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

From: Qakare (qakare_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: 20 Jul 2004 12:08:27 -0700

grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407200339.7a63d8d7@posting.google.com>...
> 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
> !...

Wrong. I have only a different opinion as you.

> > 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 !....

Faucounau only writes: "En B1, on voit sous le signe du 'bouclier' une
sorte de hampe oblique qui ne correspond, d'après les traces
restantes, à aucun des signes connus envisageables (Signes S19, 22, 23
ou 39).".
No further explanation is given. Anyway his reason for the correction
is that ka-sae was changed to ka-s-ae. But in this case no correction
would be necessary. Therefore his explanation is obviously wrong!

> 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" !!!

You can not expect chance at the end of hard work.

> > 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 !...

As usual you didn't understand the difference between "can be" and
"definitely true".

> > > > > > > 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 !!!!!

Which proof did you mean? I didn't found any proof in his book.

> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 !...

That's the problem; the result depends on the definition. Therefore
the majority does not count only facts count.

> 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"
> !!!!!!!

It would be more convincing if Faucounau would discuss there
arguments.

> > That means that I have won
> > your little contest.
>
> That means that ONCE MORE, you DID TRY to CHANGE THE QUESTION !...

Wrong. I have only a different opinion as you.

> Like when I am asking you : "WHAT do you find WRONG with the *PROOFS"
> ? "...

This is a lie. See the next lines:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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 !...

==>"which have INITIALLY led to the CHOICE of GREEK, WERE CORRECT" <==
You argue in a circle if you use the decipherment to determine the
language.

> Because there cannot be a "circular argument"
> WHEN the *PROOFS* DO EXIST !... These *PROOFS* that you want to
> IGNORE !...

Give one proof that the language used on the Phaistos Disk is Greek or
be quiet.

If you can't find new arguments, I will stop this thread at this
point.

qakare

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 Fischer
    ... > His arguments may not very convincing but in contrast to Faucounau he ... Greek language after a long series of Statistical Calculations", ... In contrast to Faucounau Hempl has described his way of ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Fischer
    ... >> way of deciphering in detail ... > had no chance of succeeding unless the language was Indo-European, ... His arguments may not very convincing but in contrast to Faucounau he ... In contrast to Faucounau Hempl has described his way of ...
    (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. ... That is what *YOU* say, because AS USUAL, you have CHOSEN TO BE BLIND ... >> STUBBORNLY REFUSE to consider that If the decipherment EXPLAINS THE ... "Denying, denying, denying" is YOUR MOTTO!... ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Faucounau (was: Fischer)
    ... I have only a different opinion as you. ... Then it's no surprise that Faucounau found some explanations after ... mean that the language of the Phaistos Disk is Greek. ... >> the majority does not count only facts count. ...
    (sci.lang)