Talk:Aphrodite/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Illyrian etymology

There is nothing extraordinary about it, @Khirurg. It may be extraordinary to you. Unless you can prove that Illyrians and Ancient Greeks were not living literally next to each other for a very very long time and were living 20.000 miles away from each other (which you can't) this will stay. I attempted to remain as neutral as I could, using "has been proposed", "according to", "suggested by", etc. There is even no consensus on the origin of the name. I wonder why nobody else intervened me in the last 12 hours but it was you, again. Additionally, can you disprove one of several arguments that the author has explained well in his work and cited top-linguists like J. Matzinger? And about WP:CIVIL this [1] [2] [3] explains everything what needs to be said. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The claim is indeed extraordinary. The worship of Aphrodite (and therefore her name as well), is attested as early as the 8th century BC, and probably goes back much further. The origin of the cult appears to be semitic rather than proto-Indo-Europeaan. Virtually nothing is known of Illyrian, especially by the 8th century BC, let alone Albanian, this far back in time. It's not even certain that Albanian derives from Illyrian. So to claim an Albanian etymology for a name that goes back to deep antiquity is definitely extraordinary, not to mention bordering into WP:FRINGE territory. The source itself, the author appears to be a graduate student, and the publication is some kind of conference proceedings (i.e. not a peer-reviewed journal, not even certain if it's peer-reviewed at all). Not the kind of source that's needed for a claim of this magnitude. This is a high visibility article, watched by many people. The standard for inclusion is very high. Khirurg (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

And that's just to address the first sentence you added. The second sentence is even worse. This is not very unlikely... That it's nor very unlikely is just your own conjecture . Athanassakis doesn't mention Aphrodite in his work. You literally just made it up that it's "not very unlikely". The third sentence is literal folk etymology that no one connects to Aphrodite. Khirurg (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Many points are very weak. Just because we do not know many things about Illyrian does not mean we can not lay foundation on etymology. The point if Albanian is even Illyrian is irrelevant to this case. Albanian is a Paleo-Balkanic language that relates to Illyrian (literally no modern scholar disagrees to that) and the author compares the reconstructed Proto-Albanian term to a possible Paleo-Balkanic term. The origin of the cult may be Semitic, Hittite or Korean, the etymology can still be Indo-European. I agree with the second part of the sentence while the third is just what the reconstuced PALB term means today. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with "A more vague theory argues of an Illyrian origin" and at the end of the sentence "This has to be seen with caution since very little is known about Illyrian"AlexBachmann (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you appreciate just how incredibly...bold the claim is. Not only is he implying that it is a dead certainty that Albanian is the same as Illyrian, but he is claiming that the Greek name originates from the Albanian name. This despite the fact that Greek is first attested in ~1500 BC, and Albanian not for another ~3000 years later. He's not saying that the etymologies are related or somehow connected (somewhat plausible due to proximity, perhaps), but that the Greek name derives from the Albanian name. That is an incredibly strong claim. The conference proceedings was published literally yesterday, and we don't know what the response of the academic community will be. My guess is it will be strongly criticized, or even worse, totally ignored. If on the other hand the claim is accepted, we could revisit it at some point in the future. Khirurg (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to accept that the attestation of a language does not say anything about the age of a language. Even though because Albanian was attested in the 15th century it is still Paleo-Balkanic. Alright, let's wait for a response. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Aphrodite's early cult and name begun as hellenized versions of older Eastern deities, and attempts to derive them from Indo-European tradition & language have long been abandoned in modern scholarship. Its earliest attestation in Greek is from around 8th century BC. This, combined with its multiple attestations in the syllabary of Cyprus –the south-eastern most of the Bronze Age Greek world, a mixing pot of early Greek / Phoenecian (and other Eastern) cultures, and Aphrodite's origin-island in classical mythology– leaves little (if any) room for doubt.

Folk etymologies that seemingly make some sense have always existed. Various ancient Greek names (many of which of pre-Greek origin) have long been subjected to folk etymologies in neighbouring languages, mainly originating from laymen's circles or with little or no attention outside of their own ethnic group. @Khirurg already made points about the huge attestation gaps and the extraodinary nature of such claims. (Sagan standard) A similar issue appears to be in the Prende article with the same suggested etymology of Afrodita (which seems reated to Aphrodite and most likely a derivative).Piccco (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The name Afrodita/Afërdita is the Albanian native name for the planet Venus, and it is a compound of afro dita 'come forth the day/dawn', two native Albanian words that have been reconstructed by linguists as *apro and *dītā. The name Aprodita is attested in Messapic language, regarded today as the closest language to Albanian. So I would not consider unlikely the theory provided by Dedvukaj (2023), which is based on extensive linguistic analysis. If you want to exclude his theory from this article I would not oppose it, but you can't exclude it from articles like Prende or Messapic language, because the reconstructed forms provided by Dedvukaj actually coincide with attested forms in those languages, hence they can hardly be considered extraordinary conjectures. Linguistic scholarly analysis should be provided to label them as such, not editors' opinions. – Βατο (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Dedvukaj's theory can be added to the article, since many other theories are there. I am not against that. However, as Dedvukaj himself notes, there is a general consensus in scholarship that the name "Aphrodite" is of Semitic origin. This should be made clear in the article, especially given the fact that it seems to be backed by high-quality RS speciliazing in Greek mythology etymologies (West, Beekes). On the Messapic Aprodite and Albanian Afrodita, there is no proof that they were not borrowed from the Greek Aphrodite. There is clear evidence that old Albanian (better said, Proto-Albanian) had Prema/Prenda, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Afrodita is not a recent creation in Albanian based on the similarity of "Aphrodite" with "afër ditë". A few ancient Greek mythology figures have been reliably linked with Albanian words, especially Balios. It was a white worse, and "balë" means "white horse". That link has been made by multiple well-known academics. On the other hand, if "Apero dita"-> "Aphrodita" were a reliable derivation, it would have been supported by some well-known scholars long before Dedvukaj. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, "there is no evidence whatsoever that Afrodita is not a recent creation in Albanian based on the similarity of "Aphrodite" with "afër ditë" how could this have happened? The Albanian name Afrodita/Afërdita is the native name for Venus, the morning and evening star, and in Albanian it is a phrase that makes complete sense. The ancient association with the planet Venus actually strengthens the semantic explanation provided by Dedvukaj (2023). As for the evidence, the name Prende is not attested in antiquity, on the other hand apro-dita, the exact Proto-Albanian form of modern Albanian afro dita, is attested in Messapic, the closest language to Albanian and either a sister or daughter language of Illyrian. – Βατο (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Prema gave the name to Friday in Albanian. Days are named after pagan gods in Albanian, in line with the Roman naming tradition. It also gave the name to "mbrëmje". The existence and etymology of Prema are supported by multiple high-quality RS like Joseph&Hyllestad, Orel and Mallory&Adams etc. On the other hand, Aprodita->Aphrodite does not even remotely have that degree of support among high-quality RS. Afërdita being a native name in Albanian does not have any kind of evidence. It has been first attested in Albanian in the 19th or 20th century, and as such could have been borrowed by Albanians very late. The similarity of Afërdita with "afër ditë" does not serve as evidence, it could be a coincidance. Messapic Aprodita too could have been borrowed from ancient Greek Aphrodite, which itself was borrowed from a Semitic culture. In any case, the important thing is that, as Dedvukaj himself notes, there is a general consensus in scholarship that Aphrodite comes from a Semitic tradition, and that Dedvukaj's claim has not been supported by any other high-quality RS. One can't treat as equals Dedvukaj's claim and a view that has widespread support. As I said, I am not against adding Dedvukaj's view, but the article should make it clear that there is a general consensus that Aphrodite comes from Semitic. Btw, Dedvukaj claims that there is "archaeological" evidence that Illyrians had important interactions with Phoenicians. Can you cite me a single archaelogical paper talking about this "archaeological" evidence? Bato, you have done a great work on ancient topics. Keep the good work up, and do not waste time with such dubious stuff. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Dedvukaj really sounded convincing at first, we can't blame anybody for using him as a source (especially not Bato). AlexBachmann (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Dedvukaj's paper is a reliable source published in a peer reviewed journal, and his extensive linguistic analysis and proposed reconstructions are based on other linguists' scholarly achievements. Nobody can blame editors for using a reliable source. Ktrimi991, Dedvukaj explicitly cites Stipčević, The Illyrians, p.41, which says: "As tangible proof of the presence of the Phoenicians among the Encheleae and the southern Illyrians one must take into account numerous bronze axes of the so-called Albano-Dalmation (or Skadar) type which, by their similar-ity, could only be related to axes from the near East.". Have you actually read the paper? I think Dedvukaj's theory is the one that makes more sense in terms of historical linguistics and semantics. But if consensus is emerging for its exclusion from this article until more scholars discuss it, I'm ok with that. – Βατο (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Βατο, there is really no meaningful evidence of Phoenician-Illyrian contacts, at least not as much as to give credence to the idea that Illyrians got an important deity from the Phoenicians, gave her a name and then transfered that to ancient Greeks. Now, Dedvukaj thanks Brian Joseph for his help and feedback. So Dedvukaj's reconstructions of Proto-Albanian phonetic changes are OK. Time will tell if this claim made by Dedvukaj on Aphrodite's etymology will gain currency among scholars. Personally I doubt it, but I am not a linguist anyway. If Dedvukaj gets support from other scholars, then ofc it should be given much weight in the article. Until then you either might want to mention it in the article and note that there is a general consensus for a Semitic origin, or wait until some scholars discuss Dedvukaj's claim. Up to you, at least from me there is no opposition either way. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Dedvukaj's paper is WP:RS but being RS doesn't make a source by default not WP:FRINGE or worthy of inclusion (WP:UNDUE). In the example about Shkodran axes, Dedvukaj is wrong without any possibility of ever being somewhat close to a plausible theory with such a statement. Dedvukaj copied this opinion from Garašanin almost verbatim: the Scutari type to the Bronze Age and finds the ultimate origin of the Scutari and Albano – Dalmatian types of axe in the Far East. (cited in Hammond 1967). This opinion found no acceptance in archaeology outside Yugoslavia - just like many other theories of Garašanin, it was not supported in research by other schools of archaeology, died out and has been laid to rest for eternity by the Lazaridis-Reich (2022) study even from the perspective of genetic anthropology. Albano-Dalmatian axes derived from Cetina culture, Glasinac-Mati culture and similar Balkan Bronze Age cultures, but they have nothing to do with any population movement related to Anatolia or the Levante. From a genetic perspective, LBA Montenegro, IA Albania and specifically the Ohrid area share the same distinct Paleo-Balkan profile which doesn't have any links to Anatolia or the Levante. In general, as I read the paper I found many red flags which truly made me wonder about the peer review process in this journal. I wouldn't necessarily oppose its use to the extent that it's compared and contrasted with other sources, which in itself would probably lead to deciding to not use the source. It is interesting that Dedvukaj does acknowledge that there is a consensus Importantly, Aphrodite's name is not attested in Mycenaean Greek. Boedeker (3) points out that this may indicate that the writers of Linear B did not know of Aphrodite during the Bronze Age but reminds us that knowledge of Mycenaean Greek is limited. For this reason, the present consensus is that Aphrodite may be derived from the Semitic name of the goddess Atoret/ Atarte (see Beekes 2016: 179). The association with the sky appears to signify the oldest tradition and hence its association with Phoenician Atarte but in proposing his own thesis (which is self-contradictory, but I won't go there), he never addresses the view which the author himself recognizes as the consensus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  He says that a Semitic etymology is consensus. He does not explicitly agree thought. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Name in Ancient Greek

I was curious about the spelling of her name in Ancient Greek. According to several search results it is Αφροδίτη, from Αφρός (foam), and really ‘Daughter of foam’, or ‘Foam-daughter’.

Should I edit the page, or are there standards someone will defend? I’d like to introduce this information like the page for Dionysius is at the moment. It would be my template.

I would be editing the first line of text and information further down. Is there a standard for one or more of these things? 8.46.93.108 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The etymology of Aphrodite's name is discussed in the first section of the body of the article (Etymology). —VeryRarelyStable 12:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Aphrodite in Pop Culture?

There’s a page for Ares In Pop Culture, yet since there isn’t one for Aphrodite, should there instead be a section on this page? 67.8.168.231 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024

Under the subheading "Art", in the first paragraph under the gallery, remove The Birth of Venus (1863) by Alexandre Cabanel 95.88.156.116 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? - FlightTime (open channel) 14:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Marking edit request as answered, as the request is awaiting user input. Courtesy ping to @FlightTime: if you might have left it open for a reason. --Ferien (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien: I marked the request as {{ndfn}}, the template script left it open. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)