| Revision as of 18:43, 15 April 2006 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,260 edits Rolling back personal attack from troll.← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:24, 15 April 2006 edit undoDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Post -Scriptum : BTW, Mr Bachmann, be kind enough to also notice that the scribe's habits, in the Idalion Inscription, are '''the same''' as the Disk's scribe on two other points : <kas> is linked to the following word -- the "word-concept" by the scribe is not always the same as ours. For instance, at Idalion, <anti tô mistôn> is written as if it was a single ''word'' : a-ti-to-mi-si-to-ne. | Post -Scriptum : BTW, Mr Bachmann, be kind enough to also notice that the scribe's habits, in the Idalion Inscription, are '''the same''' as the Disk's scribe on two other points : <kas> is linked to the following word -- the "word-concept" by the scribe is not always the same as ours. For instance, at Idalion, <anti tô mistôn> is written as if it was a single ''word'' : a-ti-to-mi-si-to-ne. | ||
| :This is quite usual among syllabaries (observe that in both cases the unsounded vowel is the same as an adjacent one). The incoherence of Faucounau's decipherment is that he postulates a sign which is simple ''s'', in addition to ''sa-'', ''se-'' and so forth.] 16:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | :This is quite usual among syllabaries (observe that in both cases the unsounded vowel is the same as an adjacent one). The incoherence of Faucounau's decipherment is that he postulates a sign which is simple ''s'', in addition to ''sa-'', ''se-'' and so forth.] 16:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| I am by all means interested in seeing the ] extended, it is in dire need of expansion (but of course not by grapheus, who is surely permabanned after his despicable Gator stunt) ] <small>]</small> 19:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:24, 15 April 2006
Arbitrary deleting
Dbachmann has deleted the sentence I added about some apparent incoherences in the rendering of -S in the case of the Proto-Ionic Solution (an incoherence pointed by Y.Duhoux). This sentence is the following :
But it is to be noticed that such apparent incoherences do exist also in the 4th century BC inscription written with the Cypriot syllabary.
Dbachmann deleted it with the motive that "to the best of (his) knowledge, the Cypriot Syllabary has no consonant signs".
Well, Mr Bachmann, the Cypriot Syllabary has an usual way to render the consonant S : to use the sign SE. So, on the well-known the Idalion Bronze Inscription, <kas> is generally written ka-se. But in the same inscription, one may notice incoherences very similar to the ones of the Disk, i.e. that the sign SE is missing ! For instance, on line 1, one may read : ka-se-(ke-ti-e-we-se), but on line 5 <kas anti> is written : ka-a-ti. Once again, Mr Bachmann, your aversion for the Proto-Ionic Solution has made you blind and it has lead you to an unjust deletion. (User 80.90.57.154, 15:06, March 25, 2006) Post -Scriptum : BTW, Mr Bachmann, be kind enough to also notice that the scribe's habits, in the Idalion Inscription, are the same as the Disk's scribe on two other points : <kas> is linked to the following word -- the "word-concept" by the scribe is not always the same as ours. For instance, at Idalion, <anti tô mistôn> is written as if it was a single word : a-ti-to-mi-si-to-ne.
- This is quite usual among syllabaries (observe that in both cases the unsounded vowel is the same as an adjacent one). The incoherence of Faucounau's decipherment is that he postulates a sign which is simple s, in addition to sa-, se- and so forth.Septentrionalis 16:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I am by all means interested in seeing the Cypriot syllabary extended, it is in dire need of expansion (but of course not by grapheus, who is surely permabanned after his despicable Gator stunt) dab (ᛏ) 19:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)