Archive for July, 2019

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)