--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Aigius" <segijus@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel J. Milton"
<dmilt1896@...>
> wrote:
> > This nonsensical Lithuanian "translation" of the Ezero ring
may
> > be found at:
> > http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=5
> > 317&messageid=1076350221
> >
> > Other translations may be found at:
> > http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_6.html
> > These are very likely wrong too, but they seem to have been
made
> > by professional linguists.
> > Dan Milton
>
> Better version of this Baltic translation of Ezero ring may be
found
> at:
> http://www.istorija.net/forums//thread-view.asp?tid=1044
> Why nonsensical? Have You better version?
>
> Regards, Aigius
The version you use is indeed very close to the original. The
website you refer to has the reading:
RULISTËNAS NËRËNA TILTAN ES, KUORA ZIEDUM ANT ILËS ÛP TAMI YRA ZELTA.
The actual reading is in clear Greek letters which give cause for no
difficulties as far as the reading is concerned (<E:> is eta, omega
does not occur):
1 ROLISTENEASN
2 ERENEATIL
3 TEANE:SKOA
4 RAZEADOM
5 EANTILEZY
6 PTAMIE:E
7 RAZ //
8 E:LTA
There is no marking of word division. The first six lines are
written on the face of the ring, taking up all the space there is,
while the seventh line has some free space on both sides of <RAZ>.
The eighth line <E:LTA> (it not <ATLE:>) is written on the side of
the ring. This indicates that the eighth line does not belong to the
text of the main face which ends with the letters -RAZ . There is
therefore no word "ZELTA".
A first crude analysis may depart from the sequence <KOA> which also
occurs on the inscription from Kiolmen, no matter whose reading one
believes. I suggest this means "and", especially since it offers a
nice structural grid:
If we cut out <Rolisteneasnereneatilteane:s koa razea>, it would
seem that we have an enclitic "and" inserted between two words, one
ending in -s, the other in -ea. We can get the same pairing if we
cut <Rolisteanes Nerenea Tilteane:s koa Razea>, which would offer
the parallelism needed to justify the use of "and". This could
mean "R.N. and T.R." with "and" enclitic after the first element of
the second member. If this reflects two names, both consisting of a
personal name in the nominative and a family name in a different
case, presumably genitive, then the following <domeanti> may well be
a verb of which they are the subjects. If postconsonantal /j/ is
written with <E> (5x <EA>), the sequence IE:- is likely to begin a
word. That isolates <lezyptam> which would be the object.
Except for the probable genitive in -a (-ea in yo-stems?), this is
now not very much like Lithuanian. And why would it be? It is
Thracian.
Jens