Re: Sorry! The Phaistos disc.



O.H. wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2005 06:48:29 -0700, "grapheus" <grapheus@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >O=2EH. wrote:
> >> The inscription consists of 53 different signgroups, which all can be
> >> linked together in one single chain by this procedure without
> >> involving the very frequent initial element of BA and so the final
> >> thorns:
> >>
> >> A12) DY_cBA
> >> A27) =D8=C5_Y
> >> A10) =D8=C5_fBA
> >> A17) ML=D8W_BA
> >> B04) XW_E
> >> A14) ZY_bXW_A
> >> A28) DC_b
> >> B12) UDXW
> >>
> >> A12 and A27 by sign Y
> >> A27 and A10 by sign =C5
> >> A10 and A17 by sign =D8
> >> A17 and B04 by sign W
> >> B04 and A14 by sign X
> >> A14 and A28 by sign c
> >> A28 and B12 by sign D
> >
> >This has NO MEANING !..
> >I can do the same with ANY SENTENCE, for instance your following one :
> >> The Phaistos disc inscription do not fit together ...
> >
> >My "Groups" are : T, GE, ER (+ reduced group E), PHAI, DI, CR (+reduced
> >group C), IN (+reduced group N)
> >
> >C1 : T-h-E
> >C8 : T-o-GE-T-h-ER
> >
> >are linked by sign h
> >
> >C2 : PHAI-s-T-o-s
> >C3 : DI-s-C
> >C4 : IN-s-CR
> >are linked together by sign s
> >
> >C5 : D-o
> No, it was not allowed to use the same letter in both connections, as
> you do to the "do". Besides the words are much longer in alphabetic
> script.

OK. Forgot the D-o !.. It doesn't change very much my demonstration ...
You know what I think about your interesting, but unsuccessful try :
YOU KILLED yourself your DEMOSTRATION when you introduced the "reduced
stems". Because it was introducing an ARBITRARY FACTOR, allowing you to
DEMONSTRATE ANYTHING you wanted !..

> >C6 : N-o-T
> >C8 : T-o-GE
> >are linked together by sign o
> >
> >Etc.
> >
> >> The Phaistos disc inscription do not fit together with syllables.
> >> It is rather some annual ledger.
> >
> >HOW can you write such a thing when 1)- There is ONE decipherment (the
> >"Proto-Ionic Solution) which is COMPLETE, giving a PERFECT MEANING to
> >the text , PERFECTLY IN ACCORDANCE with what we know about Greek
> >Linguistics, and epigraphically UNASSAILABLE 2)- of which ALL THE
> >CONSEQUENCES (more than 30!) have been VERIFIED BY FACTS.
> >
> >Are you out of your mind to make such a statement without having
> >seriously examined this solution and - eventually !- found something
> >wrong in it ?????
> >
> >grapheus
> >
> No, but in my view of the picture signs, they are as integrated into
> the entirety by symmetries, as perfect as the patterns in a Persian
> embroidery

Nobody will deny, I guess, the existence of a certain "symmetry" in the
pattern of the signs. But this is due to TWO things, as the PROVED
decipherment shows : a)- the characteristics themselves of the "couple
Language-Script" b)- the fact that it is a psalm.
The first factor is obvious, with "signs" translating words like :
kro-kos / kro-pa-lon / ro-pa-lon/ ro-kos/ etc. , words of this type
with "symmetrical patterns" being very frequent in Greek.

grapheus

.