Talk:Phaistos Disc decipherment claims

message: Dbachmann has deleted the sentence I added about some apparent incoherences in the rendering of -S in the case of the Proto-Ionic Solution (an incoherence pointed by Y.Duhoux). This sentence is the following :
But it is to be noticed that such apparent incoherences do exist also in the 4th century BC inscription written with the Cypriot syllabary.
Dbachmann deleted it with the motive that "to the best of (his) knowledge, the Cypriot Syllabary has no consonant signs".
Well, Mr Bachmann, the  Cypriot Syllabary has an usual way to render the consonant S : to use the sign SE. So, on the well-known the Idalion Bronze Inscription, <kas> is generally written ka-se. But in the same inscription, one may notice incoherences very similar to the ones of the Disk, i.e. that the sign SE is missing ! For instance, on line 1, one may read : ka-se-(ke-ti-e-we-se), but on line 5 <kas anti> is written : ka-a-ti.  Once again, Mr Bachmann, your aversion for the Proto-Ionic Solution has made you blind and it has lead you to an unjust deletion. (User 80.90.57.154, 15:06, March 25, 2006)
Post -Scriptum : BTW, Mr Bachmann, be kind enough to also notice that the scribe's habits, in the Idalion Inscription, are the same as the Disk's scribe on two other points : <kas> is linked to the following word -- the "word-concept" by the scribe is not always  the same as ours. For instance, at Idalion, <anti tô mistôn> is written as if it was a single word : a-ti-to-mi-si-to-ne.
:This is quite usual among syllabaries (observe that in both cases the unsounded vowel is the same as an adjacent one). The incoherence of Faucounau's decipherment is that he postulates a sign which is simple s, in addition to sa-, se- and so forth.Septentrionalis 16:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary deleting

message: I have reverted the obviously IP-hopping user behind this charming edit summary and blocked the IP for one week. If anybody thinks that's more likely to affect innocent  users (I don't understand these mysteries very well), please to unblock and let's just keep reverting. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocked IP-hopper

message: What is the allowed content for this page?  The reason I ask is because I have thought about the implications for assuming that the disk's symbols correspond with Linear A -- in particular, there are a number of symbols not present which can be inferred to exist.  Possibilities include the double axe 'A', the dog's head 'RA', the ox head 'MU', the bisected line 'DA', and the harp 'PU'.  I'm sure professional Minoan scholars can suggest more. Washi 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page contains what policy allows; neutral accounts of published decipherment attempts. So if you want to discuss this, find someone who's already noticed it. Septentrionalis 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linear A Implications 

message: :Linguists, but not mathematicians, are doubtful if the inscription is sufficiently long in order to unambiguously recognize the correct solution even if it was among the proposals.
Which mathematician are we citing here? Fauconau, again? (If not, please explain the argument) Septentrionalis 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like it. There can be no doubt, for example, that the correct solution would not be recognized if it was in some otherwise completely unknown language. That any number of 'correct' solutions can be constructed in any given language was amply proven by Faucounau and friends. Mathematicians in general do not have an opinion on the disk. dab (ᛏ) 07:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it was Rosemary: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: bah, we'll just have to block half of Luxemburgh again, no problem :o\ dab (ᛏ) 07:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noooo! That was an old edit, from March! You guys let it slip through and it sat there for months... :-D Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: admin abuse! sorry Luxemburgh ;) dab (ᛏ) 09:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this Rosemary?

message: To meet the requirements at WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe, any suggestions here must be significant views, which generally means they should be discussed (although not necessarily first presented) in reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion - significance 

message: The article has a vague claim that many of the decipherment attempts are pseudoscience. However only 1 Prot-Ionian claim is mentioned with any reaction from the rest of the epigraphical and archaeological community. It would be far better to record the general academic reactions to as many of these claims as possible, in addition to the vague general statement about pseudoscience. In fact, the article needs to cite scientific opinions to call a vague (unidentified) majority pseudoscience. 2601:441:4400:1740:3177:7AD6:4BF8:3864 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Receptions of Decipherment Claims?