Pylos PY Cn series
Transliterations from Bennett & Olivier 1973 unless otherwise noted. Modified Wingspread Convention in use.
PY Cn 3
jo-i-je-si , me-za-na
e-re-u-te-re , di-wi-je-we , qo-o ,
a2-ra-tu-a , o-ka-ra3 , BOS 1
pi-ru-te , ku-re-we BOS 1
e-na-po-ro , i-wa-si-jo-ta , BOS 1
o-ru-ma-to , u-ru-pi-ja-jo , BOS 1
a2-ka-a2-ki-ri-ja-jo , u-ru-pi-ja-jo-jo , BOS 1
vacat x 2
PY Cn 4
a-si-ja-ti-ja , ta-to-mo , o-pe-ro
mu-ta-pi , ku-ri-sa-to OVIS+TA 22
qe-re-me-ti-re , sa-(ni)-(jo) OVIS+TA 16
ta-ro , a-ka-re-u-te , (tu)-ni-jo OVIS+TA 7
e-ri-no-wo-te , ti-ri-jo OVIS+TA 7
ne-do-(wo)-te , tu-ri-je-u OVIS+TA 4
e-ri-to-ti-no , ne-me-ta-wo OVIS+TA 10
wo-tu-wa-ne , e-ke-si-jo OVIS+TA 9
ma-ta , a-ka-re-u-te , ke-ro-we OVIS+TA 7
si-jo-wo-te , o-qe , e-ra-se OVIS+TA 10
vacat
to do: fix wo-tu-wa-ne qty in DB 0->9
confirm tu-ri-je-u (DB) vs. tu-si-je-u (VC index)
PY Cn 40
wa-no-jo , wo-wo , pa-ro , ne-ti-ja-no-re , pa-ra-jo OVISm 140
wa-no-jo , wo-wo , pa-ro , po-so-pe-re-i , wo-ne-we OVISm 75
wa-no-jo , wo-wo , pa-ro , zo-wi-jo , a-ko-so-ta-o OVISm 70
wa-no-jo , wo-wo , (pa)-(ro) , po-ru-qo-ta , we-da-ne-wo OVISm 60
e-ko-me-no , pa-ro , pa-ta , pa-ra-jo OVISm 80
e-ko-me-no , pa-ro , [ ]ma-te-we , we-da-ne-wo OVISm 70
a-ne-u-te , pa-ro , ma-ri-ti-wi-jo , a-ko-so-ta-o OVISm 83
ma-ro-pi , pa-ro , ro-ko , pa-ra-jo OVISm 150
ma-ro-pi , pa-ro , ka-da-ro , we-da-ne-wo OVISm 85
ma-ro , pa-ro , tu-ri-ta , a-ke-(o)-jo OVISm 80
re-pe-u-ri-jo , pa-ro , e-zo-wo , a[ ](ta)-(o) (OVISm) 82
ma-ro , pa-ro , ma-u-ti-jo , a-ko-(so)-ta-o OVISf 60
a-ne-u-te pa-ro , ka-ta-wa , a-ko-so-ta OVISf 80
a-te-re-wi-ja (,) pa-ro , e-wi-te-we , a-ke-o-jo OVISf 70
vacat x 2
PY Cn 45
.1 pu-ro , (ra)-(wa)-(ra)-(ti)-(jo)[
.2 pu-ro , ra-wa-ra-ti-jo , pa-ro ko-so-ne , we-da-ne-wo OVISf (8)0[
.3a -wo
.3b pu-ro , ra-wa-ra-ti-jo , pa-ro , e-ko-to-ri-jo , we-da-ne- OVISf (3)0[
.4 u-po-ra-ki-ri-ja , pa-ro , de-mo-qe , we-da-ne-wo OVISf 70
.5 u-po-ra-ki-ri-ja , pa-ro , pe-qe-we , a-ke-o-jo OVISf 65
.6a -o
.6b u-po-ra-ki-ri-ja , pa-ro , do-ro-jo-jo , a-ko-so-ta- CAPf 35
.7 u-po-ra-ki-ri-ja , pa-ro , po-ko-ro CAPf 20
.8a -jo
.8b pu-ro ra-wa-ra-ti-jo , pa-ro , a-ko-to-wo , a-ke-o- CAPf 50
.9 pu-ro ra-wa-ra-ti-jo , ka-ra-wa-ni-ta , a-ke-o-jo CAPm 100
.10 pa-na-pi , e-ne-ti-jo , a-ko-so-ta-o CAPf (34)
.11 u-po-ra-ki-ri-ja , wi-ja-te-we , a-ke-o-jo CAPf 1(5)
.12 pu-ro , ra-wa-ra-ti-jo , ka-ra-wa-ni-ta , a-ke-o-jo CAPm 100
.13 po-ma-ko SUSf 16 po-te-u SUSf 7
lat. inf.
qe-ta-ko SUSm 11
PY Cn 131
pi-*82 , we-re-ke
pa-ro , pi-me-ta , X OVISm 200 pa-ro , o-ku-ka , OVISm (X) 1(3)0[
pa-ro , ku-pi-ri-jo , OVISm 50 X pa-ro , a-ka-ma-wo OVISm 120 X
pa-ro , ko-ru-no OVISm 100 X pa-ro , ne-ri-to OVISm 30 X
pa-ro , po-ro-u-te-we OVISm 90 X pa-ro , o-wa-ko CAPf 54 (X)
ma-ro-pi , to-ro-wi OVISm 130 X pa-ro , a-no-po OVISm 130 X
pa-ro , ke-ro-wo OVISm 130 X pa-ro , ra-pa-sa-ko OVISm 91 X
pa-ro po-ke-we OVISf 27 X pa-ro , a-ri-wo-ne X OVISm 100
pa-ro , a-we-ke-se-we OVISm 170 X pa-ro , po-ko-ro OVISm 100 X
pa-ro , e-ti-ra-wo OVISm 100 X pa-ro , a-ta-ma-ne-we OVISm 140 X
pa-ro , se-no OVISf 44 X pa-ro , ko-ro OVISf 24 X
pa-ro , do-qo-no X OVISm 80 pa-ro , wo-ki-to X OVISm 73
pa-ro , me-te-we OVISm 163 X pa-ro , ke-sa-me-no OVISf 40 X
](pa)-ro , pu-wi-no CAPf 55
vacat
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 155
PY Cn 201
] , pa-ra-ku (OVISx) 160 (X)
] (CAPm) 63
NOTE: As of Melena 2000-2001, this tablet has been joined with PY Xa 200.
PY Cn 202
]a-ke-re-wa , we-re-ke [
]me-wi-jo , o-ki-ri-so OVISm 80[
]ka-sa OVISm 102
] OVISm 74 CAPm (1)[
]4
inf. mut.
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 254
.1a pa-ra-jo
.1b a-(si)[ ](ro) , tu-ru-we-u , OVISm 180
.2 a-si-ja-ti-ja , pa-ro , ti-tu[ ](OVISm) 100
.3 a-si-ja-ti-ja , pa-ro , e-te-wa[ ] 100
.4 a-si-ja-ti-ja (,) pa-ro , a-no , de-ki-si-wo , we-da-ne-wo OVISm 80[
.5 a-si-ja-ti-ja[]pa-ro , ko-ru-ta-ta , we-da-ne-wo OVISm 80[
.6a -jo
.6b a-si-ja-ti-ja[]pa-ro , i-sa-na-o-ti , a-ke-o- OVISf[
.7 a-si-ja-ti-ja , pa-ro , ra-ke-u , we-da-ne-wo [
.8 a-si-ja-ti-ja , pa-ro , pi-ro-qo-[
.9 a-si-ja-ti-ja , pa-ro , a-ko-to-wo , a[
.10 [ [ a-si-ja-ti-ja pa-ro ] ] [
pa-ra-jo on .1a is about tu-ru-we-u on .1b
PY Cn 272
sup. mut.
] vacat
]40
]SUSf 48
] vacat
inf. mut.
PY Cn 285
ro-u-so [
a3-ta-(ro)-we [
re-ta-mo CAPm[
ka-ra-u-ko (CAPm)[ ]30
a-we-ke-se-u OVISm 50
a-we-ke-se-u CAPm 30[
wa-da-ko CAPm 86
si-no-u-ro CAPm 60[
ra-ma-jo CAPf 20[
pa-wa-wo [ . ]f [
e-ke-da-mo OVISm 100
a-si-wi-jo OVISm 100
o-ki-ra OVISm 116
o-ti-na-wo OVISm 100
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 286
a-pa-re-u-pi , ke-se-nu-wo , a[
vacat [
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 314
](e)-wo-ta-o[ ]3
]wo [ ]100
au-to-a2-ta OVISm 162[
PY Cn 328
ro-u-so , we-re-ke ,
a-ka-na-jo , ma-ro OVISm 200 X
a-ka-na-jo , ko-wa-to CAPm 50 X
a-ka-na-jo , ra-mi-ni-jo CAPf 40 X
a ma-ra-te-u OVISf 10 X
da-to-re-u CAPm 30
wo-ki-ro CAPf 20
ma-ra OVISf 50 X
ma-ra CAP (4)0
ke-zo OVISm 40 X
po-ri-ko OVISm 170
wi-sa[ ]OVISf 60 X
(a)[ ]to OVISm 40 X
pu-za-ko CAPm (X) 40
a3-ta-ro-we OVISf 70 X
vacat
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 418
Bennett & Olivier 1973:
pa-ro , we-u-da-ne-we
re-u-ko , a-ko-ro-we-e BOS+SI 2
re[ ](ko) , ma-ra-(pi) , pe-ko , a-ko-ro-we BOS+SI 1
]3 CAPm (3) (WE) 3 CAP(m) 3
]2 [ ]3 [
re-u-ko[ ]pe-ko , a-ko-ro-we[
OVISm 1 CAPm 1 WE[ ] (SUSx)[
] vacat [
inf. mut.
Chadwick & Ventris 1973 (as PY Cn 23):
pa-ro we-u-da-ne-we
(re)-(u)-ko a-ko-ro-we-e BOS+SI 2
re-[ ]-ko ma-ra-(ku) pe-ko a-ko-ro-we BOS+SI 1
] 3 CAPm (3) WE 3 CAPf 3
] 2 [ ] 2 [
re-u-ko [ ] (pe)-(ko) a-ko-ro-we [
OVISm 1 CAPm 1 WE [
to do: fix VOS in DB
PY Cn 436
ke-to OVIS 100 (X)
a-ta-tu-ro CAPm 38
a-mi-nu-wa-ta OVISf (5)0 X [
o-ko OVISf 100 X [
i-ma-di-jo OVISf[
ko-tu-ro2[
wa-ra-pi-si-(ro)[
e-qa[
]
vacat[
inf. mut.
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1, except for line .1
PY Cn 437
sup. mut.
](no)-[ ]-(ta)[ ] OVISm[
]wo-wo (,) po-ru-qo-[ ](5)4[
]wo-wo , [ ]vacat[ ](6)0[
](wo)-wo , e-wi-te-u OVISm 50[
inf. mut.
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 440
sup. mut.
] vacat
] vacat
] 5
] vacat
]5
]SUSx 3(1)[ ] vacat
]SUSx 14 (SUSf)[
] vacat [
inf. mut.
PY Cn 441
we-re-ke[
](a)-ke-(re)-(u)[
]a-ke-re-u[
]-(ki)[
]
inf. mut.
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 453+
.1a CAPf
.1b ka-pe-se-wa-o , wo-wo , (pa)-(ro)[ ]ne , a-ko-so-ta-o , a-ko-ra 46 [
inf. mut.
CAPf on .1a is above a-ko-ra on .1b
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 485
da-we-(u)[
da-we-u-pi , (a)[
da-we-u-pi , ka[
da-we-u-pi , e-[
a3-zo-(wo)[
da-we[
da-we-u[
da-we-(u)[
a-re[
a-(zo)[
inf. mut.
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 491
sup. mut.
]OVISm (6)0 X[
]e-u OVISf 40[
]-ta OVISf (10)[
]re-ro CAP [
]pe-se-to CAPx[ ]-e-[ . ]-wo-jo [
] vacat [
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 570
sup. mut.
]
] (,) qe-ta-ko (OVISf)[
]ro , o-pe-qa [
]-ko [
inf. mut.
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 595
e-ra-te-re-wa-pi , ta-to-mo , o-pe-ro ,
me-ta-pa , a-we-ke-se-u VIR 1 OVIS+TA 5
ne-de-we-e OVIS+TA 9
u-de-wi-ne VIR 2 OVIS+TA 8
ma-to-ro-pu-ro OVIS+TA 1
]i-pi[ ]1 OVIS+TA 5
]-ko-[ ](OVIS)[ ](5)[
deest
PY Cn 599
.1a pa-ro
.1b wa-no-jo , wo-wo , ne-ti-ja-no a-ke-o-jo CAPm 100
a2-ne-u-te , pa-ro , ka-so , a-ko-so-ta-o CAPm 45
a2-pa-tu-wo-te , pa-ro , a-ke-ra-wo , a-ke-o-jo CAPm 90
a2-pa-tu-wo-te , pa-ro , ru-we-ta , a-ke-o-jo CAPf 40
a2-pa-tu-wo-te , pa-ro , a-wo-i-jo , CAPf 50
wa-no-jo , wo-wo , pa-ro , ke-re-no , a-ke-o-jo CAPf 80
a2-pa-tu-wo-te , pa-ro , e-zo-wo SUSf 30
e-ko-me-no , pa-ro , ti-ri-po-di-ko SUSf 57
pa-ro on .1a is above wo-wo , on .1b
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1 but only for line .8
PY Cn 600
.1 o-re-e-wo , wo-wo , pa-ro , ke-we-no OVISm 50
.2 o-re-e-wo , wo-wo , de-ko-to OVISm 100
.3 o-re-e-wo , wo-wo , ke-ro-u-te-u OVISm 90
.4 o-re-e-wo (,) wo-wo , e-te-re-(ro) OVISm 90
.5a -jo
.5b o[ ](wo) , wo-wo , mi-ka-ri-jo , a-ke-o- OVISm 92
.6 re-qa-se-wo , wo-wo , wa-ra-wo-(no)[](a)-(ke)-(o)-jo OVISm 70
.7 ti-mi-to , a-ke-e , te-[ ](OVISf) 80
.8 ti-mi-to , a-ke-e , a-[ ]-u , we-da-ne-wo OVISf 60
.9 re-qa-se-wo , wo-wo , ka-wi-ta OVISf 70
.10 re-qa-se-wo , wo-wo , wi-ja-te-we OVISf 80
.11 ti-mi-to , a-ke-e , o-pe-se-to , a-ke-o-jo OVISf 60
.12 ti-mi-to , a-ke-e , e-te-wa-(jo) , CAPf (3)0
.13 ti-mi-to , a-ke-e , a-no-ze-we CAPf 36
.14 ti-mi-to , a-ke-e , qe-ta-ko SUSm 30
.15 ti-mi-to , a-ke-e , *82-de[ ] SUSf 12
PY Cn 608
jo-a-se-so-si , si-a2-ro
o-pi-da-mi-jo
pi-*82 SUS+SI 3
me-ta-pa SUS+SI 3
pe-to-no SUS+SI 6
pa-ki-ja-si SUS+SI 2
a-pu2-we SUS+SI 2
a-ke-re-wa SUS+SI 2
e-ra-te-i SUS+SI 3
ka-ra-do-ro SUS+SI 2
ri-jo SUS+SI 2
Facsimile: Palaima 2011, p. 102
PY Cn 643
(a)-(pa)-re-u-pi , pa-pa-ro , wo-ne-me [ . ]m (40)
wi-ja-we-ra2 , a-ko-te-u SUSf 40
(pi)-*82 , ma-ra-ni-jo , a-ke-o-jo CAPm 48
]*82 , ku-ka-ra-so , a-ke-o-jo CAPf 53
](ro)-(pi) , pu-ma-ra-ko , we-da-ne-wo CAPm 100
](ke)-u , a-ke-(o)[ ]CAPf 40
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 655
ma-ro-pi , qe-re-wa-o pa-ra-jo OVISm 136
ma-ro-pi , to-ro-wi-ko , pa-ra-jo OVISm 133[
ma-ro-pi , ke-ro-wo-jo OVISm 85
ma-ro-pi[]ra-pa-sa-ka-jo OVISm 69
ma-ro-pi , pu-wi-no , a-pi-me-de-o , a-ko-ra OVISm 190
ma-ro-pi , i-wa-so , we-da-ne-wo , a-ko-ra OVISm 70
ma-ro-pi , ti-(ke)-wo , pa-ra-jo OVISm 70
ma-ro-pi , o-ka-ri-jo , pa-ra-jo OVISm 95
ma-ro-pi , e-ti-ra-wo , pa-ra-jo OVISm 70
ma-ro-pi , a-ta-ma-ne-u , pa-ra-jo OVISm 60
ma-ro-pi , qi-ri-ta-ko , a-ke-o-jo , a-ko-ra OVISm 90[
ma-ro-pi , a-ri-wo , a-ke-o-jo , a-ko-ra [ ](1)4
ma-ro-pi , (ro)-(ko)-(jo) , we-(da)-ne-wo , a-ko-ra [ ]80
ma-ro-pi , o-pe-re-(ta) , we-da-ne-wo OVISf 86
ma-ro-pi , po-ro-qa-ta-jo , we-da-ne-wo OVISf 63
ma-ro-pi , to-ru-ko-ro , we-da-ne-wo OVISf 88
ma-ro-pi , ma-ma-ro , we-da-ne-wo OVISm 90
](ro)-pi , ma-du-ro[]we-da-ne-wo OVISm 100
]pi , se-no , we-da-(ne)-wo OVISf 40
](pi) , ta-ta-ke-u , [ ](da)-ne-wo OVISf 30
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1 except for lines .1 and .2
PY Cn 702+
](ko)-so-ta[](o) OVISm 100
] OVISf 40
]tu-ro , a-ke-o-jo CAPf 30
]a-ke-o-jo CAPf 30
] vacat
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 719
ma-ro-pi , ka-do-wo , a-ke-o-jo OVISm 40
ma-ro-pi , to-si-ta , a-ke-o-jo OVISm 8(2)
ma-ro-pi , me-ta-no , a-ke-o-jo OVISf 60
pi-*82 , ma-ra-ni-jo , pa-ra-jo OVISm 230
pi-*82 , o-ku-ka , a-ke-o-jo OVISm 70
]*82 , ra-mi-ni-jo , a-ke-o-jo OVISm 90
] ku-(pi)-ri-jo , a-ke-o-jo OVISm 60
]ka-ra-so , a-so-ta-o OVISf[ ]30
]ja-we-ra2 , ko-ru-no , pa-ra-jo (OVISm) 66
]re-u-pi , [[pa-pa-ro|(pa)-pa-ro]] , a-ko-so-ta-(o) OVISm 100
wi-ja-we-ra2 , a-ka-ma-wo , a-ko[ ]ta-o OVISm 96
(wi)-ja-we-ra2 , a-ke-ta , (wo)[ ]we OVISm 100
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 925
da-we-u-pi , pa-ro , ko-ma-we-te SUSm 16
da-we-u-pi , pa-ro , e-te-we SUSf 16
da-we-u-pi , pa-ro , e-do-mo-ne-we SUSf 28
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 938
sup. mut.
] au-to-(a)[
] , pa-ro , i-ke-[
]pa-ro[
inf. mut.
PY Cn 962
sup. mut.
]ra , (pa)-[
]ni-pi pa-(ro)[
inf. mut.
PY Cn 1066
sup. mut.
] , [ ]-u [
]ko [
](wo) , ne[
inf. mut.
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 1069
sup. mut.
]ko[
]wo-to [ [ (CAPm) 6 ] ] [
]-wo CAPf 10
] vacat
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 1075
sup. mut.
] OVISf X 15 [
] vacat [
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 1116
sup. mut.
](SUSf) 2(6)
](SUSx) 12
] vacat
PY Cn 1197
a-si-ja-ti-ja [
wa-e-ro OVISm 1[
ti-ko-ro OVISm 1 [
e-sa-re-we OVIS 3[
e-re-e-we OVIS(m) [
vacat [
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 1
PY Cn 1286
o-pi-ra-i-ja OVIS 3 CAP 1
vacat x 4
PY Cn 1287
a-*64-jo , a-ke-ro CAPf 1
te-re-do ka-na-pe-u CAPf 1
na-ma-ru-ko CAPf 1
qe-ta-ko ke-ra-me-u CAPf 1
da-u-da-ro , pe-re-ke-u CAPf 1
mu-ti-ri-ko , di-u-ja , do-e-ro CAPf 1
a2-ra-ka-wo ke-re-ta-o do-e-ro CAPf 1
a-sa-ma-o CAPf 1
mo-ri-wo CAPf 2
ma-ni-ko CAPf 1
vacat x 2
Bennett & Olivier 1976: Scribe 31
References
Bennett, Emmett L., Jr. and Jean-Pierre Olivier, 1976 The Pylos Tablets Transcribed
Bennett, Emmett L., Jr. and Jean-Pierre Olivier, 1976 The Pylos Tablets Transcribed Part II: Hands, Concordances, Indices
Chadwick, John and Michael Ventris, 1973 Documents in Mycenaean Greek
Melena, José, 2000-2001 Minos 35-36 "24 Joins and Quasi-joins of Fragments"
Palaima, Thomas G., 2011 A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World vol. II (ed. Yves Duhoux and Anna Morpurgo Davies) "Scribes, Scribal Hands and Palaeography"
Hi Kiminoa,
What a great site!
As to the translation, I think I have seen something like that in the past. I bet my monthly pay it will turn out to be a pseudo-translation, presumably based on Czech judging from the diacritics, and thus utterly nonsensical in my opinion. I know a few Slavic languages rather well, yet this is completely dissimilar to any of them as far as I can tell. Sure, there are some lookalike items here and then, but you can find such coincidental matches between any two languages in the world. Moreover, taken together they do not seem to make any sense, as I can see no grammar at all (well, admittedly, the text is very short, but still, there is nothing I could link to Slavic, if that is what Dr Turecek wants to imply).
Nonetheless, it is fair to let the author defend his attempt. In fact, we do not even know what kind of an attempt this is and what exactly he is actually getting at. I might be wrong after all, misunderstanding the whole thing in a way. The -c, -m and -z suffixes (?) definitely look weird, however. Especially the former one, as the latter two remind me of the endings normally left out word-finally.
So, I am curious about Dr Turecek’s explanation.
Anyway, this is a really great site. Keep up the good work!
I wrote an article in Czech, not published yet, with 7508 words about translating this tablette and I am doing translation into English now. As far as Ventris table concerns (*64), it has about 10 % incorrect interpretations. Commas, for example, are not word delimiters. They represent consonants which the Neolithic people could not write down because they did not have signs for them. E.g. in AŘEJO-h the -h represents aorist, which the Neolithic people could deduce on the base of the following words meanings. AŘEJOh means “ploughed”. Another article about corrected Ventris table is in preparation. Please, find more about the Czech translations method at or
at
http://www.wmmagazin.cz/view.php?nazevclanku=translation-of-the-phaistos-disc&cisloclanku=2011010004
or
http://veneti.info/prispevki/multilingua/english/other-articles/301-mycenian-spoke-and-wrote-also-in-proto-slavonian
Dear Dr. Turecek,
Please, forgive me my being blunt and, perhaps, too critical, but it is absolutely absurd to doubt the Greekness of the language written in Linear B, and it is on the verge of insanity to claim the language could have been Slavic, which is what the websites provided by you seem to claim.
Believe me, being a Slav myself, I would be happy and proud to find evidence for Slavinity as ancient as that, but, in my humble opinion, your “Czech translation method”, as you call it, is circular, illogical, unsystematic and lacks any substance whatsoever. There is no regularity, recurrence and no productive or predictive power in your system, which appears to be based entirely on coincidence and misunderstanding of what linguistics is about.
Please, consult and linguistics handbook before undertaking endeavours like this, if I may suggest.
Out of curiosity, might I possibly ask what specialization lies behind your academic titles?
Dear Mr. Kyrillyev, forget everything about linguistics and concentrate on decipherment. Please, turn your attention to KN As 1516 where I have prepared a good example of Slavonic origin of the linear script.
Dear Dr. Turecek,
How can I forget about linguistics and yet concentrate on decipherment? After all, decipherment is much about linguistics.
A key to a cipher, as you may know, has to be based on rules and regularity, so that anyone knowing those rules can arrive at the same result.
This is precisely what historical linguists do: they look for recurrent patterns and regularity.
Decipherment and linguistics can hardly be kept apart. Deciphering a script without linguistics leads to a catastrophe. Ventris, too, used linguistics to decipher Linear B.
How can anyone be against linguistics?
Please, explain why you consider linguistics useless. Your suggestion is but astounding and does not make any sense to me.
Dr. Saul Levin – both a linguist and a cryptologist – has some absolutely fantastic commentary on how to best go about creating and confirming a sound decipherment in his book “The Linear B Controversy Re-examined”. I’ve included some of his guidelines here:
http://minoan.deaditerranean.com/2011/09/02/cryptolinguistics/
Bennett, Caratelli, Chadwick, Kober, Palmer -many of the early heavy hitters of Mycenology – were trained linguists and relied heavily on linguistics in approaching a decipherment methodically. Kober’s approach, for instance, relied on case declensions, and was instrumental in Ventris’ decipherment work.
Ventris was a gifted linguist – capable of learning a new language within weeks – though he pursued architecture rather than linguistics formally. His innate linguistic talent was key to his decipherment. His work – as can be seen in the Work Notes published posthumously – was methodical and linguistic in nature. He was doing in his head what a lot of us lesser minds have to do on paper with multiple references. While his evolution of charts sometimes has a voodoo-like quality, deeper research reveals the methodology. Alternations, symbol frequencies and sign group placement, and phoneme boundaries largely guided his work throughout.
Let’s definitely not throw out linguistics in the decipherment of a language. It’s front and center.
Dear Dr. Turecek,
Now that I have gone very thoroughly through the websites you provide, I am afraid I have to reaffirm my previous statement: the evidence presented there is, in fact, no evidence at all.
Should you like to discuss these matters, please, feel free to contact me. Here I can only mention a few points that are rather exemplary:
1. The phonetic value of *64
To begin with, /ř/ is a late development restricted to Czech (and Polish, though without the vibrant feature). It is a natural, and regular, outcome of palatalization of /r/ before front vowels, hence any /ře/ comes from the original /re/. And that is precisely what all the other Slavic languages show.
Hence, if you base your assumption on the acrophonic principle, and the shape of the symbol reminds you of Slavic /rešeto/ “sieve, riddle”, although I think it requires a fair deal of imagination and arbitrariness, fine, but remember we already have *27 to write /re/.
2. The meaning of “arějo”
All Slavic languages point to *orati quite unambiguously. The correspondences are regular and trivial. It is possible to reconstruct Balto-Slavic *ar-, but the main problem lies elsewhere.
First of all, there is no evidence for the /ja/ in any Slavic language. By your loose standards it might not be a problem, but then it leaves us with too much phonetic leeway, lack of regularity and, thus, a high risk of coincidence.
Second of all, you must have misunderstood the concept of aorist, or sigmatic aorist to be precise. This /-h/ (actually /x/) ending surfaces only in the 1st person singular, hence the form you have suggested would mean “I ploughed”, which does not seem to fit in the picture you have been trying to set either.
Moreover, if I understand your method correctly, the consonantal reading of what the vast majority of experts consider as delimiters (your /h/, Horak’s /m/, anyone else’s whatsoever) is merely guesswork. With this kind of approach, you are going to arrive at a deliberate number of possibilities with no certitude of correct outcomes.
This, I am afraid, is but a glimps of the innumerable problems your work appears to neglect and ignore. I strongly suggest that you really consult a linguistics handbook to learn something about the field you are trying to engage in.
Dear Dr. Turecek,
I am very sorry. My browser had not updated this page when I sent my 19 July 2012 at 07:20 reply, so I did not know you had already posted several responses. My apologies! I will then read them and try to answer your comments as soon as possible.
2nd line: TERE DO KANAPEU
TERE comes from Serbocroatian “terati” (to run) meaning “I am running” or “he is running”. KANAPEU is the 3. case as DO means “toward” and DO associates always with 3rd case. KANAPĚJ was very probably a man whose profession was to process everything got from hemp (cannabis sativa L.). And he was selling these products, as well. Similar meaning had probably the harbour Canopos with the neolitic name KONOPIŠČĚ. In Czech “konopiště” still means a field where hemp is being grown.
AKERO means field. The reasoning behind aorist AŘEJO-h is that a person had to finish ploughing the field before I-he-she-it could run to a “konopist”, i.e. DO KANAPĚU. And again. Forget everything about linguistics. We are approximately 4000 years before present.
I read your comment from 19 July 2012 at 10:32 and I must say you are a hopeless case. After Evans and others found tablets in Greece none linguist contributed to the decipherment of these tablets. Only the amatuers Michael Ventris and Antonín Horák (and his fellows Petr Kovář and Miloš Drastich and others) contributed substantially. Ventris was an architect with english-polish filiation, Horák was a cameramen, Kovář is a civil engineer, Drastich is a journalist with a technical background (university?) etc. And not to forget the Slovenes Matej Bor (linguist and an exception) and Jože Šavle.
Please refrain from personal attacks.
Kyrillyev is asking some sensible questions about your hypothesis, which is a radical departure from the accepted decipherment of Linear B as Mycenaean Greek.
Any radical departure will need a bulletproof defense, which means patiently answering detailed and academic questions about any hypothesis. The community of Mycenologists who have the expertise and power to confirm any Linear B hypotheses will likely respond with far harsher ridicule or ignore something this radical outright. It’s excellent practice to answer such questions carefully and methodically, with supporting research from other experts.
There’s ~60 years worth of research out there, and Dygo Tosa at the University of Texas at Austin has put together a brilliant searchable index of research so that you can find relevant articles. You can search for articles about PY Cn 1287 or ka-na-pe-u, etc. It’s a wonderful research tool, have a look:
http://smid.class.utexas.edu/
Dear Dr. Tureček,
I am sorry for the terrible delay. I have been travelling these days. Nonetheless, I should be able to find some time to reply to your comments.
Let me start with this one, as the others require much more time to write and formulate. I hope to be able to write them tonight.
Once and again, unfortunately, I have to object to some of your assertions.
Ventris was well-acquainted with the principles of language as well as linguistic methodology. Matej Bor, however, was not. After all, Bor’s claims were easily rebutted by Slovenian linguists right after the publication of the co-authored book.
You see, writing about language does not make you a linguist. Using linguistic methodology rigorously and consistently does.
Horák, I am afraid, whose monograph I have wasted some of my time on, knew little about linguistics and his conclusions are considered a good joke among all linguists and historians, not only of Slavic descent.
You seem to stress the importance of Ventris’s Polish ancestry. Why, if I may ask you?
Best regards,
Sergey Kyrillyev
Reply to your comment from 19 July 2012 at 10:32:
Linguistics has nothing to do with decipherment. Imagine e.g. the development of Mendelejev chemical table. Was his method chemical? No. The material he was using and the outcomes were of chemical nature, but not the method used to decipher the succession of elements. The method he used was observation of chemical properties of the elements. Obsevation of properties! The same in case of Kober and Ventris works. They had linguistic material and linguistic results. But the method used was not linguistic. It was of a very much nature like that of Mendelejev. They observered the proporties of linear sings. That is, they were observing where a certain sign appears, at the beginning of a line, at the end or in the middle. Which signs appear together, which not. Which signs do appear in the middle of „words“ – the conclusion was they are consonants. And so on.
The statistical analysis of the placement and frequency of signs within a sign group is linguistic methodology. Linguistics – the study of language form, language meaning and language context – is central to both Kober’s and Ventris’ work.
1. SCr. terati is not intransitive and does NOT mean “to run“. It is a transitive verb meaning “to drive” someone, to “push” somebody, to “actuate“, “chase” or “compel” them. Where is the object then? Is it a case of elision?
2. SCr. terati belongs to a different conjugation class: its 1sg form should be teram, with an a in the stem. It cannot be the same verb, unless, of course, you ignore distinctiveness of vowel quality in Slavic. Do you?
3. If I loosen my standards and agree for a while it is this verb, we have another problem: there is no indication at all the ending should be -m. It could just as well be -š (2sg indicative), -j (2sg imperative) or even -h (1sg aorist/imperfect). Most information concerning declension and conjugation would be lost in your system, which would lead to a lot of ambiguity.
4. As far as I know, your claim that “DO associates always with 3rd case” is patently incorrect. The preposition “do” always requires the following noun phrase to be in the GENITIVE, or the 2nd case if you will. Your confusion is rather surprising to me, since this is true not only for SCr., but also for your native language (please, correct any mistakes – although I do understand written Czech rather well, I am far from fluent in it): “do lesa“, “do ohně“, or “do vody” rather than “do lesu”, “do ohni” or “do vodě”.
5. I believe it is already obvious that kanapeu cannot be dative, but there is another argument against this assumption of yours. There are basically two declension types among the SCr. neuter nouns that have an -E in the 1stcase (nominative). The first type only changes this final -E to -U, thus “polje” becomes “polju“. The second type requires a stem consonant between the nominative part and the dative suffix (in fact, SCr. has lost this consonant in the nominative, accusative and vocative, while it has been preserved in the other cases), thus “ime” becomes “imenu“, “tele” becomes “teletu” and “veče” becomes “večeru“. Your “kanapeu” , if neuter as in Czech, should thus be “kanapu” with no e before the case ending.
6. Another problem with this word that you translate as “hemp” is the SCr. name for this plant itself: konoplja. As you see, it is a feminine noun whose dative ending is -I and its dative form is thus “konoplji“. The genitive does not work either: “konoplje.
7. As your would-be evidence for the “cannabis” connection has just fallen apart, it is, I hope, absolutely clear the similarity between Czech “konopiště” and Greek “Kanopos” is merely accidental. Or is there any other evidence for the Greek proper name meaning “hemp” apart from the phonetic similarity?
8. The Slavic words for “acre” have been borrowed from Germanic languages rather recently. They are not attested in earlier records.
9. You suggest: “Forget everything about linguistics. We are approximately 4000 years before present.” Are you implying that linguistic processes did not operate 4000 years ago? This assertion is just as ridiculous as a claim that the laws of physics did not work at that time. Or, am I supposed to read it as follows? – “We are approximately 4000 years before present, so we do not know how tha laws of nature, as well as language, operate.” I hope I am not.
10. Let me suggest something, and I do think it is a fair point: if you want to criticise linguistics and the people who do it, you can do so, of course. However, is it not a good idea to learn first what they have to say, to try to understand them and view the issues from their perspective for a moment? If you want us to change our minds, fine, but maybe you should know something about the things we do first. I am very sorry, but so far you have shown little understanding of the problems one has to face in decipherment and language analysis.
I was going over the KN De, KN Df and KN Dg tablets today, and noticed that these series are useful for studying the absence and presence of commas (vertical-lines-that-aren’t-quantity-one) in similar texts. It looks like a scribal preference to me. I haven’t discerned any strong pattern here yet or gotten the sense that it has a phonetic value. This series would be a good place to start if you wanted to go about proving / disproving your consonant hypothesis.
Translation of PY Cn 1287:
AŘEJO-h AKERÓ
TERE DO KANAPEU
NA MA RUKÓ
ŠČĚ TAKÓ KERAMEU
DÁ UDÁRO-c PERE KEU
MÚTÍ RÍKO-m DIU JA-z DO NURO
A RAKA VO-z KERETAO DO ERO
A SA MAO
MORIVO
MA NIKO
What’s the background on the phonetic value of *64 here? I’d like to read more.
A more detailed explanation would also be great, if you have some time. For instance, which language is this translated into, and what is intended by the -c, -m and -z notations?
The background of all linear signs is acrophony. For example the sign KO. The graphic form resembles a spear which Serbocroatians till today call “koplje”. You just associate the sound “ko-” with a picture of a spear. The sign U comes from “uhau” meaning angle. The sign RA comes from “raven uhau” meaning right angle. The sign JA comes from “jařmo” meaning yoke. The sign PE comes from “pečica” (a small stove) or from “pečina” (cave) etc. The sign ŘE comes probably from “řešetka” meaning a riddle or a sieve. The phonetic value of the sign 83 is LE coming from “lepir” (butterfly) etc.
While I do not object to acrophony being a very likely principle behind Linear B, I feel obliged to warn you. It is very misleading to rely on it, for two reasons:
1. If you already know the phonetic value and have a good portion of imagination, you can find a fitting word in any language. That I can guarantee you.
2. It would be a valid argument if it were the other way round, i.e. if you did not know the values, but were able to find them thanks to unambiguous acrophonic matches. This, however, is not the case and you are being seduced by preconceived ideas. Please, be careful about that.
3. Some of the values and words upon which you seem to base the matches are just impossible. They cannot be projected to the Proto-Slavic level, they are isolated and attested in a single language only or they are well-documented loanwords form other languages.
It reminds me of a famous parallel once mentioned by a scholar from your country: in Morse code, you know the rhythmic combinations of long and short beeps representing the individual letters. Now, in order to remember them more easily, people speaking different languages have developed, based on the acrophonic principle, albeit its rhythmical counterpart, sets of words with similar combinations of short and long syllables. And that is the point: if you know the value and give it enough time, you will be able to find a word fitting the pattern in the end – in any language (well, provided it has a similar phonological structure, of course).
Please, let me know if you agree with my arguments. I will be happy to share more.
Do you have a photograph that leads you to believe that line 6 is do-nu-ro instead of do-e-ro? do-nu-ro would be hapax, and do-e-ro is pretty well-attested, and all of my transliteration references have this as do-e-ro.
I have seen a facsimile which shows a sign whose horizontal bars are not connected properly at the top, so it MIGHT appear somewhat similar to the NU syllabogram, but then it would not make any sense. DO-E-RO is quite common, as far as I know, and the meaning “slave” has been proposed on reasonable grounds. Moreover, as you have correctly pointed out, DO-NU-RO would be a hapax. I can send you the the facsimile as a picture file, but I cannot find the source, so I wonder if it can be relied upon at all.
6th row:
mútí = it is becoming dark
ríkom diú = with a Goliath roar
jaz = lead or ditch or drain
do nuro = rushes water into the valye
7th row:
a raka = and freshwater crayfishes
voz = waggon or carrier
keretao = piles
do = toward
Ero = Ero (a name)
Note: without inflection
8th line: out of little
9th line: struggle
10th line: he has none
Oh, this will require a much larger comment – something a busy man like me cannot afford at the moment. If you do not mind, I will return to it later, but let me ask one question at least: How do you know the text is segmented like that? How do you know the ending is /m/ and not, say, /h/?
Why are the CAP ideograms ignored here? The repeating ideograms are usually a good indication of an inventory list, so the poetic prose suggested here is contextually out of place. Thoughts?
Ero is a name I did not know since the decipherment of this tablet. Today it denotes people of Hercegovina. The translation of the 6th line as DO ERO would not make a sense in the context of the whole – probably – song. If you look at both signs and compare them then in case on the 6th row the upper part is not connected while on the 7th row it is connected. Also, on the 6th row between the two lines you see two other parallel strokes which is very similar to NU. On grounds of this details and the meaning of the song I decided the reading is DO NURO and DO ERO.