Languages

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:17:56 +0200, O.H. <> wrote:

>On 12 May 2004 02::03 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
>
>> (Torsten) wrote in message news:< com>...
>>> Hi grapheus,
>>>
>>> > > Who can say what incoherence means for a unknown script in an unknown
>>> > > language?
>>> >
>>> > This is NOT the PROBLEM !... I am talking about THE INCOHERENCES MADE
>>> > BY THE WOULD-BE-DECIPHERER !...
>>> > Scribal incoherences are scribal ERRORS. But a would-be-deciphere has
>>> > NOT THE RIGHT, except if he has VERY STRONG RAISONS to do so, to call
>>> > for a scribal error to JUSTIFY HIS OWN INCOHERENCES!...
>>> > In the case of St. Fischer I cited, for instance, of course a scribe
>>> > "POSSIBLY COULD" have written DE-NI instead of DA-NA-WO-I, as NEEDED
>>> > by the type of script that St. Fischer supposed. But WHAT IS THE
>>> > PROBABILITY of such a scribal mistake ???? I would say : NIL !...
>>> ...
>>> > The "cutting into words" is MADE BY THE MODERN TRANSLATOR. What is to
>>> > explain is WHY the ANCIENT SCRIBE put the "3 words" into ONE
>>> > compartment... The answer is easy and PERFECTLY LOGICAL. Moreover,
>>> > there exist SIMILAR GROUPINGS made by the Cypriot scribes using a
>>> > Syllabic script to write Greek : 1)- the KAS is REGULARLY attached to
>>> > the following word 2)- the "following word" is in fact formed BY TWO
>>> > "words" connected by the ENIC PARTICLE <-te> (= "Common Greek"
>>> > -qe). In the Cypriot Script, there are examples of such "connected
>>> > words", which have NOT BEEN SEPARATED by the scribe...
>>> > Shall I add that the TRANSLATION fits PERFECTLY with the rest of the
>>> > sentence ?.. Here it is : "Thus(<kas>, ashes and disturbed soil (is
>>> > now) the location of the fight, i.e. Iasos"
>>>
>>> With other words you define what incoherence means.
>>
>>For the decipherers, YES !.. Incoherence means that the
>>would-be-decipherer starts from some hypotheses (generally
>>implausible, but this is not the problem to-day), and when he find
>>that they lead to a difficulty, INSTEAD of RECOGNIZING that theses
>>hypotheses are FALSE, he supposes "an exception to the rule" !...
>>For the hereabove example taken from St. Fischer, the starting
>>hypothesis is that a W- is TRANSLATED by the script, with "an
>>Exception" for DANAWOI !... So Ole Hagen has done with his "stem" in
>>A23, going as far as to write that "the exception proves the rule"
>>!!!!!!! (p. 15 of his book).
>>
>>>
>>> > NO !.. The deciphering METHOD does'n't warranty anything !... ONLY
>>> > THE PROOFS do !... When will you UNDERSTAND such an OBVIOUS thing ????
>>>
>>> Never, because it's obviously wrong.
>>
>>THIS is the NEGATION of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which states that a
>>theory is PROVED by the VERIFICATION of ALL its CONSEQUENCES, not by
>>the way or reasoning (sometimes erroneous) it has been found !...
>>Like Christobal Colombo, scientists are allowed to FIND AMERICA when
>>searching for China !.. But they are NOT allowed to have the FACTS
>>contradicting the CONSEQUENCES of their theory if they want it to be
>>accepted!..
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > NO!.. ALL the PUBLISHED attempts (supposing any kind of script) are
>>> > LESS than . I challenge you to show that I am wrong about this
>>> > figure.
>>>
>>> Here are MORE then names of would-be decipherers:
>>> Adam Martin
>>> Alan Butler
>>> Andis Kaulins
>>> Arthur Gleye
>>> Axel Hausmann
>>> Basilios Katsiadramis
>>> Benjamin Schwartz
>>> Benon Zbigniew Szalek
>>> Bernd Schomburg
>>> Best/Woudhuizen
>>> Claire Grace Watson
>>> Clive Snowdon
>>> Cyrus H. Gordon
>>> Derk Ohlenroth
>>> Dettmer Otto
>>> Edgar Bowden
>>> Efi Poligiannaki
>>> Elfriede Egert
>>> Elias Dogas
>>> Ernst Gogolin
>>> Ernst Schertel
>>> F. Stawel
>>> F. W. Read
>>> Georg Hempel
>>> Hans Blaufuss
>>> Hans Scheck
>>> Harald Haarmann
>>> Hedwig Roolvink
>>> Henry D Ephron
>>> Herbert Zebisch
>>> Hermann Wenzel
>>> Howard Fell
>>> Jean Faucounau
>>> Jean Page
>>> Kiell Aartun
>>> Kurt E. Kocher
>>> Leon Pomerance
>>> Lienhard Delekat
>>> K. + K. Mey
>>> Nikos Stylos
>>> Ole Hagen
>Yes the pigeon was in the way. Now, as if by magic, it has flown away,
>and the univers of the 61 different stem-elements are by now a
>reality, unfolding itself most beautifully. Does this sound just a
>little poetic to you? Be ensured, that is exactly what it is not !
>because this system contradict the possibility of the signs as
>word-producing units in a writing system, because it reveals a most
>minutely quanative system with a firm order of precedence of the
>hieroglyphs, they are carefully placed according to rank, in each of
>the 61 cartouches, not leaving room for grammatical rules of any kind.
>So much about the pigeon. My next notion was, that the two dotted
>cross-dividers might be two real signs Following up this possibility,
>in the light of the element system, lead you inevitably to the
>calendar. What will be the continuation of this discovery? Who knows!
>>> Ollivier Louise
>>> Orazio Monti
>>> Ottomar Neuss
>>> Paul Münzer
>>> Peter Aleff
>>> Reiner Meerten
>>> Rudolf Hoschek
>>> Sergei Rjabchikov
>>> Simon Davis
>>> Stanislaw Hansel
>>> Stevan Petrov
>>> Steven R. Fischer
>>> Victor J. Kean
>>
>>
>>You have a real trouble reading a sentence in plain English when I
>>don't put it into CAPITALS, haven't you ?..
>>I wrote "All the published attempts SUPPOSING ANY KIND of SCRIPT"..
>>In your list, there are 8 attempts which do NOT fulfil this condition
>>(a SCRIPT) :
>>
>>Alan Butler's -- Bernd Schomburg's -- Ole Hagen's solutions are
>>CALENDARS
>>Hermann Wenzel's -- Claire Watson's -- Leon Pomerance's solutions are
>>ASTRONOMICAL interpretations.
>>F.W. Read's solution is a MUSICAL parion.
>>Peter Aleff's solution is a "GAME BOARD"
>>
>>Even adding a few "decipherments as a text" that you missed, like the
>>P. Faure's and Paolo Ballotta's ones, we are FAR FROM the "more than
>>100 attempts to read this beautiful finding with a syllabic script"...
>> (I quote the sentence of yours which made me react !)... "About
>>", as I said, is closer to the Truth !...
>>BTW, where did you find your list ?... There are in it one
>>"decipherment" that I did'n't know. For a professional in the matter,
>>it's a shame !....
>>
>>>
>>> > ONCE AGAIN, and for the TENth TIME at least, I repeat it : WHAT MAKES
>>> > an ATTEMPT RIGHT ARE THE PROOFS !... The reading of values like KRO,
>>> > KSI, or PRO *IS RIGHT* BECAUSE the decipherment, AS A WHOLE, HAS BEEN
>>> > *PROVED* !... PERIOD !...
>>>
>>> ONCE AGAIN, and for the TENth TIME at least, I repeat it : WHAT MAKES
>>> an ATTEMPT RIGHT is the way of deciphering!
>>
>>BALONEY !.. It's the NEGATION of the way SCIENCE WORKS !...
>>
>>>
>>> > > For the mathematical proof he doesn't give the details necessary to
>>> > > check and the other "proofs", even if they are true, doesn't show that
>>> > > the proto-ionic solution is the only possible solution.
>>> >
>>> > RIDICULOUS OBJECTION !.... Can you propose ANOTHER ONE which FITS
>>> > WITH ALL THE PROOFS ?..
>>> > If YES, go on !.. Give it !..
>>
>>I notice that once again, you don't understand plain English, when I
>>don't use capitals !.. I was asking for A COMPLETE DECIPHERMENT,
>>*PROVED by TENS of DECISIVE PROOFS*. And here is what you are
>>answering, where there is NO TRACE of A DECIPHERMENT :
>>> Orazio Monti: Le leineaire A et le Disque de Phaistos. Kadmos, Bd. XL,
>>> number 2, p. 97 - 106.
>>
>>This author is an Y. Duhoux' follower , and he uses the SAME KIND of
>>MEANINGLESS STATISTICS !..
>>I say "meaningless" because Yves Duhoux ideas about the Phaistos Disk
>>have been very versatile : In a paper published in 1979, he was
>>CONCLUDING that "The language MUST be Indoeuropean and possibly Greek"
>>(emphasis is mine). But in 1983, USING THE SAME KIND OF STATISTICS, he
>>was concluding : "The Disk's language CANNOT be Indoeuropean" !!!!!
>>How TRUSTWORTHY ARE SUCH KIND of CALCULATIONS !!!
>>This shows HOW LITTLE SERIOUS this kind of statistical method is !...
>> And it's the same method that Orazio Monti has used !... Really funny
>>!..
>>
>>> The statistics of the phaistos disc fits with Linear A. (Mathematical
>>> proof).
>>
>>THIS IS A MOCKERY of what a REAL PROOF is !... These "Statistics"
>>are MEANINGLESS !... The people who has presented them ARE NOT even
>>MATHEMATICIANS. They IGNORE what an "ERROR-RANGE" is !.. And ALL
>>THEIR CALCULATIONS ARE DEEPLY FLAWED !...
>>Moreover, THESE CALCULATIONS DON'T VERIFY ANYTHING !... Calling them
>>"PROOFS" is PURE NONSENSE.
>
> Now the pigeon has returned to its house.
> In this way it brought us the message.
> Hagen
>
>>> The use of the affixes fits with Linear A (Epigraphical
>>> Proof/Linguistical Proof).
>>
>>RIDICULOUS !... What O. Monti noticed is that there SEEMED to be
>>"PREFIXS" in Linear A, like in the Phaistos Disk's text... Nothing
>>more !.. And the same can be said of DOZENS of OTHER LANGUAGES !!!!!
>>What kind of "PROOF" is this ?...
>>
>>> The Phaistos disc is found in Phaistos. (Archaeological
>>> Proof/Historical Proof/Astronomical Proof)
>>
>>I will not deny that !... But I will add : SO WHAT ?...
>>Hite tablets have been found in Egypt , and Egyptian inscriptions
>>in Crete. It does'n't mean that the first were Egyptian and the second
>>Cretan !...
>>Your MISUNDERSTANDING of WHAT A "PROOF" IS is really APPALLING !...
>>
>>grapheus

On 12 May 2004 07:41:01 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:

>O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>> On 12 May 2004 00:56:08 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
>>
>> >O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>> >> >> >> Some other read it as alphabetic or
>> >> >> >> picture script. And last but not least there are seven different
>> >> >> >> calendar hypotheses.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The "Calendaric Attempts" are the most difficult to criticize in
>> >> >> >detail. But they ALL start from some UNPLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES, and
>> >> >> >generally lead to NOWHERE... Moreover, if there is no way to really
>> >> >> >DISPROVE them, there is NO WAY NEITHER for them to be PROVED !... A
>> >> >> >BIG DIFFERENCE with the *ONLY PROVED solution*, i.e. the "Proto-Ionic"
>> >> >> >!...
>> >> >> I don't want to be provocative, but I think my study leads to
>> >> >> something important, namely an old CALENDAR system.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >STRANGELY covering only A PART of the YEAR !... Can you explain us WHY
>> >> >the scribe did'n't make a BIGGER DISK for COVERING THE WHOLE YEAR ?...
>> >> > Was he in lack of clay, in your opinion ?????
>> >> >
>> >> >grapheus
>> >> >
>> >> We'll never reach any agreement.
>> >> You see, I don't think it is my task to explain what the future will
>> >> bring. It's a little like blaming Edison: Why didn't he invent the
>> >> halogen type of light too? A developement always lies ahead.
>> >
>> >Except when it has been found before !.. I admire you for your faith
>> >in believing that you can reinvent the wheel !..
>> >
>> >grapheus
>> It is much more simple than that. I even believe that it must have
>> happend a couple of times before (perhaps the astral calendar from
>> the Vucedol culture) that when you find the number 365 in a
>> troublesome hieroglyphic inscription, you should be alert. Only the
>> Phaistos disc looked so much as a chain of words that no one got aware
>> of the hurdle: the two dotted cross-dividers as the key to its
>> understanding, as a 365 day calendar.
>>
>
>The problem is that you DID'N'T FIND the 365 figure !... You
>"invented" it thanks to some mathematical "manipulations" !... For
>instance : 61x6 - 1 = 365 Q.E.D. !!!!!
>
>grapheus
I think that you/I can agree in only one thing, if I am right then you
are wrong and vice versa. If the dove in A23 moved to B22 for a
moment, your bastion would immediately fall.
Hagen

On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:55:25 +0200, O.H. <> wrote:

>On 12 May 2004 07:41:01 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
>
>>O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>>> On 12 May 2004 00:56:08 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
>>>
>>> >O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>>> >> >> >> Some other read it as alphabetic or
>>> >> >> >> picture script. And last but not least there are seven different
>>> >> >> >> calendar hypotheses.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >The "Calendaric Attempts" are the most difficult to criticize in
>>> >> >> >detail. But they ALL start from some UNPLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES, and
>>> >> >> >generally lead to NOWHERE... Moreover, if there is no way to really
>>> >> >> >DISPROVE them, there is NO WAY NEITHER for them to be PROVED !... A
>>> >> >> >BIG DIFFERENCE with the *ONLY PROVED solution*, i.e. the "Proto-Ionic"
>>> >> >> >!...
>>> >> >> I don't want to be provocative, but I think my study leads to
>>> >> >> something important, namely an old CALENDAR system.

>>> Checkmate !
>>> Hagen

>>> >> >STRANGELY covering only A PART of the YEAR !... Can you explain us WHY
>>> >> >the scribe did'n't make a BIGGER DISK for COVERING THE WHOLE YEAR ?...
>>> >> > Was he in lack of clay, in your opinion ?????
>>> >> >
>>> >> >grapheus
>>> >> >
>>> >> We'll never reach any agreement.
>>> >> You see, I don't think it is my task to explain what the future will
>>> >> bring. It's a little like blaming Edison: Why didn't he invent the
>>> >> halogen type of light too? A developement always lies ahead.
>>> >
>>> >Except when it has been found before !.. I admire you for your faith
>>> >in believing that you can reinvent the wheel !..
>>> >
>>> >grapheus
>>> It is much more simple than that. I even believe that it must have
>>> happend a couple of times before (perhaps the astral calendar from
>>> the Vucedol culture) that when you find the number 365 in a
>>> troublesome hieroglyphic inscription, you should be alert. Only the
>>> Phaistos disc looked so much as a chain of words that no one got aware
>>> of the hurdle: the two dotted cross-dividers as the key to its
>>> understanding, as a 365 day calendar.
>>>
>>
>>The problem is that you DID'N'T FIND the 365 figure !... You
>>"invented" it thanks to some mathematical "manipulations" !... For
>>instance : 61x6 - 1 = 365 Q.E.D. !!!!!
>>
>>grapheus
>I think that you/I can agree in only one thing, if I am right then you
>are wrong and vice versa. If the dove in A23 moved to B22 for a
>moment, your bastion would immediately fall.
>Hagen

(Franz Gnaedinger) wrote in message news:< com>...

Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, polytropon

(Tell me, Mouse, about the man who traveled widely)

These are the opening words of Homer's Odyssey. Let me consider
them in the way Pater Rupert Ruhstaller would have done. The main
functor is ennepe (tell about), its arguments are Mousa (Muse),
moi (to me), and andra (the man, hero, Odysseus). The minor
functor is polytropon (one who traveled widely), its argument
andra. The "natural" sequence would be

ennepe Mousa moi andra polytropon

revealing these two peaks of tension via Pater Rupert Rustaller's
diagram

ANDRA moi ennepe, Mousa, POLYTROPON

The man or hero, who traveled widely, is Odysseus. Homer tells
his travels, which (as explained at length early on in this long
thread, to be retrieved via Google) are dreams that bring Odysseus
back to Troy, over and over again, however, to a Troy in disguise
and blended with other places and periods of time.

Now let me suggest a budding circle in the way of Pater Rupert
Ruhstaller's grammatical drawings:



polytropon


Mousa andra



ennepe




moi

Imagine a large circle around the main functor ennepe, and a small
one around the minor functor polytropon, so that Mousa, andra and
moi are placed on the cirference of the large circle, and andra
also on the cirference of the small one. The two circles touch
each other, and the point wherein they touch is hold by andra =
Odysseus, the central figure of the epic, here in between the two
functors ennepe and polytropon, which mirror each other, as the
wide travels and the narrative are similar (sailing across the sea,
reading along the lines; you may perhaps remember what I said of
Ino early on in this thread). Mousa, andra and moi are arguments
to the main functor ennepe, and represent a triparion of Homer,
who is present in moi (to me), but also in the Muse, who embodies
the bard's genius, and in his invention Odysseus ("if there ever
was such a man"), who, however, has a base in reality, as there
has actually been an Achaian Greece, Greece around 1200 BC,
which is embodied by Odysseus, more precisely the military and
seafaring skills of Greece in around 1200 BC, present in the
functor polytropon. So Homer answers the question of this thread
himself: No, the Trojan war did not happen as I tell it, and yes,
it did happen as I tell it, but you have to read my epic properly.


Regards Franz Gnaedinger


> One morning around eleven o'clock, on a gray November's day in
> the 19s, Pater Rupert Ruhstaller had an inspiration. He took
> the begin of Virgil's Aeneid
>
> Arma virumque cano Troiae qui primus ab oris
> Italiam fato profugus Lavinia que venit litora
>
> and arranged the words according to his new grammar, beginning
> with the main functor cano (I sing of) and its arguments arma
> que virum (the deeds and the man), letting follow the minor
> functors and their arguments. Thus he obtained the "natural"
> sequence of words:
>
> Cano arma que virum qui venit primus profugus fato
> ab oris Troiae Italiam que litora Lavinia
>
> He counted 16 words, drew a grid of 16 by 16 squares, wrote
> the actual sequence of words along the right side of the grid,
> from top to bottom, and the "natural" sequence along the base,
> from left to right. Then he marked the points wherein the lines
> and rows of the same words intersected. Now he joined the points
> thus obtained, beginning at the top-left-hand corner, proceeding
> line by line, and finally arriving near the bottom-right-hand
> corner of the grid.
>
> Here is the copy he drew for me in 1967:
>
>
>
> Consider the green zigzag line. The tips on the right side
> mark the tension peaks (here rendered in capitals):
>
> Arma VIRUM que cano TROIAE qui primus ab oris
> ITALIAM fato profugus LAVINIA que venit LITORA
>
> The opening lines are a summary of the epic, and the words
> revealed by the tension diagram are a summary of the summary:
>
> VIRUM - TORIAE - ITALIAM - LAVINIA LITORA
>
> I extol the deeds and the HERO, who, a fugitive by fate,
> came from the shore of TROY to ITALY and the LAVINIAN COAST
> (where he was to found the village of Lavinia).
>
> Being a natural born poet, Virgil had a feeling for words
> and arranged them in such a way as to raise the suspense
> and capture his audience ...
>
>
> Next time: applying Pater Rupert Ruhstaller's grammar and
> tension diagram to the opening words of Homer's Odyssey
>
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, polytropon
>
> Regards Franz Gnaedinger


> >
> > phaainnos
> >
> > ai/ki
> >
> > isos Seyr Ylkaios
> >
> >
> >
> > GONOS
> >
> > oi
> >
> > kyousans
> >

Thanks!
That clarify many things such as the view of the reader and the view of the
writer. If I understand you correctly we need to take both in consideration
apart from the transcribe question when we try to understand what happened
and didn't happen re. Troja. Am I correct?

Inger E

"Franz Gnaedinger" <> skrev i meddelandet
news: om...
> (Franz Gnaedinger) wrote in message
news:< com>...
>
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, polytropon
>
> (Tell me, Mouse, about the man who traveled widely)
>
> These are the opening words of Homer's Odyssey. Let me consider
> them in the way Pater Rupert Ruhstaller would have done. The main
> functor is ennepe (tell about), its arguments are Mousa (Muse),
> moi (to me), and andra (the man, hero, Odysseus). The minor
> functor is polytropon (one who traveled widely), its argument
> andra. The "natural" sequence would be
>
> ennepe Mousa moi andra polytropon
>
> revealing these two peaks of tension via Pater Rupert Rustaller's
> diagram
>
> ANDRA moi ennepe, Mousa, POLYTROPON
>
> The man or hero, who traveled widely, is Odysseus. Homer tells
> his travels, which (as explained at length early on in this long
> thread, to be retrieved via Google) are dreams that bring Odysseus
> back to Troy, over and over again, however, to a Troy in disguise
> and blended with other places and periods of time.
>
> Now let me suggest a budding circle in the way of Pater Rupert
> Ruhstaller's grammatical drawings:
>
>
>
> polytropon
>
>
> Mousa andra
>
>
>
> ennepe
>
>
>
>
> moi
>
> Imagine a large circle around the main functor ennepe, and a small
> one around the minor functor polytropon, so that Mousa, andra and
> moi are placed on the cirference of the large circle, and andra
> also on the cirference of the small one. The two circles touch
> each other, and the point wherein they touch is hold by andra =
> Odysseus, the central figure of the epic, here in between the two
> functors ennepe and polytropon, which mirror each other, as the
> wide travels and the narrative are similar (sailing across the sea,
> reading along the lines; you may perhaps remember what I said of
> Ino early on in this thread). Mousa, andra and moi are arguments
> to the main functor ennepe, and represent a triparion of Homer,
> who is present in moi (to me), but also in the Muse, who embodies
> the bard's genius, and in his invention Odysseus ("if there ever
> was such a man"), who, however, has a base in reality, as there
> has actually been an Achaian Greece, Greece around 1200 BC,
> which is embodied by Odysseus, more precisely the military and
> seafaring skills of Greece in around 1200 BC, present in the
> functor polytropon. So Homer answers the question of this thread
> himself: No, the Trojan war did not happen as I tell it, and yes,
> it did happen as I tell it, but you have to read my epic properly.
>
>
> Regards Franz Gnaedinger
>
>
> > One morning around eleven o'clock, on a gray November's day in
> > the 19s, Pater Rupert Ruhstaller had an inspiration. He took
> > the begin of Virgil's Aeneid
> >
> > Arma virumque cano Troiae qui primus ab oris
> > Italiam fato profugus Lavinia que venit litora
> >
> > and arranged the words according to his new grammar, beginning
> > with the main functor cano (I sing of) and its arguments arma
> > que virum (the deeds and the man), letting follow the minor
> > functors and their arguments. Thus he obtained the "natural"
> > sequence of words:
> >
> > Cano arma que virum qui venit primus profugus fato
> > ab oris Troiae Italiam que litora Lavinia
> >
> > He counted 16 words, drew a grid of 16 by 16 squares, wrote
> > the actual sequence of words along the right side of the grid,
> > from top to bottom, and the "natural" sequence along the base,
> > from left to right. Then he marked the points wherein the lines
> > and rows of the same words intersected. Now he joined the points
> > thus obtained, beginning at the top-left-hand corner, proceeding
> > line by line, and finally arriving near the bottom-right-hand
> > corner of the grid.
> >
> > Here is the copy he drew for me in 1967:
> >
> >
> >
> > Consider the green zigzag line. The tips on the right side
> > mark the tension peaks (here rendered in capitals):
> >
> > Arma VIRUM que cano TROIAE qui primus ab oris
> > ITALIAM fato profugus LAVINIA que venit LITORA
> >
> > The opening lines are a summary of the epic, and the words
> > revealed by the tension diagram are a summary of the summary:
> >
> > VIRUM - TORIAE - ITALIAM - LAVINIA LITORA
> >
> > I extol the deeds and the HERO, who, a fugitive by fate,
> > came from the shore of TROY to ITALY and the LAVINIAN COAST
> > (where he was to found the village of Lavinia).
> >
> > Being a natural born poet, Virgil had a feeling for words
> > and arranged them in such a way as to raise the suspense
> > and capture his audience ...
> >
> >
> > Next time: applying Pater Rupert Ruhstaller's grammar and
> > tension diagram to the opening words of Homer's Odyssey
> >
> > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, polytropon
> >
> > Regards Franz Gnaedinger
>
>
> > >
> > > phaainnos
> > >
> > > ai/ki
> > >
> > > isos Seyr Ylkaios
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > GONOS
> > >
> > > oi
> > >
> > > kyousans
> > >

O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:55:25 +0200, O.H. <> wrote:
>
> >On 12 May 2004 07:41:01 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
> >
> >>O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
> >>> On 12 May 2004 00:56:08 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
> >>> >> >> >> Some other read it as alphabetic or
> >>> >> >> >> picture script. And last but not least there are seven different
> >>> >> >> >> calendar hypotheses.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >The "Calendaric Attempts" are the most difficult to criticize in
> >>> >> >> >detail. But they ALL start from some UNPLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES, and
> >>> >> >> >generally lead to NOWHERE... Moreover, if there is no way to really
> >>> >> >> >DISPROVE them, there is NO WAY NEITHER for them to be PROVED !... A
> >>> >> >> >BIG DIFFERENCE with the *ONLY PROVED solution*, i.e. the "Proto-Ionic"
> >>> >> >> >!...
> >>> >> >> I don't want to be provocative, but I think my study leads to
> >>> >> >> something important, namely an old CALENDAR system.
>
> >>> Checkmate !
> >>> Hagen
>
> >>> >> >STRANGELY covering only A PART of the YEAR !... Can you explain us WHY
> >>> >> >the scribe did'n't make a BIGGER DISK for COVERING THE WHOLE YEAR ?...
> >>> >> > Was he in lack of clay, in your opinion ?????
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >grapheus
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> We'll never reach any agreement.
> >>> >> You see, I don't think it is my task to explain what the future will
> >>> >> bring. It's a little like blaming Edison: Why didn't he invent the
> >>> >> halogen type of light too? A developement always lies ahead.
> >>> >
> >>> >Except when it has been found before !.. I admire you for your faith
> >>> >in believing that you can reinvent the wheel !..
> >>> >
> >>> >grapheus
> >>> It is much more simple than that. I even believe that it must have
> >>> happend a couple of times before (perhaps the astral calendar from
> >>> the Vucedol culture) that when you find the number 365 in a
> >>> troublesome hieroglyphic inscription, you should be alert. Only the
> >>> Phaistos disc looked so much as a chain of words that no one got aware
> >>> of the hurdle: the two dotted cross-dividers as the key to its
> >>> understanding, as a 365 day calendar.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The problem is that you DID'N'T FIND the 365 figure !... You
> >>"invented" it thanks to some mathematical "manipulations" !... For
> >>instance : 61x6 - 1 = 365 Q.E.D. !!!!!
> >>
> >>grapheus
> >I think that you/I can agree in only one thing, if I am right then you
> >are wrong and vice versa. If the dove in A23 moved to B22 for a
> >moment, your bastion would immediately fall.

Yes. But the dove did not. In spite of having wings !!!
I know that you think : "But, one day.... Faith is making miracles !..."
I am afraid that Faith will not be eough...
But I'm a misbeliever....

grapheus

O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:17:56 +0200, O.H. <> wrote:
>
> >On 12 May 2004 02::03 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
> >
> >> (Torsten) wrote in message news:< com>...

> >>>
> >>> > I am talking about THE INCOHERENCES MADE
> >>> > BY THE WOULD-BE-DECIPHERER !...
> >>> > Scribal incoherences are scribal ERRORS. But a would-be-deciphere has
> >>> > NOT THE RIGHT, except if he has VERY STRONG RAISONS to do so, to call
> >>> > for a scribal error to JUSTIFY HIS OWN INCOHERENCES!...
> >>> > In the case of St. Fischer I cited, for instance, of course a scribe
> >>> > "POSSIBLY COULD" have written DE-NI instead of DA-NA-WO-I, as NEEDED
> >>> > by the type of script that St. Fischer supposed. But WHAT IS THE
> >>> > PROBABILITY of such a scribal mistake ???? I would say : NIL !...
> ...
> >> So Ole Hagen has done with his "stem" in
> >>A23, going as far as to write that "the exception proves the rule"
> >>!!!!!!! (p. 15 of his book).
>
> >>> Here are MORE then names of would-be decipherers:
> >>> Adam Martin
> >>> Alan Butler
> >>> Andis Kaulins
> >>> Arthur Gleye
> >>> Axel Hausmann
> >>> Basilios Katsiadramis
> >>> Benjamin Schwartz
> >>> Benon Zbigniew Szalek
> >>> Bernd Schomburg
> >>> Best/Woudhuizen
> >>> Claire Grace Watson
> >>> Clive Snowdon
> >>> Cyrus H. Gordon
> >>> Derk Ohlenroth
> >>> Dettmer Otto
> >>> Edgar Bowden
> >>> Efi Poligiannaki
> >>> Elfriede Egert
> >>> Elias Dogas
> >>> Ernst Gogolin
> >>> Ernst Schertel
> >>> F. Stawel
> >>> F. W. Read
> >>> Georg Hempel
> >>> Hans Blaufuss
> >>> Hans Scheck
> >>> Harald Haarmann
> >>> Hedwig Roolvink
> >>> Henry D Ephron
> >>> Herbert Zebisch
> >>> Hermann Wenzel
> >>> Howard Fell
> >>> Jean Faucounau
> >>> Jean Page
> >>> Kiell Aartun
> >>> Kurt E. Kocher
> >>> Leon Pomerance
> >>> Lienhard Delekat
> >>> K. + K. Mey
> >>> Nikos Stylos
> >>> Ole Hagen


> >Yes the pigeon was in the way.

You mean : "THE GULL" ?....

grapheus

On 13 May 2004 00:47:08 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:

>O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>> On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:55:25 +0200, O.H. <> wrote:
>>
>> >On 12 May 2004 07:41:01 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
>> >
>> >>O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>> >>> On 12 May 2004 00:56:08 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>> >>> >> >> >> Some other read it as alphabetic or
>> >>> >> >> >> picture script. And last but not least there are seven different
>> >>> >> >> >> calendar hypotheses.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >The "Calendaric Attempts" are the most difficult to criticize in
>> >>> >> >> >detail. But they ALL start from some UNPLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES, and
>> >>> >> >> >generally lead to NOWHERE... Moreover, if there is no way to really
>> >>> >> >> >DISPROVE them, there is NO WAY NEITHER for them to be PROVED !... A
>> >>> >> >> >BIG DIFFERENCE with the *ONLY PROVED solution*, i.e. the "Proto-Ionic"
>> >>> >> >> >!...
>> >>> >> >> I don't want to be provocative, but I think my study leads to
>> >>> >> >> something important, namely an old CALENDAR system.
>>
>> >>> Checkmate !
>> >>> Hagen
>>
>> >>> >> >STRANGELY covering only A PART of the YEAR !... Can you explain us WHY
>> >>> >> >the scribe did'n't make a BIGGER DISK for COVERING THE WHOLE YEAR ?...
>> >>> >> > Was he in lack of clay, in your opinion ?????
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >grapheus
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> We'll never reach any agreement.
>> >>> >> You see, I don't think it is my task to explain what the future will
>> >>> >> bring. It's a little like blaming Edison: Why didn't he invent the
>> >>> >> halogen type of light too? A developement always lies ahead.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Except when it has been found before !.. I admire you for your faith
>> >>> >in believing that you can reinvent the wheel !..
>> >>> >
>> >>> >grapheus
>> >>> It is much more simple than that. I even believe that it must have
>> >>> happend a couple of times before (perhaps the astral calendar from
>> >>> the Vucedol culture) that when you find the number 365 in a
>> >>> troublesome hieroglyphic inscription, you should be alert. Only the
>> >>> Phaistos disc looked so much as a chain of words that no one got aware
>> >>> of the hurdle: the two dotted cross-dividers as the key to its
>> >>> understanding, as a 365 day calendar.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>The problem is that you DID'N'T FIND the 365 figure !... You
>> >>"invented" it thanks to some mathematical "manipulations" !... For
>> >>instance : 61x6 - 1 = 365 Q.E.D. !!!!!
>> >>
>> >>grapheus
>> >I think that you/I can agree in only one thing, if I am right then you
>> >are wrong and vice versa. If the dove in A23 moved to B22 for a
>> >moment, your bastion would immediately fall.
>
>Yes. But the dove did not. In spite of having wings !!!
>I know that you think : "But, one day.... Faith is making miracles !..."
>I am afraid that Faith will not be eough...
>But I'm a misbeliever....
>
>grapheus

63. o-o Pb22
64. Pa23 . . .
Hm interesting move!
Ok now it is my turn
64. . . . o-o-o ++
Checkmate (White resigns) 0-1
Game over

Regards Hagen

On 13 May 2004 01:01:58 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:

>O.H. <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>> On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:17:56 +0200, O.H. <> wrote:
>>
>> >On 12 May 2004 02::03 -0700, (grapheus) wrote:
>> >
>> >> (Torsten) wrote in message news:< com>...
>
>> >>>
>> >>> > I am talking about THE INCOHERENCES MADE
>> >>> > BY THE WOULD-BE-DECIPHERER !...
>> >>> > Scribal incoherences are scribal ERRORS. But a would-be-deciphere has
>> >>> > NOT THE RIGHT, except if he has VERY STRONG RAISONS to do so, to call
>> >>> > for a scribal error to JUSTIFY HIS OWN INCOHERENCES!...
>> >>> > In the case of St. Fischer I cited, for instance, of course a scribe
>> >>> > "POSSIBLY COULD" have written DE-NI instead of DA-NA-WO-I, as NEEDED
>> >>> > by the type of script that St. Fischer supposed. But WHAT IS THE
>> >>> > PROBABILITY of such a scribal mistake ???? I would say : NIL !...
>> ...
>> >> So Ole Hagen has done with his "stem" in
>> >>A23, going as far as to write that "the exception proves the rule"
>> >>!!!!!!! (p. 15 of his book).
>>
>> >>> Here are MORE then names of would-be decipherers:
>> >>> Adam Martin
>> >>> Alan Butler
>> >>> Andis Kaulins
>> >>> Arthur Gleye
>> >>> Axel Hausmann
>> >>> Basilios Katsiadramis
>> >>> Benjamin Schwartz
>> >>> Benon Zbigniew Szalek
>> >>> Bernd Schomburg
>> >>> Best/Woudhuizen
>> >>> Claire Grace Watson
>> >>> Clive Snowdon
>> >>> Cyrus H. Gordon
>> >>> Derk Ohlenroth
>> >>> Dettmer Otto
>> >>> Edgar Bowden
>> >>> Efi Poligiannaki
>> >>> Elfriede Egert
>> >>> Elias Dogas
>> >>> Ernst Gogolin
>> >>> Ernst Schertel
>> >>> F. Stawel
>> >>> F. W. Read
>> >>> Georg Hempel
>> >>> Hans Blaufuss
>> >>> Hans Scheck
>> >>> Harald Haarmann
>> >>> Hedwig Roolvink
>> >>> Henry D Ephron
>> >>> Herbert Zebisch
>> >>> Hermann Wenzel
>> >>> Howard Fell
>> >>> Jean Faucounau
>> >>> Jean Page
>> >>> Kiell Aartun
>> >>> Kurt E. Kocher
>> >>> Leon Pomerance
>> >>> Lienhard Delekat
>> >>> K. + K. Mey
>> >>> Nikos Stylos
>> >>> Ole Hagen
>
>
>> >Yes the pigeon was in the way.
>
>You mean : "THE GULL" ?....
>
>grapheus

Honestly, I don't see the big difference: both are irritating
creatures, ting all over the area, where ever they are found.

Hagen

(grapheus) wrote in message news:< com>...
> (Torsten) wrote in message news:< com>...
> citing Orazio Monti: Le lineaire A et le Disque de Phaistos. Kadmos,
> Bd. XL, number 2, p. 97 - 106.
>
> > The statistics of the phaistos disc fits with Linear A.
>
> A surprising statement !...
> One may juge from the Figures extracted from Orazio Monti's paper
> itself :
>
> a)-The 8 most frequent signs of the Phaistos Disk have a FREQUENCY
> superior or equal to 4,8%
> In comparison, only the 4 most frequent signs of the Linear A have
> such a high frequency !..
> A ratio of 2 to 1 !!!! How convincing for establishing the ideny
> of the scripts and languages !...
>
> b)- Comparing the signs PhD 29 to A08 , the following figures are
> given for the frequencies in initial/ median/final position of the
> sign :
> PhD 29 : 7/2/0
> A08 : 34/3/4
> And here is Monti's comment : "PhD 29 shows a REMARKABLE STATISTICAL
> RELATIONSHIP with A08"!!!!!!...
> I let true statisticians to be juge !....
>
> c)- Comparing in the same way the signs PhD 07 with A57, the
> corresponding figures are :
> PhD 07 : 5/5/7
> A57 : 14/16/12
> what lead to the same comment as hereabove by O. Monti about "the
> remarkable statistical relationship" between both signs !...
>
> d)- Everything in Monti's paper is of the same kind... And when he is
> in front of the following figures :
> PhD 02 : 15/0/0
> A 28 : 14/13/2
> he only admits that "objectively, the statistical relationship is not
> perfect" ...
> One may just sigh : "Surely!"...
>
> Regards to all my readers !
>
> grapheus

The funniest part of Orazio Monti's fantastic calculations is that
their conclusions are almost correct!...
For instance, O. Monti has noticed the alternation between PhD Signs
n° 29 and 7 at the initial. Moreover, he concludes that PhD 29 "should
be" the vowel A ... Well, this is correct !...
He also noticed the alternation between DhP signs n° 35 and 18 as
"suffixes". Well, it's correct again !.. One is the ending of the
dative, the second of the genitive !... (But, of course, the phonetic
values he suggests for thoses signs (*ne and *ti) are both wrong).
And he is almost lucky again in suggesting for the PhD sign n° 27 the
phonetic value TA. The TRUE value is TE !... Missed by only a vowel
!..
Almost % of correct conclusions... Not bad for such fanciful
statistics!...
I'm beginning to think that it's possible finding America when
searching for China !...

Best regards
grapheus