Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Fischer

From: grapheus (grapheus_at_www.com)
Date: 07/08/04 

Date: 8 Jul 2004 05:03:41 -0700

VERY INTERESTING MESSAGE, but it DOES'N'T SHOW what you claim !..
See hereunder the explanation .

qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0407070902.1689f198@posting.google.com>...
> grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407070100.2f3adb87@posting.google.com>...
> > Jacques Guy <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message news:<40EBC5D2.642F@alphalink.com.au>...
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > > grapheus wrote:
> >
> > PROOFS, as I said,
> > > > > which are THE MOST IMPORTANT, a lot more than the
> > > > > translation of the text or the method J.F. used!...
> >
> > Of course, WRITING that the "Proto-Ionic Solution" is THE ONLY ONE to
> > EXPLAIN in a VERY SATISFACTORY WAY *all* the EPIGRAPHICAL FACTS, like
> > : "Why are the signs crowded in A29 and not in the adjacents
> > compartments ?" , or DISCUSSING matters like : "What is the
> > probability that a false deciphering-attempt can lead to acrophony ?"
>
> 100%! And here comes the explanation:
>
> Professor Hempl published in 1911 the first decipherment theory for
> the Phaistos Disc.

CORRECT !

> In contrast to Faucounau Hempl has described his
> way of deciphering in detail

WRONG !.. Here is, for instance, the way he chose the language : " I
had no chance of succeeding unless the language was Indo-European, as
I am familiar with no other languages. An Indo-European language in
Crete was most likely to be Greek, so I decided to test the text first
for Greek".
Here is, in contrast, what J. Faucounau wrote concerning his choice of
Greek (Translation from French and emphasis are mine) : "A first round
of Statistical Calculations, *which lasted more than four years*,
convinced me that Greek was the language which seemed the most in
accordance with the statistical data of the Disk"...
Eloquent comparison, is it not ?..
 
>: "... it would be necessary to weigh the
> probabilities, form tentative theories, and the rigorously test them -
> in other words, to do some judicious guessing and see if it worked."
> First he guessed that sign 02 must be <a> and sign 29 must be <e>.
> After that he "looked for words beginning with signs already
> identified, and then" he "examined every word in the dictionary that
> began with the sounds represented by the known characters." By this
> way he comes to the conclusion that the Script was using acrophony.

YES. Like J. Faucounau, he met acrophony "on the way".
BUT, one of the reason was BECAUSE HIS CHOICE of the LANGUAGE WAS
CORRECT !... For instance, the phonetic values he assigned to signs
S4, S33, S27 WERE THE GOOD ONES !!!!
In a similar way, Florence M. Stawell, who followed Dr Hempl's
hypothesis concerning the language (Ionic), IDENTIFIED CORRECTLY 60%
of the SIgns and got 5 or 6 CORRECT Phonetic values !...

> But this conclusion was not very helpful, for Instance for sign 45 he
> decided to try the word 'stream': "After testing nineteen other Greek
> words for 'stream', " he "found that <pnyn> was what " he "was after.
> ..." Or for sign 32 "There are plenty of greek words for 'dove', but
> no one of them would work, try as" he "would. It was only when" he
> "thought of Latin columba, 'dove', that" he "got hold of Greek
> <kolvmssoc>." "One can readily imagine the amount of time and patience
> required. But all the drudgery way quickly forgotten when it led to
> results." (George Hempl in Harpers Monthly Magazine, January 1911, p.
> 187-198)

> It is clear that by this way always a acrophonic word would
> be found. So the probability that a false deciphering-attempt leads to
> acrophony is 100%!

WRONG CONCLUSION of YOURS !...
Because 1)- Most of the "ACROPHONIC VALUES" proposed by G. Hempl are
OBVIOUSLY far-fetched. For instance, the "horn" was supposed to come
from Greek <karè> which means "Head" , NOT "Horn".
2)- In spite of his efforts, G. Hempl COULD NOT READ the whole text,
so many of his "acrophonic equations" LEAD TO NOTHING, and are
therefore valueless.
In contrast, J.F.'s decipherment IS COMPLETE.
3)- His hypothesis concerning the language WAS CORRECT. No surprise,
then, if he could find SEVERAL CORRECT ACROPHONIC EQUATIONS. Would his
decipherment be TOTALLY CORRECT (i.e. the same as J. Faucounau's), ALL
his acrophonic equations would have been excellent..

In other words, it is not correct to deduce from this attempt, as you
do, that ACROPHONY can always be reached, for ANY FALSE DECIPHERMENT
!...

grapheus
 
>
> qakare
>
> P.S.: At the end of his article Hempl comes to the conclusion that the
> Phaistos Disk contains a text in a archaic ionic dialect. If you think
> that it is remarkable that Faucounau also found an ionic dialect you
> are right. Here is the explanation: At the beginning of his book
> Faucounau writes "A la memoire de Florence Melian Stawell qui
> pressentit, la premiere, la solution de l'engme". (Jean Faucounau, Le
> dechiffrement du disque de Phaistos, p.7) And Stawell herself was
> writing at the beginning of her article: "credit must be given to
> Professor Hempl for being first in field. ... I have no doubt that
> many of the sound-values he proposed are right" (Florence Melian
> Stawell, in the Burlington Magazine 19, 1911 p. 23-38).

And Florence Stawell WAS RIGHT saying this !..

>
> Here comes the start of Hempls readings of side A: A-po-su-la-r
> ke-si-po e-pe-t e-e-se a-po-le-is-tu te-pe-ta-po. (Lo, Xipho the
> prophetess dedicates spoils from a spoiler of the prophetess.) Te-u-s,
> a-po-ku-ra. (Zeus guard us.) Vi-ka-na a-po-ri-pi-na la-ri-si-ta
> a-po-ko-me-nu so-to. (In silence put aside the most dainty portions of
> the still unroasted animal.) A-te-ne-Mi-me-ra pu-l. (Athene Minerva,
> be gracious.) A-po-vi-k. (Silence!) A-po-te-te-na-ni-si tu-me. (The
> victims have been put to death.) A-po-vi-k. (Silence!)

CORRECT. In other words, G. Hempl supposed that the group "Crested
head+ shield" was to read IN GREEK : <a-po>.
If he had been smarter, he would have noticed that this reading was
leading to TWO very mediocre "acrophonic equations" :
a)- "Crested head" = <anêr> : acceptable, but not very good !
 b)- "shield" = <boagrion> : very bad, if not impossible : the
<boagrion> was VERY PROBABLY a RECTANGULAR shield, the "Round shield"
being an <aspis>

The comparison with J.F's work is eloquent, is it not ?..

>
> > -- "Why 3 leading astronomers have involuntarily demonstrated that the
> > "Inventors of the Constellations" were the Proto-Ionians ?.. What to
> > think about the Ovenden's theory ?" -- etc. ARE TO PUT ASIDE !...
> > ONLY COMPARING the *PROVED* J.F.'s decipherment with OBVIOUS
> > STUPIDITIES like the Crombette's one IS, in YOUR eyes, ESSENTIAL !!!!
> > Think a bit about it : What IF the discussion of the CENSORED SUBJECTS
> > was leading to the conclusion that, YES, the Proto-Ionic Solution
> > *IS* the GOOD ONE ?... HOW SHOCKING !.. Better keep silent about
> > such matters !...
> >
> > By the way : NOBODY in this group has commented one of the
> > EPIGRAPHICAL PROOFS I gave, am I wrong?...
> >
> > grapheus