New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: This was very helpful. Thanks!
in reply to a message by Andy ;—)
It's just a guess on my part; the plant is found all over Europe, and I really doubt that they didn't have a word for it on the Italian peninsula until they met the Greeks. The consonant at the beginning is suggestive, too; a direct borrowing, unless made very early when the digamma was still widely pronounced, wouldn't be likely to preserve it. Furthermore, the Latin viola is feminine and the Greek ion is neuter; when Latin speakers took over a word, they were likely to do it wholesale and since the morphological structures of the two languages are relatively similar, gender and declension are usually preserved. Again, it's just a suspicion, but this is my basis for suspicion.
Also, I suspect there's a bias at work in my mind: I think the tendency to derive Latin words straight from Greek is really overdone! I'm not sure what the L is doing, but I'll see if I can find anything. It doesn't immediately strike me as a diminutive, but I could be wrong.
ETA: Of course viola and Greek (w)iole would correspond exactly, but I can't find the latter at all in any dictionary!
Also, I suspect there's a bias at work in my mind: I think the tendency to derive Latin words straight from Greek is really overdone! I'm not sure what the L is doing, but I'll see if I can find anything. It doesn't immediately strike me as a diminutive, but I could be wrong.
ETA: Of course viola and Greek (w)iole would correspond exactly, but I can't find the latter at all in any dictionary!
This message was edited 8/11/2006, 7:03 AM
1
Replies
What you say makes a lot of sense to me. You are right: if the Romans loaned the word for "violet" this must have been at a rather early stage. To crosscheck your theory one would have to look at other Indo-European languages (which ones? I don't really know much about those things) that have no or little connection with Latin or Greek. If the word for the flower resembles (f)ion, your guess is right.
On the other hand I have read a bit about the meaning of the violet with the Greeks and the Romans. And this sounded like both the mythological and the practical use (for instance as medicine) were taken over from the Greeks by the Romans (Der kleine Pauly, "Veilchen"). The Greeks seem to have cultivated the violet for those purposes and the Romans copied that (that's at least what my dictionary says).
Is that theory (Latin > Greek) really overdone? I'd like to learn more about that. Got a link?
Thanks for your efforts!
On the other hand I have read a bit about the meaning of the violet with the Greeks and the Romans. And this sounded like both the mythological and the practical use (for instance as medicine) were taken over from the Greeks by the Romans (Der kleine Pauly, "Veilchen"). The Greeks seem to have cultivated the violet for those purposes and the Romans copied that (that's at least what my dictionary says).
Is that theory (Latin > Greek) really overdone? I'd like to learn more about that. Got a link?
Thanks for your efforts!
1
You have a good point with the usage (and far be it from me to dispute the kleine Pauly!), but common plants will have names whether they're extant in medicine and mythology or not. The Romans borrowed ion (no digamma) at a later date to talk about dark-blue stones, incidentally. This is found in Pliny the Elder.
You'd definitely have to cross-check with Sanskrit (which I don't know!), perhaps some early Celtic or Germanic languages (which I also don't know) to be sure about the derivation. I had a look at the big etymological dictionaries for Latin and Greek, and both agreed that the words viola and (w)ion probably derive from the same source. Citations:
Chantraine, P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots, volume 1. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1983, p. 466 AND
Ernout, A., and A. Meillet. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots. Fourth edition. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1979, p. 738.
Re Latin > Greek being "overdone," it certainly isn't in linguistics or classics, but it pops up a lot in more popular media, including this site! I haven't got any good online sources for Indo-European linguistic development, but here are a couple seriously useful and current books:
Fortson, B. Indo-European Language and Culture: an introduction. Blackwell Publishing, 2004
Sihler, A. A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Watkins, C., ed. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin, 2000. (Cheap in paperback! Includes lots and lots of names!)
You'd definitely have to cross-check with Sanskrit (which I don't know!), perhaps some early Celtic or Germanic languages (which I also don't know) to be sure about the derivation. I had a look at the big etymological dictionaries for Latin and Greek, and both agreed that the words viola and (w)ion probably derive from the same source. Citations:
Chantraine, P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots, volume 1. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1983, p. 466 AND
Ernout, A., and A. Meillet. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots. Fourth edition. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1979, p. 738.
Re Latin > Greek being "overdone," it certainly isn't in linguistics or classics, but it pops up a lot in more popular media, including this site! I haven't got any good online sources for Indo-European linguistic development, but here are a couple seriously useful and current books:
Fortson, B. Indo-European Language and Culture: an introduction. Blackwell Publishing, 2004
Sihler, A. A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Watkins, C., ed. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin, 2000. (Cheap in paperback! Includes lots and lots of names!)
This message was edited 8/11/2006, 12:36 PM
1
Good point!
Thanks a lot for taking the time to delve into this question.
You are right: a common plant must have a name. But names do change, even with common plants. So it could well be possible that the Romans (or rather some pre-Roman Italic tribe?) had a different name for the plant which was later replaced by the Greek expression - along with its mythological and practical implications.
This is bare theory, I must admit, and I would have to find other examples and tangiable evidence.
Unfortunately I am packing up my whole house at the moment (including a family of six) to set off for the States for one year two weeks from now. This will also keep me from taking a look at the books you mention (thanks for that!) - unless I get to visit a good library. But maybe I'll take a book or two on Indo-European languages with me.
It was nice talking to you - thanks again!
Thanks a lot for taking the time to delve into this question.
You are right: a common plant must have a name. But names do change, even with common plants. So it could well be possible that the Romans (or rather some pre-Roman Italic tribe?) had a different name for the plant which was later replaced by the Greek expression - along with its mythological and practical implications.
This is bare theory, I must admit, and I would have to find other examples and tangiable evidence.
Unfortunately I am packing up my whole house at the moment (including a family of six) to set off for the States for one year two weeks from now. This will also keep me from taking a look at the books you mention (thanks for that!) - unless I get to visit a good library. But maybe I'll take a book or two on Indo-European languages with me.
It was nice talking to you - thanks again!
1
Well, it was quite a bit of fun discussing this with you. I hope that the move goes well, and that you enjoy your time over here!
1