Possible Etymology of Alexander

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • spitfire
    Banned
    • Aug 2014
    • 868

    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
    And another possible scenario is that people in Asia became accustomed to the name through Macedonian and Thracian soldiers in their own native language(s).
    Yes, but the most probable one is that -ander is how the word transliterates in latin.

    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
    I agree, especially when a certain language is used by others for convenience, like you and I right now (yet neither of us are claiming descent from Henry VIII).
    Antiquity belongs to antiquity. And in the words of a greek nationalistic page I came accross yesterday, The macedonians in the republic of macedonia are in all probability macedonians, so why bother in the first place? As much as we (meaning the greeks) can claim something so old in terms of blood, so can they (meaning macedonians).
    That's a difference from the near past wouldn't you agree SoM?

    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
    And what is the other probability?
    The other probabilities are linear A', linear B', Indo-european etc.

    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
    Macedonian (like most of today's languages) doesn't have a specific literature that began in antiquity. Latin does have such a history, just like Greek. Why do you think the former broke into several different languages whereas the latter didn't?
    Because it was spoken by the people, whereas the Greek influence on these languages exists in a non so colloqual way. However it exists in english even colloqually big time.
    Remember what happened also when the Roman Empire was broken in half with the east and the west.

    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
    The Pella Katadesmos was written in Greek, not Macedonian. It doesn't even exhibit Macedonian sound changes.
    It is a Dorian dialect different than dorian dialects. This shows that it was spoken at the time.
    I am aware of the different approach of the linguists for that time. I put it there becase Nikolaj suggested that a small number of findings suggests the existence of something.

    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
    I am not suggesting that certain Macedonians didn't have Greek names, but your examples don't indicate how all of their names were pronounced in the native language.
    Have you got examples of macedonian names of that period other than greek?

    Comment

    • Philosopher
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 1003

      Originally posted by Spitfire
      Antiquity belongs to antiquity. And in the words of a greek nationalistic page I came accross yesterday, The macedonians in the republic of macedonia are in all probability macedonians, so why bother in the first place? As much as we (meaning the greeks) can claim something so old in terms of blood, so can they (meaning macedonians).
      I find this statement rather extraordinary. Are you suggesting that a Greek nationalist page on the World Wide Web actually stated that "in all probability" that the Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonians are Macedonians, as in we are indigenous to the Balkans and the ancient Macedonians are our forefathers?

      Am I reading this right?

      What was the reaction to this statement?

      Spitfire, there are a few things I would like you to clarify for me. And please, by all means, be honest and sincere in your statements.

      What do you think was the native language of the ancient Macedonians?

      Do you think Slavic was brought to the Balkans from the north?

      What do you think accounts for the fact that, seemingly, all ancient Macedonian names referenced in history, and even in the New Testament, appear to be Greek?

      Comment

      • spitfire
        Banned
        • Aug 2014
        • 868

        Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
        I find this statement rather extraordinary. Are you suggesting that a Greek nationalist page on the World Wide Web actually stated that "in all probability" that the Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonians are Macedonians, as in we are indigenous to the Balkans and the ancient Macedonians are our forefathers?

        Am I reading this right?

        What was the reaction to this statement?

        Spitfire, there are a few things I would like you to clarify for me. And please, by all means, be honest and sincere in your statements.

        What do you think was the native language of the ancient Macedonians?

        Do you think Slavic was brought to the Balkans from the north?

        What do you think accounts for the fact that, seemingly, all ancient Macedonian names referenced in history, and even in the New Testament, appear to be Greek?
        You are right, it was not nationalist. I apologise, it was between other nationalist pages. I came across many pages last night because we were discussing a lot.

        It does reflect though my opinion on the matter. It's in greek

        Νέα από Κοζάνη, ειδήσεις - ενημέρωση Κοζάνης


        It says "very possibly are really", that's for sure: που πολύ πιθανόν είναι πραγματικά.

        As for the rest, I think that there was a difference in language but at sometime the macedonians adopted greek eventually.
        Now how much was that difference, when was it adopted and when and how and how much, it is still in question.

        Is it really important if there was adoption of the Cyrillic alphabet at some time in history? Is it really important that languages evolve or imposed or chosen?
        To me since there was a connection in the beginning of the 20th century somehow, then everything else is not important. There were people moving or exchanged so why ommit that? Neglected (in purpose?) in the books. A paragraph or so about the mater and move on? Yeah right. Relics of a national and pompus history learned at school. I understand all these, don't worry.

        Things will change eventually Philosopher.

        Comment

        • Philosopher
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 1003

          Originally posted by Spitfire
          As for the rest, I think that there was a difference in language but at sometime the macedonians adopted greek eventually. Now how much was that difference, when was it adopted and when and how and how much, it is still in question.
          I would say, from a scholarly position, there are two prevaling theories. The first being is that the native language of the ancient Macedonians was Greek and that they were a Greek tribe. The second theory, and one gaining much larger traction today, is that the ancient Macedonian language was a separate indo European language. There are only a few surviving Macedonian words, and for this reason no definitive pronouncement can be made. A third theory, not widely entertained, is that they spoke a language similar to Slavic, and that this language is indigenous to the Balkans.

          I do not disagree that the ancient Macedonians, and in particular the government and aristocracy, used Greek as the language of the empire for administrative purposes. Whether the common Macedonian did or not is difficult to say.

          Is it really important if there was adoption of the Cyrillic alphabet at some time in history? Is it really important that languages evolve or imposed or chosen?
          Well, yes. The problem is that the most widely used argument against modern Macedonians is that they cannot be Macedonians because they came many centuries after the ancient Macedonians. Part and parcel of this is that the language spoken by today's Macedonians is Slavic and Slavic, we know, did not come to the Balkans until the 6th century or so. Consequently, today's Macedonians are not ethnic Macedonians.

          I cannot begin to recount how many times I have heard or seen Greek pamphlets that state “Alexander the Great was not a Slav”, as if such an expression has any serious meaning.

          There are many mysteries about this issue that I cannot explain, though I have a few theories.

          To me since there was a connection in the beginning of the 20th century somehow, then everything else is not important. There were people moving or exchanged so why ommit that? Neglected (in purpose?) in the books. A paragraph or so about the mater and move on? Yeah right. Relics of a national and pompus history learned at school. I understand all these, don't worry.
          I'm not sure what you mean by “a connection in the beginning of the 20th century”, but today's Macedonians did not develop a connection to Macedonia in the 20th century. Macedonians have identified as Macedonian for many centuries earlier; we have documents from the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, et al. This does not mean the modern Macedonian identity began in the 1500s; all it means is that, from the historical record, we can go back as far as the 1500s. New documents may be discovered that expand on our knowledge.

          Comment

          • Philosopher
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 1003

            I would add that the reason no serious scholar accepts the Macedonian word "Vasil" to be the source of the Greek "Vasileus", even though etymologically speaking, the former makes sense, whereas the latter does not, is because Vasileus is an ancient word, that predates the coming of Slavic in the Balkans. So if Slavic came after the fact, how could a Slavic word exist in the Balkans prior to the coming of the Slavs, and how could the Greek be based on this word?
            Last edited by Philosopher; 09-23-2014, 11:49 AM.

            Comment

            • Philosopher
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2008
              • 1003

              Back to Alexander. Spitfire, have you seen this quote and if so, what are your thoughts on it?

              Finally, it is interesting to take a look at the spelling of Alexander's name in the cuneiform texts. The correct rendering of Alexandros would have been A-lek-sa-an-dar-ru-su, but until now, no tablet has been discovered that uses this Greek name. Instead, after some first attempts to render the conqueror's name, the Babylonian scribes settled upon A-lek-sa-an-dar. Probably, this only shows that the scribes found it difficult to render a foreign name. On the other hand, it can not be excluded that Alexandar is the Macedonian name by which the conqueror of Asia was known to his courtiers.


              The spelling the Babylonian scribes had of Alexander's name was "Aleksaandar", which is almost identical to the Macedonian "Aleksandar". As the writer wrote, the correct transliteration of the Greek Alexandros should have been "Aleksaandarrusu".

              Comment

              • spitfire
                Banned
                • Aug 2014
                • 868

                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                I would say, from a scholarly position, there are two prevaling theories. The first being is that the native language of the ancient Macedonians was Greek and that they were a Greek tribe. The second theory, and one gaining much larger traction today, is that the ancient Macedonian language was a separate indo European language. There are only a few surviving Macedonian words, and for this reason no definitive pronouncement can be made. A third theory, not widely entertained, is that they spoke a language similar to Slavic, and that this language is indigenous to the Balkans.

                I do not disagree that the ancient Macedonians, and in particular the government and aristocracy, used Greek as the language of the empire for administrative purposes. Whether the common Macedonian did or not is difficult to say.
                Sounds fair. However, This aristocracy includes Alexander the Great.

                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                Well, yes. The problem is that the most widely used argument against modern Macedonians is that they cannot be Macedonians because they came many centuries after the ancient Macedonians. Part and parcel of this is that the language spoken by today's Macedonians is Slavic and Slavic, we know, did not come to the Balkans until the 6th century or so. Consequently, today's Macedonians are not ethnic Macedonians.
                Which is a silly argument based on what we already said about identifying ethnicity based on language alone.

                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                I cannot begin to recount how many times I have heard or seen Greek pamphlets that state “Alexander the Great was not a Slav”, as if such an expression has any serious meaning.

                There are many mysteries about this issue that I cannot explain, though I have a few theories.
                Prevailing nationalism in the balkans.


                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                I'm not sure what you mean by “a connection in the beginning of the 20th century”, but today's Macedonians did not develop a connection to Macedonia in the 20th century. Macedonians have identified as Macedonian for many centuries earlier; we have documents from the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, et al. This does not mean the modern Macedonian identity began in the 1500s; all it means is that, from the historical record, we can go back as far as the 1500s. New documents may be discovered that expand on our knowledge.
                This means that connection of macedonians has been established when those events happened (the balkan wars). In other words there were people considered macedonians that their descendants today are not in the same ground anymore (well not all of them at least). There was population moving even in the late '40s, during the civil war in greece. That was a side effect of political reasons other than ethnic identity but still it was an effect.

                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                I would add that the reason no serious scholar accepts the Macedonian word "Vasil" to be the source of the Greek "Vasileus", even though etymologically speaking, the former makes sense, whereas the latter does not, is because Vasileus is an ancient word, that predates the coming of Slavic in the Balkans. So if Slavic came after the fact, how could a Slavic word exist in the Balkans prior to the coming of the Slavs, and how could the Greek be based on this word?
                Etymologically speaking it doesn't make sense, but again it's language alone that means nothing on its own when it comes to national identity. A clue yes, a proof no.

                Comment

                • spitfire
                  Banned
                  • Aug 2014
                  • 868

                  Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                  Back to Alexander. Spitfire, have you seen this quote and if so, what are your thoughts on it?





                  The spelling the Babylonian scribes had of Alexander's name was "Aleksaandar", which is almost identical to the Macedonian "Aleksandar". As the writer wrote, the correct transliteration of the Greek Alexandros should have been "Aleksaandarrusu".
                  And if Alexander had reached Oceania then his name there would be Alecdownunder. This ofcourse taken back in greek would make no sense since the transliteration serves the purpose of the language the word is transliterated into.

                  The same applies for Aleksandar.

                  An example. We have a square in athens called Canningos square. Named after a british prime minister. Normally this should be named as Canning square but paradoxically it was given the possesive case ending of the name, as it would if it had been a greek name.
                  Last edited by spitfire; 09-23-2014, 01:35 PM.

                  Comment

                  • Philosopher
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 1003

                    Originally posted by spitfire View Post
                    And if Alexander had reached Oceania then his name there would be Alecdownunder. This ofcourse taken back in greek would make no sense since the transliteration serves the purpose of the language the word is transliterated into.

                    The same applies for Aleksandar.
                    I do not disagree. However, a distinction must be made. The cuneiform tablet appears to retain the name of Aleksandar, rather than use the Greek name. The author of the article states that the writers, for whatever reason, did not retain his Hellenic name "Alexandros". There are few possible reasons for this.

                    It could be because they wanted to "Babylonize" it in their language, which there is no evidence is the case; or it could be that the Babylonians knew Alexander under his Macedonian name, Aleksandar. We do not know the exact reason.

                    But considering the proximity of the cuneiform "Aleksaandar", the modern Macedonian "Aleksandar", and the Asiatic Iskandar or Sikandar. The ending "andar" and the use of "k" instead of "x" is somewhat conspicuous, and it seems to indicate that Alexander's Macedonian name was spelled with a "k" and "andar" and not as the the Greek spelling would have it.

                    An example. We have a square in athens called Canningos square. Named after a british prime minister. Normally this should be named as Canning square but paradoxically it was given the possesive case ending of the name, as it would if it had been a greek name.
                    This is common practice with the Greeks, though I'm not sure this would explain the adoption of "Aleksaandar" in the cuneiform.

                    Comment

                    • spitfire
                      Banned
                      • Aug 2014
                      • 868

                      Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                      I do not disagree. However, a distinction must be made. The cuneiform tablet appears to retain the name of Aleksandar, rather than use the Greek name. The author of the article states that the writers, for whatever reason, did not retain his Hellenic name "Alexandros". There are few possible reasons for this.

                      It could be because they wanted to "Babylonize" it in their language, which there is no evidence is the case; or it could be that the Babylonians knew Alexander under his Macedonian name, Aleksandar. We do not know the exact reason.

                      But considering the proximity of the cuneiform "Aleksaandar", the modern Macedonian "Aleksandar", and the Asiatic Iskandar or Sikandar. The ending "andar" and the use of "k" instead of "x" is somewhat conspicuous, and it seems to indicate that Alexander's Macedonian name was spelled with a "k" and "andar" and not as the the Greek spelling would have it.



                      This is common practice with the Greeks, though I'm not sure this would explain the adoption of "Aleksaandar" in the cuneiform.
                      Ξ is pronounced as KS in greek. No similar letter to Ξ? Then KS is used for transliteration.

                      Same principle when you can't pronounce correctly something. I almost imagine a babylonian trying to say Alexanthros. No way. Alekasandar should have suit him better.

                      The father of the mini car was known as Alec instead of his full name. Even in Greek the name Alekos is short for Alexander.
                      Last edited by spitfire; 09-23-2014, 02:31 PM.

                      Comment

                      • Philosopher
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 1003

                        Originally posted by spitfire View Post
                        Ξ is pronounced as KS in greek. No similar letter to Ξ? Then KS is used for transliteration.

                        Same principle when you can't pronounce correctly something. I almost imagine a babylonian trying to say Alexanthros. No way. Alekasandar should have suit him better.
                        While this appears to make sense, I do not think it accurate, especially in light of what the author wrote.

                        Finally, it is interesting to take a look at the spelling of Alexander's name in the cuneiform texts. The correct rendering of Alexandros would have been A-lek-sa-an-dar-ru-su, but until now, no tablet has been discovered that uses this Greek name. Instead, after some first attempts to render the conqueror's name, the Babylonian scribes settled upon A-lek-sa-an-dar.
                        Here is my point, and again, it is just an alternative theory. If Alexander's birth name was "Alexandros", you would expect this spelling to be common outside of Greece.

                        The Babylonian writers could have easily transliterated his birth name (Alexandros) into "A-lek-sa-an-dar-ru-su", but they didn't. The question is why? We don't seem to know for certain.

                        However, if Alexander's birth name was "Aleksandar", and not "Alexandros", this would explain why everywhere Alexander's name is closer to this pattern, including in the cuneiform, south Slavic, and Asiatic languages. The only exception to this would be in Greek, which the Greeks Hellenized to "Alexandros", with the "k" dropped for an "x", and the Hellenic suffix "os" added in the end. An argument can be made that the cuneiform represents his ethnic name, Aleksandar, and not his Hellenized name.

                        Now the question is what does "Aleksandar" mean in its original language? And what is this original language?
                        Last edited by Philosopher; 09-23-2014, 07:08 PM.

                        Comment

                        • Philosopher
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 1003

                          Originally posted by spitfire View Post
                          Sounds fair. However, This aristocracy includes Alexander the Great.
                          Yes, but the point I'm trying to get across is that this language was not his first language. It was adopted. Can I prove that? No. It is based on the limited number of Macedonian words that exist that do not appear to be loaned from Greek and that, possibly, in the ancient chronicles Alexander used a foreign language to communicate in private with his soldiers. This interpretation is disputed, as many things are.

                          I find it unlikely, however, if Herodotus saw the Macedonians as foreigners, which he clearly does, that later in the Macedonian history the Macedonians would abandon their language and adopt Greek. A more plausible argument is that Greek was adopted for other reasons, including literary and administrative purposes.

                          Comment

                          • Philosopher
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 1003

                            Finally, it is interesting to take a look at the spelling of Alexander's name in the cuneiform texts. The correct rendering of Alexandros would have been A-lek-sa-an-dar-ru-su, but until now, no tablet has been discovered that uses this Greek name. Instead, after some first attempts to render the conqueror's name, the Babylonian scribes settled upon A-lek-sa-an-dar. Probably, this only shows that the scribes found it difficult to render a foreign name. On the other hand, it can not be excluded that Alexandar is the Macedonian name by which the conqueror of Asia was known to his courtiers.
                            Going back to this quote, one of its most overlooked aspects is universality. Let me explain. If all cultures practiced a form of "Hellenization" with names, we would expect to find very different spellings of a single name. So for example. If Alexander is originally "Alexandros" and the Babylonians decided to "Babylonianz" it, we would expect a certain unique characteristic about it. We would also expect the same in other languages.

                            We do not see these types of unique characteristics, however. Strangely, in respect to Alexander's name, we see uniformity in different languages and in different cultures and all are fairly consistent, except the Greek version, which seems to confirm that the Hellenic name Alexandros is not the original, but a Hellenized spelling of the ethnic name Aleksandar. The Babylonians seem to have gone out of the way to avoid using the Greek spelling of the name, which they could have used, and instead chose a spelling that is more or less consistent with what in time would be other languages and cultures.
                            Last edited by Philosopher; 09-23-2014, 04:26 PM.

                            Comment

                            • spitfire
                              Banned
                              • Aug 2014
                              • 868

                              (Partly my absence is because of constant error messages I get from the forum).

                              So in this case Philosopher, why don't we see the K and S in Latin transliterations?
                              I gave you the example of Sir Alec Isigonis, the use of name Alekos in greek and Canningos square to cover even the extreme case of error and miscomprehension.
                              Did the babylonians have a letter like "Ξ" to depict the K and S sound?

                              And to take it to another level. Italian is very closely related to Latin. There isn't a letter today to depict neither pronounce "Ξ" or "Χ". The latin did. How is the name alexander used today in Italian? Is it not Alessandro?

                              Comment

                              • Nikolaj
                                Member
                                • Aug 2014
                                • 389

                                Originally posted by spitfire View Post
                                My point is about consistency. What do you think?

                                What was it you said in the last paragraph? That 16th century macedonian is pretty much the same as today's macedonian? Yes, so? Have you seen other languages from that era? Greek for instance?
                                The last speech of the last Emperor of Byzantium for instance in 1453. It's pretty much how it would be today.

                                So, what does this lexicon prove about consistency? More or less nothng. On the other hand the curse tablet might make you think that languages evolve and this is apparent in a larger scale of time, than that of 500 years.
                                That was painful to read

                                We never denied the existence of the Greek language.
                                The Greeks deny the existence of a Macedonian language and label it as Bulgarian; when we all know from a HUGE amount of sources we have on this forum it was in fact Macedonian, including the Lexicon.
                                That tablet means nothing, it's from the Ancient period, and it's funny how you compare that to a lexicon, when your first statement was that the Macedonian lexicon had only 300 words.
                                Even then, it's irrelevant, you can learn a language which exists, you can't learn a language which doesn't. I hope you can see the sarcasm involved within the bold region.
                                Furthermore, we know the Macedonians spoke a language back than that was too distinct to be a dialect.
                                We know the Macedonians could speak Greek (Mediterranean language), a lingua-franca, hence the reason why these coins are in Greek in the first place, and for the same reason why they need to be able to communicate with outsiders.
                                It would also be a shame to create a piece of art, or a tablet for communication, for it to not be able to understood by the rest of the world.
                                What do you think the Macedonians used to communicate to the Romans, Persians and the upper area's of Macedonia? Koine.

                                Why is this relevant? It's not. You're going since all we're doing is trying to do linguistic analysis. But you're denying the possibility of the Macedonian language being a possible entity of it.
                                Hence why I wrote the stuff at the start of this post.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X