Re: Minotauros


"grapheus" <grapheus@xxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:1147296803.135803.191630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

IE J wrote:
"grapheus" <grapheus@xxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
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.

Paul Faure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Ionians

Inger E

Hi, Inger !

Thanks for the reference. But I think that in his paper, P. Faure
strangely eludes a bit the problem of the decipherment itself. In other
words, he doesn't clearly say that the decipherment MUST be correct,
but he approves the facts which prove the thing !

Regards
grapheus

Hi Grapheus,
you are right of course. As most times. Tell our friend that I am working on
a thread he hinted in one of the article of his he once sent me. I haven't
had time before to do more than reading and re-reading, but I think he was
on to something re. the Vikings maybe without realising it? I don't know.
Give him my love.

Best regards

Inger E



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Minotauros
    ... because your arguments are not convincing. ... Proto-Ionic decipherment, but from the talks I have had, several think ... I know that specialists have been ...
    (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
    ... 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)