Some pseudo-translations

[Cyrus Gordon (1966)] [Simon Davis (1967)] [Robert Stieglitz (1976)] ["Celtic spoof" (1982)] [Michael Hahn's "Proto-Egyptian" (2007)]

This page gives the "translations" of the Epioi inscription. I said on the Epioi inscription page that the brevity of the text and the ambiguity of the Linear symbols made it remarkably easy to "translate" this inscription and relate it to any language one wished with a little imagination and patience. I think this page is evidence of that.

Cyrus H. Gordon's "Semitic Translation" (1966)

επιθι (epitʰi): ה-פתח (h-ptḥ) = "the engraved monument"
ζηθανθη> (zētʰantʰē): ז-יתמת (z-jtnt) = "which I have set up"
ενετη παρσιφαι> (enetē parsipʰai): Gordon does say that this line is problematic. He suggests:
ע-מחת-י (῾-nḥt-j) = "over my resting place"
ב-ארץ יפי (b-᾿rṣ jpj) = "in land of beauty"
: read as i-pi-ti and taken to be a repetition of the first line.
Thus the whole text reads:: ה-פתח ז-יתמת ע-מחת-י ב-ארץ יפי - ה-פתח (h-ptḥ z-jtnt ῾-nḥt-j b-᾿rṣ jpj - H-PTḤ); "The engraved monument which I have set up above my resting place in the Land of Beauty - THE ENGRAVED MONUMENT"; Gordon explains that the "Land of Beauty" is what the Greeks called the Elysian Fields.

Source: C.H. Gordon, Evidence for the Minoan Language, New jersey, 1966

Comments

The 4th letter of the 1st line is incorrectly read as θ. The first word is certainly επιοι (epioi).
The word division παρσ ιφαι (pars ipʰai) is incorrect. The inscription shows a small gap between ρ (r) and σ (s); there is none between σι (si).

Simon Davis' "Nesite (Hittite) Translation" (1967)

επιοι (epioi)

Epioi is a proer name, akin to a name which appears in Hittite as Epiui or Epiai, there being no written /o/ sound in the cuneiform script of the Hittites.

ζηθανθη (zētʰantʰē)

Zitanti is the dative singular of Zitantaš, a Hittite goddes.

ενετη παρσιφαι (enetē parsipʰai)

This line is read as three words eneti parsi pai thus:

eneti is the dative singular of a Hurrian loan-word eni- = "deity".
parsi has no known cognate but is conjectured from the text to mean "offering" or something similar.
pai is the 3rd person singular, present tense of the Hittte verb "to give".

read as i-ne-ti and taken to be a repetition ενετη (enetē) in the third line.

Thus the whole text reads:

Epioi Zitanti eneti parsi pai E-NE-TI

"Epioi gives an offering to the goddess, Zitantaš - TO THE GODDESS."

Source: S. Davis, The Decipherment of the Minoan Linear A and Pictographic Scripts, Johannesburg, 1967

Comments

Although, unlike Gordon, Davis does read the first line correctly, he also has not read the 3rd line correctly. The word division παρσι φαι (parsi pʰai) is certainly mistaken. The inscription shows a small gap between ρ (r) and σ(s); there is none between ιφ (ipʰ).
The reading of παρσι (parsi) is also unsatisfactory in that there is no known cognate and the meaning has to be inferred from a context of just five words in which two are proper names. As for the three others, one is a Hurrian loan-word, another is an unknown word inferred from the context, and only the third is an attested Nesite word.
Oddly, this inscription from 3rd century BCE Crete seems to anticipate the change of η (ē) to Byzantine and modern Greek /i/ by some 4 centuries or more. There is no evidence for this change until the middle of the 2nd century CE. In linguistically conservative areas such as Crete, the change probably took another century or so to become established.

Robert R. Stieglitz's "Semitic Translation" (1976)

επιθι (epitʰi)

Steiglitz takes this as corresponding to ה-פתוח (h-ptwḥ) which he demonstrates could have been pronounced h-p(i)ti at Ugarit and in Mycenaean Crete. It means, however, much the same as Gordon's, i.e. "the engraved monument"

ζηθανθη (zētʰantʰē

ז-יתמת (z-jṭn᾿t) i.e. read the same as Gordon's; but Stieglitz translates: = "which I have donated"; Stieglitz does, however, suggest an alternative:ז-יטמאת (z-jṭn᾿t) = "which I have erected".

ενετη παρ σιφαι (enetē par sipʰai)

Enete Par-Siphai (Enete son of Siphai)

Enete is a proper name, cognate with Punic ᾿ntḥn and the Biblical עמתות (῾ntwt) - see Nehemiah 10: 20; 1 Chronicles 7:8 and 8:24 - which, according to Stieglitz, would appear as ῾ntj or ῾nt᾿ in north-west Semitic.
par corresponds to Aramaic bar "son".
Siphai is a proper name which Stieglitz considers akin to the Biblical Sippai, a Philistine hero and colleague of Goliath, born to the Rephaim at Gah and killed by one of David's heroes at Gezer (1 Chronicles 20:4. Interestingly, the name is written as Saphai in the Vulgate version).

read as i-pi-ti and taken to be a repetition of the first line, serving to emphasize the importance of the monument.

Thus the whole text reads:

"The engraved monument which I, Enete son of Siphai, have donated -THE ENGRAVED MONUMENT"

"The engraved monument which I, Enete son of Siphai, have erected -THE ENGRAVED MONUMENT"

Source: R.R. Stieglitz, "The Eteocretan Inscription from Psychro" Kadmos 15, Berlin, 1976.

Comments

Unlike both Gordon and Davis, Stieglitz does observe the actual word division the 3rd line. BUT...
He follows Gordon in reading the 1st line incorrectly as επιθι (epitʰi) and not επιοι (epioi) as it should be.

My "Celtic translation" spoof (1982)

επιοι (epioi)

It is difficult to dissociate pioi from Welsh pwy /puj/, Cornish pyou and Breton piv /piw/ = 'who?'. The initial e- is odd. It is probably a redundant use of an interrogative particle, perhaps cognate with Welsh and Cornish a but, unlike the latter, causing no mutation of the following consonant.

ζηθανθη (zētʰantʰē)

That is: zē-thanthē

zē- is a proclitic. It is to be compared with Cornish dhesy, dhejy, an emphatic pronoun meaning "thou, thyself" (cf. Welsh: tydi, ythdi, tithau). In this dialect [ð] had obviously weakened to [z] and thus the original pronoun would have been [zeːsi] ← [ðeːsi]. As a proclitic, a weakened grade [zeːs] had developed which before a consonant lost the final [s], causing the familiar spirant mutation of that consonant.
thanthē is the verb tanthē with initial consonant mutated. This verb is somewhat obscure but is likely to be an archaic form which generally disappeared later but survived in the defective Cornish imperative tan (plural tanneugh) = "take!".

ενετη (enetē)

That is. ene-tē

ene is to be compared with Cornish ena, Breton ene = "soul" (cf. Welsh enaid).
-tē is an enclitic and is clearly cognate with the Cornish enclitics -ta, -ty (you/ your [sing.]), Welsh ti. In Welsh, pronouns are commonly suffixed to possessive forms, thus, e.g. d'enaid or d'enaid ti = "thy soul". In this Cretan dialect the used of the prefixed possessives had died out, possession being shown by suffixed pronouns only, thus ene-tē = "thy soul".

παρ (par)

cf. Cornish par = "as, so".

σιφαι (sipʰai)

the stem of this verb, siw-, is cognate with the stem seen in Welsh safaf "I stand", saf- [sav] being from ProtoIE *stʰəm- an extended form of the root *stʰə- (stand).

The vocalization of the Cretan form was caused by a following [i] or [j] which disappeared, cf. Welsh sefyll, Cornish sevel "to stand" Breton sevel "to raise" ← *stʰəm-ilis. Unlike the Welsh, Cornish and Breton where the verb stem alternates between /sav/ and /sev/, the Cretans made /siw/ standard.

The verb is subjunctive, formed by adding -h- to the stem, thus /siw/ + /h/ → /siph/, cf. Cornish present subjunctive saffo, imperfect subjunctive saffa ( /ff/ ← /v/ + /h/. Modern Welsh has lost the /h/ sound in this position). The ending -ai, however, is a little odd; it looks like an imperfect subjunctive ending, cf. Cornish saffa, Welsh safai. The Cretan dialect had possibly lost the distinction between the present and imperfect subjunctive, using but one subjunctive tense.

The first two signs are clearly cognate with the Linear B signs for re and a. The third is obscure, but must have had a value like nja, the name *Reanja being akin to Welsh rhiain (pl. rhianedd) = "maid", "maiden". This is the goddes the Greeks called 'Persephone' or 'Kore' (Κόρη) "Maiden", the daughter of the Earth-Mother Δημήτηρ (Demeter). REANJA answers the question and the signs are used to keep the name secret from non-believers.

Thus the whole text reads:

"Ah, who takes for thee thy soul that it may stand [in Paradise]? THE MAIDEN."

Source: this was first given in an appendix to a thesis I presented to Birmingham University in 1982 for the degree of M.Litt. The thesis was published by Hakkert of Amsterdam two years later (Pre-Greek Speech on Crete, Amsterdam, 1984).

Comments

The readings are correct and there are no proper names, i.e. no jokers, BUT...
There is no reason to suppose a language in 3rd century BCE Crete should be showing similar developments to those going on in Britain something like a millennium later.

Michael Hahn's "Proto-Egyptian translation" (2007)

επιοι (epioi)

e- is clearly what is called "i-augment" in Egyptology (especially Edel, Altaegyptische Grammatik § 449-454), therefore -pio- is likely to be a verbum tertiæ radicalis infirmæ. The only verb which fits here is pȝỉ "(past converter)" which is regularly followed by an infintive. -i must be Egyptian -ỉ "my, I".

ζηθανθη (zētʰantʰē)

This word can only be understood as an feminine infintive of a verbum quartæ radicalis infirmæ. There is only one possibility, namely sdnỉ "to punish (a thief)" with the infinitive sdn.t.

ενετη (enetē)

That is:

enet- is clearly a pseudo-participle (or old perfective) form of ỉntỉ "to give way", as the context proves, of 3rd person plural.
-ē: remainder of the preposition r "to", which finally became e in Coptic.

παρ (par)

Egyptian pr "house", vocalization: *par

σιφαι (sipʰai)

surely identical with sf "yesterday".

The final linear symbols belong to a different inscription, which is to be seperated from the remainder of the stone.
i-zo-si:
The first part is clearly related to Egyptian ỉz "grave". The second part is derived from Proto-Afroasiatic *-su "his", which was replaced by -f in Egyptian.

Thus the whole text reads:

Egyptian: ỉ.pȝ=ỉ sdn.t ỉnt.w r pr sf
English: "I punished [the thief], after he had fled into the house yesterday."
Egyptian: ỉz=s
English: "His grave."

Source: Michael Hahn sent this "translation" to me in an e-mail dated 10th February, 2007. It is another example of how readily this inscription (which we now know is a forgery) can be "translated" and related to any language one wishes with a little imagination and patience.