Any chance to get some help with Phrygian?

The little experience I have with epigraphy makes me inclined to believe that a name is to be expected in that position.

If the person's name happens to means also "Father", that might as well happen, although that wouldn't be that common (would it?).

The formula "father archpriest" without the proper indicator of person would indicate perhaps a "sacred precinct", over which authority is exerted by the institution of the archpriestly dynasty (all "father archpriests" are expected to descend from Midas!). While that is not beyond the realm of possibility, I think the first possibility is more likely.


Edited by khshayathiya - 10-Mar-2009 at 13:44

Woodard also considers MIDAI a dative. Now, what function this dative had remains to be discussed.

It would be useful to know the date of the inscription in order to assess the likelihood of casual syncretism having occurred. After all, Greek has the Genitive absorb the Ablative, while in Latin it seems the Dative was competing for the same position (with all plural endings, for example, being identical). Perhaps something similar is happening in Phrygian?

Now that I look at the inscription again (and taking the time to look at the verbal morphology chapter in Woodard :P ) your suggestion does, indeed, make a lot of sense:

Ates {ΑΡΚΙΑΕFΑΙΣ : ΑΚΕΝΑΝΟΓΑFΟΣ} offered <this inscription> to Midas, the laFagetes and Fanax.

ΛΑFΑΓΤΑΕΙ : FΑΝΑΚΤΕΙ would be attributes of Midas. The apparent redundancy is not bothersome in epigraphical context, particularly of the religious type (see Latin DDD: do dono dedico).

ΕΔΑΕΣ would be a preterit verbal form (with augment). Woodard argues the final Σ is actually a mark of the 3rd person singular. Stranger things have happened...


EDIT: I'm too lazy for my job... I should have looked at the end of the chapter. Woodard gives this interpretation: “Ates . . . has dedicated [this monument] to Midas, lavagtas and vanax”

There I go again, discovering the wheel...


Edited by khshayathiya - 10-Mar-2009 at 16:13

An interesting read. Thanks!

In the beginning I agreed with your translation, but now I am inclined to agree with the others, who make ΛΑFΑΓΤΑΕΙ and FΑΝΑΚΤΕΙ appositions (that is nouns, not adjectives) of ΜΙΔΑΙ. In favour of that plead a number of arguments:

1. the typology of inscriptions, the set language and fairly rigid formulae, which usually include the following elements: Dedicator + items identifying the dedicator + Dedicand (usually divine or semi-divine) + items identifying the dedicand + verbum dandi sive facendi.
2. the comparison with Greek, in which LaFagetes and Fanax are nouns, not verbs (although the first term, does, indeed, contain a verb)
3. the ending in -I, similar in all three words of the sequence, which is what one would expect from a Dative

Against your position,  considering the sequence ΛΑFΑΓΤΑΕΙ : FΑΝΑΚΤΕΙ as being formed by two verbs, pleads IE comparison, where verbal endings were divided into two series, principal endings and secundary endings: mi/si/ti : m/s/t. That in Attic dialect one has the ending -ei for III singular is simply a phonetic accident: e-ti > e-si (asibilation of intervocalic t) > e-i (intervocalic s drops) > ei (contraction). Other inscriptions plead against such a phenomenon having occurred in Phrygian. One has, for example, the form egeseti (possibly a future tense), where you can clearly see the principal ending -ti. It is therefore more likely that ΕΔΑΕΣ is the verbal form, because the final Σ is easier to explain away than a final EI.


Edited by khshayathiya - 12-Mar-2009 at 12:19

Thanks Chilbudios. I appreciate your help.
I use the same database often to lookup words. Unfortunately bibliography on Phrygian is usually rare and what you find is bits and pieces of information. I don't remember exactly were i read wanaktei and lawaktaei should be the verbal form instead of the adjective, but sound wise it could be correct. I think this was concluded by the fact it is a -ei ending. In any case the point is made about what it is said on the inscription.

As for Midai, i believe as well it is dative.

Now, you're right about Palaeophrygian. The dating is at a time when they could have been  in contact with Ionians. Basically, it is very probable. However, i remember that it is considered that most cognates found at that time (800-600) like 'auto' (which we have in many forms attested in Phrygian) are not loadwords from Greek, but shared words of a Greco-Phrygian group.

Now, i said the script is controversial because there are so many explanations from various sides. Look at this one: http://www.xanga.com/Longobardese/631280107/59-a-phrygian-inscription/

I found this one now and i see that i was not the only one to assume agavos ment nobble.

ATES: ARKIA EFAIS AKENANOTAFOS: MIDAI: PAFAPa TAEI: FANA Ki TEI: EDAES

Ofcourse, that link doesn't seem correct. At least the way he breaks it up is a bit...i dunno.

In any case look his translation...You can translate it in so many ways, that are similar but you don't know what is correct.

"ATES: ARKIA EFAIS AKENANO TAFOS: MIDAI: PAFAPa TAEI: FANA Ki TEI: EDAES [Translation: To Attys or father, ates, (Etr. ATES) the archon (Etr. ARCIA, Gr. archon) he spoke out (L. effor-fari; Etr. EFA, EFAN, EFAS, EFE) of Akenano, name : Akenanos, another form of Cernnunos? or Ascanios of Taphos? alternatively, of the tomb (Gk. taphi [taΦη], burial, internment; taphos [taΦoς], grave, tomb): Midas or alternatively, Media (L. Medi-orum, the Medes), or the middle (L. media, subst. i.e., media via, middle way) or, as a verb, he healed (L. medeor-eri): he feared (L. paveo, pavere; It. paura, fear; Fr. peur, dread; Etr. PAF, PAFA) the pine-wood (L. taeda-a, pine-wood, a torch, esp. as used at weddings): Taei; the holy place, temple grounds (L. fanum-i; Etr. FANI) who, which, what, that, wherefore, whereby (L. qui, quae, quod; It. chi; Fr. qui; Etr. KI, Ki) of the god (L. deus, divus, di, divi, dea, diva; It. dio, dia; Fr. dieu, dieux, deese; Etr. TEI, TEIS, TEIFA) you will produce, bring out (L. edo-edere-didi-ditum, fut. edes; Etr. ETA, ETES, ETO); alternatively it could be Hades, Hell. Hades' name in Etruscan, as seen in the Tomb of Orcos, is ATAI.]



It's confusing, isn't it? Some other inscriptions are translated safely, but because some forms are not widely attested in many forms (e.g some verbs) it is hard to know the tense, the usage etc.




Edited by Flipper - 12-Mar-2009 at 14:53

There are always conflicting interpretations when not everybody agrees on what words actually can be read on an inscription.

That's half the fun, I'd say ...

Yes indeed Chibuldios.
I've seen a lot of such attempts. And this sentense can be a nice bate for "anything goes". I just googled one of the sentence's words and i found it.