Carthage

[Gaius Octavius]

Are there any Carthaginian documents extant?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Are there any Carthaginian documents extant?

Not too many.

 

Without any doubt the most famous is the Periplus of Hanno, a Greek translation of a Punic inscription that had been set up in the temple of the chief god of Carthage, Ba

Edited October 5, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Julius Ratus]

Thanks, A. I didn't even know there were any documents left by the Carthginians.

 

BTW, what is the Codex Heidelburgensis? An ancient text written by Cro Magnons?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thanks, A. I didn't even know there were any documents left by the Carthginians.

 

BTW, what is the Codex Heidelburgensis? An ancient text written by Cro Magnons?

 

αννωνος Περίπλους

 

Hannonis periplus

 

αννων Καρχηδονίος

 

 

Κώδικες Palatinus Graecus 398 (9ου ή 10ου αι.) και Vatopedinus 655 (14ου αι.)

 

Α' Κριτική Eκδοσις: C. M

[Gaius Octavius]

Thanks, Big A.

[Gaius Octavius]

Whilst looking up the origin of the Hungarian language (Finno-Ugrian group), I came across a statement that the Carthaginian language is an offshoot of Hebrew.

 

It seems so odd to me that none of their script has been found yet, as they had colonies all over the Mediterranean. Is it possible that the Romans obliterated them to that extent?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Whilst looking up the origin of the Hungarian language (Finno-Ugrian group), I came across a statement that the Carthaginian language is an offshoot of Hebrew.

 

It seems so odd to me that none of their script has been found yet, as they had colonies all over the Mediterranean. Is it possible that the Romans obliterated them to that extent?

From The Journal of the American Oriental Society, thr review of A PHOENICIAN-PUNIC GRAMMAR, by CR Krahmalkov

Publication Date: 01-JUL-04

Author: Schmitz, Philip C.

 

Article Excerpt

 

A PHOENICIAN-PUNIC GRAMMAR

 

Introduction

 

THE PHOENICIAN LANGUAGE (1-15). Krahmalkov sets out cultural and geographic terminology first: the indigenous name of Phoenicia was PT /put/; the name of the Phoenicians and their language was /ponnim/ (note the interpretation of Ps. 45:12b-14a). A discussion of Plautus' Poenulus establishes this usage (3-5). Linguistic diversity characterized "Greater Phoenician" (6) as a language in all periods and regions (6). The essay then sketches the southern coastal dialects (7-8), the northern coastal dialects (Arvad, Byblos) (8-9), and western Phoenician (10-15).

 

ALPHABET, ORTHOGRAPHY, AND PHONOLOGY (16-37). According to the author, the consonantal system for writing Phoenician derives from literary Ugaritic, but Phoenician scribes infrequently employed waw and yod as vowel letters in spelling foreign names and writing certain inflectional morphemes (e.g., pleonastic spelling of the pronoun 'NKY 'aniki "I"; plene spelling of the first-person singular possessive suffix -i "my"). The tendency to employ vowel letters increases with time in Punic and Neo-Punic. In Phoenician, 'alep is infrequently used to represent final vowels in transcribing hypocoristic personal names and foreign personal and geographic names. Krahmalkov delineates orthographic distinctives of Cypriote inscriptions and the increasing divergence of Punic and Neo-Punic spelling practice.

 

Before surveying phonology, Krahmalkov acknowledges the sporadic and incomplete character of the evidence, cautioning that his own description is "perforce fragmented, incomplete and always problematic" (20). These limitations arise in part because the author makes more extensive use of examples from transliterated Punic and Neo-Punic texts than any previous grammar of the language.

 

According to Krahmalkov's analysis, the Proto-West-Semitic sibilant series [theta], s, s merged in Phoenician as simple /s/, represented orthographically as S (25-26). Transcriptions such as 'S = /'is/ may confuse readers who fail to apprehend this point. Regarding vowels, note the single example of the so-called "furtive" a-vowel before a laryngeal (32). The discussion of word stress and vowel reduction (33-37) advances beyond previous treatments, bringing system to the apparently disparate spellings of Phoenician words in Greek and Latin letters. Among the truly brilliant analyses are Punic ierasan /ye[r'.sup.a]san/ < /yer'isan/ (*YR'SN in Phoenician letters) "may he shake," and Neo-Punic iryla /yir'ila/ (*YR'L) with the same meaning (34; cf. PPD 446 s.v. R-'-S and 445 s.v. R-'-L). Further discussion of phonotactics, for example regarding the orthography of the consonant 'alep, would have enhanced an already fine phonological analysis. (6)

 

INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRONOUNS (38-49). Chapter 3 begins the format that continues through the rest of the book: section A of the chapter or topic presents morphology (followed by comments), and section B takes up syntax and usage (see the rationale, xiv). The vocalization of the first-person singular independent pronoun /'aniki/ is explained from the Latin-letter spellings anec(h) and anic (39-40). (7) The intensive personal pronoun BT or BNT "I myself" is now fully described (47-48). (8) The anaphoric pronoun ("that, the aforementioned") is analyzed with respect to syntactic context (determination of the antecedent noun or of the pronoun, 48), and the emphatic anaphoric pronoun (BT- or BNT-"the/that very, the/that same"; to be distinguished from the intensive personal pronoun is a newly recognized form. (9) Note that the second-person feminine plural independent pronoun remains unattested (39, 41). (10)

 

SUFFIXAL PRONOUNS (50-74). One of Krahmalkov's lasting contributions to the study of Phoenician and Punic grammar is his description of the morphology and distribution of suffixal pronouns. (11) Krahmalkov worked out the phonological shape of these morphemes in several important studies, updated and supplemented in this grammar. The second-person feminine plural suffixal pronoun remains unattested. Krahmalkov has supplied three attestations of the third-person feminine plural suffixal pronoun (55, 59). The synchronic dimension of this grammar's approach can be seen in its care to document orthography as well as morphology: e.g., QL' and QL' are listed as variants of the third-person masculine singular suffix in Form A (51), although only a spelling variation is involved. The discussion of syntax (72-74) distinguishes five categories of object pronouns (note the interpretation of KAI 89.2).

 

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS AND THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (75-92). The grammar recognizes a Z-series (masc. Z, 'Z, Z', esde, esse; fem. Z, 'Z), an S-series (S, si, sy), an S-series with excrescent -t (ST, sith, syth), the neuter hoc (a Latin loan?), and the plural ('L, 'L', ily, illi). The syntactic discussion (77-82) distinguishes pronominal and adjectival uses of the demonstrative, further distinguishing deictic and locative uses. Determination is a free variant, producing the phrases QRT Z, HQRT Z, QRT HZ, and HQRT HZ. Byblian employed two sets of demonstrative pronouns, labeled A and B (82-85). The section on the definite article makes significant steps forward in defining the morphology and phonological realization of determination in Phoenician and Punic.

 

RELATIVE AND DETERMINATIVE PRONOUNS (93-107). The first part of the chapter (93-103) concerns the relative pronoun. The author mentions but does not describe the old relative pronoun zu, written Z, found in archaic inscriptions from Byblos (KAI 1-7). From the ninth century onward, the relative pronoun 'is replaced the older form in all dialects of Phoenician and Punic (94). (12) The phonetic shape can be determined from "the plene spelling 'YS and Roman and Greek letter spellings es, is, ys, vs." (13) A Hebrew example is cited in Num. 1:4. Krahmalkov stresses that the form s- is a determinative pronoun, not a relative (94). (14) Late in the Neo-Punic phase, a form mu replaced 'is, or combined with it in the relative phrase mu 'is (this form is the key to a stunning interpretation of Poen. 939). A possible example of Phoenician M = mu in a votive inscription on a bronze carinated bowl (15) is problematic, as the author notes (the text as transcribed ignores the numeral 2 in the original).

 

Discussion of the syntax of the relative pronoun is organized in eleven sections. The first category involves a relative pronoun intro-ducting non-verbal clauses (a) with or B. without an independent personal pronoun (95-96). In the second category, the relative pronoun introduces verbal relative clauses employing (a) participles or B. finite verbs (96-97). The third category involves relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun, subdivided into (a) clauses including a pronoun that resumes the indirect object and B. clauses without such a pronoun. (The last example under category b [99] appears to be misplaced; see my...

 

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.

Edited October 10, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gaius Octavius]

Very nice work, Big A.

May one take it that writings do exist in Carthaginian and not simply in translations?

[P.Clodius]

I came across a statement that the Carthaginian language is an offshoot of Hebrew....

Indeed. The same migration that 'created' the Hebrews created the Phoenicians.

[Andrew Dalby]

I came across a statement that the Carthaginian language is an offshoot of Hebrew....

Indeed. The same migration that 'created' the Hebrews created the Phoenicians.

That's right; on the other hand, the migration was a long time ago. Hebrew and Phoenician had already grown some way apart, at the time when the Phoenician settlement of Carthage and other north African colonies began; and it was after that time that Carthaginian (Punic) began to differentiate from Phoenician.

 

The evidence is incomplete, because although SOME Carthaginian (Punic) inscriptions have been found, the texts don't amount to very much. However, the Romans certainly didn't eliminate the language. The emperor Septimius Severus was said to be a better public speaker in Punic than in either Latin or Greek. And the Punic script survived: a form of it even survived to modern times, as Tifinagh ('the-Punic') script used by some Berber peoples.

 

The best evidence I can think of to answer GO's point is this. St Augustine tells us a lot -- in his voluminous writings -- about himself and his studies. He was bilingual in childhood, speaking Punic and Latin. At school he learned Greek (he didn't like it: see Augustine, Confessions 1.13-14). Later, when he became interested in religion, he chose to learn Aramaic and Hebrew. Aramaic he found easy, because it was very close to Punic. Hebrew he found difficult, in spite of the linguistic relationship. This is evidence that, as we would expect from history, Carthaginian (Punic) was very close to Phoenician and therefore Aramaic; not so very close to Hebrew.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The best evidence I can think of to answer GO's point is this. St Augustine tells us a lot -- in his voluminous writings -- about himself and his studies. He was bilingual in childhood, speaking Punic and Latin. At school he learned Greek (he didn't like it: see Augustine, Confessions 1.13-14). Later, when he became interested in religion, he chose to learn Aramaic and Hebrew. Aramaic he found easy, because it was very close to Punic. Hebrew he found difficult, in spite of the linguistic relationship. This is evidence that, as we would expect from history, Carthaginian (Punic) was very close to Phoenician and therefore Aramaic; not so very close to Hebrew.

 

Thanks Andrew! That was really enlightening.

[P.Clodius]

The best evidence I can think of to answer GO's point is this. St Augustine tells us a lot -- in his voluminous writings -- about himself and his studies. He was bilingual in childhood, speaking Punic and Latin. At school he learned Greek (he didn't like it: see Augustine, Confessions 1.13-14). Later, when he became interested in religion, he chose to learn Aramaic and Hebrew. Aramaic he found easy, because it was very close to Punic. Hebrew he found difficult, in spite of the linguistic relationship. This is evidence that, as we would expect from history, Carthaginian (Punic) was very close to Phoenician and therefore Aramaic; not so very close to Hebrew.

 

Thanks Andrew! That was really enlightening.

Doesn't this undermine the assumption that rome actively sought to eradicate the punic language though? Septimus Severus and Augustine were around what 3-4 hundred years after the 3rd punic war and yet the language appeared to be alive and well, no?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Doesn't this undermine the assumption that rome actively sought to eradicate the punic language though? Septimus Severus and Augustine were around what 3-4 hundred years after the 3rd punic war and yet the language appeared to be alive and well, no?

 

What supports the assumption that Rome actively sought to eradicate the Punic tongue?

[P.Clodius]

It seems so odd to me that none of their script has been found yet, as they had colonies all over the Mediterranean. Is it possible that the Romans obliterated them to that extent?

Nothing..just this statement, and the raising of Carthage proper.

[Gaius Octavius]

Here are some Carthaginian glyphs:

 

http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art156.htm

 

Here is some Carthaginian history:

 

http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/carthage.html