Talk:Pre-Greek substrate

Merging, referencing, cleanup, renaming?
I'm not quite sure what to do with this page. It currently shares a lot of material with Pelasgian. It could conceivably also be merged into Proto-Greek. It definitely needs referencing (the main hypotheses are ascribed to authors, but the arguments for and against each are entirely unsourced).

For the time being, I'm going to move it from "Greek substrate language" to "Pre-Greek substrate". The old title is a bit misleading as it might suggest to the reader that this language is itself "Greek".
 * Ah yes, I would agree with you. Proto-Greek is usually reserved for stages of Indo-European preceding the development of Greek from them. Pelasgian may or may not be that.Dave (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason I'm also changing the categories. Category:Varieties of Greek is only for just that, things that are themselves varieties of Greek.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to leave it free-standing despite the overlap. My opinion is that it is better to have more, shorter, cross-referenced articles than fewer larger ones. I went through and cleaned the subtitles, which contained links. -THB 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well we don't know until we see what people think. The way both are set-up the material certainly would result in two write-ups on the same material. I put the appropriate templates on and it appears that this is where it is all going to be discussed. I vote for merger - the topics are the same. We can put "main" in the Pelasgians, which badly needs to save some space also. This one still has plenty of space, but those are only accidental advantages. The main problem is as you say overlap. I was about to expand Pelasgians but now that I know this issue is here I feel it must be resolved firstDave (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To me it's pretty clear that this article should be a separate article. I'm removing the merge tags not because of my opinion, but because no one has come with a compelling reason to merge in all this time. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good move. Beekes's work on Pre-Greek, as he calls it, is a big advance over other, less systematic and less thorough, attempts in this direction. It deserves its own place, imvhoJohundhar (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Pre-Greek = "Luwian" !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#Luwian_Gods_and_Goddesses Böri (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

-ss and -nd /-nth names
Knossos, Larissa, Assos, Aspendos, Korinthos, Sagalassos, Milawanda > Miletos, Parnassos, Telmessos, Termessos, Zakynthos, etc. There are hundreds of names like that. Böri (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and another thing still missed, even by Beekes, is that all feminine 2nd declension nouns in -os (e.g. τερἐβινθος, and including the majority of Greek island names and several coastal place names) are non-IE and similarly neutrals in -os (e.g. anthos, pathos, lathos) and likely the majority of third declension nouns, e.g. male nouns ending in -eus (including basileus), possibly also graus, a word potentially related to Graikos, third declension nouns ending in -ys (ys, ichthys, pelekys, labrys, Rhadamanthys, etc), entire categories of nouns are non-IE.Skamnelis (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thalassa
I thought the Greek word for sea (thalassa) is related to eg. English 'flat', Dutch 'plat'. The explanation being that IE settlers from the interior of the continent, never having seen the sea, described it as they saw it ie. a flat space.1812ahill (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The etymology of pelagos (which is another word for sea) is potentially IE. Julius Pokorny derives Pelasgoi from *pelag-skoi ("flatland-inhabitants"). There are other suggestions. The etymology of thalassa is even less certain. Skamnelis (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pokorny's suggestion (*pelag-skoi - "flatland-inhabitants", as a source for "Pelasgoi") hasn't received wide endorsement among scholars of Indo-European linguists. The suggestion that "pelagos" comes from the proto-Indo-European word for "flat" similarly hasn't gained much traction. There doesn't seem to be any word in any other Indo-European language deriving the word "sea" from "flat". Jacob D (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If this were the case, there would be words for "sea" clearly derived from the Indo-European root for "flat" (*pleth₂-), but to my knowledge there aren't any. The only other possibility is that the term "thalassa" developed in Greece itself among proto-Greek speakers, but in that case it's highly unlikely they didn't see the sea. They would have surely known that often the sea can be rough and up close it looks anything but flat! Moreover, the word for "flat" already exists in ancient Greek as "πλάτη" (proto-Hellenic root *plətā), so there's no basis for deriving "thalassa" from it. Jacob D (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Anatolian Pre-Indo-European substratum
Hello everyone! I think that we should split the Anatolian substratum theory to Indo-European Anatolian(e.g. Luwian) and non-Indo-European (e.g. Hattic). I already renamed the Anatolian substratum to Anatolian Indo-European. I am collecting some sources to create an Anatolian non-Indo-European or Pre-Indo-European substratum section. Also, I believe that Minoan, being the most well attested of all substratum languages should be on top. Fkitselis (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Lemnian is not the same as Etruscan; it is a whole different language.
The tyrrhenian substratum section needs to be totally reworked

Forgot to sign my comment but also as I said in my edit summary: the fact that there is no genealogical relationship between Etruscan or Lemnain and Greek doesn't make either of those languages a language isolate (since Lemnian and Etruscan are actually thought to be related to each other and make up the Tyrrhenian language family, they are widely accepted as NOT language isolates), and even if Lemnian was a language isolate spoken in Greece, that wouldn't mean that it couldn't be a substratum. Language isolate doesn't literally mean a language is isolated; it means that a language has no genealogical relationship with other known languages. Please check up the definitions of terms before using them so that you don't write false information like that. 73.254.123.134 (talk)

Ήφαιστος: personal name
Why is Ήφαιστος listed as personal name and not as theonym? Galtzaile (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

δέπας
Would it be reasonable to remove dépas from the Anatolian Indo-European Substratum section on the basis that it has been established as a Proto-Albanian loanword? The corresponding Wiktionary page is []. ArbDardh (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)ArbDardh
 * I doubt that is a commonly accepted view, as we seem to have solid sourcing in this article for treating it among the Anatolian loanwords, with an actual attested source in Luwian. What exactly does Çabej say about it, and has his derivation been picked up by others in the literature? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Albanian aside, I'm not sure Hajnal belongs here as he seems to be discussing an adstrate, not a proper substrate. Does the scholarship on the matter usually include this info in discussion on pre-Greek substrata? Asking as you'd probably know netter than I.--Calthinus (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, regarding Apollo, what Beekes is actually saying also sounds more like an adstrate than a substrate : Lycia was Hellenized long after Apollo became part of Greek religious tradition. Apollo was certainly a major object of worship by the 8th century CE whereas Greek dominance over Lycia came much later.--Calthinus (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, sorry, which work by Hajnal are you referring to and where was it brought up? Can't see any reference to it either here or in the article right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * my bad, it's because I already removed it after reading Beekes. This one, Ivo Hajnal on Academia.Edu, here : --Calthinus (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Was here --Calthinus (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Given the fact that the preceding paragraph correctly describes the problem that these words may be adstrate rather than substrate loans, I'd see no issue with keeping the list as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, restored.--Calthinus (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Pseudo-Pre-Greek-Theory
Pre-Greek is another dogmatic unscientifical pseudo-term, that`s not proven. Similar to the Pseudo-Indo-european-Theory. There is linguistical, archaelogical and historical evidence, that refutes this false term. Ancient greek tribes like the Dorians, Acheans, Eteocretes, Cydonians, Minyans and Pelasgians are autochthon and belong to the helleno-pelasgian, ancient greek, Proto-Greek language family. Ancient historical, prehistorical, archaelogical, anthropological knowledge and evidence, the knowlegde of the ancient greek dialects, the investigation and study of the Ethno-, Topo-, Theo- and Anthroponymes of historical and prehistorical names,  proves the extent and age of the helleno-pelasgian language.

Sources Quellen : Dr. Adamantios Samson, Archäologist, Dr. Konstantinos Chatzigiannakis, The Helleno-pelasgian Homoglossie and its Transformations of the ancient greek dialects, The Digamma, Dr. Prof. Xenophon Moussas, Dr. Stratos Theodosiou, Astrophysicist, Dr. Ilias Mariolakos, Geologist, Dr. Angeliki Kombocholi Philologist, Dr. Eleni Koulizaki, Philologist, Dr. S. Papamarinopoulos, Helene Ahrweiler, Byzantinist, UNICEF ambassador, B. Metrou, Philologist. Maria Tzane, Archäologist, classical Philologist, Historian, Soziologist. Tbq01 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what is the basis for such claims. Linguists have long detected clear, systematic similarities in vocabulary, morphology, syntax, etc. between Greek and other languages, enabling them to establish that these languages all ultimately descend from a common root language, for which the conventional name "proto-Indo-European" has been given. Collecting enough related vocabulary in these languages, and understanding the way these languages and words change over time, has enabled linguists to identify numerous hypothetical root words that may once have been part of this proto language. Some of these roots are more plausible than others.
 * At the same time, there are numerous words in Greek which don't clearly descend from Indo-European roots, though the extent to which this is the case has been and continues to be debated. There is also clear indication from ancient Greek authors and historians, as well inscriptional evidence, of non-Greek languages spoken in ancient Greece and non-Greek speakers adopting Greek as it spread (see for instance Herodotus on the Athenians). This has led linguists and historians to conclude that proto-Greek existed in contact with non-Greek (including non-Indo European) languages already present in the area, and as it evolved and spread, it adopted and assimilated words and features from this language (or languages). The extent to which this happened is debatable, but recent scholarship has noted a comparable process in neighboring Anatolia, in which numerous words and features in Anatolian languages were adopted from known and identifiable non-Indo-European languages indigenous to Anatolia. Jacob D (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Terminology
The terminology pre-greek is not scientifically proven. It`s a unproven pseudo-hypothetical, dogmatic term that leads to fallacy. Similar to the pseudo-indoeuropean-theory. Both of those non-scientific terms are since years refuted. Based on scientifically proven evidence the correct and acribic term is : helleno-pelasgian = proto-greek language. 2A01:C23:607C:FD00:184E:4078:BE15:E88B (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus among historical linguists is against you. --Macrakis (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)