The perfect participle passive in Minoan Linear A versus Mycenaean Linear B

The perfect participle passive in Minoan Linear A versus Mycenaean Linear B:

Here we see 4 examples of the perfect participle passive in Minoan Linear A versus Mycenaean Linear B.



[1] kiretana (Linear A) = amoiyeta (Linear B) = (having been) delivered
[2] pa3nina (Linear A) ? (meaning unknown)
[3] dirina (Linear A) ? (meaning unknown)
[4] pitakase (Linear a) = epididato(i) (Linear B) = (having been) distributed

Of these four, [1] to [3] are either feminine singular or neuter plural. It is hard to determine which, if either.
[4] is masculine plural.

Advertisement

Minoan Linear A kirita2 (kiritai) = delivery & kiretana = delivered (nos. 67 & 68 deciphered)

Minoan Linear A kirita2 (kiritai) = delivery & kiretana = delivered (nos. 67 & 68 deciphered):



After due consideration, I have decided that the terms kirita2 (kiritai) = “delivery” and kiretana =  “delivered” on the following Minoan Linear A tablets from Haghia Triada, HT 114, HT 120, HT 121 & HT 129. Kirita2 (kiritai) is used in association with grain on HT 114 & HT 129, and with olive oil on HT 121. Kiretana, on the other hand, appears only on HT 120, again in association with grain. But how could I possibly have drawn the conclusion that these two terms were in any way related? It is actually quite simple. Both kirita2 (kiritai) = “delivery” and kiretana =  “delivered” begin with almost the same prefix, i.e. kiri and kire. But does that make them directly related? If you stop to think about it, yes. I am convinced they are different grammatical forms of the same word, namely,  “delivery” (nominative) in English. As It see it,

kirita2 (kiritai) = “delivery” (nominative) &
kiretana = “(having been) delivered” (perfect participle passive)

which makes a great deal of sense in light of the fact that the same changes in form occur in all languages, ancient and modern. For instance, in Mycenaean Linear B, we have:

apudosi = “delivery” (nominative) &
apudedomeno = “(having been) delivered” (perfect participle passive)    

in English:

delivery (nominative) &
(having been) delivered (perfect participle passive)    

and in French:

livraison = “delivery” (nominative) &
(ayant été) livré = “(having been) delivered” (perfect participle passive) 

The problem with my decipherment is that it must compete with a number of other words which are frequently conjoined with the ideograms for “grain/wheat” and “olive oil” on several Linear A tablets, as noted below (with the number of occurrences of each term immediately following these potential alternatives): 

adaro 40 (ARKH 5)
adu 680 (HT 92)
apu2nadu 45(HT 14)
ase 26 (HT 93)
datu 15 (olive oil) (HT 123-124)
iqa*118 50+ (HT 131)
kupaja 16 (HT 116)
pa3ni 33 (HT 102)
pa3nina 12 (HT 93)
pi*34te (HT 116)
pitakase 161 (HT 21)
pura2 40 (HT 116)
qanuma 20 (HT 116)
qaqaru 5(HT 93)
saru 16 (olive oil) (HT 123-124)
simita 5 (HT 96)
siqine 12 (HT 116)
tukirina 40 (HT 129)
turunuseme  10 (HT 128)
zu*22di 40 (HT 101)

Any one of these words could be just as good a candidate. Right? Wrong. First of all, all but one of the terms given above occur only singly, which does not account for the shift from the nominative to the perfect participle passive. Kirita2 (kiritai) and kiretana (femine) do account for it in Minoan Linear A, but so also do apudosi and apudedomeno (neuter) do in Mycenaean Linear B. Moreover, the number of syllables in the Minoan Linear A terms is approximately equivalent to that of their Mycenaean Linear B counterparts. While this co-incidence does not necessarily ensure that the terms are equivalent in both syllabaries, the chances are that the greater the number of syllables in both, the greater the likelihood is that the selected terms are likely to be on target. In the list of alternative terms above, the only other tenable candidates are pa3ni (HT 102) & pa3nina (HT 93). Note in particular the identical shift from the nominative to the perfect participle passive in the latter, where the ppp. pa3nina has the exact same ultimate as does kiretana. Even if the latter terms pa3ni and pa3nina are actually the correct translations for  “delivery” (nominative) &  “(having been) delivered” (perfect participle passive) in Minoan Linear A rather than the two I have opted for, one or the other combination is likely to be correct, i.e. either:

kirita2 (kiritai) = “delivery” (nominative) &
kiretana =   “(having been) delivered” (perfect participle passive)

OR

pa3ni = “delivery” (nominative) &
pa3nina =   “(having been) delivered” (perfect participle passive)

However, I have opted for the former in light of the fact that in almost all languages, ancient or modern, the perfect participle passive deviates in its orthography from the nominative, as is also the case with Mycenaean Linear B, English and French above. It is for this reason that kirita2 (kiritai) = “delivery” (nominative) & kiretana = “(having been) delivered” (perfect participle passive) are more tenable than pa3ni (nominative) & pa3nina (perfect participle passive), of which the nominative and perfect participle passive share the exact same prefix, pa3ni, at least in my judgement.

The question still remains, what do pa3ni (nominative) & pa3nina (perfect participle passive) mean? I shall have to see if I can tackle that problem later on.

This brings the total number of Minoan Linear A terms I have managed to deciphered more or less accurately to 68. The likelihood that these two terms are correctly deciphered is very good (> 75%).