Talk:Phrygian language

Comments

There is no mention yet of its centum or satem classification (which from what I remember is still debated). I know that Greek chamai ("on the earth") has a Phrygian cognate beginning with 'z' (zama or something, don't remember), and there is also zamelon (slave; meaning "earth-bound" roughly; if that's the right spelling). Decius 00:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Armenians

What are we saying regarding the relation of Phrygian and Armenian? Sadly, not enough of Phrygian is known to be sure, and Armenian made some weird changes, between 600 BC and 400 AD. But Phrygian may be, as it were, the missing link between Greek and Armenian. I am particularly intrigued by the gunai(k)- stem. In Armenian gunay-k, the k is a desinence, while in Greek/Phrygian it is completely irregular. dab (ᛏ) 28 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)

The article continues to state "Ancient historians and myth did associate it with Thracian and maybe Armenian, on grounds of classical sources.". What assiociation was made by "ancient historians" of connections with Thracian, and, especially, with Armenian? I avoid applying those little tags, but this does need a source. --Wetman 01:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifying

Okay, I admit I am not aware of any ancient record that records that Phrygians migrated from Thrace around 1200 BC---what record is this? Is this merely from a classical author? I'm aware that some classical sources (namely, Herodotus) indicate such a migration, but I don't know of any non-Greek record that does.Decius 2 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted as probable, although no definite proof exists, of course. We could mention that the assuption is that the immigration was connected with the repercussions of the collapse of the Hittite Empire (it's always the same, as soon as an empire collapses, neighboring barbarians immigrate/invade) dab (ᛏ) 2 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Phrygians did migrate from Thrace ca 1200 BC, but we should leave the question more open in the article, unless conclusive evidence exists. Decius 2 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

sure, I'm fine with "probably". dab (ᛏ) 2 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

I'm trying to go back to the records themselves that we're dealing with here: at hand, I remember only Herodotus, book 7, part 73, where he tells of the Macedonian account of the Phrygians originating in Thrace. Is that all we have here directly? If so, the text has to be changed (The Phrygians are recorded to have emigrated from Thrace around 1200 BC). Decius 2 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

The 1200 BC figure stems from an assumption that the migration of the Sea Peoples relates to a presumed invasion of Phrygians from Thrace. To this is added the fall of the Hittite Empire, which may or may not have had anything to do with a Phrygian invasion. Decius 2 July 2005 11:40 (UTC)

Alright, everything looks fixed now. The Phrygians most likely did migrate from Thrace to Asia Minor ca 1200 BC, but there are no records of this Phrygian migration as the article claimed, AFAIK. The records apparently do not mention any Phrygian ethnonym, just various Sea Peoples. Decius 2 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

Mysian

no, no 'Mysian' is a purely geographical term here, since that's where these inscriptions were found, they are still Phrygian, just in another dialect, "Mysian Phrygian", if you like. dab (ᛏ) 9 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)

Thanks for the disambig, I didn't know whether scholars were claiming geographically Mysian or ethnically Mysian. Herodotus was probably right then. Decius 9 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)

Phrygian sentences

Next thing to do would be to add some (transliterated) Phrygian sentences into the article. I'm going to dig through Lubotsky and find something. Decius 19:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to place some Phrygian sentences here as I decide which to include:

Pinke (five) tas (those) dakeres (parts) onomaniais (named) mirou (in the monument) ik (for the) knaiken (wife) edaes (made).---"He has made those five parts named in the monument for the wife."

Ios ni semon knoumane kakon daket aini manka.-----"Whoever may afflict harm to this grave or stele." Phrygian kakon (harm) pretty much identical to Ancient Greek kakôn (ill, evil). Aini means 'or, and'. Knoumane means "grave", daket means "does" (PIE *dhe-, 'to set, put'), manka means stele. Etc.

Dakaren paterais eukin argou.-----"The parents have erected because of a vow." Dakaren<PIE *dhe, 'to set, put'; paterais<PIE *pater, 'father'; eukin<ancient Greek euxe, 'vow'; argou>because, since.

Decius 20:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Having read the sentences above, spotted few other similarities with the Armenian (though not is a position to tell if substantial or accidental): Phry: pinke(five) and Arm:hing (five); Phry: knaiken(wife) and Arm: kin (wife/woman) and khanayk (women)--164.114.234.24 22:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the impression that Greek, Phrygian, and Thracian were practically mutually intelligible in Achaean times. The Achaeans may have been quick at picking up a related language (Thracian, Phrygian). Since the Iliad has been shown reliable on a number of points, maybe those Thracians with Greek names in the Iliad really did have those Greek names. To me, the Iliad suggests that the Thracians may have spoke a tongue not too far from Greek. Decius 21:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

interesting; where in the Iliad is that? In general, I used to consider the Iliad like a hollywood movie (viz., everybody is speaking American, the bad guys with funny accents); the Trojan population should of course speak Luwian, which is hadly intelligible to Greeks. But the Alaksandus evidence suggests that there was a Greek ruling class in Troy already, so that the expedition was really agains foreign Greeks that were ruling over a Luwian population. This would certainly explain the ease of communication between Trojans and Achaeans. dab (ᛏ) 05:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the Iliad is fiction (though based on history), and in old movies everyone speaks the same language. And of course, Anatolian languages wouldn't be very intelligible---I was aiming at Phrygian and Thracian. It wouldn't surprise me if a Greek could communicate reasonably well with a Thracian in Achaean times after some practice (and I don't mean a Thracian taking a Greek course). I don't believe that bullshit about Thracian being close to "Balto-Slavic"---that seems too out of place. Decius 05:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

of course not, the dominating influence in that area was Anatolian. I'm just saying that your barbarophonon argument is not very strong as long as you don't explain why the Trojans Lydians, Lycians etc. are not also barbarophonon. dab (ᛏ) 05:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that's because the Carian language was particularly "uncouth" or mixed with "Lelegian". Now, compared to Lydian, Lydian may have seemed less barbaric to an Achaean than Carian did. Though probably not by that much. Anyway, there's no proof regarding the definite affinity of Thracian, but I'm betting on Thraco-Phrygo-Hellenic for now. Decius 06:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This particular vein of argument was started by those Phrygian sentences, not by that Iliad quote (though that was suggestive also)---I was thinking, if I can get the hang of some of these Phrygian sentences so quick, imagine how much easier it would have been for Thracians, Achaeans, and so on. They didn't have a list of "PIE roots" handy or Lubotsky's database, but I don't think they would've needed that. Decius 07:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

bukë

Albanian bukë 'bread; meal, meal-time' was listed as a cognate for Phrygian bekos 'bread', but the Albanian word is a borrowing from Latin bucca 'cheek'. so, i have removed it. i also added a large number of cognates for the words in the short glossary. Flibjib8 02:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

recent changes by 66.81.157.116

These changes by 66.81.157.116 look destructive and there is no discussion on the talk page that suggests why these changes are happening. John Vandenberg 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They are made by a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user: see User:Ararat_arev.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

removed unsourced matterial

Herodotus only mentioned that the Phrygians originated from Thrace and moved in Asia Minor. He also mentioned that the Armenians were Phrygians colonists. And that is already mentioned! The paragraph that the "In the Herodotus' History they are known to live together with the ancient Macedonian population." is not cited and I don’t personally know such a paragraph! Can someone provide more information? Till then I temporarily removing it Seleukosa 12:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Further more the Phrygians were people of Asia Minor. They were not people of the Balkan Peninsula! Herodotus mention that the Asia Minor Phrygians were of Thrace origin but that doesn’t make the Phrygians "people of the Balkan Peninsula". Was known and it is already mentioned in the article is that the Phrygians, according to Herodotus were of Thracian descent. And that is all that it should be mentioned. 12:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Attagos

Is the Phrygian word attagos perhaps related to the Greek word for goat — aíx (αἴξ), aigós (αἰγός)? Hspstudent (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert or anything, but I would guess it is. --15lsoucy (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that on this word there are distant if not irrelevant examples. How come as 15lsoucy said αιγός (aigós) is not included? In Greek you have also τράγος (tragos) which is the male goat. Instead we have Ziege (German), dhi (Albanian) and dec (Ishkashmi)?!?!?!?! --fkitselis —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

Vocabulary list

cut from article: (snip)

---

first, this list is unreferenced, inviting the clueless to add random oter entries, which means we end up with a contaminated list where some entries are valid and others aren't

Second, what's with the listing of random IE cognates? I can understand Greek and Armenian cognates, to illustrate the proximity of Phrygian to these languages, but why would anyone list Persian or Latin, let alone Albanian or Romanian??

Third, it isn't usual to grace languages articles with "lists of words". Wikipedia articles aren't dictionaries. Those of the above entries that can be substantiated with a reference should be transwikied to wiktionary.

--dab (𒁳) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dab, if you give me some time I could give dig up exact references for all the words. I've got the analysis for many Phrygian inscriptions published by various scholars on the field. It is pity not to have a list of words. I agree though we cannot put random IE cognates and that's what I wrote earlier about attagos.

FKitselis 11:15, 14 April 2010

You have all the time you like, there is no deadline. Just re-insert whatever you have a reference for, any time. This doesn't address the point that simple word definitions are more at home on wiktionary. I have some familiarity with Phrygian, and I have myself compiled I corpus of inscriptions at some point, so I am aware that most of this list is ok. It still needs references, as we cannot babysit a list that is ok to begin with, but to which driveby editors like Alsace38 will add random stuff without supervision. I realize we have a giant wordlist at Ancient Macedonian language, but this isn't what I consider a good article, it's just the result of years of nationalist trolling at that article which forced people to sit down and do things in insane detail at some point just to get rid of the trolls. In the long term, I also think that the xmk wordlist should be exported to wiktionary, as that's what wiktionary is designed for. --dab (𒁳) 06:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Ok, don't worry. I have spend nearly 1.5 year of continuous study of the Phrygian language and therefore I have all references needed (even pictures I've taken myself) for the words we've chose so far. The good thing about this case is that most of the references are available online at various academic institutions. Also, since several good books have been released during the last decade, we should include some basic grammar and have some sample inscriptions.

Thanks for you interest guys and for keeping this clean!

FKitselis 8:18, 15 April 2010

I have no doubt that this can be done, and I will be most grateful if you actually do it. I suggest we remove the list once again and put it here, and you can put back the words with references at your own pace whenever you like. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

---

to be moved back to article with references

• anar, 'husband', from PIE *ner- 'man'; cf. Gk: anḗr (ἀνήρ) "man, husband"
• attagos, 'goat'; cf. Arm: tik "leather skin",aytig "goat"

*Bagaios, "Zeus", from PIE *bheh2gos "apportioner"; cf. Doric Greek: bagos (βάγος) "leader"

• balaios, 'large, fast', from PIE *bel- 'strong'; cognate to Gk: bélteros (βέλτερος) "better"
• belte, 'swamp', from PIE *b^hel-, 'to gleam'; Gk: bálte (βάλτη)
• brater, 'brother', from PIE *b^hrater-, 'brother'
• daket, 'does, causes', PIE *d^he-k-, 'to set, put'
• germe, 'warm', PIE *g^wher-, 'warm'; cognate to Gk: thermós (θερμός) "warm"
• kakon, 'harm, ill', PIE *kaka-, 'harm'; cf. Gk: kakós (κακός) "bad"
• knoumane, 'grave', maybe from PIE *knu-, 'to scratch'; cognate to Gk: knáō (κνάω) "to scratch"
• manka, 'stela', Arm: manuk, mankakan "child, childish".
• mater, 'mother', from PIE *mater-, 'mother';
• meka, 'great', from PIE *meg-, 'great'; Gk: mégas (μέγας) "great", Arm: metz "great"
• zamelon, 'slave', PIE *d^hg^hom-, 'earth'
• tas, 'those' Gk: tas "those"
• upsodan, 'above' Gk: hupsóthen (ὑψόθεν) "above"
• ke, 'and', from PIE *-k^we "and"
• gelaros, 'sister in law'; Gk (Doric): gallaros "sister in law"

---

it would be useful to give a number of references to actual inscriptions where the respective words are attested. Also, etymological comparison needs to be referenced; e.g. tios was compared to theos in the list, which is clearly wrong; the correct comparandum would probably be Zeus (Dios). In fact, we can just exploit Lubotsky's database for the most part. It has Ti- comparing with Zeus[1]. I will put this one back with references.

--dab (𒁳) 09:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Ok, I will start with some references to inscriptions where some of the words appear in clear Phrygian texts without Greek above. I'm still into the basics of wikipedia, so I won't touch the list above, but post some comments below.

knoumane: ( I would suggest knouman- since the word appears in different forms )

Waelkens, Türsteine 470 [2]

daket:

MAMA 4 76[3]

kakon:

MAMA 4 239[4]

manka:

Waelkens, Türsteine 490[5]

bratere

JHS 1911:179,31 [6]

I'll be back with more soon...

btw, dab we should actually use Lubotsky's database since it has etymological comments. Now, for the Greek cognates, will we need references for isoglosses or evident cognates like και/τε and κακόν? Btw, the Gr. cognate κακός should be changed to κακόν since kakos is the male form and kakon is the neutral, just like the Phrygian example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkitselis (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkitselis (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 

Again, I do not think it makes sense to list every word known in this article. We should put the bulk of this on wiktionary, and only keep a discussion of words that are for some reason particularly interesting. kakon may be interesting because it shows close relation to Greek. I don't see how ke is of special interest because it proves nothing other than that Phrygian is Indo-European, which isn't disputed in the first place. It tells us nothing about the relation of Phrygian to Greek, or any other IE language. I frankly don't understand why people are in general so reluctant to take material to wiktionary. Wiktionary is a great project of lexicography, and anyone interested in the lexicography of any language should be delighted to build a database there. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wiktionary, but I think there should be a a small list of samples (like above) and then a reference to a larger list in wiktionary. Now, if you want to show why Phrygian had close contant and relation with Greek, then there are more than 50 isoglosses to demonstrate. However, in a small presentation of the language you want everyday words to demonstrate and not the fact that Greeks say pher- and Phrygians said ber-. As for ke it shows relation to Greek since if you follow Greek from Mycenaean times the word is qe, that later split to te and kai.

Fkitselis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.249.136 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

for the purposes of demonstrating relation to Greek, it will be much, much more adequate to quote an expert saying "there are 50 isoglosses indicating close relationship" than cobbling together a list of 50 isoglosses ourselves, in the article (this is about WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). Your point on ke illustrates this perfectly. The word ke "and" could exist in any Indo-European language, centum or satem, that has lost its labiovelars at some point. It doesn't show anything about Phrygian and Greek other than that both lost their labiovelars, along with pretty much every other IE language. Also, Greek kai is not a simple reflex of kwe. This is a Wikipedia article. We can report scholars on individual Phrygian terms and why they are interesting or important, but we cannot compile random glossaries, let alone comment on what these glossaries are supposed to show, because this would violate WP:NOR. Incidentially, the ber- is much more interesting than the ke, because it shows a Phrygian isogloss with Macedonian but not Greek, but this is not something I should point out, it is something that we need a solid reference for if we want to discuss it. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to quickly trace the item of Phrygian Lautverschiebung. Perhaps, as you say you have worked with Phrygian for more than a year, you can elaborate on this debate in greater detail. This seems to be rather more important for the article than compiling lists of words. --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dab, my point is an average visitor of this Wiki page wants to know basics about the language and not how many words it shares with Greek, Armenian and other languages. The current form of the article is good, in the sense that it is not tiring at all. What we could add (always referenced, which is the main point) is the following:

- Some grammar (including voicing maybe)

- Some sample glossary (max 20 words) that shows PIE relation and close cognates.

- Some sample texts (3 should be enough).

Now, about the isoglosses i mentioned, nobody AFAIK mentions the exact number of isoglosses, but there are references online like for example Lubotskys database. On ph- and b- and any relation to Anc. Macedonian, I think only Panayotou and Brixhe might have some comments since they are the only ones that have deeper knowledge in both languages. I don't know however, if this is in the scope of this article right now.

As for me, I thought it was easy to search through the PDFs with Windows search but i was wrong. :( It will take some time, but I will provide material for the aforementioned points (glosses, grammar, texts).

Fkitselis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.249.136 (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a fragmentary language, not a language that you can "learn" or "read texts" in. Its entire notability is as a fragmentary contribution to the linguistic landscape of the Balkans and Anatolia in the Iron Age. In this sense, I believe that information on phonology, sound laws and isoglosses are what this article should be all about. Of course we can also give some sample inscriptions and a bunch of words. The "Vocabulary" section already discusses four items. Sure, it can be expanded by a few more but I don't think this is a pressing concerns. As the full corpus of inscriptions is readily available under the TITUS link, you can choose any "text" for inclusion any time you like. Of course, the question is what you want with it. The "text" M-3 reads "]Μ[ ]Τ[ ]Μ[ ]Μ[", which isn't extremely helpful. W-11 reads "ΜΙΔΑΣ ΑΡΟΣ.ΑJΠΥ.-Υ.Ν" is interesting because it mentions Midas, but I don't see the advantage of giving the entire inscription over simply saying "W-11 mentions Midas". --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright! Await for suggestions then. :) Fkitselis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.249.136 (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. I became involved here because an editor started to add random Kurdish words to the glossary, and because the glossary as it stood was already flawed and unreferenced. As long as you keep things referenced, you are welcome to do with the article as you like. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dab my friend, sorry for being absent for so long. I had too much to deal with this summer leaving no time for this article. I'm back now though. I was checking the word belte which was equated to 'swamp'. Where did this come from? While checking Hesychius i saw he translates belte as 'χωρίον' which is not a swamp but a particular place, a place, spot or district. Please check his entry and verify the greek translation here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xwri%2Fon&la=greek

Fkitselis —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

Intentional distortion of "Satem"(proto-Slavic, Sanskrit, Lithuanian) language in the text

I've found out that several "subjects" aka "linguists" intentionally try to avoid the OBVIOUS written message in the text (inscription):

quote: "Another possible theonym is bago-, attested as the accusative singular bag̣un in G-136.[12] Lejeune identified the term as *bhagom, in the meaning "a gift, dedication" (PIE *bhag- "to apportion, give a share"). But Hesychius of Alexandria mentions a Bagaios, Phrygian Zeus (Βαγαῖος Ζεὺς Φρύγιος) and interprets the name as δοτῆρ ἑάων, "giver of good things". "

"BAGO", BOGU, BHAGO, BOG" comes from Slavic & Sanskrit term "Bhaga" - "god" or "godly" and please no more OCCULT distortions. This Article is one big occult nonsense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.111.14 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You need a source to verify that. Personally when I saw that word for the first time I though it was related to Doric Greek Bagos (leader, ruler). However, I then saw Hesychius says dhoter which makes it obvious. In any case I checked the Sanskrit term and it does not mean god or godly. If you have a source for what you say please post it. And btw Phrygian is not satem... Fkitselis (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Albanian buka or bukë is the same word as phrigian bek, which is mentioned by Herodotus. This word is the same is etruscian and from him the word buk ore bek camed to latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.24.104 (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The root for bekos is PIE *bheg- to warm, roast, bake. In Old English it is bacan (to bake) and old Norse baka. Phrygian is an Indo-European language and even though we have limited vocabulary about it, it is perfect for demonstrating its relation with other IE languages.Fkitselis (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phrygian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814123554/http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cphrygian&first=1 to http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cphrygian&first=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

albanian "bukë" ("bread")

Albanian "bukë" is missing here.

■ From Proto-Albanian *bukā, continuing *bʰok 'to burn', further related to Proto-Indo-European *bʰōg 'to roast, to bake'. ▪Possibly a derivative of a disused verb. ■ Close to ▪ Phrygian βεκος (begos, “bread”), ▪ Illyrian *bagaron(“warm”), ▪ Armenian բոց (bocʿ, “flame”), ▪ Vulgar Latin focacius (“kind of baked dough”) from focus (“fire”), ▪ Ancient Greek φώγω (phṓgō, “roast”, verb) and Old English bacan (“to bake”). ■ An alternative etymology derives it from Latin bucca (“mouth”), with a semantic development to 'food' through a Balkan source.

- indefinite singular: "bukë" - indefinite plural "bukë" - definite singular "buka" - definite plural "bukët"

LAGTON (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The article does not and should not include a complete list of Indo-European cognates of Phrygian words.

As you say yourself, the etymology of bukë is unclear; it is usually connected to Latin bucca. (See multiple mentions in Talk.)

Since the etymology of bukë is unclear, it is not a good example of a cognate. --Macrakis (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Cataloging system

Why does the article discuss the cataloging system for Old Phrygian inscriptions? (M for Midas City, etc.) Why is that of interest to our readers? --Macrakis (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Because it is essential as information. I mean the section pertains to "Inscriptions". Shouldn't it also include a sentence about the letter designations of the Old Phrygian subcorpora? It's also useful because some letters are referenced throughout the rest of the section. They are also useful for the map of inscriptions, even though an information table is included within the map. Do you think it is ideal for the sentence to be removed? Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it is "essential as information". It is only used twice in the article, about B-07 and the graffiti from Gordion (where Gordion is already mentioned), and I would propose rephrasing those sentences like this:

Its phraseology has some echoes of an Old Phrygian epitaph from Bithynia, but it anticipates phonetic and spelling features found in New Phrygian. Three graffiti from Gordion, from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BCE, are ambiguous in terms of the alphabet used as well as their linguistic stage...

Anyone who cares about which particular inscriptions these are will refer to the footnoted article anyway.

The letter designations are an epiphenomenon, no doubt useful to specialists, but they don't give us any useful information about the language itself. --Macrakis (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok Macrakis. Feel free to make the edit. I still think that it is essential information pertaining to the section, but it can also be viewed as trivial. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Paraphrase of "Isoglosses" section

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I run my new paraphrased version in a text comparison application before i edited it in, and it gave me a match of 67.7%. Now that might seem a lot, but take note that most of this is because of the linguistic examples and the citations provided by the author, with the former being essential for the reader to understand the text, the later maybe not so much and can be taken out thus lessening the match. I also don't like the title you gave previously (Plagiarism, again). You didn't even assumed good faith, just outright accused me of plagiarism. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993: This is not a content dispute. In principle, the content is worthy of inclusion. This is about how you represent the data of the source in this page. One you cannot take over complete structures (section divisions, bullet lists etc.) from the source and just alter the wording a bit here and there. Please reply to Future Perfect at Sunrise and address this directly on your talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Austronesier. I know this is not content dispute, just a matter of WP:PARAPHRASE. Also, i think this should be addressed in this talk page in case someone wants to assist with the paraphrase. It is relevant to the article after all. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're still approaching the whole issue as if it were a task of "paraphrasing" that source, then you have failed to comprehend the very basics of what this is all about. In that case, you really should stay well away from editing any articles on scholarly topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It was an attempt of paraphrase by me which you didn't find adequate per WP:PARAPHRASE, and that's ok, i accept that. I am relatively new in Wikipedia and i am learning everyday while trying to be constructive. Instead of insulting me you might as well assist with it. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Isoglosses table

Hello Austronesier. I was the one who added the table that was removed. It was many months ago. I do respect your view, but i believe this is a rather ambiguous case. The information contained in this table is straightforward and fundamental, leaving no room for much rephrasing. Alternatively what would you propose? Would a repositioning of the table's rows or columns make it better? I would very much like to read of FPaS' view as well regarding this. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought about it and i believe that a repositioning of the table's rows (it can be in alphabetic order), a division of the Phonetic, Morphological, and Lexical sections into three independent tables, and a reference to pages 234-238 (presenting in detail the compilation of isoglosses) instead of page 239 (presenting a summary of the aforementioned isoglosses in the form of a single table), would technically make it an independent summary of the isoglosses by me. Would this make it better? Furthermore, i don't know if it matters, but i recall having contacted the author Tomeu Obrador-Cursach back in September, 2020, informing him that i used his "Isoglosses" table for this Wikipedia article, and he told me that he was ok with it, as long as it wasn't from his book The Phrygian Language (2020) published by Brill Publishers, because he didn't have the rights to it. I can forward via email the exchange i had with him to any fellow editor who would like to confirm this. By the way, i know this doesn't qualify as WP:DCM, but again, i believe the above proposition would be ideal without violating copyright guidelines. This is just a summary of his original (detailed) compilation of isoglosses, presenting only fundamental information (suffixes, roots, etc.). Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Writing direction

There was conflicting information regarding the predominant writing direction of Old-Phrygian, left-to-right (dextroverse) or right-to-left (sinistroverse). Claude Brixhe (2008), 'Phrygian', in: Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press), pp. 69-80: p. 73, states that "a little less than one-third" was written from right to left (majority dextroverse). On the contrary, Obrador Cursach (2018), p. 35, implies that the majority was sinistroverse: according to him only a small minority ("66 out of 395" Old-Phrygian inscriptions) were "dextroverse".

I suspected an inadvertant interchanging of the words "sinistroverse" and "dextroverse" by Obrador Cursach on p. 35. I therefore tallied his comprehensive catalogue of inscriptions in the same book, pp. 349-420. This showed that in fact 84 out of ca. 548 Old-Phrygian inscriptions listed were marked "←", and therefore the minority is in fact "sinistroverse" (reading from right to left). So apparently Brixhe is right, Obrador Cursach inadvertantly interchanged the words "dextroverse" and "sinistroverse".

By the way, I find it remarkable that my counts systematically exceed the number of inscriptions Obrador Cursach has counted in his book. For example, I count a total of 548 Old-Phrygian inscriptions against Obrador Cursach's 395. Also the number of boustrophedon inscriptions is 18 according to Obrador Cursach, while my count yields 35. However, all relative proportions are virtually the same as Obrador Cursach's. 20:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Loss of /s/

There's a part mentioning "Loss of /s/", comparing Phrygian to Greek and some other languages. Shouldn't it say "Loss of non-final *s" instead? - Anonimski (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Anonimski: This is how it is described in the source, and it pertains to the loss of the PIE sibilant /s/ at prevocalic and intervocalic positions. Specifically, from the article On the place of Phrygian among the Indo-European languages (2019) by Bartomeu Obrador-Cursach, we read:

• p. 234: Phrygian, as well as Greek, Armenian and Albanian (in some positions, see Demiraj 1997: 56), has lost the sibilant /s/ at the beginning of the word and in intervocalic position: OPhr. egeseti, NPhr. εγεσιτ, εγεδου 'hold, experience' < PIE *seǵ^h-; NPhr. δεως 'god' < PIE *d^hh₁so-.

Furthermore, from The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective (2022), and in the chapter on "Greek" by Lucien van Beek, we read:

• p. 192: Phrygian shares phonological innovations such as the following with Greek: ... lenition of prevocalic *s, word-initially (NPhr. εγεδου, Gr. ἐχέσθω < *seǵ^h-) and after a vowel (NPhr. δεως, Gr. θεοῖς < *d^hh₁s-ó-), as well as in *sw-

I will go ahead and rephrase it accordingly, to make it clearer. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it's better now. The previous phrase could have been misinterpreted as loss of all inherited /s/. - Anonimski (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)