Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Anfosso milena 2019 quot greek and phrygian interactions in the neo phrygian inscriptions a pragmatic and sociolinguistic analysis quot

Greek and Phrygian Interactions in the Neo-Phrygian Inscriptions A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Analysis MILENA ANFOSSO Sorbonne University Paris Introduction Linguistic interactions between Greek and Phrygian are well known even beyond the grammatical and lexical isoglosses showing that these two languages are closely related having shared a common prehistory in the Balkans before Phrygian populations started migrating to Central Anatolia around the th century BCE After many centuries of independent development as evidenced by the Old Phrygian corpus written in an epichoric alphabet th th ?? th centuries BCE the Macedonian invasion of Anatolia ?? BCE intensi ?ed interactions between Greek and Phrygian to the extent that the Phrygians abandoned their own alphabet and started using the Greek alphabet to write in Phrygian as in the Dokimeion inscription late th early rd century BCE Brixhe ?? or the Prymnessos inscription nd century BCE Brixhe and Drew-Bear During the Roman Era st ?? rd centuries CE after many centuries of ??silence ? a new set of inscriptions exhibits the ?nal attested phase of the language the NeoPhrygian corpus consists of inscriptions written in the Greek alphabet More This paper is related to Chapter of my dissertation First of all I would like to thank Brent Vine and Stephanie Jamison for their useful comments A preparatory paper on this topic was delivered at the international conference ??Le Changement Conceptions et Représentations dans l ? Antiquité Gréco-Romaine ? Paris I am grateful to those who participated in the discussion on that occasion as well as to the UCLA audience in particular to Craig Melchert as I bene ?ted greatly from their observations I would also like to thank Thomas Motter Anahita Hoose and Christopher Fleming for proofreading the paper at di ?erent stages The responsibility for any remaining errors and infelicities is of course mine The so called ??Balkan-Indo-European ? phase as discussed in de Lamberterie ?? Brixhe and Lejeune supplemented by Brixhe b and Most of the Neo-Phrygian corpus was published by Haas ?? followed by independent publications of subsequent ?nds Brixhe ?? Brixhe and Waelkens Laminger- Pascher Brixhe and Neumann Mitchell Brixhe and David M Goldstein Stephanie W Jamison and Brent Vine eds Proceedings of the th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference Bremen Hempen ?? C Milena Anfosso than half are Greek-Phrygian bilinguals less than half are Phrygian monolingual texts and some are ambiguous i e it is impossible to state whether the language is Greek or Phrygian The Neo-Phrygian inscriptions were found in a small area in Central Anatolia delimited by Lake E irdir Lake Bey ehir the northwestern tip of Lake Tuz and the ancient cities Dorylaion Eski ehir Kotiaion Kütahya and Ikonion Konya The task of deciphering the Neo-Phrygian texts is complicated by several factors not least of all our limited knowledge of Phrygian itself ??a fragmentary language whose attestations do not permit a coherent picture of its grammar and lexicon as correctly stated by Matzinger In addition there is the stonecutters ? confusion between the rounded letters as written