Talk:Rongorongo/archive 2

message: Lorena Bettocchi, specialiste des manuscrits,  à Kwami : Les manuscrits font partie de la banque de données rongorongo et je sens que tu te penches sur le sujet. Bravo. Il convient de faire un chapitre  sur le theme,  mais un chapitre absolument complet. N'oublie pas de signaler que Thomas Barthel a trouvé le manuscrit E en possession de Gabriel Veri-veri, isolé au dispensaire des lépreux,  et il l'a photographié. Thomas Barthel a également analysé ces manuscrits dans son ouvrage The Eighth Land...[]
Pourquoi est-ce important de parler des manuscrits ? Ils représentent la banque de données polynésienne du début du 20e siècle (1936). Lorena Bettocchi a trouvé et analysé deux autres manuscrits le G,  identifié comme écrit par Gabriel Veri.veri et un manuscrit qui a son importance en ethnolinguistique appelé le RONGO METUA (MESSAGE DES ANCIENS) : car le répertoire Jaussen comportant un grand nombre d'erreurs, il fut corrigé par un atelier secret des lépreux. Publications : Tahtiti Pacifique Magazine n° 185, septembre 2006, Datos historicos sobre la antigua escritura rongorongo Actas del Museo Maritimo oct.2006 - Ces publications ne sont pas de Rapanui Journal, bien sur, mais elles sont validées par les linguistes polynésiens pour peu qu'ils aient étudié en profondeur le répertoire Jaussen.
Les manuscrits sur le rongorongo comportent : a) des elements du répertoire Jaussen, b) des éléments créés, c) des elements du répertoire Jaussen revu et corrigé, et...  dans le manuscrit E (The Eighth Land, 1978 Thomas Barthel) : des éléments de la petite tablette de Londres et de la Aruku Kurenga. C'est tout ce qu'il reste de leur ancienne écriture sur tablettes, à ce peuple de linguistes entre -1886 et 1936-, jusqu'à la venue du livre de Steven-Chauvet qui a redonné au Pascuans un grand nombre de signes avec les photographies. Puis il y eut des moulages des tablettes de Santiago et les Pascuans retrouverent leur écriture avec les copies.  Donc ces manuscrits sont précieux.
Récapitulons : en 2008, nous avons  11 (onze)  banques de données casi completes sur les écriture pascuanes :
a) les petroglyphes,   b)les 25 tablettes anciennes rongorongo sacrées (tapu)- Items A à Y,   c) les tablettes modernes >1886 avec poissons coquillages, oiseau etc. non tapu dont la Z, d)les manuscrits des lépreux - LE RONGO METUA- est issu d'un atelier avec rituel donc tapu (e)  les recitations de Metoro 1868-1872 (sans la traduction de Jaussen  f) les récitations de Ure Vae Iko et Kaitae 1886 Thomson sans la traduction de Salmon  g)les récitations et notes manuscrites de Fata He et Tomenika 1914 Katherine Routledge - la plus honnête sur le sujet, car elle ne traduit que quelques lignes  h)les manuscrits des lépreux   i) les écritures boustrophédon Items A à Y  et les écritures cursives dont l'item Z  j)les écritures ancienennes et les tau, à partir de la fin du 19e  k) les pierres avec écriture rongorongo acienne ou tau -objets modernes, mais encore fallait-il le prouver... Ces dossiers sont énormes et ne peuvent se résumer en une bibliographie choisie et ancienne...
Ceci constitue une somme d'informations, une banque de données globale exacte au niveau de l'image et avec des erreurs à rectifier au niveau des interprétations et témoignages des scientifiques et chercheurs occidentaux de 1893 à 2005. La banque de donnée la plus fausse est celle de Tati Salmon devant Thomson. Tati Salmon est un cas juridiquement parlant - Nous sommes trois chercheurs specialistes de  son langage tahitien-rapanui-collé-  mais phonétiquement reconnaissable : un linguiste auprès des archives des tribunaux de Tahiti pour tout ce qu'il a écrit au sujet de l'héritage Dutrou-Bornier Brander, un linguiste chilien, juriste de la constitution chilienne qui reprend les écrits de Salmon devant Policarpo Toro 1888, et moi sur les chants de Ure Vae Iko 1886.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.61.34 (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response from Lorena Bettocchi

message: Lorena Bettocchi à Kwami Voici un travail complementaire mis à jour [].  Les images parlent d'elles-même.
Merci de le lire. Je confirme que l'écriture rongorongo ne peut être déchifrée. Il manque des signes dans chacune des familles pour comprendre les progressions.
:Interesting discussion. However, the photos are so limited that's it's difficult to see your point. For example, I always assumed that if you started with B's line #12, and then continued with line #13, you might wrap around the end of #12 to fill in the gap with #13. Depending on how many lines you had, the last line (in this case #11) would be non-boustrophedon with either #12 or #13; by chance it happens to be #13. For me to be convinced that the glyphs filling the gap are really a 15th line, I'd need to see either photos or pencil rubbings that show the progression of the adjacent lines. kwami (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About Santiago staff (Item I) 

message: Lorena Bettocchi à Kwami : il n'est plus dans la collection Arman mais chez Merton Simpson Gallery. Il figure sur leur site web.
:Merci bien! kwami (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About Stephen-Chauvet fragment (Item F) 

message: A new article: 
*Поздняков И.К., Поздняков К.И. (2005). Рапануйская письменность и рапануйский язык: предварительные результаты статистического анализа. / Антропологический форум. 3:167–204. 
— kwami (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! — kwami (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pozdniakov article 

message: Nearly all of the images in this article are copyright violations. Because they are not strictly 2D, the photographers own the copyrights over their own images. (Even coins do not qualify for the 2D exception.) I can't tell whether any of the photos were taken by this article's authors, but if not they should almost universally be deleted. Mangostar (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mangostar, the issue is not whether or not an item is 2D or 3D. (After all, there are no 2D objects.) Rather, it is an issue of whether there is any originality in the photos. This is stated explicitly at Commons: a coin photographed with original framing and lighting is not PD, but the same coin copied on a scanner is PD. Nearly all of these photos are PD by this argument, since they were taken to be as accurate as possible, explicitly attempting to avoid any originality. Also, a photo of a 2D surface of a 3D object counts as 2D. This point is also made at Commons. They should probably be :Template:PD-ineligible. Just to be safe, I have removed all of the thumbs and added Fair Use tags to a couple of the remaining images, but I don't think they're necessary. kwami (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Lorena, do you know the relevant UN resolution, so I can look it up? kwami (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the CEIPP image. I wonder how Pozdniakov would summarize it. kwami (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've posted the issue to the copyright people. Still waiting for an answer. The question is whether they are photos of texts or of objects. However, if you or Catharine deny any claim to owning a copyright to your own photos, then there will be no problem using them here. Are you willing to do that? kwami (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major copyright image problems 

message: I find this section very confusing.  You are saying that because the word "rongorongo" meant such-and-such in most Austronesian languages therefore this is what it may mean? But then you follow that with so many things that are "said to have been", presumably by the referenced author, that the overall meaning becomes lost in the paragraph (to me). Maybe I just have to read it several times more.  –Mattisse (Talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm looking at how to make it more accessible, but am not sure how to proceed. I thought this was of some importance, because I've come across all sorts of nonsense about this. Rongorongo means "recitation" in Rapanui. That's the name for the script today. It has cognates in other Austronesian languages. (Maybe this should be taken out altogether, or demoted to a footnote.) However, it is not the original name of the script. We can't be sure exactly what that was, but have listed some possibilities along with their refs. kwami (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, how's that? kwami (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is better. I was suspecting that was the case (original name unknown), which is more interesting to me than trying to come up with pseudo names. Would not the script be decipherable if it were related to a  known language? Totally indecipherable is much more mysterious. How likely is it that it represents a new invention of human writing? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's almost certain that the script represents Rapanui. That alone does not make it decipherable--the sample size may just be too small. If it is true writing—and we don't know that—then it would almost certainly be an independent invention. There simply is no source for it to have been borrowed from apart from Fischer's idea of Spanish contact, which was minimal. We might be able to answer that question if we can ever decipher it. kwami (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your answers. I was reading some of you online references. It certainly is interesting and puzzling over it seems to have caused several people to get very frustrated.  –Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology and variant names 

message: All those "said to have been"s, is it Englert who was doing the thinking? Or was he reporting that it was said to have been? If he was doing the thinking, perhaps a way to explain it would be to introduce his name as a major researcher in the area and then explain what his thinking was and why.  Just an idea.  –Mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are definitions from his dictionary. Trying to guess at his reasoning would be OR. I think you'd be happy if I just removed the "said to have been"s and reported them as established fact. However, the sociolinguistics of rongorongo—what the islanders thought of their script, how it was used, what its contents were, how it was learned, who could read it, etc.—is quite contentious. At one point I planned to add a section on the sociolinguistics, which the Writing Systems project recommends for every script. However, trying to write anything factual was an almost impossible task. There are tomes of speculation out there, but almost nothing is actually known. There's an interesting legend of a king going into battle with a rongorongo tablet that slays his enemies before him, like the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders. However, most of the records are rather late, and the later they are the more fanciful they become. Early records are quite poor. kwami (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I certainly would not suggest guessing at his reasoning. I was hoping that he explained more fully what his reasoning was than just a dictionary definition. I appreciate the fact that you are not willing to go further than what the sources actually state. –Mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  said to have been's 

message: Perhaps one of the problems in the prose is the passive voice is used so much. For example, in the introduction the wording is almost all in the passive voice. The FAC people do no like that, I suspect.  –Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive voice