Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Faucounau (was: Fischer)

From: grapheus (grapheus_at_www.com)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: 20 Jul 2004 04:39:12 -0700

qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0407191206.ababf0@posting.google.com>...
> grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407152328.53b0431@posting.google.com>...
> > qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0407150728.1c97b80c@posting.google.com>...
> > > grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407142341.34f80bed@posting.google.com>...
> > > > qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0407141222.360e1605@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407140259.5553da77@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0407131442.59df9ffa@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407131053.3e522e8e@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > > The correct way is to BUILT a MODEL (working from the LANGUAGE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore it is necessary to proof the language first!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WHY "first" ?.. If there are PROOFS which show that the DECIPHERMENT
> > > > > > is RIGHT, this means that EVERYTHING IS RIGHT (Language, type of
> > > > > > script, etc.).
> > > > >
> > > > > The text is to short to find out by yourself that you used the wrong
> > > > > language.
> > > >
> > > > RIGHT !.. So what ?...
> > > > Proofs that the decipherment is CORRECT may come from elsewhere !...
> > >
> > > The only external proof are some bilinguals using the script on the
> > > Phaistos Disc and a known script. Everything else must come from
> > > internal analyses of the text on the Phaistos Disc.
> >
> > WRONG !.. "External Proofs" are as useful than "Internal Proofs" .
>
> Only in they case of Faucounau, because all his proofs aren't useful.

That is what *YOU* say, because AS USUAL, you have CHOSEN TO BE BLIND
!...

> For instance in B 1 a sign 23 is overprinted by a sign 12. Faucounau
> invented a Fairy tail about a overprinted additional sign with a funny
> owl on this place.

AND HERE YOU GO AGAIN with your BLATANT BAD FAITH !...
Before PROPOSING to read a new sign n° 49 representing "an owl", J.F.
HAS DEMONSTRATED that, from the traces left, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE for the
obliterated sign to be Sign n° 23 !....
But, of course, you present the thing as this DEMONSTRATION DID'N'T
EXIST, although anyone may find it on pages 140 to 143 with the
corresponding figures !....
This is the TYPICAL ATTITUDE of DOGMATICS : they DON'T DISCUSS the
arguments against THEIR DOGMA. They JUST go on, ACTING and IGNORING
THEM !!!!

>
> > And in the case of the Phaistos Disk, both DO EXIST, but you
> > STUBBORNLY REFUSE to consider that If the decipherment EXPLAINS THE
> > MOTIVE why the scribe has cut a sentence adding a KAS in A5, or has
> > corrected several KA(s) in KA-S , or has crowded his signs in A29, but
> > not in A31, or.. etc. are the INQUESTIONABLE PROOF that the
> > decipherment is correct. Because when something having a very small
> > probability happens, one may think to a coïncidence happening by
> > chance. When SEVERAL of such coïncidences happen, CHANCE cannot more
> > be called for !...
>
> Right this can not be explained by chance. It must be explained by the
> hard work of Faucounau to find them.

Ha,ha,ha !... "Hard work" CANNOT CHANGE THE "hard FACTS" !!!
 
> But to find a explanation doesn't
> mean that this is the right one.

And for A DOGMATIC like you, it's always BETTER to be BLIND !....
"Denying, denying, denying" is YOUR MOTTO !...

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > The CORRECT conclusion is that the MODEL using GREEK as a language and
> > > > > > > > a SYLLABIC system as a SCRIPT leads to the BEST FIT with the DATA of
> > > > > > > > the SAMPLE that the Phaistos Disk's text is. Therefore the great
> > > > > > > > percentage of the ATTEMPTS starting from these HYPOTHESES !..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pleace be so kind and give references where the descriptions of the
> > > > > > > fits can be found.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Amongst the published ones, I'll cite the paper "Evidence for Hellenic
> > > > > > Dialect in the Phaistos Disk" by St. Fisher (1988).
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean sentences like this: "It is surprising to find PD12 and
> > > > > PD35 having the values -qe and -te; this certainly cannot be Greek"
> > > > > (Evidence for Hellenic Dialect in the Phaistos Disk by St. Fisher,
> > > > > 1988, p. 27)?
> > > >
> > > > These remarks are PERFECTLY CORRECT !... Because PD12 has NOT the
> > > > QE-value, and PD35 the TE-value.
> > > > The Fischer's error has been in TRYING TO FORCE the plausible things
> > > > !!!!
> > >
> > > But the plausible things are that he compared the signs at the
> > > Phaistos Disc with the signs in the Linear scripts. Anyway I found
> > > nothing in his book giving evidence for a Greek language!
> >
> > NOT in his book !.. I wrote : in his paper "Evidence for Hellenic
> > Dialct in the Phaistos Disk" !..
>
> In which magazine has he published his paper? In "Fairy Tales" edited
> by grapheus?
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's a pity that J.F. has not published this part of his work, but I
> > > > > > can tell you that his conclusions were the same : There is a STRONG "a
> > > > > > priori" PROBABILITY for the Phaistos Disk's Language to be GREEK.
> > > > >
> > > > > Demonstrate the probability or be quiet.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > That you didn't answered to this point I take as confession that you
> > > have nothing to show that Faucounau is right at this point.
> >
> > Faucounau ?.. No, because he did'n't publish his calculations... But
> > he said what his conclusion was after his "First Round of
> > Calculations" as he called it, and I have no reason for not believing
> > him !.. If you have a strong one, please let us know !..
>
> Yes I have a strong one. He didn't publish his calculations! Maybe
> because Faucounau means that it is helpful to write a "Fairy Tail"
> about a statistical decipherment as long as nobody would be able to
> disprove it. It seems to me that Faucounau has the same problem as you
> to understand the difference between "maybe" and "it is" or "evidence"
> and "proof". It is not enough to publish a decipherment saying you
> have to believe me that all my conclusions are right.

AND HERE YOU GO AGAIN !... DENYING, denying, denying THAT PROOFS DO
EXIST !...
And repeating ALWAYS the SAME MOTTO : "J.F. did not publish HIS
METHOD" !...
When it has been said several times that "the Method being of
PROBABILISTIC NATURE, the RESULTING DECIPHERMENT HAS TO BE *PROVED* "
!... And that ONLY THE PROOFS count !...
But, of course, it's ESSENTIAL for A DOGMATIC to IGNORE THEM !!!!!

>
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, the majority has tried to decipher the Phaistos Disk,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reading it from left to right! Therefore if the majority counts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Faucounaus deciphering must be rejected!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ANOTHER RIDICULOUS REMARK !... The opinion of "the majority" has > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO
> > > > > > > > > > > > VALUE AGAINST THE FACTS !...
> > > > > > > > > > > > In the same way, I don't care if there is to-day a possible "majority"
> > > > > > > > > > > > of scholars who think that the solution of the Phaistos Disk enigma
> > > > > > > > > > > > "CANNOT be found" , BUT WHO REFUSE to LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE
> > > > > > > > > > > > CONTRADICTING their "OPINION" !!!!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Right, the majority does not count only facts count. Therefore your
> > > > > > > > > > > statement "Moreover, do you seriously believe that if the MAJORITY of
> > > > > > > > > > > the deciphering attempts have USED GREEK as a language, this CAN BE
> > > > > > > > > > > DUE TO MERE CHANCE ?" is only rubbish.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And WHY ?????
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As Hempl has said it. Greek was used mostly, because this was the only
> > > > > > > > > known old language for the majority.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is also demonstrated by the scholars reading the Phaistos Disk
> > > > > from left to right like Ephron, Otto or Ohlenroth. They also mean that
> > > > > they found evidence for a Greek language!
> > > >
> > > > SO WHAT ?..
> > >
> > > They are using the wrong reading direction! Evidence for a Greek
> > > language they found only by mistake. But also the majority for this
> > > reading direction is using Greek as language. Therefore you can't use
> > > the majority as proof for a Greek language.
> >
> > I contest this point : If one does'n't count all the attempts using a
> > wrong direction, there is STILL a MAJORITY in favour of attemps using
> > Greek as a language !..
>
> The majority of the scientists (Ipsen, Gordon, Ventris, Grumach,
> Duhoux, Nahm, Schürr) have a different opinion. This is a majority
> against an attempt using Greek as language.

I was talking about people HAVING PROPOSED a DECIPHERMENT !...
AS far as I know, NONE of the names you cited, but C. Gordon, have
proposed one !...
As for Yves Duhoux, his "opinion" cannot be taken very seriously : In
1979, he wrote that the Phaistos Disk's text was "probably written in
an IE-Language, possibly GREEK", but facing the contrary opinions of
Grumach and co, he chose to "follow the leader" and in 1983 - USING
THE SAME "METHOD" as in 1979 !!!- he CONCLUDED to the CONTRARY !....
No comments are needed : "Birds of same feather flock together"
!!!!!!!

> That means that I have won
> your little contest.

That means that ONCE MORE, you DID TRY to CHANGE THE QUESTION !...
Like when I am asking you : "WHAT do you find WRONG with the *PROOFS"
? "...

 
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > WHAT ABOUT the "Astronomical Proof" or the several "Linguistical
> > > > > > > > > > Proofs" , to quote a few ones ?...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > These are external proofs. Even if they are right, this doesn't mean
> > > > > > > > > that the Phaistos Disk is written in Greek.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RIDICULOUS !... These PROOFS confirm the EXISTENCE of a people who
> > > > > > > > was, AT THE REQUESTED TIME, SPEAKING the REQUESTED LANGUAGE (with
> > > > > > > > ALL its DIALECTAL PECULIARITIES !). Not enough for you ?...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because we have proof that other people lived at the earth at this
> > > > > > > time, for instance in Egypt or China and also at the right place for
> > > > > > > instance the Minoan people at Phaistos, this is not enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where the people you mention SPEAKING the REQUESTED LANGUAGE, with ALL
> > > > > > the REQUESTED DIALECTAL PECULIARITIES ??????????
> > > > >
> > > > > The question is which the requested language is!
> > > >
> > > > THe answer is easy : IT MUST be the SAME as the one USED for the
> > > > DECIPHERMENT, with ALL ITS DIALECTAL PECULIARITIES !...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wrong. As Ventris has said there are to much prefixes in the script.
> >
> > BALONEY !... They are NOT "prefixes" in the grammatical sense !...
> > They are "Introductory particles" with are LINKED TO THE FOLLOWING
> > WORD by the scribe, EXACTLY AS in the CYPRIOT SCRIPT !..
> > You are STARTING from A (false) ASSUMPTION to reach a DUBIOUS
> > CONCLUSION that you raise to the rank of AN OBJECTION, in TOTAL
> > NEGLECT of the INFORMATION brought by the TRUE SOLUTION !!!!!!
>
> You argue in a circle if you use the decipherment to determine the
> language.

RIDICULOUS !... I use the DECIPHERMENT - BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PROVED !-
to CONFIRM that the PROBABILISTIC CONSIDERATIONS, which have INITIALLY
led to the CHOICE of GREEK, WERE CORRECT !..
You are trying to pretend that there is a "circular arguments" were
there is NONE !... Because there cannot be a "circular argument"
WHEN the *PROOFS* DO EXIST !... These *PROOFS* that you want to
IGNORE !...

grapheus

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Fischer
    ... >> convinced me that Greek was the language which seemed the most in ... > As long as Faucounau does not publish his calculations in detail such ... At this time only rectangular shields are ... out of any "decipherment". ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Faucounau (was: Fischer)
    ... >> Only in they case of Faucounau, because all his proofs aren't useful. ... I have only a different opinion as you. ... >> against an attempt using Greek as language. ... > I was talking about people HAVING PROPOSED a DECIPHERMENT!... ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Fischer
    ... > Qakare wrote: ... > Does anyone have, somewhere, John Chadwick's decipherment, ... greek language Hempl, Fischer, Stawell or Faucounau are using. ... Faucounau, Le Dechiffrement du Disque de Phaistos, p. 62). ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Fischer
    ... >> greek language Hempl, Fischer, Stawell or Faucounau are using. ... >> then others this is a proof that the decipherment is made by Hempls ... Disc is a rare sign for Faucounau, what is with the 50 signs not used ... > evidence that he DID'N'T USE akrophony alone is in the SURPRISING ...
    (sci.lang)