Re: [tied] Re: ancient script

At 10:33:37 AM on Saturday, March 13, 2004, William H. wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi"
> <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Lisa Darie
>> <elixir032000@...> wrote:

[...]

>>> The following sentences provide linguistic evidence of
>>> the Indo-European vocabulary and grammatical
>>> inflections, such as nominal declension and verbal
>>> conjugation. [...] 1. KN Za 10, stone libation table
>>> (House of the Frescoes) ]-TA-NU-MU-TI •
>>> JA-SA-SA-RA-MA-NA • DA-WA-[•]-DU-WA-TO • I-JA [ ASTA NU
>>> MUTI. ASA SA RAMANA. DA WADUWA TROISA. "This, you do not
>>> move. So to remain. Gives your widow Troisa"

>> This sequence proves undoubtedly you either are proposing
>> a bad joke to the list members, or you have no clue about
>> linguistics. You are mixing up some Romanian modern
>> spelling with a lot of phantasy and wishful thinking,
>> careless on historical phonetics and grammar. No need for
>> further comments, just forget it. It has little (if
>> anything) to do with the purpose of this list.

> pretty harsh aren't you? who's to say this theory out of
> the many hundred theories and links to minoan linear a is
> not right.

Quite a few people here. Daniel already noted the absurdity
of DU-MI-NE-QA 'Sunday'. The matches with modern Romanian
spelling, in disagreement with the Latin, are absurd. (I
especially like MI-NA 'hand', matched with supposed Rom.
<mina>, <mana>: my Romanian is non-existent, but I'd bet
that it's really a later <mînã> and an earlier <mânã>.) The
classification of water words is also very silly, with
French <eau> and Spanish <agua> separated from each other
and from Latin <aqua>.

Marius is quite correct: the silliness is too patent to
require discussion, let alone detailed refutation.

Brian