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

From: Qakare (qakare_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: 9 Jul 2004 08:13:30 -0700

grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407090034.60225c28@posting.google.com>...
> qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0407081433.145edf99@posting.google.com>...
> > grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407080403.1b91e296@posting.google.com>...
> > > VERY INTERESTING MESSAGE, but it DOES'N'T SHOW what you claim !..
> > > See hereunder the explanation .
> > >
> >But maybe you need to read the word
> > detail in capital letters.
> > Here it is: In contrast to Faucounau Hempl has described his way of
> > deciphering in DETAIL.
>
> I'll NOT DENY THAT !... But I don't see ANY REASON to accuse J.F. to
> be a LIER when he says that he REACHED HIS CONCLUSIONS concerning the
> LANGUAGE and the TYPE OF SCRIPT using Statistical Calculations !...
> Mainly when he gives the PRINCIPLES of his method !.. Do *YOU* have
> a MOTIVE for accusing him of not saying the truth ?...

I didn't say that he has no Statistical Calculation. But maybe
Faucounau has made a mistake and the language is Japanese instead of
Greek. Therefore as long as he hide them, his calculations must be
taken as wrong.

> > Yes Hempl is wrong, but his examples are enough to demonstrate that
> > akrophonie is useless.
>
> IF used "alone", YES, I fully agree !...
> But J.F.'s *PROVED* decipherment has shown that used as a
> complementary method, it may be very useful !...

It is the only method he shows in detail. Therefore you can not say
that he is using it as a complementary method. Anyway, if you can give
more than 20 different values to a sign the method is always useless.
 
> > Only Faucounau himself believes that his akrophonic equations are
> > excellent.
> > For instance sign 06 he determines with "woman". But instead of using
> > the corresponding Greek word he prefers to use the word for "wife".
>
> WRONG !.. You are NOT paying attention to the ARCHAÏC CHARACTER of
> <damar> v./ <gunè> !...
> Both words have practically the SAME MEANING, i.e. "woman" and/or
> "wife, spouse". But the OLDEST is <damar>. So, WHAT IS SO STRANGE
> finding it in a 1750BC-text ?????

It is not strange. But the same way you would argue if /gu/ would
better fit in Faucounaus text.
 
> >
> > > 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
> > > !...
> >
> > That the rare signs are read with complex values shows that Faucounau
> > was using the same way like Hempl: some guessing and see if it worked!
> > (See my last posting for details.) So it is correct to show with Hempl
> > as example, that Akrophonie is worth nothing for deciphering an
> > unknown script in a unknown language.
>
> Once again, I agree IF akrophony ALONE is used !...

Faucounau only shows Akrophonie in detail!
 
> > The problem with that is, that a "round shield" was unknown at the
> > time of the Phaistos Disc. At this time only rectangular shields are
> > known.
>
> UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION, based upon the "Risch-Chadwick Theory" !...
> And at the time of the Phaistos Disk, there were NO "Feather-Helmet"
> worn by the warriors, neither, right ?...
>
> > Therefore sign 12 is for sure not a shield. A sign with a
> > circle and some dots can also be found in the luwian hieroglyphic
> > script (sign 181). There it is used as a Ideogram for bread (see
> > Emmanuel Laroche, 1960, Les hiérolyphes hittites. Paris: Éditions du
> > Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. p. 95).
>
> SO WHAT ?... The Phaistos Disk IS NOT a "Luwian artifact" !... It's a
> PROTO-IONIAN one !!!!
> Your assumption is RIDICULOUS !...

For that conclusion you have to proof first that the language is
Proto-ionian!
Without such a proof both theories are possible.

> >
> > > The comparison with J.F's work is eloquent, is it not ?..
> >
> > You are eloquent. But this is not enough. You need at least one proof.
> > That you always talking about 30 pieces of evidence without showing
> > one real proof says enough.
>
> I said WHY I don't want to explain IN A POST such difficult-to-explain
> proofs like the "Astronomical" one, for instance. But THE needed
> REFERENCES are in the J.F.'s book. WHY you don't do WHAT I DID, i.e.
> READING THESE published REFERENCES ?... Or better, read the "Les
> Proto-Ioniens..." book, which gives the main EVIDENCE ?...

The question was "What is the probability that a false
deciphering-attempt can lead to acrophony ?".
What does your peaces of external evidence has to do with that
question?

qakare