Talk:Trojan language

Comments
It seems to me that since there's no earlier text to show as evidence, we can't be sure that the free communication between Trojans and Greeks in the Iliad already represents a fictional convention. I have therefore rephrased slightly. Is that OK? Andrew Dalby 12:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is fine. but i would also like to say that this article contains nothing but speculations:
 * probably dating from about 1275 BC 
 * of the Hittite empire of which Troy was probably a dependency
 * but it does not necessarily represent the everyday speech of the city
 * this may merely be evidence that a fictional convention...
 * In addition, for everyone that has studied Homerus, the only Trojan ally that he calls 'barbarophones' are the 'Carians'. so, saying that a fictional convention frequently used in narratives in later times had already been adopted by the poet of the Iliad, is just POV. Homerus is the only source we have, and he calls the Trojans Greek-speaking. if he did this for fictional convention reasons, he would also had included the Carians. Any connection between Trojan and Hittite or Luwian has not been attested. archaeological excavations can only mean that those states had commercial relations and nothing more. apropos, greek scripts have been found in Britain, Spain and Sri Lanka, but noone dares to call the Picts or Tamils Greek-speaking... Hectorian 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it's speculative, and you might say the same of a great many articles on very early history. But, as you'll see if you reread the article, Homer is not the only source. The article identifies three sources.
 * The article says, carefully, that "this may merely be evidence that a fictional convention frequently used in narratives in later times had already been adopted by the poet of the Iliad". That's not POV, because "it may" implies that equally "it may not".
 * No, Homer doesn't "call ... the Trojans Greek-speaking", as you say. Nor does this article. If we wanted to speculate further, there could be several reasons why the Trojans in the Iliad "have no difficulty in speaking to their Greek opponents". Here are four: no POV, these are just possibilities.


 * 1) They both had the same mother tongue (call it Greek or Trojan, therefore, it's the same)
 * 2) The Achaeans, or some of them, had a second language that was familiar to the Trojans (e.g. Trojan? Luwian? Minoan?)
 * 3) The Trojans, or some of them, had a second language that was familiar to the Achaeans (e.g. Greek? Luwian? Minoan?)
 * 4) The poet of the Iliad had adopted the fictional convention named above.
 * A previous editor had asserted that this last was the real reason: I adjusted the article to make it clear that it is just one possibility out of several.
 * Does this respond to your comments? And rew D alby  15:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, u have responded quite well;-). However, i will insist that Homer calls only the Carians as 'barbarophones', this must mean something, right? first thing that it means is that the Greeks were definately not 'barbarophones', id est your point number 2 is immediately excluded (unless Minoan was a Greek language-note that it has not been read yet. btw, prior to Michael Ventris, Mycenean was also thought to be non-Greek). In addition, Homer could well say that Achaeans and Trojans were talking in a language other than Greek, while putting Greek words in their mouths; also, as an epic poet that he was, imagine how much interest this would attract from his audience. btw, do u know that in a specific point in Iliad, Hector and Achilles are talking about common ancestors, common origins? if u know Greek, i can try to find it for u in the original. if not, i can give u the specific line, so that u can check it yourself. Ciao Hectorian 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point about the epithet given to the Carians is very interesting (and actually I discuss it in the book which is in the bibliography). There are (as always!) several possibilities, one of which is that if the poet lived in the eastern Aegean, Carian may have been the foreign language most familiar to the poet ... Yes, I know Greek, and I had forgotten about that conversation between Hector and Achilles. Please give me the reference! Best wishes And rew D alby  18:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, i found it! I made a mistake, though... It is not from Hector-Achilles battle, but from Diomedes-Glaucus incident:
 * τεύχεα δ' ἀλλήλοις ἐπαμείψομεν, ὄφρα καὶ οἵδε
 * γνῶσιν ὅτι ξεῖνοι πατρώϊοι εὐχόμεθ' εἶναι.
 * From Iliad, Z 230-231
 * I am not translating, since u said u know Greek;-). if u have difficulties, please let me know. Regards Hectorian 14:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My edits have been made largely to reduce any appearance of foregone conclusions, starting at the beginning: we can't speak yet of "the" Trojan language; the article simply covers what little can be surmised about whatever language was spoken at Troy. I added some references. --Wetman 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, I can't understand the significance of "although this "has no historical or political basis", applied to the Alaksandu treaty. Would you expand the sentence a bit, to make the reservations more obvious? I must say this brief article is not embarassing at all. --Wetman 04:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "No historical or political basis" is quoted directly from Latacz, who vaguely refers to the fact that "Wilusa had already distanced itself from Arzawa during its vassal-state phase, as we have seen" (pages 115-116). I concur that the argument is rather fuzzy. On the other hand, there is no evidence that any non-Luwian dialect was spoken in the west of Asia Minor ca. 1200 BC. According to Latacz and Starke, the "textual and onomastic material" points to the contrary. For what it's worth, the Karabel Pass near Smyrna, where the king of Mira proclaimed his authority in a Luwian inscription, is located within 200 km from Hisarlik. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what language Trojans spoke (vernacular) but in any case they spoke Hellenic, Luwian and either Hittite language probably as 'lingua franka' especially their ruling class. Hence it's fruitless talking and discussing about Homer's Iliad. It would be like discussing about what language was the dialogue between Trump and Macron. Piro ilir (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Jason and Aeneas
"Jason finds no language barrier with Medea in Colchis, and Trojan Aeneas converses without difficulty both with Punic Dido and with Latin Turnus."


 * Medea's family came from Greece. And despite Aneas having no difficulty in conversing with Punics and Latins, Juno (having a dislike for Trojans) pleads Jupiter to allow the Latins to maintain their language. That's Virgil's explanation why the Romans still spoke Latin. Also in the Aeneid, most - if not all - Trojans have Greek names (Nisos, Euryalos, Ilioneus, Gyas etc.).--80.141.243.224 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Medea came from Colchis, though given Hellene ancestors in Hellene myth. Language barriers have no place in epic conventions: that's the point. --Wetman (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aetes came from Greece. And so did Phrixos whose children also lived in Colchis. In other places, language differences are sometimes mentioned (the Trojans in Latium) but never seem to affect mutual intelligiblity. That's the point.--80.141.209.49 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Language barriers have no place in epic conventions: that's the point. --Wetman (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Danaos and Agenor
Hi!

below is a translation of a text passage by Gustav Schwab:


 * To make sure Helen had come with Paris of her own free will, king Priam sent his wife to her. Helen explained that through her own ancestry she was as closely related to the Trojans as to the Greeks, for Danaos and Agenor were as well her own forefathers as those of the Trojan royal family.

This clearly indicates that Greeks and Trojans were cousins. Thereby it can be assumed that their languages were mutually intelligible.

Best regards--80.141.225.179 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a big assumption. It isn't necessarily true. Best regards.84.51.137.31 (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reading ethnology directly and uncritically from epic literary texts won't give sensible results. The context of the text passage translated by Schwab counts as strongly as anything it might assert. --Wetman (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Trojans = Luwians
HEROES:

Paris (mythology) (Alexandros): < "Par-Ida" /Par = "pastor", "shepherd", Ida = Mount Ida Paris Πάρῐς (nominative), Paridos Πάρῐδος (genitive), Paridi Πάρῐδῐ (dative), Parida Πάρῐδᾰ (accusative)

Hector = Hektor: means "brother-in-law" (of Helen)

Hecuba = Hekabe: means "mother-in-law" (of Helen), abe ="mother?"

Helen = Helene /Helena: "Strait" (this is "Dardanelles") <Ela-na Ela/Ila ="strait" ,-na = "having to do with", "place" Ela-na = "the woman of the strait" (in Luwian)

Ilium = Ilion (=Troy) <Il(a)-ion   /Ila = "strait" (in Luwian), -ion = "place" (in Greek)

also Hellespont < Hellespontos that means: "Sea of Helle (mythology)" In fact, the name of this Helle came from "Ela" = "strait" (in Luwian)

Helenos = Helenus: "Strait" (the male form of the same name!) <Ela-na

Priamus = Priamos: < Pria-uma = "the man in the castle" Pria ="castle" uma ="human" (in Luwian) ~ homo (in Latin/ the same root!)

Cassandra = Kassandra: <Kas-Andra kas = "temple", andra = "priestess", "woman", "nun" (in Luwian)

more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#Luwian_Gods_and_Goddesses Böri (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Böri, you should seriously try and learn about WP:CITE. Of course it is ok to google. I do it all the time. But you aren't done googling until you can present the scholarly reference behind your results. Please stop presenting urls as "references". Especially, stop citing other Wikipedia articles as references.

Your "etymologies" are just fantasy. I have no doubt that they are published fantasy, but you need to figure out who published it when and where. It is absolutely no problem to cite Greek etymologies for Helen, Cassandra, Priam, Aphrodite, or most of the other names you claim are Luwian. The best you can do is point out that someone (who) has suggested (when and where) that the etymology may also be Luwian. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that "Priemus" is your "greek" name for " Pria-uma = "the man in the castle" Pria ="castle" uma ="human" (in Luwian) ~ homo (in Latin/ the same root!) Well my name is Slovenian Primož ("by man") and I live in a territory called "Trojane" where once Veneti lived (Eneti were also Trojans - Homers "Enedae") I did not know that im greek ... by this logic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.58.29.14 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources? Paul August &#9742; 17:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Return to the previous version
At the previous version, there are citations and corrections. Also I think that all that the citation boxes and notifications are too much. Of course any addition of sources is welcome and will improve the article, but there is not any reason to put notifications everywhere. About the clarify notification, I think that the topic is completely clear: we don't know what language trojans spoke and there are three theories. So I suggest to return at the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.21.180 (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a "Greek Theory" section at all when there is no cited theory?
All citations (what few there are) in this section are from Homer, written versions of an oral poetic tradition. Requesting citations is fine but this has been around a long time and no valid citations have been added. At this point it's just misleading, especially because it's the very first section on the page, while the least plausible.

It'd be one thing if the section was called "Greek Speculation" but for there to be a section called theory, shouldn't it at least have a single citation expressing a scholarly opinion to that effect? Even at the very least expressing a scholarly opinion that Homer can be read as a historical source? Homer itself can't be the only source, even if it explicitly said the Trojans spoke Greek. (which it doesn't)

I don't mean to sound harsh, but making a section called "Greek Theory," filling it with at best original research, and puffing it up with citations of Homer would be like if I posted another section called "Japanese Theory" and cited the Hebrew Bible's "Tower of Babel" parable as a supporting source.

Also, I don't see how the citations given even express this idea. They don't seem to indicate the points for which they are cited as sources. It says "According to Homer, Trojans shared a common language, religion and customs with the Achaeans." but the citation given only says "Those who want that terrible civil war, have no family, no rule, no home." Which is about as completely irrelevant to the preceding statement as I can imagine.

There's also this gem of blatant conjecture: "...he refers to the Achaeans as subjects of the Greeks (something that might mean that Trojans could be also Greeks)" For one, that is not even what the cited source says. But even if it was, if Achaeans being subject to Greeks means that Trojans could be Greeks, then anything can mean anything, including that Trojans spoke Japanese.

It's true that the Iliad says that the Trojans spoke many languages, to the extent that they sounded like bleating sheep iirc. But this isn't cited anywhere, nor would it indicate that any of those languages were Mycenaean Greek.

Every other statement thereafter is uncited. So nowhere do we get any indication that any linguist has even proposed a Greek hypothesis, much less that there's a competing theory that the Trojans' mother tongue was a Greek language. We just get quotes from Homer, which 1) don't even prove that Homer thought the Trojans spoke Greek, and 2) wouldn't matter even if they did, because the majority of Homeric scholars today suppose that (assuming Homer was a historical person at all) he merely inherited and embellished centuries of oral (mythological) tradition before dictating it to a scribe. Even if Homer explicitly expressed an opinion on the matter, that wouldn't constitute a theory per se.

Aminomancer (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've replaced the content now with sourced explanation of the main arguments I'm aware of. In the future, you can be bold]-- and of course that goes for any changes you want to make to the new version as well. Botterweg14  (talk)  15:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Iliad is an epic, not just a poem. It is similar with the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is a whole debate about if parts of Homer's epics could be used as historical evidence. Homer's epics, are not fiction novels. There are the Greek oral history of that era. Of course, the mythological sections are not true, but the others could make historical sence. So no, you are wrong above... How it's possible to compare "Iliad" with the "Tower of Babel"... The first one it's history with mythological and poetry influence, the second one it's a tale with some symbolic historical meaning. Greek Rebel (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Greek Rebel, please check Identifying reliable sources (history). Iliad is not and could be not WP:RS. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What if I add this information at the section "in ancient Greek Epics" that I created? It could be part of such as this, because I would have declare that this theory is based at the epics. Greek Rebel (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Title
Seeing as there is no evidence that a distinct Trojan language ever existed, should we not change the title which implies it did. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The Trojans, like other humans, had a language.
 * Compare, if you like, with the majority language of the United States. The majority of people would call it English. See the article American English. But H. L. Mencken, while using "English" in his subtitle, called it "the American language" in his title: The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States. In the way that he used "American language" to specify the language of the United States of America, I'd say we can use "Trojan language" to specify the language of Troy.
 * I guess the alternative would be to use Calvert Watkins's article title (in 1984): "[The] language of the Trojans": it sounds suitably vague-and-precise, which was no doubt his reason for choosing it. I'm not sure whether it would really serve well for a pagename in an encyclopedia. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)