CONFIRMAREA COMPLETA A CERCETARII MELE

August 15, 2019

Am gasit aici, pe un site australian, (ramanand sa identific autorul):

Guide The History of Proto-Writing, Indus Script, and the Minoan Writing Systems

ENGLISH:                                                                                                                                              Found on an australian site, some conclusions with unknown ultimate source, but I can swear there are an good resume of my research.

Eg of my research:                                                                                                                        Moonlight in Romania: The Tărtăria Tablets – A Place of Brightness http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html.

                                                                                                                                                        COMMENT on upper half of round Tartaria tablet:                                                                 Rau December 26, 2008 at 2:02 PM
<< At the very begining you passed the “D”-shaped sign and take it as for moon.You did not recognized the phoenician/babylonian old “H” (the name it “Het“.In the folowing sequences (quadrants) you passed over some or few,or many (as you want)shapes used in ancient world writing as for letters.
Yours,Eugen Rau
eugenrau@gmail.com >>
I’ll be glad to be the very  fruits of somebody’s own research ? and I am curious to know the path followed or or in wich concrete way or with wich method, to come to this conclusions. My wondering is still greater as in general most of the other autors, researchers folowowed more or less an “conservative path“.
The conclusions or resume, cannot give a proper name, is reffering to writing and proto-writing issues in general, but particularly to Vinca-Turdas civilisation and also to Tartaria tablets.
From 2008 to nowdays, only some of my own conclusions (proved  with hard evidences) :
Vinca-Turdas culture not attained the stage of proto-writing (no one proved exemple)
– Despite this, there was used kind of (not fully understood) numeration system
– certainly there were signs wich were used in religious rituals ( Earth-Goddess, heavenly- bull, and other signs)
                                                                                                                                                                    -Tartaria tablets are genuine.                                                                                                          – Tartaria tablets unreletad to Vinca-turdas Culture, unrelated to bones,in fact have no age determination for the tablets itself.They are much newer.
– The scribe was not native sumerian nor genuine sumerian writing 
The closest writing system to tablets is sumerian proto-cuneiform.
– On Tartaria tablets were used mainly 2 types of signs: pictographic and ideograms/logograms/syllabar.
-There are hard evidences that on upper half of Tartaria tablet we have true writing; could have even letters ( eg.archaic greek-ones)
– As well, the upper-half signs were used in different writings (alphabets), eg. from Old Canaanite to Iberian.
– overall apearance of all 3 tablets is as an hodge-podge of signs (no known writing system can use all the signs)
– It is well possible that only this part contain an an clear ? message.
– The origin of the tablets could be Aegean (Cyclades, Crete).
-Otherwise talking only of the sumerian-inspired signs could reach Aegean trough Anatolia or Syria.Eg. syrian merchants.
-There are evidences of an sumerian writing philum begining from proto-cuneiform signs to Aegean linear A,B and finally to archaic greek, in fact to many Mediterranean writings (Etruscan, Venatic, Iberian etc.)
Folowing, some excerps from the above-mentioned paper:

ROMANIAN:                                                                                                                                        Niste concluzii a caror sursa ultima nu o cunosc, dar as jura ca poate fi un bun rezumat al cercetarilor mele. M-as bucura sa fie rodul cercetarilor proprii a unui autor ? si as fi curios sa cunosc calea pe care a mers, sau in ce mod a cercetat concret, ca sa ajunga la aceste concluzii. Cu atat mai mult ma mira, cu cat in general alti autori au mers pana acum pe diferite linii mai mult sau mai putin sa zicem “conservatoare” Concluziile sau rezumatul, nici nu stiu cum sa-l denumesc se refera atat la ceea ce este legat de tematica scrisului/proto-scrierii in general, pentru civilizatia Vinca-Turdas cat si pentru tablitele de la Tartaria.                                                                                       Redau mai jos din lucrarea sus-mentionata :

…….. the author, Stephen Duren.? Stephen R. Duren (Author of The History of “Proto-Writing,” Indus … https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7344553.Stephen_R_Duren Published 2013.

And not Rajesh Rao ?

……..autorul, Stephen Duren, si nu Rajesh Rao ?

” Productspecificaties

This section lists alphabets used to transcribe phonetic or phonemic sound; not to be confused with spelling alphabets like the NATO phonetic alphabet. Alphabets may exist in forms other than visible symbols on a surface. Some of these are:. Published – December Submit your article! Read more articles – free! In neolithic, Vinca-Turdas culture developed toward writing slowly , step by step. On its own independently or influenced, by pressure of incoming migrating people waves. Pity, despite the fact that the social life was well, quite-high developed, the stage of organisation was not so high, at the level of those sumerian, egyptian or proto-elamite ones.

Vinca culture become highly developed, but even in later Cucuteni-Tyripilia culture writing not reached the proto-writing stage. Not known or found exemples of writing from this later than Vinca cultures my recollecction, not even of proto-writing. Vincans missed another more years to reach proto writing and maybe later writing. Tartaria tablets shows evidence of proto-writing, as using proto-cuneiform signs symilar or the same as proto-cuneiform sumerian. So they are isolates. They are coming from somewhere outside area. There is a gap between Vinca-Turdas signs and organised Tartaria tablets signs.

Or finaly none of above, coming by some kind of economic-cultural exchange from Aegean area. Bringed by a? The round tablet shows evidence and signs of a syllabary, even alphabetic writing in upper half. Suspect connexion of Aegean writings to those of Near-East. Clues,hipothesys, arguments:. The inscribed clay tablets PL. It seems unlikely however that the tablets were drafted by a Sumerian hand or in the Sumerian language of early Mesopotamia. The shapes of the tablets and some of the signs are paralleled in the Minoan scripts of Crete , but the tablets do not seem to be Cretan.

Undeciphered writing systems – WikiVisually

There are indications that a similar use of signs, if not actual writing, was practised in the rest of the Aegean and in Western Anatolia before the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. A knowledge of writing, or the use of signs derived from it, may have spread to these regions and to the Balkans from Mesopotamia through Syria. This was perhaps one aspect of a common inheritance of religious or magical beliefs and practices. Alternative approaches had been presented and commented in the recent past Hooker The two writing systems probably serve different needs e.

Yet, the relationship was rejected as impossible because of the large distance between the two areas Mesopotamia and Crete. The rejection was very premature considering the next points:. There are still many thousands of tablets in the store rooms of museums but there are not enough experts to read them. The same wide regional coverage appears during the reign of Lugalanemundu BC , king of Adab Guisepi and Willis Their influence expanded to Indus Valley, Iran, Nile and probably Balkans as he suspects and we argue for as well.

  • Minoan Writing Systems.
  • The Vinča culture.
  • Please, I Want to Taste You!
  • Sacred Burial Grounds (An FBI/Romance Thriller Book 2)?

This is supportive for the herein argument, since every sign in written Akkadian has a Sumerian origin. However, the natural process for a script is to evolve from pictorial signs like the Sumerian pre-cuneiform into non-recognizable forms like the late cuneiform and not the reverse e.

So, we make the reverse proposal herein: both the early Aegean scripts and Cuneiform were two evolutionary branches of the same trunk Sumerian pre-cuneiform signs. While it is patently impossible that all of these proto-languages could be at the base of the Minoan language, it is nevertheless remotely conceivable that one of them just might be.

But which one? Given the tangled mass of contradictions these so-called decipherments land us in, I am left with no alternative but to pronounce that none of these so-called proto-languages is liable to stand the test of linguistic verisimilitude. If age is around 3. 000 B.C. 

Folowing, marked *** is mine, from my paper-work https://tartariatablets.com/2018/06/27/tartaria-tablets-what-script-and-language-expecting/       taken by WikiVisually, Undeciphered writing systems

*** But I looked close to those signs, and the tablets are not so old. The entire scientific comunity was fooled by supposed C14 age determination 5. Especially the round tablet shows evidence and signs of a syllabary, even alphabetic writing in upper half.***

=======================================================

Yes, I recognise my own topic/sentences, it seem that possible were taken parts of my posts on Wikipedia; Mr. Rao took in a critic way, adding some own personal remarks. i will urgently get in contact with him.

DA, IMI RECUNOSC TOPICA, SE PARE CA UNELE PARTI SANT PRELUATE DIN POSTARILE SI CONCLUZII DE-ALE MELE POSTATE PE WIKIPEDIA.

DL. STEPHEN R. DUREN? LE-A PRELUAT CUMVA CRITIC ADAUGAND UNELE MICI OBSERVATII PERSONALE. O sa iau legatura cu dansul urgent.

Entropy, the Indus Script, and Language:
A Reply to R. Sproat

Rajesh P. N. RaoNisha YadavMayank N. VahiaHrishikesh Joglekar,

R. Adhikari, and Iravatham Mahadevan

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~rao/IndusCompLing.html

Figure 1: (a) Examples of the Indus script. Three square stamp seals, each with an Indus text at the top. Last image: three rectangular seals and three miniature tablets with inscriptions (image credit: J. M. Kenoyer / Harappa.com).                                              (b) Block entropy scaling of the Indus script compared to natural languages and other sequences. Symbols were signs for the Indus script, bases for DNA, amino acids for proteins, change in pitch for music, characters for English, words for English, Tagalog and Fortran, symbols in abugida (alphasyllabic) scripts for Tamil and Sanskrit, and symbols in the cuneiform script for Sumerian (see [ Rao et al. 2009a, Rao2010a] for details). The values for music are from [ Schmitt and Herzel1997]. To compare sequences over different alphabet sizes L, the logarithm in the entropy calculation was taken to base L (417 for Indus, 4 for DNA, etc.) …………………                                                                                                                                                                                             Does the similarity in block entropies with linguistic systems in Figure 1(b) prove that the Indus script is linguistic? We do not believe so. In fact, we contend that barring a full decipherment, one cannot prove either the linguistic or nonlinguistic thesis, unlike Sproat and colleagues who have previously claimed to have “proof” for the nonlinguistic hypothesis [ Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004,pages 34 & 37],[Farmer2005]. What we do claim, as we state in our Science paper and as explained in more detail below, is that results such as the similarity in entropy in Figure 1(b) increase the evidence for the linguistic hypothesis, given other language-like properties of the Indus script.

6  Countless Non-Linguistic Sign Systems?

<< Sproat and colleagues have stated that the properties observed in the Indus script are also seen in “countless non-linguistic sign systems” [ Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004,page 21]. Let us consider some of these nonlinguistic systems [ Sproat2010, Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel2004]. Medieval European heraldry, Boy Scout merit badges, and airport/highway signs are not linear juxtapositions of symbols that can be up to 17 symbols long, as we find in the case of the Indus script, nor do they exhibit a confluence of script-like properties as enumerated above. We invite the reader to compare examples of heraldry [Parker1894], Boy Scout badges [ Boy Scouts of America2010], and airport/highway signs with the Indus script sequences in Figure 1(a) and judge for themselves whether such a comparison bears merit.                                         Another nonlinguistic system mentioned in [ Sproat2010] is the Vinča sign system, which refers to the markings on pottery and other artifacts from the Vinča culture of southeastern Europe of ca. 6000-4000 BCE. Sproat believes there is order in the Vinča system and states that we “mis-cite” Winn. To set the record straight, here is what Winn has to say in his article in a section on Sign Groups [ Winn1990,page269]:        “Neither the order nor the direction of the signs in these (sign) groups is generally determinable: judging by the frequent lack of arrangement, precision in the order probably was unimportant…Miniature vessels also possess sign-like clusters (Figure 12.2j), which are characteristically disarranged.”

This contradicts [ Sproat2010] and suggests that the Vinča system, if it indeed lacks precision in the order of signs, would be closer to the maximum entropy (Max Ent) range than to the linguistic scripts in Figure 1(b). The actual amount of lack of precision unfortunately cannot be quantified in entropic terms because a large enough data set of Vinča sequences does not exist. Sproat also draws attention to the carvings of deities on Mesopotamian boundary stones known as kudurrus. He declares that our statement regarding kudurru deity sequences obeying rigid rules of ordering compared to linguistic scripts is “clearly false.” >>

Entropy, the Indus Script, and Language: A Reply to R. Sproat: RPN Rao et al

://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.lang/1b6ShGAx6WI%5B1-25%5D

Filme cu teme in relatie cu Vechea Europa, Vinca si Tartaria http://cyberspaceandtime.com/vn7PUwMKH3k.video+related

************************************************************

Extras din articolul lui Richard Sproat caruia ii raspunde R. Rao,

Ancient Symbols, Computational Linguistics, and the Reviewing Practices of the General
Science Journals Richard Sproat∗ Center for Spoken Language
Understanding  https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/coli_a_00011

<< 1. Introduction
Few archaeological finds are as evocative as artifacts inscribed with symbols. Whenever
an archaeologist finds a potsherd or a seal impression that seems to have symbols
scratched or impressed on the surface, it is natural to want to “read” the symbols. And
if the symbols come from an undeciphered or previously unknown symbol system it
is common to ask what language the symbols supposedly represent and whether the
system can be deciphered.
Of course the first question that really should be asked is whether the symbols are
in fact writing. A writing system, as linguists usually define it, is a symbol system that is used to represent language. Familiar examples are alphabets such as the Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, or Hangul alphabets, alphasyllabaries such as Devanagari or Tamil, syllabaries such as Cherokee or Kana, and morphosyllabic systems like Chinese characters. But symbol systems that do not encode language abound: European heraldry, mathematical notation, labanotation (used to represent dance), and Boy Scout merit badges are all examples of symbol systems that represent things, but do not function as part of a system that represents language.
Whether an unknown system is writing or not is a difficult question to answer.
It can only be answered definitively in the affirmative if one can develop a verifiable
decipherment into some language or languages. Statistical techniques have been used in decipherment for years, but these have always been used under the assumption that the system one is dealing with is writing, and the techniques are used to uncover patterns or regularities that might aid in the decipherment. Patterns of symbol distribution might suggest that a symbol system is not linguistic: For example, odd repetition patterns might make it seem that a symbol system is unlikely to be writing. But until recently nobody had argued that statistical techniques could be used to determine that a system is linguistic.1
It was therefore quite a surprise when, in April 2009, there appeared in Science
a short article by Rajesh Rao of the University of Washington and colleagues at two
research institutes in India that purported to provide such a measure (Rao et al. 2009a).
Rao et al.’s claim, which we will describe in more detail in the next section, was that  one could use conditional entropy as evidence that the famous symbol system of the third millenium BCE Indus Valley civilization was most probably writing, and not some other kind of system.
That the Indus symbols were writing is hardly a novel claim. Indeed, ever since the
first seal impression was found at Harappa (1872–1873 CE), it has been the standard
assumption that the symbols were part of a writing system and that the Indus Valley
civilization was literate. Over the years there have been literally hundreds of claims
of decipherment, the most well-known of these being the work of Asko Parpola and
colleagues over the last four decades (Parpola 1994). Parpola, who argues that the Indus
Valley people spoke an early form of Dravidian, has produced interpretations of a small
set of symbols, but nothing that can be characterized as a decipherment.
The first serious arguments against the idea that the Indus symbols were part of
a writing system were presented in work that Steve Farmer, Michael Witzel, and I
published in Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004), which reviews extensive support for that
view from archaeological evidence and comparisons with other ancient symbol systems.
Although our arguments were certainly not universally acknowledged—least of all
among people who had spent most of their careers trying to decipher the symbols—
they have been accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, and established a viable
alternative view to the traditional view of these symbols. It was against this backdrop
that the Rao et al. (2009a) paper appeared.
Taken at face value, Rao et al.’s (2009a) paper would appear to have reestablished
the traditional view of the Indus symbols as the correct one, and indeed that is how the
paper was received by many who read it. A number of articles appeared in the popular
science press, with Wired declaring “Artificial Intelligence Cracks Ancient Mystery”
(Keim 2009). The Indian press had a field day; they had studiously ignored the evidence
reported in our paper, presumably because it led to the unpalatable conclusion that
India’s earliest civilization was illiterate. But Rao et al.’s paper, which appeared to
demonstrate the opposite, was widely reported.
The work has also apparently attracted attention beyond the popular science press
and those with some sort of axe to grind on the Indus Valley issue, for in March 2010
there appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, a paper that used similar techniques to Rao et al.’s (2009a) in order to argue that ancient Pictish symbols, which are found inscribed on about 300 standing stones in Scotland, are in fact a previously unrecognized ancient writing system (Lee, Jonathan, and Ziman 2010). A trend, it seems, has been established: We now have a set of statistical techniques that can distinguish among ancient symbol systems and tell you which ones were writing and which ones were not.
The only problem is that these techniques are in fact useless for this purpose, and
for reasons that are rather trivial and easy to demonstrate. The remainder of this article
will be devoted to two points. First, in Section 2, I review the techniques from the Rao
et al. (2009a) and Lee, Jonathan, and Ziman (2010) papers, and show why they don’t
work. The demonstration will seem rather obvious to any reader of this journal. And
this in turn brings us to the second point: How is it that papers that are so trivially and
demonstrably wrong get published in journals such as Science or the Proceedings of the
Royal Society? Both papers relate to statistical language modeling, which is surely one
of the core techniques in computational linguistics, yet (apparently) no computational
linguists were asked to review these papers. Would a paper that made some blatantly
wrong claim about genetics be published in such venues? What does this say about our
field and its standing in the world? And what can we do about that? Those questions
are the topic of Section 3. …………………………………………………….

major types of nonlinguistic systems are those that do not exhibit much sequential structure (‘Type 1’ systems) and those that follow rigid sequential order (‘Type 2’ systems). For example, the sequential order of signs in Vinca inscriptions appears to have been unimportant. On the other hand, the sequences of deity signs in Near Eastern inscriptions found on boundary stones (kudurrus) typically follow a rigid order that is thought to reflect the hierarchical ordering of the deities. (Rao et al. 2009a, page 1165)

On the face of it, it is not too surprising, given these descriptions, that the Type 1 system
shows rapid growth in the conditional entropy, whereas Type 2 stays close to zero. The
problem is that there is little evidence that either of these types accurately characterized
any ancient symbol system. So for example, the Vinca symbols of Old Europe were ˇ
certainly not random in their distribution according to the most authoritative source on the topic (Winn 1981).2 Indeed, Gimbutas (1989) and Haarmann (1996) even proposed that they represented a pre-Sumerian European script; although that is highly unlikely, it is also unlikely they would have proposed the idea in the first place if the distribution of symbols seemed random. Similarly, it is apparently not the case that the deity symbols in kudurrus were arranged in a rigid order (see subsequent discussion): Clearly it is not only computational linguists who should be bothered by the claims of this paper. In fact, as one learns only if one reads the supplementary material for the paper, the data for Type 1 and Type 2 were artificially generated from a rigid model (Type 2) and a random and equiprobable model (Type 1).
Various on-line discussions, starting with Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2009), criticized Rao et al. (2009a) for their use of artificial data.3 So, in subsequent discussion,
including a recently published paper (Rao 2010) that largely rehashes the issues of
both the Science paper and another paper in PNAS (Rao et al. 2009b),4 Rao backs off
from these claims and talks about the Type 1 and Type 2 curves as the limits of the
distribution. The take-home message appears to be that in principle symbol systems
could vary as widely as being completely rigid or completely random and equiprobable.
It is therefore surprising, the story goes, that the Indus symbols seem to fall right in
that narrow band that includes unequivocal writing systems. The problem with this
argument is that it is highly unlikely that there were ever any functional symbol systems that had either of these properties, and one can argue this point on basic information theoretic grounds. A symbol system that was completely rigid—had an entropy
of 0—would convey no information whatsoever.

2 Rao et al. (2009a) mis-cite Winn to claim that the Vinca sequences were random >>

I will send an e-mail to Stephen R. Duren :

VINCA-TURDAS PROTO-WRITING TARTARIA TABLETS admissions@usf.edu   mmock@mail.usf.edu.  help@usf.  usf-grad@grad.usf.edu estrom@usf.edu

Rau Eugen eugenrau@gmail.com

I found in Guide The History of Proto-Writing, Indus Script, and the Minoan Writing Systems
some of your conclusions.
Maybe you know or not, I made an extensive research on Vinca proto-writing and Tartaria tablets issues.
What really puzzled me, is the fact that those conclusions are allmost superposing mines.
I found no available explanation.nor I found your detailed research regarding tartaria tablets.
But what is annoyng me is the fact that some (few) lines there, seem to be in my own topic or personal characteristics.For exemple i am sustaining from 2007 (12years) that upper half of Tartaria round tablet could contain true writing, (more than sylables, even letters /archaic greek-ones)
Probably you are not the autor or you took some ideas not beeing aware, or with good intentions from Wikipedia where I posted also my conclusions.
( my wondering. thoughts in romanian, are  at https://wordpress.com/post/tartariatablets.com/2272  .I will translate tomorow romanian text in english)
The problem is that I have tens of my work pages. there I was explaining in detail, comparing sign by sign different writing sistems with Tartaria tablet’s signs.
Critics and corrections on others scientists sumerian interpretations (A.A.Vaiman, Rumen Kolev, etc.), another on totaly unsatisfying results of mr.Marco Merlini research, my Aegean-writing reading attempt, and many many others.
You are a great scientist, sure you sustain others wich work hard in this messy field of undeciphered ancient writings.
In the same time I am convinced you treat with fair-play scientific matters.
Probably also theres a real possibility, as a top neuro-scientists, you are smart enough that some-how you supposed or even realised (some sparks clicks in your mind, no matter what kind of thought processus).
You must understand that I have HARD EVIDENCES to sustain your and mine asertions.Like sombody sustaining a new unknown atomic particle and by the other side, other showing and proving that it exist in reality.
So if I was not annoyed or disturbed you (hope so), please enlight me.
I thank you much in advance.
My research/work pages are at :                                                             tartariatablets.com    tartariatablets.wordpress.com,
eng. Eugen Rau Timisoara Romania Str.Motilor nr. 3 mob. +4026620694

Proto Indo-European ed/h1ed:”eat”

July 25, 2019

From http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

 Eta/HEta-D >>>> ED.EDE/HED,HEDE ?

From The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the
Proto-Indo-European World                                         https://smerdaleos.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ie-mallory-adams.pdf

<< In some instances we will find cognate sets that would appear to agree
perfectly, almost too perfectly, to be regarded as evidence for the reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-European word. This situation is likely to arise when, for
example, we Wnd a widely attested noun that has been clearly formed from a
well-attested verb by processes active in most of the Indo-European groups.
For example, Grk edanon, Hit adanna-, and Skt a´danam could all be derived
from a PIE *h1edonom ‘food’, but as all these words are fairly banal extensions
of the widespread PIE root *h1ed- ‘eat’ (hence the word literally indicates a
noun ‘eats’) we may be dealing with independent creations of a noun from an
inherited verbal form.>>

https://ro.bab.la/dictionar/engleza-romana/eats                                                         eats {substantiv}                                                                                                                         RO preparate                                                                                                                                        to eat {vb.}                                                                                                                                            ROa mânca a consuma a rumega a roade a păpa a ospăta a omeni a se înfrupta a îmbuca a hrăni a nutri a hali

https://latin.cactus2000.de/showverb.en.php?verb=edere                                                          

Infinitive present edere Imperative present ede / edēs
edite / edeste

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language

Present Imperative Active Passive
2nd. Sing. *ede *edezo
2nd. Plur. *edete

=============================================================

https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/verb/2886/                                                             dedo, dedis, dedere C, dedidi, deditumVerb

Translations
  1. to give up/in
  2. to surrender
  3. to abandon/consign/devote
  4. to yield
  5. An Introduction to Romance Linguistics, Its Schools and Scholars
    Iorgu Iordan, ‎John Orr – 1970 – ‎Linguistic geography

    431 f., derived it rightly from Slavonic dedu, ‘ old man *, ‘ grandfather ‘,

Vechea scriere Europeana

July 21, 2019

Vechea Scriere Europeana (Old European Script/ OES) este o denominare pentru semnificatiile rezultate din analiza intreagii biblioteci de semne gasite pe artefactele culturii Danubiene. Altfel se presupune ca este o forma incipienta si precursoare a scrisului. Deci proto-scriere. Din pacate nici pentru existenta unei proto-scrieri nu s-a facut dovada certa.                                                                                                                          Denumirea de “scriere” este total improprie, definitia scrisului fiind aceea prin care o limba sau cuvintele pot fi reproduse prin semne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing

<< Writing is a medium of human communication that represents language with signs and symbols. For languages that utilize a writing system, inscriptions can complement spoken language by creating a durable version of speech that can be stored for future reference or transmitted across distance. Writing, in other words, is not a language, but a tool used to make languages readable. Within a language system, writing relies on many of the same structures as speech, such as vocabularygrammar, and semantics, with the added dependency of a system of signs or symbols. The result of writing is called text, and the recipient of text is called a reader.>>

Denumirea  OES are ca prima si principala exemplificare   “semnele culturii Vinca”.            Atentie, indiferent de clasificare, “cultura Vinca” ori “Vinca-Turdas” ori “Turdas” (si inca si altele apropiate in timp), semnele acestor culturi intra in OES.                                               Dar trebuie facuta o delimitare clara:

  • aceste semne ale OES, se gasesc pe artefacte ale culturii Vinca pe o mare arie, (din Serbia pana in Romania) si pot fi exemplificate cu artefactele gasite de Zsofia Torma.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols                                                       << The Vinča symbols, sometimes known as the Danube scriptVinča signsVinča scriptVinča–Turdaș scriptOld European script, etc., are a set of symbols found upon Neolithic era (6th to 5th millennia BC) artifacts from the Vinča culture of Central Europe and Southeastern Europe.[1] Most historians agree that those symbols are not a writing system, but some kind of private symbols or ornaments. A minority of historians claim that this is the earliest known writing system that has influenced other early writing systems.>>
  • Fotografia, din https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/do-tartaria-tablets-contain-evidence-earliest-known-writing-system-002103
  • In mod gresit s-a facut asocierea (mai mult in trecut si mai recent mai retinut) tablitelor de la Tartaria cu cultura Vinca si OES, apoi implicit cu o varsta foarte veche. Dupa cat retin au fost si mai sant inca doar doi cercetatori care sustin acest lucru, Dl. Prof. Gheorghe Lazarovici si cercetatorul italian Dr. Marco Merlini.             ========================================                                                           Exista un numar de lucrari in care s-a facut inventarul semnelor si s-a analizat OES, enumerand aici doar cativa autori: Marija Gimbutas, Harald Haarman, Shan Winn, Marco Merlini & Gheorghe Lazarovici si altii 
  • Griffen, Toby ………….
  • Dupa cunostinta mea, cea mai valoroasa si reprezentativa lucrare in care se analizeaza OES este:
  • The Number System of the Old European Script                                       Eric Lewin Altschuler, M.D., Ph.D. ,  Nicholas Christenfeld, Ph.D. https://arxiv.org/html/math/0309157v1

  • In aceasta lucrare se reliefeaza existenta unui sistem de numeratie incipient, (data fiind prezenta la baza vaselor a unor semne care conduc clar la numeratie), dar cu ale carui semne posibil se indica si natura ori cantitatile unor produse. Utilizarii semnelor in numeratie si scopuri economice in general i se dau mult mai multe sanse decat folosirea lor in scopuri religioase. Aceasta cel putin pentru semnele tip raboj/ strokes, pentru ca nu este teoretic exclusa folosirea altor semne de alt tip, in scopuri religioase gasite cu precadere pe statuete si obiecte decorative.
  • MAI MULT DECAT ORICE, UTILIZAREA SISTEMATICA PE O ARIE LARGA SI PE PARCURSUL A SUTE DE ANI  A UNUI SET RELATIV RESTRANS DE SEMNE NU A FOST FACUTA CA RELAXARE CI A FOLOSIT CU SIGURANTA UNUI SCOP PRACTIC.
  • ===========  extrase din lucrarea de mai sus ===========
  • << Writing, one of the most important human innovations, seems to have arisen independently only a few times (Robinson 1995).
  • Thus, it came as somewhat of a surprise when in 1875 excavations led by Z. Torma at Tordos in the gold and silver rich regions of Transylvania (Romania) yielded inscribed objects (Torma 1889).�� Excavations at Vinca, 120 km southwest of Tordos, yielded another cache of inscribed objects (Vas�c 1910).�� Initially it was thought that this Vinca-Tordos script had diffused from the Near East (Popovic 1965).� However, in more recent work C-14 dating shows that the Transylvanian objects are more than a thousand years older than the Uruk tablets (c. 4000 BC) (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; and refs. therein).� Also, examination of a more extensive corpus of approximately 940 inscribed objects from more than twenty cities over hundreds of square kilometers compiled in pioneering work by S.M.M. Winn (1981), including previously unpublished objects, shows that the Old European Script (OES) (Gimbutas 1991) has little similarity with Near Eastern writing.� These findings have led to the view that the OES probably arose independently (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Renfrew 1969).
  • The OES has not been deciphered.� It is also not known for what the script was used, but the prevailing theory (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Haarmann 1996) is that it was used for religious purposes.� Here we show that nearly one-third of the inscribed pottery objects bear numerical inscriptions, and we suggest that the script may have been used for economic purposes.� For the incised score marks on the bottom of pots in particular, we greatly doubt that any religious purpose was intended.
  • The prevalence of score marks in the OES and their potential for helping to understand the OES has not been appreciated, though early work (Winn 1981, pp. 158, 164) actually suggested that tally marks could represent numbers.
  • Also common is the �comb� motif (Table 1) with three to eight teeth�33 inscriptions.� As the comb motif is used with so many different numbers of teeth and as the comb inscriptions seem to be used in a similar manner, and are found in similar places on pottery as the score mark inscriptions, we think these signs also denote numbers. We translate a comb with n (3 ≤ n ≤ 8) teeth as 10+n.� Other possibilities are the numbers or n+1 (n teeth plus the horizontal stroke), but these seem unlikely ………
  • For what was the OES used? The script seems too widespread and stereotyped to be mere �graffiti� or meaningless �doodling� (Winn 1981). The idea that the signs represent craftsmen�s or owners� marks is possible, but identifiers seems to be ruled out by the relative lack of care used in making many of the inscriptions, and the fact that there simply are not enough common signs for a script in use at tens of sites for hundreds of years (Winn 1981).� It is possible that the inscriptions denote the volume of the container.� However, even though all pottery has not been available to inspect (Winn 1981), there seems to be no obvious correlation between the size of a pot and the number of score marks on it.� For example, there are pots with more score marks with larger bases then those with less score marks.� As well, the gradations of sizes of pots would then seem overly fine.�

The most common theory is that the OES served a religious purpose (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Haarmann 1996).�� For a number of reasons we do not ascribe to this belief: (1) Theinscriptions do not show the careful workmanship one might expect on religious objects.� Indeed, the inscriptions are not even as well-done as even the objects on which they are inscribed.� (2) As twenty-eight percent of the inscriptions are on the bottom of a pot, intuitively this seems to us a most unlikely and inglorious locus to honor a deity! To test this theory we examined the bottoms of ten modern pots from each of five modern locations�one home, one office/work location, one store, two houses of worship.� We did not find any pots or containers with religious inscriptions on their bottom.� (Some containers had more than one inscription on their bottoms.)� The most common markings on the base of a pot was the price, usually in the form of a barcode (fifteen container bottoms).� Thirteen bottoms indicated the place of manufacture of the container.

The OES may have been used for economic purposes, and the numbers indicate the value or price of what is in the pot.� An economic use for the OES is consistent with the wide distribution of inscribed objects and the fact that the Old European culture was material rich and seemed to be a mercantile one (Winn 1981; Chapman 1981).� Also, while the Old European culture is thought to have had a rich mythology and religious nature, the OES need not necessarily reflect this. Indeed, the Proto-Sumerian, Proto-Elamite, Minoan and Mycenean Greek cultures were rich in mythology and religiosity, but their scripts�Proto-Sumerian (NissonDamerow & Englund 1993), Proto-Elamite (Damerow & Englund 1989), Linear A (Chadwick 1987), and Linear B (Chadwick 1987)�are completely, or almost completely languages of accounting.� Interestingly, the Old European culture is contemporaneous with societies in the Near East that used tokens and inscribed bullae for accounting purposes (Schmandt-Besserat1992).� The large size of the Vinca agglomerations would have called for and required professional specialization, and thus exchange and redistribution (Chapman 1981; Winn 1981).� However, the use of number signs in the OES in objects thus far uncovered is not systematic as in the other scripts mentioned above.� Further study and finds may support or refute the notion the use of the OES for economic purposes.

In conclusion we find (1) that many signs in the OES seem to represent a number system (2) with 10 apparently an important base or unit.� (3) Scratched score marks on the bottom of a pot, in particular, and other OES signs convey no religious meaning, and (4) possibly could have had some economic purpose. (5) The delineation of the number signs of the Old European Script should facilitate further understanding of the rest of the script and of the Old European culture, especially as new archaeologic findings emerge. (6) The beauty and power of numbers wrought by our ancestors� hand so long ago speaks to us today with great clarity. >>

Nota Semnul +++++ de pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria,  http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

ar putea avea aceptia de 15 sau 5?

*********************   ATENTIE   ***********************

Este o diferenta ca de la cer la pamant intre semnele OES si cele de pe tablita de la Tartaria. Semnele de pe tablita de la Gradesnita si Dispilio, precum si multe altele (as putea spune aproape tot restul gasite in aria Civ. Vinca) apartin OES.

Prin natura si structura lor, DAR MAI ALES PRIN MAREA ASEMANARE A SEMNELOR CU ACELE FOLOSITE MULT ULTERIOR IN SILABARE SI ALFABETE , semnele de pe tablitele de la Tartaria indica o varsta mult mai recenta.                                                                                           Nota                                                                                                                                            Acest aspect nu este remarcat si nu este de domeniul unei evidente strigatoare la cer/batatoare la ochi pentru un cititor obisnuit. Adica neinitiat relativ la lungul parcurs al aparitiei, apoi al evolutiei scrisului sau necunoscand decat succint larga biblioteca de semne folosite in lume pe parcursul a multor milenii si pe o arie extrem de larga.

!! OES a avut un inceput de tip cuneiform (unii zic de tip digital, digitalizat) si nu unul pictografic ca la sumerieni.                                                                                                         Teoretic se putea ajunge la un set de semne care sa semnifice sunete=litere. cred ca aceasta presupune o mare capacitate intelectuala de analiza si sinteza simultan.                Insa nu stiu exact de ce, parcursul pictograme>ideograme>silabe,litere a fost cumva mai avantajos in descoperirea scrierii propriu-zise (silabar, alfabetica).                                Pe acest parcurs au mers scrierile sumeriana, egipteana si ugaritica, toti acestia incepand la un moment dat sa dea semnelor un corespondent fonetic.                                    Din pacate Civilizatia danubiana/OES poate avand de parcurs doar zeci/sute de ani nu a reusit sa finalizeze acest lucru, ca mai apoi sa se transforme, deplaseze si in final sa dispara.

Curios este ca

– pe de o parte aproape in totalitate semnele de pe tablitele de la Tartaria se regasesc intr-o forma schitata printre semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme

-pe de alta parte, (cumva in sens invers) oricare semn din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme se poate regasi in semnele folosite in aceste scrieri de tip silabar sau alfabetice ulterioare.

Aceasta arata in mod indubitabil o filiatie,                                                                                       – intre proto-scrierea sumeriana (ca origine) si toate aceste scrieri alfabetice ulterioare,   v. G.Papakitsos si I.Kenanidis                                                                                         – ori la mai distanta si (foarte putin evidenta doar presupusa) filiatia OES (ca origine) cu toate aceste ulterioare enumerate mai sus (eventual incluzand-o intre ele si pe proto-scrierea sumeriana)

CEA MAI BUNA DEMONSTRATIE (si singura existenta) a unei LEGATURI SI CHIAR FILIATII INTRE ACESTE SCRIERI AVAND CA SUPORT DEMONSTRATIV TABLITELE DE LA TARTARIA,                                                                                                                                           AM FACUT-O EU PRIN INCERCARILE MELE DE INTERPRETARE PRIN PRISMA MAI MULTOR SISTEME DE SCRIERE (sumeriana proto-cuneiforma, Linear A/B, dar si altele cum ar fi cea paleo-canaanita/paleo ebraica si kazara.                                                                 ( unde am facut apropierea intre semnele de pe tablite si semnele din aceste scrieri)

月氏 Yuèzhī, literally “MOON CLAN”/ 20-th of June, 2019, 4.45 a.m.

June 23, 2019

 

**************   A T T E N T I O N !   ****************                                                                     1.PRESENT PAGE IS CONSTITUTED AS A WORKING HYPOTHESIS, (IT IS TRUE BEEING SUPPORTED BY MANY REAL FACTS ).                                                                                         2.AN AVERAGE-LEVEL READER, UNINITIATED IN WORLD WRITING DEVELOPEMENT WILL HAVE DIFFICULTIES REGARDING WORLD SIGN LIBRARY, SO I RECOMMEND TO TAKE A LOOK AT OMNIGLOT.COM                                                                                          *********************************************

…..if my 2 days before post was entitled “AN CURIOUS-DUBIOUS ENTERTAINMENT” now I am not sure wich be the title.  There I reffered to an inscription found  in Sannicolau-Mare city, in the west of Romania wich has signs similar those on Tartaria tablets (at least regarding that round-one).                                                                                                             Sannicolau Mare map, http://www.maplandia.com/romania/timis/timisoara/accommodation/sannicolau-mare/

                                                                                                                        In fact, at Sannicolau-Mare were found a hoard of inscriptions, on different artefacts. For all some scientists expressed their opinions:                                                             VEKONY, András; Róna-Tas /Hungary,                                                                                          Eugene HELIMSKY/ Hamburg and                                                                                                   José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)                                                       This article is reffering to another inscription found also there,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                THE BUYLA INSCRIPTION.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós (preliminary communication) Eugene Helimski (Hamburg) Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5 (2000) Kraków 2000 http://www.kroraina.com/hungar/helimski.htm

1.1. The famous treasure of Nagy-Szentmiklós was found exactly two hundred years ago, in 1799. It consists of 23 gold bowls, dishes, jars, and cups, and belongs now to the exposition of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. It was found in Banat, near the village of Nagy-Szentmiklós (today Sînnicolau Mare, to the north-west of Temesvár-Timişoara). The detailed description of the treasure and the history of studies is given in László, Rácz 1983; see also an ample bibliography compiled by Mária Ivanics (in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995: 59-77).

There are no direct indications for dating and attribution of the objects. Most estimates place them in the period between the 5th and the 10th centuries, the first half of the 9thcentury being the most wide-spread (and still, rather likely then proven) dating, see Róna-Tas 1990: 9; in his more recent publication András Róna-Tas (1997: 110) gives however preference to the second half of the 8th century . Therefore the treasure is usually referred to as “Avar” or “Late Avar”, sometimes also as “Protobulgarian” (e.g. Mavrodinov 1943 as well as later literature from Bulgaria). This, however, does not necessarily characterise its provenance: as far as analogues to goldsmiths’ work, vessel forms, pictorial representations, and ornamental motives are concerned, references has been made to the Carpathian basin and to the entire Eurasian steppe zone, to Byzantium and to Southern Europe, to the Caucasus and to Iran.

1.2. The objects belonging to this treasure have inscriptions of three kinds which received recently a detailed palaeographic analysis in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995. An inscription in Greek (the reading of which remains non-unproblematic, see Vékony 1973) is repeated twice on two paired bowls. The famous “Buyla inscription” (Inscr. 17 on buckled bowl [Schnallenschale] XXI) is written also with Greek letters, but in a non-Greek language.13 objects have short inscriptions written with an unknown script of the “runiform” type.

It has been confirmed many times and by various study methods that the Nagy-Szentmiklós inscriptions differ not only in language and script, but also were not made by the same hand and therefore may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops – as well as the gold objects themselves. “ ……………………………………………………………………….

However, this circumstance could not be taken into consideration in the numerous attempts to decipher the text: the Turkic languages do not know an ending like –Vgi in systematic grammatical use.

It is Tungus-Manchurian that fits this demand: here one of the most frequent, wide-spread and archaic verbal forms of 3Sg. is reconstructed as *-ra-gī (with harmonic variants like *-re-gī and with variants determined partly by the assimilation of the initial consonants and partly by the conjugation class like *da-gī,                               …………………………………

3. It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work. The entire philological experience proves, however, that assumptions of that kind (and they occur, regretfully, too frequently) signalise only the inadequacy of interpretations – not of the texts in question. ============================                                                                                                  Despite I read at least one of articles wich is reffering to this inscription, only yestarday I had a declic, some facts catched my attention, as those two:                                                          FIRST :                                                                                                                                                     We have in Buyla inscription the word:                                                                              “4.3.3. ΗΤΖΙΓΗ.

The participial aorist of TM *iče– ‘to see, to observe’ should be probably reconstructed as *eregī or (if the stem belonged to the conjugation classes II or III, see Benzing 1955: 123-128) resp. *ičesegī or *ičedegī. However, the consonantal stem in Even – and Orok it-, as well as the variation of vowels in the second syllable in the derivatives of other TM languages (cf. Evenki ulī– ‘to check, to investigate’, Nanai uči– ‘to show’, Solon isȫ– ‘to appear’, see TMS 2: 334-335)/”

That ΗΤΖΙΓΗ sounded me as hell close to  IZIGI, ICIGI, YAZIGI !                              2-ND:

I found in the papers reffering to this inscription, that in tungusik linguistic family, more precise in OROK language, there is a grammar structure (used as suffixe, but also as a word) -DDoo.                                                                                                                                          Exactly as we have on Tartaria round tablet !   cum avem pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria !          (we have DDoo upon canaanite and greek alphabets)

From  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/gengo1939/1956/30/1956_30_77/_pdf                            by J IKEGAMI

INFLECTION OF OROK  The substantive endings are as follows.
-ba•san object which is subjected to motion .•t
-la•sa place, with some extension in space or time, where motion
occurs or a state exists.•t
-ndoo•sa co-agent.•t
-ddoo•s’as (something)
designated for someone.’•t                                                                    …the simple designative case-ending -ddoo can appear as a word. 

From  https://www.academia.edu/16685926/Manchu_Etymological_Dictionary_-_HANDOUT    urchen dedu-           to sleep

If using khazar alphabet, wi’ll have DDoo=”jjmb”? “jjmm=iimm“?

From https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

Din khazarian culture and its inheritors – Jstor   https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23682777  by A ZAJĄCZKOWSKI –

“umma (iimm‘at) “congrégation, corn munity of  .

 

ATTENTION,                                                                                                                                     THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY WE CAN READ THE TABLET USING KHAZAR ALPHABET OR ARCHAIC GREEK ALPHABET (last used mainly on S-Mare inscriptions)

BUT ANYBODY IS REALISING (beeing a question of logic and common-sense) CANNOT BE USED BOTH IN THE SAME TIME  !                                                                                                     ======================

In the before posting I’ve found in the signs  using khazar alphabet, letters  CS(Ci) and J(i).In this case, reading from R>L, we have ICsI (ICI) and from L>R  “CsI ” .( see above in Even,   , and in TM(tarim-manciurian?) *iče :”to see, observe“)         Note.                                                                                                                                                        It is not the time to rush, aserting that in this portion the writing is L>R or R>L, as long as the result is quite the same (ICI visa Ci), nor regarding the reading ; nobody is casing me !

From folowing paper,

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION*

                                                                                                                                                                << VIIicigi(ī-,y-,ī)icigii icä-rä.gii-Ø{see-PRT.AOR-3SG}iči-y.i < *iči-g-i{drink-DER-3SG.POSS}[izafet construction? >>

exactly the denomination component of the tribes   ičigi=  ICIGI, IZIGI, YAZIGI.

From https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-zhi_classifier.htm      English translations : classifier, single, alone, odd number

之 (of) , 支 (to support) ,  (branch) 汁 (juice) , 知 (to know) , 织 (to weave)

From (PDF) Origin of Yuezhi Tribe | Adesh Gurjar – Academia.edu   https://www.academia.edu/31033336/Origin_of_Yuezhi_Tribe                                               ” In Chinese , Tocharians were mentioned are Yuechi, which means Moon –Tribe

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                                 ” Etymology From Mandarin 月氏 (Yuèzhī, literally Moon Clan) or 月支 (Yuèzhī, literally Moon Branch).                                                                                                         Yuezhi pl (plural only)                                                                                                                        1.An ancient Indo-European people who originally settled in the arid grasslands of the eastern Tarim Basin area, in what is today Xinjiang and western Gansu, in China, before migrating to TransoxianaBactria and then northern South Asia, where one branch of the Yuezhi founded the Kushan Empire.                                                            Synonyms Rouzhi ”

Map, from https://alchetron.com/Yuezhi

————————————————————

Then would be determined exactly the role and meaning of the structure  -DDoo.           

From http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

                                                                                                                             From folowing paper,                                                                                                                   <<Language   Ending      Description                    Reference                                                                      Orok     ddoo–    + POSS.REF.Partitive    Petrova (1967: 51–52) >>

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION* https://www.academia.edu/14286788/Tungusic_Historical_Linguistics_and_the_Buyla_a.k.a._Nagyszentmikl%C3%B3s_Inscription

                                                                                                                                                                  “1. Introductory remarks
In a series of articles, the late Eugene Helimski (2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004)argued that an aberrant form of Tungusic could have entered the Carpathian basin during the Avar period,the only evidence of which is preserved in the Buyla(or Boyla/Boila) inscription and a handful of words found in the classical sources on the Avars. Moreover, it is possible to infer from the wording of the author that the Avar confederation could have been constituted, among many other un-known nations, by a small contingent of Tungusic individuals (Helimski 2000b:
53 fn. 12). It was the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription that led him to
this conclusion.Tungusic is one of the many indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of the Asian continent, its current habitat covering most of Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.Speakers of the Northern Tungusic languages can be found in Central and Northeastern China, whereas the bulk of the Southern Tungusic speakers concentrates in the Amurian region and the Northernmost part of the Sakhalin Island.
Manchuric speakers aside, about which we know a great deal thanks to Chinese
sources, the Siberian Tungusic were first reported at the very beginning of the17
th century. The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,
with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)

The Avar-Tungusic theory is indeed a bold proposal. If it turns out that
Helimski is right, then the Buyla inscription would instantly become the oldest linguistic monument in any Tungusic language, washing away even the earliest Jurchen records. In spite of the apparent relevance of such a statement, Helimski’s proposal was passed over in silence in the Tungusic specialist literature. No less surprising is to nd out that critics from other areas disregard the Tungusic na-ture of the Buyla inscription without discussing its substance. They are usually
Turcologists believing that the only possible reading of the inscription has to be
Turkic. The most explicit statement was made by Erdal: “[…] the hypothesis is,
however, arrived at by some arbitrary stretching of Tungus data, [it] is far-fetched
 by itself and is therefore rather unlikely” (2007: 79).Erdal did not go into great
detail in order to explain the reader what the “stretch of the Tungus data” involved.Therefore, the general opinion is that the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription is wrong,but no one can explain why that is so.
The main goal of this paper is to provide the reader with an evaluation of
Helimski’s hypothesis based on the Tungusic data. Neither the geopolitical scenario
set up by Helimski (or by any other author for that mater) nor the paleographicalanalysis of the inscription shall be discussed at large in the present contribution.The former issue seemingly depends in its entirety on the linguistic hypothesis thateach of the author endorses.As for the latter, the topic has been approached by specialists much more qualied than the present author (see
i.a. Róna-Tas 2001)

                                                                1.

From the viewpoint of European history, the so-called Asian Avars are traditionally identified as the Ruanruan (402–555). The term Avars refers to the European Avars (567–822), i.e. the Asian Avars that entered Europe in 555 AD (see i.a. Pohl 2002).
The Nagyszentmiklós treasure to which the Buyla inscription belongs (see §2 below)
is associated with the last remnants of the European Avar culture, i.e. the one whichspread over the Carpathian basin during the 8th –9th centuries.                    Good summaries withadditional literature of the two major competing interpretations regarding the ethno-linguistic afinities of the Ruanruan can be found in Golden (1992: 76–79), who presents the traditional position that the Ruanruan were actually a Mongolic language population, and Janhunen (1996: 190), who believes that the linguistic core of the Ruanruan was Turkic. Beckwith (2009: 390–391) points out that “[c]areful study of
the Jou-jan [= Ruanruan] names in the Chinese sources could shed light on the eth-nolinguistic afinities of the Jou-jan; until that is done, speculation on the subject is
 premature.” In the same vein, see Vovin’s remarks (2007: 180, 184–185). Incidentally,
the hypothetical connection between the ethnonyms ruanruan and ju()cen ‘Jurchen
echoed by Helimski (2000b: 137) is most likely false and should be abandoned (for the
etymological intricacies of the term ju()cen, see Janhunen 2004).
 As is custom in recent specialist literature on Tungusic linguistics and in agree-
ment with some of the ideas by Janhunen on phonological transcription (1987, 1996:
xiii–xiv), Helimski’s ‹e› has been replaced with ‹ä›, ‹j› with ‹y›, ‹ʒ & ǯ› and ‹c & č›
merged in ‹j› and ‹c›, respectively, vowel length is written with double-vowels. Other
conventions: Northern Tungusic (= Northwestern: Ewenki, Ewen, Solon, Negidal,
Arman, Udihe), Southern Tungusic (= Amurian Tungusic: Oroch, Nanay, Kilen, Kili,
Ulcha, Orok), with Udihe and Oroch serving as a bridge between one branch and the
other, Manchuric (Early and Late Jurchen, Written Manchu [= WM], Spoken Manchu
and Sibe), Common Tungusic [= CT] (all languages but Manchuric, i.e. NorthernTungusic + Southern Tungusic), and Proto-Tungusic (= Pan-Tungusic = CommonTungusic + Manchuric). “Lit.” stands for “Literary”, and ‹-n› for (lightly) nasalized
nal vowel. The difference between Proto-Tungusic and Pan-Tungusic is that the latter
does not make any claims regarding the (genealogical) inheritance of a given word,
i.e. it may refer to both inherited and borrowed terms (see for instance the presence of
English loanwords across entire linguistic families: they are common, pan-elements, but not proto-elements; the former emphasizes the synchronic distribution, the latter its diachronic depth).It may be worth noting that the Middle Amur region is commonly identified as the most likely Urheimat for the parental language from which all the Tungusic languages descend (see general discussion in Janhunen 1996: 167–172, and also Janhunen 1985, 2012,2013: 27–28; for further details on the Northern Tungusic expansion, see Atknine 1997and, for the larger Altaistic perspective, see Miller 1994). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW THE DEEP FOG IN WICH WERE ENCLOSED TARTARIA TABLETS SEEMS TO BEGIN TO DISPERSE ;                                                                                                                        A SERIES OF UNELUCIDATED ASPECTS AND PARTICULARITIES OF THE WRITING ITSELF SEEMS TO BE CLEARED                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ON THE HONESTITY OF THE FINDER ARCHAEOLOGIST N.VLASSA, MOST HAD NO DOUBT;  IN THE SITUATION THAT TABLETS SEEMED TO COME RATHER FROM THE COSMIC VOID                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
THEIR ORIGIN OR PROVENANCE BY FAR WAS NOT CLEAR AT ALL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                                          SO MY CONCLUSIONS ARE:
                                                                                                                                                               1. The tablets are authentic,genuine and were found by Vlassa an his teamwork.                   It is natural that was puzzled by the writing, he not beeing an epigraphist. What to say about others, highly specialised in the field (assyrologists and others specialised in sumerian proto-writing wich got cathed in the net-eyes of own specialties )                                                                                                                                                                                              2. By far are not so old as innitialy was presumed. Could be made by a member of a migratory population of altaic-mongolic keen.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3. The writer was not mastering well the art of writing:                                                                                          from one’s paper  ” It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work.”                                                                   by the moment i canot conclude that the letters are coming from khazar or archaic greek alphabets.                                                                                                                                                “may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops -”   Anycase not pertained to peoples with great writing heritage, also cultural heritage is another/not the same mater.
4. Beeing relative new, and having provenance from populations wich “weeped” an time span and extreme large area, one could have the explanation the aquisition of so many signs, coming from different time and places.                                                                        World top scientists in the field (A.Falkenstein, Aisic Abramovici, Rumen Kolev si altii) get caught in own nets, and fooled trying attempting readings using sumerian proto-cuneiform signs.
5. It happens that before extended discusions that tablets were used in magic rituals, now we are dealing with exactly the population where shamanism was invented and practiced (and from where through russian language the word shaman come to us)
6. Hope you are realising that there is a connexion (as many scientists stated tens of years before) between  Kushan/ Samara/SAKA/ YUE-ZI (citeste yue-tchi=yue-ci), YAZIGI populations and Dacians  !                                                                                                                                Not to remind you that pecenegs, bulgars cumans and avars were inter-related populations wich hundreds of years almost without interuption, swept Europe coming from Asia

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                               The Yuezhi (Chinese月氏pinyinYuèzhīWade–GilesYüeh4-chih1[ɥê ʈʂɻ̩́]) were an ancient Indo-European[5][6][7][8] people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat by the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏).

The Greater Yuezhi initially migrated northwest into the Ili Valley (on the modern borders of China and Kazakhstan), where they reportedly displaced elements of the Sakas. They were driven from the Ili Valley by the Wusun and migrated southward to Sogdiaand later settled in Bactria, where they then defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The Greater Yuezhi have consequently often been identified with Bactrian peoples mentioned in classical European sources, like the Tókharioi (Greek Τοχάριοι; Sanskrit Tukhāra) and Asii (or Asioi). During the 1st century BC, one of the five major Greater Yuezhi tribes in Bactria, the Kushanas(Chinese貴霜pinyinGuìshuāng), began to subsume the other tribes and neighbouring peoples.

7. Otherwise if talking of mongolian and chinese influence,:

“The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,
with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition
to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)”,                                                               
An interesting hypothesis if the signs :   
 represented by Chinese shining/ SUN (Ri) and MOON (Yue)
Another hypothesis:                                                                                                                              If HD sequence is to be read ICI, *iče :”to see, observe“, would be at hand that on upper half o the round tartaria tablet to have at left “to see, observe” and on the right D D O o /R D o c, the Moon phases.  !!
===========================================
DOCUMENTATION

Далай-лама: Монгольским племенам нужно развивать в себе дух …

savetibet.ru/2008/05/28/mongolia.html

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%B6r%C3%B6k                                                     EtymologyProbably from a Turkic language before the times of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin (at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries).                                        Adjective örök (not comparable) 1.eternal

Yuezhi 月氏, Tokharians                                         http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/yuezhi.html

########################################

Now, even the above demonstration would be tempting, attractive or convincing, there are remaining twoo main hipothesys regarding the tablets origin, both with quite equal chances, every of them having PRO/plus and CONTRA/minus arguments:

“FROM ASIA” MIGRATION

PLUS-es:                                                                                                                                                  – there were such real migrations wich left traces in Romania                                                            – reinforce dacians origin theories advanced by scientists from tens of years beforese regarding asian-related origin.                                                                                          – if related to Kushan/Tocharian people, then were of I.European origin, there is not more the problem of tablets origin or who brought them                                                     – there were found other inscriptions alike, true few but exists. Not anymore “the singleton difficulty/issue”                                                                                                                        – a long series of question marks, aspects and inadvertencies are cleared up with this hipothesys (magic rituals<>shaman? ; how could somebody know so many signs some close to our time)                                                                                                                        – the presence of D-signs exactly where an “secret,hidden message” whas supposed to be and where could have true writing and an clear-concrete message, is explained.

MINUS-es:                                                                                                                                               – consequence ,not so old age for the tablets.                                                                                    – artefacts found close-by indicates another origin, Aegean.Cycladic one.                            – if population was related to avars, tungus (and wonder wich else), that population risk  not to be  Indo-European.                                                                                                                  – if related to Kushan they used another type of writing                                                           – maximal similarity  (as a whole) of the signs with sumerian proto-cuneiform-ones, folowed by Aegean/Cretan/anatolian ones.                                                                                       – signs D not appearing only after 1500- 1800 B.C. in old-Canaanite and archaic Greek writings.

AN CLOSE, EUROPEAN ORIGIN                                                                                                                                                                              

PLUSes                                                                                                                                                      –  greater age (than khazar,avar,etc. variant)                                                                                  – artefacts found close-by  similar of that  Cycladic -; tablets could be as well carian.        – there are real chances for signs transmission from Sumer (early minoans were in fact sumerian migrants/Papakitsos and Kenanidis) via Syria to Aegean and as consequence an increased age.                                                                                                          – signs maximal similarities with (in order) : Sumerian , Aegean& Anatolian.

MINUSes                                                                                                                                                   – improbable (unatested) population movement from Aegean to North, rather reverse.                                                                                                                                                     – ramaining unsolved issue where were inscribed the tablets or who brought them (remain the hipothesys of “lost/unknown traveller/trader”                                                            – there are no similar inscriptions by us, there are unique/singletons.                                      – there were not used D-signs in proto sumerian script nor in Aegean ones, only in Old-canaanite and archaic Greek ones. 

 ADITIONAL DOCUMENTING

1. AMULETS.                                                                                                                              Among the Tungus groups and Manchus there is a belief that there are various things which may bring luck in different branches of human activity. Such things are usually incidentally found in the form of natural abnormalities, monstrosities, rare unknown things, etc. If the Tungus happen to learn something new along this line they include it into their complex without any hesitation. Owing to this there now is in vogue a belief into the possibility of finding treasures, ever-lasting food, etc., borrowed from the Chinese, Mongols and even Russians. The function of the amulets in Tungus life is not great, but they never refuse to collect them and keep, for nobody exactly knows what is true and what is not, but to keep these things is not difficult. Yet one likes to have a hope of finding a fortune, or luck. The coincidence of «luck» with finding or using amulets often brings confirmation of the supposedly existing correlation between amulets and luck. Owing to the character of this hypothesis of the amulets and particular hypotheses regarding relationship between particular amulets and particular forms (cases) of luck are subject to great variations, not only among the ethnical groups but also in the life of generations and individuals. I will here give a list of amulets which, as a matter of fact, may be extended by more detailed investigation of the groups and even individuals. Naturally the amulets are much more fashionable among the Tungus who are in close contact with the other ethnical groups, and especially among those who are under the Chinese influence.

The amulets are called among the Manchus and Tungus groups influenced by them, — bobai, [cf. Dahur baobai (Poppe), – «precious», «precious thing»; Manchu baobai (Zaxarov), – id. from Chinese bao-bei] while among the reindeer Tungus of Manchuria and those of the Amur Government it is called ajeya. Amulets may be carried on the cradles, with the tobacco bag, attached to the spirits. Many amulets have been formed from the placings for spirits and special things used for protection. Therefore to establish the line of demarcation between an amulet and former placing for spirits or protector against them, is impossible. Such is also the Tungus attitude in this matter. If such an amulet is found and if it is followed by luck in hunting there must be given sacrifice to the local spirits or to the spirit which is held responsible for the success.                                                                           Once I met with the hypothesis that all amulets are produced by the spirits and therefore one must consider any amulet as indicative of future luck to be produced by the spirits, — the spirits therefore must have regular sacrifices from those who carry the amulets, and if the sacrifice is not given it will be very bad for those who carry the amulets.                                                                                                            Indeed, this idea puts a certain limitation upon the collecting of amulets. However, this is not a general belief.

Here are a few examples of articles used for amulets: ……………………………”

Din [PDF] S. Starostin. Tungus- Manchu etymology                                   https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/TMS.pdf

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *epu

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology
Meaning: 1 elder sister’s husband 2 grandfather, elder relative 3 bear 4 father’s elder brother
Russian meaning: 1 муж старшей сестры 2 дед, старший родственник 3 медведь 4 старший брат отца
Negidal: epo, epa 4
Spoken Manchu: efū 1 (905)
Literary Manchu: efu 1
Orok: ēpi2, epeke 2, 3
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *sebe-
Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology
Meaning: 1 ghost (shaman’s aid) 2 idol 3 God                                                                 (eugenrau:Tartaria tablet   Se                                                                                                                                                              D b o o )
Din https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/TMS.pdf
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *dēdu Altaic etymology:
Meaning: to care, like, love
Russian meaning: любить, оберегать, уважать
Negidal: dēdeluUlcha: dēdu(n)
Nanai: dēdu
Oroch: deduli
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *pedēAltaic etymology:
Meaning: to ford, cross over
Russian meaning: переехать, переправиться
413
Evenki: hedē
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *ēdeAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 silly 2 defect, shortcoming
Russian meaning: 1 глупый 2 недостаток, увечье
Literary Manchu: eden 2
Ulcha: ede(n) 1
Nanai: ēdẽ 1
Oroch: ede 1
Udighe: ēde 1
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *arAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 to make, work, construct 2 to come to one’s senses 3 to cause fear (оf an evil ghost), to appear in one’s imagination 4 shape, form 5 evil spirit
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *erü-n
Altaic etymology:
Meaning: time
Russian meaning: время
Even: eri
Negidal: ejun
Spoken Manchu: erin (2648)
Literary Manchu: erin
Jurchen: erin (89)
Ulcha: eru(n)
Orok: eru
(n) / eri(n)
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *eriAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 to breathe 2 breath 3 soul
Russian meaning: 1 дышать 2 дыхание 3 душа
Evenki: erī- 1, erīn 2, 3
Even: eri- 1, erin 2
Negidal: ejī- 1, ejgen 2, 3
Spoken Manchu: erǝxǝn ‘breath, life’ (39, 693, 2965)
Literary Manchu: erge- ‘to rest’, ergen 2, 3
Jurchen: erin-he ( = erhen) (517)
Ulcha: ersi- 1, erge(n) 2
Orok: er(i)- 1
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Caltet&first=461
Proto-Altaic: *ĕ̀r a
Nostratic: Nostratic
Meaning: to be
Russian meaning: быть
Turkic: *er-

Mongolian: *ere-

月氏 Yuèzhī, literal “Clanul Lunii”/ joi 20 iunie 2019, 4.45 a.m.

June 20, 2019

月氏 Yuèzhī, literal “Clanul Lunii”/ joi 20 iunie 2019, 4.45 a.m. https://wordpress.com/post/tartariatablets.com/2161

**************   ATENTIE !   ****************                                                                                  1.PREZENTA PAGINA SE CONSTITUIE INTR-O IPOTEZA DE LUCRU, ESTE ADEVARAT AVAND CA SUSTINERE FOARTE MULTE ELEMENTE FAPTICE                                                                                                                                                                                                                   2.UN CITITOR NEINITIAT IN PRIVINTA EVOLUTIEI SCRISULUI IN LUME ARE DIFICULTATI IN PRIVINTA BAGAJULUI DE SEMNE.SUGEREZ O TRECERE IN REVISTA PE OMNIGLOT.COM                                                                                          *********************************************

…..daca articolul postat in urma cu numai 2 zile l-am intitulat “Divertisment curios-dubios” acum zau ca nu mai stiu ce titlu sa dau articolului.                                            Acolo faceam referire la o inscriptie gasita in Romania la Sannicolau-Mare, care are semne asemanatoare celor de pe tablitelor de la Tartaria (cel putin in ceea ce o priveste pe cea rotunda).Articolul acesta se refera tot la o inscriptie gasita la Sannicolau-Mare. Harta, http://www.maplandia.com/romania/timis/timisoara/accommodation/sannicolau-mare/                                                                                                                                                       De fapt la Sannicolau-Mare sau descoperit mai multe inscriptii aflate pe mai multe artefacte.Pentru acestea exista lucrarile unui grup de cercetatori, ca de exemplu: VEKONY, András; Róna-Tas /Ungaria,                                                                                          Eugene HELIMSKY/ Hamburg si                                                                                                    José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)                                                             

ACUM ESTE VORBA DE INSCRIPTIA BUYLA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós (preliminary communication) Eugene Helimski (Hamburg) Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5 (2000) Kraków 2000 http://www.kroraina.com/hungar/helimski.htm

1.1. The famous treasure of Nagy-Szentmiklós was found exactly two hundred years ago, in 1799. It consists of 23 gold bowls, dishes, jars, and cups, and belongs now to the exposition of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. It was found in Banat, near the village of Nagy-Szentmiklós (today Sînnicolau Mare, to the north-west of Temesvár-Timişoara). The detailed description of the treasure and the history of studies is given in László, Rácz 1983; see also an ample bibliography compiled by Mária Ivanics (in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995: 59-77).

There are no direct indications for dating and attribution of the objects. Most estimates place them in the period between the 5th and the 10th centuries, the first half of the 9thcentury being the most wide-spread (and still, rather likely then proven) dating, see Róna-Tas 1990: 9; in his more recent publication András Róna-Tas (1997: 110) gives however preference to the second half of the 8th century . Therefore the treasure is usually referred to as “Avar” or “Late Avar”, sometimes also as “Protobulgarian” (e.g. Mavrodinov 1943 as well as later literature from Bulgaria). This, however, does not necessarily characterise its provenance: as far as analogues to goldsmiths’ work, vessel forms, pictorial representations, and ornamental motives are concerned, references has been made to the Carpathian basin and to the entire Eurasian steppe zone, to Byzantium and to Southern Europe, to the Caucasus and to Iran.

1.2. The objects belonging to this treasure have inscriptions of three kinds which received recently a detailed palaeographic analysis in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995. An inscription in Greek (the reading of which remains non-unproblematic, see Vékony 1973) is repeated twice on two paired bowls. The famous “Buyla inscription” (Inscr. 17 on buckled bowl [Schnallenschale] XXI) is written also with Greek letters, but in a non-Greek language.13 objects have short inscriptions written with an unknown script of the “runiform” type.

It has been confirmed many times and by various study methods that the Nagy-Szentmiklós inscriptions differ not only in language and script, but also were not made by the same hand and therefore may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops – as well as the gold objects themselves. “ ……………………………………………………………………….

However, this circumstance could not be taken into consideration in the numerous attempts to decipher the text: the Turkic languages do not know an ending like –Vgi in systematic grammatical use.

It is Tungus-Manchurian that fits this demand: here one of the most frequent, wide-spread and archaic verbal forms of 3Sg. is reconstructed as *-ra-gī (with harmonic variants like *-re-gī and with variants determined partly by the assimilation of the initial consonants and partly by the conjugation class like *da-gī,                               …………………………………

3. It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work. The entire philological experience proves, however, that assumptions of that kind (and they occur, regretfully, too frequently) signalise only the inadequacy of interpretations – not of the texts in question. ============================                                                                                                  Desi am citit cel putin unul din studiile care se refera la aceasta inscriptie, acum cativa ani, doar ieri “mi-a picat fisa”, respectiv mi-au atras atentia cateva lucruri, ca de exemplu acestea doua:                                                                                                                                        Primul :     avem in inscriptia de la Sannicolau-Mare cuvantul:                                                 “4.3.3. ΗΤΖΙΓΗ.

The participial aorist of TM *iče– ‘to see, to observe’ should be probably reconstructed as *eregī or (if the stem belonged to the conjugation classes II or III, see Benzing 1955: 123-128) resp. *ičesegī or *ičedegī. However, the consonantal stem in Even – and Orok it-, as well as the variation of vowels in the second syllable in the derivatives of other TM languages (cf. Evenki ulī– ‘to check, to investigate’, Nanai uči– ‘to show’, Solon isȫ– ‘to appear’, see TMS 2: 334-335)/”

Acest ΗΤΖΙΓΗ mi-a sunat al dracului de asemanator cu IZIGI, ICIGI, YAZIGI !                                  Al 2-lea:

Am gasit in alta lucrare referitoare la aceasta inscriptie, ca in familia limbilor altaice, mai precis in subfamilia limbilor tungusice, in limba OROK, exista o structura gramaticala (sufix) -DDoo. Adica exact cum avem pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria !          De data asta avem DDoo numai daca folosim literele grecesti

Din  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/gengo1939/1956/30/1956_30_77/_pdf                            by J IKEGAMI

INFLECTION OF OROK  The substantive endings are as follows.
-ba•san object which is subjected to motion .•t
-la•sa place, with some extension in space or time, where motion
occurs or a state exists.•t
-ndoo•sa co-agent.•t
-ddoo•s’as (something) designated for someone.’•t                                                                    …
the simple designative case-ending -ddoo can appear as a word. 

Din https://www.academia.edu/16685926/Manchu_Etymological_Dictionary_-_HANDOUT    urchen dedu-           to sleep

Daca folosim alfabetul khazar, avem DDoo=”jjmb”? “jjmm=iimm“?

Din khazarian culture and its inheritors – Jstor   https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23682777  by A ZAJĄCZKOWSKI –

“umma (iimm‘at) “congrégation, corn munity of  .

 

ATENTIE,                                                                                                                                     TEORETIC SI PRACTIC, TABLITA SE POATE CITI FOLOSIND ALFABETUL KHAZAR SAU ALFABETUL GREC, ORI ARHAIC GREC, ASA CUM ACESTA DIN URMA S-A FOLOSIT CU PRECADERE PE INSCRIPTIILE DE LA SANNICOLAU-MARE.     

Din https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

INSA CRED CA ORICINE REALIZEAZA SI ESTE O CHESTIUNE DE LOGICA SI BUN-SIMT CA NU SE POT FOLOSI AMBELE SIMULTAN !                                                                                                     ======================

In postarea trecuta, am identificat in semnele  folosind alfabetul runic khazar, literele CS(Ci) respectiv J(i).In acest caz am putea avea,citind de la dreapta la stanga ICsI (ICI) si de la stg. la dreapta “CsI ” .(Vezi mai sus in Even,   , iar in TM(tarim-manciurian?) *iče :”a vedea, observa“)                                                                                       Nota.                                                                                                                                                        Nu este momentul sa ma grabesc afirmand cu certitudine ca aceasta portiune are scrisul de la dreapta la stanga, ori invers, atata timp cat rezultatul este asemanator (ICI visa Ci), nici in privinta citirii ; In fond nu ma fugareste nimeni!

Din lucrarea de mai jos,

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION*

                                                                                                                                                                << VIIicigi(ī-,y-,ī)icigii icä-rä.gii-Ø{see-PRT.AOR-3SG}iči-y.i < *iči-g-i{drink-DER-3SG.POSS}[izafet construction? >>

chiar componenta denominarii triburilor  ičigi=  ICIGI, IZIGI, YAZIGI.

Din https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-zhi_classifier.htm      English translations : classifier, single, alone, odd number

之 (of) , 支 (to support) ,  (branch) 汁 (juice) , 知 (to know) , 织 (to weave)

Din (PDF) Origin of Yuezhi Tribe | Adesh Gurjar – Academia.edu   https://www.academia.edu/31033336/Origin_of_Yuezhi_Tribe                                               ” In Chinese , Tocharians were mentioned are Yuechi, which means Moon –Tribe

Din https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                                 ” Etymology From Mandarin 月氏 (Yuèzhī, literally Moon Clan) or 月支 (Yuèzhī, literally Moon Branch).                                                                                                         Yuezhi pl (plural only)                                                                                                                        1.An ancient Indo-European people who originally settled in the arid grasslands of the eastern Tarim Basin area, in what is today Xinjiang and western Gansu, in China, before migrating to TransoxianaBactria and then northern South Asia, where one branch of the Yuezhi founded the Kushan Empire.                                                            Synonyms Rouzhi ”

Din https://alchetron.com/Yuezhi

————————————————————

Apoi mai ramane de vazut ce rol are, cum se interpreteaza acea structura -DDoo.           

Din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

                                                                                                                             Din lucrarea de mai jos,                                                                                                                   <<Language   Ending      Description                    Reference                                                                      Orok     ddoo–    + POSS.REF.Partitive    Petrova (1967: 51–52) >>

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION* https://www.academia.edu/14286788/Tungusic_Historical_Linguistics_and_the_Buyla_a.k.a._Nagyszentmikl%C3%B3s_Inscription

                                                                                                                                                                  “1. Introductory remarks
In a series of articles, the late Eugene Helimski (2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004)argued that an aberrant form of Tungusic could have entered the Carpathian basin during the Avar period,the only evidence of which is preserved in the Buyla(or Boyla/Boila) inscription and a handful of words found in the classical sources on the Avars. Moreover, it is possible to infer from the wording of the author that the Avar confederation could have been constituted, among many other un-known nations, by a small contingent of Tungusic individuals (Helimski 2000b:
53 fn. 12). It was the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription that led him to
this conclusion.Tungusic is one of the many indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of the Asian continent, its current habitat covering most of Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.Speakers of the Northern Tungusic languages can be found in Central and Northeastern China, whereas the bulk of the Southern Tungusic speakers concentrates in the Amurian region and the Northernmost part of the Sakhalin Island.
Manchuric speakers aside, about which we know a great deal thanks to Chinese
sources, the Siberian Tungusic were first reported at the very beginning of the17
th century. The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,
with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)

The Avar-Tungusic theory is indeed a bold proposal. If it turns out that
Helimski is right, then the Buyla inscription would instantly become the oldest linguistic monument in any Tungusic language, washing away even the earliest Jurchen records. In spite of the apparent relevance of such a statement, Helimski’s proposal was passed over in silence in the Tungusic specialist literature. No less surprising is to nd out that critics from other areas disregard the Tungusic na-ture of the Buyla inscription without discussing its substance. They are usually
Turcologists believing that the only possible reading of the inscription has to be
Turkic. The most explicit statement was made by Erdal: “[…] the hypothesis is,
however, arrived at by some arbitrary stretching of Tungus data, [it] is far-fetched
 by itself and is therefore rather unlikely” (2007: 79).Erdal did not go into great
detail in order to explain the reader what the “stretch of the Tungus data” involved.Therefore, the general opinion is that the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription is wrong,but no one can explain why that is so.
The main goal of this paper is to provide the reader with an evaluation of
Helimski’s hypothesis based on the Tungusic data. Neither the geopolitical scenario
set up by Helimski (or by any other author for that mater) nor the paleographicalanalysis of the inscription shall be discussed at large in the present contribution.The former issue seemingly depends in its entirety on the linguistic hypothesis thateach of the author endorses.As for the latter, the topic has been approached by specialists much more qualied than the present author (see
i.a. Róna-Tas 2001)

                                                                1.

From the viewpoint of European history, the so-called Asian Avars are traditionally identified as the Ruanruan (402–555). The term Avars refers to the European Avars (567–822), i.e. the Asian Avars that entered Europe in 555 AD (see i.a. Pohl 2002).
The Nagyszentmiklós treasure to which the Buyla inscription belongs (see §2 below)
is associated with the last remnants of the European Avar culture, i.e. the one whichspread over the Carpathian basin during the 8th –9th centuries.                    Good summaries withadditional literature of the two major competing interpretations regarding the ethno-linguistic afinities of the Ruanruan can be found in Golden (1992: 76–79), who presents the traditional position that the Ruanruan were actually a Mongolic language population, and Janhunen (1996: 190), who believes that the linguistic core of the Ruanruan was Turkic. Beckwith (2009: 390–391) points out that “[c]areful study of
the Jou-jan [= Ruanruan] names in the Chinese sources could shed light on the eth-nolinguistic afinities of the Jou-jan; until that is done, speculation on the subject is
 premature.” In the same vein, see Vovin’s remarks (2007: 180, 184–185). Incidentally,
the hypothetical connection between the ethnonyms ruanruan and ju()cen ‘Jurchen
echoed by Helimski (2000b: 137) is most likely false and should be abandoned (for the
etymological intricacies of the term ju()cen, see Janhunen 2004).
 As is custom in recent specialist literature on Tungusic linguistics and in agree-
ment with some of the ideas by Janhunen on phonological transcription (1987, 1996:
xiii–xiv), Helimski’s ‹e› has been replaced with ‹ä›, ‹j› with ‹y›, ‹ʒ & ǯ› and ‹c & č›
merged in ‹j› and ‹c›, respectively, vowel length is written with double-vowels. Other
conventions: Northern Tungusic (= Northwestern: Ewenki, Ewen, Solon, Negidal,
Arman, Udihe), Southern Tungusic (= Amurian Tungusic: Oroch, Nanay, Kilen, Kili,
Ulcha, Orok), with Udihe and Oroch serving as a bridge between one branch and the
other, Manchuric (Early and Late Jurchen, Written Manchu [= WM], Spoken Manchu
and Sibe), Common Tungusic [= CT] (all languages but Manchuric, i.e. NorthernTungusic + Southern Tungusic), and Proto-Tungusic (= Pan-Tungusic = CommonTungusic + Manchuric). “Lit.” stands for “Literary”, and ‹-n› for (lightly) nasalized
nal vowel. The difference between Proto-Tungusic and Pan-Tungusic is that the latter
does not make any claims regarding the (genealogical) inheritance of a given word,
i.e. it may refer to both inherited and borrowed terms (see for instance the presence of
English loanwords across entire linguistic families: they are common, pan-elements, but not proto-elements; the former emphasizes the synchronic distribution, the latter its diachronic depth).It may be worth noting that the Middle Amur region is commonly identified as the most likely Urheimat for the parental language from which all the Tungusic languages descend (see general discussion in Janhunen 1996: 167–172, and also Janhunen 1985, 2012,2013: 27–28; for further details on the Northern Tungusic expansion, see Atknine 1997and, for the larger Altaistic perspective, see Miller 1994). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACUMA SE PARE CA CEATA GROASA CARE INVALUIA TABLITELE DE LA TARTARIA INCEPE SA SE RISIPEASCA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     O SERIE DE ASPECTE NEELUCIDATE SI PARTICULARITATI ALE SCRISULUI SE LAMURESC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ASUPRA PROBITATII DESCOPERITORULUI N.VLASSA NU A FOST NICI-O INDOIALA, TOTUSI TABLITELE AU PARUT A PROVENI DIN NEANT.
ORIGINEA SI PROVENIENTA LOR NU A PUTUT FI NICI PE DEPARTE LAMURITA                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1, Tablitele sant autentice si gasite de Vlassa cu echipa.                                                                 Este firesc sa fi fost derutat in privinta scrisului, nefiind specialist in epigrafie.                       Ce sa mai zic de altii; puteti constata cum specialisti de varf (asirologi si specialisti in proto-scriere s-au incurcat in hatisurile propriei lor specialitati)                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2. Nu sant nici pe departe atat de vechi.  Sant departe de orice estimare de vechime.          Par a fi opera unui membru al valurilor de popoare migratoare de factura altaic-mongolica.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        3.Scriitorul nu stapanea prea bine scrisul.                                                                                           ” It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work.”                                                                                                                           In acest moment inca nu pot afirma daca este vorba de litere provenind din alfabetul arhaic grecesc ori din alfabetul khazar.                                                                                          “may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops -”   Oricum nu facea parte din popoarele cu mare si indelungata traditie de scris, altfel traditia culturala este o cu totul alta chestiune.
4. Fiind relativ noi si provenind de la populatii care au “maturat” o arie extrem de larga, se explica “achizitia” atator semne provenind din diferite locuri si timpuri.                     Cercetatori de marca (A.Falkenstein, Aisic Abramovici, Rumen Kolev si altii) s-au incurcat si pacalit incercand sa faca citiri folosind semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.
5.Intamplarea face ca este vorba chiar de populatiile unde s-a inventat samanismul
6. Cred ca realizati ca exista o legatura (asa cum de zeci de ani au supozitionat cercetatorii) intre populatiile Kushan/ Samara/SAKAYUE-ZI (citeste yue-tchi=yue-ci), YAZIGI si DACI !                                                                                                                                Ca sa nu mai spunem ca pecenegii,bulgarii,cumanii, avarii erau diferite ramuri si populatii care secole la rand au venit din Asia in Europa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YuezhiThe Yuezhi (Chinese月氏pinyinYuèzhīWade–GilesYüeh4-chih1[ɥê ʈʂɻ̩́]) were an ancient Indo-European[5][6][7][8] people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat by the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏).

The Greater Yuezhi initially migrated northwest into the Ili Valley (on the modern borders of China and Kazakhstan), where they reportedly displaced elements of the Sakas. They were driven from the Ili Valley by the Wusun and migrated southward to Sogdiaand later settled in Bactria, where they then defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The Greater Yuezhi have consequently often been identified with Bactrian peoples mentioned in classical European sources, like the Tókharioi (Greek Τοχάριοι; Sanskrit Tukhāra) and Asii (or Asioi). During the 1st century BC, one of the five major Greater Yuezhi tribes in Bactria, the Kushanas(Chinese貴霜pinyinGuìshuāng), began to subsume the other tribes and neighbouring peoples.

7. Altfel daca este vorba de influenta Mongola si chineza:”

“The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,
with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition
to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)”,                                                               am putea lua in considerare si ipoteza ca semnele
 au reprezentat la Chinezi stralucire/ soarele (Ri) si Luna (Yue)
O alta ipoteza:                                                                                                                                 Daca secventa HD se citeste ICI, *iče :”a vedea, observa“, ar fi oarecum la indemana sau comod ca in jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde sa avem in stanga “a vedea, observa iar in dreapta sa avem, de ce nu, fazele lunii !
===========================================
DOCUMENTARE

Далай-лама: Монгольским племенам нужно развивать в себе дух …

savetibet.ru/2008/05/28/mongolia.html

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%B6r%C3%B6k                                                     EtymologyProbably from a Turkic language before the times of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin (at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries).                                        Adjective örök (not comparable) 1.eternal

Yuezhi 月氏, Tokharians                                         http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/yuezhi.html

########################################

Acum, desi demonstratia de mai sus poate fi tentanta, atractiva si eventual convingatoare, totusi dupa mine raman doua ipoteze  privind originea tablitelor, amandoua aproape egal de valabile,fiecare cu cate un set de argumente pro si contra.

IPOTEZA MIGRATIEI DIN ASIA

PLUSURI:                                                                                                                                                  – migratiile au existat in realitate si au lasat urme in Romania                                               – se imbina cu originea dacilor prezumata cu zeci de ani in urma de oamenii de stiinta    – daca ar avea legatura cu populatia Kushan, populatia rezulta a fi Indo-Europeana            – nu se mai pune problema cum au aparut sau cine le-a adus                                                 – sau mai gasit la noi inscrptii asemanatoare e adevarat putine dar exista.Dispare problema unicatului.                                                                                                                          – o serie de aspecte si inadvertente se lamuresc cu aceasta ipoteza (saman, cum putea cineva sa cunoasca atat de multe semne din trecut si aproape de prezent)                             –explica prezenta semnelor D, chiar in portiunea suspicionata ca ar contine un mesaj scris concret.

MINUSURI:                                                                                                                                               – rezulta o vechime foarte mica a tablitelor                                                                                   – artefactele gasite in apropiere par a indica o alta origine, Egeeana/Cicladica?                  – daca populatia are legatura cu avarii,tungusii si te miri care, acea populatie nu afost Indo-Europeana                                                                                                                                     – daca ar avea legatura cu populatia Kushan, aceea folosea alt tip de scris!                            – asemanare maxima (per global) a semnelor cu cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme, asemanare urmata de cele anatoliene(cariene) si scrierile Cretane.                                          – semnele D nu apar decat dupa 1800 B.C. in scrierile veche canaanita si greaca arhaica.

IPOTEZA UNEI ORIGINI MAI APROPIATE, EUROPENE                                                                                                                                                                                                                     PLUSURI                                                                                                                                                    – varsta posibil mult mai mare                                                                                                          – artefactele din apropiere sant similare celor Cicladice -; pot fi la o adica chiar si cariene                                                                                                                                                     – exista sanse pentru o transmisie a semnelor dinspre Sumer via Siria, aria Egeeana si in consecinta, posibil  varsta inca mult mai mare                                                                          – asemanare maxima a semnelor (in ordine) cu cele: Sumeriene, Anatoliene/Egeene

MINUSURI                                                                                                                                               – deplasari de populatie dinspre zona Egeeana inspre nord improbabile, mai probabile invers                                                                                                                                                       – ramane mica problema unde au fost inscriptionate tablitele ori cine le-a adus               (ramane ipoteza calatorului/ comerciantului “ratacit” )                                                                 – nu mai exista ceva asemanator pe la noi sant unicat                                                                – nu s-au folosit semnele D in proto-scrierea sumeriana nici in cele Egeene, ci doar in cele vechi-canaanite si arhaice grecesti.

DOCUMENTATIE ADITIONALA

1. AMULETS.                                                                                                                              Among the Tungus groups and Manchus there is a belief that there are various things which may bring luck in different branches of human activity. Such things are usually incidentally found in the form of natural abnormalities, monstrosities, rare unknown things, etc. If the Tungus happen to learn something new along this line they include it into their complex without any hesitation. Owing to this there now is in vogue a belief into the possibility of finding treasures, ever-lasting food, etc., borrowed from the Chinese, Mongols and even Russians. The function of the amulets in Tungus life is not great, but they never refuse to collect them and keep, for nobody exactly knows what is true and what is not, but to keep these things is not difficult. Yet one likes to have a hope of finding a fortune, or luck. The coincidence of «luck» with finding or using amulets often brings confirmation of the supposedly existing correlation between amulets and luck. Owing to the character of this hypothesis of the amulets and particular hypotheses regarding relationship between particular amulets and particular forms (cases) of luck are subject to great variations, not only among the ethnical groups but also in the life of generations and individuals. I will here give a list of amulets which, as a matter of fact, may be extended by more detailed investigation of the groups and even individuals. Naturally the amulets are much more fashionable among the Tungus who are in close contact with the other ethnical groups, and especially among those who are under the Chinese influence.

The amulets are called among the Manchus and Tungus groups influenced by them, — bobai, [cf. Dahur baobai (Poppe), – «precious», «precious thing»; Manchu baobai (Zaxarov), – id. from Chinese bao-bei] while among the reindeer Tungus of Manchuria and those of the Amur Government it is called ajeya. Amulets may be carried on the cradles, with the tobacco bag, attached to the spirits. Many amulets have been formed from the placings for spirits and special things used for protection. Therefore to establish the line of demarcation between an amulet and former placing for spirits or protector against them, is impossible. Such is also the Tungus attitude in this matter. If such an amulet is found and if it is followed by luck in hunting there must be given sacrifice to the local spirits or to the spirit which is held responsible for the success.                                                                           Once I met with the hypothesis that all amulets are produced by the spirits and therefore one must consider any amulet as indicative of future luck to be produced by the spirits, — the spirits therefore must have regular sacrifices from those who carry the amulets, and if the sacrifice is not given it will be very bad for those who carry the amulets.                                                                                                            Indeed, this idea puts a certain limitation upon the collecting of amulets. However, this is not a general belief.

Here are a few examples of articles used for amulets: ……………………………”

Din [PDF] S. Starostin. Tungus- Manchu etymology                                   https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/TMS.pdf

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *epu

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology
Meaning: 1 elder sister’s husband 2 grandfather, elder relative 3 bear 4 father’s elder brother
Russian meaning: 1 муж старшей сестры 2 дед, старший родственник 3 медведь 4 старший брат отца
Negidal: epo, epa 4
Spoken Manchu: efū 1 (905)
Literary Manchu: efu 1
Orok: ēpi2, epeke 2, 3
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *sebe-
Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology
Meaning: 1 ghost (shaman’s aid) 2 idol 3 God                                                                 (eugenrau:Tartaria tablet   Se                                                                                                                                                              D b o o )
Din https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/TMS.pdf
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *dēdu Altaic etymology:
Meaning: to care, like, love
Russian meaning: любить, оберегать, уважать
Negidal: dēdeluUlcha: dēdu(n)
Nanai: dēdu
Oroch: deduli
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *pedēAltaic etymology:
Meaning: to ford, cross over
Russian meaning: переехать, переправиться
413
Evenki: hedē
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *ēdeAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 silly 2 defect, shortcoming
Russian meaning: 1 глупый 2 недостаток, увечье
Literary Manchu: eden 2
Ulcha: ede(n) 1
Nanai: ēdẽ 1
Oroch: ede 1
Udighe: ēde 1
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *arAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 to make, work, construct 2 to come to one’s senses 3 to cause fear (оf an evil ghost), to appear in one’s imagination 4 shape, form 5 evil spirit
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *erü-n
Altaic etymology:
Meaning: time
Russian meaning: время
Even: eri
Negidal: ejun
Spoken Manchu: erin (2648)
Literary Manchu: erin
Jurchen: erin (89)
Ulcha: eru(n)
Orok: eru
(n) / eri(n)
Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *eriAltaic etymology:
Meaning: 1 to breathe 2 breath 3 soul
Russian meaning: 1 дышать 2 дыхание 3 душа
Evenki: erī- 1, erīn 2, 3
Even: eri- 1, erin 2
Negidal: ejī- 1, ejgen 2, 3
Spoken Manchu: erǝxǝn ‘breath, life’ (39, 693, 2965)
Literary Manchu: erge- ‘to rest’, ergen 2, 3
Jurchen: erin-he ( = erhen) (517)
Ulcha: ersi- 1, erge(n) 2
Orok: er(i)- 1
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Caltet&first=461
Proto-Altaic: *ĕ̀r a
Nostratic: Nostratic
Meaning: to be
Russian meaning: быть
Turkic: *er-

Mongolian: *ere-

Divertisment curios-dubios

June 12, 2019

Divertisment curios-dubios, sau loc de dat cu capul. Din Alsószentmihály inscription (INSCRIPTIA DE LA SANNICOLAU-MARE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Als%C3%B3szentmih%C3%A1ly_inscription
The relic

The photo of the Alsószentmihály inscription

The stone was an ancient Roman building stone—proved by the leaf-symbol, a frequently applied ornamental element of ancient Roman inscriptions—reused in the 10th century. Alsószentmihály located on the territory of the late Province Dacia existed up to the middle of the 3rd century. Dénes showed that the Khavars (Khazar rebels joined the Hungarians in the 9th century[1]) probably settled in this region (that time Transylvania).[2] In some parts of Hungary, there are data of the Khavars even from the 13th century Script used for the Alsószentmihály inscription

Some quotations from historian Gábor Vékony about the identification of the script in this inscription:

  • Vékony wrote in page 218: “Since the Alsószentmihály inscription was found not in the geographical area of the Old Hungarian script, and in the first line, only vowels could be read based on the Szekely alphabet, we can state surely that the possible transcription of the inscription is surely out of the Szekely script”.
  • Vékony wrote in page 230: “To summarize, we can state that the Alsószentmihály Village inscription is the relic of the Khavars settled into Transylvania, which is naturally written in Khazar with Khazarian script.”
  • Vékony wrote in page 280: Similar symbol occurs in other Khazarian runic inscriptions as well.
  • Vékony wrote in page 109:” “In Transylvania, the inscription of the reused stone built into the wall of the church of the Alsószentmihály Village is unambiguously written with Khazarian runic alphabet.”

Based on the quotations above examples, it can be stated that Vékony identified the script of the Alsószentmihály relic as a Khazarian script. According to Vékony, another relic, namely the Homokmégy-Halom inscription contains Khazarian text as well.
The meaning of the inscription

The Alsószentmihály inscription was deciphered by archaeologist Gábor Vékony.

The transcription of Vékony (it uses IPA symbols):[9]

First Row Second Row
Inscription Alsoszentmihaly Khazarian Rovas inscription row 1 Alsoszentmihaly Khazarian Rovas inscription row 2
Transcription (using IPA) ɛbi atlïɣ jyedi • kyr qereji
Translating from Common Turkic,[10][11] His mansion is famous. Jüedi Kür Karaite. or Jüedi Kür (the) Kerei.

According to Vékony, the inscription was made by a Khavar leader, whose religion was Karaite.[12] The first symbol of the first row is a ligature, its transcription: atlïɣ.[13] The first symbol (from left) in the second row is a Khazarian word separator.

In the inscription, the third symbol of the first row (from left), and the symbol in the second and last place can be considered as the descendants of the Turkic ideograms. Nevertheless, their relation needs more evidence.
Critics, alternative theories

There are several critics of Vékony’s theories and translations, most notably the Hungarian linguist and historian, András Róna-Tas. The debates were summarized[how?] by István Riba in 1999 and 2000. =============================================== Noi avem la Tartaria: Poza din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

Vekony zis-a ca primul semn este separator de cuvinte iar al doilea ar fi “J” =========================

Altfel avem dupa/din: Khazarian Rovas https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

SEMNELE H D = CS J Ce inseamna ? numa’ Istenu stie ! ======================================

Apoi semnele din partea dreapta, “D D o c”


ar putea fi:
J(L?) J M Q

Ce inseamna? Vre-un mesaj extraterestru. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Din Listă de invazii https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%C4%83_de_invazii
….. Alte popoare migratoare
Khazarii, popor turcic de origine mongolă, era originar din Asia centrală și Siberia de sud. Ei au migrat în Europa alături de maghiari și alte popoare turcice. In secolul VII d.Hr își constituie un Hanat în nordul Mării Negre. In anul 890 o parte din ei migrează alături de Arpad și ceilalți maghiari în Panonia. Khazarii au fost singurul popor din istorie care s-a convertit la iudaism. Hanatul khazar era in sfera de influenta a Bizantului. În anul 969 el a fost distrus de cneazul rus Sviatoslav al Kievului. Ultimele sale rămășițe au fost înlăturate de o expeditie militară bizantină (1016). Khazarii se retrag în Caucazia și de acolo urmele lor se pierd în negura istoriei.
Pecenegii erau un popor din Turkestan și o ramură a turcilor. In secolul X d.Hr, sub presiunea triburilor selgiucide, turcii s-au islamizat. Turcii pecenegi au migrat însă in zona Volgăi, neacceptand Islamul. În 895, în același timp cu khazarii, unguri (cumanii apar ulterior) au migrat în Europa, stabilindu-se parțial în Muntenia și sudul Moldovei, unde cu timpul s-au integrat populației valahe autohtone. Acolo ei întemeiază mai tîrziu, temporar, un hanat alături de cumani, popor turcic. În 1091 pecenegii se infiltrează, la sud de Dunăre, în Balcani. Împăratul Constantinopolului, Alexios Comnen îi înfrânge și pecenegii vor dispare militar din istorie, după o ultimă confruntare cu Bizanțul în 1122.

Cumanii erau si ei popor turco-mongol ca pecenegii. Erau originari tot din Asia centrala si Turkestan. Hanii cumani au migrat in Europa cu pecenegii, ungurii si khazarii. Dupa caderea hanatului peceneg, cumanii le-au luat locul in Dacia. Atacau si jefuiau periodic cnezatele ruse si Ungaria. Cneazul Sviatoslav al Rusiei il infrange pe hanul cuman Kobiak. Apoi cumanii hanului Gza sufera o infrangere cand asediaza Novgorodul. Cneazul rus Igor este infrant de hanul Konkeak. In anul 1227 cumanii sunt infranti de mongoli si dispar din istorie. ============================== Vezi http://unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4080.pdf Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set
International Organization for Standardization
Organisation Internationale de Normalisation
Международная организация по стандартизации
Doc Type: Working Group Document
Title: Issues of encoding the Rovas scripts
Source: Gábor Hosszú (Hungarian National Body)
Status: National Body Contribution
Action: For consideration by WG2
Date: 2011-05-25
This document compares the static and dynamic models of the development of the Rovas /rovaːʃ/ scripts.
Please send any response regarding to this document to Gábor Hosszú (email: hosszu@eet.bme.hu).
In this document, the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) symbols are applied for representing phonemes
extending with the symbols for the undetermined back /A/ and front /B/ vowels.
Contents
1. Latest proposals of the Hungarian National Body …………………………………………………………………………………1
2. Position of the Hungarian National Body…………………………………………………………………………………………….2
2.1. Purpose of encoding…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2.2. Name of encoded scripts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
2.3. Present-day Hungarian orthographies …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2.4. The family of the Rovas scripts …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Figure 5: The Alsószentmihály inscription (920-952)
Written with Khazarian Rovas font First row: Í ¬B
Second row: C jZaq ZK ìIuj
IPA phonetic transcription First row: ɛ
bi a
tlï
ɣ
Second row: jyedi • kyr qara
j
Translation from Common Turkic (Khazar) First row: ‘His mansion is famous.’
Second row: ‘Jüedi Kür (the) Karaite.’
Table 3: Transcription of the Alsószentmihály inscription
The word /ɛb/ was used for larger buildings in the Khazar building inscriptions;38 therefore, its meaning is
‘mansion’. The word /jye
di/ meant Jewish in Khazar language, in this case it could have used as a personal
name. The /kyr/ means ‘courageous’ and ‘fearless’ in Turkic, such personal names are typical in Turkic
languages. Therefore, the second row or at least the first two words (Jüedi Kür) formed the name of a Khavar
leader. The word Karaite also could have been a personal name. The Karaite Judaism is a branch of the Jewish
religion accepting the five books of Moses but not the Talmud, oppositely to the Rabbinic Judaism. The symbol
in the third row could have been a tamgha.39
In this relic, the KR q K /q/ is the ancestor of the SHR k K /k/, the KR Z R /r/ is the ancestor of the SHR
r R /r/. The KR u UE /y/ is ancestor of the SHR v V /y/v/ (see Subch. 4.7 in this document). The KR j J /j/ is
identical to the CBR j J /j/; the KR K KUE /ky/ is identical to the CBR ç KUE /ky/, the KR ì ANGLED I /i/ and
the a A /a/ are also common character with the CBR but not in the SHR.
The following Khazarian Rovas characters cannot be found in other Rovas scripts: B RAISED B /b/,
d ARCHED D /b/. The d ARCHED D is in a systematic KR ligature, the I DI /de/di/ed/. The symbol Í is the
ligature of T ANGLED T /t/ + l SIMPLE L /l/ + G GH /ɣ/.40
The punctuation symbol C KHAZARIAN ROVAS SEPARATOR LARGE is specific for the Khazarian Rovas
and it cannot be found in other Rovas scripts. The diacritic mark á SEPARATOR DOT ABOVE is also specific
for the Khazarian Rovas; however, it is descendant of the á COMBINING STOP ABOVE in the Inscriptional
Pahlavi script. It is used in the first row of this inscription.

Phoenician H HET /ħ/
> Early Aramaic H HETH /ħ/
> Imperial Aramaic À HETH /ħ/
> Parthian h HETH /ɣ/x/h/
> *Early Steppean *Q /ɣ/
> *Proto-Rovas *Q /ɣ/
> CBR (7th c.) Q, µ GH /ɣ/ > (21
st c.) Q GH /øː/
> SHR (*9th c., 12th c.) U GH /ɣ/
>SHR (15th c.) w, ¹ OPEN UE /ø/øː/y/yː/
> SHR (17th c.)¾ OPEN UEE /ø/øː/y/yː/ > (21st c.) /yː/
> SHR (20th c.) w OPEN UE /y/
> CBR (21
st c.) ¹ OE /ø/
> KR (8th c.) G, £, ù, ¥ GH /ɣ/, in Alan: /g/
> *Early Steppean *ó /y/ø/
> KR (8th-9th c.) ó UE /y/*ø/
> KR (9th-10th c.) u UE /y/ø/
> SHR (*9th c., 12th c.) v V /y/u/uː/
> SHR (14th-15th c.) u U /y/u/uː/
> SHR (16th c.) U UU /u/uː/ > (20th c.) /uː/
> SHR (17th c.) y UU /u/uː/
> SHR (15th c.) v V /v/
> SHR (20th c.) ® W /v/
> SHR (20th c.) ê W /v/
> SHR (21st c.) [ W /v/
> Old Turkic (Orkhon) M OE /ø/y/w/
> Inscriptional Pahlavi H HET /h/x/
> KR (8th c.) H ARCHED CH /x/
> Hebrew ח HET /ħ/x/
> Nabataean µ, h, H HETH /ħ/
> KR (8th c.) µ ANGLED CH /x/

××××××××××××××××××

Deci ne aflam in situatia mai mult decat rizibila sa fim nevoiti sa atribuim o data pentru tablitele de la Tartaria situata in intervalul 5.300 B.C.(Marco Merlini) si 900 A.D. (?Vekony) deci un interval total de cca. 6.200 ani ! Felicitari dragilor coledzi cercetatori !

Ceea ce este tolerabil unor amatori este intolerabil unor profesionisti

June 7, 2019

Ca sa incepem cu inceputul,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    A – Imediat dupa descoperirea tablitelor de catre arheologul N.Vlassa, chiar acesta a creat o turbulenta initiala in comunitatea stiintifica prin atribuirea tablitelor  unei varste de aprox. 2700 B.C.                                                                                               Eu nu pun la indoiala onestitatea acestuia. In mod hotarat nu este participant la nici un gen de fals sau inselatorie. Activitatea dansului a fost prea bogata si lucrarile absolut serioase si remarcabile. Ca atare nu putea sa-si expuna propria persoana unui oprobiu general si nici activitatea precedenta unui asemenea risc major. Dar in schimb putea fi antrenat fara voia sa in expunerea unor artefacte care nu sant exact ce par si nici ceea ce credea dansul. Nefiind specialist in epigrafie si necunoscand lungul parcurs al aparitiei si evolutiei scrisului in lume, a atribuit tablitelor o varsta aflata oricum la o limita de timp extrema si implicit riscanta.Are in schimb meritul de a fi primul care a sesizat similaritatile cu inceputurile scrierii sumeriene.                                                                                  TOLERABIL !                                                                                                                                    ———————————————————-                                                                                        B – Apoi nu a fost destul, prin contributia cercetatorului italian Marco Merlini, a fost avansata o varsta si mai inaintata, cca. 5.300 B.C. Nici acesta nu a avut o imagine clara asupra parcursului scrierii in lume. Desi a sesizat similaritati mai mult ale semnelor cu cele prezente in alte scrieri nu a depasit deloc aceasta faza, neavand capacitatea unei analize de asemenea complexitate.                                       Dar inca si mai curios, nu gasesc o explicatie satisfacatoare pentru faptul ca a convins un arheolog absolut de marca ( Dl. Prof. Lazarovici), poate printre primii 5 cei mai mari din Romania, asupra unei varste atat de inaintate. Probabil ca cei doi au ramas cam singurii cercetatori din lume care au ales o asemenea optiune in privinta varstei. Parca l-a vrajit pe Dl. Profesor, pentru ca altfel i-mi scapa complet intelegerii.        Aceasta in conditiile in care toti arheologii, din tara si strainatate au luat la cunostinta de anumite aspecte si inadvertente:                                                                      – situl aflat pe un mal al Muresului a fost expus in mod constant erodarii si surparilor                                                                                                                                       – situl in sine prezinta un conglomerat de artefacte apartinand mai multor culturi                                                                                                                                               – chiar artefactele aparent gasite in imediata vecinatate a tablitelor fac apropierea de alte culturi decat cea neolitica Vinca-Turdas.                                            INTOLERABIL !                                                                                                                        Mai ales atribuirea direct a aceleiasi varste cu a  oaselor (5.300 B.C.) pentru tablite !    —————————————————–

C – Cercetatorii straini , desi multi dintre ei specialisti de marca in cele mai vechi forme de scriere, nu au avut suficient timp si nu au alocat suficient efort pentru evidentierea tuturor particularitatilor tablitelor. Avand la baza in principal, cu precadere analiza semnelor acestia au afirmat cu tarie ca nu sant sumeriene, nici scris sumerian autentic si nici mai vechi ca primele tablite sumeriene (3.000-3.200 B.C.).           Deci din start este exclusa o varsta mai mare de 3.000 B.C. Multi dintre ei au afirmat ca varsta maxima limita (dupa mine si aceasta exagerata) ar fi 2.700 B.C. (exact cum afirmase N.Vlassa!).Desi toate semnele pot fi asimilate celor proto-cuneiforme sumeriene, nu sant sumeriene ci “asemanatoare/ca si/- cele sumeriene” Ei nu dau nici-o explicatie plauzibila finala pentru acest fapt. Nici nu pot spune cu siguranta unde este locul unde au fost inscriptionate nici de cine (carei populatii ii apartinea scribul).       Si dupa mine, semnele prezinta similaritati maxime cu semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene.(~95% !) Faptul ca seamana cu scriere sumeriana nu se datoreaza unei asemenea origini ori contact direct, ci faptului ca filiatia scrierilor Europene are ca origine ultima scrierea sumeriana. (Acest fapt a fost remarcat si de  cercetatorii E.Papakitsos si I.Kenanidis in ceea ce privesc strict scrierile Egeene).                                                         Alti cercetatori nu au remarcat, sau cel putin nu au facut vorbire ca urmatoarele scrieri (pe locurile 2 – 3) in ceea ce priveste asemanarile, ar fi scrierile Anatoliene (cariana, ~70%)) si cele Egeene (Hieroglifica Cretana, Linear A,B ~70%). Cercetatorii straini in special cei specialisti in scrisurile cele mai vechi nu s-au implicat in controverse legate de varsta si au incercat pe cat posibil sa se faca ca nu observa si sa tolereze o varsta cat mai veche. Aceasta probabil pentru a nu deranja sensibilitati si orgolii nationale !                                                                                                                       TOLERABIL                                                                                                                                  Inafara de tablita pictografica, care prin natura sa poate fi usor interpretabila, niciuna din celelalte doua nu poate fi citita folosind exclusiv si integralfolosind un singur sistem de scriere concret (din cele existente cunoscute: proto-cuneiform, silabar sau alfabet.).      Am incercat pe rand testarea prin folosirea mai multora, pe rand si astfel am constatat acest lucru.                                                                                                                                               ————————————————————-
D – Mult timp Dl. Marco Merlini nu a realizat ca civilizatia Vinca-Turdas desi a facut progrese remarcabile,nu a atins faza scrisului.De altfel nici-un cercetator nu a facut dovada cu vre-un artefact ca ar fi atins pe deplin faza proto-scrierii.                            Ulterior Dl. Merlini pare a-si fi revizuit putin parerile, fara a afirma aceasta cu tarie.                   Desi unii cercetatori au observat ceva de genul unui amestec de semne, nu au acordat suficienta importanta acestui fapt. Semnele par a fi trasate de cineva care pe o cale sau alta a luat cunostinta de existenta unor semne folosite anterior pe o arie foarte larga si un larg interval temporal. Ele sant oarecum mai mult decat o colectie de semne, fara ca sa fiu malitios ar fi mai degraba o adunatura, gramada (scuze, ghiveci de semne).     Altii nu au observat sau sustinut ca semnele de pe cele trei tablite reprezinta (aproximativ 3) faze evolutive ale scrisului, aceste faze fiind distantate in timp ! Apartinatorul unei civilizatii nu ar fi facut in mod normal asta, decat eventual sa arate cuiva principiile si evolutia scrisului. Este greu, ba chiar imposibil de demonstrat vre-o posibila legatura d.p.d.v. al mesajului intre cele 3 tablite. Majoritatea cercetatorilor sant de acord iar eu subscriu ca “scribul” evea vagi, mai exact incomplete cunostinte necesare scrisului, daca nu era cumva absolut iliterat.                                                           De asemenea, un aspect care in mod normal sare in ochi adica iese in mod pregnant in evidenta, este acela ca jumatatea de sus contine scris adevarat, apropiat de timpurile noastre (ex. scris arhaic grec sau roman; ~99%). Eu am demonstrat acest lucru, iar de ale altora din cat am cautat amanuntit stiu ca nu exista. Acesta incaodata reflecta carente, imperfectiune, are un caracter ezitant si schiopatat, al unei persoane care nu stapanea in masura suficienta nu limba ci scrisul.                                                                                       INTOLERABIL !                                                                                                                                    —————————————————————–
E – Pentru ca scrisul din jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde pare a proveni dintr-o faza incipienta (epichorica) a scrisului alfabetic inainte de a fi standardizat. In diferite locuri foloseau alfabete asemanatoare dar usor diferite. Unul si acelasi sunet era reprezentat de forme ale literelor diferite. Ex, intr-o parte forma D era pentru sunetul D, iar in alta forma D pentru sunetul R. (Acest fapt conduce de la un numar oarecare de citiri posibile, la marirea si mai mult a acestui numar). Din pacate alti cercetatori nu s-au aplecat cu suficienta atentie pentru a remarca acest fapt (desi Domnului Merlini i-a atras atentia ca aceasta portiune avea un caracter secret si era gandita sa fie ascunsa privirii directe). Dar atat si nimic mai mult.                                             INTOLERABIL !                                                                         ======================================                                                                   PENTRU VERIFICARE SI COMPARATIE, URMATOARELE SISTEME DE SCRIERE:

PROTO-CUNEIFORME SUMERIENE                                                                                                proto-cuneiform signs   https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html

 

“kaga, un important cuvant dacic”…? OARE !?… sa vedem.

May 22, 2019

Incep aicici prin a ma refero la lucrarea lingvistului specializat in tracologie, Sorin Olteanu, in engleza :                                                                                                                                          κάγα: an important Dacian word in Tomitan inscriptions1 https://web.archive.org/web/20150222020903/ http://soltdm.com/sources/inscr/kaga/kaga_e.htm                                                                           In romana:                                                                                                                                         κάγα: un important cuvânt dacic    http://soltdm.com/sources/inscr/kaga/kaga_r.htm                                                                                     Este vorba de o inscriptie din Tomis:

Heroi sacrum
Ti(berius) Claudius Mu-
casius v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
Ηερώϊι (sic!) ΚΑΤΑ Τι(βέριος)
Κλαύδιος Μου-
κάσιος εὐξάμ[ε-
νος καθιέρωσε[ν

IN ROMANA:                                                                                                                                         “Pasajul latin, uşor de citit la descoperirea pietrei însă aproape ilizibil astăzi din pricina condiţiilor precare de depozitare, nu ridică nici o problemă de interpretare: ” Ofrandă lui Heros. Tiberius Claudius Mucasius şi-a îndeplinit juruinţa, cu dragă inimă şi pe bună dreptate “. Formula de încheiere, abrevierea V•S•L•M bine cunoscută epigrafiştilor, indică limpede o inscripţie votivă. Iată însă ce spune acelaşi Tiberius Claudius, de data aceasta în greceşte:                                                                                                                        ” Lui Ērōs KATA. Tiberios Claudios Mukasios a consacrat (după cum) a promis “.                     Dacă, aşa cum am văzut, varianta latină este limpede, în cea greacă apare în schimb acest KATA, neexplicat satisfăcător de nici unul din editorii inscripţiei. Primul dintre ei, Gr. Tocilescu, încercând, la 1895, să-i dea totuşi un înţeles plauzibil, îl consideră pe KATA un adjectiv al lui Ērōi şi propune – de aceea – interpretarea lui drept o prescurtare a unui κατα(χθόνιος) subpământean”, un epitet ori o ipostază a zeului. În lipsa unei alte explicaţii mai consistente propunerea a fost acceptată de toţi editorii ulteriori – şi admisă în literatura de specialitate. Ea are însă cel puţin două mari neajunsuri care atrag atenţia:                                                                                                              1. mai întâi ar presupune o diferenţă considerabilă între variantele latină şi greacă ale dedicaţiei, căci kata(chthōnios) “subpământean” lipseşte din textul latin, în timp ce acesta conţine pe sacrum “jertfă“, inexistent în versiunea greacă.                                             2. abrevierea kata pentru katachthōnios ar reprezenta un “dublu unicat”:                             pe de o parte ar fi singura oară când acest cuvânt s-ar prescurta astfel în inscripţiile greceşti,                                                                                                                                                 pe de alta acesta ar fi singurul loc în care zeul epihoric Hērōs ar fi numit “subpământean”. Toate aceste dificultăţi ar fi putut fi evitate dacă atât Tocilescu, cât mai ales editorii de mai târziu, ar fi privit cu mai multă atenţie piatra pe care, aşa cum se poate vedea în fig.1 şi 2, lapicidul a scris nu ΚΑΤΑ , ci ΚΑΓΑ !”                                                 E adevărat că această nouă lectură nu ar fi lămurit de la sine şi de îndată sensul inscripţiei dar, oricum, nu ar mai fi prilejuit lansarea în circulaţie a inexistentului κατα(χθόνιος), epitet pe care Hērōs, bineīnţeles, nu l-a purtat niciodată. Lăsând deocamdată de o parte apartenenţa lingvistică a termenului, vom observa că dacă îl considerăm pe kaga nu un adjectiv al lui Hērōs ci un echivalent al latinescului sacrum , neconcordanţele dintre cele două variante ale textului dispar: “sacrum (=ofrandă) lui Heros. Tiberius Claudius Mucasius şi-a îndeplinit promisiunea (votum), cu dragă inimă şi pe merit ” din textul latin, ar avea aproape acelaşi înţeles cu “kaga (=ofrandă) lui Heros. Tiberios Claudios Mukasios a consacrat(-o) după cum a făgăduit ” din textul grec . Este o interpretare fără îndoială mai plauzibilă decât kata(chthōnios), dar insolitul cuvântului şi prudenţa deontologică ne-ar obliga să admitem şi posibilitatea unei greşeli a pietrarului şi să considerăm termenul, în consecinţă, drept dubios. Din fericire însă, o a doua inscripţie, şi ea de la Tomis, vine să îi confirme validitatea.   ”                                                                                                                     ENGLISH                                                                                                                                                         ” The first lines of the text, those in Latin, easy to read at the discovery of the stone but almost illisible today because of the poor conditions it was preserved, raise no problem of interpretation:                                                                                                                                  “Sacrum to Heros. Tiberius Claudius Mucasius respected his vote, gladly and on merit”. Let us see what the Greek part says: “To Heros KATA. Tiberios Claudios Mukasios consacrated as promised.” If, as we saw, the Latin variant is fairly clear, in the Greek one we find instead this KATA, unsatisfactory explained by any of its succesive editors. The first of them, Grigore Tocilescu, who also discovered the monument in 1895, trying to find a plausible meaning for the sequence KATA, took it as an adjective of Heros and interpreted it as an abbreviation of κατα(χθόνιος) which he considered to be an attribute or a hypostasis of the Thracian god. The lack of any other more consistent explanation of this word made his interpretation finally accepted in the litterature.

.Inscr. ISM II (Tomis), n.128-Drawing

It has nevertheless at least two weak points which draw our attention: 1. it supposes a considerable and unexpected difference between the Latin and the Greek variants of the text and 2. it proposes an attribute twice unique (and I insist to enounce here an important principle, which I should formulate as Always beware of hapax!): it would be the only time that καταχθόνιος would be abbreviated κατα and the only time that the epichoric god Hērōs would be called “of the underworld”. All these difficulties could have been avoided if both Tocilescu, but especially the later editors, would have taken a closer look at the stone, where – as you can see by yourself in the images below – the lapicida wrote not ΚΑΤΑ , but ΚΑΓΑ!                           =================================================

CUVINTE, TERMINOLOGIE:

Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred

Something that is sacred is dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity[1] or considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers. The property is often ascribed to objects (a “sacred artifact” that is venerated and blessed), or places (“sacred ground“).  …………Although there are similarities between the terms “sacred” and “holy” and they are sometimes used interchangeably, there are subtle differences.                                                                                                                                                                                                            “Holiness” is generally the term used in relation to persons and relationship, while “sacredness” is used in relation to objects, places, or happenings.                                                                                                                                                                                                       SFINTENIA ESTE LEGATA DE PERSOANE SI INTER-RELATIONARE IAR SACRALITATEA ESTE LEGATA DE OBIECTE,LOCURI SI EVENIMENTE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Thus a saint may be considered as holy, but would not be viewed as sacred.   ………..                                                                                Etymology.                                                                                                                                                The word “sacred” descends from the Latin sacer, that is consecrated, or purified dedicated  to the gods or anything in their power, and to sacerdos and sanctum, set apart.  ……………..                                                                                                                   (Greek; ιερος, hieros, “sacred” or “holy”

Din https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sacer

sacer (feminine sacraneuter sacrum); 

  1. sacredholy, dedicated (to a divinity), consecrated, hallowed (translating Greek ἱερός) quotations ▼
  2. devoted (to a divinity for sacrifice), fated (to destruction), forfeitedaccursed quotations ▼
  3. divinecelestial
  4. Number Singular Plural
    Case / Gender Masculine Feminine Neuter Masculine Feminine Neuter
    Nominative sacer sacra sacrum sacrī sacrae sacra
    Genitive sacrī sacrae sacrī sacrōrum sacrārum sacrōrum
    Dative sacrō sacrae sacrō sacrīs sacrīs sacrīs
    Accusative sacrum sacram sacrum sacrōs sacrās sacra
    Ablative sacrō sacrā sacrō sacrīs sacrīs sacrīs
    Vocative sacer sacra sacrum sacrī sacrae sacra

Din https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%E1%BC%B1%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%BD&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

 Lat sacrum = gr. ἱερόν,  ( ἱερόν, lit. “holy place“)

Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrum

Din https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacro                                                                                           Romana :”SACRU”                                                                                                                         Nota:                                                                                                                                                     In varianta in romana tampitii il identifica ca SFINTENIE                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Varianta engleza:                                                                                                                  <<Something that is sacred is dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity[1] or considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers. The property is often ascribed to objects (a “sacred artifact” that is venerated and blessed), or places (“sacred ground”).  >>                                                                                                                                                                                   << Storia e origine del termine                                                                                                             Il termine italiano “sacro” deriva dal termine latino arcaico sakros, rinvenuto sul Lapis Niger, sito archeologico romano risalente al VI secolo a.C.[3] e, in un significato successivo, indica anche ciò che è dedicato ad una divinità, ed al suo relativo culto; infatti, tale termine lo si trova, con medesimo significato, anche in altre lingue antiche come, ad esempio, l’ittita saklai e il gotico sakan.

La radice di sakros è, a sua volta, il radicale indoeuropeo *sak, *sag, col significato di avvincere (a fascina) aderire, o sac-ate, col significato di seguire,(a urma)sap-ati, col significato di onorare, sempre sottintendendo una divinità, a tal punto che negli antichi testi Ṛgveda può anche diventare sinonimo di adorare >>

===================================

latina: Heroi sacrum :eroului sacrificiu,consacrat, dedicat”                                                                         greaca: Ηερώϊι ΚΑΤΑ :                                                                                               S.Olteanu:  “Lui Ērōs KATA“= sacrum(=ofrandă,jertfa) lui Heros ”                                                   E.Rau:eroului de jos/sub pamant“,kata{chtonios}” sau mai exact:                              “eroului DEPUS, in sensul de ofranda si doar asa apropierea de lat. sacrum

De fapt greseala D-lui Olteanu nu este totala ci consta in faptul ca KAGA nu are sensul de SACRU (opus profanului, un gen de sfintenie care nu se suprapune totusi acesteia) ci are sensul de “DEPUNERE,OFRANDA” Greseala consta in a nu gasi originea corecta si mai putin sensul gasit corect, acela de “OFRANDA” , dar numai provenind pe linia “DEPUNERE”.                                                                                                                                                DV. AVETI DEMONSTRATIA ORIGINII CORECTE PENTRU KAGA=DEPUNERE>si astfel=”OFRANDA” si numai astfel echivalent cumva cu SACRUM                                                       ===================================                                                                               Nota                                                                                                                                                          1-Este posibil ca cel care a scris sa nu faca deosebirea intre ieros, hieros (templu,sacru,sfant) si heros (semizeu, erou) ?In loc sa scrie  Hierôi (dativul lui hieros)   a scris Ηερώϊι.  Ηερωιs ! 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%A1%CF%81%CF%89%CE%AF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek                                                                                    ἡρωῐς  (hērōísf (genitive ἡρωῐ́δος); third declension

  1. heroine quotations ▼
  2. deceased woman 

                                                                                                                                    ( https://biblehub.com/greek/2413.htm hieros: “sacred, a sacred thing, a temple” )                 2-este posibil un ritual de “eroizare” si eroul sa fie chiar numitul  Mucasios ?                 Din traducere reiese ca nu.                                                                                                                 3- altfel litera Image result for greek upper case gamma (gamma), si dupa mine, parca seamana cu o idee mai mult cu un G dacat cu T

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                  DAR CU KAGA=”SACRU” AVEM O ENORMA PROBLEMA !                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Din SORIN OLTEANU:  List of reconstructed Dacian words – …
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_…
This article contains a list of reconstructed words of the ancient Dacian language. ….. kaga, sacred, holy, kaga, *kʷog(h)- (< *kʷeg( h)-), Old Slav. kazat′, skazat′ (“to tell                                                                                                                                                                                       Existau 2 posibilitati de alegere pentru Dl. S.Olteanu:                                                                      – sa considere KATA sau                                                                                                                         – sa considere KAGA, caz in care trebuia sa se concentreze maxim asupra semnificatiei. Este adevarat ca la o inscriptie bilingva, oricine (si eu) se asteapta ca semnificatiile cuvintelor sa fie corespondente. Cel mai comod pentru Dl. Olteanu a fost sa atribuie o semnificatie identica lui KAGA.                                                                                           Aici a gresit Dl. Olteanu, prezumand gresit originea <kaga, sacred, holy, kaga, *kʷog(h)- (< *kʷeg( h)-), Old Slav. kazat′, skazat′ (“to tell > dintr-o radacina doar presupusa si deloc studiata si demonstrata.                                                                                                         In cazul de fata se pare ca varianta greceasca nu o reproduce “mot-a-mot” pe cea latina.

       In nici-o limba indo-europeana nu avem nici pe departe vre-un cuvant gen KAGA a carui sens  macar sa se apropie cat de departe de sensul SACRU (sacru, opus profanului)!                                                                                                                                                                 Eventual,(sa verific despre ce cuvant exact este vorba!):                                                              Din A Greek and English lexicon
https://books.google.ro › books
John Jones · <<Kaga, (indeclinable as used by Homer, but by later writers x262, as, o, or xzén, “s) head, top, summit, zaga  >>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
La sfarsitul postarii o sa pun o lista cu sensurile cuvantului kaga incepand cu nostratica, continuand cu familia limbilor Indo-Europene, si terminand pe cat se poate din aceasta familie I.E. cu limbi de aici de pe langa noi.                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In schimb am gasit:

Origins of European Peoples: Part One: Ancient History
https://books.google.ro › books
Mario Mosetto · 2018 · History
… “Kaga” low, analogous to the Greek Katà; the Italic connected word (cagare – to shit) is obscene and we don’t need to mention it, but

A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, Second Edition (part 2) (2.9K views)
https://www.scribd.com › doc › A-Gram…
It contains a comprehensive description of Proto-Indo-European grammar and offers an analysis of the … kaga ‘dens‘ (in romana, tot dens)

Profilo linguistico della Romània pre-romana – The Paleolithic Continuity … PDF http://www.continuitas.org › texts › alinei_ben… Oct 8, 2009                                                           sima corrispondenza fra i tre nomi kač, kağà/kažà, kağa- ….. [1992], The Problem of Dating in Historical Linguistics, SLE ...(il latte) caglio:”kaga”

<< 3.1. La prima riguarda l’etimologia di caseus ‘cacio, formaggio’, che già in precedenza avevamo interpretato come allotropo dialettale lombardo-emiliano, tipo cač, del sostantivo coagulum ‘caglio’ [Alinei 1996-2000: 961-2]. Che ilio formaggio  sia una semplice trasformazione del latte cagliato lo sanno tutti. Che la scoperta del caglio e l’inizio della produzione del formaggio risalgano al tardo Neolitico è, invece, una cosa che sanno solo gli archeologi. Per cui, che lat. caseus sia una semplice trasformazione dialettale, più precisamente lombardo-emiliana, di data tardo-neolitica, del lat. coagulum, nessuno poteva pensarlo, al di fuori del quadro della latinità pre-romana, mentre ora è dimostrato dall’imponente documentazione dialettale riprodotta nella tabella. Anzitutto, il confronto delle tre carte dell’AIS che riguardano il ‘caglio‘ – cioè 1212 ‘caglio‘, 1214 ‘il latte caglia‘, 1215 ‘latte cagliato’ – con le due che riguardano più da vicino la tecnica produttiva del formaggio, cioè 1209 ‘caciare’ (fare il formaggio) e 1198 ‘caciaio’, dimostra che in quasi tutta l’area caratterizzata da kač c’è una notevolissima corrispondenza fra i tre nomi kač, kağà/kažà, kağada/kažada, cioè del caglio, del cagliare, e della cagliata da una parte, e quello del verbo caciare dall’altro. Inoltre, in un punto

dell’Emilia (436) e tre della Lombardia (229, 236, 254), questa corrispondenza si spinge ad includere anche il nome del ‘caciaio’.

punto1212’caglio’1214′(il latte)caglia‘1215’latte cagliato’1209’caciare’1198’caciaio’

227 kač (al vé la)kažada kažada Kažà Kaśér                                                                               229 kač kaža kažada Kažà Kašer
236 kač kaža kažada Kažà Kažér
237 kač kaža kažada Kažà Kaśér
238 kač  kažada kağada Kažà Kaśér
244 kač kağa kažada kažà Altro Tipo (= AT)
245 kač kažat kağà
247 kač kağa kažada kağà Kaśér
254 kač kaža ? – Kažér
299 kač – kağada kažàr Kaśér
412 kač kağa kağà Kaśér
413 kač kağa kağà Kaśér
424 kač kağeda Kaśér
427 AT kağa kağà +
436 kač  kageda kağeda     Kažér
443 kač kağa kağada            Kaśär
444 kač-          kağeda           Kaśér                                                                                                                   ATnell’AIS,ma i dizz.dialettali emiliani danno ovunque anche
cagiar cagèr

Questo è dunque il focolaio da cui, in epoca tardo-neolitica, il continuatore lombardo-emiliano di coagulum si sarà diffuso in Europa centro-occidentale, come nome del formaggio. A Sud, la conferma più importante di questo scenario vie-
ne da un’area immediatamente contigua a quella emiliana: quella tosco-emiliana – Lunigiana, Garfagnana, alta Versilia e Appennino tosco-emiliano. Come mostra la cartina, tratta dal-l’Atlante Lessicale Toscano, in Lunigiana, ai confini con l’Emi-
lia, il caglio si chiama cagio o cažo, ovvia variante di derivazione emiliana, con restituzione della vocale finale. >>

Vezi exemple care conțin traducerea cheag
Substantiv – Neutru
(59 exemple cu termeni corespondenți)

” href=”https://context.reverso.net/traducere/romana-italiana/cheag&#8221; data-pos=”[nn]” data-inflected=”cheagului}–{cheagul” data-pos-index=”0″ data-posgroup=”0″ data-freq=”59″>cheag

Vezi exemple care conțin închegarea laptelui
(4 exemple cu termeni corespondenți)

” data-posgroup=”10″ data-freq=”4″>închegarea laptelui

Vezi exemple care conțin închegare
(4 exemple cu termeni corespondenți)

” data-posgroup=”10″ data-freq=”4″>închegare

coagulul

Deci acel KAGA nici pe departe nu poate fi nici sacru nici altceva pe aproape ci ceva in categoria semantica :

dens, inchegat, ?depus (jos)?”                                        ============================================

Deci entschuldigung Herr lingvist & tracolog!  Sorin Olteanu, intelesul poate fi in greaca :   greaca: Ηερώϊι ΚΑΤΑ :”eroului de jos/sub pamant“,kata{chtonios} , sau tot intr-un gen de greaca,

“eroului dens/?intarit/?mort   inchegat,intocmit      depunere     ………..alegeti ce doriti, propuneti ca toate merg cumva in jos.                                                                                              Deci nu, domnule S.Olteanu, daca unui amator (inginer) i se pot tolera inadvertente unui lingvist de marca si in plus tracolog, nu !                                                                                  DECI NU Sorin Olteanu:                                                                                                                 Din Palaeolexicon – The Thracian word ziu / zia   https://www.palaeolexicon.com/Word/Show/18824   kaga ‘sacred, holy …                                    SI NU Sorin Olteanu:                                                                                                                  radacina *kʷog(h)- (< *kʷeg( h)-); nici-o legatura cu Sl. kazat,skazat   “a spune”,                                                                                                                                                                                     ci radacina IE KEG (hitt. “teapa”) respectiv                                                                                     IE **KoGo “dinte” (hit. kaga, “dinte” ; vezi in documentare kaga/gaga : “cioc” ; kaga :”cioara,corb” )                                                                                                                                      si radacina “dense“(romana tot “dens“)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Legatura nu este aceea a lui sakros/sacros SAK, si nici aceea presupusa de Dv.  cu skazat/”spune” ci mai degraba cu kaga, kaza, koza (v. M.Alinei) capra si branza !                                   “ingrosare?stiintific “densificare”, dens, dinte, depunere, coagulare”

Acum va intreb:                                                                                                                                      – Cand cineva vorbeste intr-o limba si strecoara un singur cuvant in alta limba, in ce limba vorbeste de fapt?                                                                                                                        – Daca a existat limba daca de ce nu scria cuvintele din limba daca?                                      – Atata timp cat a existat KATA in greaca, dar se pare ca si KAGA, cu acelasi sens, KAGA este cuvant dac ?                                                                                                                            Nota-bene, oricum nu avem sacru din greaca care este hieros/ieros.

ATENTIE MARE !

DACA SAKROS (rad, SAK) CA SI HIEROS INSEAMNA NUMAI “SACRU” (tampitii au tradus in romana pe wiki SFINTENIE),                                                                                                           – in latina, SACROS SI SACRUM INSEAMNA ATAT “SACRU” CAT SI “OFRANDA”,                        – IN SCHIMB KAGA, PRIN ORIGINEA LUI NU ARE NICI-O TANGENTA NICI CU SACRU SI CU ATAT MAI PUTIN CU SFANT ORI SFINTENIE,                                                                               – CI  PRIN ORIGINEA SA, NUMAI  SENSUL “DEPUNERE” SI DOAR ASTFEL I SE POATE ATRIBUI  SENSUL DE OFRANDA !

ESTE CLAR ? a lua notita eventual si popii; lamuriri eugenrau@gmail.com

?????????????         https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master/0338              ??????????????

CUM SE FACE CA UNELE ATRIBUTE ALE ENTITATII DACO-TRACICE (remarcate & notate de antici) TRANSPAR DIN ACEASTA RADACINA “DENS” !?

Pokorny Etymon1. dens-   ‘to learn; mental power’  Semantic Field(s): to Learn

Indo-European Reflexes:

Family/Language Reflex(es) PoS/Gram. Gloss Source(s)
English
English: autodidact n self-taught person AHD/W7
didactic adj fitted/intended to teach AHD/W7
Hellenic
Homeric Greek: δήνεα n.neut.pl counsels, plans RPN
Greek: autodidaktos adj self-taught W7
δαΐ-φρων adj wise of mind, prudent RPN
didaktikos adj didactic W7
didaktos adj taught W7
didaskein vb to teach W7
Iranian
Avestan: dąh- vb to be wise/mighty RPN
dąhah- n.neut mastery RPN
dąhišta- adj.sup wisest RPN
Indic
Sanskrit: dáṁsas- n.neut wondrous deed/power RPN

 

Din https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master/0339

Pokorny Etymon2. dens-   ‘dense‘                  Semantic Field(s): Thick (in Density)

Indo-European Reflexes:

Family/Language Reflex(es) PoS/Gram. Gloss Source(s)
English
Middle English: condensen vb to condense W7
English: condense vb to make denser/more compact AHD/W7
dense adj marked by compactness/crowding together of parts AHD/W7
West Germanic
German: kondensieren vb to condense LRC
Italic
Latin: condensocondensāre vb to make dense W7
dēnseōdēnsēre vb to make thick, press (together) RPN
dēnsōdēnsāre vb to make thick, press (together) W7
dēnsus adj dense, thick, close RPN
Middle French: condenser vb to make dense W7
Hellenic
Greek: δασύς adj hairy, shaggy, rough RPN
Anatolian
Hittite: daššuš adj mighty, massive RPN

Eugen Rau: Apropos de “dens”=dens<> dinte,

Din Thracian Glossary – The Indo-European Database   https://tied.verbix.com/project/glossary/thra.html                                                                       … dentu– ‘clan, tribe‘ [Latv. gens ‘clan, tribe’].

eu: Clanul, tribul este de fapt o coagulare, densificare a oamenilor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++                                                                                  DOCUMENTARE ADITIONALA

Din Alexei Kassian (RSUH) Anatolian lexical isolates
and their external Nostratic cognates  http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/anatnost.pdf                  44. kaga- c. ‘tooth’. From MS on.
IE **KoGo– (~ ­a­).
≠ Probably cognate is IE *kgo­, known from Germ. *xak-ōn ‘hook; bolt’,
*xōka-z ‘hook; angle’ (Orel HGE: 154).18 Both directions of the assumed meaning shift are possible: ‘hook’ > ‘fang’ > ‘tooth’ / ‘hook’
> ‘bolt’ > ‘tooth’ or, vice versa, ‘tooth’ > ‘hook’. For general reasons
the Hitt. anatomic meaning should be accepted as primary

Din Swadesh-Liste – A possible Homeland of the Indo-European Languages http://www.hjholm.de/Universal%20concept%20list%20for%2017%20Indo-European%20l&#8230;

 

 

Din COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS INDO-EUROPEAN AND … – CiteSeerX PDFciteseerx.ist.psu.edu › viewdoc › download by GJK Campbell-Dunn · Cited by 3 · Related articles In Homeric Greek and Vedic Sanskrit the augment is optional, rather like an adverb …… kan.kata “a comb”, kan.kala “skeleton”, kaga “ a lotus”, kata “a mat”, kati:raka “loin

Din Turkic – Indian Lexical Parallels in the Framework of the Nostratic … – waset
PDFhttps://waset.org › publications › turkic-i…
Nostratic ancestor language was carried out by V. M. Illich -. Svitych [2]. According to ….. kag, kaga ‘raven, crow‘ karga ‘crow’ taral

Din (PDF) What language did the Pharaohs speak? Kheli kheli kheli keli. | flavio …
https://www.academia.edu › What_langu…
Significantly in Ancient Indoeuropean Greece the “black” (krsna) “crow” (krsna, nava, kaga) “ bird” (khaga, vaca, “sun”) was the “sacred

Din The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship
https://books.google.ro › books
Allan R. Bomhard, John C. Kerns · 2011 · Language Arts & Disciplines
… to sound’: A. Proto—Indo—European * klhian— ‘to sing, to sound’: Greek kotvotxt’t ‘ sharp … Proto—Uralic *kaga- ‘to call’

Din http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/etymology.cgi?single=1&basename=%2Fdata%2Falt%2Fturcet&text_number=+981&root=config

Proto-Mongolian: *kaka- / *kaga– Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology Meaning: to break, tear off

Din https://educalingo.com/ro/dic-tr/kagan                                                                         <<Kagan este unul dintre titlurile folosite de conducătorii din statele mongole și turce și este relativ mai vechi. Din vremea lui Avar, cultura statului turc a conținut cuvântul “kagan”. În acest context, “kagan” este un cuvânt turc precum Tanhu, Hakan, Bey, Toktamıș, Giray și constituie o caracteristică distinctivă pentru statele turcești. Cuvintele Kagan; marele, hanul mare este derivat din kaga khan sau kagan khanim.>>

Din Questioning the Origin of Indo-European: A Comparative Evolutionary … https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4314/02bdff552724c38644b8b03ffdb29d39b006.pdf

baseless “verdict” that “there is no evidence that IndoHittite is related to any …… Watkins adds that, if the Hittite kaga– ‘tooth‘ is ‘cognates with English ‘hook’, we 

κἀγώ | billmounce.com
and I, I also, but I, a crasis of και and ἐγώ, dat., κἀμοι, acc., κἀμέ
billmounce.com

 

Sanse mari, mari de a fi dat de capat tablitelor de la Tartaria.

May 16, 2019

In delungul timpului, foarte multi cercetatori s-au aplecat asupra acestor tablite de la Tartaria. Am observat ca a fi arheolog nu include neaparat specializarea in semiologie si epigrafie. Din pacate nici inalta calificare in scrieri vechi si proto-scriere nu constituie o garantie totala pentru clarificarea si obtinerea unui verdict final.                      Cu toate acestea, aceasta din urma au reusit cea mai mare apropiere de natura intrinseca a inscrisurilor.                                                                                                                   Practic, fiecare din acestia au extras cate un set propriu de  concluzii preliminare. ADUNATE, ACESTE CONCLUZII PARTIALE FORMEAZA UN TOT CARE SE SUPRAPUNE QUASI-INTEGRAL PESTE CONCLUZIILE MELE.                                                                               La concluziile dansilor le-am adaugat pe ale mele; cu * am marcat concluziile care-mi apartin exclusiv:                                                                                                                                      – Tablitele reflecta semne care au fost folosite la mare departare in timp                            – Prezinta similaritati cu scrierea proto-cuneiforma sumeriana                                            – Cu toate aceste nu este scriere sumeriana proto-cuneiforma nativa/propriu-zisa        – Semnele ca un ansamblu nu apartin complet niciunui sistem de scriere concret   *     – Am putut prezenta cele mai multe abordari a diferitor sisteme de scriere.                In multe cazuri posibil am depasit intrucatva nivelul atins de alti cercetatori.             In plus am articole cu caracter critic si corectiv al acestora.*                                                  – Semnele per total, sant mai degraba o “colectie de semne” In plus, anafara practicii uzuale a scrisului, avem categorii diferite de scriere, pictografica visa ideografica si chiar alfabetica *                                                                                                                                              – Aceasta colectie provine din ariile si scrierile sumeriana, Anatoliana si Egeeana (Lin.A,B)*                                                                                                                                                   – “Scribul”/”scriitorul” avea vagi cunostinte de scriere                                                                – Semnele din jumatatea de sus ies in evidenta prin asemanarea lor izbitoare cu litere     – Se poate face o legatura intre intentia vadita de ascunderea a acestora si constituirea lor intr-un scris adevarat                                                                                                                         – Aceste semne din jumatatea de sus a tablitei rotunde se regasesc ca litere in faza initiala a scrisului alfabetic in aria Egeeana (Ciclade,Chalkis. Creta, cu difuzie si prezenta in pen. Italica) *                                                                                                                         – “scriitorul” putea apartine oricarei perioada cuprinse intre 2.500 B.C. si zilele noastre, cu sanse cu atat mai mari cu cat ne apropiem de prezent*                                                     – Explicatia faptului ca atat de multe semne se regasesc in atatea sisteme de scriere rezida in faptul ca exista un filum, filiatie pornind de la semnele proto-cuneiforme sumeriene pana la alfabetele de azi*                                                                                              – In final nu-mi pot explica absolut deloc, cine, unde si cand putea avea acces la asemenea semne (multe si vechi !) *                                                                                             – Exista numai doua posibilitati reale, mari si late:                                                                     Scriitorul nu ar putea apartine decat ariei Egeene, sau uneia de undeva mai din nord, (chiar si de la noi~transhumanta?) Sant semne ,sau intuitia i-mi spune ca acea persoana pe de alta parte, pare a fi foarte perspicace/patrunzatoare * 

EU AM REUSIT SA TREC BARIERA APARENT INSURMONTABILA DE LA SITUATIA CA NIMENI NU A DEMONSTRAT CLAR PANA ACUM CA POATE FI VORBA DE SCRIS, LA A DEMONSTRA ACEST LUCRU.                                                                                                    DIFICULTATEA APARUTA REZIDA IN FAPTUL CA DIMPOTRIVA, PUTAND PREZENTA MAI MULTE PROPUNERI DE CITIRI ESTE DIFICIL IN A O SELECTA PE CEA “CORECTA, ADEVARATA” *                                                                                                                                          Nota                                                                                                                                                             In realitate, numarul citirilor posibile este absolut covarsitor de mare.Matematic combinatii de n cate m x combinatii de x cate y.  O selectie obiectiva nu este posibila. Unele citiri au urcat in afectivitate si intelectul meu posibil spre pozitii superioare nemeritate.Insa timpul oarecumva a permis un gen de sedimentare spre domeniul de a fi oarecum independente de mine si naturale.

CITIRILE DEMNE DE LUAT IN CONSIDERARE SE GASESC IN ARTICOLUL:              Tartaria,posibil o problema “simpla” !?

Calificativul minoic “SI-RU-te”

May 14, 2019

In repetate ocazii au fost gasite pe tablitele Minoane (scrierea Linear A “in curs de descifrare”) pasaje de genul: <I-PI-NA-MA SI-RU-TE>,                                                                    Din RICHARD VALLANCE, https://linearbknossosmycenae.com/tag/minoan-substratum/

Troullos tablet TL Za 1

IPINAMASIRUTE is another agglutination, this time consisting of 3 words, all of them Mycenaean-derived New Minoan (NM1). The tablet or nodule above provides us with the full translation, which in its actual order reads, with horsemanship + running + (towards) prey. In other words, we have a charioteer, whose name is JASASARAME, clearly a highly skilled charioteer and hunter, whose ridership or horsemanship allows him to run towards his prey, and at a fast pace at that, given that NAMA always refers to something flowing fast, usually a stream, but in this context, clearly horses, 2 of them, of course, since Mycenaean chariots always have two horses.

So the free translation runs along these lines, and very well indeed,

Jasasarame, the hunter-charioteer, in his chariot made of wicker, is exercising his (considerable) ridership skills, by running at break-neck speed (or: running by a stream) towards the wild prey he is hunting on the outskirts of his town (community).

This decipherment, which is almost entirely in Mycenaean-derived New Minoan (NM1) hangs together admirably well. It is a major breakthrough in the ongoing saga of the decipherment of Linear A. It is also buttressed by the fact that the tablet or nodule actually looks like a horses halter. While the word halter appears, at least at first sight, not to figure in the text, this is of little consequence. The tablet itself makes it quite clear enough that here we have two horses (always two with Mycenaean chariots) and that a well-heeled, and most likely aristocratic or warrior-class charioteer, Jasasarame, is at the reins. >>>                                                                                                                                                eugen:   ?? towards a beast of pray ??…eu mai degraba leg curgere,curent de SIRU

Din  The Language of the Minoans By Virginia Hicks, B.A. (Class. https://www.academia.edu/6173899/The_Language_of_the_Minoans

A-ta-no-dju-wa-ja tu-ru-sa du-ra2-re I-da-a / u-na-ka-na-si I-pi-na-ma si-ru-te                     The sun goddess, distressed (cf. Greek truo), lamented (Greek duromai, past tense)and Ida, a dream appears to you; the one of strong name was dragged away                                                                                                                                                                                                    Din Linear A Texts & Inscriptions in phonetic transcription & Commentary by JOHN JOUNGER                                                                                                                                                 12. The Libation Formula http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/                                      << …..SI-RUTE:” of/from SI-RU >>

——————————————————————-                                                                                 ?? “towards a beast of pray”; “dragged away” ??                                                                          Se presupune ca ar putea insemna si “one of a strong name”/”aceea cu nume puternic”;

Sufixul -TE insemna “al, de la”, ramane:                                                                                        SI-RU,SIRU despre care se presupune ba ca inseamna “puternic”, sau “distruge”, ori ceva legat de “sarpe”, acestea doar cateva de care stiu. Despre limba minoica nu se stie ce fel de limba era, nu se incadreaza clar in nici-o familie lingvistica. Se presupune ca este de influenta anatoliana(luwiana), ori sumeriana ori semitica (acestea fiind doar cateva din cele cca 10 familii linvistice aflate sub lupa).                                                                                   ———————————————————-                                                                                          Din Minoan Origins of Athena – Anistoriton  http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/e023.htm          <This is the Mycenaean attempt to translate the name of the Minoan goddess, … spelling of what we know from Greek as Diwia (Mycenaean di-u-ja or di-wi-ja). The …. du-ra2-re I-da-a line 2: u-na-ka-na-si I-pinama sirute (Athena, distressed, lamented and Ida appeared in [her] dream; the [one of] strong name tore her hair.) …>          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

to bind,to tie together                                                                                                                            thread 

Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri                                                                                             Sri, (/ʃr/;[1] Devanagari: श्री, IASTŚrī [ʃɹiː, ɕɹiː]) also transliterated as SreeShriShreeSi, or Seri, is a word of Sanskrit origin.                                                   Etymology                                                                                                                                            Sri has a core meaning of “diffusing light or radiance or eminence“, related to the root śrā “to cook, boil”, but as a feminine abstract noun, it has received a general meaning of “grace, splendour, beauty; wealth, affluence, prosperity”.

                                                                                                                                           

============================================                                                             SIRU; inalt, elevat                                                                                                                     lofty {adj.}RO:”mândru arogant falnic înalt îngâmfat înalt (şi impunător) nobil grandios (sublim) semeț”

 DEX August:”Maiestuos, măreț, impunător”

DECI ESTE O REFERIRE (sau epitet ?) “SRI/SIRU ,                                                                   la/al ZEITATII ASTRALE (feminine), A-ta-no-dju-wa-ja= ASA-SA-RA                                                                                                                                                                                                              SIRU:”                                                                                                                                                         – inalt, elevat, mandru, nobil, grandios, maiestuos”?                                                                     – “care uneste, leaga” ?                                                                                                                         -“care difuzeaza lumina sau radiaza”

Eu zic ca poate fi legat de rheo, -ρρέω, -ρροή, -ρροια, -ρρους curgere si radiatie=flux

  Din Greek Political Imagery from Homer to Aristotle                            https://books.google.ro/books?isbn=1472502183 Roger Brock – 2013 – ‎Literary Criticism

< App. BC 3.20, and note also the use of verbs such as surreo (‘flow together‘: X. HG 2.3.18)> 

rom”curge impreuna” si avem atat unire cat si curgere

Din Flow and Flux in Plato’s Philosophy – CRC Press Book                     https://www.crcpress.com/Flow-and-Flux-in-Platos-Philosophy/…/9781138918184              < Flow and Flux in Plato’s Philosophy – CRC Press Book. … of ‘flow’ and ‘flux in relation to earlier usage in the Greek poetic tradition and the Presocratic thinkers, ..>

Din https://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-greek/flux                                                          flux {noun} ροή

Din https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BF%A5%CE%BF%CE%AF%CE%B1 ῥοίᾱ  (rhoíāf (genitive ῥοίᾱς); first declension

  1. flowflux  Etymology From ῥέω (rhéōto flow) +‎ -ίᾱ (-íā).
    ῥέω  flowstreamrungush

Din [PDF] Plato’s dialogues. Part III: On creative reason. – UTRGV Faculty Web   https://faculty.utrgv.edu/eleftherios.gkioulekas/plato/pd3.pdf                                                   < phoras kai rhou noesis (perception of motion and flux), or perhaps phoras onesis …… to see,’ (Greek), ‘the speaking of the silent,’ the silent denoting either the …>

Din Minoan snake goddess figurines – Wikipedia   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_snake_goddess_figurines                                    “Snake goddess” is a type of figurine depicting a woman holding a snake in each hand, … The snake goddess’s Minoan name may be related with A-sasara, .

Din OCTANE NEWSLETTER 5: ©Asia Haleem 2016 … – the layish website   http://www.layish.co.uk/octane_5_sirius_newsletter2016.pdf

<It shows the characters for Sirius (sirute, at that time also referring to the Sun) ..>

Mai tarziu,

Din <pelasgians and the sirius cult> – Q-Mag.org                                                                         http://www.q-mag.org/amanda-laoupi-the-pelasgian-spiritual-substratum-of-the-bronze-age-…     < Keos (Cyclades, Greece) as a pristine Sirius cult center in the Minoan Archipelago ….. Apart from Siru or Serio, who represents a ‘sun‘ god, there is a lunar/solar …>

 

Din                                                                                                                                         În fotometriefluxul luminos sau puterea luminoasă este măsura puterii percepute a luminii. Se diferențiază de fluxul radiant, măsura puterii totală a luminii emise