From: Vassil Karloukovski
Message: 37860
Date: 2005-05-14
> > > Other translations may be found at:there are more pictures of the Ezero ring, including its back face
> > > 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. TheÛP TAMI YRA
> website you refer to has the reading:
>
> RULISTËNAS NËRËNA TILTAN ES, KUORA ZIEDUM ANT ILËS
> 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