Re: Minotauros

"grapheus" <grapheus@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147290301.205257.195400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Alan Crozier wrote:
"grapheus" <grapheus@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147274570.864096.299730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

hagen wrote:
Thank you for your response! This looks at least like a new begining;
but by what reason are you not convinced, that it is of short cut
calendrical nature?

Well, because your arguments are not convincing. As simple as that !
In fact, you have been trying to give a rational (calendaric) meaning
to "calendaric-unmatched" figures (See hereafter). This is "forcing"
the facts to enter them into a preconceived scheme..

This is what I say:
Imagine a scenario of 22 couples holding 61 weekly meetings each year

First "calendaric-unmatchted" figures : a)- Why 22 ? There is no
possible calendaric explanation for this number (a Lunar month is 29,
not 22) b)-Why 61 weeks ?? There is no known calendar with 61 weeks
c)- Why 241 or 242 (or even your 244) days ??? Any ancient people knew
that one year had about 365 days ! So, why making a calendar covering
only 2/3 of the year, when, by increasing a bit the diameter of the
disk (and clay is cheap!), it would have been easy to reach a 365 (+ or
- 10) days? Here again, you have been trying to give a rational
calendaric meaning to figures which are obviously not related to a
calendar !

If B, by way of example, is unavoidable detained, then A stands as
surety:(B)A. All 22 couples are obliged to participate by both in at
least two weekly gatherings pro anno. A further set of complicated
rules are followed strictly, and carefully entered into the annual
minutes. Such construction, in its broader aspects, corresponds with
the platonic bodies that I've discovered,

By "forcing the facts to enter into your scheme"...

whereas a language-structure
in verse and with rhymes and grammar do not produces minutely
gnomonical arrangements by itself (v).

By saying that, you are disqualifying yourself ! How anybody could take
you as a serious searcher, when you are denying the facts like you do ?
Why putting aside the "Proto-Ionic Solution", which has shown that
there is the possibility to consider the disk's hieroglyphs as a TEXT
(more precisely a PSALM , and to reach a decipherment of it ?..

Point: The various translations don't even follow a common agreement
upon the length of the sentenses in a presumed text, because of its
complexity.- E.F.A.N.K. - ( Evidence for a non-linguistic key ).

So what ??? No matter the multifarious and contradictory
"translations" which have been given ! ONLY ONE is important : the one
which is supported by more than 30 pieces of EVIDENCE, i.e. the
"Proto-Ionic Solution". If you want to be taken seriously, please,
show first that THIS solution is wrong, before writing -as you do- that
"a language-structure ... does not produce... (the recorded)
arrangements".

I hope that you will know now why nobody but you believes in your
calendaric solution, in spite of the tremendous work you have done in
trying to justify it.

With my best regards

grapheus

Actually, Hagen was thanking ME for my response and asking ME why I am not convinced.
However, your answer partly covers the reasons why Hagen's hypotheses are unlikely to
persuade anybody.

How well has Faucounau succeeded in convincing the academic establishment? Has anyone
come
out in support of his decipherment yet?

As far a I know, no well known specialist has publicly endorsed the
Proto-Ionic decipherment, but from the talks I have had, several think
that it's a very plausible solution.


I read JF's interview with Delisle. He says himself that the vast majority of scholars are
adopting a wait-and-see atittude


I see that Oxbow Books in Oxford, a source of respectable academic books, is selling
both
"Les Proto-Ioniens" and "Les Origines grecques", but not the book about the PD. How
should
one interpret that?

I don't know. Maybe the book about the decipherment (published 7 years
ago) is out of print ?


I thought you might know more about that than I do.

Alan

--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Minotauros
    ... because your arguments are not convincing. ... By "forcing the facts to enter into your scheme"... ... Proto-Ionic decipherment, but from the talks I have had, several think ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Minotauros
    ... why making a calendar covering ... By "forcing the facts to enter into your scheme"... ... "Proto-Ionic Solution". ... How well has Faucounau succeeded in convincing the academic establishment? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Minotauros
    ... why making a calendar covering ... By "forcing the facts to enter into your scheme"... ... and to reach a decipherment of it ?.. ... How well has Faucounau succeeded in convincing the academic establishment? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Minotauros
    ... because your arguments are not convincing. ... By "forcing the facts to enter into your scheme"... ... Proto-Ionic decipherment, but from the talks I have had, several think ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Minotauros
    ... Alan Crozier wrote: ... because your arguments are not convincing. ... I know there are some Greek scholars who spoke out partly in favour of F as ...
    (sci.archaeology)