Can anyone supply any ACTUAL evidence that the ancients in FACT perceived the historical relatedness of Latin and Greek? (Beyond, that is, the bare speculation that they SHOULD have perceived it from what we today might call comparative-linguistic evidence within the languages themselves....) Many thanks to any who may have some specific items of evidence ready to their minds. Best, Bill Wadbrook
Romans' Comparative-Linguistics Consciousness
- Thread starter thewadbrook
- Start date
B
Bitmap
Guest
Varro's de lingua Latina
It would've been pretty obvious to them that Greek was more akin to their own language than, say, the Germanic dialects. There are a plethora of signs, e.g. common words like ego vs ἐγώ, fero vs φέρω. Also there's the obvious consanguinity of their noun endings, like Latin -us, -i vs Gk. -ος, -οι or -um, -a vs -ον, -α.
In addition, there are strong implications that Varro was aware of a connection between the two in De Lingua Latina, as Bitmap pointed out.
In addition, there are strong implications that Varro was aware of a connection between the two in De Lingua Latina, as Bitmap pointed out.
I always thougth that Romans were disposed to establish a closer relationship between their language and Greek because of the cultural background. After all, Latin and Greek are only remotely related. On the other hand, which other languages did they contact? Celtic ones, and if I’m not mistaken Caesar felt the Gaulish language be closer to Latin than Greek; but other then that: Semitic languages such as Phoenician and Armaic, Egyptian, non-indoeuropean languages of Spain, Britain, and Balkans…
B
Bitmap
Guest
I think Varro traces the roots of Latin back to the Greek language - possibly for (originally) cultural reasons, but the similarities are apparent. Imprecator mentions just a fewQuasus dixit:
If we take a pair of Indo-European languages, they are likely do display similarities, aren’t they? For example, Latin and modern Russian:Bitmap dixit:
māter — мать mat’ (palatal T)
pāscō — пасу pasu
pāstor — пастух pastuch
nōs — нас nas (acc.)
vōs — вас vas (acc.)
sale — соль sol’ (palatal L)
volō — воля vol’a (uoluntas; palatal L)
…
The number of examples can be greatly increased if one takes into consideration at least the most apparent sound correspondences, e.g.
frāter — брат brat
ferō — беру beru (capio)
…
My point is as follows: since Romans contacted with a lot of non-Indo-European languages, they appreciated even such distant relatives as Greeks.
As for Italic languages (Oscan, Umbran, etc.), perhaps the Romans just did not feel them to be alien, like Russian and Ucrainian or (I believe) German and Dutch.
My fantasy is working.
I guess the answer to Thewadbrook’s question is that, although modern linguists recognize that Latin, an Indo-European language, is closer to Greek, another Indo-European language, than it is to the non-Indo-European languages that the Romans came into contact with, such as Celtic, Egyptian, Hebrew/Aramaic, Arabic, etc., the similarities were not so strong that the Romans themselves realized the kinship. The Romans might have seen similarities between Latin and Greek, but – insofar as they gave the matter any thought at all -- they apparently saw them as coincidental. I take it that the Romans considered a language to be a static attribute of a nation and did not give any thought to the possibility that it could have changed over time or that different languages could have been derived from a common ancestor.
Or is that correct? It certainly brings up a number of related questions in my mind.
While I don’t know any Greek, I know that the language had changed from the Greek of Homer to the Koine Greek spoken in the time of the Roman Empire. Did anyone recognize that there had been a change in the language over the course of time, an evolution?
I have heard of an ancient story, telling about a king who was curious as to what the first language was, and so he conducted an experiment. He had two children raised under orders that no one was to speak to them. They grew up to speak Phrygian, so he concluded that Phrygian was the oldest language. While there may not be any factual basis for this story, it shows that people at the time felt there might be a “natural” human language that people would speak without being taught, and it implies that that natural language was the ancestor of other languages.
The only ancient people that I know that recognized a relationship among languages were the Hebrews, who simplified that relationship into a personal relationship among people: the Semitic languages were derived from Shem, one of the sons of Noah, the Hamitic languages were derived from Ham, another son of Noah, and the Japhetic languages were derived from Japheth, a third son of Noah. In more modern times, a West Slavic legend talks about three brothers, Lech, Chech, and Rus, who each went in different directions to found the Polish, Czech, and Russian peoples and their languages. Is anyone aware of any similar legends in Roman mythology?
Roman mythology claimed that the Romans were descended from the Trojan Aeneas. Did anyone in ancient times raise the issue of language in this context? Did they assume that the Trojans – off in what today is Turkey – spoke Latin?
Does anyone have any thoughts on any of this?
Or is that correct? It certainly brings up a number of related questions in my mind.
While I don’t know any Greek, I know that the language had changed from the Greek of Homer to the Koine Greek spoken in the time of the Roman Empire. Did anyone recognize that there had been a change in the language over the course of time, an evolution?
I have heard of an ancient story, telling about a king who was curious as to what the first language was, and so he conducted an experiment. He had two children raised under orders that no one was to speak to them. They grew up to speak Phrygian, so he concluded that Phrygian was the oldest language. While there may not be any factual basis for this story, it shows that people at the time felt there might be a “natural” human language that people would speak without being taught, and it implies that that natural language was the ancestor of other languages.
The only ancient people that I know that recognized a relationship among languages were the Hebrews, who simplified that relationship into a personal relationship among people: the Semitic languages were derived from Shem, one of the sons of Noah, the Hamitic languages were derived from Ham, another son of Noah, and the Japhetic languages were derived from Japheth, a third son of Noah. In more modern times, a West Slavic legend talks about three brothers, Lech, Chech, and Rus, who each went in different directions to found the Polish, Czech, and Russian peoples and their languages. Is anyone aware of any similar legends in Roman mythology?
Roman mythology claimed that the Romans were descended from the Trojan Aeneas. Did anyone in ancient times raise the issue of language in this context? Did they assume that the Trojans – off in what today is Turkey – spoke Latin?
Does anyone have any thoughts on any of this?
No time for any sort of detailed response, but the educated Romans were quite aware of the fact that languages change - they seemed to take much interest in etymology.
Varro wrote in length about etymology, but I don't remember which of his three books on the subject survived.
Varro wrote in length about etymology, but I don't remember which of his three books on the subject survived.
Since there is no mention of interpreters in the Græco-Trojan war, they would have assumed that everyone was speaking mutually-intelligible varieties of Greek.
‘Ilium sounds a bit like Ilford’
Haha, I went to Ilford County High School. Maybe I’m descended from Priam.
Haha, I went to Ilford County High School. Maybe I’m descended from Priam.
Nikolaos, if you find examples of Roman etymology, I would be interested in hearing about them. As I think back on the matter, the only cases I can recall are “false etymologies,” stories or myths made up to give an explanation for words that the Romans did not know. An example of such false etymologies would be the story of Dido craftily cutting up an ox hide to enclose enough land to found the city of Carthage. This story is recognized as having been prompted by the fact that central part of the city of Carthage was called the “byrsa.” “Byrsa" was the Phoenician word for “citadel,” but non-Phoenicians, not knowing that, invented the story of the ox hide because byrsa sounded like the Greek word for “ox hide.” Or the explanation of the Roman wedding call “talassio” being explained as the response of a group of young Roman men, friends and followers of a young Roman named Talassius, to the question of whither they were carrying off a particularly beautiful Sabine woman.
Cursor Nictans, I don’t think that it is necessarily a valid argument that the fact that Homer does not mention any translators means that both the Trojans and the Greeks spoke Greek. I don’t recall Caesar mentioning translators in conveying to his readers what the Gauls or the Germans said. Of course, with Greek traders and even Greek colonies in Anatolia, it is quite possible that the Trojans would have been able to communicate in Greek, even if it was not their native language. Still, that leaves open the question of whether the Romans believed that the native language of the Trojans was Latin.
Cursor Nictans, I don’t think that it is necessarily a valid argument that the fact that Homer does not mention any translators means that both the Trojans and the Greeks spoke Greek. I don’t recall Caesar mentioning translators in conveying to his readers what the Gauls or the Germans said. Of course, with Greek traders and even Greek colonies in Anatolia, it is quite possible that the Trojans would have been able to communicate in Greek, even if it was not their native language. Still, that leaves open the question of whether the Romans believed that the native language of the Trojans was Latin.
Varro starts the first of his surviving books, Liber V, with this:
"I have committed to show through six books how words for things were introduced in the Latin language. Concerning this, I have already sent three to Septumius: in which I wrote about the discipline, which they call "etymology": what some say against it, I discuss in the first volume, and what some say in favor of it, I cover in the second, and in the third I discuss the discipline itself. In this letter to you I will write about how words were introduced to the Latin language, both those which are in use with the common people and those which are found chiefly among the poets."
My own possibly faulty translation is as follows:
"I have committed to show through six books how words for things were introduced in the Latin language. Concerning this, I have already sent three to Septumius: in which I wrote about the discipline, which they call "etymology": what some say against it, I discuss in the first volume, and what some say in favor of it, I cover in the second, and in the third I discuss the discipline itself. In this letter to you I will write about how words were introduced to the Latin language, both those which are in use with the common people and those which are found chiefly among the poets."
I am very grateful for all the wisdom and information on this thread and for (the existence of) all of you. Should I also say "grateful to you? -- I am, I would, but I have to recognize also that your devotion to Latin is not a favor you are doing me.....
Talk to you again very soon. Best, Bill W.
Talk to you again very soon. Best, Bill W.
Thanks for dropping in again, Bill. See you in another three years. Sooner is permitted, though not compulsory.