>>>I'm confused: who was the stele raised for? "Phoke"? That's
>>>impossible, as his name isn't even mentioned on the front part.
>>
>>Yes, Fuke.
>
>Lemnian doesn't use <u>, it only has <o>, so we can let that pass.
>However, <ph> is not <f>.
Funny. Yet, Etruscan lacks "o". It doesn't clue you in that the lack of "o"
in Etruscan equals the supposed "lack of 'u'" in Lemnian and that Lemnian
"o" and Etruscan "u" might be the same damn vowel? Can you list some real
languages for me that have this kind of u-less, triangle-pointing-upwards
vowel system? There is no logical arguement against /f/ replacing /ph/ in
the transliteration, so your words are wasted.
>Without mentioning his name? Well, I'm even more impressed now. It
>takes you just *one night* to decipher/translate the Lemnos stele,
Jealous? :)
>>Of course, Miguel! It should be obvious to anyone that has an even
>> >>passing knowledge of Etruscan that /zivai/ is a verb related to >>death
>>(or maybe life, now that I think about it) (Etr. ziva).
>
>But that's written with a <z>, not with <s'>.
I write /z/ simply for better clarity. That it represents a "sh"-sound, I'm
not denying. However, while the pronunciation of the /z/ (your /$/) is such,
the relationship of Lemnian /zivai/ to Etruscan /ziva/ is completely valid,
given that we have the same confusion in Etruscan itself! Like /zal/ = /esl/
"two".
>The Lemnos stele is written in the Greek alphabet. If "my" <$> (<s'> >in
>most transcriptions) had been a variant of zeta,
The Euboean alphabet to be precise. I'm not saying that it is a zeta. I'm
simply writing it for clarity as a /z/ rather than your dollar sign which
blinds most people. I find it hard to see the line properly. I'm sure a real
alphabetic character would be much better than a monetary symbol, thinkest
thou not?
>In 6th century BC Lemnos?
Is it possible that the dating is somehow 500 years off?
>To begin with, the Etr. genitive is -s or -$, not -z.
Since this /z/ letter is a "sh"-sound as we are both aware, it matches the
Etruscan genitive perfectly (Etruscan -sa/-s'a). Keep focused.
>Can you find Etruscan funerary inscriptions that don't start with the
>name of the deceased? Very few, I bet.
... But where the hell is the "start" to this thing, anyways?? That's half
the problem. Seriously, I don't think that this craftsman knew what he was
doing. The text runs up and down and to the side on every free space of the
stele. If this craftsman lived today doing webdesign, he'd become an AT&T
operator instead. I don't know who this Fuke was but he had bad taste in
stele-makers.
>"My pattern" is: "NAME avils NUMERAL-s (NUMERAL-s avils) VERB. [...]
>[...]
>The overwhelming majority conforms to the pattern "NAME avils
>NUMERAL-s VERB". I rest my case.
First of all, this is not your pattern exactly. Your real pattern of
interpretation in the Lemnian text appears to be:
"sivai aviz sialchveiz mara-z-m aviz aumai"
NAME aviz NUMERAL-z (NUMERAL-z-m aviz) VERB
^^^^^^^^^
Very deceptive on your part. The only difference, but a major difference,
between your fantasy and the overall reality lies in the fact that the
second supposed numeral of yours "mara-" is connected not only to /-z/ or
even /-m/ "and" but to another /aviz/! This doesn't follow the pattern you
describe or what you've substantiated at all. Further, one tends to put the
lower bases before the higher ones ("five" BEFORE the word for "40"). We see
this done for "17" = /ci-em zathrum/ or "27" = /ci-em cealch/. Where is your
numerical pattern attested? It simple cannot by any leap of the imagination
be interpreted as "45" or "65".
>lucer latherna svalce avil XXVI
>Lucer Latherna lived age 26.
>velthur partunus larisali$a clan ramthas cuclnial zilch cechaneri
>tenthas avil svalthas LXXXII
>Velthur Partunu (son) of Laris, son of Ramtha Cuclnia, zilach of
>justice(?) having-been, age having-lived 82.
These phrases that you listed follow my own pattern: /zivai aviz sialchveiz/
"He lived 40 years".
(PS: /sval-ce/ should be translated as "has lived" - It's the perfective.)
>The overwhelming majority conforms to the pattern "NAME avils
>NUMERAL-s VERB". I rest my case.
Since you've described your pattern erroneously and left it unsubstantiated,
your case must be "resting" along the cartesian y-axis...
>Notwithstanding the fact that everything else on side A is written
>down to up?
Everything on the sides. Not necessarily in the center.
>>We cannot tweak -ch- out of -r- no matter how much we squint.
>
>I already said that the equation <mara> ~ <mach> was not convincing.
>Nevertheless, <mara> must be a numeral, and <mach> comes closest.
Make up your mind. You can't sip from both glasses. Either /mara/=/mach/ is
unacceptable or it is not. We both agree that it is NOT convincing. So, your
continued assumption that /mara-/ is a numeral floors me for its chaotic
artistry. Your logic is unfocused and confused. Logically, you may at the
very most say that /mara-/ MAY be a numeral but since you have no evidence
whatsoever to support your claim, either phonetically or based on phrasal
patterns, you're falling on deaf ears.
>Especially considering that the form muvalch "50" (muv-alch) doesn't
>have the -ch either (one is reminded of PIE *pen-kwe "...and 5", so
>maybe: *mawa-k(h) "...and 5"? [Etr. -c(h) is equivalemt to PIE
>*-kwe]). Still no -r-, though.
No, no, no. You need guidance, my boy. From what I find, the correct reflex
of *penkWe in Etruscan was most likely to have been */fec(e)/. This is
hardly a match for /mach/. The latter derives from the same root as /mech/
"people" and IE *megx- "to be big". There will never be an acceptable way to
connect /mara-/ to /mach/. Never. So don't repeat this again. It simply is
not a numeral both because of the counterindicative phonetics and by
unsubstantiated phrasal patterns.
>Phokia = Phocaea
>Phokia-si = of Phocaea (or: Phocaean).
>Phokia.si-ale = of the Phocaean
>Holaie-si Phokia.si-ale = of Holaie the Phocaean
>
>See the funerary inscriptions above. Maybe a better grasp of >Etruscan
>would be recommendable before trying to decipher Lemnian...
When comparing /mara-/ to /mach/ as you do, which only adds to your
abomination concerning preIE phonology where every phoneme is a labial one,
I hardly think that you are in the position to recommend much at all.
Now, */Fukia-si/ doesn't exist, only /Fukia.si-ale/. Technically, the single
genitive would likely have been */Fukia-z/ based on the rest of the text. At
any rate, if we are to accept /Fukiasiale/ as "of the Phocaean" and /Fuke/
as "Phocaea", your translation has an unremediable problem.
/Hulaie-zi/ equates with the _dative_ in Etruscan and we are more likely to
translate it as "to Hulaie", not at all "of Hulaie". To prove this, there is
a contrast with the TRUE genitive of "Hulaie" in the same text. /Hulaie-z
nafuth/, clearly means "Hulaie's grandson/nephew", clearly the _real_
genitive that /Hulaie-zi/ can never be.
So you see, your assessment of the Lemnos Stele text is very much flawed
because the phrase /Hulaie-zi Fukia.si-ale/ cannot be said to agree in the
genitive case. One is dative, the other genitive.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com