the myth of Atlantis in context

[Van Gorp]

So english is the language most likely to have a root in the word 'Atlantis' according to you? Proto-english?

I don't want to jump to conclusions about what you mean, I'd like it in your own words.

Well, for me not really. But English words are familiar to us. Do English people understand that many of their words come from the continent?

But in fact any Germanic language can relate to this in a more or less degree (Dutch, Norse, Deutch, ..).

The fact for the reconstruction of such root language is the possibility to explain the small parts IMO.

Roman/Greek languages fail mostly the test, Germanic language go much further in the dissection.

Think the pedantic man that knew everything better then the rest, aka 'Aristoteles'.

In my own dialect it is very clear what the name says "Er wist het alles" :-)

[Atlantisresearch]

Of course. Have you?

Source: Perseus.

The above clearly states that Solon had written down his Hellenized versions of the names of people and places, and states exactly nothing at all about any manuscript regarding Solon's planned poem about Atlantis, which, IIRC (do I need to look this up for you?) no party in either dialogue claims Solon actually wrote.

IOW, even if every word in the two dialogues were true, there would still be no "manuscript" written by Solon for anyone to possess.

Harte

Solon's manuscript is referenced throughout both dialogues and the translation you chose for this passage is obscure. Here's Desmond Lee's:

"My [grand]father had his manuscript, which is now in my possession, and I studied it often as a child."

Solon's manuscript is a basic detail of the dialogues. Why not just admit you don't know anything on this topic?

[RedSquirrel]

Well, for me not really. But English words are familiar to us. Do English people understand that many of their words come from the continent?

But in fact any Germanic language can relate to this in a more or less degree (Dutch, Norse, Deutch, ..).

The fact for the reconstruction of such root language is the possibility to explain the small parts IMO.

Roman/Greek languages fail mostly the test, Germanic language go much further in the dissection.

Think the pedantic man that knew everything better then the rest, aka 'Aristoteles'.

In my own dialect it is very clear what the name says "Er wist het alles" :-)

Just for verification, do you study ancient languages?

[Van Gorp]

Just for verification, do you study ancient languages?

Yes, beginning with the history of my own language because that is closest to me.

[RedSquirrel]

Yes, beginning with the history of my own language because that is closest to me.

O.k. fair enough, where does the Germanic root share a common ancestor to the Greek language? My issue is that we are dealing with an understood language, roots and all.

[Atlantisresearch]

From the "Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum", page 165 of the PDF:

Which means OliverDSmith is equating the Fortunate Isles/Isles of the Blessed, reserved for the honored dead, with Atlantis. I guess the peoples of Athens must have been fighting ghosts then.

cormac

Here's the English translation:

"But when the two had sex Neptune one of which, Celaeno, she gave birth to Lycus, whom Neptune is in the

The Fortunate islands, though the home he sent, yet out of the other, Alcyone,

daughter produced Aethusa beautiful Eleutheris of

Apollo's mother, sons of the Hyrieus and Hyperenorem."

It shows I was correct to point out that Poseidon mated on the island.

[Harte]

Solon's manuscript is referenced throughout both dialogues and the translation you chose for this passage is obscure. Here's Desmond Lee's:

"My [grand]father had his manuscript, which is now in my possession, and I studied it often as a child."

Solon's manuscript is a basic detail of the dialogues. Why not just admit you don't know anything on this topic?

"I chose?"

That's your chosen line, pal. You can't back out of it now.

Perhaps you think your dealing with a lightweight. Unfortunately for you, the roles are actually reversed here. It is you that is the lightweight in this arena.

Please, Go ahead. Quote Lee's translation all you want. But stop cherrypicking. You cannot pretend that the document Critias is talking about is anything but a list of names of people and places that Solon (according to Critias) got from Egyptians, retraced to their original meanings, and then translated into Greek terms.

That's what your chosen numbered quote is about, regardless of who translates it.

Or, will you now pretend that Ancient Greek is open to broad interpretation?

Harte

Edited February 7, 2014 by Harte

[cormac mac airt]

Here's the English translation:

"But when the two had sex Neptune one of which, Celaeno, she gave birth to Lycus, whom Neptune is in the

The Fortunate islands, though the home he sent, yet out of the other, Alcyone,

daughter produced Aethusa beautiful Eleutheris of

Apollo's mother, sons of the Hyrieus and Hyperenorem."

It shows I was correct to point out that Poseidon mated on the island.

It shows you're incorrect with equating the Fortunate Isles with Atlantis. Nowhere in there are the two even remotely mentioned together. You might want to try again.

cormac

[Van Gorp]

O.k. fair enough, where does the Germanic root share a common ancestor to the Greek language? My issue is that we are dealing with an understood language, roots and all.

Maybe i do not fully understand what you mean with an understood language (roots and all).

You mean in Greek all roots are understood and we should look where Germanic roots share these roots?

[Atlantisresearch]

It shows you're incorrect with equating the Fortunate Isles with Atlantis. Nowhere in there are the two even remotely mentioned together. You might want to try again.

cormac

And you might want to try reading...

Critias 109e references "hazy reports" about the Greeks forgotten history, including Atlantis. So according to Critias the story of Atlantis can be found cryptically in sources that pre-date Plato. Hellanicus is a possible example, Pindar is another.

[Leonardo]

A sentence after Castledon writes: "This bears similarities with Plato's account, where Poseidon mates with Cleito".

And that Poseidon mates with a woman whose name begins with K ("C"), and has a son, are the only similarities.

While Hellanicus' work is translated either as Atlantis or Atlantias, these are very similar (only +- the a).

Hellanicus' "work" is only known through this fragment and is untitled. The work it was from was named "Atlantis" (or "Atlantias") in modern times because of a (wrongly, imo) perceived similarity between it, and some of Critias, which is both a poor reason to title a work and no indication that is what Hellanicus actually titled it.

Not to mention that the difference in meaning between Atlantis (Land or Island of Atlas), and Atlantias, is substantial.

Critias 109e references "hazy reports" about the Greeks forgotten history, including Atlantis. So according to Critias the story of Atlantis can be found cryptically in sources that pre-date Plato. Hellanicus is a possible example, Pindar is another.

An author, creating a false history, refers in that history to a "forgotten history" upon which his is based. Quelle suprise.

This has no value as critical evidence that Plato's Atlantis was based on any work that existed in fact.

Actually that is an inaccurate translation. There is no ",". So if you read it correctly Poseidon is described as having mated with Kelaeno on the island(s) where Lycus was settled. This is how Luce (1978) also read it.

Actually, if you read the sentence the comma is needed. If Calaeno was already on the Isle of the Blest, and mated with Poseidon there, it would be unnecessary to mention their son "was settled by his father on the Isle of the Blest", as the sentence states.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Leonardo

[RedSquirrel]

Maybe i do not fully understand what you mean with an understood language (roots and all).

You mean in Greek all roots are understood and we should look where Germanic roots share these roots?

I meant that ancient Greek is pretty well understood, the roots, etymology, etc.

If you desire to use English or Germanic language to explain something plainly written in Greek, you'll need to show a common ancestor between the two (or three). I feel we are diverging from the thread's intent though.

[questionmark]

And you might want to try reading...

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

The Fortunate Isles, nowadays known as the Canary Isles are 1500 miles away from the Pillars of Hercules (and to put it into perspective, that is the same distance as from Sicily to Gibraltar and almost the same distance as from Egypt there) and of volcanic origin. So hardly a place that sunk but a place that rose from the sea. Besides that, the Greeks had a name for the Canaries calling it the island of the dog headed people.

Another brain maxturbation on its way to the trash can.

[cormac mac airt]

And you might want to try reading...

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

I read it. Attempting to muddy the waters doesn't help your argument though. "Hazy reports" and "possible example" don't mean that much when compared to what has actually been written. The Greeks considered the Fortunate Isles/Isles of the Blessed as to the west and as a place for the honored dead, not for living people. As questionmark has said the Romans associated the Fortunate Isles with the Canary Islands, yet there is no evidence that they were inhabited by anything more than an early Neolithic peoples at best. The one thing the Canary Islands have in common with Herodotus' and Plato's accounts is that all three are located outside the western Mediterranean. Yet Herodotus' Atlanteans lived in northwest Africa, Plato's Atlantis per his location never existed and the Canary Islands never had a sufficiently large population that could have had any impact on the eastern Mediterranean.

cormac

[Van Gorp]

I meant that ancient Greek is pretty well understood, the roots, etymology, etc.

If you desire to use English or Germanic language to explain something plainly written in Greek, you'll need to show a common ancestor between the two (or three). I feel we are diverging from the thread's intent though.

Placing Atlantis just in its context :-)

Atlantis Nesos is then that assumed explanation for Atlantis as "The Island of Atlas".

My point is that by using 3 very short Germanic roots, this word is constituted AND gives a non-mythical meaning at once (legend or not).

Greek root -> 'Atlantis' comes from 'Atlantis Nesos' (Island of Atlas, further question hereby remains what are the rootmeanings for the 4 roots At Las Nes Os?

Germanic root -> 'Atlantis' comes from 'At'(Old) 'Land'(Land) 'Is' (Island)

A real root language is constituted of very short, simple, meaningfull roots.

IMO Greek roots do not explain much (and are still composed roots) -> Greek is not the forerunner of Germanic languages and maybe even further from a shared mother language.

Atlantis as not a part of 'Greek' heritage does not have to be a Greek name an sich, they can use it and give it their meaning but maybe far from the original meaning.

Ok, back to topic.

[Atlantisresearch]

"I chose?"

That's your chosen line, pal. You can't back out of it now.

Perhaps you think your dealing with a lightweight. Unfortunately for you, the roles are actually reversed here. It is you that is the lightweight in this arena.

Please, Go ahead. Quote Lee's translation all you want. But stop cherrypicking. You cannot pretend that the document Critias is talking about is anything but a list of names of people and places that Solon (according to Critias) got from Egyptians, retraced to their original meanings, and then translated into Greek terms.

That's what your chosen numbered quote is about, regardless of who translates it.

Or, will you now pretend that Ancient Greek is open to broad interpretation?

Harte

Solon's manuscript was never published. Even using the Perseus translation you cited:

"[Ti. 21c] ...if he had completed the story he brought here from Egypt, instead of being forced to lay it aside owing to the seditions and all the other evils he found here on his return"

Complete the story and lay it aside in his head? No, it was written in form, but failed to be published because of civil conflict. Solon's manuscript covered the story of Atlantis and the prehistoric Athenians. Good luck explaining why a random scribbled number of Egyptian words and translations would have not been published "owing to the seditions and all the other evils he found here on his return"...

You also fail to read properly what you quote. You say: "Solon had written down his Hellenized versions of the names of people and places" yet here is what Ti. 13a actually says (again, Perseus translation):

"Since Solon was planning to make use of the story for his own poetry, he had found, on investigating the meaning of the names, that those Egyptians who had first written them down had translated them into their own tongue..."

What story? The story the Egyptians told him about Atlantis and the prehistoric Athenians of course. This same "story" in manuscript or written form is referenced throughout. The manuscript did not only cover Solon's translation scribbles, even Ti. 13a which you quote shows otherwise. Excluding the manuscript, the story of Atlantis was also told orally and passed down Dropides descendants.

The fact you are unaware of this, once again reveals your lack of knowledge on the topic. "lightweight"? No. Featherweight more like.

Edited February 7, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[Leonardo]

What story? The story the Egyptians told him about Atlantis and the prehistoric Athenians of course. This same "story" in manuscript or written form is referenced throughout. The manuscript did not only cover Solon's translation scribbles, even Ti. 13a which you quote shows otherwise. Excluding the manuscript, the story of Atlantis was also told orally and passed down Dropides descendants.

Regardless whether the narrative relates Solon as having a translation of the story, or just a translation of the names, there is no merit in using what the narrative states to validate that narrative as anything other than a fiction.

If you have another, independent and contemporary, source which corroborates that Solon had such a manuscript - that would have merit.

[cormac mac airt]

Regardless whether the narrative relates Solon as having a translation of the story, or just a translation of the names, there is no merit in using what the narrative states to validate that narrative as anything other than a fiction.

If you have another, independent and contemporary, source which corroborates that Solon had such a manuscript - that would have merit.

Better yet, an independent and contemporary source for an Egyptian story that could have been passed on to the Greeks of such a place translated as Atlantis having existed.

cormac

[questionmark]

Better yet, an independent and contemporary source for an Egyptian story that could have been passed on to the Greeks of such a place translated as Atlantis having existed.

cormac

and that from a priest of a temple that did not yet exist in Solon's time (but had a renown in Plato's)

[cormac mac airt]

and that from a priest of a temple that did not yet exist in Solon's time (but had a renown in Plato's)

Yet as we both know the common tactic is to ignore both of these points and go straight to assuming Atlantis existed from the start.

cormac

[Ryinrea]

and that from a priest of a temple that did not yet exist in Solon's time (but had a renown in Plato's)

Did they even name the priest that gave the story to Solon? I don't remember if they did or not. I thought they just said a priest gave Solon the story and he recited the story too Critics thought a fictional character in own night.

[Atlantisresearch]

And that Poseidon mates with a woman whose name begins with K ("C"), and has a son, are the only similarities.

There are other similarities. Kelaino from the fragment by Hellanicus translates as “one who is dark” (from kelainos, meaning ‘dark’) while the Atlantean king Azaes and son of Poseidon (Ti. 114c) means “dark skinned” (Gill, C. [1980] Plato, the Atlantis Story: Timaeus 17-27, Critias. Bristol Classical Press, p. 61).

Hellanicus' "work" is only known through this fragment and is untitled. The work it was from was named "Atlantis" (or "Atlantias") in modern times because of a (wrongly, imo) perceived similarity between it, and some of Critias, which is both a poor reason to title a work and no indication that is what Hellanicus actually titled it.

Atlantis or Atlantias is the title of the ancient work itself.

Not to mention that the difference in meaning between Atlantis (Land or Island of Atlas), and Atlantias, is substantial.

Most classicists translate the title as Atlantis. The "Atlantias" is a fringe translation.

An author, creating a false history, refers in that history to a "forgotten history" upon which his is based. Quelle suprise.

Skeptics have never managed to prove Plato invented Atlantis as a false history or fiction.

This has no value as critical evidence that Plato's Atlantis was based on any work that existed in fact.

Do you except the fact that Plato's dialogues on Atlantis contain genuine historical references?

Actually, if you read the sentence the comma is needed. If Calaeno was already on the Isle of the Blest, and mated with Poseidon there, it would be unnecessary to mention their son "was settled by his father on the Isle of the Blest", as the sentence states.

Someone posted the fragment. If you translate, it actually places Poseidon on the island.

[questionmark]

Did they even name the priest that gave the story to Solon? I don't remember if they did or not. I thought they just said a priest gave Solon the story and he recited the story too Critics thought a fictional character in own night.

According to Plato his name was Sonchis of Sais... which certainly is not Egyptian, but then again, the Greeks had a tendency to "Hellenize" names.

[cormac mac airt]

Did they even name the priest that gave the story to Solon? I don't remember if they did or not. I thought they just said a priest gave Solon the story and he recited the story too Critics thought a fictional character in own night.

In Plato's writings no name is ever given for the priest or priests who allegedly passed on the Atlantis story. It's not til some 300 years later that Plutarch gives the name of the priest as Sonchis, which is not Egyptian to begin with.

cormac

Edited February 7, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[questionmark]

In Plato's writings no name is ever given for the priest or priests who allegedly passed on the Atlantis. It's not til some 300 years later that Plutarch gives the name of the priest as Sonchis, which is not Egyptian to begin with.

cormac

oops, did I say Plato?

Disregard, make that Plutarch.