Re: Minerva-paper on the Phaistos Disk : The main argument

On Jul 24, 9:17 pm, "graph...@xxxxxxx" <graph...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:38 pm, António Marques <m...@xxxxxxx> wrote:



graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jul 24, 7:38 pm, António Marques<m...@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
So, I repeat here what I wrote in another thread :
Anyone who is interested has already read it in another thread.
How can I know, when there are no reactions ?..
There are no reactions because people are not interested. I think I've
said it once to Ole Hagen: people usually get interested in deciphering
scripts because knowing how to read one artifact you know how to read
other artifacts using the same script, and possibly decipher related
artifacts.

This is really a very narrow point of view !!!

It's not a point of view, it's the way the human mind works. Even yours..
Your interest in the PD is not the general kind of interest described
above, but specific interest. Which applies only to you.

STRANGE narrow point of view again !!!!
In fact, I've always been interested in misappreciated theories in
History/Archaeology... But it happens that the "Proto-Ionian Theory"
is the most important !...





Happily you must the ONLY ONE to think that way !...  Because ANYTHING
one may learn from EVEN A SINGLE ITEM, would it be a little broken
piece of pottery, increases our understanding of the past... And this
is the MAIN INTEREST of Historians.
OK. I should have posted my message in another Group...

This applies not only to scripts but to everything, the
delight in understanding a particular thing lies in no small part in the
way it brings other things closer to you.

YES.

One-of-a-kind items - be they
the PD or some weird disease someone caught in 1856 and nobody's ever
heard of either before or since - are just not interesting to the human
mind.

You are CONTRADICTING YOURSELF from one sentence to the next !!!!
The Phaistos Disk, although a single item for the moment (because no
digging has been done until now at the right spot) is HIGHLY
INSTRUCTIVE, with the QUESTIONS it raises. And I'm very grateful to dr
Eisenberg for HAVING ASKED some of them !...

Just where is the supposed CONTRADICTIon?

In your two sentences : "This applies not only to scripts..." and "One
of the kind item is not interesting"..

Where are the other disks
written in the PD's script?

In the island where the Disk is coming from.



This is also why facts which don't fit established scientific
theories are disregarded - there is no clear way to integrate them.

But the "Proto-Ionian Theory" CAN BE EASILY INTEGRATED in the
SCIENTIFIC FRAME !!!!

Which has nothing to do with what I say in this sentence you quote.

???????????

The ONLY "Scientific HYPOTHESES" which have to be left are 1)- that
"Ionic is a Late Dialect, posterior to 1200 BC"  2)- that "Mycenaeans
were "the First Greeks".."

...and which (my sentence you quoted just above) hasn't got to do with
disproving this or that hypothesis - that's done all the time - but
simply with having no possible framework in which to intregrate
one-of-a-kind items.

BUT THIS FRAMEWORK DOES EXIST !!!!!!
It is called "The Proto-Ionian Theory" !..
BTW, have you ever read any book or paper on it ???

(My mention of the disregarding of facts which
can't be assimilated has nothing to do with the PD - it's just the
reflex in science of the same general lack of interest that makes the PD
uninteresting to people.)

THIS is WRONG : Many scholars say that they are "not interested" in
the Phaistos Disk ONLY BECAUSE they know that studying it SERIOUSLY
would lead them to ABANDON the DOGMA they have defended for years !!!!

Your digression on how the
PD is so important and how your protojonians could explain everything
completely misses the mark.

NOT AT ALL !!!! It is THE HEART of the matter:
BECAUSE, as you wrote, to be "interesting", the Disk has to be
integrated into a SCIENTIFIC COHERENT THEORY.
That you refuse to be informed about this theory is YOUR problem. But
some scholars - happily - are of a different opinion, in spite of the
pressure of the "Guardians of the Chadwick DOGMA" !!! (In particular,
your compatriot A.Tovar. If he is still alive, ask him what he think
about the "Risch-Chadwick Theory" !).

grapheus

Here is a good link about Tovar's ideas on the Risch-Chadwick
Theory :
<http://www.varchive.org/dag/dialect.htm>

grapheus
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Minerva-paper on the Phaistos Disk : The main argument
    ... There are no reactions because people are not interested. ... other artifacts using the same script, ... The Phaistos Disk, although a single item for the moment (because no ... written in the PD's script? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Faucounau (was: Fischer)
    ... any SCRIPT is a COMPROMISE between PHONETIC ... you should decide if you found scholars like Schwartz STRANGE ... deciphering attempt FAILED in the end ?... ... > Secondly, the majority has tried to decipher the Phaistos Disk, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Faucounau (was: Fischer)
    ... > signs occur only one or two times at the Phaistos Disk? ... The correct way is to BUILT a MODEL (working from the LANGUAGE ... > Has Shannon made his calculations even for a syllabic script? ... Greek was used mostly, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Is the Phaistos Disk Minoan?
    ... who strongly wants the Phaistos Disk not to be Proto-Ionian (I ... but to be Minoan, has written a lengthy post on the subjet. ... similarities to Linear A" and to the Phaistos Disk's script. ...
    (sci.archaeology)