20 letters.
However, the Glagolitic theta is a very late addition, and = was never=20 used in
most of the cases when the theta would be at place. So, the=20 earliest
Slavonic orthography for "Martha" is *Marta*,  and so = on. Such=20 a feature is
important when one is trying to find if a given = translation from=20 Greek was
done by Semitic people (cf. I. Guidi's criteria going back = to his=20 1880s
publication). The lack of theta in the earliest Glagolitic is = even=20 more
difficult to explain, because the other Gr. letters were = represented=20 (but
again, without ksi and psi, which have never been transliterated = into=20 Syriac
as well).

Moreover, the earliest Glagolitic had some = characters=20 whose purpose is
almost unknown. I guess, that these letters may be = invented=20 as equivalents
of those Semitic phonems (and letters) which are alien = to both=20 Gr. and
Slavic phonology. But I am unable to elaborate on this (while = I have=20 some --
unpublished -- observations of preliminary = nature).

> Have=20 you written any of this up? (Unfortunately I probably would no
> = longer be=20 able to read it if it's in Russian!)

I have published an article = in=20 Russian (alas...) about the SL in its
historical context (and another = in=20 French -- but only re: its theological
context, with no interest for = our=20 topics). Now I am preparing a monograph
(in Russian) where the = earliest=20 contacts between the Syrian and the early
Slavic worlds will be a = major=20 point. The chapter re: SL will be somewhat
rewritten. I am still = hoping to=20 find a direct source of a crucial episode of
SL (so far, I have found = some=20 evidences that such a source ever existed)...

I could provide you = any=20 help (esp. photocopies and bibliography) if you are
interested in = anything of=20 the above.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0531_01C07460.46C87A80-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:05:58 +0300 From: "Basil Lourie" Subject: Re: ane Ge`ez--Grabar--Glagolitsa This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0559_01C07460.8BFD7560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I mistakenly sent my previous message to Peter Daniels privately. With = his kind permission, I repost his answer below. B. Lourie. - ----------------------------------------------------- Basil Lourie wrote: >=20 > Towards the discussion re: possible relation between Ethiopic and = Armenian > alphabets: >=20 > The Olderogge references are the following (one of them was quoted = without > some data): No, the reference I gave was absolutely everything given in the chapter of the UNESCO book. Now that I see it's a volume in a Lincei series, I see it will be harder to find than I thought! > 1. D.A. Olderogge, Les anciennes relations entre l'Armenie et = l'Ethiopie > (Histoire d'une ecriture) Moscou 1969 (IV Conference Internationale = des > etudes ethiopiennes) [separate booklet], > 2. Idem, L'Armenie et l'Ethiopie au IV siecle (a propos des sources de > l'alphabet armenien), in: IV Congresso Internationale di Studi = Etiopici. > (Roma, 10-15 aprile 1972). T. I (Sezione storica) (Roma, 1974) = (Accademia > Nazionale dei Lincei. Anno 381 - 1974. Quaderno N 191 [1]. Problemi = attuali > di scienza e di cultura) 195-203 >=20 > These studies retain some value as a starting point for the further > researches. After this, the third alphabet appeared in the same line, = whose > similarity with the Ethiopic is much more striking: an old Slavonic = alphabet > called "Glagolitsa" (esp. in its ancient rounded shape). >=20 > As it appears to some scholars, all these three alphabets (and = somewhat even > fourth, old Georgian "Asomtavruli" whose affinities with the Armenian = are > discussed endlessly) betray a similar *stylistic* approach. This is = not to > say that there was any direct influence, but rather some close milieu, > probably that of the Syrian missionaries with a Monophysite = background. I don't see the least similarity between Glagolitic and the others! > I am deeply interested in this topic, because I have found that an old > Slavonic hagiographic legend about the invention of the Slavonic = alphabet > "Solunskaya Legenda" ("The Legend of Thessalonica" -- having nothing = to do > with the Vitae of St. Cyril and Methodius!) is a poor translation from > Syriac, with some words remaining untranslated (I am very grateful to > Sebastian Brock who helped me a lot in this research). The Slavic = scholars Is an edition available? CSCO, perhaps? > are now accepting my conclusion that SL is a translation or a = reworking of a > lost Syriac original, but are generally refusing to accept my = historical > explanation (that Glagolitsa was invented by a Syrian missionary in > Macedonia in the late 7th or the early 8th cent.; notify probable > synchronism with the development of Ge`ez script, whose early = chronology is > not very clear, after all). No, that is several hundred years later than Ge`ez, whose early chronology is known perfectly: the inscriptions are dated. > There is a direction of research that I am unable to explore myself = (I'm a > historian of theology and related matters, by no means a linguist!). = Beside > the similar shapes, Glagolitsa and Eth. Ge`ez are both appropriated to > transliterate not only the Greek texts but also the Semitic ones. As = to I don't have any idea what you mean by that ... > Ge`ez, it is widely understood. As to Glagolitsa, it is rather my = guess. At > least, there are, in the earliest Bible translations into Slavonic, = some > features that may be considered as an attempt to transliterate the = Greek > proper names in a Syriac way, which is also a well known feature of = the > translations from Greek into Eth. made by Syrians (on which cf. Guidi = etc.); > e.g., the earliest Glagolitsa had no sign for the Greek theta, so, = Greek and > Cyrillic Slavonic "Martha" was "Marta" in Glagolitsa... >=20 > I would be always glad to share my observations on the Glagolitsa and > related topics with any interested linguist. Have you written any of this up? (Unfortunately I probably would no longer be able to read it if it's in Russian!) - --=20 Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net - ------=_NextPart_000_0559_01C07460.8BFD7560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I mistakenly sent my previous message = to Peter=20 Daniels privately. With his kind permission, I repost his answer=20 below.
B. Lourie.
-----------------------------------------------------
 
Basil Lourie wrote:
>
> Towards the discussion re: = possible=20 relation between Ethiopic and Armenian
> alphabets:
> =
> The=20 Olderogge references are the following (one of them was quoted = without
>=20 some data):

No, the reference I gave was absolutely everything = given in=20 the chapter
of the UNESCO book. Now that I see it's a volume in a = Lincei=20 series, I
see it will be harder to find than I thought!

> = 1. D.A.=20 Olderogge, Les anciennes relations entre l'Arménie et = l'Ethiopie
>=20 (Histoire d'une écriture) Moscou 1969 (IV Conférence = Internationale des
>=20 études éthiopiennes) [separate booklet],
> 2. Idem, = L'Arménie et=20 l'Ethiopie au IV siècle (à propos des sources de
> = l'alphabet arménien),=20 in: IV Congresso Internationale di Studi Etiopici.
> (Roma, 10-15 = aprile=20 1972). T. I (Sezione storica) (Roma, 1974) (Accademia
> Nazionale = dei=20 Lincei. Anno 381 - 1974. Quaderno N 191 [1]. Problemi attuali
> di = scienza=20 e di cultura) 195-203
>
> These studies retain some value = as a=20 starting point for the further
> researches. After this, the third = alphabet appeared in the same line, whose
> similarity with the = Ethiopic=20 is much more striking: an old Slavonic alphabet
> called = "Glagolitsa"=20 (esp. in its ancient rounded shape).
>
> As it appears to = some=20 scholars, all these three alphabets (and somewhat even
> fourth, = old=20 Georgian "Asomtavruli" whose affinities with the Armenian are
> = discussed=20 endlessly) betray a similar *stylistic* approach. This is not to
> = say=20 that there was any direct influence, but rather some close = milieu,
>=20 probably that of the Syrian missionaries with a Monophysite = background.

I=20 don't see the least similarity between Glagolitic and the = others!

> I=20 am deeply interested in this topic, because I have found that an = old
>=20 Slavonic hagiographic legend about the invention of the Slavonic=20 alphabet
> "Solunskaya Legenda" ("The Legend of Thessalonica" -- = having=20 nothing to do
> with the Vitae of St. Cyril and Methodius!) is a = poor=20 translation from
> Syriac, with some words remaining untranslated = (I am=20 very grateful to
> Sebastian Brock who helped me a lot in this = research).=20 The Slavic scholars

Is an edition available? CSCO, = perhaps?

>=20 are now accepting my conclusion that SL is a translation or a reworking = of=20 a
> lost Syriac original, but are generally refusing to accept my=20 historical
> explanation (that Glagolitsa was invented by a Syrian = missionary in
> Macedonia in the late 7th or the early 8th cent.; = notify=20 probable
> synchronism with the development of Ge`ez script, whose = early=20 chronology is
> not very clear, after all).

No, that is = several=20 hundred years later than Ge`ez, whose early
chronology is known = perfectly:=20 the inscriptions are dated.

> There is a direction of research = that I=20 am unable to explore myself (I'm a
> historian of theology and = related=20 matters, by no means a linguist!). Beside
> the similar shapes, = Glagolitsa=20 and Eth. Ge`ez are both appropriated to
> transliterate not only = the Greek=20 texts but also the Semitic ones. As to

I don't have any idea what = you=20 mean by that ...

> Ge`ez, it is widely understood. As to = Glagolitsa,=20 it is rather my guess. At
> least, there are, in the earliest = Bible=20 translations into Slavonic, some
> features that may be considered = as an=20 attempt to transliterate the Greek
> proper names in a Syriac way, = which=20 is also a well known feature of the
> translations from Greek into = Eth.=20 made by Syrians (on which cf. Guidi etc.);
> e.g., the earliest = Glagolitsa=20 had no sign for the Greek theta, so, Greek and
> Cyrillic Slavonic = "Martha" was "Marta" in Glagolitsa...
>
> I would be always = glad to=20 share my observations on the Glagolitsa and
> related topics with = any=20 interested linguist.

Have you written any of this up? = (Unfortunately I=20 probably would no
longer be able to read it if it's in = Russian!)
--=20
Peter T. Daniels     grammatim@worldnet.att.net=
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0559_01C07460.8BFD7560-- ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2001 #1 ************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html