🚀 go-pugleaf

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 12:56:56 AM UTC, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 5:36:12 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote: 
> > On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 8:10:07 PM UTC, Ash Wurthing wrote: 
> > > On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 11:35:58 AM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 1:32:19 PM UTC, Ash Wurthing wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 5:52:15 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote: 
> > > > > > On 2021-12-22, Ash Wurthing <ashwu @gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I was taught as was anyone else in college, that the Greeks (8oo BC) 
> > > > > > > based theirs from the Phoenician then modified, adding their own 
> > > > > > > vowels. 
> > > > > > The Greeks didn't add vowels. They adapted consonantal letters to 
> > > > > > represent vowels. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thus "he" became "ei" (later, "e psilon") and "ayin" became "ou" (later 
> > > > > > "o micron", etc. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The last few Greek letters (y psilon, phi, khi, psi and o mega) were 
> > > > > > tacked on to the end later, and three Phoenician letters that weren't 
> > > > > > needed were omitted (notably the notorious "digamma"). 
> > > > > Question: Why wouldn't new constructs such as the vowels and new letters not be considered inventive? 
> > > > > > > There was also the separate/different Linear B Script from 1100 BC 
> > > > > > > which was uniquely Greek 
> > > > > > It was a derivative of Linear A, which was devised by non-Greeks to 
> > > > > > represent a non-Greek language. And Linear B is monstrously inefficient 
> > > > > > at representing the sounds of Greek, which is why it took so long to 
> > > > > > decipher. 
> > > > > Another case of the Greeks applying someone else's writing system/alphabet to their language? 
> > > > > > I assume you've read Chadwick's /Decipherment of Linear B/, but I'll 
> > > > > > meantion it here because everybody else ought to read it too. It's one 
> > > > > > of the best books ever written. 
> > > > > I only read what was online about it-- you think i can afford all these scholarly books? They don't pay me enough pension for such! I rely heavily on the Perseus Project. Why was there disdain for Evans? I got that impression from what I have read. 
> > > > > > > but it was lost during their "Dark Age", so the Greeks were not 
> > > > > > > incapable of their own writing system. 
> > > > > > The Greeks never invented writing, but adapted other people's writing 
> > > > > > twice. 
> > > > > I never claimed they did but the Dispilio tablet may turn current beliefs on their heads. 
> > > > > > > But that is not what I originally referred to, I spoke about the 
> > > > > > > glyphs (symbols) themselves having meaning. 
> > > > > > The glyphs had pictographic meaning for the early Phoenicians (like 
> > > > > > Egyptian Hieroglyphs). But by the time the Greeks adapted them they had 
> > > > > > become too stylised to resemble their names usefully. Thus in Ugaritic, 
> > > > > > a house is "bt", not "b". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > I tend to agree with Homer and other Greek writers in their opinions 
> > > > > > > of the Phoenicians. 
> > > > > > Homer doesn't have much to say about them, does he? And writing is a 
> > > > > > mysterious thing that he doesn't understand - see the tale of 
> > > > > > Bellerophontes in Iliad VI. 
> > > > > True, this is all I got from Homer: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Homer (Odyssey Ξ. 287- 290) 
> > > > > [...but, when the eighth year came, a Phoenician, untrustworthy man, con artist, approached me....] 
> > > > > ...αλλ' ότε δή ογδοόν μοι επιπλόμενον έτος ήλθε, δή τότε Φοίνιξ ήλθεν ανήρ απατήλια ειδώς, τρώκτης, ός δή πολλά κάκ` ανθρώποισιν εώργει. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Homer (Odyssey Ο. 415 - 417) 
> > > > > There seamen Phoenicians arrived, well known thieves, with lots of fandangles in their ship. 
> > > > > Ένθα δέ Φοίνικες ναυσίκλυτοι ήλυθον άνδρες, τρώκται, μυρί' άγοντες αθύρματα νηί μελαίνη·.. 
> > > > > > > I also believe in innovations not being limited to just a single 
> > > > > > > inventor. It doesn't work so neatly as social scientists wish with 
> > > > > > > the chaos factor. 
> > > > > > Writing was certainly invented (or adapted) more than once, but each 
> > > > > > kind of writing was invented (or adapted) by an individual or a team. 
> > > > > > Otherwise one would have to postulate miraculous coincidences. See David 
> > > > > > Hume for the refuation of such ideas. 
> > > > > I wouldn't say miraculous coincidences, but coincidences are entirely possible (if one human can think of something, surely another scattered among millions could also). I'm not saying that everyone in a single culture-- they most likely learned from what already existed. Adaptation is much easier than invention. So I don't rule out influences (borrowing, imitating) either One of the things I liked to do with papers was that sociological and psychological matters are too complex to simply explain issues with a single causation theory. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now what about the Dispilio Tablet. It appears the Greeks may have had a writing system during the Neolithic Period. 
> > > > > 
> > > > If you look at the pictures of the Dispilio Tablet, it looks more like a topographic map of the area (that is one theory). The symbols are not neatly carved in rows such as the illustrations show. Some of the figures may be indications of tributaries or just darkened areas that naturally occurred in the wood once it was cross-sectioned. The arrow sign seems just too neat to be real. 
> > > > https://nicholasrossis.me/2020/11/10/the-dispilio-tablet-revising-the-origins-and-development-of-writing/ 
> > > Did they released definitive info on the tablet finally? 
> > Not according to any of the sources. It is still being conserved, so we suppose it will eventually be studied and published upon, but since it was discovered in 1993, that's a long time to wait on further research (particularly if this is supposed to be such an important find). 
> > > I know that the tablet was damaged, which I figured would have ruined it. 
> > It was a cross-section of a log, submerged for ~7000 years in water and mud. Things that old (and things not that old) that were in water should stay in a water environment (the same as things that are frozen such as woolly mammoths and people should remain frozen). As we said, the symbols do not appear on the piece of wood in the neat rows and columns that are used for illustration, and in looking at the actual find, the symbols are not that clear and precise. We did see that some of the symbols were also found on other items at the dig site, so perhaps they meant something. One of them could have meant "barber shop" for all we know. As we said previously, the notches and darkened areas do resemble tributaries, so perhaps it was a boating map. :-) 
> 
> : ) map of a lake side community, barber shop sign-- all just as important! The symbols not being in a linear format as you noted would make me think pictograms rather than letters. Or maybe just flourishes. Or doodles. : ( 
It could have been notches to indicate number of wives, children, husbands, sheep, etc.  It is a short leap from noticing how many members there are in one's family or tribe to putting individual marks on a log to indicate that number.  Early man certainly noted that the number of fingers and toes was standard, so a base 5 or base 10 system was not far behind. 

We had wondered about cross-sectioning a log in that culture, but the Egyptians had invented the hand saw thousands of years before the Mycenaean civilization.  The slab would not have been smooth, so those nicks (writing) could have been the result of sawing.  We also thought perhaps they were worm tracings/beetle larvae in the wood from when it was submerged.
> 
> > > What I heard was it had symbols that matched symbols found on various other items from the site. Now with it being so ancient-- Neolithic, I figure any writing system would be pictograms like all the other first systems (Egyptian, Linear A & B). 
> > Two of the symbols in the illustrations do resemble birds, but the arrow isn't like that on the wood. The greater and lesser signs and up/down signs could be anything. There is no Rosetta Stone to which to compare the symbols, but we assume that eventually some Ph.D. student will publish on it (or there will be a big paper in "Science" or "Nature." 
> 
> Just like what happened with Linear B. I hear there's a bunch of archeology drama going on about this and a certian cave. Who knows but only the archeologists-- I just know what gets reported. I do appreciate you for being my eyes for it-- seriously. Couldn't ask for a better set of 'em! 
Thanks, Ash.  Linear B has (mostly) been decoded.  There is a chart of Linear B syllabary and logograms at:
https://omniglot.com/writing/linearb.htm
We see the backwards "S" frequently on the tablets, and that represents the sound (?) of "we."  The "za" sound resembles an ankh.  The logograms (mostly) resemble the object that they are supposed to represent.  The symbol for "month" is a half circle with a vertical line bisecting it, very much looking like a moon.  
> 
> Sorry R.O. for hijacking your thread.
Sorry, Richard.