Linear A to Linear B

[Larry Trask]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

We've been seeing quite a bit of speculation on this list about possible
stories for Linear A and Linear B.  Well, look.  The conventional position, as
I understand it, is this.

Linear A was used to write the unknown language we call Minoan.  In all
likelihood, it was invented for the purpose of writing that language.  Minoan
was not Greek, was not closely related to Greek, was very likely (though not
certainly) not even IE, and was very possibly a language of which we have no
other knowledge.

Linear B was used to write an archaic form of Greek.  It seems highly likely,
perhaps even close to certain, that Linear B is derived in some way from Linear
A, most likely that it simply represents a modification or adaptation of Linear
A for the purpose of writing an entirely different language.

Now, as far as I can see, this scenario is not only the simplest possible one
but the most obvious interpretation of the evidence at our disposal, such as
that evidence is.  The scenario seems to be entirely consistent with the
evidence.  I know of no single piece of substantial evidence that conflicts
with the standard interpretation.  Does anybody?  If not, then what reason can
there be for constructing ever more complex, ever more implausible and ever
more outlandish alternatives?  What can we possibly gain from this? How does
any given alternative story account for the known facts better than the
standard story?

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk