Talk:Eteocypriot language

message: This seems sensible to me. --Glengordon01 21:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Thunderhead 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging "Eteocypriot" with "Eteocypriot language" 

message: Can someone please tell me why Velhan has changed the perfectly correct sentence "To his city, dedicated [by] the Tyrrhenians in Mukula" to the grammatically incorrect "To his city, dedicate [by] the Tyrrhenians in Mukula". No sense. He's also screwed with the Greek case endings and the result is equally nonsensical in both languages. Grr. Looks like Velhan is either a vandal, a kook or just plain bored and needed something to do. I'm choosing to undo his changes. --Glengordon01 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Eteocypriot translation

message: Yes it was an error. Thanks for taking that out, Kupirijo. --Glengordon01 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-RA-TO-WA-NA-KA reduplication 

message: I've located the Greek word kaneon on Perseus . It does not just mean "basket of offerings". It's specifically a "basket of reed". The word "reed" in Greek is coincidentally kanna from the Semitic root *qanaw- 'reed' , the same Semitic root underlying Greek kanōn.
So I'm reasonably confident that the connection of ECyp *kan- to Greek words is simply accidental similarity at work. I'm taking it outta there. But, man, it had me thinkin' for a while, hehe. --Glengordon01 23:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECyp *kan- / Etr cenu / Gr kaneon 

message: Hello there theodoross, although your erudition seems at first glance complex I am sure you will agree the general reader does not share it and therefore needs some set-up and explantion for this strange text inserted without explanation or lead-in after the categories at the end of the article, if in fact it really is you who put it there. Remember now, no original work here.Dave 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange unreferenced text

message: I put the references request in there because after working on this article for a while it became clear that the author may well be undertaking to put his own decipherment in there. Moreover, it sems clear that the author views the language as related to Etruscan. No such general decipherment has been made. Therefore this view represents a partiality toward the Etruscan "partial decipherment" so I probably will question its objectivity. While I appreciate enthusiasm and zeal nevertheless one has to keep a balanced view. There are two or three people plugging their own brand of decipherment on the Internet; for example, that the Minoan language was proto-Indo-European. It seems to me Wikipedia can present opinions if they are labeled as such but should not fall into the trap of going for one of these academically unaccepted "decipherments." Now, Ventris and Chadwick were able to come up with coherent and convincing translations of Linear B but I do not see any such thing here. So, if the references do not show up I will remove the text (eventually) as original work. Some people do publish original work on the Internet but that is against Wikipedia policy. I'd say, find another vehicle.Dave 05:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I've been looking at your translations and giving the matter some thought. I do not wish to discourage your very enthusiastic but obviously amateur efforts to decipher. This is game that has been played by many for over 100 years. That does not make any difference, however. You may be the one to decipher. If you are looking for an educated opinion, I would say, keep on plugging, this isn't it. Decipherments have to make sense of the language. You've got the inscription on poor old witile Ranu putting him in the ground three times in succession. Isn't once enough? You aren't alone I dare say. Someone with access to the Internet is putting up articles saying Linear A writes proto-Indo-European, making the texts say some really quite outlandish things. I'd say, follow the approach of Ventris and Chadwick, of learning all you can about the texts, the circumstances, the names, the signs, everything. And Ventris you know was a polyglot, so you can't stop learning languages for a minute. How's your Greek? How's your Hebrew? Ever looked at Sumerian? Etc. Etc. You got a lot of work to do to come up with a presentable theory, but then Wikipedia unfortunately is not the place to do it. There should be a Wiki.. just for the presentation of papers that are original and can't get published elsewhere. Good luck.Dave 16:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References request

message: The article states that the Amathus bilingual was "inscribed on a black marble slab," but the slab shown in the accompanying image appears to be anything but black. Is this due to aging or is there another explanation? 850 C (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Black marble, like Italian paragone, is truly black and isn't going to loose its color.  Is that piece even marble at all?  — kwami (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

text: The bilingual is on black marble, per Steele (2013:105).  But there's more than one inscription from Amathus, and this one doesn't appear to be bilingual.  — kwami (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black marble?