Lisa Darie wrote:
> Dear Cybalist Members,
>
> At the start of the 20th century a British archaeologist Sir Arthur
> Evens discovered in the Palace of Knossos from Crete some clay
> tablets written with a mysterious scripts called by him Linear A and
> Linear B dating from the first half of the second millennium BC.
> Later, other inscriptions were found at various Cretan
archaeological
> sites. I would like to present to you my tentative decipherment of
> the language of several Linear A inscriptions based on the script
> decipherment made by Prof. J.O. Younger.
> www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/. > Regards,
>
> Rodica Elise Darie
Dear Lisa,
I don't have the competence to tel anything about Liniar A or Liniar B
but I have the competence to say that what is there considered there
as "minoan language" is purely Romanian. Something must be wrong with
this deciphrement of Liniar script since the Dacian language in the
inscriptions we actualy have, wrotten with Greek alphabet (and some
other alphabets, it appears there are almost 5 alphabets), is more
archaicaly as this "minoan language". For instance, in the table where
Dacian soldiers burried Decebalus it is written the following
message.First just 2 needed mentions about two letters in the
inscriptions:
[C^] = of course there is not a such letter in inscription. There is
a sign which resemble Greek "psi" but it seems it has the value of
"c^" or maybe more affricate directly an "s^" as in moldavian way to
speak where c^= s^ which will justify the use of the letter which
looks like Greek "psi".
[G^] = the same here. There is no letter "g^" but a sign which is not
to find in Greek allphabet. Since the name of the city was givern by
Greeks as "Sarmizegetusa" with an clear "g" there, it is assumed the
letter has the value of affricated "g^".
Here is the inscription:
DE[C^]EBALO ON AN[C^]EA DU ARMOSA DAKO [C^]E O A DESO SONTA
DOMU[C^]IOILA DU PORIRE SO SARMI[G^]ETAUSA A[C^]INO IL A DUPUS ERE
STOPESTE ARMOSA RUMUNOS
One has to say, even if this appear to be Romanian language, it is
indeed an archaical Romanian and some words are not known or have an
another form today. Between Minoan language and the inscription of 106
AC mentioned here, there are some thousend of years and the Minoan
language appears "very modern" already comparative with Dacian. How I
said, I don't have any competence in Liniar A or Liniar B but to
compare the results and to wonder about them, that should be allowed
to everyone. I will follow very interesed the opinion of the
specialists about this deciphrement of the minoan language you mean
here.
Best Regards,
Alex